Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645

False use of "Vandalism" edit summary when involved in a content dispute

I've been asked(1) to bring this matter here. User:Tmorton166 reverted my good faith edit with a summary noting that my good faith contribution, one which reinstated(2) a fellow Wikpedia editor's contribution, was simply "Vandalism".(3)

Tmorton166 is directly (4) involved in a content discussion regarding this very subject and is well aware that my good faith contribution, in support of other Wikipedia editors, is anything but "Vandalism". This is unacceptable and should not be excused, it is precisely this type of abuse that degrades the project, injects incivility and turns away both the contributor directly targeted as well as third parties considering contributing. For the record, this is not a "newbie" issue, I am a long time contributor and have for the last several years had a dynamic ip beginning with 99. I am not a SPA by any stretch of the imagination.

The callous lie, application of twinkle and or whatever else has now been triggered in addition to my "revert on sight"(5) vandal status has now caused my edits to be reverted by vandalism patrollers(6), which Tmorton166 himself has noted.(7)

It's easy to Game or wikilawyer someone opposing you on content into a little useless ball of "revert", but it's neither ethical nor does it further the project. My edits were good faith, civil and well supported. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good faith or not, I count 4 reverts in less than 24 hours by you between your different IPs, which constitutes as edit warring per WP:3RR. Nymf _hideliho! 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be good faith, 99, but you're edit-warring to restore a completely unacceptable section header for a BLP. Please read that policy; it's important. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Overview: This IP is persistently editing in a BLP violation claiming (incorrectly) consensus for inclusion on the talk page. I gave them the benefit of the doubt the first few times but persistent re-addition despite numerous requests to desist means I don;t believe he is acting in good faith and the edits are an attempt to BLP vandalise the page. I point out I used Twinkle to revert these changes (not rollback) and although Twinkle refers to this directly as vandlism I used it deliberately to make a point about the escalating severity of my reverting. After the user posted a pretty aggressive message on my talk ending with the words, the utter lack of intellectual integrity you quite obviously possess., I pointed them at AN/I who could weigh in on my actions and hopefully bring more eyes to the article and the header issue. I admit, that on reviewing WP:VAND it may be that this is in fact Tendentious editing (which is no better ;)), however I have no issues reverting it as vandalism with Twinkle - so as a more general question, is this the right approach? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone needs to go read WP:VAND#NOT, but remember: just because something isn't vandalism, that doesn't mean it's not inappropriate. 3RR is a bright line: do not cross the line unless you understand the narrow limitations for doing so. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The OP's edits are not necessarily deliberate vandalism, so the OP has a point. It would be better to label such edits as "BLP violation", for which the OP will have no defense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly consider this a bad faith deliberate attempt to vandalise the article, the IP did not seem to "get it", hence escalating the type of Twinkle revert. However, point taken, so I retract specifically calling it Vandalism and instead substitute "Gross and deliberate BLP violation, tendentious editing". --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) That's nonsense, my edit restored another editors contribution and is the current, ongoing and long standing subject of discussion. The ONLY opposition to the addition found on the talk page previously consisted of "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." These are not substantive arguments on which one can base such an outrageous mis-characterization such as the bullshit, "Gross and deliberate BLP violation, tendentious editing". What was it that Joseph Welch said? It seems it would be appropriate here.99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got the same problem there, by saying "deliberate BLP violation", unless you can find statements from the OP admitting to it. Whether it's good faith or bad faith, a BLP violation is a BLP violation. There has been an allegation of rape, but there has been no legal finding that a rape actually occurred. The OP may not understand that distinction. So unless you can find the OP specifically saying, "I don't care, the guy's a rapist, end of story", then AGF requires that you regard his position as good-faith but wrong-headed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the overwhelming insistence is that I retract such an opinion, I will have to do so. But I extremely strongly disagree. AGF is not a license, it is not infinite. The editor reinserted a variation on a header that various IP's (I do not believe this IP) have been trying to get into the article for a while. They were told very clearly a number of times about why the header was innapropriate and they still insisted on inserting it, claiming there was no opposition, they had consensus, it was supported by RS's or that it was censorship to remove it. I was happy to consider it misguided initially, but now (given their clear understanding of WP policy and admission of longer editing history) I believe they are editing in bad faith. shrug, I want them to be aware of why the heading is 100% inappropriate. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that, for the record, the text I supported, and that was introduced by another editor, read: "Investigation of alleged rape". That is all. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Make no mistake, that wording was only introduced as your first header was less than neutral. Nymf _hideliho! 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Is this now neither vandalism nor a BLP violation? It is the only edit that is at issue, it is the edit that you two have been reverting. The previous one was "Rape investigation". .99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on that as I have never reverted you, unless you have any undisclosed accounts or IPs. Nymf _hideliho! 16:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Rape investigation" is POV-pushing and a BLP issue. "Investigation of alleged rape" is legalistically neutral, as there is an ongoing investigation, and there has been no legal finding that a rape actually occurred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The main issue with the header is that it is trying to draw attention to the section, which is inappropriate per BLP policy. There is no need for a heading at all, and this was agreed on the talk several times. I will step back from the issue and as a compromise offer this;

• If the other editors feel strongly that I should retract all insinuation of bad faith I will do so and apologise
• and will not revert further additions but push it to the BLP board for better discussion.

However, I do feel my actions were reasonable and appropriate, if my use of the Vandalism revert a little strong. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Though a long standing technique, misdirection does not make a thing so. Your claim, "this was agreed on the talk several times", is false and has been demonstrably shown(1)(2) to be so on the article talk page. But then, unsupported allegations, mis-characterization and empty rhetoric seem to be a recurring theme here. They do seem to work, but then they're based upon your abuse of AGF, people just assume what you say is supportable. I prefer sourced ref's. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. Looking at the talk page I see Talk:Julian Assange#Hypocracy and Talk:Julian Assange#Section "title" for section dealing with the Rape allegations/investigation/charges. Your diffs "demonstrably showing this to be false" appear to be <ahem> nothing of the sort. There does appear to be a talkpage consensus, it doesn't appear to support your assertion, nor your belief that this heading - in either of the forms you've used - should be used. And what do sourced refs have to do with section headings? TFOWR 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also there is quite extensive discussion of the whole section in the archive, that plus the edit history from the time shows we hashed this out quite extensively. There have been various attempts to re-insert a pointy header in that section but it has been reverted as a BLP issue each time. There are also a couple of threads from the [{WP:BLP/N|BLP noticeboard]] but I don't have much time to hunt them down now. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Investigation of alleged rape" is the only edit at issue. It is the contribution of another editor that I supported and is the edit reverted as "Vandalism" under discussion here. There are no additional content edits under dispute.99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Rape investigation" is also an edit at issue. TFOWR 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a Red Herring, textbook application. No one is seeking to reintroduce that edit, you're simply acting as an auctioneer taking bids from the Chandelier. Consensus appears to be for "Investigation of alleged rape". 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the text I supported, and that was introduced by another editor, read: "Investigation of alleged rape" gives the impression that you didn't introduce the heading "Rape investigation". TFOWR 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sherlock, I was trying to neutralize previous headings, "Rape Charges" and "Rape Arrest", it's the Wiki-Way. I change text, others tweak me, we arrive at consensus. The other editor's tweak on me was an improvement. My edits also improved on the past. Your point? 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor who introduced the new wording only did it as a way to compromise. It does in no way imply consensus (or a specific stance) for mentioning rape in the header. Nymf _hideliho! 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Sherlock", no. You added a heading. Describing that edit as "neutralizing" is disingenuous. TFOWR 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• • (ec)If consensus says "no heading", then it should be safe to delete the heading outright, with the edit summary "as per consensus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The ONLY opposition to the addition found on the talk page previously consisted of "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." This is not the basis for either a supportable argument or a consensus. It is however a strong argument for lack of neutrality, POV and WP:OR. Bias is not the sole province of IP accounts. And the abusive mis-characterization of my honest, good faith, neutral and well supported edit is still troubling, the underlying content dispute is minor - the Gaming and beatdown attempted there is not. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, even if there is issues over good/bad faith, I don't think you can support the edit as neutral and well-supported. If you review the history of the article you will note it is not well supported, and it is definitely not neutral. It is, in fact, very pointy. I'd also point out that the thing you keep quoting is not any part of the rationale for removing the header - it was a reply from another editor to a wider discussion about the section. Several of us made it very clear the policies and guidance under which the header was removed/disputed --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP's contrib history indicates that he re-introduced both versions of the header at different times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to neutralize previous headings, "Rape Charges" and "Rape Arrest", Rape and Assault, etc, many of which passed through multiple edits and contributors without question until a tweak or change, it's the Wiki-Way. I change text, others tweak me, we arrive at consensus. The other editor's tweak on me was an improvement. My edits also improved on the past. I simply support the last change made by another third-party editor, and have done so unequivocally since his addition.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So until he's at least arrested or something, why is a heading needed at all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

99, you have not used this argument before, so I'm afraid to me it looks like an argument in retrospect. When you re-added it on the 18th with accusations of apologists and spin etc. your rationale (on talk) was as follows: "Section title "Rape investigation" or "Rape allegation" or "Rape charges" and topic are notable, well ref'd and quite significant - and accurately surmises the section - a header summarizing section contents is quite standard. Topic is simply what it is.". I believe this states a clear aim to add a section header with this content come what may. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm going to have to stand by my apparently controversial claim, at least according to you, that, "a header summarizing section contents is quite standard.". It's like Red Herring Fest here today. But the Game rewards a furious offense doesn't it? Substance is over rated apparently.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is extensive, notable, well supported and properly summarized by the succinct heading noted above:

On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange in Sweden in connection with an allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman he had been staying with in Stockholm, but within 24 hours of the investigation opening prosecutors withdrew the warrant to arrest him saying the accusations against him lacked substance. The chief prosecutor Eva Finné said there was no reason to suspect he had committed rape "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". He was still being investigated for harassment,which covers reckless conduct or inappropriate physical contact, a charge not serious enough to trigger an arrest warrant. The second woman belonged to the Brotherhood, a Christian affiliate of the country's Social Democratic Party, and was acting as Assange's spokeswoman. Assange said "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing"; his supporters claim he is the victim of a smear campaign. he acknowledged having had sex with the women, but said it was consensual. He was questioned by police for an hour on 31 August, and on 1 September a senior Swedish prosecutor re-opened the rape investigation saying new information had come in. The women's lawyer, Claes Borgström, had earlier appealed against the decision not to proceed.

There are few paths to proper copyedit available when faced with such prose. Misdirection and obscuring are not within our remit. The subject is not pleasant, but it simply is what it is.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems I've allowed myself to be derailed. This is not a content dispute, this was User:Tmorton166 reverting my good faith edit with a summary noting that my good faith contribution, one which reinstated(2) a fellow Wikpedia editor's contribution, was simply "Vandalism".(3)

Tmorton166 is directly (4) involved in a content discussion regarding this very subject and is well aware that my good faith contribution, in support of other Wikipedia editors, is anything but "Vandalism". This is unacceptable and should not be excused, it is precisely this type of abuse that degrades the project, injects incivility and turns away both the contributor directly targeted as well as third parties considering contributing. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, a report at ANI runs the very real risk that your own conduct will be scrutinised. Tmorton166 should not have described your edit as vandalism. You should not be claiming a lack of consensus, when the talkpage shows a clear consensus. You should not be edit warring against consensus. Tmorton166 deserves to be slapped with a {{trout}}. I don't believe blocking you would be effective: I'd recommend another admin give consideration to protecting the article - if you persist. TFOWR 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Side note: Since I'm the unnamed editor in question who changed the IP's POV header to a more neutral version I would like to say that I'm not supporting my own or any other heading in this section. The main header/section title does indeed cover it well enough and there's also no separate header for the first paragraph in this article's section.TMCk (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus? Numerous editors have introduced, reintroduced, supported, or tweaked a variety of direct summarizations of the section. No substantive argument has been presented in opposition. Most of the argument for silence comes from apologists and partisans on record as supporting obscuring or removal based upon, "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence." Not quite the Wiki-Way. Multiple long term edits by numerous editor's to support concise accurate summarization are not trumped by screams of Vandal or empty reverts by a couple of partisans.99.144.244.4 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP rules are the wiki way, and they do trump many other considerations. TFOWR at 17:40 above summarizes the situation well. The article should neither make a big thing of this nor try to bury it. The separate heading is a step in the direction of making a big thing of it. Now, if he gets arrested, that's a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"No substantive argument has been presented in opposition." In your opinion. Above, you presented diffs of two of your talkpage edits as "proof" of the lack of consensus; I then linked to the actual talkpage threads. Multiple editors on the talkpage disagreed with you. Dismissing editors who disagree with you as "apologists and partisans" - I can tell you for free: that's not "the Wiki-way". TFOWR 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did not dismiss them. I quoted them, "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence.". There was a time when such public proclamation's of pure partisanship were noticed, and rejected for what they were. I guess this is just another milestone in the ever-evolving set of acceptable standards as we whittle our contributors down to the last man standing. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your being disigneous when you say Actually, I did not dismiss them. I accused you of Dismissing editors who disagree with you as "apologists and partisans" because you said Most of the argument for silence comes from apologists and partisans. The standards here are consensus and WP:BLP. Neither of these are new, neither should come as any surprise. TFOWR 18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP supports reporting notable events, as is the case here. consensus includes all those numerous editors that have contributed, or supported, section headings as noted above. It is not I that am turning a blind eye to the contributions and discussion regarding the article. And it is not I that have claimed this to be a closed topic no longer up for discussion - nor have I rejected contributions as Vandalism. I have honestly supported a civil and substantive discussion of the issue(1) The record is clear and supports my contention that I am not a Vandal and have engaged in a GF effort to substantively discuss the issue. The same an not be said for all participants.99.144.244.4 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The event is reported. The issue (which you are misdirecting this from) is that the header is undue and a BLP violation in drawing attention to the event. It is not particularly significant in his biography, and the addition of it is quite pointy. I have a groundswell of patience, but you used it up very quickly by being aggressive, rude and ignoring points we were raising. Classic example: your persistent quoting of a badly worded reply on the talk page which was actually unrelated to the header we were discussing and ignoring the points I (and another) consistently raised with you. However, AN/I is not for disputes. I was wrong to use the Vandalism revert, that has been made clear to me, I have apologised. I suggest we take the content dispute to the article talk again and involve editors from WP:BLP/N. Otherwise this looks at risk of going downhill -Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) You are indeed not a vandal, and I believe I had already made that clear. WP:BLP does indeed support reporting notable events: that is not at issue - what is at issue is you adding a header. No one is attempting to prevent the reporting of notable events, and I am surprised you would describe this as such. WP:CON involves discussion, not drive-by editors dropping by to re-add their favourite header while ignoring talkpage discussions. You're to be commended for at least participating in the talkpage discussion; however, edit warring against the obvious consensus there is far less commendable. TFOWR 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you check back, most of the headings along the lines of what you added were added by IP or new editors - and were reverted by long term editors under BLP policy. This is consistent in the article history. You, on the other hand, have consistently mis-characterised a consensus for including the header, quoted that above text which is unrelated to the header issue (and I agre badly argued), heaped abuse on my talk page, the article talk etc. and made wide accusations of "apologists", gaming, wiki-lawyering, censorship and so on. This is the main reason I don't find your work on this article constructive. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, TFOWR is someone I very much trust over this (along wiht BB and Jclemens), so I do apologise for using Vandalism revert on that edit. It was a decision made in the heat of the moment in light of the attitude exhibited by this IP, I am sure that others will attest that I am not usually so vindictive. However, I still feel that the IP is pushing to have the header for POV reasons, as backed up by his comments/language --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say that if the IP makes one more harsh and/or disruptive edit with one of their IP's let's go for a wide range-block as far as technically possible of not less than a month (like one of their IP's already received today).TMCk (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit I believe you're referring to, and referred to in this edit summary(1) from the article mainpage as "Excessive sock puppetry: IP hopping vandal persistantly adding WP:BLP material" is not from me - nor does the coincidentally 99.* prefixed IP address geo-locate to the same area as mine. The two quick incidents of juvenile vandalism hardly rated a ten-day lock, especially as a block was made and appeared to stop the offender. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor is insisting on inserting material from a propagada website

Resolved

At 2010 Chechen Parliament attack, User:Lihaas is insisting[1] on inserting material from Kavkazcenter, an Islamist propaganda website. The consensus in these[2][3] WP:RSN discussions is that Kavkazcenter is not a WP:RS and should not be used as a source for the kind of info Lihaas is using. Normally, I would wait until more editors arrive and agree, but unfortunately the article is on the main page (ITN) and I'm very concerned that it currently contains propaganda/misinformation from the Kavkazcenter website. Please see my comments on the article talk page. Could we please get more eyes in this article? I do not wish to edit war. Offliner (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you supposed to warn the editor a discussion pertaining to him is ongoing, which you havent dont (see the tag on editing this very page)

Secondly, kavkaz center has been quoted on wikipedia, has its own wikipedia page, is not illegal outside russia, and per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:Consensus as to discussion on the page, there are 2 editors who didnt find a problem with the edit (despite offliner introducing the debate), and yet he removes on his whim that he doesnt like. If consensus is against the edit then its one thing, but consensus is clearly and demonstrably in favour of it at this moment. That said WP:Consensus can change, and it is in your right to seek further debate, but it is not in your right to WP:Censorship when others think otherwise. Furthermore, another editor reverted the edit without giving a reason or discussing on the talk page. His edit has been duly removed pending consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC));

Look here, Lihaas, my edit was explained on the talk page you just didn't bother to look. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Anywho, I edit conflicted him but when I saw that message I posted only to correct his mistake which he has now compounded on three pages. Anyway, as I was saying, consensus as I read it accepts only direct attribution of the site's own views, not using the site as a citation for any facts without attribution. I reverted his change on those grounds and advised him to re-edit attributing only the direct views of the site itself. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your allegation that the source cites "fact" instead of due caveat. the original addition does come with the due caveat that "kavkaz center" says, which can be seen in the history and shows that you clearly "blindly reverted" without reading it. Consensus accepts the regards of editors through discussion, not a few people who feel otherwise. Once again, 2 editors had already accepted, another opposed, then you said you opposed because it needs caveat and not as truth. Well it does have the caveatLihaas (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, blindly, etc. I've replied on the talk page - only one of the edits had attribution the other two were uncited or given as fact. There's no point continuing the discussion in two places so deal with some consensus over there, but if any WP:3RR or whatever arises that can be dealt with here or this can be closed if it's resolved. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, seems like its solved on the talk page of the articel and sggh talk page.

Kudos, just as we were on the verge of incivility ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivilty on Wikipedia? That's un-possible! :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not resolved as Lihaas simply reinserted the Kavkazcenter material. I also feel that he is ignoring my comments on talk. I'm afraid to make any more edits on the article since I am too near 3RR. Offliner (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just make sure the attribution is there. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mangled URLs in writer infobox

Resolved

 – Problem was been located and fixed. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Ray Bradbury, Stephen King, etc... there's a bad issue with how the website field acts if "https://" is entered on the line rather than just the plain url-less address. There was a change a month ago to Template:Infobox writer to use Template:Url instead of Template:Official to handle this field, but I can't imagine this has gone unnoticed for that long. Someone tried reverting the last change to the Url template today in an attempt to fix this, but self-reverted as it apparently did not work. Anyone more versed in this sorta thing see the problem? Tarc (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Found the issue at {{Str right}} and fixed with this. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Massacre of Lviv professors

Resolved

 – Content dispute, submitter blocked for edit-warring.  Sandstein  16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Faustian inserted into the article the text claiming that the Polish university professors who were massacred by the Nazi were selected to be massacred because "they actively collaborated with the Soviets" and that "they were in talks with Stalin(!) to form a pro-Soviet government." Since such claims that the professors were in such talks with the force who occupied completely defames their memory and furthermore goes against the commonly accepted fact they were murdered because they were of Jewish origin, I removed the claim from the article requesting solid sources in compliance with the wikipedia policy as described here: [4]. The only source Faustian provided is a pdf document in Ukrainian and he claims it is "fact". I am constantly being accused of going against policy and removing "fact" from the article. I request wikipedia administrators remove said text. J.kunikowski (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified User:Faustian. Please note that you should always notify the user(s) involved when you start an AN or ANI thread. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page for details. Here: [5]. The source is online here: [6]. The book is K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The wikipedia article states "The lists were prepared by their Ukrainian students[2]. According to the Ukrainian scholar I.K. Patrylyak, out of approximately 160 Polish professors living in Lviv in June 1941, the professors chosen for execution were specifically those who actively cooperated with the Soviet regime between 1940-1941, such as members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or members of a delegation that met with Stalin and discussed the possible formation of a pro-Soviet Polish government. [3]" The original source states " Important is the fact that the professors who were shot in Lviv belonged to the group of the Polish intelligentsia, who between 1940 and 1941 actively worked with the Soviet regime. They were members of Soviet working groups, members of Soviet councils, or delegates from Lviv's Polish community who in August 1940 visited Stalin and conducted talks on the possibility of creating a pro-Soviet Polish government in oppostion to the government-in-exile in London. Therefore, the murdered professors could be intereprested by the OUN as supporters of the 'Bolshevik-Muscovite imperialism.' So, out of the 160 Polish professors who lived in Lviv in June 1941, only those who stood out for their cooperation with the Stalinist regime were chosen for destruction." Hope this helps.Faustian (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The merits of this text are a content matter unsuited for discussion on this noticeboard. Please use WP:DR, e.g. WP:3O, to resolve this. I have blocked J.kunikowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for edit-warring. There's nothing more to do here.  Sandstein  16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad for not noticing that it's just a content dispute; I saw it on AN and noticed it was about a specific incident and moved it here without delving into the details. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute? Not at all, this was a violation of the exceptional claims require exceptional sources policy. Please note the policy states that exceptional sources (plural!) are needed. So far there is only a single PDF to for the claim (presented as fact), and neither do we have a complete translation of the text. At this the claim should not even be in the article IMO. Wikipedia policy requires sources for a reason. J.kunikowski (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fustian's claim is indeed extraordinary, not backed by any other sources but this PDF article in Ukrainian. Basically it states that professors were murdered by the Nazis because they collaborated with the Soviets. To my knowledge it is completely not true. This is a very serious allegation but I'm sure it will be resolved one day.--Jacurek (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats from COI SPA user BrainGym Webmaster

Resolved

BrainGym Webmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), an obvious continuation of blocked account Braingym1 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is making legal threats against "Anyone who seeks to block this 'BrainGym Webmaster' Wikipedia user account." I know that it reads in the instructions for reporting issues on this page that "[t]o start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard", but this being a newly created SPA I figured this was the most appropriate venue nevertheless. I could be wrong. __meco (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, blocked indef as self-promotion-only account, quite apart from the legal threats and socking.  Sandstein  20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User needs to take a break

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rhiannon Taylor (talk · contribs) has had her talk page peppered with warnings about inappropriate files uploaded to Wikipedia, along with a few very clearly worded warnings about why her editing pattern is a problem. She appears to be ignoring her talk page and moving forward with uploading copyrighted images. I think a 24 or 48 hour block might give her the pause she needs to read the guidelines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days. –MuZemike 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruption past 3RR at article Ed Miliband

Resolved

 – Full-protected one week. –MuZemike 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of users appear to be edit-warring with each other over this, going past 3RR regarding sourced material, etc. Might be time for some blocks. Deferring to other admins about that. -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• This might also be relevant. The point of contention involves whether Miliband is a Jew or an atheist and was already discussed here just above. --John (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see if temporary full-protection is feasible, if those here are fine with that. –MuZemike 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Something should be done to stop the continuous and chronic disruption at the page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Full-protected for a week. Ucucha 21:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Jew or Atheist"? He could be both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs and The Political Cesspool

I'm already somewhat involved in this article, so any action from me would be inappropriate. It appears an editor with a dynamic IP is trolling the talk page. Laser brain (talk · contribs) partially protected the article, but the talk page banter is going nowhere. A couple weeks ago it was 74.226.66.138 (talk · contribs). Today it appears to be 74.226.118.59 (talk · contribs). I blocked User talk:74.226.68.227 (talk · contribs) for attempting to WP:OUT Stonemason89 (talk · contribs) several weeks ago.

I refer you to the talk page. Multiple threads, several of which have been started by the IP today. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

74.226.64.0/18 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Range of bad IPs

It has come to my atention today that a range of IPs in the Philippines have been adding false information to articles on bands and musicans (adding incorrect record labels and labeling J-Pop bands such as FLOW and JAM Project as christian rock bands). All of the edits come from the same range. The IPs are as follows:

• 115.147.230.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.202.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.202.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.147.230.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IPs are all registered as belonging to "DIGITEL GSM 3G IP POOL". And considering that there are only two /24s being used here, I think it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to block these two ranges for an extended period of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Gerald Gonzales to me. If any admin is interested, the ranges of the IPs above are 115.147.230.0/24 and 115.147.202.0/24. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the crossover with Gonzales.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

These are DjJosh (not verified via CU). I will note though, that these ranges are far too busy to block. Tiptoety ^talk 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what that connection is. Also are the ranges (the two /24 ranges) that busy that they can't be anonblocked?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few anon users editing from those ranges as well, but most of edits appear to be vandalism. I would be careful about implementing them, but if you are going to, start out with short blocks. Tiptoety ^talk 05:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats?

Does anyone else see legal threats here? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 10:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any legal threats (lots of talk about current legal actions, but bo legal threats against Wikipedia or any of its editors at first glance), but it clearly was a G10 attack page, so deleted. Fram (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There's more that's problematic, in the history of the article. I've written to the author. -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Harbough is only here to publicize dirt about his political/financial adversaries. Toddst1 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak, redux

Resolved

 – Nothing going on that needs admin intervention at this moment; policy conversation is underway. If issues persist, another venue may be better, unless immediate admin intervention is required. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:04, 21 October 2010 (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.

---

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs)

I saw this edit on my watchlist, and reverted it, as I see no reason for the removal.

I then looked at his contribs and saw a problem. He is systematically removing all images he has uploaded to Commons from use here, and has requested speedy deletion of same on Commons (which cannot obviously be dealt with here; I included this detail merely for background). Not wishing to create intense drama, I have not reverted the latest edits; I believe this is symptomatic of behaviour that has been going on for quite some time. (See also, from almost a year ago, very similar situation). Namely, this user appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that he gets to control use of images he has created after he has uploaded them. Beyond that I cannot speculate as to motivation.

I am honestly not sure what the course of action here needs to be. This is clearly problematic, and repeated, behaviour. User has been notified. → ROUX ₪ 05:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I jut came across this through a page on my watchlist. I note that Xander and Roux have some history, so I thought I would, as an uninvolved party, concur with Roux's reading of the situation. As it happens I think the one example of an edit that Roux provides is not a good one because (for unrelated reasons) that content should not be there. But the broader issue still stands. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit I provided is simply the one I ran across first (I use a hack on my watchlist to only display changes since the last time I loaded the page, then scroll to the bottom and work my way up). There were other edits, but seeing that there was a pattern I refrained from reverting them all and instead brought the issue here. Agreed that the specific first edit I provided can and should be discussed on the relevant talk page; the general issue is what needs to be examined here. → ROUX ₪ 05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the past history; Roux has suffered quite a bit of abuse in this interaction. I would say Roux is correct that there is a behaviour issue, but I've also seen XL change behaviour when approached the right way. The core issue currently seems to be a licensing dispute. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I did not attempt to discuss this with Xanderliptak, as discussion with him has proven to be less than fruitful. I figured better to gain the attention of uninvolved people. → ROUX ₪ 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The images he uploads to Commons are freely licensed. The licenses are not revocable. So we can use them, whether he wants us to or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was the core issue that came up a few days ago. Presumably Xander figures if he can't get what he wants, then he'll delete them and then nobody can have what they want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't presume tell people what I want. You showed up late to a discussion and tried to talk about things that the discussion was not even concerned about. Again, you are here talking about issues no one else has even brought up. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux reverted the edit here: [7] and when Hamiltonstone complained on the talk page, Roux explained his rationale here: [8] I don't see any need for this board, but rather, discussion should begin on the article talk page. Xandarliptak is as free to edit, and be bold as any other Wikipedia editor. Every edit he makes that Roux does not agree with cannot be brought here. It should be on the article talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See below. You have clearly not paid any attention to what I wrote or what is happening here. → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this ANI even about? People complain about the images in the article, I have to argue to keep them in. More people complain, so I take them out. Then those that wanted them out complain I take them out? What kind of logic is that? What is all the Commons talk and "we can use them even if he doesn't want us to"? I was the one always arguing to use hem, ROUX and others were saying we should not. I just finally gave in and said take them out. ROUX should have been happy. Side note, I did get what I wanted on Commons. ROUX and Beyond My Ken were trying to pull up past arguments, but Commons ignored them. The Commons issue had nothing to do with using or not using images, but about what the licensing summary being deficient. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was on one article where the inclusion of unsupported elements was the nature of the dispute, not the inclusion of the coat of arms in general. 'All this Commons talk' is merely, as I said, background; you are attempting to have images which you freely and irrevocably licenced deleted, an issue that will be dealt with on Commons. I never tried to pull up past arguments on Commons, because I did not make a single comment on Commons; once again you appear to be unable to comprehend that you must provide diffs of alleged behaviour and not merely say whatever you want. This ANI is about approximately thirty instances of you removing images you have created from articles where they very clearly belong. The same images you are attempting to have deleted. The same behaviour you engaged in nine months ago (discussed here, you may also wish to see your own talk page to refresh your memory). → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to tell what you really want, since you change your story so often. :) But why all this excitement over drawings of family crests and such? This ain't Rembrant stuff, you know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The better question is why is Roux following Xanderliptak? And why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves:

I do not understand why there is any information about the Kennedy coat of arms on this page, which is about the surname, and serves as a disambig page for people to locate relevant Kennedys as subjects of WP articles. Move it to an article called Kennedy (coats of arms) or to the pages relating to relevant individuals or families, but surely get it off this page? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it is useful information (though I may be biased). My concern with the removal, and why I reverted it, is partly a matter of WP:BRD, and partly a matter of a posting to ANI that will be up momentarily. → ROUX ₪ 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now. I'd like to keep this separate. It isn't that the information may not be useful, but I don't see why discussion of a range of coats of arms of different Kennedy individuals or families should be on the surname page rather than on the pages of the relevant people (or indeed a page about the coats of arms, if there are a few relevatn secondary sources to satisfy notability). But this is a bit of a new area for me, so if there are contra arguments, I'd like to hear them. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even assuming good faith here, Roux appears to be saying he wants to keep the material just so he can come here. It looks a lot like canvassing, hounding, and a lack of AGF on Roux's part. On Xanderliptak's side, it appears he's just being bold. My suggestion would be to stop this before it gets to look like you're setting the dogs on Xanderliptak. He's removing the images people have fought to get rid of, but now inexplicably are fighting to have restored. Might be time to reassess your own behavior.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

<belated response to comment by Malke about me:> "why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves". The answer is: I have Kennedy (surname) on my watchlist. The removal of the coats or arms seemed like a good idea; its reversion by Roux seemed a bad one. But as heraldry etc is not my area, I thought I would raise the issue on the article talk page and draw that discussion thread to the attention of the two involved editors at their talk pages: [9] [10]. It was only when I did that that I discovered there was a broader issue, and i thought I should mention that at ANI, since a thread had already been opened and some uninvolved comment appeared to be desirable. I don't appreciate the slur implicit in your comment Malke: you could have checked the diffs, where the timestamps would have made it clear that this was the simplest explanation. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Um... did you read anything I posted here? Seriously, don't post without reading what is going on. → ROUX ₪ 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an echo in this section, namely someone griping about Xander being "followed". Some editors don't like being watched, and rung up for what they're doing, since they have this notion that they should be able to do whatever they want, unimpeded. They come here and complain that they're being "harassed"... by multiple users. At some point, the possibility might arise that the editor is being followed because he needs to be followed. Hanlon's razor might figure into this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this actually makes me somewhat angry. You do not understand a single thing that is going on here. You clearly have not bothered to read a single thing I wrote, and certainly haven't looked at the links I provided. I am not saying 'keep the material so I can come to ANI.' In terms of that specific article it is simply the first one I saw on my watchlist. Then I looked at Xanderliptak's contribs, and saw he has removed every instance of every image he uploaded to Commons. Further, on Commons, he has requested speedy deletion of all his images. (Something he can't do, not for the reason he has given.) Nobody has 'fought' to get rid of [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41], almost all of which are articles about nobility, for whom coats of arms are a fairly important subject, recording as they do marriages, alliances, elevations (or demotions) in station, etc. The removal here of one of his images from the talk page of WP:WPHV is particularly noteworthy as well.

Xanderliptak is, quite simply, attempting to remove all of his images from use on enwiki, with concomitant attempt at deleting them from Commons. This is a problem that is related to ownership behaviour from over a year ago detailed here and here, which you would know if you had read the links I had initially posted.

In all seriousness, please do not comment when you have demonstrably not familiarized yourself with the details of what is going on. I bear no personal animus towards Xanderliptak, my concern is with widespread disruption arising from his repeated attempts to control the end result of images which he has freely contributed to the project. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has "fought to get rid of" Xander's images. The issue, as Roux states, is that he wants to maintain control of them, and since he can't do so, he's working on getting rid of them. (I'm sure they'll bring him a healthy profit on the black market.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good place to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to advise Mr. Xander to that effect. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I tried saying this politely. Apparently you didn't read it. I'll be more blunt: you do not understand what is going on, you have obviously not looked at a single link or diff provided, and your contributions to this discussion are completely and totally unhelpful and off base. Please stop commenting. → ROUX ₪ 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux, I understand perfectly what is happening here. I don't see Xanderliptak doing anything but being bold in his edits. I don't see anything wrong with his removing the images. If editors want them back, they're free to put them back, or find other images, or they can take the articles off their watchlists. Focus on the edit, not the editor. And chill about it. It's time to let this go. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand it (and Roux, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), this guy is not "being bold", he's trying to assert ownership over his own creations, in defiance of the license rules. And he's been getting irritated because the rule-followers keep impeding him. I never heard of that guy until this past week, but it didn't take long to figure out what he was up to. How do you figure other editors are "free to put them back"? These are designs of family crests or something, which he himself created. So no one else could claim them as their own, and hence they couldn't upload them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you do not, Malke. Xanderliptak is not being WP:BOLD. of course you would know this if you had read the diffs I had provided, including practically identical behaviour from almost a year ago. Your insistence that you understand what is going on is clearly indicating that you have not read the diffs. The edits you have made to this discussion are beyond useless. Until you can indicate that you have actually read the diffs and links provided, I urge anyone else reading this to pay not the slightest bit of attention to anything you have to say on this matter. → ROUX ₪ 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)First, it's never wise to assume you know what his motives are. And second, if he created the image and is now removing it, what is the big deal here? If an editor makes an edit to an article, but then comes back and removes the edit and then puts in something else, or decides that the edit wasn't really a good one, who is to say he can't do that? Images come and go on Wikipedia. Nothing here is permanent. A week from now none of you will care about any of this.

Imagining what Xanderliptak's motives are appears to be the central problem here. There's a reason we have this guideline. Try it out in real life and you'll see what I mean. We can always assign motive based on our own prejudices and beliefs, but at the end of the day, we don't really know for certain what anybody's motive is, or is not. This whole thread was started based on an assumption that didn't take into account other things that might be going on. The previous arguments are now old. This new argument should have been addressed first on Xanderliptak's talk page and/or the various article talk pages. Not here. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. Again you are demonstrating that you have not familiarized yourself with the history. Addressing this problem with Xanderliptak directly would have been less than fruitful--again, if you had familiarized yourself with the history you would know this. Addressing the issue on 30+ talk pages would have been similarly useless. I beg you, stop inserting your uninformed commentary. It only obscures the situation. → ROUX ₪ 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

History is past. Today is all you have. Forget about it and move on.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that Malke moves on since he seems so spectacularly clueless about this issue. Jon (217.44.188.123 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

If you actually read some of the stuff Xander has said recently, you don't have to "imagine" his motives, as he's right out there with it. He was trying to apply the "moral right" principle to his little creations, and he was told repeatedly that it doesn't apply. Having finally apparently gotten that message, he's going through and trying to get them zapped on dubious grounds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If a rights holder didn't really understand and intend the implications of a CC licensing for an image, then we have sometimes deleted the image. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If editors have had issues with that guy for a year, it's probably not that simple. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That is, however, not his stated intention. He has stated, variously, that they 'were intended to be quick sketches and I will replace them one by one with better versions' (paraphrase, not his exact words, but very close; of course that still doesn't explain why he is seeking deletion. He could simply upload new versions over the old ones), and 'these images have caused trouble so I may as well remove them until the new versions are ready' (again paraphrase. And ignoring the fact that the images are not the problem, his behaviour is). These are things he has said on Commons, and I can provide diffs if requested, as he has said nothing on enwiki about his motivations. Moving back to the original point of this post: there are severe behavioural issues with Xanderliptak, namely:

• Repeated application of WP:IDHT (visible in every recent dispute/discussion he has taken part in, both here and on Commons
• Repeated allegations against fellow editors and refusal to provide diffs of the alleged behaviour despite repeated requests
• Repeated misrepresentation of tenor, tone, and content of discussions and what other editors have said with, again, refusal to provide diffs backing up what he says despite repeated and unambiguous requests to provide same
• Repeated refusal to provide references backing up what he has stated
• Ownership behaviour of his images (diffs provided above setting the context as an ongoing issue for almost a year, not new)
• I will provide diffs of all the above if asked, I just don't have the energy right now to comb through that many pages.

I don't deny that Xanderliptak has made valuable contributions. Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry is spotty at best, and it is one of those areas where visual cues are practically mandatory for understanding the subject. However, the above issues, none of which are new, are a distinct problem and need to be addressed in totally unambiguous terms. I had proposed an editing restriction for Xanderliptak to address some of those issues; Prodego's premature archiving of the thread prevented discussion that might well have prevented this set of circumstances from occurring.

Several other editors who have bothered to read the history here seem, unless I am mistaken, to agree that there is a problem. A solution needs to be found, please, to prevent further disruption. → ROUX ₪ 02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Roux, there is an issue. I thought the dispute about one image was just getting resolved (leaving out three shields) - with an "out" provided on a silver platter - and I was disheartened when the dispute simply shifted to something else. I do think XL's image contributions are extremely valuable, but if XL wants to remove the images, my suggestion is to just let that happen. So long as XL only removes XL's own images and nobody else picks a fight, I suspect XL would eventually restore those or better images and the project will see a net benefit. And if that turns out to be false optimism, the issues get resolved another way. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have zero faith whatsoever that those images will ever be replaced. My AGF reserves here are fully depleted. Also as a general principle I think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia to indulge the "I'm taking my toys and going home" behaviour when it comes to encyclopedic content. The precedent it sets for disgruntled editors to remove content they have contributed is... bad. → ROUX ₪ 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have zero faith whatsoever that taking up this many kilobytes with what amounts to "Someone needs to talk to the user, but Roux has a past history with him" is conducive to anyone staying with the project. With regard to the deletion of images, if we're talking about him wanting to make a newer, better version, that's fine; I reverted the diffs linked above because I was under the impression the user was ragequitting over his inability to modify the licensing. If the images are going to be mass-deleted for whatever reason in the future, a bot should unlink them with an explanation. This will avoid confusion and have the added benefit of not annoying people with the articles on their watchlists. Recognizance (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The good thing is that Xander's edits were reverted - the images are back in the articles. I think just about all of his speedy deletions were overturned by the admins over on the Commons. It sucks when a contributor throws a hissyfit and spitefully starts destroying all their contributions as some sort of payback - holds their contributions/images hostage. That's where we need admins to step in and set the record straight - that you can't disrupt the project that way. Maybe this thread ought to be marked 'resolved' because really Malke is pointlessly winding Roux up. I think we should just leave this issue be, it's been dealt with. I doubt Xander will pull the same stunt again.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, if Roux is 'wound up' he did it to himself. It was Roux's choice to come here and make this complaint which doesn't need admin action. He could have done nothing, especially as Hamiltonstone didn't even want the image on the page in question. Roux could have waited. There's no emergency on Wikipedia, least of all with the deletion of images. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. And ignoring the obvious lack of WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, and WP:HOUND, makes this thread seem like an even bigger hissyfit than anything Xanderliptak has done. Stop hounding the guy. Nobody here likes his images anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look. Three people now have told you that you don't know what you're talking about. I have pointed out repeatedly that you clearly haven't read any of the links or diffs provided. If you had, you would know that this is really not about the single page which Hamiltonstone is involved with, that was merely the first one where I noticed this problem. Could you please just shut up until you know what you're talking about? → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do see your points. But what I'm talking about is, you should not have come here as your first move. If you really want to start the process, start an RfC/U. Don't come here with every bit you find. Stop looking at his contributions. You're too involved here. I'm actually very sympathetic to you that you are so upset by this. I saw your request for an unblock and I felt very bad for you. But you're coming here first is not a good move. Do you see any admins here doing anything? Xanderliptak has disengaged on this thread. You should do the same. Everybody should do the same. For now, a good solution might be a self-imposed interaction ban, for say three weeks, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm. There is no other option for a first move here. Discussion with Xanderliptak is pointless. RFC/U is less than pointless, it's just a delay of a month while more disruption can occur. I looked at his contributions solely because I saw one weird removal and wanted to know what was going on. You really, really don't have a clue what is going on here, and what has been going on for almost a year. Please cease your uninformed commentary. → ROUX ₪ 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at all your diffs, etc. Believe, me, I know exactly what has been going on. Xanderliptak should stop removing images, and you should take a break from this. If you don't look at his contributions, you won't be upset. Let someone else notice things. And how do you know, maybe your comments have made an impression on him. Now it's time to wait and see.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010. Xanderliptak has pissed off more than just Roux, and more than just Roux have been restoring all the images he has deleted from articles, declining all the speedies on commons etc. This isn't about two editors arguing, this is about one editor behaving in an out of order way by trying to control the onward disposition of images that they uploaded.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved party passing through: If other contributors have been pissed off then it would probably be best if they make the complaint and follow up on it. Rightly or wrongly, considering their history, Roux's reporting of Xanderliptak here and forceful argumentation against Xanderliptak after the initial notification can give the impression of hounding. Notice of Xanderliptak's actions has been give to the admins here; a continuing prosecution would seem to be unnecessary. Lambanog (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hard to argue with that. Xander certainly has pissed more people off, but it may well be that they have concluded that the horse is already dead. Perhaps it's time to close up here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine. The next time that Xanderliptak pulls something like this--and the next, and the next--I will bring up this thread and the last one, and remind you lot that you had a chance to stop the disruption but ignored it. This editor has attacked others, been rabidly dishonest about others, attempted to own content, been disruptive, etc etc etc, with total impunity. I suggest that admins familiarise themselves with the concept of 'enabling.' → ROUX ₪ 21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Edit wars now occurring here, here, here, apparently over an effort to use Xanderliptak's versions of images instead of other versions. (And before anybody says anything tiresome about stalking, I have had User talk:Fry1989 on my watchlist since this edit, saw Xanderliptak's warning, and decided to take a look given Xanderliptak's penchant for... well, for being Xanderliptak). → ROUX ₪ 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, this section almost made it to the archive point, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the item Xanderlip is edit warring to have removed, is the same entry he himself posted back in February. It's the same old story - ownership. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I find this concerning. :/ To an uninvolved party, it looks less to be edit-warring to remove something than to add something. The older image was altered at one point in August, with a "transparency added and secret watermark removed with gimp". The new image has been protested in part because it displays the artist's name. While Xander has shrunk the thumbnail to obscure it, it's still there. You can see it clearly here and here. Xanderliptak, you seem to be a talented artist; why not create an image that does not contain your signature since it is being protested? People who contribute text to Wikipedia--no matter how good their work--do not get to "sign" their articles. WP:WATERMARK indicates images should not "have any credits in the image itself." This is policy on Wikipedia. It seems like it would be a simple matter to comply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • See here. This is not a new issue; Xander has been told before that he's not allowed to sign his work. → ROUX ₪ 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        • And that is enWiki specific. Roux, can you or anyone else point to a specific Commons guide/policy that would get Xanderliptak's contribs there removed and him a talking to by a Commons admin? In an odd way it may get him part of what he wants - his old images off of Wikipedia. (His release of the rights... well that's someone else's problem at that point.) But that is still a Commons argument waged in the wrong place. - J Greb (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I have pretty clearly tried to stay away from Commons issues, saying as I did in my first paragraph that Commons issues needed to be decided on Commons. I have tried to focus on Xander's behaviour here, which is severely problematic in multiple ways. → ROUX ₪ 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Watermark

I have reverted User:Xanderliptak's changes because of the credits embedded in the image, as this is against local policy. I have suggested he create a new version of the images without the problem, but also cautioned him about edit warring, as he has reverted several different contributors across these three pages. I know he has been blocked several times before for edit warring, but hopefully it will not be necessary this time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a watermark, the image does not have credits added nor is it distorted. It is a signature, so that policy does not apply here. It is also beyond the purview of the English Wikipedia to determine what may be uploaded to Commons.

Please note that both images used are my work. The image first used on the Ghana pages was deleted for copyright violation, so I created what was meant to be a temporary file and used that to meet the immediate need of an image, which was then replaced by the detailed image I recently finished. Fry1989 is edit warring merely because he uploaded the copyvio image again, which I found and brought to the attention of Commons admins, and he took it personally. He vowed to replace my work no matter what, apparently unaware that the image he used to replace my work was also my work. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the current price of those images on the black market? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you think a signature is NOT a credit? Really?

Do what you like on Commons, but locally, en.wikipedia doesn't do credits -- which signatures, most assuredly, are -- so yes, which images are actually used on WIKIPEDIA is most certainly within the purview of Wikipedia. I'm sensing more convenient misunderstandings. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Alexander Liptak—Coat of arms of Ghana 1957 (small).png

The image in question.

WTF is the black market?

Anyways, it is the purview of the English Wikipedia to launch an ANI about whether an image is uploaded to Commons with a signature? So Commons lets me sign my work, but if I do, I could receive punishment from admins on the English Wikipedia for doing something on Commons allowed by Commons? I am not seeing how this is exactly an issue here.

A signature is not the same as credit, though a signature does almost always give credit. A signature gives provenance to a work of art, which is legally understood to mean an artist claims the work his own by adding his sign to it. Credit merely states the parties responsible for a work and usually the role they played in creating it, and is done in a list form and not signed by every contributor. It is an odd discussion to have; that little yellow block is the signature, which is barely discernible anyways. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the overall situation, and really don't care, but the situation comes down to this: while the image may be perfectly acceptable on Commons, and may be useful for other Wikimedia projects and languages, if consensus or whatever else determines that an image is not acceptable in a given article on this project, then it doesn't have to be used. Just because an image resides on Commons does not mean it must be acceptable everywhere. I'm sorry that the local editors don't believe your image is useful here, but perhaps it will be used elsewhere. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is fine, but there has been no consensus or even discussion. The editor, Fry1989, making the change is upset that I noticed an image he uploaded was a copyright violation that had already been deleted from Commons. His actions are more retaliatory than anything; the reason he gave for removing the image which had already been in the article was to protect me from the Government of Ghana from either arresting or suing me here in the U.S., which clearly makes no sense because of jurisdiction issues and is a poor attempt at a reason. The other editor listed no reason for upholding Fry1989's revert. Both images are my work and one is inferior to the other, so I placed the superior image in the article. A clear reason for the edits; however, no reason given for the reverts by the two other editors. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The image has not been marked for deletion on Commons (well, not by me); it has been removed from Wikipedia articles. A definition of "watermark" you find elsewhere is irrelevant. This project's policy for image use is that "Free images should not...have any credits in the image itself". If you believe that policy should be redefined to allow content creators to imbed credits within their works, you need to recommend an alteration to policy and find consensus for it. Alternatively, if you believe the image is superior, you can remove the credit and it will no longer be a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Obviously, there's a long-standing dispute, here; one that stretches back for months. So where are the attempts at dispute resolution? Where's the mediation? Where's the RFC? Please point to these things; because all that I'm seeing are a procession of attempts to mis-use this noticeboard as a club, some not-exactly-stellar discussions at User talk:Moonriddengirl and some other user talk pages, and a lot of Commons deletion discussions. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The dispute appears to be about a contributor trying to own his contributions. What's the resolution to a situation like that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G. This is what I've been saying from the start. Using this noticeboard is not the place to begin dispute resolution, it's the end point. Start an RfC/U, otherwise, leave the guy alone.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It was probably to be hoped that could be avoided. But since the editor insists on putting his own spin on the rules at every turn, it will probably be necessary. What I don't get is why the author has such ownership issues, as if he were creating priceless works of art or something. If he were to put his little designs on eBay, they would probably bring in considerably less money than the average painting of Elvis on velvet, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have nothing of value to contribute, don't contribute. Your entire attempts here have been to ridicule and provoke me, you add no value to the conversation. Perhaps it is you who has the spin on the policies (they are policies, not rules, there is a difference), or perhaps since everyone is coming to so many different conclusions as to what the policies mean, the policies need to be clarified. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The rules are clear enough, you just don't like them. So, how much would your precious drawings bring, if you were to try to sell them on eBay? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

They're only 11 by 8.5 inches, so about $400-$850 depending on which drawing. Why? Are you interested in some art? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Got any? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Noelemahc

PLEASE NOTE: This discussion was originally posted by 204.153.84.10 on the WikiProject Comics talk page. I've moved it here, as this seems like a much more appropriate place to discuss the situation. Friginator (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this editor is learning English, or if they just have bad grammar problems, but most of what they have been adding to articles has been difficult to read at best, and incomprehensible at worst. A few different editors have come along and tried to fix what they have written (not an easy task, guessing what they are trying to say), and I was content to help out. Then today, they began making comments like this, which seem to indicate that they feel other editors should be relied upon to fix the mess. I don't know about anyone else, but while I don't mind making corrections and fixes here and there, I don't have time to be checking all of someone's edits, especially when they respond with my criticism with a revert and somewhat rude edit summary. Just please, if you have the time, keep an eye on this editor's contributions, and help them understand why it is important to write intelligibly. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the writing quality of the original text ("When Spider-Man has been away, Chameleon got the infant"?!) I'm not sure what the problem is. GDallimore (Talk) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, that poor text was added by the same user. I have no solution. Ignore me. GDallimore (Talk) 06:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a new user adding equally bad blocks of text. Is this a WP:DUCK case, trying to avoid scrutiny, or just a coincidence? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was someone learning English or who had bad English education I don't think you would see the confrontational attitude that editors have already posted about what he puts in the edit summary. Can this be considered vandalism and something he can be blocked for? Or do we as a group have to stalk his posts to try to correct his work, and hopefully correct his behavior eventually? Spidey104^contribs 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally think this is vandalism, but it's certainly not constructive. I admit I've been watching his contribution history very closely, simply because many of his edits need to be reverted. This isn't a new problem, though. I've run into several other editors (mostly on comics articles, actually) whose English is deplorable. Whether this is a case of sockpuppetry, I have no idea. Also, it's important to note that Noelemahc's contributions aren't all nonconstructive. Friginator (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A user whose name is "Chameleon" spelled backwards might be a sock? Ya think??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hah! I hadn't even noticed that. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he may even have a new sockpuppet: as Noelemahc Hpwertyumdxfghj's first edit. Spidey104^contribs 13:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so now we have two possible socks - time for SPI? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't create from other user.-Noelemahc (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Methinks thou dost protest much. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Noelemahc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hpwertyumdxfghj (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Revolladerdnaetihwdnakcalbsitahw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Izggswoerbvcxc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of antisemitism

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.

There is no admin action needed here at this time. Involved editors are advised to stay away from each other when possible. –MuZemike 23:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Nomoskedasticity has accused me of being an anti semite, I totally repute this and commented as such and as I know he simply doesn't like me and has attacked me personally before with comments such as I have no reading comprehension and other comments I struck the allegation and left him a note on his talkpage letting him know and informing him that I would report him if he repeated it and he has un-struck the antisemite allegation and replaced it. I should not be personally attacked in this way by a user, I would like the accusation struck, it is completely false and attacking. The section is here and the history here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

its out of line most likely and should be struck but it seems lost in translation. It looks like Nomo misinterpreted when Rob said the term "Jew" was kinda derogatory (Which i have certianly heard used that way). Nomo Seems to have over reacted by assuming it is he meant calling some one Jewish is Derogatory and there is nothing wrong with being jewish. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing at all out of line. I specifically did not say "Off2riorob is an anti-Semite". I said that believing that someone has to be protected from being called a Jew is to hold the view that being a Jew is somehow a problem and "verges on anti-Semitism". If one is not allowed to make that kind of observation on Wikipedia then this place has real problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You "specifically did not say x" is terrible way to defend your self as it translates to "gosh i was careful with the way i said it so I could avoid being call out on it." Implied statements often say alot more than explicit statement. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The issue that turns up in many, many biographies here is whether someone's religion or ethnic group "has anything to do with anything". It certainly would be fair to call Myron Cohen a Jewish comedian, since much of his work centered around Jewishness. It would be less fair to Jack Benny, because all or most of his work was religion-neutral, i.e. he was a comedian who happened to be Jewish. I admit to sharing Rob's uncomfortableness with the term "a Jew", as opposed to "Jewish", but if you, who are Jewish, are OK with the term "a Jew", then we might be oversensitive. However, it calls to mind the Nazis painting the German word for "Jew" on Jewish storefronts. Except that does not necessarily impeach the word itself, but just the Nazis' usage of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Whilst Off2riorob's statement was clumsily phrased, it clearly wasn't anti-semitic in the slightest. It's fairly obvious what point he's trying to make. I would suggest that Nomoskedasticity strike that allegation. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And editors opinions on these issues don't really matter do they. Content is based on sources. The time would be better spent improving Jew_(word)#Changes_in_use based on reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate the comment striking as I am in no way an antisemitic at all and where I work my account is known by people and such a weakly claimed allegation could well have real life issues, it is illegal in my area. Please retract it, if the user refuses to retract it imo it is a personal attack and he should be blocked. The discussion and issue has brought up points that we have unclear issues with at wikipedia and I fully intent to discuss the issue on a policy page, when I find the best location.Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't shown any awareness that there is a problem in your attitude, and frankly I was thinking of starting a thread on AN/I myself about it. You have clearly implied that there is something wrong with referring to someone as a Jew. There isn't, and it isn't something to protect someone from. If you don't get that, then there's a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my binary friends. Is it offensive to call someone a Jew? Yes. Is it an honorable and inoffensive thing to be called? Yes! Consider the following: "That Jew lawyer cheated me." Appropriate or inappropriate use? Or, "Mayor Bloomberg is a Jew who isn't particularly devout." How bout that one? Context kids.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Or Groucho Marx, in reference to himself and his brothers and their stage and film work, "We were just four Jews trying to get a laugh." That statement at once contains elements of pride and self-deprecation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well precisely. And to make it clear what is at stake here, Rob has a problem with the notion that Ed Miliband is a "British Jew". Context indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate ia heading this in a rational direction. Let's summarise. There is absolutely nothing wrong with BEING a Jew, but some racists and/or bigots DO use the term in a derogatory way. The second part of that sentence is NOT anti semitic in the slightest. It is anti racist. HiLo48 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I had a similar concern before when an unreferenced statement that an individual was gay was removed as an attack on the individual; it's unfortunate that calling someone gay could be considered a personal attack, but it's used as one frequently. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sadly the first meaning most kids learn for the word gay these days is the negative one, long before they have any understanding of sexuality. It would be much rarer, but would still happen in some circles for the word Jew. And I still hear occasional use of the word to negatively (but sometimes humorously intended) describe someone who is tight with their money. It's all in the context. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A wise person many years ago said, "Meanings are not in words; meanings are in people." It's not the word necessarily, it's how it's used. Kids nowadays say, "That's so gay!" the way kids in my generation said, "That's so queer!" So as a word, "gay" can be either good or bad, depending on who's using it. An extreme example is to hear one black person greet another with, "How you doing, you old n*gg*r?" in an affectionate way, but something very hurtful if I were to say it. (And by the way, "black" is also both pejorative and prideful, depending on how it's used.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, rather than the meaning of the word "gay" which the current generation uses (which I consider to be a completely different term really; I know plenty of people who use it synonymously with "lame", and harmlessly, but who aren't homophobic), I meant that stating that someone is homosexual is a BLP violation as it's contentious; I find it a little unfortunate that homosexuality is considered something which is offensive unless true (or indeed verifiable), but with homophobia still unfortunately prevalent, it has to be considered a BLP vio despite the fact that "heterosexual" wouldn't be considered one, and in fact would probably be considered implied if not stated otherwise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Using it as a synonym for "lame" also suggests "unmanly", although it's possible those using it that way haven't really stopped to think what they're saying, it's just a popular expression. There has been a lot of progress in the last few decades, but until we get to the point where nobody cares, labeling a straight person as gay is still a slur. Labeling an openly gay person as straight is not exactly a slur, more like a joke... as in "pssst... Harvey Fierstein is a closet heterosexual... pass it on!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I regretfully agree that calling someone homosexual is taken as a slur whereas the inverse usually isn't, which is what I was getting at. Regarding the synonymity with "lame" though, I'm not referring to calling a person "gay" synonymously with "lame", rather an inanimate thing: "Maths is gay" or "Maths is lame". There's no implication that it's "unmanly", and I don't think there's any actual connection to homosexuality at all beyond the fact that the usage probably originally arose from homophobia, with kids calling everything negative "gay". Nowadays I don't think that's the case though, at least not in the context in which I've heard it. This is a bit of a tangential discussion though, so probably best to stick to the issue at hand. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, we had a misunderstanding. I think Rio and Nomo should both acknowledge they spoke in a way that was taken wrongly by the other person, whether they truly believe that or not. All in the interest of eliminating more drama. I can understand Nomo's point of view as a Jew (and yes, I use the word Jew for that is what I am, ethnically and religiously, being "Jewish" I personally hold for those that are religiously Jewish but are not ethnically, such as converts). As a Jew I get frustrated with individuals, who always are non-Jews btw, who think Jews need special protection and everyone needs to be on their toes and look out. We have survived your hatred on our own, so thanks but let us defend ourselves, if we dont want to be called something, if we find something offensive, if we dont like someone being labeled a Jew, trust me, we'll tell you; we aren't shy about telling those that do things we dont like where to shove it (just ask the Jordanian army, or the Syrian airforce, or the Lebanese, or the Egyptian, and so on and so on, so many wars in 52 years). I can also understand Rob being insulted by being called an anti-semite, I understand that would hurt and be quite insulting especially if you were trying to be helpful. I'm sure Rob understands there are REAL anti-semites here on Wikipedia whose only edits are to create or expand anti-Jewish propaganda pieces and he does not wish to be lumped in with them. Just as Im sure since Rob understands those editors are quite real that it is understandable the heightened level of security that Nomo may be editing under. So, in the words of the 20th century's greatest American philosopher- Can't we all just get along? Camelbinky (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not really interested in all that. User:Nomoskedasticity has personally attacked me with a vile insult and it is false utterly false. As I see it he is attempting to slur me to remove me from the discussion. Actually I thought for some time that he is an antisemitic as I have encountered him repeatedly adding negative content about Jews to multiple articles. I will tell you, in my real life no one insults me like that to my face and he shouldn't be supported in that here either. If he stood in front of me and said it I would beat the living daylights out of him, he wouldn't have the guts to say it to my face that is for certain.Off2riorob (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I think both parties need to acknowledge there was a misunderstanding. I think Nomoskedasticity should have AGF on your comment and asked, rather than assumed, what you meant. But such misunderstandings will happen in a text-only environment. The edit warring you admitted to in that same discussion probably didn't help in the AGF thing ("Well, a little warring is not the end of the world"). Can you both agree no one person was at fault here and move on? Hobit (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • If he stood in front of me and said it I would beat the living daylights out of him — Then that's part of the problem, here. You do not use non-violent and purely verbal means to address these problems outwith Wikipedia, and thus are stymied when they occur in a form where your only means to resolve them is non-violent and purely verbal. You talked about the image that your contributions here give to your co-workers, before. What image is what you are saying right here presenting to them? Battery may have "real-life issues" and may be "illegal in your area", too, remember.

      Nomoskedasticity said that xe considered your views to be verging on the anti-Semitic. You've refuted that, as a "vile insult" that is "utterly false". The next step, for civilized people, is not getting one's fists out. The next step, it seems to me, is clueing Nomoskedasticity in to the fact that boosterism — religious, nationalistic, academic, and even town — is a real problem at Wikipedia; and that we combat it by not going around labelling everyone with any religious, national, university, or town affiliation that we can find even just the barest of speculation for (just to show how great those LGBT Grand Fenwickian Buddhist graduates from Stanford University all are), but rather by applying high standards for the inclusion of such information. It doesn't pay to be pulling out the "I think that your views verge on the anti-Semitic." card in the face of people who want good sources and proper fact checking for statements of religious affiliations. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, well said, thank you. I struck that comment, I was very upset. boosterism indeed.Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I shall sleep easier tonight for that. As for misunderstanding on my part -- perhaps. I certainly accept that O2RR did not set out to express an anti-Semitic view -- but then, who does? Unfortunately, what we have now from this editor is a succession of edits (at the article talk page and BLPN) using the phrase "Jewish blood", which I'm afraid only reinforces the impression that led to my initial comment. It is possible to verge on being anti-Semitic inadvertently, after all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blood> Is it antisemite to mention Jewish blood, laughable, yawn. What a disgusting thing to claim that it is possible to be antisemite inadvertently, get over it. The issue is in your head only. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh since Judaism is "inherited" from parents, "Jewish blood" is a perfectly valid reference to that, and I don't see how it could be construed as offensive (unless the comments are referring to spilling Jewish blood) GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing about that article you link, GW: the word blood is used only three times in the text, and not a single one of them supports your fanciful notion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are embarrassing yourself with your weak claims of antisemitism and you would do better retracting them. Jewish blood so? The article Jewish People clearly says In Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the second millennium BCE This is clearly what the discussion was in relation to and your feeble attempts to assert some heinous mention of blood in this manner as antisemitic is ridiculous. IMO such false claims of antisemitism weaken the times when is is actually an issue, your false claims say more about you than they do me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And Rob, what do your fisticuffs remarks say about YOU, striked or not? If I insulted you to your face, and yes after rejecting my attempt to end this I most definitely would have to your face in real life, would you attack me physically? Now that I find your comment hilarious and must now assume you either are in high school or act like you do and would say that to your face. And after you attempted to "beat me" I would indeed make sure you were arrested. Your comment was quite inappropriate and a warning at the very least is what you should have received for that, for not only was it extremely out of line, it was a threat (though not realistic), and it was on top of you rejecting a very easy way to end this drama, instead you chose to escalate. Drop it now, oh, yea- please.Camelbinky (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

At least have the decency to strike my poor comments. Your solution just move along was not really of any value, but thanks for trying. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Prunesqualer

Resolved

 – User:Prunesqualer blocked per the WP:ARBPIA sanctioning procedure. –MuZemike 06:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War has been an article that has received a fair amount of trouble. Editors have been banned because of it and it has been locked multiple times. Things have been going a little better over the last couple of months with massive amounts of talk page use before things are moved in or out. Unfortunately, User:Prunesqualer has started rocking the boat the last two days. He made a bold edit yesterday[42] without using the talk page. It was very similar to a line that had previously been discussed multiple times. I reverted with an edit summary mentioning the talk page (in hindsight I could have used the talk page first) and he reverted in return.[43] I opened a talk page discussion. The page is on a 1/rr and another editor opened up an edit warring report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prunesqualer reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: No violation)). It was determined that there was no violation. And then another editor reverted him. Prunesqualer waited about 24hrs then made an almost identical and still disputed edit without reaching consensus on the talk page.[44] There are multiple issues (where it goes, if balance is needed, word smithing) with it and a discussion is open.Talk:Gaza War#Prunesqualer's edit However, the user bulldozed it in anyways and has admitted that he is not working towards consensus since he dosn't believe it is likely to happen. He is borderlining by treading the edge of policy breach. He is disregarding consensus. This is the sort of behavior that caused so many issues with the article in the past and it is not acceptable in such a turbulent topic area. Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yet another editor reverted him. He again reverted.[45] That is 4 controversial edits in 2 days with at least two being unquestionable reverts. Is this the type of editing we want on this article? Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add sactions to him related to the ArbCom case if I was still an adminstrator, someone else should do it, his editing is disruptive. Secret ^account 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctioned under WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions; see log for details. It would be helpful if reports such as this went to WP:AE in future. CIreland (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I was hesitant and starting a something over there since it was relatively minor to some of the explosions over there. I'll follow the correct protocol if there is a next time.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Leonardo DiCaprio

Resolved

 – Rev-deleted. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Scurrilous content regarding named private person/minor posted by IP editor 74.8.133.230. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to have been dealt with. That type of thing can be regarded as vandalsm and just quickly reverted or rollbacked.  Giacomo  15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet still roaming around

Resolved

 – Whacked by MuZemike. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently, a sockpuppet who has passed the ducking test still manages to roam around. Seems like an admin didnt exactly ban him. [[46]]. the user still continuously upload non-properly referenced images. --79.78.53.72 (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. –MuZemike 01:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JasonHaddad

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here and I haven't found a single thing that even gives so much as a hint. However, it's clear to me that we've got a serial IP-hopping vandal on the loose.

I first discovered this after reverting vandalism from I dont like you at all (talk · contribs). I left a warning on the talk page and saw that the user was indefblocked shortly thereafter as a sock of JasonHaddad (talk · contribs). However, I found nothing indicating why there would be a link between the two.

I have since discovered three IPs, all resolving to California, with alarmingly similar patterns of vandalism over the last three days.

• 69.110.79.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 71.133.175.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 69.225.80.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The last one is vandalizing as I write this. The common thread here is the childish posts on the IP talk pages after a warning is given, as well as the vandal's odd penchant for vandalizing Ford E-Series.

This is probably something that needs a few eyes kept on it, it's starting to look like the beginnings of some long-term disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

as a range block would seem to have to much collateral I have added it to my watchlist and we will just follow WP:RBI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations and defamation by Athenean

I have moved this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, with a slightly calmer section heading. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-Think Move?

Resolved

 – Open proxies blocked, page temporarily semi-protected. –MuZemike 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there an admin that can look into the close on the Talk:Jessica_(entertainer)#Move.3F as there are many other pages with last names in the title of the article please see Nicole Jung and Krystal Jung for examples. Ms. Jung's Wikipedia article refers to her as Jessica Jung several times already. It doesn't make sense seeing as her full stage name is Jessica Jung, especially when her own article addresses her as so. 218.25.106.219 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That will be banned User:InkHeart on another proxy. Have we done the formal community ban thing yet? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to prevent him from abusing more proxies. –MuZemike 19:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It enables instant reverting though... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PredilCO

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PredilCO (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring over templates on Jon Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (along with other editors). It appears he may be using an online translator to try to communicate here on Wikipedia. Can someone step in, get his attention, get him communicating effectively, and stop his edit-warring? --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I fear I may have misunderstood your message at first, and that both protecting the article and dealing with the user might have been unnecessary. I'm not sure what is going on, but I've stopped the user from editing briefly in the hope that it brings him into discussion, and have explained that by acknowledging messages on the talk page we can move forward. I don't think there is any language difficulty given the edit summaries. I shall watchlist the talk page and look for his response, then give some advice. In the mean time, if there is no apparent risk of more than one account causing an issue, then I'll revert my protection. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think the article protection is necessary, but we can work around it, as long as someone is monitoring his talk page for a response. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am monitoring, but I shall remove my protection it resulting from me misreading you. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand what is going on here. PredilCO is saying that the tags were inserted by an editor who had a COI -- he believes that the tags were inserted by the editor of a magazine that was forced to issue a retraction concerning the subject. PredilCO is leaving the "wikify" tag because it is the only one not added by that editor. (I'm not trying to justify this, just explain his motives.) Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I am hoping he answers us soon I would like to clear it up, though we can't have an edit war in the mean time. There may well be a root cause that is plausible enough. I can leave an explanatory note in the block log if there is an all positive reason for it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

threat of violence

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some anon set this person's date of death to tomorrow here. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 20:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Common or garden vandalism; some folk have reverted, I have blocked, and we can all now ignore. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. Adding a date of death is rather common vandalism. I wouldn't interpret it as a threat without additional evidence. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• … and remember that, to those that know their literature, it's pretty much a declaration of immortality. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hyacinthbucket

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hyacinthbucket (talk · contribs). Ugh. This user has been editing on and off for three years, and still doesn't seem to have a freaking clue how to do things. Their offenses include:

• Repeated creation of tiny stubs, usually one-sentence articles without wikilinks, categories or sources (examples: Love Revival, Hometown Girl, Go (Doc Walker album), etc.)
• Repeated creation of articles in template space (see Template:Recollection, Template:Love Rules, Template:Definitive Greatest Hits: Til' The Last Shot's Fired)
• Re-creation of deleted content (Pam Tillis Collection, which was redirected)

I gave this user a final warning in May and they're still up to their old shenanigans. Not one of their edits in the past couple years has been helpful, and other editors have had to completely demolish whatever articles Hyacinthbucket makes in order for them to be salvageable. The fact that the user only edits in short bursts has kept down the clutter a bit, but I still think we have a major WP:COMPETENCE issue here. If you've been here three years and still don't know Wikipedia 101, you clearly shouldn't be here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn! (sorry for my use of profanity here) Hyacinthbucket has been seriously disruptive towards the entire Wikipedia community for the past months. Should we block this user immediately for continued disruption? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Would this not be a username violation? Hyacinth Bouquet? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked indef. Indef doesn't mean forever, but it means that this editor must give some reasonable indication of understanding policy in order to resume editing. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Joy Masoff racially motivated editing

Resolved

 – No admin action needed at this time. –MuZemike 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please consider semi-protection for Joy Masoff. This article involves the author of a fourth grade history text book that due to poor research stated that thousands of African-Americans fought on the side of the South in the American Civil War. The controversy has made the front page of the Washington Post this week. IP addresses have been vandalizing the article, in some cases showing racial bias. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism doesn't seem that bad so far as to require protection. If it gets worse, please use WP:RPP.  Sandstein  16:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein. Highly wince-worthy, but the author seems notable enough for an article, even before the current controversy. Let's see how this plays out before protecting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible suicidal user

Resolved

 – Authorities and WMF notified. –MuZemike 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Archived content

I may be reading too much into it, but there's the possibility that this edit is a call for help: "why do children take there owb life we some feel like there is no other chocie nichole hosey did it becouse her botfriend" - it may be about some existing incident, it may be a smear, or it may be the person herself posting a note. Googling finds no note of a suicide for a "nicole hosey" or "nichole hosey", but those may go unreported. This is the only edit from this IP. Not sure how to procede,if anyone knows please take it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC) There are some guidelines at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, but I'm thinking that this seems too general a comment to respond to. Maybe a note on the IP's talk page? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Looks like the post is merely a question about why this happens, referring to a person who is already dead. [47] and [48] refer to a "Ashlyn Nicole Hosier...she passed on December 4, 2003 at the young age of 15" ... and one person comments "I dont know why you did this, but no matter what im always gonna love you". That might not be what they're referring to, though, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)IP geolocates to Durand, Illinois. But agree with Slim, it's a vague note. Pop something helpful on the talk page and consider notifying the WMF (as it is in office hours) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC) My IP locator put it to Peoria, Ill; I notified the Peoria police and emailed WMF. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Page blanking, content dispute, and possible legal threats at Christopher Porter

Resolved

 – Editor notified and pointed towards WP:OTRS. –MuZemike 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See this diff. User:NoteMyVote claims to be the subject of the article and has blanked the page and replaced it with his own comments about the accuracy of the content, including a possible legal threat (claiming that the content is 'potentially libelous'). Would appreciate some help resolving this, as I am unsure of the best course of action. Thanks. --Korruski^Talk 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it. Whatever is going on here, well done for not immediately reverting! You are not a WP:DOLT.--Scott Mac 10:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article minus the material that the user seems to dispute, and left a note asking him to alert us to issues on the talk page. I suggest we need some sensitive people to review and improve this article. Please watchlist. Am copying this thread to the WP:BLPNB--Scott Mac 10:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The user in question should probably verify their identity with OTRS, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass editing at Life cycle assessment

Resolved

 – No action needed at this time. –MuZemike 16:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Noticed a lot of editing here, about 99% from new accounts, as they are 'redlinked'. Please see Revision history of Life cycle assessment. Perhaps a school project being run on that article??- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 06:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably a school project. I would inquire and see what school that is and what exactly they are doing so that we are not alarmed in the future as to what is going on. –MuZemike 06:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This Edit summary "For a class grade and to leave room for expansion on this topic of LCA" suggests you are correct, MuZemike. Thank you for you assistance - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 06:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd semi it and direct them to WP:SUP - hopefully the teacher will get the message. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Why would we semi it? I don't see any assertions of abuse.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BW, I assume you're under the mistaken impression that some kind of disruption was going on. If I'm wrong - if your first instinct upon seeing a group of new editors trying to improve an article was to suggest a way of preventing them from doing so - then perhaps a refresher on the founding principles of the project is in order. But I'm hopeful that my first guess is correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)\

There's no agenda that I can see - i.e. they're not focusing 20-some-odd new editors on ruining the article - so I see no need to semi-protect the article. It's only prohibited meat-puppetry if the new accounts edit with one goal or agenda in mind, or if they're following marching orders from an instructor (i.e. make sure that article says this). I'll watchlist, but the most we should be doing is offering guidance to the new users as necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a Welcome Template but i am a little concerned at the number SPA that have edited over the last year or so [49] Does any one else think its odd to have so many SPAs created for this article frequently? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is at least unusual, I haver never seen it before, but the end result seems fine, so , let it be, keep an eye on it as you would any article with out of the ordinary traffic and associated account creation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Flo, Ultra, Resident, Off2. These are just the sorts of next-generation wikipedians we should be encouraging, not "protecting" the project from.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Distortion, heavy POV-pushing, and wild edits by JCAla

Resolved

 – Both users blocked 48 hours for edit warring. –MuZemike 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

JCAla (talk · contribs) is damaging several articles by placing nonsense. [50], [51] He writes about Northern Alliance ... "The organization united various ethnic groups of Afghanistan fighting against the Pakistani invasion of Afghanistan through the Afghan Taliban... When the Taliban took power in Kabul in 1996 with the help of Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia..." The sources he cited do not support his wild claims at all. His actions are diruptive to Wikipedia and very annyoing for those who are serious about making articles look good, I think JCAla is just trying to stir trouble in Wikipedia. My instinct tells me that he may be used as a sock account by User:Tajik who blamed me for distoring info when in fact I'm using the strongest sources for all my edits, I'm quoting The World Factbook, Library of Congress Country Studies, Britannica, Iranica, USAID official website, etc.

• User:Tajik: "I have tagged a section of the article after it was distorted by User:Jrkso...
• User:JCAla: "rvv Jrkso's distortion and POV-pushing"

Both of these users share similar biased views on the history of Afghanistan, trying to make Afghanistan some how a province of Iran. [52] Everytime JCAla finds the chance he completely reverts my edits, he was blocked in September for edit-warring but continues to do it again. He just did 4 reverts in a row. [53], [54], [55], [56]--Jrkso (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified this user about this thread as you are clearly required to do? Basket of Puppies 04:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have, he usually deletes everything from his talk page.--Jrkso (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Next step- have you sought dispute resolution for this content dispute? Basket of Puppies 05:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was also done but no results. He just wants to write nonsense in articles and if you try to correct it he reverts. He is basically making Ahmad Shah Massoud and his Northern Alliance warriors as the good guys and everyone else the bad guys. Let me give you just one example, Steve Coll (Ghost Wars) states:[57]

“ During the late 1980s and early 1990s, as allies battling Soviet occupation forces and their Afghan communist proxies, the CIA had pumped cash stipends as high as $200,000 a month to Massoud and his Islamic guerrilla organization, along with weapons and other supplies. Between 1989 and 1991, Schroen had personally delivered some of the cash. ”

JCAla disagrees with this so he removes it completely [58] and writes in the Wikipedia articla that Massoud and his men didn't receive any outside funds or help, and if you try to replace this info he reverts. All of JCAla's edits are of that nature, trying to defend a group of people that he probably is a member of. The Taliban part of the Afghan history is well documented since they made headlines around and JCAla is calls that in his edits "Pakistani invasion".--Jrkso (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We have talked this over and over again. Jrkso is editing to mislead on the history of Afghanistan. His accusations are bizarre. People want to make Afghanistan a province of Iran?? Huh?? I have backed up all my edits with very good sources, most of them being of academic nature or from Human Rights Watch, etc. See this page for all the sources (+ page numbers) I provided (which prove everything I put on wikipedia) and show the history of this discussion. Jrkso has erased nearly everything I wrote and replaced it with some kind of subtle pro-Taliban history distortion of his own which does not correspont with reality however. He i. e. erased any information relating to the involvement of Pakistan in the 1992-2001 period. Jrkso has an agenda and starts an edit war (for which he has been blocked twice[59] and reported by different users[60]) with everyone who does not agree with him.[61][62] You can also see this by checking out the edit history of the Afghanistan article over a period of months .

The stuff he mentions above about Afghan resistance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud receiving foreign aid during the Soviet War is a perfect (if only of minor importance) example for Jrkso's misleading nature.

I wrote in the Soviet War part [63]:

"The U.S. handled most of its support through Pakistan's ISI. Saudi Arabia was also providing financial support. Leaders such as Ahmad Shah Massoud received only minor aid compared to Hekmatyar and some of the other parties, although Massoud was named the "Afghan who won the cold war" by the Wall Street Journal.

The 10-year Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of between 600,000 and two million Afghans, mostly civilians. Faced with mounting international pressure and great number of casualties on both sides, the Soviets withdrew in 1989."

This is short and perfectly correct.

Jrkso keeps erasing it with the following version [64]:

"The U.S. handled most of its support through Pakistan's ISI. Saudi Arabia was also providing financial support. Leaders such as Ahmad Shah Massoud received $200,000 a month, along with weapons and other supplies. "During the late 1980s and early 1990s, as allies battling Soviet occupation forces and their Afghan communist proxies, the CIA had pumped cash stipends as high as $200,000 a month to Massoud and his Islamic guerrilla organization, along with weapons and other supplies. Between 1989 and 1991, Schroen had personally delivered some of the cash." Faced with mounting international pressure and great number of casualties on both sides, the Soviets withdrew in 1989. ...

Massoud was named the "Afghan who won the cold war" by Charlie Rose on March 26, 2001, but Bruce Richardson stated that "Massoud sometimes used to stage sham skirmishes with the Russians to put off chances of suspicions about his activities among other Mujahideen groups."

The first of the above information provided by Jrkso is taken out of context and creates the false impression to the unknowing reader that Massoud was THE recipient of foreign aid - which is perfectly false. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia spent up to $40 billionin the war, quoting the very minor (maybe even less than 1%) that Massoud received creates a very misleading picture. See the following sources who back up my claims. Steve Coll, the 2005 Pulitzer Prize winner for general non-fiction for his book "Ghost Wars" (who is quoted and put out of context by Jrkso) writes also the following in "Ghost Wars" see here, which I put on the Afghanistan article but Jrkso erased:

"In their dim meeting room, Schroen handed Massoud a piece of paper. It showed an estimate of just more than two thousand missiles provided by the CIA to Afghan fighters during the jihad. Massoud looked at the figure. "Do you know how many of those missiles I received?" He wrote a number on the paper and showed it to Schroen. In a very neat hand Massoud had written "8." "That was all," Massoud declared, "and only at the end of the fight against the communist regime."

Later, after Schroen reported his conversations by cable to several departments at headquarters, the CIA determined that Massoud was correct . It seemed incredible to some who had lived through the anti-Soviet Afghan War that Massoud could have received so few. He had been one of the war's fiercest commanders. Yet for complicated reasons, Pakistan's intelligence service, the CIA's partner in supplying the anti-Soviet rebels, distrusted Massoud and tried continually to undermine him. Massoud also had shaky relations with the Islamist political party that helped channel supplies to him. As a result, when the war's most important weapon system had been distributed to Afghan commanders, Massoud had received less than 1 percent, and this only

at the very end of the conflict, in 1991."

— Steve Coll, Ghost Wars

Also see the following video where experts like Edmund McWilliams (former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan), Professor Tom Johnson (Afghanistan expert U.S. Naval Post Graduate School), Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH, ret.) and other experts also prove my point.

His claims about Charlie Rose are simply false. Massoud was named the Afghan who won the cold war by the Wall Street Journal (just as I wrote which he changed). See this video at 40:40 ff. for proof. Charlie Rose is just one source that mentioned this fact about the Wall Street Journal. Jrkso knows that the Wall Street Journal has more weight than one person that is why he blatantly keeps restoring that it was a single individual who called Massoud "the Afghan who won the cold war" and not the heavily accredited WSJ. Also, the stuff about "skam skirmishes" will provoke a hard laugh from every Afghanistan expert and the organization (RAWA) who puts these kind of things on the internet (although providing valuable humanitarian help) is not to be considered a reliable source since they are extremely politicized in nature and pushing a specific agenda with systematic smear campaigns.

These are minor examples, but Jrkso in this subtle manner keeps destroying the article's credibility also on more important points of Afghan history.

Here Jrkso disputed the involvement of Pakistan in Afghanistan although the George Washington University was provided as a source among others. But Jrkso is not interested in sources since he has an agenda. I am sorry that he keeps bothering everyone here. I won't have much time in the next two weeks - so Jrkso will probably restore his misleading edits and make a lot of bizarre accusations here - but I will get back to this issue afterwards. - JCAla (talk) 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked you nicely many times not to remove the tags, they are suppose to stay there until the discussions are over but you continue to ignore this and remove the tags [65], this action of yours alone qualifies to get you blocked. I told you over and over many times that the Afghanistan#History suppose to be as short as possible but you're making it too long by adding excessive nonsense information on one particular topic, all of which is presented in details in the main articles.

Saudi Arabia, British, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, United States, and others were involved in Afghanistan's politics since the state was created in the early 1700s and I didn't deny any of that but that doesn't mean we make a whole section for this nonsense. I think everyone is convinced that these nations have used Afghans to fight one another for their own cause. My point is who cares if Pakistan helped the Taliban? There is no secret, all U.S. leaders and top officials know this already, including the rest of the world for that matter. Wikipedia doesn't support one group over another. Iran, India, France, Russia, China, and USA were helping the Northern Alliance, but again who cares? This sort of info should only be mentioned once but not repeating it everywhere as what you're doing. One day you'll look back to this and laugh at your self.

The action I took on your edits was to re-write the sections in proper encyclopedic way and use only what's important and remove unsourced POVs. Wikipedia is not a blog where you want to write your own personal thoughts. Now you're trying to call me a pro-Taliban, you wouldn't consider that if you saw me in person. If you are thinking that what you write will create mass publicity, you're clearly at the wrong place for that. I don't understand why you created 3 separate articles for the Afghan civil war?

• Civil war in Afghanistan (1989-1992)
• Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996)
• Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001)

It shows that you have no idea what you're doing. One last note, Afghanistan is the last poorest nation on earth with very violent history, this is why nobody even bothers to edit it because people have much more important things to be busy with. I'm the only one who takes time to improve the page during my spare time. I have done alot of good work to it. In other words, your politically motivated edits are not read by anybody but you and you're just wasting time with this here. Find another hobby.--Jrkso (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a review of an IP block

I'd just like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the following please.

I believe that despite being reverted, the edits (a few examples: [66][67][68]) have all been made in good faith, and are just POV - whereas Kintetsubuffalo has gone in all guns blazing[69] and given a level 4 warning, and reported the user to AIV[70] claiming it to be a vandalism only account, despite this edit: [71], and I don't see how this is vandalism[72] either. I also acknowledge that the IP blanked the page, removing a previous comment about cruft.[73]

The IP editor asked for advice here:[74] and got the following from Kintetsu:[75] - which was subsequently commented upon by SoV[76] to which Kintetsu was entirely unrepentent.

My thoughts are that both Kintetsu and the IP are equal parties in this, and I think it's unfair that the IP has been banned for nothing more than unsourced good faith edits, whilst Kintetsu makes a personal attack with the crap edits remark, and merely gets an informal "Watch it".

The blocking editor has said that he didn't check Kintetu's edits before blocking the IP, and would welcome another opinion[77], so here I am asking away, as I think his decision might have been different had he checked all diffs - including Kintetsu's, not just those of the IP.

All editors informed - IP, TNX, Kintetsu & (just to be sure) SoV.

a_man_alone (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The block of 76.19.251.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was correct. Their contributions are unhelpful and disruptive. Kintetsubuffalo should have pursued a less WP:BITE-y approach (though I am sure I have been guilty of similar curtness in the past...) and the "crap" was absolutely unneeded. Vulgarity demeans those who use it, not those at which it is aimed at, but should still be avoided. Nonetheless, as an isolated incident, it does not warrant a block of Kintetsubuffalo.  Sandstein  08:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block of Kintetsu, I'm just querying whether the block of the IP was justified at that stage, given Kintetsu's own contributions to the fire. I'm asking that the ban on the IP is lifted - should have perhaps made that clearer first time round. a_man_alone (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Everybody's actions are, or ought to be, judged on their own merits only. If a contributor is disruptive in response to somebody else's disruption, that does not exonerate or excuse them. If and when the IP convinces us that they understand how their edits are unhelpful, they should be unblocked. Kintetsubuffalo does not enter that picture at all.  Sandstein  09:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes he does - by your own words: "If a contributor is disruptive in response to somebody else's disruption, that does not exonerate or excuse them." Kintetsu was rude and insulting to the IP as a result of losing his patience with the IP editor. And I maintain that the ip wasn't given enough of a chance to understand what the problem was before being blocked. a_man_alone (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree here w/Sandstein.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP in question is posting stuff that looks like original research; claims "vandalism" when it gets zapped; and can't spell English words properly, so any entries will require some kind of correction anyway, even if they're factually valid, which is debatable. Also, the block is nearly over; but we can probably look forward to a lengthier one sometime in the near future unless the IP changes its approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Kintetsubuffalo was simply angry that his own personal experience and original reseach involving uniform fetish didn't jive with Wikipedia. He then proceeded to take down any of my edits and undo them, not because they were bad, but simply because “I” had made them. Looking through his edits (which anyone who is interested can also do) I’ve noticed I’m not the first person subjected to his abusive behavior. I’m not requesting anything particular to be done him; I just wanted to make sure the community was aware of it. There are far too many editors like this, making editing harder for the community. If Kintetsubuffalo would just chance his approach rather then blame anything that he doesn't like as "vandalism" that would be a significant improvement. 76.19.251.152 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove Inka 888 from twinkleBlacklist?

Resolved

 – Removed from blacklist. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A while back Inka 888 was added to the twinkle blacklist for misuse and a high level of incompetence. Since then Inka has made huge progress with the help of mentor Intelati (talk · contribs) and a few talk page stalkers, myself included. So I'm proposing that Inka be removed from the blacklist. Let's see what everyone thinks. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would Say Inka has made incredible progress, and has just a short mentoring term left. As his mentor I would say let him get acquainted with Huggle and rollback for one week, then on 10/25/2010 UTC time, remove his name from the blacklist. This is to alliviate any overload of "New things".--Talktome^(Intelati) 04:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look at his edits since he started using Huggle on the 17th and it seems he has been doing a good job, no mistakes. I do believe, though, that Inka already has TWINKLE with this edit, which could possibly be a go around of the blacklist or him using Friendly (since it is being merged with TWINKLE). In the last three days, this is the only instance of TWINKLE use, so I am guessing (and hoping) that it is Friendly use.

Otherwise, I do believe the wait to get "acquainted" with Huggle and rollback should wait a month. I also believe that mentorship should not end at a specified time, but should be until Intelati feels Inka is ready. When I was under mentorship, it didn't end for almost 6 months. We don't want Inka slipping back into old habits. I also feel that once mentorship does end, Intelati and others should check in periodically to see how Inka is doing, check for mistakes, problems, make comments, even give barnstars if needed. My mentor still does that with me from time to time, but not as often as before. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For your pondering: When I read this, I checked the blacklist. A large number of the people there are no longer active at all. Some have not edited for over a year, others seem to have retired. We might want to reorder the list so that the active users show up first, as the line goes on for a while. That or cull the list of the inactive users. Either way it was very hard to read down the full list. Then again my screen isn't that large, but still. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Per above, the full list. I suggest in the future that new additions are added at the beginning, rather than the end, of the list, at the very least.

Blacklisted users

"Dilip rajeev", active "Jackmantas", last seen Aug 08 "Flaming Grunt", last seen May 09 "Catterick", indef blocked Aug 09 "44 sweet", last seen Aug 09 "Sarangsaras", indef blocked Sept 09 "WebHamster", indef blocked Nov 09 "Radiopathy", active "Nezzadar", last seen Dec 09 "Darrenhusted", active "Notpietru", last seen Mar 10 "Arthur Rubin", active "Wuhwuzdat", active "MikeWazowski", active "Lefty101", last seen May 10 "Bender176", indef blocked Jun 10 "Tej smiles", possibly active "Bigvernie", possibly active "TK-CP", active "NovaSkola", active "Inka 888", subject of this ANI "Polaron", active "SluggoOne" possibly active

Sven Manguard _Talk 07:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw shucks Sven, now you have to advise every single editor in that list that you have mentioned them at ANI ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's necessary. We aren't discussing them, only the list they are on. If we go into their individual merits, then it will become necessary to tell them. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Back on point -

Unless memory fails me, I believe I'm the admin who implemented putting Inka 888 on the blacklist; I am perfectly fine with taking them off if those who have been mentoring and advising feel that they're being helpful now. We could always return them to it if there turns out to be a problem, and I don't see any reason to believe Inka is operating in bad faith here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll stick my head out and agree with GWH. I'd be for allowing Inka 888 a second chance on Twinkle. I mean, the worst-case scenario is that we blacklist him again. Other thoughts? –MuZemike 19:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Shoplifter

User:Shoplifter notified[78]

User:Shoplifter persists on reverting reliably sourced information on Preemptive war because he objects to the content. I tried discussing the matter with him on the Talk page [79] but he refuses to engage and simply reverts. He has already done it three times.

• here
• here
• here

On the last two occasions, he utilized an IP geolocating to Sweden. When I previously challenged him as to his usage of IPs, he admitted that it was him and he uses both his user name (Shoplifter) and IP to edit. [80]

These are the sources that he continues to revert:

• Vytautas Kacerauskis, Can a member of The United Nations unilaterally decide to use preemptive force against another state without violating the UN charter? International Journal of Baltic Law Volume 2, No. 1 (January, 2005) ISSN 1648-9349.
• Professor of International Law, Anthony Amato Israel's Air Strike Against The Osiraq Reactor: A Retrospective 10 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 259 (1996) Code A961
• Clifford D. May, Can Sanctions Cripple Iran?, National Review, 1 October 2009
• United Nations Security Council Resolution S-RES-487(1981) on 19 June 1981 (retrieved 2007-08-10)

I have also added additional sources in the Talk Page including The Osirak option (New York Times) and Congressional Record but he still refuses to discuss and chooses instead to engage in tendentious reverts. These sources clearly comply with WP:RS and WP:V. I am at a loss as to how to proceed as this user clearly has no interest in discussion. I am asking that User:Shoplifter be blocked or article banned or both for tendentious reverts, refusing to engage in the Discussion Page per WP:BRD and using multiple IPs to evade 3R and/or charges of edit warring. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm un-hatting the above section. There is no reason to hat it; ANI threads typically get this long, or longer, and hiding the discussion has no real purpose. It doesn't allow others to easily skim through things without unnecessarily making them click.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Self-reverted now that I see the creator of the reply hatted it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Heymid, User:AIK IF 2010

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

AIK IF 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Five days ago I blocked Heymid for seven days: the block should have less that 48 hours to run. However, just now Favonian (talk) asked me if Heymid was socking. It sure looked that way to me, and Favonian has indef-ed AIK IF 2000 as a sock-puppet of Heymid.

What is to be done with Heymid? I don't trust myself with resetting Heymid's block - I had felt Heymid was making progress, and I feel really let down. So... throwing it open to the community.

I'll let all parties know straight after posting this. TFOWR 22:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have followed this sad case from the sideline. I'm afraid we must conclude that Heymid just doesn't get it and an indef block is called for. Favonian (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

At least, even by sock standards, he isn't very smart. He might as well have called his sock "Heymid#2"... HalfShadow 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Sorry to say it, but I concur with Favonian. —DoRD (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this drama for a few months, and I must sadly agree with Favonian. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're certain enough it is him, right? I've seen a few banned users pretend to be socks of other users in order to get them in further trouble. HalfShadow 23:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) WikiChecker seems down right now, but I have to say that the time this occurred is starting to trouble me: it's just barely consistent with what I know of Heymid's timezone (UTC+2) and edit habits. Is it worth getting a checkuser to confirm before we make a huge mistake? TFOWR 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying, I've personally seen false-socking done at least three times. It may or may not be worth the effort, but it can't hurt to check. HalfShadow 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We have 48 hours before the change to make an indef makes any difference, so I don't see any cause to undo my block yet.—Kww(talk) 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Better safe than sorry, so yes: let's request a CU. Speaking of timezones, I'm in the same one as Heymid. Goodnight! Favonian (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's noted that the sock was named after Heymid's 7th most edited article, AIK IF. Not a good way to not get caught... Doc talk 23:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indefed. If he protests and someone wants to run a checkuser, that's fine by me. Heat to light ratio with this editor has never been good, and I don't see any loss in losing him.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think an indef block is too far, yes he did the most obvious sock violation I ever seen, but I think one last chance would be good. If he violates his terms, he could just be reblocked indef. I could tutor him. Thanks Secret ^account 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Indefinite"<>"infinite". If you can come to some form of reasonable mentorship/tutoring agreement with him, I wouldn't object.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Checkuser requested. TFOWR 23:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Checkuser completed. TFOWR 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be surprised if this is the false flag sockmaster, so I would definitely suggest a CU take a look. –xeno^talk 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

CU says it is likely that it is Heymid. The thing with Heymid is that he causes problems without even trying and shows a distinct lack of clue, so this is hardly a shock. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I never would've figured they were savvy enough to use proxies, so I'm still not entirely convinced. Anyhow, I've allowed the talk page access since there has been a length and rationale change on his block. –xeno^talk 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, you have to admit, it looked too obvious. Generally a socker isn't that...incompetent. HalfShadow 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a surprising number are. People ask how I detect some of them so easily, and the only answer I can give is that they really don't seem to have a clue as to how to cover their tracks. The ones that do generally never get blocked.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite often the case that (at least at first) the sock names are very easy to spot, e.g. User:Newcastleunitedfan at first socked with User:Newunited. Fram (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we please show Heymid the door? Too much disruption for too long, no clue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A "from the sidelines" opinion, been watching Heymid for a while and his behaviour has basically gone like this: do something silly -> get told off -> sort of say sorry, but wording suggest he thinks he actually did ok -> promises to not do it again -> X days pass -> do it again. This has been repeated numerous times, with a little DIDNTHEARTHAT thrown in on top. I think this is a WP:COMPETENCE failure. I mean, he's a nice enough guy (I suspect he is relatively young, which accounts for a lot of the interaction problems) but seems unable to understand the words "Heymid, just go edit articles for a few months". --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note that Heymid has now left a slightly less than civil request on his talk page to close this thread and mark User:AIK IF 2010 as "impersonating" him instead of being his sockpuppet, though from what I see of this thread and the SPI, it seems that he's trying too late to cover his attempt at sockpuppetry rather than accepting that he shouldn't have done it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've struck part of my comment above since it seems the checkuser result changed from likely to possible after I left it, and there are some fairly legitimate concerns that this may be the "false flag" vandal. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd be surprised if AIK IF 2010 (talk · contribs) was a sock of Heymid. I agree firstly with what xeno says above: I wouldn't have thought that Heymid would be savvy enough to make use of an open proxy. There also doesn't seem to be motivation for it, considering that at the point when AIK IF 2010 was registered Heymid could just have created a new account via his own IP address. Using an open proxy is standard procedure for someone who wishes to impersonate another user, since it makes any technical links ambiguous, and we therefore have to rely on the behavioral evidence. The behavioral evidence in this particular case, is, frankly, trying way too hard. Kww mentions above that the socks that we catch are often obvious, which is true, but this is off the scale. Heymid even pointed out himself that the account was quacking much too loudly to be a natural duck; he's clearly aware how obvious the link appears, why would he have made it that obvious in the first place?
To speak plainly, I imagine that there are plenty of people who would get a kick out of getting Heymid indefinitely blocked by impersonating him as a sock.
I am aware that there has been a pattern of disruption from Heymid in the past, and if I'm honest I've often found myself muttering in favour of a block. However, although I'm 100% aware that there are users who find the accusation of sock-puppetry credible, I'm worried that the suspicion of socking is being used as a cover reason for getting rid of a user who many find annoying, this seems to be realized in some of the comments above.
Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. While I do not think an indefinite block is unwarranted ( I have previously called for one), it should not come as a result of this incident. The suspected sock was trying way too hard. decltype (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Spitfire. Since there's only less than a day left on the original block, IMO we should simply unblock him now. T. Canens (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that the CU was, from a technical perspective, inconclusive. There is no technical evidence tying those two accounts together. Adding behavior, the apparently blatant socking through an open proxy, either Heymid is playing a game with us or someone else is by trying to get him into trouble. In this particular case I find the latter much more probable. Amalthea 08:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If this were Heymid, we have to believe that (a) Heymid is daft enough to do this, and (b) smart enough to use proxies. I can't reconcile that. I noted above that the time this occurred seems a little off - throughout this Heymid has been in pretty regular contact with me via email (moaning about the block length, etc...) and I've also now had a chance to check Heymid's editing times. AIK IF 2010 was editing right at the extreme range of Heymid's editing times. I'm not comfortable leaving Heymid indef-ed for socking. If we want to discuss an indefinite block for competence, or whatever, let's do that. But we should sort this current block out and give Heymid the chance to participate. TFOWR 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on comments above with regards to inconclusive checkuser findings, I've reduced the original block to 'time served' and Heymid (talk · contribs) is now unblocked. Heymid is reminded that he had run out of chances even before this incident; and should focus on improving the mainspace, and stay away from the meta locations as much as possible. –xeno^talk 13:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR I do think he is daft enough to do that. He said he had work he would have to do if he was blocked. Updating stats for his favourite team seems to be exactly the kind of thing he was talking about. As for smart enough to use proxies, that is extremely easy to do since there are hundreds of webpages out there that tell you how or even do it for you. It's definitely possible its not him. But its not as impossible as you make it sound. All past knowledge of him does point to it being him. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I also do not think he is unknowledgeable about what an open proxy is either (he has demonstrated the ability to learn/pickup information quickly). I don't disagree with the unblock, but I think rather than being unlikely the connection is simply inconclusive. Another question is who would want to impersonate Heymid. I mean, I know he has annoyed people here but no one seems to have hounded or followed him before this. With that said; a very last chance is always preferable. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a troll who impersonates users who are already in a bit of hot water, in an attempt to make things worse. Whether this was the case here or not - we don't know - but blocking this user indefinitely on purely circumstantial evidence leaves me uncomfortable. –xeno^talk 13:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

@Djsasso: oh, I'm damn certain he's daft enough to make that edit - my point was purely about proxies. I'll defer to your knowledge in that area, however. TFOWR 13:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Further indication that the AIK IF 2010 was not Heymid: whenever Heymid (talk · contribs) updates Template:2010–11 Elitserien standings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), he updates the order of entries for relegation, etc. - AIK IF 2010 (talk · contribs) did not do this. –xeno^talk 13:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I offered to mentor Heymid with a strict warning. I do hope he accepts. Secret ^account 01:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok he accepted my mentoring. Secret ^account 17:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Likely" on the basis of a User Agent????

The magic eight ball returned a "likely" because they had similar useragents. I know a few things about user agents. In fact I've studied them rather intensely because I used to need to know what they meant. About half the time they are as generic as can be. I don't know what HeyMid and AIK's useragents look like, but unless there was something very distinctive (i.e. "FunWebProducts"; an old version of Windows; WOW toolbar) about them, I would be very hesitant to use that as the basis of my "likely" result. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 06:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The result was reviewed and changed to possible; there's significant concern that this is the "false flag" vandal. I agree that finding it likely based on "similar" user agents is odd, as generally if they're not identical, they're probably different computers (otherwise it represents an intentional attempt to mask it, and it could have been done far better). The fact that a proxy was used also means that the checkuser results are probably going to be less valuable than the behavioural evidence. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Anytime you update FF, your useragent changes. Different browsers generate different user agents as well. UserAgents are flaky little critters.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 06:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but the point is unless it was a highly unusual user agent, it doesn't signify much. I'd think the chances are fairly good that the user and whoever may be looking to cause more trouble are both using a fairly recent version of firefox; it may be a little more significant if they're both using Opera 2.1, for example. Naturally this is the sort of information restricted to checkusers, and I'd guess that the re-evaluation from likely to possible was based on the similarity in user agents not being particularly persuasive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me intercede that I may have made a judgment error there, in which Amalthea should have clarified in the above thread. The problem with open proxies is that you will never get a confirmation on location as they are all over the place. When I made the initial check, I did not place into account Heymid's behavior or the likelihood that he would have used a proxy (for which I am told is very low). –MuZemike 12:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the information stored. My useragent's fingerprint (Firefox) is unique among several hundred thousand tested at EFF. Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich, that is true... but I doubt WP stores all the extra information that is used to make it unique (i.e. the extra stuff). When they say "user agent" they really just mean the short user agent string identifying the browser, which is quite common to many computers, as provided by PHP's $_SERVER array. (BTW, since his unblock and my new knowledge of this impersonator I feel it is clear now that AK was not a sock of Heymid) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) panopticlick.eff.org? They're up to 1,230,357 now, apparently. And my useragent is also unique - I don't know whether I should be concerned that I'm leaking identifying data to t'intarwebs, or reassured that impersonating me is difficult... TFOWR 18:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Block 217.42.172.203

Resolved

 – Blocked by Materialscientist. ~ mazca ^talk 11:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please temporarily block this IP? He's just posting warning msgs randomly. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:AIV a better place to report this? With a note that this user is randomly posting warning templates? Just curious. Telco (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the same outcome would have occurred if it had been reported there. As it is, though, this was slightly outside the area of normal vandalism so an ANI report also seems perfectly reasonable, particularly given that the reporter was the one being accused of "vandalism" by the IP. Either would have been a valid choice. ~ mazca ^talk 11:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Telco (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and usage of abusive language

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.

---

First, User:YellowMonkey removes content from an article and cleverly disguises it in the edit summary. He then reverts my attempts to improve a related article without giving any explanation. On being told to explain his reverts and removal of content, he ends up calling me a "retarded nationalist". Rest is for administrators to conclude and decide. --King Zebu (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was hidden or disguised in that edit summary. The second diff was rightly reverted; you wrote in an unsupported opinion stating that things had 'gone smoothly.' The actual epithet he used is unacceptable, period. But so are your edits, which are indistinguishable from edits with a pro-nationalistic bias. YellowMonkey is indeed completely correct that at every sporting event worldwide if someone is giving a speech at the closing they will praise it as some variant of "Perfect, the best event ever." It's practically in the contract that they must do so, and of about as much use as any politician's statements in such circumstances are. It would be a really good idea for people to be more careful about their posts on ANI reflecting reality. → ROUX ₪ 07:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not an admin but did you show the wrong diff? The first diff doesn't show any removal of content but moving it around, which is reflected in the edit summary. While this isn't the place to mediate content disputes, I note that the article previously including several sentences in the WP:LEDE on the closing ceremony but none in the article, which is rather bad considering the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article. I haven't looked in to the other diffs since I think we need to clarify where this removal of content occured first your first diff doesn't show any. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: It should be noted that he didn't call you a "retarded nationalist", he called the speaker of the quote he removed a "retarded nationalist". Admitedly, not the best thing to call anyone, but the comment does not appear directed at you, rather at the person who called the games "truly exceptional". --Jayron32 07:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, looked to me like it was directed at Zebu. Has YellowMonkey been notified?→ ROUX ₪ 07:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He hadn't, so I did so here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He was actually. Look at the section above yours.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just skimmed for words like "ANI" as a header before placing the notice. My goof. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no difference between the two, merely placement (see here; I copied the two passages into a sandbox to compare). This is why I said that users should be more careful to ensure that postings to ANI be reflective of reality, and not for example editorialize on diffs when simply looking at the diff proves the editorializing is wrong. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is some confusion here, I guess. Just to clarify -- in this edit, YellowMonkey removed the quote by the president of the CGF. He didn't specifically mention the removal of the quotation and hence the "cleverly disguised" remark. Secondly, in this revert, YellowMonkey reverted my attempts to reorganize the article, to specifically state that certain information were allegations and should not be stated as facts, and to remove certain content which was not supported by the given citations. I gave detailed explanation for my edits in the edit summaries. And that "retarded nationalist" remark was obviously directed at me. --King Zebu (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the "truly exceptional" quote, it's not removed in that diff. It's down at the bottom. Also - accusing someone of "cleverly disguising" content removal is very uncivil. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done if it's a true bill, but if it turns out to be an error, then a retraction and apology is due. More to the point, it puts the "retarded nationalist" comment in context, if indeed it was directed at Zebu.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I think both me and Roux have compared the moved contents and found that they are the same. Roux's idea is a good one (I just compared the text side by side initially) and you can see the results here [81] showing that nothing is different between the contents moved around, not even one character. I copied the text that was moved around between reversions to the sandbox, the reason for the version 1 and version 2 is so the software will accept the different versions. (I see Roux also provided a link, sorry missed that.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "retarded nationalist", at first read through I thought it meant Zebu. Next time I thought it meant Fennell (author of the quote). Can YellowMonkey please clarify this?Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that even if it was referring to the author of the quote, it's still inappropriate per BLP. (It's also a rather strange comment since I'm not sure how or why the Jamaican head of the CGF is a retarded nationalist for calling the Delhi CG truly exceptional, something which YM him or herself acknowledges is somewhat expected of them.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that if it was directed at the editor, it's a pretty bad violation of WP:NPA and might be actionable. If it's merely about the author of the original quote, it's contra-WP:BLP and admonishment will be different. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Right at the top of this page under the navigational box, it says in bold: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Did you attempt to do so, King Zebu? This seems like unnecessary drama which could've been settled on his talk page, since as shown above there hasn't been any content actually removed. The issue here is the alleged BLP violation or personal attack. WP:Dispute resolution notes that ANI is not the first port of call. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see any issue with YellowMonkey's edits. The content removal charge doesn't appear to hold up. In the "reverts my attempts to improve" case, King Zebu appears to have replaced well sourced facts with numerous "alleged" qualifiers (amazing that someone could chuck a washing machine out of a window!), which is bold but then, once reverted, should go through a consensus seeking process on the article talk page. I suppose YM should explain 'retarded nationalist', or offer an apology if KZ wants one. That is unkind, but I don't see it as a grievous insult. except when hurled at an actual nationalist who happens to be retarded. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazing an administrator - editor allegedly calls an editor or a subject a retard nationalist and we see a rush to come to his defence. Also the administrator-editor has received a notice which he deletes but does not comment or answer issues directly. Why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark -- no matter how well placed a source is, an allegation is an allegation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore the concerned article should not state these allegations as facts. --King Zebu (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, when reverted, you should bring it up on the talk page and see if you can get consensus for those edits. I'm not eager to comment on whether the alleged qualifiers should be included in the article or not, this is not the forum for that, but, generally, when section headings include the word "Allegations" or "Alleged", I see that as a strong indication that either the section shouldn't be there in the first place or there is an attempt to water down the material. I suggest recourse to the talk page. IMO, I'd also ignore the retarded nationalist comment, unkind though it is, because, in isolation, it is not strong enough to be actionable. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, going through this edit again, I do realize that YM didn't actually remove the quotation but merely placed it elsewhere. And yes, perhaps my "cleverly disguised" comment was a bit uncivil but that in no way justifies the personal attack. Secondly, YM continues to revert my edits to the article blatantly without giving any explanation. Whether it be removal of inaccurate information or adding "alleged qualifiers" -- Gone! without any explanation. Thirdly, someone mentioned here that I should have raised the issue on YM's talkpage first before coming here. Two points come to mind -- A) Based on my previous experience, I know that any attempt to start a discussion with him would have gone in vain. B) The fact that he has not participated in this discussion yet underscores the validity of point A. Going through all the dispute resolution noticeboards, I guess Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts would be a more suitable noticeboard than this one (pardon me but this only the second time I have been involved in a major dispute and I'm not very well aware of the norms here). Anyways, seeing so many here rushing to defend YM even after he goes around showering insults on others is quite disappointing to say the least. The only thing I can take from here is this -- write a couple of featured articles, become an administrator and then you are free to -- A) Revert edits by other Wikipedians without providing any justification and B) Insult the minnows like me. --King Zebu (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of these people who are going after admins as a group the past twenty four hours ought to submit an RfA. Go on. It isn't hard. Just step down from the peanut gallery and put your record in front of the community. What we ought to have is a template, just an invitation to have an RfA. To be handed out when they lump all admins together when they complain about the claimed actions of a few. Jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I "lumped all administrators together" but the sad part is when some of the administrators chose to ignore the abusive language by those from their kindred while they are rather quick to take action against non-administrators. And frankly, raising an RfA against an administrator is also pretty much pointless because some of you will end up telling me to ignore the nationalist retard remark because it is not a "grievous insult". --King Zebu (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt meant that editors making blanket complaints about the admin corps should be met with a suggestion to undergo a Request for adminship themselves, not to issue a Request for comment on a particular admin. (At least that's how I understood it). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yellowmoney twice reverted inside 24 hours without even a mention or attempt to resolve the dispute on talk. Even if his revrts were right such incivility in what was in fact a desiguised edit summary as "nationalist editors" or whatever is certainly unnaceptable.

Im an uninvolved editor in this dispute, and have restored the changes pending attempts to discuss at Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games#reverts/edit war.Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch for Zebu on one point: Lack of communication. I have been trying to discuss my block which was for 2 weeks with Yellowmonkey for the past three weeks, but there has been no communication. Here too Yellowmonkey is absent. If it is not kosher to make common-cause like this, it is just because I am not aware of the rules. Another editor here made remarks that complaints should be made elsewhere against the said administrator, what for I wonder? So that the said administrator remains silent and others rush to defend him and try to run a steamroller over the complainant? There was a reference about some kind of group. The only group that Zebu and this editor belongs to is The brotherhood of those who have been run-over by Yellowmonkey. This editor has reminded those here that Yellowmonkey is an administrator who handed a two week block to an editor (see details here) User_talk:YellowMonkey#Blocked_editor_humbly_requests_explanations for pov, troll and taunting, and then Yellowmonkey allegedly abuses an editor (or the subject). So there is one set of rules for himself (Yellowmonkey) and another for others. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This there is room to discuss and rollback of admin privilege for abusing his authority. Where do we start this discussion?Lihaas (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been no abuse of admin rights here - YellowMonkey didn't inappropriately use the block or protection buttons. This is a content dispute - please follow appropriate dispute resolutions procedures; ANI isn't one of them. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling another editor a "retarded nationalist" in an edit summary is not on. I don't care how many featured articles someone has written. There should be no repeats. --JN466 02:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling a user "retarded nationalist" is a blatant WP:NPA violation. I don't get how it is abuse of admin tools (because any editor could of said something like that). I think if there is further abuse the adminship should be revoked. Inka888^ContribsTalk 02:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the last statement, Inka; adminship is not a prize or award and therefore should not be removed as a punitive measure for behavior not having to do with the abuse of administrative tools (an example of a better option would be blocking). Airplaneman ✈ 05:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) I really don't see much point in this discussion. King Zebu has two complaints. The first is the reversion by YM. The way I see it, King Zebu made some bold edits, YM reverted, so any discussion on the edits should now take place on the talk page of the article (WP:BRD). The second is about the "retarded nationalist" statement. That, as I say above, is unkind but not something to get totally upset about when it is an isolated comment. If there is a larger pattern of abuse toward King Zebu, then he/she should either take it to WP:WQA or create a request for comment on YM. The discussion here is a waste of time. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please close this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling pushing POV/COI

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.

---

Judith Reisman has been a highly contentious BLP page for a while. It came to my attention when the apparent subject vehemently objected to it's content [82]. In short, her work is about discrediting the work of Alfred Kinsey. I don't really have an opinion on any of this and came into this mess as an uninvolved admin who informed the editor how to contact the foundation, etc. I semi-protected the article and added it to my watchlist.

I recently saw some edits there which appeared to me to highly POV, some off-topic and some not supported by the sources; I reverted them. When I went to the talk page intending to discuss my removal of the content, I found a dumping of off-topic, highly POV, anti-kinsey articles by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs). I removed the off-topic material from the talk page and left LegitimateAndEvenCompelling a note about it being inappropriate. In doing so, I discovered that on User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, the user lists his website which is used as a platform for Judith Reisman who published this article on his/her website.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has objected to my removal of the inappropriate material and restored it.

It's clear that I've become involved here, but it's also clear to me that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has a very strong COI and an agenda that he/she is using Wikipedia to further. I'd like additional admin eyes on this please and I'd like to step away from it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, none of those links look at all relevant to a biography about Reisman, the first two for certain. The aim is probably to disparage Kinsey --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

Are you saying that the editor Legitimate etc... is Judith Reisman? Not having looked into the content, but a lot of Kinsey's research has been discredited (at least in the eyes of the academic mainstream). If these are people with an academic interest in the subject, that isn't neccessarily a bad thing. If the worst offense the editor made was putting a bunch of links you think are irrelevant on a talk page, doesn't seem much of an issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to be a crusader, and that usually spells trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I attempted to say. Thanks Bugs. Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My comments appear on my Talk page in response to Toddst1. Please read them as if fully included here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"If the worst offense the editor made was putting a bunch of links you think are irrelevant on a talk page, doesn't seem much of an issue." Exactly. Thanks, Bali ultimate --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue is that you are editing with a COI and an agenda. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to see some - any - evidence of that, Toddst1. Currently we have some dubious links on a talk page - not highly prolematic. I've checked only the most recent LAEC post to the article page, and it looks fine. If no evidence then storm, teacup. If evidence, then whole new ball game. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Note the POV the editor is trying to push here,[83] and note the stuff he cites on his own website. Clearly the editor is a crusader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having looked at it he's a crusader. Wikipedia is filled with roving organized gangs of crusaders that harm articles to a much greater extent, however. If it's really bad, make a list of the 5 or 10 worst edits. If they stink, then something might be done (this wouldn't be a case where there will be a bunch of admin protectors for the particular crusade, so you might get someone. Separate the week from the herd and all that).Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok:

1. bandwagon: [84] [85] [86]
2. supression of criticism: [87] [88]
3. additional dumping of anti-kinsey material:[89] with important quote: "I'll bet it corroborates at least some of the information on this Wiki or that should be on this Wiki."

That took about 2 minutes. Toddst1 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. Here's the actual quote: "I have not yet read these articles. Based on the titles, it appears a Kinsey victim is speaking out. If so, I'll bet it corroborates at least some of the information on this Wiki or that should be on this Wiki." Toddst1 left out the "If so" and the context. That is not fair. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Remembering the injunction at the top of this page "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.", it's just a shame the exercise was not done at 15:55. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My COI is about libraries as explained on my User page, not Kinsey. Reisman said something about libraries, but I promote none of her work regarding Kinsey, neither do I read it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Those links are normal editing and most are years old anyway. I'll bet if you go back over the years anyone would make similar edits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. One of those - [90] - looked a little worrying to me. But it was a year-old edit and might (or might not) on further investigation check out. Neither it nor posting whatever on the talk page in the last few days. Where's the casus belli for this AN/I listing? What resolution is being sought? Still looks a bit tea-cup-ish for this venue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about individual edits. Perhaps you can see a bigger picture from each of these edits. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1, you seriously misquoted me above to give the spin you wanted people to think. Please consider taking under advisement the comments of those who have commented substantively above. Please consider withdrawing your AN/I request. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I can be persuaded that LAEC has a POV, but not that there's any concern about it being pushed sufficient to be of interest in this venue. You asked for another opinion. You have that opinion. By all means ask for more opinions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The crusade continues [91] removing anything that may be perceived as diminishing her qualification. Toddst1 (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing a paragraph about her writing a Captain Kangaroo song from a 3 paragraph section is not a "crusade". It's good editing. Take a look at the underlying reference. It mentions the Kangaroo thing as an aside. For it to be cherry picked then placed so prominently on a Wiki page despite WP:UNDUE is possible POV. For it's removal to be called a "crusade" is definitely POV. And the complainer is the one who substantially misquoted me above to make a point.

Besides, writing songs or jingles is nothing to sneeze at. Song writing is not "perceived as diminishing her qualification", so the whole premise of Toddst1's claim is false. I have to wonder how he is able to read my mind to determine my perceptions. I suspect it is his own projection, his own demeaning of song writers or of children's television programming.

I wish Toddst1 would just edit instead of using procedural means or collapse templates to prevent editors from contributing. This new accusation by Toddst1 has nothing to do with his original reason for filing this AN/I. Further, I interpret Toddst1's comments on my Talk page to mean he admits he will not prevail in this AN/I. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick note about that particular edit, it may be a good edit, I have no skin in that game, but a paragraph removal shouldn't be marked WP:MINOR. In isolation, that's nowhere near an ANI issue, of course. But it does need to said that marking content removal as minor in direct contradiction to WP:MINOR is at best going to create unnecessary conflict, not resolve it. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have great respect for Baseball's views. But frankly I'm seeing a whole lot of smoke here, without much substance.

I think Bali hit it on the head. Probably most people who edit wikipedia have interests, and edit in those areas. That's fine. That's not a conflict of interest. That's not inappropriate POV/COI editing. The term COI is being used in what strikes me as a somewhat overblown manner. The diffs make the point eloquently.

For g-d's sake, we have (and have discussed recently) an editor stating on his user page: "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation" ... along with the Palestinian flag ... And his edits arguably align with a point of view (though, for obvious reasons, I would not call him a "crusader").

We let that stand. But we're going to jump up and down about this? Really, folks?? Speedy close.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, articles on military, religious, personal, and obscure subjects tend to bring editors who have strong views and/or are specialists. We can’t be driving away the specialists as some tend to know far more about the subject than 99.9 percent of the rest of us. Without the specialists, most of our articles would be stubs! Accompanying the “expert” or “specialist” is a “human”, which has biases and is prone to errors. The proper way to handle this is to demand citations from most-reliable sources and avoidance of POV-pushing via the undo weight that can come from cherry-picking sources. I suggest a healthy dose of “prove it—let’s see the citation” from both parties on the talk pages of the Judith Reisman and Alfred Kinsey. The best balance with these sort of articles will come when there is a tug-of-war between equally knowledgeable skilled editors, where both refrain from personal attacks and wikilawyering and simply fall back upon Wikipedia’s first principles and its rules and guidelines, and both parties demand adherence by the other to them. Greg L (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question is now edit-warring the Kinsey article to create a single one-sentence paragraph emphasizing this one author named Reisman.[92] Have fun, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. Our edits are perfectly legitimate even if wrong.

Here's the scoop. Saebvn adds Reisman to the Kinsey article. Baseball removes as undue weight. I restore saying a single sentence is not undue in this case. Steven reverts agreeing with Baseball. I revert to add it back in, this time adding a New York article saying "Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement" which I think, setting aside any bias whatsoever, means JR is worthy of being on the Kinsey page somewhere due to the WP:RS. Baseball reverts saying the New Yorker is known for its humor! I revert saying "Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement" is not funny.

That is not an edit war. That is an everyday content dispute. However, in the circumstance as must be considered by WP:RS, claims of undue and claims of the RS being sometimes humorous are not valid reasons to keep that simple sentence acknowledging "the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement" from being on the Kinsey page.

I have to say I have been patiently editing, supporting each move with Wiki policy, sometimes explicitly, and a string of people continue to act to promote their WP:SOAPBOX, like the effort to use the collapse template that failed, like this AN/I that is failing, like the false claims of an edit war, like the misquoting of me as I pointed out above. I have no and have shown no favoritism in either direction. I have a reliable source that I got from its already having been included in the article. I read that and it says "Judith Reisman is the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement". It's in a RS. Someone adds Reisman to the Kinsey page in a single sentence at the end of a long controversy section. Perfect placement. I add the ref to support the material. Someone please point out to me where I am showing POV in any way. I am not. It is in the RS and I just added that RS that was already previously in the article to a single sentence someone else added. I am doing my job as a fellow Wikipedian improving articles. I will continue to do so. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't even "create a single one-sentence paragraph emphasizing this one author named Reisman". Someone else did that. I just added a reference that was already used in the article in the past--indeed that's where I learned of it. So again someone is distorting the record to drive opinion his way. That is mistaken, and possibly dishonest given the circumstances. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that yet another editor has removed your one-line paragraph about this Reisman character. You had best cease your edit-warring, and confine your comments to the article talk page and try to get some consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And when I last checked, an hour or two ago, LAEC has indeed taken it to the talk page, so hopefully this issue will soon be resolved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done the right thing all along. It was not fair what was done to me. Collapse templates, this AN/I, a 3RR warning, the false statements and misquotes made about me, etc. Hopefully what will be resolved soon is that people stop thinking they own Wikipedia and can bully others with procedural alternatives to editing.

If I would a newbie, I would have been browbeaten into leaving the Wiki page as a few editors wanted it instead of how it should be. That is not right and not what Wikipedia supports. Indeed it appears consensus is building to add JR to the AF page.

Someone above has called for this AN/I to be closed. Please someone second the motion and close it. It is an unfair black cloud on me that was used to keep me from adding content that now appears will be added. So please close this AN/I so it garners no more false claims about my supposed edit warring, etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds, per Baseball's most recent post, that this is on the right track, and being discussed on the talk page--which seems like the appropriate forum. No need for parallel discussions. I second the motion that this be closed, but will leave it to someone else to do the honors.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Third the motion to close. Would do it myself, but I've commented above on a tangential but related point. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

banned user has never stopped using WP

Resolved

 – Underlying IP hardblocked. –MuZemike 16:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is my 2nd attempt to notify admins of the ongoing contributions of the banned user Rbj. Last time I did it as an anonymous IP number and nothing happened. Let's see if this works. The banned user's tone of voice is usually enough to give him away once you know his contribution profile. He is based in Masachussetts/Vermont and the Geolocate function can help with identification (though sometimes his work takes him interstate). Some recent contributions by him are listed here and here and here and here and here and here and here (a small sample).

I suggest you either un-ban this guy, so that we can all keep a better eye on him, or start policing your own ban. Maybe one solution is to restrict some of his favourite articles to subscribed users only. I don't know. It's your problem (you guys banned him) so you guys can sort it out. This is my last involvement with the issue. McZeus (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The community banned him. That means you too, User:Amphitryoniades. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.52.80 (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, I didn't ban him. If I had, I would have policed it. If you can't police a ban, don't impose one. As it turns out, I have now done a bit of policing in the case of Rbj but that's all I'll do (I no longer edit the kind of articles he likes to control). Now it's up to the admins to do something. On past performance that will be 0. Incidentally, yes I am Amphitryoniades and I was Lucretius and also Esseinrabusinanetamenfatearenecessest. Does that change anything? McZeus (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the admins would be more than happy to help if you would post here when you discover a sock of Rbj, or you could request a WP:SPI. Kcowolf (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What I would do if I were an admin:

1. Option 1: a) familiarize myself with Rbj's past record; b) monitor half a dozen of Rbj's favourite articles for edits by non-subscribing users; c) delete any edits that look like his; d) In future don't ban anybody unless I and my fellow admins have some idea about policing our own decisions;
2. Option 2: forget about Rbj and empower myself by banning somebody else;
3. Option 3: ban myself, disguize myself very cunningly as an anonymous IP number, and defy my own ban for the next three or more years, editing when, how and as I please, much to the annoyance of everyone else who follows the rules.

Fortunately, I'm not an admin and those decisions are out of my reach. McZeus (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I have hardblocked the underlying IP. –MuZemike 05:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that there are millions of articles on Wikipedia and only a few thousand admins, many of whom are inactive. It's simply impossible to stay on top of things like this without users bringing them to our attention. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Especially lower-traffic situations. As regards the shortage of admins... the need to survive a gauntlet of malcontents in order to become an admin, is no small factor in that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the creaking wheel that get's oiled and that particular banned user has been editing continually for three years after his ban was imposed, so some creaking was justified in this case, I think. You need to choose your targets carefully if you are short on numbers and really you can't afford to miss. Seems this time you might have got the bugger at last. Hopefully. McZeus (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally fishy. Help me out here.

Resolved

 – No further admin action needed at this time. Let an admin know if the other account starts editing so they can take action. –MuZemike 16:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

a) there is PatakaZikatuna (talk · contribs) who just vandalized an AfD page for the article Velle Baria
b) there is Vellbaria (talk · contribs) who has the same content as her userpage, and got autoblocked (Autoblock #2063232) because of PatakaZikatuna's vandalism, so the two are using the same IP, or at least range
c) PatakaZikatuna also edits Vellbaria's userpage
d) there is a subpage User:Hebrides/Vell Baria which PatakaZikatuna edited last month

WTF is going on here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hebrides' subpage is easily explained by the fact that it's a userfied version of a previous mainspace article, that was edited by Vellbaria before it was moved. As for the other two, it certainly looks like a potential pair of sockpuppets - but given that Vellbaria (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in quite a while I'd suggest we just wait and see if further disruption ensues. I can't exactly see that AfD closing as anything other than a delete. ~ mazca ^talk 11:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. So... do I have to go to SPI now? It's basically a mute point, the IPs are confirmed (>autoblock) and PatakaZikatuna's first edit was to Vellbaria's userpage. It just quacks too loudly... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not disputing that they're the same editor - and both will get blocked if further disruption happens. But unless I'm missing something, there is no abusive sockpuppetry here - since PatakaZikatuna (talk · contribs) was created, Vellbaria (talk · contribs) has not edited to any significant degree. Given that there's obvious autobiography going on here, I would make the assumption that the user decided to stop editing under their real name. My opinion is that we should just treat PatakaZikatuna as the current account in use, and block both if the disruption continues, or if any attempt to vote-stack occurs. ~ mazca ^talk 12:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Vallbaria asked to have the autoblock lifted as soon as PatakaZikatuna block took effect. So clearly, the person is using both accounts and maintains both in case one gets blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The one editor only admits to being a "fan" of the other. But if it can be verified that they are the same guy (which is not, by itself, a rules violation), then maybe those user pages could be labeled to indicate that fact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Claiming to be someone else is a violation, actually. See WP:SCRUTINY.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:86.177.248.165

Resolved

 – Block deemed appropriate. –MuZemike 16:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I have blocked this IP to stop disruption. They have been posting what appears to be a non-NPOV rant over several articles. As they have done no other editing the evidence can be foound in their contributions. I do not know if I have taken the correct action, so I have only blocked them for three hours. I am also considering rolling their edits back. If I have erred, please advise. Also, any admin that feels the block inappropriate may unblock without protest from me. Thanks for any input. Tiderolls 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely appropriate block. (Coulda been longer) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I would have no problem with a block extension either. I'll know in three hours if it's necessary. Tiderolls 13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I had already rolled back or undone all of the edits that others hadn't got to before noticing your block notice on their page. 3 hours didn't seem very long to me! Bigger digger (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

To add, they started off ok by adding unsourced info about a new film to Harry Hill, then they started their complaint against the UK's HMCS and the family courts, and the same contribution was copy and pasted to maybe 10 other articles all vaguely linked to family law, but including American activists and others. Bigger digger (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to send them off mad if they actually want to contribute constructively. They've yet to respond to several requests on their talk page, so I am not at all hopeful. We shall see. Tiderolls 13:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good block in all senses. And congratulations for attempting discourse instead of just spamming templates at them, as others may have done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Tide--I don't mean the block, but your behavior associated with it: the note on their talk page. BTW, I also think that the block could have been longer, but I am pleased to see you exercise restraint. I am sure you are saving your strength for tonight. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Disney's House of Mouse talk

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Disney's House of Mouse is regulary (began 30 January 2010 and more then 30 vandalism reverts) being vandalised with same type of content from different IPs, probably by same user. Is there a way to resolve it? Automated reverts by bot? or semi-automated? or some type of protection? --Kslotte (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected 3 months. There has not been a single constructive edit from any IP for much longer than that. –MuZemike 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request needs a review

Resolved

 – Reviewed, declined. → ROUX ₪ 22:03, 23 October 2010 (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.

---

Could some admin please review the unblock request at User talk:Jrkso? It has gone almost a day without review, and as the blocking admin I don't want to review it myself. Let me mention though that the editor deleted a comment I added to his talk page in response to the request. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

He deleted your comment so that the unblock review is "just and fair"? What? That's crazy. Does he seriously think that another admin would not want to here your opinion on the matter? Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 19:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he obviously has not a clue what he's doing. Instead of making wisecracks here, Theresa, go an review it - Do what Admins are suposed do do! You are not a teacher in charge of us all.  Giacomo  20:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he has not addressed the reasons that caused him to be blocked, so just let him know, I can do it if you want. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie's advisory comment [93] certainly seems reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed and declined on the basis of a lack of acknowledgement of the reasons why they were blocked - and I reviewed Looie496's comments in the edit history, which were useful - but without prejudice to another appeal addressing those concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• There, all it needed was as Admin to review without all the clever comment. Not so hard was it?  Giacomo  20:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • ["It's hard to take a round stone / And try to bounce or flip it / But if you find a flat stone / Then you might as well just...
  • SKIP IT!"]
    • Oh dear, have you a shaky hand?  Giacomo  22:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • More likely a weak wrist and an eye defect. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Is this actually resolved? He's put another review request on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 22:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed, and declined. -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Robert Moore

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 weeks 06:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Moore (talk · contribs)

Even after repeated requests to stop, this user insists on beginning paragraphs with "On X date, so-and-so announced that...". The date an announcement was made is irrelevant to the article (WP:NOTNEWS). He was asked to stop once and did not acknowledge it. I left a stern request a few weeks ago, which has also been ignored. He just edited a page simply to add the language he was specifically asked to avoid.

He has also been asked to format references the way the rest of the project does and has refused, he has been asked to leave edit summaries numerous times and refuses (not a huge deal but it does give an indication of his unwillingness to edit cooperatively). He has not responded to anyone regarding any of these as far as I can tell and it's becoming disruptive. Unfortunately it seems that a block is the only way to get through to this user. --Sable232 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks. As I noted on his talk page, I find it surprising he has gone this far playing "silent" while still editing the way he was. –MuZemike 06:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Revoke tpage access for User talk:78.147.178.0 please

Resolved

 – Tikiwont (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked 31h as vandal only, now using unblock requests to mess around. → ROUX ₪ 08:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – Blocked by Favonian. Special Cases ^{Spit out your comments} 10:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A legal threat by User:Hannafordfan came through the huggle filter on pages for protecton page. It said :I want to sue you. Thanks. Special Cases ^{Spit out your comments} 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not all it said: "Great thing about IP addresses is you can no longer hide behind an administrator user name. You wont like this, but your going to be named in a lawsuit, individually and on behalf of Wikipedia. Funny, I thought you were unavailable for 10-14 days." Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

...and repeated [94] and I reverted [95]  Chzz  ►  10:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. They will have to come up with a very polite retraction in order to get unblocked. Favonian (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrative disruption at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:History short

I'll make this as short and neutral as possible:

1. Would any administrator care to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:History short and implement the obvious consensus? If you believe there's a procedural issue with the nomination, you might also see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:.
2. If it happens that no administrator sees a consensus in that discussion, would any administrator please unprotect the page so that discussion might continue to a consensus?
3. Would anyone at all care to comment on the actions of the administrator who used the page-protection tool to cast and enforce a "supervote" in the discussion?

— Gavia immer (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

For contesting the closure of a deletion discussion, please use WP:DRV. This is exactly the sort of procedural issue to be discussed there. The protection of the deletion discussion will be moot after DRV. Since you do not seem to have attempted to discuss this issue with Ruslik0 before coming here, I do not see why we need to start a discussion about his page protection in this forum. I see nothing to do here for an administrator at this point.  Sandstein  18:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You have also not notified Ruslik0 about this request, as you are required to do (see this page's edit notice). Please do so at once.  Sandstein  18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Done now [96]. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not enforce any supervote. I only protected the page to prevent your from undoing the closure for the second time, which is contrary to policy. For the details see my answer on my talk page. Ruslik_Zero 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not be so hasty to call this process "disruptive" per se, but I will note that the excessive full protection of a miscellany for deletion discussion would probably be unwarranted and mistakenly viewed as an attempt to circumvent the normal seven-day step process for determining consensus in such discussions if closed so early. Furthermore, it brings pointless bureaucracy to have to have yet another discussion on the Mediawiki page when the MfD was clearly in favor of deleting said page, and that the top of the main MfD page allows for discussion of pages in the Mediawiki namespace to be brought to MfD. In any case, I believe that Ruslik0 (talk · contribs) should have discussed the protection and closure of the page on either the talkpage for the MfD or any of your respective usertalkpages; therefore I call for the MfD to be unprotected and reopened, and a link provided to this discussion at ANI on the page as a result (P.S. any administrator's early closure of a deletion discussion may be overturned, if one believes that all editors are equal and that an autoconfirmed's closure, or, what have you, an IP's, closure of an AfD is akin too hasty.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV is that way. Personally, I don't see a reason why it cannot be discussed at MfD. T. Canens (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Atika Shubert

Some extra eyes on this BLP would probably be a good idea; it hasn't gone too badly yet, but it has the potential to do so. The subject is a reporter who attempted to interview Julian Assange, and the footage of the attempted interview is now being passed around everywhere, leading to some attempts to have her rather short article mostly be about this one incident. I haven't yet seen enough of a problem to warrant protection, but that could easily change. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking the "Roman" out of "Roman Catholic"

User talk:71.0.213.123 – who may also be User talk:150.199.97.75, User talk:71.145.180.157, User talk:71.145.170.188 – has been removing "Roman" from instances of "Roman Catholic". The editor has been shown that Wikipedia consensus is that such behavior is disruptive (here, here, here and here), and also that even the Archidiocese of New York [97] and the Vatican [98],[99], [100] use "Roman Catholic", and has been given two final warnings [101],[102] but continues to make these edits [103], [104]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I recall this behaviour as characteristic of a certain blocked user? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Who? Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The names in the AN/I threads I cited above were User:Vaquero100 and User:The Catholic Knight. Are they blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither is blocked. Vaquero100 hasn't edited since 2006, and TCK not since May 2010. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the one, the Catholic Knight. I thought they had been blocked. Could be them logged out I suppose, but then this particular 'beef' has quite a following. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Anywho, the first IP has clearly continued in vandalistic behaviour beyond a final warning, despite having seen consensus and been rather patiently (I feel) reminded of it by Ken. The final warning was actually several edits ago. WP:AIV wouldn't have a problem with that one so I've blocked that IP for 24 hours for vandalism, I'm looking at the other two now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the other three are clearly the same person or group (identical edit summaries). One is blocked already for three months so the others were free to edit, one could argue for some sort of evasion but it's hard to pin down with IPs. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the same person, though. If the pattern holds, they'll stop editing with their current IP address and start editing with another, so there's really nothing else to do but keep an eye out on their favorite articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the contribs, it doesn't look very likely to me that the IPs and The Catholic Knight are the same person - there's almost no overlap in articles (which is surprising since the shared topic area is Catholicism) and they seem to have different styles. The IPs are clearly the same -- same style of edit summary, lots of overlapping articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the IP addresses, it seems doubtful that they're the same user.

• 71.0.213.123 is from Jefferson City, Missouri.
• 150.199.97.75 is from Columbia, Missouri.
• 71.145.180.157 is from Pflugerville, Texas.
• 71.145.170.188 is from Round Rock, Texas.

I'd guess there were at least two editors involved. — Fly by Night (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could those be regional networks? Missouri and Texas are not so far away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about Missouri AND Texas, nor the two Texas locations, but being originally from Missouri, I do know that Jeff City and Columbia are only like 20-30 minutes from each other by car, so, somebody in the middle might well be able to hit IP ranges from either. umrguy42 16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is behind those IPs, he/she is clearly being a dick, I'd recommend a range block. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• It took me a few hours, but I think I found the master: Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc (talk · contribs). For a summary of typical edits and the IPs used, see User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?. Since I wasted the entire morning looking for this, I'd appreciate it if someone else would file an SPI--isn't that the appropriate thing to do here? I don't think I've ever started one before, and unfortunately I don't have the time to learn it right now. Beyond My Ken, I think you know how to do this, no? I'm sorry for leaving this to others, but I really need to get back to work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the data - I may have time to file an SPI later today or tonight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson City and Round Rock are, according to Google Maps, 730 miles, 12½ hours apart by car. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How far they are by car is surely relevant, but important also is the distance the way a duck flies. Consider the contributions from the following IPs:

• 150.199.97.75 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.180.157 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.170.188 (talk · contribs)
• 71.0.213.123 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.143.99 (talk · contribs)
• 76.22.103.246 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.162.148 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.145.196 (talk · contribs)
• 71.145.166.252 (talk · contribs)
• 71.200.152.165 (talk · contribs) (only a few edits of our type, but similar IP). Drmies (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone who currently lives in Fulton, Missouri, on the third leg of a triangle formed by Columbia and Jeff City in Missouri I can tell you that at least one IP address of a computer that I use actually shows up as Cape Girardeau, Missouri which is well over 100 miles away. Why, how, and what goes on with IP addresses, and if this is an anomoly unique to this part of Missouri I dont know. Just wanted to pass on that just because someone has an IP address to a particular community does not mean they live anywhere near that community or have ever been to that city (I myself have never been to Cape G and couldnt even pronounce it correctly if I tried, I'm a transplanted NYer carpetbagger living in the middle of hillbilly central).Camelbinky (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true everywhere. Most of the pRon sites I visit give my location anywhere from Montreal Quebec to Windsor Ontario, based on my IP at the time. Anyone who has tried that trip knows that even with good traffic that's an 8 hour drive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Even if it's not sock puppetry, it has to be meat puppetry. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness, I'll mention that in this edit one of the IPs identifies himself by the name mentioned above. If that's the same Rev. James T. Burtchaell mentioned here, I think perhaps that information could be posted on the talk page of any IP he starts using. That oughta give him the message. (Not exactly a child molester, he only diddled around with college boys, but still he was their professor and all.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything I just posted here goes too far, feel free to redact. I'm feeling a little queasy about it myself. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no way to know if the account with that name and the IP who signed that name, are the real-life person by that name. Could be a troll using that name, for instance, or someone trying to sully the name even more. In any case, it's irrelevant, because the actions are disruptive whoever is behind them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the account name above is labelled "csc" or Congregatio a Sancta Cruce {"Congregation of the Holy Corss"), while the IP signed as "SJ" or "Society of Jesus". I don't think it's possible to be both a Jesuit and a member of the Holy Cross, since they're rival orders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this an issue, when our consensus terminology for the church is Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that the article is at "Catholic Church" ("also known as the Roman Catholic Church" it says), but where is the consensus discussion located? Besides, if "Roman Catholic Church" is an acceptable alternative (and "Roman Catholic Church" redirects to "Catholic Church"), then the editor has no reason to remove "Roman" from "Roman Catholic Church" when it occurs, any more than unbroken redirects in wikilinks should be changed, especially when the grounds being cited are that "Roman Catholic" is improper and only Protestants use it. That's the kind of thing up with which we should not put. We're still talking disruption, regardless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It formed sometime last year, apparently. I don't really feel like looking for it because I don't really care about the dispute. But having links to Roman Catholic Church over Catholic Church and edit warring over whether or not to use the redirect is really WP:LAME.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why the IPs who are doing that are blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, maybe that's because this consensus is a surprise to a lot of people. (Well, this decision is news to me.) I'm not about to demand we re-open that can of worms, but there are lots & lots of people who expect to see that institution referred to as the "Roman Catholic Church" & for understandable reasons will change "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church". Lots more than insist on the other way -- at least based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen so far. Too bad we can't have some simple procedure for changing the style in articles -- such as asking if anyone minds on the article talk page first, & if no one objects then making the change. -- llywrch (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

All the Orthodox Christian religions are Catholic and the Roman Catholic church is also an Orthodox church. Orthodox and Catholic are interchangeable. To say that the Roman Catholic church is THE Catholic Church is like saying that everywhere that Buddhism appears we are going to just call it the religion. It may be obvious to Londoner or hillbilly in Iowa who you are referring to when using Catholic Church but the Kazakhstani on the border with Russia is going to think Eastern Orthodox. "When you hear hoof beats think horses, not zebras" only works if you dont live in Africa, if you live in Africa then its "When you hoof beats think zebras, not horses". We are an international encyclopedia with no POV bias towards certain Christian or Western ideology.Camelbinky (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the protestant Christian religions are "catholic", too: the Church of England "understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed". I've no idea how far that extends within the Anglican Communion, but "The communion encompasses a wide spectrum of belief and practice including evangelical, liberal, and Catholic". TFOWR 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking this thread even further from Administrator's concerns, I need to point out that any Christian group which includes the Nicean Creed as a statement of faith can be considered a "Catholic church": there have been numerous bitter disputes over the wording of this profession of faith, but not over the statement that "We believe in one holy, Catholic, and apostolic church". And AFAIK, every Christian group does accept the Nicean Creed as so; the only groups I could conceive which do not would be those who do not emphasize formal doctrine like the Unitarians or Quakers, or those like the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses whom I believe do not accept traditional liturgies like the Nicean Creed. I'd really like to know what the reasoning was for settling on "Catholic Church" over "Roman Catholic Church", & if someone wants to help me understand away from WP:AN/I, I'd appreciate it. -- llywrch (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-start

The SPI's been closed with a note that IPs making these edits shoudl be blocked as necessary, so I bring to admins' attention a new IP, User:75.192.141.33‎, taking the "Roman" out of "Roman Catholic". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, since these IPs are undoubtedly either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, blocks should be progressive across all the IPs, so that we don't get a series of new IPs, each of whom gets blocked for 24 hours for doing the same disruptive things.Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If absolutely necessary, you could create a fairly easy edit filter on that; that might put a plug in it. –MuZemike 01:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but beyond my capability, I'm afraid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse by Gregorik

This edit is a vandalism revert against me using Twinkle, marked as minor, made by User:Gregorik in an ongoing content dispute. I'm not a vandal, I'm a fellow editor concerned about what's in the lead section of the American exceptionalism article. Here is another revert of my work marked as minor a few days ago. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. I agree with Binksternet; those reverts should never have been marked as minor. I don't know if ANI decided it wouldn't deal with rollback abuse anymore (after the last time I ratted someone out...), but these two edits are not right. I have not looked at Gregorik's other edits yet since I don't want to start some sort of hunt, but I do believe that Gregorik ought to be reminded of the proper use of rollback. I see also that Bink has asked Gregorik on their talk page for clarification, but the question was never answered. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• User:Binksternet has a long history of edit warring and his rollback rights were denied as a result (earlier this year). I have no history of edit warring and I'm not interested in warring. My last Twinkle edit was mistakenly marked as minor. Based on the lengthy discussions on the talk page of American exceptionalism (2009-10) it also becomes apparent that, regretfully, Binksternet has a vested interest in slanting said article, and he continues to succeed. Among others, he has deleted a very relevant, peer-reviewed citation published by Ghent University AND the University of Lodz that was used as a balance. All I've been trying to do is balancing the article. Please evaluate. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  No disputes here about the revert itself, but I'd remind you that it was a content dispute, not vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. Please be careful which rollback button you use in Twinkle - if you had used the custom "rollback" button and entered a cogent reason for the revert then we wouldn't be here. ~ mazca ^talk 11:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Gregorik, edit warring in my past is not the subject of this AN/I; you are. Your Twinkle vandalism revert was a gross violation of Twinkle guidelines, and your argument rings hollow that the latest marking of your revert as minor was a mistake. In your edit history in the last week there are only two edits marked as minor and both are content dispute reversions of my work. This has every appearance of intention.

Your incorrect take on my supposed "vested interest" throws light back upon yourself. My only wish for that article is that it be as clear and intelligible to the reader as possible—I could give a freakin' flip about what it says politically, as long as the references are good ones, with an emphasis on mainstream thought, whatever that thought is. The only reason you and I have been at cross purposes there is because of your making it opaque and inaccessible via writing style, buttressed with refs in quantity, not quality. I thought we were moving forward past all that. Binksternet (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought so too. But do you honestly believe that the article's content is not grossly slanted to accommodate a certain position? You've spent hours erasing specifically leftist remarks, much of them from peer-reviewed sources -- from the lead & the body. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• All rollbacks, whether using the rollback tool or using twinkle, are automatically marked as "minor"; Gregorik didn't make the decision to mark them minor, so that part of the issue can be dropped. He did, however, make the decision to roll them back rather than undo them with an edit summary. Gregorik, please don't do that, not so much because it violates rollback policy, but because there is no short term or long term benefit to you, to Binksternet, or to the article. The 5 seconds you save in not writing an edit summary, or the satisfaction you feel in yanking someone else's chain a little bit by calling them a vandal, is always lost by the time you spend defending the edit in places like ANI/WQA/etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, will do. I don't get any pleasure from labeling anyone a vandal though (quite the contrary). ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Gregorik, I responded to your note on my talk page, but let me add that "point taken" suffices for me (I obviously can't speak for Binksternet; I hope they feel the same way). May I add that strong terms like "vested interest" and "gross violation" are probably not conducive to settling this, so both sides would be advised to tone it down some. If this ever gets out of hand we will all get much less pleasure out of hanging around the wiki. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle allows edit summaries, so you could have done a rollback using Twinkle and provided an appropriate edit summary. In this particular example, you were reverting only one change, so an undo, rather than a rollback, would have been easy to do. My practice is to undo single changes and rollback multiple changes by one user. Either way, I always provide an edit summary unless it's a rollback of clear vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright; as a sign of good faith, I apologize for labeling Binksternet's edit an act of vandalism. For the 5.5 years I've been on WP, I've never been reported on ANI even though I have thousands of edits. As an aside, I just wish more people would be interested in the content of the article which I think is flawed and slanted. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not a place to discuss content, so i'm afraid that we are not allowed to be interested in the content while commenting here. And your apology, when tampered with a statement much like a "but" (Your "I've never been reported on ANI even though I have thousands of edits"), doesn't really constitute a real apology. Just to point that out. Silverseren^C 17:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights, folks. I will "tone it down" in my interactions with Gregorik and keep it collegial. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes at Israeli settlement articles

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) is adding the sentence "The settlement was built in 1972 with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of [the international community]" to numerous articles about Israeli settlements. These edits are unsourced. Given the scope of the user's activity, it appears to be unlikely that the user is unaware of our basic policies and guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is this a content dispute? What administrative action are you seeking? Basket of Puppies 00:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not a content dispute. It's a failure to adhere to basic Wikipedia policy re: sourcing. A reminder of WP:OR by an admin might be useful as well as a warning to halt the mass changes. Factomancer (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • At the very least, this user needed an ARBPIA notification and warning, which I have just issued.

      If they continue the behavior past the warning, it's definitely a problem.

      (as an aside - how come with this history, nobody had notified them earlier???) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

      • As a party to the original case in 2008, Chesdovi requires no notification. CIreland (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Sigh again with Chesdovi, this is like the 10th notification this week. Chesdovi should follow our rules and guidelines about sourcing, which we already warned him in the previous post. He should be blocked until he decides to listen to our policies. Secret ^account 01:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I told him in the last report that he had to add his source the first time, not edit war through to the seventh time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The ArbCom remedies don't give any indication that involved parties are exempt from the notification and logging requirement -- yes, it's pedantic, but let's toe the line here. Somebody ought to undo all those edits, on the basis of being unsourced. I'm not going to do it because I don't want to become an involved admin. Looie496 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I would actually assume that they should know and abide by them if they were an involved party, and had I noticed that earlier I'd have done something slightly different I think.

        However, they seem to have stopped now, and if it remains stopped (for real) I don't see any need to take it any further. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi does not need a ARBPIA notification as he is one of the original Involved parties of the ARBPIA case: [105] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I was not "involved". I see I was mentioned there, but I did not take part or read any of the ARBPIA at the time. Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You were, nonetheless, notified of the outcome of the case, including the discretionary sanctions regime, by Rlevse on 19 January 2008: [106]. CIreland (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much for pointing that out. I was, however, not involved and did not take any notice of this message, left over 2 years ago. Even so, I did not consider my edits as deserving of the new placement by Georgewilliamherbert. An edit misconstrued by Cs32en has been blown out of all proportion. Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• The editor in question is a propagandist. He will continue to be one, while avoiding "blocks."Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Go away "Bali" - you views are not wanted here. Stop stalking me. Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is accusation is false. All this is nonsense. Cs32en, Factomancer, Secret, Looie496 and Elen of the Roads: What do you mean it's unsourced and sources were not provided? SD provided two sources. It was SD who carried out mass changes to 39 pages by adding "Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community." I merely re-worded 16 pages using the line mentioned above to relect the actions taken by Israel in a more NPOV fashion, while using a different formulation in the other 23: "The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this." Chesdovi (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the large red, bold, lettering style so other editors may not regard you as an idiot. If capitalising is the cyber equivalent of shouting, I am afraid your text choice came over as histrionic gibbering. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC))
• You do yourself a dis-service, Chesdovi, by stating that that was all that you did. Your contributions history for the past day shows so much more. In order to prove your point about things in the Israel-Palestine dispute being called illegal settlements, you also edited 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 39 articles about places in Cyprus to describe them as illegal settlements too. I have to question the good sense of an editor who not only disrupts Wikipedia to prove a point, repeatedly (Judaism and bus stops (AfD discussion)), but decides to do so by jumping with both feet into another long-standing international dispute. The fact that you did this to 39 Cyprus articles, clearly not a coincidental number, speaks volumes. Uncle G (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken Uncle G. The legal edits to the illegal settlements in NC were made before SD added her statement to the 39 Golan pages. So according to your reasoning it is SD who is making a "point". The similar number is a coincidence. Also, while it has been accepted that I was in violation of WP:POINT at J&BS, it was not necessarily to disrupt. I had good faith in that article and that's why I tried so hard to bring it up to standard. It was precisely because of a keep at another similar article (that I did not vote on) that gave me the go ahead to create J&BS. I was not so much making a point, but rather following the example set by the retaining of the other page. J&BS violated no policies and was deleted because people didn’t like it. The comment I made on the talk page which insinuated it was a pointy creation was a swift response to a suspecting editor who did not approve of the subject matter. Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, kiddo. It is still clearly you disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, by taking your Israel-Palestine dispute and leaping in to the Cyprus issue with edits there in order to make a point in the original dispute. The fact that you're discussing your Cyprus edits on your talk page with one of the very same disputants that your having an Israel-Palestine dispute with, that you're currently also now listed alongside at the edit warring noticeboard as well, is making the situation abundantly clear. You're in the middle of the third location dispute in the edit history of Rachel's Tomb. You're spilling over the Israel-Palestine dispute with point-making edits to Cyprus articles, a very foolish thing to be doing. And you're now subject to ARBPIA restrictions, set by PhilKnight. Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us not also forget the incident where Chesdovi removed a well sourced Moshe dayan quote without consensus for its removal at the talkpage, the quote which was about that Israel started and provoked the Six day war: [107] and then after this he cherry picked on sentence taking the entire quote way out of context and put it in huge quotations: [108] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Let us not forget indeed. And if you want to discuss the matter even further, please do. Chesdovi (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose a twelve-month topic ban under WP:ARBPIA for Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The above discussion, and the user's "contributions" to it, should be sufficient justification. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two users involved in this mass-editing. Can Supreme Deliciousness comment on their ~40 edits in the articles about Israeli settlements ([109], [110],...,[111])? Is the timing and the content coincidental, or it's a WP:POINT response to Chesdovi's edits in the articles about places in Cyprus? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have for a very long time wanted to ad that the Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are illegal in every single GH settlement article, but I have not gotten around to it earlier, I saw Chesdovi reverted my edit at Rachels tomb so I looked at his contributions to see if he reverted more of my edits and I saw his edits at the Cyprus articles and I was reminded that I had planned before to ad the information to the GH settlement articles, so I did. It wasn't to make a "point" as I had planned to ad the information in all settlement articles and I have before added that information to another article about the settlement illegality:[112] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One of those users provided reliable sources for their edits. See if you cant tell if that might be a difference between the edits. nableezy - 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one of those users provided a primary source (or to be more precise, a secondary source that supplies only a quote of a primary source with no interpretation) and his interpretation of that source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And then he proceeded to follow Chesdovi around with edit summaries like you need a source that says: "occupied by Turkey and is considered an illegal settlement by the international community" [113] which is slightly amusing considering this isn't exactly the sort of source he used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi blocked

I have just blocked Chesdovi for one month, for massively disruptive editing. This simply had to stop, and it was clear that the editor was going to blast forward until blocked. I am open to the block being lifted without consulting me, if Chesdovi can give assurance that the pattern of disruption will cease; however given the sorts of arguments that Chesdovi has been making, admins should be alert for disingenuous responses. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, well deserved disruptive editor. Secret ^account 18:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an overreaction in my view. Obviously Chesdovi and I are on different "sides" of a few disputes at the moment, and while I have problems with some of his edits I recognize that he is, more often than not, a good editor. Most people, including those who disagree with Chesdovi when it comes to many things in the ARBPIA topic area, would recognize that the user is an asset in areas of Jewish history as seen in his work on a number of articles on ancient synagogues. I would suggest a scope and time limited topic ban. Something like a restriction on modifying the location of sites in Israel and surrounding countries/territories and no edits on the legality of settlements for 1-2 weeks. A 1 month block is not necessary and deprives Wikipedia of an editor who, for all his faults, can be a valuable asset. nableezy - 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Nab here, topic ban could be more appropriate. Though Dovi, definitely, needs to treat Wikipedia more seriously, so Dovi should see this as warning for future sanctions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  I am open to replacing the block with a topic ban, but I am opposed to minutely engineered topic bans. It is important to resolve problems like this is a way that will stick, without having to be repeatedly tweaked, because that wastes large amounts of admin time, and time is the most valuable resource we have. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

He has already received a 1R restriction, over the entire topic area, until January by PhilKnight. This is just piling on.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That was from a different problem. nableezy - 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@Looie; I disagree. Chesdovi's editing has been a problem in a very specific set of articles and in a very specific subject within those articles. If a restriction is needed it is only needed in that area. But whatever, make it a topic ban on the whole of the ARBPIA topic area instead, at least that would allow Chesdovi to continue working on other areas. nableezy - 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• This case is similar to Prunesqualer and that user received a slap on the wrist [114] compared to the sanctions issued against Chesdovi. Chesdovi’s last and only block occurred four years ago[115] and he gets slammed with an extremely harsh sanction. A little consistency please.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi is an experienced editor with thousands of edits, let's not get carried away with the comparisons. nableezy - 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain what happened here? Chesdovi made a very valid point that nobody bothered even considering. It was SupremeDeliciouness that made mass unilateral contentios edit to numerous articles. Chesdovi merely modified the wording. Who initiated all this disruption?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any contentions changes or initiated any disruption. [116] What does the sources say? What did I ad to the article? So how was it contentious or disruptive? Now look at one of Chesdovis edits:[117] what source says this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a hugely disproportionate amount of text about legality to tiny stubs, like you did here to something like 50 articles in one day is yes both contentious and disruptive. A failure to understand that (or admit to that) is deserving of nothing less then a topic ban.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand what you just said and I fail to "admit" to have done anything "contentious " or "disruptive".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So why hasn't any admin topic banned me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I swear, some of the comments made by those who reflexively support an "ally" make it very difficult to voice any support for Chesdovi. Chesdovi did not "merely modify the wording", Chesdovi removed sourced information and in its place, without providing a source, added things that can best be described as utter nonsense. That some users dont like sourced information does not make it "contentious" or "disruptive". nableezy - 21:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nabeleezy, I would be open to a 1 year restricted topic ban if, conditional on that ban being imposed, you give your word that during that year you will not report Chesdovi for any violation other than breaking the topic ban. Feel free to propose a wording that would allow you to do that. Looie496 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Im confused. So if Chesdovi makes 10 reverts in 20 minutes on an article not covered by the topic ban, I shouldnt report it? Or if he repeatedly inserts BLP violations, I shouldnt report it? Im not saying that has or will happen, I just dont understand the condition. If yall really want that its fine by me. Ive edited with Chesdovi for a few years now and today was the first time I reported the user for anything. But 1 year is way too long. I was thinking more along the lines of 1 month. nableezy - 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, Are you kidding!? the Chesdovi's last and only block came four years ago and you're ready to give him a one year topic ban? This is beyond unfair.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi's recent behavior was significantly beyond acceptable behavior here, and he didn't slow down enough after the formal ARBPIA warning or after the topic-wide 1RR was imposed. There are only so many times we can say "stop" before we turn the red light on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Chesdovi had not made any edits after the 1RR was imposed. nableezy - 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I misspoke on edits after the 1RR. He did keep going after the ARBPIA warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support length reduction of block as the length is way over the top. Possibly shorten it to 2-3 days, at most. Basket of Puppies 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Let me try to make this clear. Chesdovi has caused a huge amount of disruption over the past few days, and has shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior. We need a remedy that will prevent the same sort of disruption in the future. This is not about being fair, it is about preventing disruption. None of the people who are commenting here seem to be willing even to express a belief that he won't do a similar thing next week. So far Chesdovi himself has not said anything at all. A promise from him to cease the combative editing will allow this block to be lifted; the reason the block is long is to make it clear that such a promise is his only option. We admins are not capable of micromanaging the editing process in the I-P domain. There are two many articles and too many combative editors. When we apply sanctions, they are going to be blunt instruments. That may not be ideal, but it's the only way of avoiding a complete breakdown. Looie496 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we have a time-tested and long-lasting tradition of increasing-block-length as blocks follow blocks. Once an editor is blocked, future violations quickly increase to double (or greater) lengths. If they are persistent, they quickly find themselves in the 1 week/1 month/3 months/1 year ranges. It affords the person the ability to conform their editing to Wiki guidelines, without subjecting the Project to undue disruption. Or, as our blocking policy puts it: "For the purposes of protection and encouragement, blocks may escalate in duration to protect Wikipedia while allowing for the cessation of disruptive editing and the return to respected editing."--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Various issues with settlements have been a headache. Nableezy has a couple sanctions because of the issue. If editors are going to play with fire they are going to be burned and that needs to be clear. We have tried centralized discussions. We have tried AE. Nothing has stopped this trainwreck. I do believe the block is a little long but I am happy to see anything that makes it crystal clear that it needs to stop. I think Chesdovi needs to make it known that he understands what he did wrong (if he does believe that). If that is done I hope a reduction is considered but really it is about time that editors realize that such behavior cannot continue.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, per Cptnono's comments. Good call, Looie496. The behavior on both sides of the I/P conflict on Wikipedia is ridiculous. It's hugely disruptive, and it must stop.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• endorse block and length of block I almost brought him here myself during the Judaism and bus stops article and subsequent AFD. Thats about all my interaction with him. His behavior there was disruptive, pointy and unapologetic and it seems to be continuing since then. I hope this is a wake up call for him. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block as formulated; Agree w/Nableezy here ("Something like a restriction on modifying the location of sites in Israel and surrounding countries/territories and no edits on the legality of settlements for 1-2 weeks") or Basket ("2-3 days, at most"). I believe that the last editor I saw blocked for tendentious editing this week was a 2-day block (for PBS), revised ultimately to reflect instead him staying away from the articles that attracted his tendentious editing for a couple of weeks. Sounds like the correct ballpark, for a first block in four years.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose deviation from regular norms of starting with a short block (or often a warning) and escelating to longer blocks only if necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not supportive of blocks myself, but this is one of those editors who needs a break. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: Epeefleche, No More Mr Nice Guy and Mbz1 who here above and below have opposed the block are all pro-Israeli editors. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And what are you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? On what basis does Supreme say that? Coming from someone else, I might simply think that an inappropriate surmise. But coming from him, I think it a personal attack. I don't think Supreme wants editors saying he is a pro-jihadist editor (at least, editors who are not jihadist themselves). SD -- please consider yourself warned for a personal attack, and kindly desist from inappropriate statements here. Crossing it out would go a long way to showing you understand. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the 2-3 days suggestion because that has frequently proven to be ineffective for this type of problem - we need effective measures to handle the issue. As a second choice, I support the block as it stands. As a first choice, due to the block log, I would support a reduction in length so that the block is for a fortnight, but that depends on whether he accepts a binding topic ban that lasts for 2 weeks after the block is lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Chesdovi is not even requesting an unblock, and has stated that he feels that a Wikibreak would be good for him. All of these comments are not accomplishing anything. He can easily get the block reduced at this point if he asks for it. Looie496 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether Chesdovi requests an unblock or not is not what is being addressed here, so I don't think your comment accomplishes anything except to suggest you're not taking feedback or you've not understood what you are being told. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • There is an appeal process. The editor is choosing not to appeal this. I'm not even seeing an acknowledgment of making mistakes on their talk page. This is fantastic circumstances. An editor received what equates to slaps on the wrist (10(?) of them in total including one for this incident) so if Chesdovi is the example that some admins really really mean it this time then great. I don't see a problem at all.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't follow; he was blocked once in 2006 for 48 hours, and the next block in 2010 was admitted by the block admin as a mistake. That means this is the second block he's ever received; the first in the last four years. No other sanction was tried (except possibly a 1RR which was imposed exactly an hour before this block was imposed), and the point is that other sanctions (like a 6 month topic ban) may have a more useful effect on him than a 1 month block where he admittedly is on wikibreak. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
        • "There is an appeal process. The editor is choosing not to appeal this. I'm not even seeing an acknowledgment of making mistakes on their talk page." The editor receiving 10 sanctions was a different editor involved in the conflict. Sorry for not being clear about that part. SO I basically have two points 1) Chesdovi can appeal through the proper channels. 2) Other editors (including myself) have gotten away with much worse multiple times. This decision by the blocking admin is the notice needed that it won;t be tolerated anymore.Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
          • We're not talking about appeals so your point, much like Looie's, is irrelevant. If an editor has not acknowledged any mistakes, what is prevented under a 1 month block that a long topic ban cannot prevent? It is when a topic ban is ineffective that blocks become necessary under these sorts of schemes and the fact that these were not adopted is what is concerning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Topic bans, 1/rr, and several other remedies have not really worked in the topic area (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans). But since there is not even close to consensus here that the block was inappropriate and the editor is fine with the block then your point is irrelevant. See how that worked out? Fun.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
              • When remedies that are not used enough, they don't tend to work. To put it bluntly, had you read the discussion instead of making drive by comments, you'd have noticed I supported the block and didn't suggest a block was inappropriate. Accordingly, it would be helpful if editors who have already been sanctioned in the topic area voluntarily avoided disrupting Community discussions concerning sanctions in the same topic area. I hope that a specific prohibition will not be needed to make this point more clearly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                • What? I screwed up a year ago. But since I disagree with you (as several people here do) you decide to play that card? Bad form. Anyways, while I have gone a year without being sanctioned several others have multiple. That is half my point.Am I being disruptive right now? No. You kept this going after it was obvious that it was a dead conversation. You need to convince the blocked editor to appeal if oyu have a problem with it. You could also request an RFC/U on the admin. As it stands, multiple people agree with the block and the user hasn't appealed it. So how about you stop rocking the boat.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • You are indeed being disruptive by repeatedly misstating my position in suggesting I do not support a block that I have supported. Please stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                    • Well I must have misunderstood your intent since it came across that you were supporting a ban instead of a block. Regardless, you don't need to collapse something which is much like disregarding it. Relevant to the conversation. You made a dig and I made one back. You done?Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                      • Wikipedia isn't a battelfield. Instead of hijacking a comment that was made specifically to the blocking administrator, it would be sensible if you stepped back. I still think you are being disruptive and sanctions will be necessary again in the near future if you don't recognise this; it's not a "dig" - it's a real problem with your approach which appears to have been recognised last year, and I think it's unacceptable that you contribute to this page for the purpose of making digs at other users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                        • As I already said on your talk page, feel free to take to AE. You said my comment was "irrelevant" when it was relevant. You proposed limiting a block while instead adding a ban. There is no reason to do that. So yes, I said your comment was irrelevant. That was a dig at you but it was also the truth. You then made sure to mention me in the edit summary and point out a past mistake and then started talking about disruption and then collapsed the comment. It is bad form no matter which way you dice it. Sure I am not being super nice about it but if you don't see how your communication was a little off then I am surprised. You also could have made your most recent comment as a response on your talk page instead of keeping this going. So if you have a problem take it to AE. I'm not seeing me doing anything worse than you right now but would be happy to hear other feedback in the appropriate venue. That would be acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I supported one of two measures, with a preference for the other measure; this is a review of the block and how to approach an editor with these circumstances - a 1 month block is probably the most harsh of these, yet I supported due to the circumstances which speaks volumes in itself. So yes, your comment is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with whether an editor is appealing or not; if I was 'proposing' something, I'd do so in a separate section as usual.

And if it wasn't made clear when I reverted you, I'll take it to AE when your disruption is no longer manageable - I don't need you to tell me when that is, and I don't want it shifting to my talk page. I collapsed this entire exchange so users who wanted to read it can click the 'show' button. But you appear to be more interested in escalating than deescalating which isn't helpful. I'm sorry you feel that the sanction that was imposed on you was a mistake, but it is by no means irrelevant to your approach here. I make no apologies for seeing the similarities between what the restriction was meant to do (to prevent this sort of disruption) and the battle approach you've taken here. Taking digs at other users or assuming others are taking a dig at you is wrong on so many levels, which is why it is unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that I felt my sanction was a mistake? In hind site, I realize that I lucked out (see my comment above where I alluded to that). Do you see now how you are being rude? But back on topic, see my first post after yours explaining why I feel reducing a block but imposing a ban isn't something that needs to be discussed and is also partially a good thing. (No need to respond. I was simply making a comment based off the one you made but it somehow turned into many) Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, Ncmvocalist is one of the user, who likes playing in being administrator. Such kind of users are better off simply ignored.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet you still continue even after being told it is unacceptable...I don't think there's any hope of getting through to you through discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose block per No More Mr Nice Guy.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - Any action that pries yet another tendentious POV warrior off the battleground is a good thing. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed; although a more blunt way of putting it, that's essentially what the Community is trying to say. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support with reservations- I agree with the reasons for the block, but I think that a month is a little bit heavy-handed. Reyk _YO! 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support block but feel time is too long A week would be ample, especially if Chesdori promises to mend his ways.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

Resolved

 – Unblocked by Floquenbeam. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump seems to have retracted his legal threats. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I noted such in the thread a way up the noticeboard. He has now posted an unblock request. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring and legal threats at Cyprus

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andreas2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps removing text and pictures of Cypriot mosques from the Cyprus article and has now issued a legal threat in their latest edit summary. Admin attention is required. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef for the legal threat, even if it is a ridiculous threat.  Sandstein  15:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the legal threat is legally implausible. Still, despite the doubtful legal validity, such comments and any associated edit-warring cause disruption. Hopefully, since "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite" this user may eventually get unblocked if they show that they understand the underlying issues. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppets

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean Staunnery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Conor O'Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of banned editor Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Irvine22 and the history of the Dave Snowden article and it will become very obvious very quickly. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)|

I've looked into and caught one other accounts as well. TNXMan 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Obvious quacking get the ban hammer out, you need to notify them both of this board still i think--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

School project

Resolved

 – No admin action needed at this time. –MuZemike 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was alerted to the existence of an ongoing school project by this unreferenced addition, including a fair amount of POV, to an article. (Admittedly, the article had no explicit references to begin with, but this isn't helping the situation.) Could someone inform Saurette (talk · contribs), the teacher, about the relevant guidelines and such, as I'm feeling too crabby to take care of it and I can't even recall where the WP-space page about such projects resides. I'll inform both JKeedwel and Saurette about the existence of this thread, though. Deor (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:School and university projects. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

possible Zsfgseg sock

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

71.249.61.177 (talk · contribs) was caught by the Zsfgseg filter. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Colegrove

Resolved

 – Article sent to AfD. –MuZemike 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

At least one person who has discovered Wikipedia does not seem to appreciate one Daniel Colegrove, whose article I have sprotected for a short time. The venom may spread over the talk page too. This is a BLP and, as real life beckons, I can't babysit its talk page -- yet I am reluctant to sprotect merely in anticipation of some nastiness. More administrative eyeballs please. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin outside perspective The username alone there was indicative of a problem... seems reasonable, given the BLP issues going on there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP about one thing: I don't think he's notable. I'm nominating the article for deletion and watchlisting it.--Chaser (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this lunacy!

Resolved

 – article is getting attention, JJB has been made aware of the fact that he should avoid this style in mainspace, anything else should be an RFC/U --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing discussion on the talk page of Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth about whether to write the article as a lipogram or not. The book is only notable pretty-much for being a lipogram and the argument is "It would better communicate the 'spirit' of the book." The problem that I (and others) have noted is that the article would communicate little else. It is difficult to read and would not allow mention of the authors name or even the fact that this is a novel and introduces incomparable difficulties in communicating what the lipogram is. This has been discussed, the article has been locked (which just caused everyone to not edit for two weeks while they waited it out. No new discussion, they just waited out the lock). These edits are clearly meant to support the article as a lipogram which was defeated by consensus on the talk page months ago (and that defeat was accepted). Is there some way to stop this once and for all? We have had an admin weigh in and they were simply ignored. Now what? Can someone please take a look at this article and advise us on a way to move forward with this? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no question at all that writing the article in this form to be "in the spirit" is a completely ridiculous idea. It'd be like writing On the Road as a stream of consciousness narrative, or removing the capitalization and periods from the E. E. Cummings article. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(conflict: Tarc is mostly right but:) Virtually all of this diff was sitting at talk for 15 to 30 days and Padillah had many options to discuss phrasing in this past month. Padillah did not AFAIK formally affirm what is actually our longstanding WP:CON at talk (primarily Martin Hogbin's and my formulation, I grant), in which all contributions (lipogrammatic or not) should work only toward improving phrasing and quality. (This topic has a long and rich lipogrammatic history.) It is also invalid to say I wish to support cutting Wright or apropos information from this topic, as I did not fight any such inclusion in 2009 as various additional datapoints got built out. Padillah also, offhand, put back in a factual misquotation of linguistics journal Word Ways, indicating unfamiliarity with his topic. If this was a discussion about contributions not improving WP, okay; but it's not, and now I'm told about my "lunacy". Thank you for your thoughts. JJB 13:39, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Well, in terms of writing the article as a Lipogram, any local consensus would be summarily overruled by the wider community consensus established in our manual of style guideline. Specifically the note about clarity of prose. Often we can establish exceptions at the article level; but in this case it is quite a divergence from the normal policy that it would need to be considered very widely. So the discussion is somewhat irrelevant; to write it as a lipogram would need full community agreement, and that is unlikely to happen (for the reason noted by Tarc) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the dumbest idea i've heard on wikipedia in a week, which is saying something. No, you can't form a local consensus to write lipogramaticaly, or with pictograms, or in pig-latin. An escalating series of blocks is the best way to deal with this if it goes further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Agree with others above. We are an encyclopedia written in clear, readable, explanatory prose. There's no room there for style deviations this serious, and no way that a local consensus can override plain community norms like this. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a good idea. For an example of why, see John J. Bulten/JJB's post above; that mangled style of writing is what a lipogram looks like. This kind of stylistic wankery is not suitable for a Wikipedia article.  pablo 14:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's something dodgy in general with that article. So many apparent sources, leading to so few places (most of them newspaper articles dressed up to look like book citations, to the work itself without page numbers, etc...) Will probably take a hard look at this myself.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bali, I'll happily assist, but kindly discuss to avoid mistaking anything, thanks. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

To be fair I'm not very good at ref clean-up but this is a remnant of when (get this) some editors tried to make the entire text, refs and all, lipogrammatic. There was, at one point, an effort to remove 'e' from links and refs and everything. So everything turned into a Harvard ref and that led to the mess you see before you today. You are correct to assume that this particular novel is not very notable; and is only that notable for being a lipogram. Padillah (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB should know that his using lipogram/mangled writing in articles or Wikipedia space is annoying and inappropriate, and the fact that he continues to do it here is disturbing as it has been brought up before, see [118]. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(conflict) @All: Whoa! Piling on! And hard words from Pablo X. Can you all stop fighting with that strawman for a bit, if you don't mind? This is not about making this topic into a lipogram. A good paradigm was laid down in 2009 and I am still using it. Assuming good faith, Padillah is too. If you want to work on phrasing, go for it. But attacking is not apropos on this board, thanks. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I thought that the section header was over the top, but after reading this, I have to agree. The novel is an artistic exercise, while the article is, or should be, an attempt to inform about the subject. Now, this is a volunteer project, and if a volunteer chooses to style their writing in this way, fine. However, there should be no attempt to impose, or even prefer this manner of writing within the article. If even one wiki link that otherwise would be in the article is lost due to this foolishness, the cost is too high. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Xymmax for this nonlunacy. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

"October" contains an "e". Wright would not approve.--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to being treated as an RfC rather than an admin issue. As far as I can see no allegations of wrongdoing have been raised about anyone, there is simply a disagreement about the style of the article. It would therefore be more sensible to have an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. Marking resolved with much the same advice. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Techwriter2B back and impersonating

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Permanently banned user Techwriter2B (with whom you are well familiar) appears to have returned after a several month absence this time having registered using MY real name. I have nothing to do with registering this account which needs to be closed IMMEDIATELY as it constitutes and continues his/her egregious wikistalking of me.Centpacrr (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Send to OTRS for discrete handling. "Impersonation" is a direct WP Terms violation. Collect (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands of Bruce Coopers in the world. Just check any online phonebook. MY name happens to be Bruce C. Cooper. If that's the same as yours, there's nothing I can do about it. Sorry. BruceCCooper (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The two edits made by this now banned sock (see below) were to references to me (User:Centpacrr), not another person with my name, and fit the longtime pattern of misconduct and impersonation of banned LTA Techwriter2B who has been wikistalking many other users for at least three years, and me personally (whom he/she was impersonating with this sock account) for almost a year. Those two edits were identical in character and content to previous disruptive wikistalking behavior of this LTA. Centpacrr (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a sock of Techwriter2B. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion of retired user's subpages

Resolved

 – All gone now. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Cymbelmineer, contributor of such valuable edits as this, has retired, leaving several subpages in their userspace. These are completely unreferenced article stubs about serial killers, 4chan-related topics, or holocaust denial. Had I read through this page while the editor was still active, I would have asked for its deletion immediately. Can someone please delete all of the subpages? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-tagging of article

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.

---

User: Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Article: Right-wing terrorism Article discussion Talk:Right-wing terrorism#POV

mark nutley tagged the article Right-wing terrorism as POV and tagged the first sentence as not supported by sources, saying, "Certain sections of this article are nowere near neutral, hence the tag. I`ll go through the sources used as the first one i checked did not support the statement it is used". I then presented a comparison of the text in the sentence and in the source and asked mark nutley not to restore the tags without explanation. He has restored them, referring to "a useful source" but providing no explanation of why he considers the tags are warranted.

Given this user's extensive history of disruption in political articles, he should receive a block for tagging articles without providing explanations.

TFD (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you always bring content disputes to ANI? Couple of things, i have commented on what i think is POV regarding one section and stated i was still looking through the rest, are you in a hurry? Your source failed verification because the source has it written as supposition, you have written it as fact. I would also like you to provide diffs for your accusation that i have an extensive history of disruption in political articles as i do not think that is accurate. I would also ask uninvolved readers to look through this thread [119] and perhaps get an idea of whom is disruptive here, it is not i mark (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don;t think its a content dispute, its a behaviour one. Tagging this article was a means of continuing an ideological dispute that Mark has been a leader of in the communist terrorism article along with mass killings under communist regimes. --Snowded ^TALK 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And your as bad as TFD, you do a drive by revert [120] and do not even bother to go to the talk page, care to explain why? mark (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD's main activity on Wikipedia is to try to get people blocked. He doesn't seem to have any interest in collaborating or working out problems, no interest in that satisfying experience of turning a difficult relationship into a positive one. It's always vindictive, always about winning a personality war. Noloop (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence at User talk:Marknutley that WP:DR has been attempted. I would suggest that those avenues be attempted if not exhausted before coming here. Unless that's occurred, I recommend closing this. Abuse of ANI should not be rewarded. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Calling for a block because of this is absurd. Somebody needs to mentor TFD. Noloop (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Some attention to WP:AIV

Resolved

Slightly backlogged, but I have a user that continues to upload images without source and license, and the report at AIV is going unblocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipoobum

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 14:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted, Blocked, lets pretend he was Never here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipoobum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created at 0128, has been inserting vapid, mindless statements of agreement on various talk pages. A bot? Who knows. Odd name, does it comply with the username policy? --TS 01:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Have you notified them of this discussion? It is required. That aside, clear troll, WP:RBI seems applicable here.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I'd no idea notification was required. I'll let him know. --TS 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass socking by Zsfgseg

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 14:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

See here. This guy seems to have access to at least a /13 range so blocking may be difficult. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Alos i just remembered something: a few days back i was on an igloo run and he was wreaking mass havoc on random archive indexes and i ignored it because I had no idea what was going on. Obviosly Zsfgseg now that i think about it. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the list, only the current five are him. The others appear to be bots editing while logged out. HalfShadow 03:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No those are within Zsfgfeg's immediate range. I think I'm gonna file a LTA. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tirns out that was a bot, but, this user has been socking for 2 years so LTA filed. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:Afactchecker

Resolved

 – 2010-10-26T01:38:33 User:Afactchecker blocked by User:Looie496 with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation blocked) ‎ (enforcement of community sanctions at WP:GS/BI). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Afactchecker has been changing names and numbers on the Valencia Community College article (see this history), and then changes the edit back to the correct version. This pattern will go on multiple times during the day for a number of days in a row. The editor has been questioned about this use of Wikipedia on the user talk page but has not responded. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked indef. The edits are not terribly harmful but this is too weird to let it go on -- based on the last month, the editor could keep this up forever if nothing is done. I will remove the block if the editor gives any sort of reasonable response. Looie496 (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/block! I also rolled-back the edits on VCC & there were all of 2 changes (a middle initial & a removal of a ]) in that entire series of edits. Skier Dude (talk 05:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Toddst1 (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of TreasuryTag

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block of TreasuryTag to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page. Please do not timestamp until this has reached the top of this page. –MuZemike

Closed; long past its use by date. 16:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring and legal threats at Cyprus

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andreas2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps removing text and pictures of Cypriot mosques from the Cyprus article and has now issued a legal threat in their latest edit summary. Admin attention is required. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef for the legal threat, even if it is a ridiculous threat.  Sandstein  15:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the legal threat is legally implausible. Still, despite the doubtful legal validity, such comments and any associated edit-warring cause disruption. Hopefully, since "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite" this user may eventually get unblocked if they show that they understand the underlying issues. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppets

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean Staunnery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Conor O'Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of banned editor Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Irvine22 and the history of the Dave Snowden article and it will become very obvious very quickly. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)|

I've looked into and caught one other accounts as well. TNXMan 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Obvious quacking get the ban hammer out, you need to notify them both of this board still i think--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can the ability to create pages be removed from BLP violators?

I raised this at AIV, but was referred here, instead. Is this possible to do? Should this be the DEFAULT action to someone who creates 2 or 3 or "n" unreferenced BLPs? We are banging our heads against brick walls otherwise, with a BLPPROD the only available response, but that is a treatment, lets cure this at the source... we shouldn't allow unreferenced BLPs to ever be created, let alone one user making lots of them.The-Pope (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ace16 sk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Can the ability to create pages be removed from this user until he/she understands that BLPs require references? I think the talk page notices show that he/she has been warned enough times. The-Pope (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the consensus has been to block users outright as opposed to revoking their "confirmed" status. –MuZemike 23:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And revoking their confirmed status wouldn't make any difference. Graham87 01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And you'd have to ask why not? Why use a sledgehammer when you can use a roadblock? The problem isn't their editting, it's their creating. Doesn't make sense to me.The-Pope (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

School project

Resolved

 – No admin action needed at this time. –MuZemike 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was alerted to the existence of an ongoing school project by this unreferenced addition, including a fair amount of POV, to an article. (Admittedly, the article had no explicit references to begin with, but this isn't helping the situation.) Could someone inform Saurette (talk · contribs), the teacher, about the relevant guidelines and such, as I'm feeling too crabby to take care of it and I can't even recall where the WP-space page about such projects resides. I'll inform both JKeedwel and Saurette about the existence of this thread, though. Deor (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:School and university projects. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

possible Zsfgseg sock

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

71.249.61.177 (talk · contribs) was caught by the Zsfgseg filter. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Xanderlip / Alexander outrageous personal attack

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alexander Liptak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
173.24.117.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

I can take a lot of grief from users, but I won't have my integrity questioned. Xander has now gone too far. On wikipedia, in the second part of his new comments shown here,[121] he accuses me of having stolen an image and uploaded it to commons. His statement is an absolute lie, and I want something done about it. I have notified him, on both wikipedia and commons, although he may have signed off for the night. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh look, Xander's RfC/U was just certified. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And, a mere 6 hours in, the meta-discussion on the RFC's talk page has already reached two levels of nesting, with people discussing the edits made to the discussion of the response to the RFC statement about the original dispute. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see a big problem here. You seem to be both engaging in bordeline uncivil and antagonistic behaviour. By stealing he obviously just means that there are possible copyright problems with the image - whether that is true or not should be easy to prove. I don't see grounds for a civilty issue here as you are both over the line. I also don't think there are grounds for a legal threat accusation. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't claim Xander made a legal threat, I claimed he made a bare-faced lie. Until 45 minutes ago, I had NEVER uploaded anything to commons, so it's unlikely that "a group of editors" would have said I did at some point in the past. In fact, there has never been any such claim. Furthermore, Xander made his comment an hour before I uploaded my very first image at commons. Xander made it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Oops, one correction. Nearly 3 years ago, when I got my commons account, I uploaded 1 file, as a test, that was a photo I had taken.[122] I got some friendly advice on how to label it properly, and dat was dat. If that's the basis of Xander's accusation, he should be banned for incompetency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• What is the something that you'd like done? Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I mixed him up with another user, he is taking this out of context. The other user already made it clear to him that it was a mix up on Commons, where he also took this issue. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah... Just curious... you've apologized for making such an egrerious claim, or did you think that "the other user" making it clear was sufficient? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

He put his comment directly below mine, so it looked like he was accusing me. What would I like done? Well, it depends on whether he retracts his accusation or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only has he not retracted it, he has added more fuel.[123] So, is it perfectly OK for an editor to falsely accuse another editor of theft? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the lie. I see him admitting it was an error. "How many people have to tell you that it was a mix up? You two sound the same to me, I can't help mixing you guys up." Sounds like a mix up to me. Yes, I see his comment wasn't the nicest, adding fuel as you put is, but that's not calling you a liar. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what do I want done? I want Xander sent away until he retracts that lie. His claim that he can't tell me apart from Roux is absurd. He posted it right below my comment. So until he retracts it, it continues to be directed at me, and I won't stand for it. Anyone here who knows me knows that I don't gripe about personal attacks very often. But when it's as naked a lie as this one, something has to be done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I sympathize with your anger, but I doubt he will be "sent away". I'm certainly not planning to block him. I've asked him to strike the comment and/or your name within it. When he signs on, I hope he will do so. I am not seeing that this is a pattern. If it is, then the best thing to do is document it in the RFC. The best thing for you to do now is to disengage and de-escalate this. Go do something else for a few hours.--Chaser (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get truly angry very often, but this was one of those times. And it's already in the RFC/U, i.e. it's on the talk page right where he posted it, unless he's deleted it since I was last here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Uh, "Just word vomit about how you wish I was nicer to you both, with ROUX directing you like puppets on what to say, what not to say and where to sign." Accusing me of meatuppetry isn't okay. → ROUX ₪ 11:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• If it's OK I'm just going to link to the diff of that, so it's easier to verify and see the context: [124] —Soap— 14:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Colegrove

Resolved

 – Article sent to AfD. –MuZemike 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

At least one person who has discovered Wikipedia does not seem to appreciate one Daniel Colegrove, whose article I have sprotected for a short time. The venom may spread over the talk page too. This is a BLP and, as real life beckons, I can't babysit its talk page -- yet I am reluctant to sprotect merely in anticipation of some nastiness. More administrative eyeballs please. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin outside perspective The username alone there was indicative of a problem... seems reasonable, given the BLP issues going on there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP about one thing: I don't think he's notable. I'm nominating the article for deletion and watchlisting it.--Chaser (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this lunacy!

Resolved

 – article is getting attention, JJB has been made aware of the fact that he should avoid this style in mainspace, anything else should be an RFC/U --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing discussion on the talk page of Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth about whether to write the article as a lipogram or not. The book is only notable pretty-much for being a lipogram and the argument is "It would better communicate the 'spirit' of the book." The problem that I (and others) have noted is that the article would communicate little else. It is difficult to read and would not allow mention of the authors name or even the fact that this is a novel and introduces incomparable difficulties in communicating what the lipogram is. This has been discussed, the article has been locked (which just caused everyone to not edit for two weeks while they waited it out. No new discussion, they just waited out the lock). These edits are clearly meant to support the article as a lipogram which was defeated by consensus on the talk page months ago (and that defeat was accepted). Is there some way to stop this once and for all? We have had an admin weigh in and they were simply ignored. Now what? Can someone please take a look at this article and advise us on a way to move forward with this? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no question at all that writing the article in this form to be "in the spirit" is a completely ridiculous idea. It'd be like writing On the Road as a stream of consciousness narrative, or removing the capitalization and periods from the E. E. Cummings article. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(conflict: Tarc is mostly right but:) Virtually all of this diff was sitting at talk for 15 to 30 days and Padillah had many options to discuss phrasing in this past month. Padillah did not AFAIK formally affirm what is actually our longstanding WP:CON at talk (primarily Martin Hogbin's and my formulation, I grant), in which all contributions (lipogrammatic or not) should work only toward improving phrasing and quality. (This topic has a long and rich lipogrammatic history.) It is also invalid to say I wish to support cutting Wright or apropos information from this topic, as I did not fight any such inclusion in 2009 as various additional datapoints got built out. Padillah also, offhand, put back in a factual misquotation of linguistics journal Word Ways, indicating unfamiliarity with his topic. If this was a discussion about contributions not improving WP, okay; but it's not, and now I'm told about my "lunacy". Thank you for your thoughts. JJB 13:39, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Well, in terms of writing the article as a Lipogram, any local consensus would be summarily overruled by the wider community consensus established in our manual of style guideline. Specifically the note about clarity of prose. Often we can establish exceptions at the article level; but in this case it is quite a divergence from the normal policy that it would need to be considered very widely. So the discussion is somewhat irrelevant; to write it as a lipogram would need full community agreement, and that is unlikely to happen (for the reason noted by Tarc) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the dumbest idea i've heard on wikipedia in a week, which is saying something. No, you can't form a local consensus to write lipogramaticaly, or with pictograms, or in pig-latin. An escalating series of blocks is the best way to deal with this if it goes further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Agree with others above. We are an encyclopedia written in clear, readable, explanatory prose. There's no room there for style deviations this serious, and no way that a local consensus can override plain community norms like this. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a good idea. For an example of why, see John J. Bulten/JJB's post above; that mangled style of writing is what a lipogram looks like. This kind of stylistic wankery is not suitable for a Wikipedia article.  pablo 14:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's something dodgy in general with that article. So many apparent sources, leading to so few places (most of them newspaper articles dressed up to look like book citations, to the work itself without page numbers, etc...) Will probably take a hard look at this myself.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bali, I'll happily assist, but kindly discuss to avoid mistaking anything, thanks. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

To be fair I'm not very good at ref clean-up but this is a remnant of when (get this) some editors tried to make the entire text, refs and all, lipogrammatic. There was, at one point, an effort to remove 'e' from links and refs and everything. So everything turned into a Harvard ref and that led to the mess you see before you today. You are correct to assume that this particular novel is not very notable; and is only that notable for being a lipogram. Padillah (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB should know that his using lipogram/mangled writing in articles or Wikipedia space is annoying and inappropriate, and the fact that he continues to do it here is disturbing as it has been brought up before, see [125]. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(conflict) @All: Whoa! Piling on! And hard words from Pablo X. Can you all stop fighting with that strawman for a bit, if you don't mind? This is not about making this topic into a lipogram. A good paradigm was laid down in 2009 and I am still using it. Assuming good faith, Padillah is too. If you want to work on phrasing, go for it. But attacking is not apropos on this board, thanks. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I thought that the section header was over the top, but after reading this, I have to agree. The novel is an artistic exercise, while the article is, or should be, an attempt to inform about the subject. Now, this is a volunteer project, and if a volunteer chooses to style their writing in this way, fine. However, there should be no attempt to impose, or even prefer this manner of writing within the article. If even one wiki link that otherwise would be in the article is lost due to this foolishness, the cost is too high. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Xymmax for this nonlunacy. JJB 14:45, 25 Oct 2010 (UTC)

"October" contains an "e". Wright would not approve.--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to being treated as an RfC rather than an admin issue. As far as I can see no allegations of wrongdoing have been raised about anyone, there is simply a disagreement about the style of the article. It would therefore be more sensible to have an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. Marking resolved with much the same advice. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Techwriter2B back and impersonating

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Permanently banned user Techwriter2B (with whom you are well familiar) appears to have returned after a several month absence this time having registered using MY real name. I have nothing to do with registering this account which needs to be closed IMMEDIATELY as it constitutes and continues his/her egregious wikistalking of me.Centpacrr (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Send to OTRS for discrete handling. "Impersonation" is a direct WP Terms violation. Collect (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands of Bruce Coopers in the world. Just check any online phonebook. MY name happens to be Bruce C. Cooper. If that's the same as yours, there's nothing I can do about it. Sorry. BruceCCooper (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The two edits made by this now banned sock (see below) were to references to me (User:Centpacrr), not another person with my name, and fit the longtime pattern of misconduct and impersonation of banned LTA Techwriter2B who has been wikistalking many other users for at least three years, and me personally (whom he/she was impersonating with this sock account) for almost a year. Those two edits were identical in character and content to previous disruptive wikistalking behavior of this LTA. Centpacrr (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a sock of Techwriter2B. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion of retired user's subpages

Resolved

 – All gone now. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Cymbelmineer, contributor of such valuable edits as this, has retired, leaving several subpages in their userspace. These are completely unreferenced article stubs about serial killers, 4chan-related topics, or holocaust denial. Had I read through this page while the editor was still active, I would have asked for its deletion immediately. Can someone please delete all of the subpages? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Entire thread has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010 to centralize discussion and to save space on the ANI page. Please do not timestamp this until this has reached the top of the page. –MuZemike

PBS Again

Literally just hours after yesterday’s pledge here by PBS to “agree not to edit either article Targeted killing and Assassination or their talk pages until the RFC ends (which will be more than a week”, he started this thread on ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’ to further his desires. One editor there, in response to PBS’s complaint opined “I agree that material should not be deleted purely and simply because the citation lacks page numbers...” It seems clear that PBS hoped he could induce others to remove material from ‘Targeted killing’ for him. This is tendentious editing in the extreme, he knows better and has been advised multiple times to drop it for a while. Greg L (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If he is forum shopping, he's taking a very long route. AGF says it is more likely he is pursuing a question about page numbers in references, rather than whether or not the two articles should be merged (iirc it was re-addition of merge tags which provoked yesterday's AN/I outing.) That said, I don't have enough time in my life to read the whole thread, just the top of it. Can you point to any evidence that he has broken his undertaking? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn’t break his pledge. AGF no longer applies because he has clearly exhibited that this is a vendetta against the very existence of the article and now wants to cause grief and exact some measure of a *win* at any cost. He has edit warred and bitterly fought with User:Epeefleche (who is the shepherding editor of ‘Targeted killing’) every step of the way. PBS has bitterly argued on Talk:Assassination and at Talk:Targeted killing against the existence of the latter article, edit warred to redirect ‘Targeted killing’ to ‘Assassination’ (effectively making the article disappear from articlespace), started an RfC over merging ‘Targeted killing’ with ‘Assassination’, and slapped tags on the article. This is detailed and documented here on Talk:Targeted killing. Indeed; as you say, it is a very round-about way of going about editing. Of course, now it is clearly very personal with him. So any outcome is a good outcome in that it is more grief for another editor. I was rather surprised by the cleverness of his maneuver and his apparent confidence in doing so. Greg L (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm more or less aware of the assassination / targeted killing disagreement, you've raised a new issue here. The issue appears to boil down to PBS pursuing doggedly the question of whether page numbers should be included in references, in the context of the two articles. However it is distinct from the question of whether or not targeted killing should exist or be folded into assassination. With the best will in the world, I cannot see that this merits any more than a slightly raised eyebrow. What are you expecting an admin to do? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L is confused over his timing the section was started at Revision as of 00:23, on 19 October 2010, in response to an impasse at talk:Targeted killing#First sentences at 00:25, 19 October 2010 I paced a link in the relevant section of talk:Targeted killing. Cirt informed me on my talk page at 07:19, 19 October 2010. I hope that now that Greg L has been shown to be confused over the timings that he will withdraw his scurrilous accusation, as I find it upsetting. -- PBS (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The elephant in the room for this whole issue is that one editor has produced a 100k article by themselves on a highly contentious topic. I don't think I'd be able to trust myself to be able to write a neutral article on the subject, and I can't think of any editor who I would trust to do so. I does not surprise me in the least that the result of it has been acrimony. Quantpole (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias in the article doesn’t seem to be a theme in the general community consensus in the RfC at Talk:Assassination, Quantpole. I think this is an issue of one editor (PBS). The community consensus is that the ‘Targeted killing’ article is desirable and wanted and PBS has been vociferously disagreeing with that consensus. Greg L (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That RfC is not about bias but about whether it should be a separate article, and even then there are numerous opinions drawing attention to the fact that POV may be a problem, so it's not just PBS. Quantpole (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about citations and PBS learning to walk away from a fight he lost over the article existing. Why are you raising the issue of bias in the article? Does that justify PBS’s tendentious and unrelenting behavior? I don’t think so. Not in the least. The only person weighing in there about the article being biased is PBS, who coincidentally enough has railed about the term “targeted killing” as being nothing more than a euphemism by the U.S. government to justify actions PBS finds unwise and disagreeable. Well, the rest of the general consensus at the RfC is that these concerns over right and wrong and whatever the U.S. government is getting away with are beside the point; it is what it is and the new term is now with us and its impact being debated in the U.N. and in the highest legal circles. I shouldn’t have had to write that just now. These issues are settled as a matter of community consensus. If you want to point out that the “elephant in the room” is bias in the article, please go raise the issue on “Talk:Targeted killing” and abide by the community consensus there. This is not the place to be raising that issue as if it justifies the actions of PBS. Greg L (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I thought you raise the bias question first, Greg. Any possibility we could knock this discussion on the head, since as you admit, PBS hasn't actually done anything to warrant it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I propose we afford PBS an opportunity to answer my question below. It will either be a variation of “yes”, “no” or “evade.” No matter which, you may mark this thread resolved as far as I am concerned. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, it looks like he’s venue shopping for the purpose of just causing grief. If it doesn’t look that way to you, that’s fine. PBS, I’m sorry, I do have the timing confused and you are right to be upset.

Now, let’s get down to the meat and potatoes of the issue. Don’t you think it would be best to just back off and let Epeefleche spend another week working on the article? I’ve created articles in my own userspace so I could get into a form that is barely ready for prime time. In the case of Epeefleche and his wholesale re-do of ‘Targeted killing’, he landed the article with a 149 citations. I’m sure he has a lot of work planned for the article. Do you think you can just leave him and the article alone and drop it for a few weeks in all the venues and forums you know about? Greg L (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No way should we 'back off' an article like this. It needs more attention from people other than the main editor not less. Quantpole (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L as you say you were mistaken then please strike out your ANI request. -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as evasive and an attempt to divert attention from my above question. Whereas you started the ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’ incident before your pledge to back off, you’ve been quite active there after your pledge—still working the ol’ issue. So please answer this directly; it is a simple question: In the case of Epeefleche and his wholesale re-do of ‘Targeted killing’, he landed the article with a 149 citations. I’m sure he has a lot of work planned for the article. Do you think you can just leave him and the article alone and drop it for a few weeks in all the venues and forums you know about? Greg L (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that's an appropriate question. I do think striking this AN/I thread is. The consensus that the article stays being established, it is more than legitimate to scrutinise the content and raise such questions are need to be raised. Doubtless is PBS oversteps some mark, we'll quickly hear about it here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have struck and corrected. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And then persisted with a more general harrying of PBS, which is unseemly on the back of an in error AN/I. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not being "evasive" you bought this ANI on a specific issue that you have since admitted was a mistake and you acknowledge that I have the "right to be upset". So please strike out you initial posting to this section. -- PBS (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I have done so. Now might you make a pledge to drop it in all venues and forums until the RfC concludes? Greg L (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for partially striking out the ANI. Are you aware that you should not change your comments in a thread so that it does not reflect the original contents? Please remove the additional material you have added to the header of this thread and add it to the bottom if you think it relevant to the original ANI. -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have fixed that. The corrected material is now distinct and separately signed. Greg L (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As it was not part of the initial ANI please remove the wording from the initial statement and add it to the bottom of the ANI so the accusations raised are in chronological order and then I will happily explain my postings to RS/N. I am beginning to wonder if you realize how serious you accusations are. This thread will be archived and I want a clean record of what happened. Changing the header of an ANI in the way you are doing is in my opinion not appropriate behaviour.because if I answer you question to you satisfaction how do I know that you will not alter the heading yet again? -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The added material is now distinct and dated so all posts before that are clearly not in response to that part. Of course I know how serious my accusations are; that’s why I’m here. If you would prefer, I will strike the incorrect part, not add the later-dated correction, and re-post below.

My concern is as follows: After the correct order of events were pointed out, I believe there is unnecessary disruption still occurring that needlessly harasses another editor. PBS continues to use a thread he started at a venue, here at ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’ to persist at what would, in effect, be editing by proxy on an article on which he pledged to stay away from until an RfC concluded. One editor there, in response to PBS’s complaint opined “I agree that material should not be deleted purely and simply because the citation lacks page numbers...” This strikes me tendentious editing. Note that after an ANI the previous day, he pledged to avoid editing the ‘Targeted killing’ article until the RfC on its talk page expired in order to reverse a 48-hour-long block for his over-vigorous editing in opposition to the article. I don’t think the spirit of that pledge is met by continuing to pursue the issue in venue where others might edit per his bidding. ([126], [127], [128], [129]) I ask that PBS pledge to avoid the ‘Targeted killing’ article in all venues and forums until the RfC concludes. I think the rest of the wikipedian community is perfectly capable of addressing the remaining shortcomings of the article on its own. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You have still not retracted your initial ANI statement. You have struck thorough you initial accusation, but you have not struck through the two conclusion you drew from that initial mistaken accusation. Please do so and then we can proceed to discuss this new accusation. -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What exact wording are you referring to? Greg L (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The three sentences that follow the one you struck through in the lead paragraph. The last two contain the conclusion you drew from that initial mistaken accusation. -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the bad blood that exists between these two editors, the "page numbers" concern is founded on a legitimate concern so initiating disciplinary action isn't really appropriate in my view. This report should be closed with no action taken. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine, Betty. Yours is a legitimate take on the matter. But to be clear on the background and the facts, I am coming to the defense of another, very hard-working editor, User:Epeefleche, who has put in an extraordinary amount of effort on the ‘Targeted killing’ article only to be fought at every twist & turn by PBS. The community consensus was not at all with PBS's desires with regard to keeping the article. It strikes me as badgering and I think it is an unfortunate “reward” for Epeefleche’s hard work. My participation in editing the article has been extremely minimal. I just hate to see hard-work be punished so and feel Epeefleche has shown uncommon patience in the face of an editor who is an admin—which is itself intimidating and often results in pretty bold behavior. Greg L (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it appropriate that before it is closed that the header is struck through so it is in the record that the accusation and conclusions drawn from it were false. As to the more recent allegation first we have to establish if it is reasonable for one of two editors involved in a discussion about the format of a citation on an article talk page, having reached an impasse, should ask at RS/N for other opinions. Also I think you will find that the person who is disputing the need for page numbers in citations on the talk page of targeted killing opened the door to further comments by me with with this edit to RS/N. -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are referring to this still-standing text: One editor there, in response to PBS’s complaint opined “I agree that material should not be deleted purely and simply because the citation lacks page numbers...” It seems clear that PBS hoped he could induce others to remove material from ‘Targeted killing’ for him. This is tendentious editing in the extreme, he knows better and has been advised multiple times to drop it for a while.

If so, no. It stands. The conclusions do not change. You are wikilawyering over a point that does not affect my conclusions. Whether you started your thread at ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’ or *merely* continue to persist there with multiple edits after your pledge that reversed your 48-hour block certainly does not affect my concern nor does it change my suggested remedy: that you agree to stay away from ‘Targeted killing’ via all venues. You clearly exhibit resistance to accepting such a challenge. That’s fine; I can’t force you to. I think it would be wise if you heeded that advise. If you want to have a squeaky clean, unblemished record, you might exhibit some squeaky clean, exemplary behavior towards other editors. I’m certainly not seeing that out of you and your refusal so far to indulge in a two-week break from your feud with Epeefleche does nothing to ameliorate my concerns. Greg L (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the take-away from this previous discussion on the Reliable Sources board is that page numbers are the sine qua non for book references, but that book refs without page numbers should not be removed for that reason alone. Rather, they can be removed if there is reason to suspect that the ref is invalid, such as that the editor who posted the ref refuses to provide page numbers, or cannot do so. Absent reasons to suspect something fishy, they should be left and marked as needing page numbers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L Do you not see that if your initial accusation was false then the conclusions you drew from that initial accusation are false? It may be that you want to present fresh evidence and draw the same conclusions, but the initial conclusions should not be left there.

As you have been active in reverting edits I have made to the templates at the top of targeted killing you are an involved editor, who has made their point of view clear on several different pages. Indeed you have spent far more time in criticising my behaviour than discussing the content of the article. Comments such as "User:Epeefleche (who is the shepherding editor of ‘Targeted killing’)" makes me wonder what term you would use for you own relationship with the article, and how you square "shepherding editor" with the lead into WP:OWN. Also after you posted this message to RSN, I would be interested to know if you have read Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander. --PBS (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with asking for page numbers for a book citation. There is nothing wrong with asking for an uninvolved opinion at a noticeboard when the editor in question (Epeefleeche), refuses to provide a page number. There is nothing wrong with placing an NPOV or BIAS tag on an article unless clear consensus exists on the article talk page to remove it. Based on this thread and other discussions on this issue, I recommend that GregL be banned from further involvement with the Targeted killing or Assassination articles and from further interaction with PBS. GregL seems to be taking this disagreement far too personally which appears to be clouding his/her judgement and interfering with Wikipedia's editorial processes. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I’m not taking it all personally, Cla68. I am simply saying that if PBS got blocked for 48 hours for editwarring on ‘Targeted killing’ and pledged to stay away, that it seems like he is circumventing the spirit by continuing to raise issues on a noticeboard over the article. I have not been active on the talk pages since PBS’s block nor have I been active on the citation noticeboard at all. I’ve been very uninvolved in those articles except to question his continuing conduct here. It seems quite unjust and outright chilling to be banning an editor (me) from places merely by coming here with facts that are documented by differences, corrections where they are pointed out regarding the facts, and a statement of my concern—especially when the editor I am concerned about is an admin. That would look bad indeed. Merely stating that you see no foul from PBS is sensible. Following that up with “shoot the complainant” seems excessive, don’t you think? Greg L (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes editors have to be banned from editing certain articles simply because their current course of action is destabilising the article. It doesn't mean their concerns are not warranted, or that the other editor is faultless, and a temporary article ban gives them the opportunity to pursue a more appropriate course of action. Betty Logan (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L you wrote "I am simply saying that if PBS got blocked for 48 hours for editwarring on ‘Targeted killing’" and your diff to back up that statement is? The term used was "WP:Disruptive editing." is this another case of you "having you facts of"?

Cirt agreed to unblock my account after an interlocutor intervened, I voluntarily said I would not edit the page until the RFC was finished (I had not intended to edit the content of the article until then and it means that the RFC will probably run it full course) as it seemed to me a reasonable offer for me to make, (particularly as Cirt had indicated (s)he would accept a period of only up to the end of the initial block), as it allowed all stakeholders to walk away from the confrontation agreeing to differ but with their honour intact. To further reduced any possible future confrontation, Cirt and I have agreed that that neither of us will block each others account again, or solicit another to do so with communications that are not logged on the Wikipedia pages. I think that your summary of the ANI block review and the talk page discussions do not accurately reflect what happened.

This is not the first time that you have made statements about my actions that are not true, (you have acknowledged one in this section, as you did so on the 17 October with "Oh dear; pardon me, PBS. I had my facts a bit off."[130] The problem I have is that if a assume good faith, then it makes you look like a fool "To lose one parent, ... may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness", and as I am loath to think that a fellow editor might be deliberately making such mistakes it leave me in a bit of a quandary. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue with Philip, which was obscured by the fuss over the recent block, is that he has a tendency to revert (or add tags or whatever it is) endlessly to whichever version he wants, no matter the consensus against, and this can go on literally for years. One example is the placement of ref tags. Almost everyone on and off Wikipedia places these after punctuation—like this. But we were not able to write this into the MoS or CITE because of Philip, who reverted every effort to do so no matter how strong the consensus. In the end, after years of trying to sort it out, we had to hold a formal RfC, which really was a waste of time. So if any good comes out of this dispute I hope it's that Philip will take that criticism on board—that arguing your position is important up to a point, but it's also important to be able to spot when it crosses into being tendentious. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  On the issue of citation placements we had had "formal" RFCs before the most recent one, and previously there was never a consensus for citations only after punctuation, so it had been agreed to compromise. "Almost everyone on and off Wikipedia places these after punctuation—like this" I though the old wording "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period," was a summary of that statement -- but that is water under the bridge -- SV's preference, (which SV initially boldly introduced specific placement into the guidelines on 17 May 2006 and has been arguing for its for years (pots and kettles?)) is now going to be imposed on all articles. -- PBS (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I gave that only as an example, but I hope you take the general point, which is that you engage in an awful lot of protracted reverting, and in arguing for your position long after whatever the issue is has been decided. I'll say no more about it. I just wanted to make the point as (I hope) constructive criticism. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not to detract from SlimVirgin's point (because I agree that protracted battles are never delightful), but I do want to point out that PBS is often, though not always of course, correct in these reversions. Fighting battles on wikipedia is far from easy when you're up against obdurate editors and POV pushers and PBS does a reasonably fine job in dealing with these editors, IMO. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I second Slim's comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• I third Slim's comments. RegentsPark, you say "PBS is often, though not always of course, correct in these reversions". Perhaps I miss these examples, and I'm willing to accept that he may make justifiable reversions sometimes. But on many occasions when I've seen him on style-guide pages, he's standing arms folded against the tide, steadfastly refusing to engage on the core of the matter. It's difficult behaviour. Tony (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  My remarks were solely about PBS and issues of content. I know nothing of style, on wiki or off. My apologies for the lack of clarity. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  My experience with PBS is similar to Tony1's and Slim's, but page numbers are still needed on those citations. Don't see this discussion going anywhere, suggest closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Having read down this thread, I doubt this issue is framed in a way that merits a place here. I cannot see that the approach brought by User:Greg L is likely to clarify anything, because of an inflammatory attitude and unclear formulation. If there is an issue about a thread on some other noticeboard, why is it not being handled there? Charles Matthews (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

While there may not be a clear actionable course to take in the present circumstance there is a valid reason for calling attention to this dispute here and now. Given the circumstances there are indications this dispute may escalate into an edit war. Giving due notice here may pre-emptively dissuade such an eventuality and provide other parties the opportunity to more decisively weigh in on the issue with the effect of avoiding an edit war. Lambanog (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Lambanog's thoughtful comment above.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; like many disputes on Wikipedia, there is history behind it. And, unfortunately, to recount tendentious behavior requires a tedious account. (*sigh*) Here it is:

PBS’s strenuously opposed the very existence of the ‘Targeted killing’ article. It is clear that he personally disagrees with what the U.S. is doing when it targets people like Anwar al-Awlaki (who declared jihad on America and has stated that the score won’t begin to be even until one million Americans die), by writing such things as this:

Even ignoring the US government's legal arguments, where is there any protection under the Third Geneva convention that protects civilians from attack (it is of course part of the laws and customs of war and is described in Hague Conventions (1907) (mainly IV — The Laws and Customs of War on Land). But where is it described in GCIII?

I’ve not been much active in editing the ‘Targeted killing’ article, but I’ve seen that his personal views were clouding his judgement as a wikipedian. It doesn’t matter what his personal views are; he isn’t part of a notable think tank that weighs in on government policy nor is he a reliable secondary source. The only thing that matters is whether the community consensus shares his concerns over the factual correctness of the article and its notability as a distinct subject unto itself. Since he filters the whole existence of the article through his sense of right and wrong about it, I once tried to connect with him by arguing “right & wrong” but I began a post with “Oh, I too can play “Rand Corp. think-tank” and pretend to be an authoritative source suitable for being quoted by RSs”. I did this to drive home that what he and I personally feel about what the U.S. is doing and whether it is just or unjust does not matter one twit; targeted killing merely *is*.

He appeared displeased with the fact that his arguments weren’t gaining much traction so he at first redirected “Targeted killing” to “Assassination.” Then he started an RfC on whether there should be a separate article. All the while, he edit warred with Epeefleche by refusing to let the article exist while the RfC was ongoing and did this by insisting on redirecting the article to “Assassination”. Epeefleche took him to ANI over his conduct. So then he changed his tact and abandoned edit warring over *redirecting* and instead focused his efforts on making it an issue of *merging*. Accordingly, an RfC that began as one over redirecting and was going down in flames so he morphed it into one about merging. There, the clear, landslide community consensus was that it wanted this article as it was distinct from ‘Assassination’.

Then he restored (∆ here) the {biased tag}. I deleted the tag because it was just tendentiousness; tags are not be used like a big piece of graffiti on the storefront each morning screaming “I-DON’T LIKE IT” as tool to force others to address the dissenting voice of someone whose views are not representative of the community consensus and that dissenter just won’t let it go.

Then, he got a belated 48-hour block for some of the above-described conduct. After an ANI the previous day, he pledged to avoid editing the ‘Targeted killing’ article until the RfC on its talk page expired. However, he continued to pursue the ‘Targeted killing’ article at the ‘Reliable sources/Noticeboard’,([131], [132], [133], [134]) which essentially amounted to a venue where the article could get “edited” via proxy (deletion of central pieces of text that were cited to a book but no pages numbers were provided) per his bidding.

I have no doubt that I have some minor goof in the general order of the above and if I did so, I’m sure PBS will be pleased to point it out to us. But just because I listed A, B, C, D, E, F and the order was really A, B, D, C, E, F doesn’t really change the fact it is an alphabet soup of harping on a the same issue (only with a different shade of lipstick each time) in defiance of the rest of the community.The above paints an essentially complete and fair overall picture of what Epeefleche has had to put up with. The community consensus is clear that it wants the article and there are more than enough other wikipedians who can help make it better without still more of this from PBS.

Yes, he is an admin. Yes, his concerns with citations are legitimate. Are there other wikipedians in existence who can handle whatever shortcomings exist in the recently expanded article(?), yes. SlimVirgin mentioned “protracted” in connection with previous encounters with PBS. Tony mentioned “steadfastly refusing” in connection with previous encounters wtih PBS. Both those terms seem to apply to this issue too. Greg L (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Greg L you are not an impartial editor over this, and I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending that you are, or if you are going to pretend that you are then at least have the decency to present the facts without a bias.

In this section you have done nothing but make one accusation after another which when looked at in detail turns out to be specious.

For example you have not pointed out that after a three month discussion from February 2006 (when Tazmaniacs redirected Targeted killing to Assasinaion) up until the 30 September 2010 (a period of close on four year, the page had remained a redirect). If Cirt had chosen to protect the page on the last stable version while the RFC (which I had suggested that Epeefleche start and when (s)he did not I did) was already begun went through, then the page could still be a redirect (as the RFC has not finished -- although it may have been closed by now by an independent administrator). Personally if I were going to create an article on a page that had previously been a redirect with a large amount of debate over the issue I would run an RFC before writing a 100K article and plonking it on top of a redirect, as so I do not think that having an RFC over this issue is unreasonable. Cirt did not protect the last stable version, instead Cirt protected the last version, which is what usually happens when an administrator protects a page, and something I think Epeefleche may have been relying on when (s)he reverted the article content at 03:36 and then within 4 minutes accused my edits of being vandalism accusation on AIV 03:40 without informing me of the AIV and knowing that if I was to revert for a 4th time I would breach 3RR so it was unlikely to be reverted before an independent administrator saw the AIV posting (and decide to protect the page). But this is all water under the bridge, and I see little point in discussing it further.

I do not see your difference between redirecting and merging. Usually if an article is redirected then any worthwhile content in merged into the article to which the redirect points. Putting the merge banner at the top of the two articles was a useful way to advertise an ongoing RFC as the discussion-link linked to the RFC section.

Greg L you wrote above "It is clear that he personally disagrees with what the U.S. is doing by targeting people like Anwar al-Awlaki (someone who declared jihad on America and has stated that the score won’t begin to be even until one million Americans die)" Where do you get that inference from? There is nothing in what I have written to suggest that I am either for or against the actions of the US government. Should I draw the inference from what you have written that you think that the presentation of the information on Wikipedia should be slanted in favour of targeting people like Anwar al-Awlaki? I had assumed like me you would want article to present a balanced and neutral point of view.

Having made the statement without one shred of proof, much as you did with you initial statement at the start of this section, you then draw conclusions "he isn’t part of a notable think tank that weighs in on government policy nor is he a reliable secondary source", and "“Oh, I too can play “Rand Corp. think-tank” and pretend to be an authoritative source suitable for being quoted by RSs”" This implies that I am inserting my knowledge into the article, far from it. All I have done is to explain why I think that the article makes some statements that need further work and as I wrote on the article talk page at 20:35 on 15 October "The first two sentences are supported by one citation. As explained above there are grounds for thinking that either the source given as a reliable source is not reliable, or the sources does not support the summary presented in the text."

I think that if people read this exchange from the talk page of the targeted killing article they will be able to see if you summary above of the exchanges on the talk page are accurate, and just how willing Epeefleche was to answer my questions.

That exchange took place during a half hour period over 17/18 of October. Since then text of the article concerning my question has been changed by user:Xeno to protocol I with the comment in the edit hisotry "the reference says the Third Geneva Convention is only used to define civilian, it is Protocol I that would afford the protection". Xeno then made another change to replace Protocol I with the Geneva Conventions. Epeefleche has not changed it back so presumably there is agreement that GCIII was not supported by the source. -- PBS (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• PBS seems to fail to take heed of the community's urging here that he forego his tendentious editing. And respect community consensus. It appears that he is fast losing community trust.

He also fails to mention:

1. That he was the one who redirected the targeted killing article, years ago, with barely input, let alone consensus support for his view.
2. He more recently redirected the 100K "targeted killing" article, with its 150 refs, three times[135][136][137] in 2+ hours (and also deleted its associated talk page, also three times)[138][139][140] --despite four warnings. With bare edit summaries, that failed to provide a reasonable basis therefor. The effect? The same as deleting the article (without an AfD). Oblivion. Nobody could see the article, as it was the only search term for the article. Some might consider that edit warring, and disruptive.
3. He did this in the face of multiple entreaties to him to desist, explaining why his bare edit summaries to the extent that they even pretended to be substantive, were frivolous -- all to no avail.[141][142][143][144][145][146]
4. He then, when another editor brought it the matter to ANI, took the occasion to threaten me--which other editors thankfully suggested to him might not be wise;[147]
5. He then, despite the fact that there had been talk page discussion for months, with a consensus to create the targeted killing article, said he saw no consensus. And started an RFC on the same precise question. And there, despite nearly a unanimous disagreement with his position that a targeted killing page should not exist (and comments to the effect that he was being tendentious), refused to agree that near-unanimity was consensus.
6. He then tag-bombed the targeted killing article, and engaged in other tendentious behavior, for which he was warned.
7. He was just blocked for: "WP:Disruptive editing. Continuing pattern at Targeted killing and Assassination. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing."

PBS -- a number of editors have made the same comment to you above, with regard to your behavior. For the good of the community, I respectfully urge you to take it to heart.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche "That [PBS] was the one who redirected the targeted killing article, years ago, with barely input, let alone consensus support for his view.", but The history of the article does not back up your statement the redirect was first put in place by user:Tazmaniacs on 19 February 2006. The discussion on whether that should be done had been advertised through a merge template at the top of the article since 9 December 2005 so this was not something done quickly but over a 2 month period. I see no point in continuing this discussion until you agree that you made a mistake with this accusation. -- PBS (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PBS, whereas I don't fully endorse the details of Greg L's account above, it still paints a troubling pattern others, including me, have seen from you before. In this case, tendentious posts and edits have caused a lot of trouble. Tony (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PBS’s threat/promise to Epeefleche that in a future case in which PBS was “not involved”, he would block Epeefleche if he thought Epeefleche was accusing other editors of vandalism when they are making good faith edits points to why it is especially important for administrators to exercise good judgement. Though PBS might think he would be “not involved” in some theoretical future dispute between Epeefleche and another editor, in fact he would be involved; according to Wikipedia’s requirements of administrators, such behavior would carry the appearance of “non-neutrality” springing from “content dispute” and would fail to “uphold the trust and confidence of the community.” Those are all powdered-wig expressions that amount to the simple principle of harboring a sour-grapes grudge and using one’s clout to exact revenge on someone if the opportunity presents itself. That PBS would make this threat (pledge) to the complainant at an ANI in which he is the subject proves the motive behind the threat. I would hope that PBS would repudiate that threat below. Failure to do so would be deeply troubling. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In fairness he posted that almost a month ago. I think, given this discussion, he would know now that he couldn't be regarded as uninvolved enough to do that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Even for a month ago, for an admin who was the subject of an ANI, pledging—right in that ongoing ANI—to make the complainant the object of his *special love* in the future, seems inflammatory and combative. At least for a regular editor (not an admin), such aggressive posturing at an ANI would be the last thing one would want to do. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Factomancer

Blocked user is launching personal attacks against a living person. I will not delve into the details as not give more work to oversighters. My removal of the attack was described as "vandalism" and reverted. More eyes needed. I would suggest full protection of the page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What "personal attacks against a living person"? You not only removed 3+kB of other material that does not even mention a living person, you additionally restored a warning left by another user that Factomancer had removed. Your addition of that you "will not delve into the details" is incredibly dishonest and only meant to influence a reader into thinking there is material in there that is oversightable. There isnt, and the fact that you cant say what about the material you removed violates BLP is telling. nableezy - 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Factomancer said Jimbo Wales encourages pro-Israeli manipulation of wikipedia for money. She also implied that as an Objectivist, he hates Arabs like Ayn Rand did. Hope this helps. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The first part of that is true, the second is not. She does write that Jimbo has encouraged Israeli manipulation, but she does not imply that he "hates Arabs". But if those lines are a problem Brewcrewer could have removed those lines. He didnt, he erased everything and reinstated a warning the user had deleted. nableezy - 14:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

He reverted the edit that inserted the BLP violation, as you often do.

I think she does imply that Jimbo hates Arabs. Some more eyes on this should sort this out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This should address your concerns. nableezy - 15:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you redacted the fact that Jimbo is an Objectivist (information that appears in his article) unless you were trying to blur the connection Factomancer is making with Ayn Rand and her alleged hatred of Arabs.

She also makes some personal attacks against other editors.

I think someone less involved than you should have a look at this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I blanked that he is an "objectivist figurehead", if you would like to reinsert it feel free. But the purported reason that brewcrewer blanked and then requested indefinite full-protection was BLP violation. Is there anything on that page that qualifies as a BLP violation now or not? If not, whats the problem here? nableezy - 16:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Put me down for a big helping of moot. Factomancer says they have retired. If they have truly retired then why don't we just let sleeping dogs lie? This user has been associated with more than enough drama over the past year or so, let's let it end now if that is what they want. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Our BLP policy does not grant exception to retiring editors. Besides, Factomancer appears to be one of those serial "retirers". This is not the first time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there currently anything on that page that violates BLP? If so, what? And is calling a user a drama queen a personal attack? nableezy - 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-tagging of article

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.

---

User: Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Article: Right-wing terrorism Article discussion Talk:Right-wing terrorism#POV

mark nutley tagged the article Right-wing terrorism as POV and tagged the first sentence as not supported by sources, saying, "Certain sections of this article are nowere near neutral, hence the tag. I`ll go through the sources used as the first one i checked did not support the statement it is used". I then presented a comparison of the text in the sentence and in the source and asked mark nutley not to restore the tags without explanation. He has restored them, referring to "a useful source" but providing no explanation of why he considers the tags are warranted.

Given this user's extensive history of disruption in political articles, he should receive a block for tagging articles without providing explanations.

TFD (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you always bring content disputes to ANI? Couple of things, i have commented on what i think is POV regarding one section and stated i was still looking through the rest, are you in a hurry? Your source failed verification because the source has it written as supposition, you have written it as fact. I would also like you to provide diffs for your accusation that i have an extensive history of disruption in political articles as i do not think that is accurate. I would also ask uninvolved readers to look through this thread [148] and perhaps get an idea of whom is disruptive here, it is not i mark (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don;t think its a content dispute, its a behaviour one. Tagging this article was a means of continuing an ideological dispute that Mark has been a leader of in the communist terrorism article along with mass killings under communist regimes. --Snowded ^TALK 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And your as bad as TFD, you do a drive by revert [149] and do not even bother to go to the talk page, care to explain why? mark (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD's main activity on Wikipedia is to try to get people blocked. He doesn't seem to have any interest in collaborating or working out problems, no interest in that satisfying experience of turning a difficult relationship into a positive one. It's always vindictive, always about winning a personality war. Noloop (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence at User talk:Marknutley that WP:DR has been attempted. I would suggest that those avenues be attempted if not exhausted before coming here. Unless that's occurred, I recommend closing this. Abuse of ANI should not be rewarded. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Calling for a block because of this is absurd. Somebody needs to mentor TFD. Noloop (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Some attention to WP:AIV

Resolved

Slightly backlogged, but I have a user that continues to upload images without source and license, and the report at AIV is going unblocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipoobum

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 14:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted, Blocked, lets pretend he was Never here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipoobum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created at 0128, has been inserting vapid, mindless statements of agreement on various talk pages. A bot? Who knows. Odd name, does it comply with the username policy? --TS 01:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Have you notified them of this discussion? It is required. That aside, clear troll, WP:RBI seems applicable here.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I'd no idea notification was required. I'll let him know. --TS 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass socking by Zsfgseg

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 14:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

See here. This guy seems to have access to at least a /13 range so blocking may be difficult. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Alos i just remembered something: a few days back i was on an igloo run and he was wreaking mass havoc on random archive indexes and i ignored it because I had no idea what was going on. Obviosly Zsfgseg now that i think about it. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the list, only the current five are him. The others appear to be bots editing while logged out. HalfShadow 03:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No those are within Zsfgfeg's immediate range. I think I'm gonna file a LTA. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tirns out that was a bot, but, this user has been socking for 2 years so LTA filed. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:Afactchecker

Resolved

 – 2010-10-26T01:38:33 User:Afactchecker blocked by User:Looie496 with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation blocked) ‎ (enforcement of community sanctions at WP:GS/BI). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Afactchecker has been changing names and numbers on the Valencia Community College article (see this history), and then changes the edit back to the correct version. This pattern will go on multiple times during the day for a number of days in a row. The editor has been questioned about this use of Wikipedia on the user talk page but has not responded. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked indef. The edits are not terribly harmful but this is too weird to let it go on -- based on the last month, the editor could keep this up forever if nothing is done. I will remove the block if the editor gives any sort of reasonable response. Looie496 (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/block! I also rolled-back the edits on VCC & there were all of 2 changes (a middle initial & a removal of a ]) in that entire series of edits. Skier Dude (talk 05:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Toddst1 (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ged UK abusing protection, lack of communication and rude attitude

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.

---

Request for unprotection: [150]. Response by Ged UK: [151] I have no idea what "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask" means, I have never had any explanation from Ged UK before. 1) I find such behaviour incredibly rude, and unjustified. 2) I believe that Ged UK is abusing his position by declining an unprotect request - for he is the person who protected the article in the first place [152], he would hardly agree to unprotect the article. This represents a conflict of interest. The request should have been reviewed by someone impartial. 3) He also re-protected the article that was unprotected by SlimVirgin [153] with again no explanation [154] this is wheel-warring. 4) Finally he has completely refused to communicated with me, other than the "you know perfectly well" comment. I have twice tried to communicate on his talk page. He has replied to everyone else, except me. I think this shows a patronising attitude against IP users. 5) I have taken this up with Wikiquette, but nothing happened except a dismissal of my concerns by a close friend of Ged UK. I am bringing this up at AN/I, as I request that an uninvolved party look over the whole situation, and decide whether Ged UK is abusing his position as an administrator. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Forumshopping. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

yep from wikiquette alerts Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 09:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite; if they're not satisfied with the outcome at WQA, they're expected to escalate, and given this is a request to review admin actions, this would be the place to take a look. That said, it's worth questioning whether this request actually has merit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikiquette alert was only raised late yesterday, so escalation so quickly is at least impatient, and really does look like forum shopping to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not a "close friend" of GedUK - I've never met the guy or spoken to him outside of Wikipedia. Our connection is simply that I started investigating and working on the edit warring and mass vandalism on TV channel articles early in the year, and GedUK has helped by doing the necessary protections that I can't do because I'm not an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not "forumshopping", I made a mistake posting it to Wikiquette as it seems hardly used [155] compared to this page [156]. I also think that here is the most appropriate place, as this sort of behaviour from an administrator is too serious for Wikiquette. I would delete the original Wikiquette concern, but I think that may be against WP rules and guidelines. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Anon, I don't see what it is you are wanting. An explanation was indeed provided why semi-protection is running across several similar pages. In any case, you need to notify Slimvirgin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I think I see the problem. This IP filed a request on the 24th, which is what Ged UK responded to. The IP obviously missed this response and refiled on 25th (and again today) which was declined with the response he is complaining about. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah ok, that makes sense. Waiting on GedUK and Slimvirgin to respond. Today's protection request has been closed so it can be reviewed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know what you want; it was unprotected, you made your edit (which was not reverted), then protection was re-instated. If it's really so important that you edit these specific articles, why not get an account? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Charitably, he is a new user who knew enough to use WP shorthand in his very first edit (which happens to have an edit summary). In short, I doubt the IP is a new user, and would be inclined to not grant the latitude I would extend thereto. Collect (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seb az86556 and Collect, your attitudes seem rather patronising. Talk of "forumshopping" (which it isn't) and "get an account" is not helpful, and seems to be (like Ged UK) looking down on IP users as people with a lesser right. "WP shorthand" is not that difficult to decypher, since it's used by most other users, and there are explanations of what they mean throughout the site. Ncmvocalist, your reply is most useful. I had not seen that explanation from Ged UK - not surprising as it was almost immediately deleted for some reason - however it still doesn't address all the issues. For example, 1) why wasn't the explanation in the edit summary, or even in the talk page of TV Polonia? As of now, Ged UK has refused to do this 2) Why is TV Polonia protected, as it has nothing to do with the other pages which are vandalised. Ged UK doesn't even elaborate which pages they are, which would be useful. There is talk of "pre-emptively", but I think this does not justify a page protection (there are thousands of television stations in the world, and Ged UK talks of "about 6" pages being vandalised), unless Ged UK objects to IP users editing Wikipedia full stop. 3) Furthermore, why did he respond "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask" to me? - perhaps someone could explain. If Ged UK could explain it would be nice, as I have no idea what he means. I have never come across him before, or had any explanation before Ncmvocalist posted the link above. 4) Why did he not debate the issue before re-protecting the article and wheel warring? SlimVirgin seemed confused about why not. 5) As an administrator, I would expect Ged UK to have a civil attitude towards other users, rather than ignore them or be dismissive. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of #4, as he mentions on the RFPP page he was not aware of the RFPP request and mistakenly assumed the unprotection was a mistake relating to another admin action Slim was performing. This is fine, and not Wheel warring. Indeed, Slim then agreed that the action was fine: [157] Throwing such terms about it not helpful. The report was then removed a number of hours later as part of the usual page archiving, it was pretty clear he had replied though so you could have checked the page history. I'm not really going to enter an opinion on the TV article protection in general, other than to say Ged UK is a pretty experienced page protector so his actions have initial weight I am sure when he gets online he will be happy to make a full explanation. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I now notice the response from SlimVirgin, so I take back my "wheel warring" accusation (by the way, I have informed SlimVirgin on her talk page), but I stand by my other concerns. I don't think it was "pretty clear he had replied", it was deleted very quickly afterwards. It would've been helpful for the discussion to be left on the page for a day or two. Not everyone can use Wikipedia round-the-clock, and spends all day delving through page histories. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could simply be a mistake, or an overstatement. He had informed you before, and the second re-submission may have led him to believe it was more than once (i.e. in the past). The reply was not archived for about 14 hours, He explicitly mentioned that he had replied there so it is not unreasonable, I feel, to be expected to check back through the archives. The RFPP page moves very quickly, so coming back after 24 hours (or more) requests will have almost certainly been archived. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you consider this the original informing [158], however it seems more a response to SlimVirgin. Ged UK doesn't acknowledge my presence! Nor does he respond to my concern on his talk page. So, I cannot accept that he has responded to me even once. I take the point that things on RFPP get deleted every few hours, and that's beyond Ged UK's control, and there doesn't appear to be a way to access archives, except by trawling each edit. (The word "archive" doesn't even appear on the RFPP page - hopefully this is something that will be improved in future). As for "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask", it doesn't seem to explicitly mention that he replied in RFPP either. It just seems to be an impertinent response from an admin. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're being a bit tendentious now. The explanation there was clear. I can buy (and somewhat agree) that you were put off by his dismissal in the second RFPP request, and I am sure he will apologise for quite a clear mistake (in assuming, I think, you might be part of the ongoing issue). But you're making something of a mountain out of a molehill. Your note on his talk page makes clear you hadn't read the note he posted, and it came after the second RFPP entry. So it is a mistake that is at least understandable in how it was made. Let Ged UK respond with some form of explanation, we are not here to bash or invoke action on anyone, but to ensure a collegial atmosphere; fine, you're upset by this, but at least apply some common sense to the situation. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"We are not here to bash" and "collegial atmosphere"... If you can see the abusive language by the administrators below, I don't know if it will surprise you or not, but I am lost for words. I never thought my concerns would be considered so utterly worthless by the Wikipedia elite, and to receive abusive responses from people whom I don't know. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, why did he respond "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask" to me? - perhaps someone could explain. What do you need explaining? Ged UK believe that you are a returning user with whom he has interacted before and already offered the explanation. This is so obvious I can only think the reason that you are asking is that you dislike it rather than don't understand it. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What needs explaining? I have never "interacted" with Ged UK before and have no explanation from him. So why the response: "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask". Perhaps you could explain it clearly, showing me where Ged UK and myself have interacted before, and where he has provided the explanation previously too. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake. He clearly thought that you had interacted before. Whether you actually have or have not is not for me to decide. How could I? The point is, he obviously thought you had or else why would he have replied as though speaking to someone that he had spoken to before. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 11:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do I know you? What gives you the right to use abusive language towards me? Maybe things are clearly known to the school teacher from London (I hope you don't use that language with your pupils), but not everyone is an expert in what other people could be thinking or not. We are not all native speakers of English either. I hope you will take back your obscene response to my above posting. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For fucks sake, hold your breath and wait now. Come back in a few hours or so when the person you accused of being "abusive" can respond. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is an example of established Wikipedia users sticking together and dismissing the concerns of an IP using non-entity by using insulting language towards them. I will hope you to also take back your words quickly, but it would not surprise me if you didn't, as I fear that nothing will be done about my concerns. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice you are not just established users but administrators. Unbelievable, words fail me. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it back is you strike "abusing" from the header. The code is <s>...</s> around the word. [note: not admin]Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like blackmail, and I certainly don't submit to any requests from people who have used abusive language in such an unjustified way towards me. The least I would have expected was for the offensive words to be removed, and an unequivocal apology given, that also goes for Theresa Knott. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no way on earth that I will apologise for saying "for fucks sake". It is not a term of abuse, I used it as a term of exasperation because the IP user was being deliberately dense. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 12:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Fair enough. Should I ever be near Skipton, I'll remember the local norms, as well as local definitions of blackmail. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Theresa Knott, maybe you should read [159] again. Also [160]. Your language is abusive, and the "deliberately dense" statement is offensive is uncalled for... it is basically an insult. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

...and a personal attack [161] 82.152.216.15 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My language was deliberate. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of starting to curse at people. Is this a banned user, and what is the series of articles this was protected as part of? Transparency would help, and if it's not possible for some reason, saying that would help too. Then we could close the issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ged UK has already closed the issue by apologising for the remark, and explaining how it came about. What else is there to do? Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, because I am only an IP user and don't count, therefore it is fine to use obscene language or personal insults towards me, as long as the person doing so is an admin... plus they don't have to apologise. At least that is how I understand it according to this thread. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I unprotected TV Polonia after the anon made a request on RfPP, and I could see no reason in the history for long-term protection. GedUK subsequently explained that there was a background to the issue, and that it was part of a series of protections of similar articles. Two things I know about GedUK is that he's always willing to discuss things constructively and have issues reviewed by other admins, and he's careful not to use protection in a way that unfairly discriminates against IPs. So if he feels protection is necessary here I'm happy to trust him. To the IP, the best thing would be for you to create an account, so long as you're not editing under a ban or other restrictions. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"GedUK is (...) always willing to discuss things constructively and have issues reviewed by other admins". This doesn't seem to be discussing things constructively: "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask". Neither is ignoring my concerns on his talk page. By declining my unprotect request for a page that he protected, it doesn't appear that he wants issues reviewed by other admins either, otherwise he would've explained the situation and let another admin decide whether to decline or unprotect. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well let's see what he has to say once he is online. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 11:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here’s my view of the sequence of events.

1. IP makes a requestat RfPP
2. Request is actioned by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) immediately afterwards at 8.25am on 24th (Saturday).
3. I log in about 3.30pm and check my watchlist. I see that SV has unprotected. I think that this is an error and SV has simply changed the move protection and the article protection has changed in error. I ‘correct’ this perceived mistake.
4. SV notes at RfPP that I’ve restored the protection
5. I reply and explain
6. Allmightyduck (talk · contribs) clerked the request down to the fulfilled section (with the script) at 03.30 Sunday morning.
7. I then clerked away the request using the script at 07.19 Sunday morning (along with others) on Sunday morning before I started my regular RfPP work.
8. IP makes second request at RfPP.
9. I decline that request and make the remark that has offended the IP.
10. IP comments on my talk page indicating that they can’t find my (now clerked away) reply at RfPP. By this time I think I’d logged off.
11. When I logged back in in the evening, I missed their previous message, as a sockpuppet accusation had blown up on my talk page.
12. IP starts the Wikiquette complaint.
13. makes a third request at RfPP
14. IP starts this ANI complaint.

It’s unfortunate that the IP missed my explanation at RfPP (which raises the separate issue of properly archiving that page as has been discussed before), and that I missed their comment on my talk page due to talkpage noise from another IP throwing socking allegations around (in a vaguely related issue). I understand, in these circumstances, why the IP here took issue with the tone of my reply. I apologise if I have caused any offense.

However, it is equally unfortunate that the IP took it to Wikiquette and then here before I had had a chance to reply at WQ. GedUK  11:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. Resolved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to read Ged UK's response. Furthermore, you are the one who was using abusive language towards me, as well as being dismissive of my concerns at every step, I think it is unjustified for you to be closing this. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you kindly inform us for how much longer you would like to keep dragging this on? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Some questions for Ged UK: 1) explanation of "You know perfectly well there's an explanation, it's the same one you get every time you ask". Which explanation, and where "every time"? What is "you know perfectly well" supposed to refer to? 2) I believe that you are abusing your position by declining an unprotect request, as you protected the article in the first place. This represents a conflict of interest. The request should have been reviewed by someone impartial. Why not? 3) Why no explanation in edit summary or on TV Polonia talk page? 4) Where is the vandalism? Which tv station articles? It certainly isn't TV Polonia. Seb az86556, I will not be responding to you further, due to your offensive language. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ged UK has apologised for his remark, the reason for which is clear (and has been explained a number of times). Discussion on the protection really needs to occur somewhere else; probably Ged UK's talk page or another noticeboard (a simple one doesn't spring to mind). Everyone stop sniping and piling on each other. No admin action is going to occur from this, the solution was an apology. Recommend taking this to the right places for discussion --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Look dude, this was clearly an accidental miscommunication, and what you should have done was started off by assuming good faith (see WP:AGF) rather than doing exactly the opposite, coming in here with your fighting head on, and slinging all sorts of accusations around without giving the accused the chance to explain things. He has now explained what it was all about, his reasons for thinking you had already seen his explanation, and his reason for missing your message on his Talk page. Further, you have had it explained to you why GedUK's actions regarding the protection were not an abuse of his position, and why the other admins involved deferred to his decision. All you are doing now is acting tendentiously, and trying to carry on a fight where there is none. It really is time to let this drop now, and move on with more important things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BSZ, I appreciate your patience is wearing, I also hope the matter is sorted soon, sorry for accusing you of being a "close friend" of Ged UK, I now understand it's not the case! Tmorton166, I take your point that discussion of the protection should go elsewhere, if a better place can be suggested. I do accept Ged's apology by the way, however I would appreciate his clarification of his remark. Perhaps it was all just a communication breakdown or a misunderstanding somewhere, and I can accept that. These things happen. However I note no comment from you or anyone else of the abusive language or personal attacks by Theresa Knott and Seb az86556. I am worried that these 2 admins think such behaviour is acceptable, as it is completely contrary to Wikipedia policies. Lack of comment on this matter shows that the behaviour is implicitly accepted. I presume this is due to these 2 editors status in Wikipedia. Had I behaved so, I would have expected to be blocked. Of course I do not use such offensive language, and I am personally very upset about it - however I assume they will not apologise, Theresa Knott especially has shown an intent not to do so. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there was no need for swearing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I obviously disagree. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 13:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

[162] Right at the top: "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid profane and offensive language" also "Try to (...) avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible". Surely an admin should know these policies very well. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Theresa Knott has now posted offensive language on my talk page, which I reverted. There were also some other uncivil accusations, such as "terrible behaviour", "passive agression" and is telling me what I am handling all wrong or "pretending" to do; all rather talking down to me. [163] 82.152.216.15 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is too funny. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 13:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec::::(ec) Maybe you should read: [Not admin]. And whether admin or not doesn't matter. Theresa called you "dense"[misquoted Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)] --- would "unreasonable" be in your vocabulary? Did you back off from accusations of "abuse" when I offered? Do you show any willingness to apologize for jumping the gun and not waiting for a suitable response form Ged UK? Did you drop the stick when it was time to do so? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I said he was being "deliberately dense" which has a completely different meaning really. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

True. Noted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey folks, there's lots of heat and little light being generated here now - perhaps it's time for us all to let it drop, to accept that maybe we have over-reacted a bit to some degree, and just move on? I'm convinced the problems here were down to simple mistakes rather than bad intentions. What do you all say? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am still not happy that Theresa Knott and Seb az86556 think it acceptable to use offensive language and insults to another user, completely uncalled for, and I would never think of using such language to even my worst enemy. Bear in mind, they are admins (and should set an example), and I have never spoken to them before, so why the personal attacks and why no apologies? 82.152.216.15 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I tried to close this half an hour ago, IP re-opened. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, so you did. Ah well, I'm not interested in schoolyard fights, so I'm out of here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm sorry if I initially reacted a bit too strongly to you over at WQA. It's just that GedUK and I have been involved in the long-running low-level edit warring and vandalism on those articles, and have recently been the subjects of attacks by the IP editors involved. And, as an IP yourself, your initial approach made you easy to confuse with the rest of them - and I regret and apologise for that confusion. If you'd like to discuss the protection of that specific article, I'd be happy to offer my input into why it has been protected - who know, it might be a good idea to unprotect it if you are planning to work on it, and you can keep an eye on it? Maybe start a discussion in the article's Talk page? I have it watched and I'll see it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what's going on here. To the admins dealing with this, if the IP is a banned user, please tell us. If it can't be explained on a public page, please say that too. And please link to the series of articles this was protected as part of. The strong feelings and the insults about one barely edited television page aren't making any sense otherwise. And to the IP, why not just create an account? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not a banned user (I intend to create a user account after this issue is sorted), I don't understand the ill feeling towards me, and making me feel worthless. I wish I also knew the series of articles, if BSZ or Ged UK could elaborate on this. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Obscene language/personal attacks used by Theresa Knott and Seb az86556

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.

---

This concerns the above: [164]. The offensive language was first used by the administrator Theresa Knott. I had pointed out that objected to such language, however Seb az86556 (an administrator of another language Wikipedia) decided to use the same language in response, and then proceeded to make conditions for taking back the comments. Theresa Knott refused to apologise or acknowledge the offensiveness of the remarks, and accused me of being "deliberately dense". I pointed out the policies that she was not adhering to, however her response was that she used such language deliberately. She then was belittling on my talk page, and accusing me of things, and repeating the obscene language. This I regard as intimidation. Her later response was that it was "too funny", presumably that she was amused that I was offended by the remarks. Unbelievably, her userpage shows a claim that she is a teacher. I hope such remarks would not be used at her school. Seb az86556 just generally was dismissive of any of my concerns in general - I would regard it as a taunting attitude - and tried to prematurely close the case as "resolved", I don't know if he has such power to do so as he is not an admin on English Wikipedia. I believe that such behaviour is totally unacceptable from Theresa Knott who is an admin, and she should be setting an example to others. [165], [166], [167] and possibly other policies show that the language and attacks were not acceptable. Users SlimVirgin (an admin) and Tmorton166 agreed that swearing was unacceptable, however no apology or retraction from Theresa Knott (or Seb az86556) for the upsetting remarks were received. I even noticed this: [168] "My remark did have the desired effect". Totally unjustified reason for using calculated language to upset someone, I think, it seems she takes the whole thing as a joke and not that she is bullying someone. I had briefly pointed out that English isn't my native language, although I am now nearly fluent, so I have to wonder whether this has any bearing on the attitude towards me (and please note that I may not understand some subtext or hidden joke that is obvious when you have grown up with them). Or if this is simply because I am an IP user and have fewer "rights" than them. Otherwise I am puzzled by the attitude towards me, and the reasoning for it. Anyway, I very much object to the behaviour of the above two users, I feel this is not acceptable to their position in Wikipedia. I hope this can be investigated by someone impartial to the situation. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That discussion was closed and rightfully so. You were being deliberately obtuse and tendentious. Grow a thicker skin, and move on. Nobody owes you an apology. Nobody was making fun of you for not being a native speaker, they were frustrated with you for beating a dead horse.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have NOT been "deliberately obtuse", even if this was the case (which is isn't) the behaviour of the above 2 users was still totally unacceptable, and an apology would be the minimum expected, particular from an admin. The situation regarding Ged UK and his comments are sorted, it was a misunderstanding, therefore that discussion was closed. You have not addressed ANY of my concerns above, namely that of the abusive language and personal attacks by Theresa Knott and Seb az86556, and I would prefer that you do so, rather than be patronising to me and demand whatever thickness of skin I should have. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As I already explained, it's not going to happen. I don't care how many sections you start. There will be no apology from me as I stand by my remarks and language. I know you don't like it but I don't care. You came here looking for a fight, you are still looking for one. So be it, I quite enjoy taking troll bait for the fun of it although I expect the other users of this board will tire pretty quickly and you or me or both of us will be asked to desist. As I said on your talk page, I am happy to discuss the matter there with you and try and resolve the matter, but you don't seem to want to give that a go. I am in fact really a very nice person but i will not suffer this kind of behaviour on your part. Calm down ond come talk to me. You can even shout at me rage against me, whatever you like. But stop with the sillyness here. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead horse? Careful now, you wouldn't want to offend the IP editor. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 15:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! PC translation of supposedly offensive outburst. This case is closed. Nobody wants to hear about again—ever! Favonian (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This case is NOT closed. You have confused the original concern about Ged UK which is one thing that is now closed, and the offensive comments from Theresa Knott and Seb az86556 which is the matter in hand. A respectful attitude would be helpful, rather than dismissiveness. I suppose it's a case of IP users being looked down upon by the Wikipedia elite, but I feel it's unacceptable. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Given that this forum is for requesting some admin action, what actual action are you asking for? (I don't think "Investigate" is really sufficient - what do you want to happen as a result of an investigation?). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The action should be whatever is considered appropriate for an admin that is violating the basic Wikipedia policies on civility, and refusal to back down from her position of abuse. If I used the language Theresa Knott used, I expect I would have been banned, although I don't think that drastic action is necessary of course. Personally, I would say that a review of having such a user as an administrator - a role model to represent Wikipedia - is appropriate. 82.152.216.15 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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.

---

• I don't know anything about the Ged UK issue, but that isn't what this report is about. This report is about the language used by the two users listed. Theresa Knott originally used "Oh for fucks sake" in a response, which I can understand for just being a phrase and not meant directly toward the IP user. However, after the IP pointed out the use of language and clearly showed that they considered it abusive, which is also slightly reasonable, the correct course of acxtion would have been to just explain the language and apologize slightly, while also not changing from your stance on the issue. Instead, Seb az86556 responded with "For fucks sake, hold your breath and wait now. Come back in a few hours or so when the person you accused of being "abusive" can respond". This seems to me to be a deliberate response meant to be insulting to the IP, considering the language was specifically chosen as such after the IP has pointed out that they considered the use of the word "fuck" in any relation to them to be abusive. Perosnally, I would feel the same. Then, later on, Theresa Knott responded with "My language was deliberate" when questioned about her original response.

This seems to be a definite violation of WP:CIVIL and the IP user is right in saying that, if any other user had said the same, or the IP him/herself had, there would have definitely been restrictions or blocks placed on that person. At the very, very least, a warning. I am a bit ocncerned baout the flippancy exibited by other responses here, which seem to be focusing entirely on the Ged UK issue, which has little to do with this report on breach of civility. Silverseren^C 16:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And it was apparently archived while I typed. Not surprising, really. All hail the cabal, right? Silverseren^C 16:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something major that was said, or are you really suggesting that saying "oh for fucks sake" [sic] is a violation of WP:CIVIL? (edit conflict) Addendum: apparently I missed that using the word fuck once wasn't a violation, but saying it twice was? Now I'm really confused. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, i'm saying that, by itself, of course it wasn't. However, Seb then repeated "For fucks sake" clearly after the IP expressed disapproval for Theresa saying "Oh for fucks sake", which seems to be baiting to me (as does the rest of what he said there). Furthermore, Theresa then said "My language was deliberate" further down, which seems to insinuate meaning something worse than just a exasperated "Oh for fucks sake". I'm more worried about what Seb said than Theresa though. Silverseren^C 16:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm not actually sure what Seb meant by "hold your breath and wait now", but I don't think that "for fucks sake" is any more problematic the second time than the first, though I agree it would have been far more helpful to explain that it's not intended to cause offense rather than simply repeating it, which is rather WP:BITEy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

All hail those with better things to do moving on to do those better things!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to swear when someone has asked you not to could be considered being deliberately or gratuitously offensive. In this case, the IP asked Theresa not to swear, and Seb repeated it. Theresa was plainly expressing her feelings, but you could argue that Seb was out of order. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seb was plainly expressing the feelings of many of us, I could argue he deserves a barnstar.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I do think a civility warning should be given or something. We shouldn't just discard this out of hand. Otherwise, it really does seem like we're completely favoring people with accounts (and that have been around for a while) and are saying that they never get in trouble, while we toss out blocks wholesale against IPs and such. (I'm not even going to respond to the above) Silverseren^C 16:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So I happened to log. Look, I admit it might have been pointy, but it wasn't intended to bait anyone. I offered to retract my remarks if the Ip struck the accusation of "abuse". That didn't happen. Before I logged off, I offered to resolve the issue on the Ip's talkpage (as did Theresa). No response. The Ip even stated that any comments by me or Theresa will be ignored. Dragging this into another thread here seems to have the only purpose of starting more of a... pick word... "crusade"? ( or is that offensive gain? y'know what I mean...). It can really get frustrating around here, when someone can't drop the stick. Again, it wasn't meant to bait, and again, I was offended by the IP behavior, and no-one asked him/her to apologize. Shouldn't have said what I said the way I said it. enough now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I just wanted to make sure there was some recognition that saying things like that isn't something that should be condoned. As long as you understand that the wording wasn't entirely appropriate, that's good enough for me. Silverseren^C 16:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The point here is that profanity itself isn't uncivil on its own; only when targeting an individual specifically. "Fuck's sake" is fine, "fuck you" is not. Since I'm not entirely sure exactly what Seb was getting at when (s)he said "hold your breath and wait", perhaps I'm missing something and that one is more personally directed, but I'm not seeing it right now. I haven't read the entire discussion, so perhaps I'm missing some context. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (this is just fyi to get the context: "hold your breath and wait" was due to the fact that the IP kept posting to the thread and slinging stuff around after being told "let's see and wait what Ged UK (the "accused") says" to no avail. The IP kept posting and posting; seriously, I watched a 20-minute video, and when I came back said IP was still at it. Had s/he been patient enough to post, wait a few hours for a response and then talk about, none of this would have escalated; some people need to realize that neither Ged UK, nor Theresa, nor I, or anyone else sits here 24/7 just in case someone posts at ANI so that we can respond within seconds.../ hope that helps clarify it, Poisenous WishChoyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC))
• At the end of the day, no admin should use the word "fuck" when dealing with an editor. Theresa Knott knows it, I know it and he/she it knows it. However, what I, he,she and it all know is that some people become exasperated at times and these words slip out. However, in Theresa Knott we have an admin who puts herself on a pedestal and implements blocks for incivility to equally exasperated editors. Of course, no one should block her for her exasperation, but that in a cooler moment this woman feels unable to apologise for her foul language tells us a considerable amount about her. She either has to abide by one rule for herself and all, or the community needs to consider her future as an Admin.  Giacomo  16:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've never applied a block to someone simply for swearing. I rarely apply incivility blocks at all. You lie lie lie!!!!!!!!!! Oh and fuck shit cunt balls.Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 16:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"rarely" or "never"?. And even if it were "never" (which it isn't) does that make it all OK then?  Giacomo  17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • Diff's or it's never. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 17:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Moving away from what Seb said, because he's usually a nice guy and I don't think he did mean anything by it, as you can see from above. As a more general principle, some people from some cultures find swearing much more upsetting than say your average Brit or Ozzie, for whom it's just part of normal speech. If someone is clearly getting worked up over the use of foul language, it would be very incivil to keep cussing in a discussion with them - after all, it's not as if it just 'slips out' as it does in speech - you actually have to type f.u.c.k.i.n.g.h.e.l.l. in on the keyboard, and while Theresa's FFS is the cry of exasperation, and the sort of thing you wouldn't perhaps expect someone to object to, it is possible to use foul language in a very aggressive way even when not specifically threatening the other person.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Silverseren, I may have a VERY VERY SLIGHT inclination to agree with you if it weren't for the fact, that for whatever reason, you choose, in a conversation the IP is involved in, to repeatedly use the word "fuck" (instead of providing diffs or realizing we'd all already read the sections already referred to) while claiming that since the IP finds it offensive it shouldnt be used.

That aside, there are a lot more "offensive" things on Wikipedia (content wise) than the use of the word "fuck" - especially in the connotation it was used. Heck, I'd assume it a more valid claim if the statement were "For God's sake" - due to possible religious beliefs. I would fully hope people editing Wikipedia would understand context and meaning, instead of singling out single words they do not like (that are not being used in an uncivil manner). Additionally, I am always a little confused when, during a discussion/argument/debate with other editors or admins, an editor on the opposing side breaks away to complain about the use of a single word (as opposed to dealing with the issue/debate at hand) and does so in a way that (incorrectly) indicates an issue that didnt happen (personal attack).

As for what words admins use with me, I could care less. including the use of the word "fuck" if they think it properly implies the tone they want to set. It's a WORD. It is how (like any other word) it is used that matters. Not whether it is used or not. Just like in the examples above. Again, there's far worse in articles (offensiveness-wise) - stuff that belongs there no less. If the word is used in a derogatory or demeaning way, or in a fashion that attacks another editor - then there IS a problem. But that is not the case. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I could care less? Could care less? My British sense of grammar Nazi is raging. Hang on I've a David Mitchell youtube link to find for your sir. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC) here we go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw please watch and learn, you'll love it, well I do anyway. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Except I put them in quotes, as everyone else has done in this entire conversation. As I stated before, it's how they were used, not the mere fact that they were used, which was the issue with how Seb used them. Though that has been dealt with already above anyways. (And, as Theresa said, since you "could care less", then that means that you clearly care. :P ) Silverseren^C 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the IP achieved exactly what was intended: we've wasted another hour on the thread s/he started while he sits and can (as an IP) come back in a few weeks from a different computer and rant about "abuse" again, and post walls of text until we are in each others' hair. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You could just not respond? Or make them short responses. Silverseren^C 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ec we are not really in each other's hair. Well Gianacomo is against me but he is just trolling really. No actual harm done by this sillyness. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)True. So... can we close this thread now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Let someone else decide to. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TK - seen it already, love it, still could care less! ;-) Joking aside, I wouldn't claim to be the best at any form of English. And it has always seemed a rather odd term to me... but habits and hearing it all the time... you know...

Back to this... beginning to agree with Seb. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing particularly bad happened. But it is worth noting the thoughts above r.e. the avoidance of language that might cause a situation to go further downhill, and not replying when it is just going to drag the situation on with no progress. I think this is enough now though --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

V. specific death threat on Texas Highway Patrol

Resolved

Law enforcement notified.Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

This probably needs oversight or whatever it's called now, and someone in Texas (or at least the US) to contact the THP. ninety:one 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I have notified the foundation on their emergency email address (see thread above about suicide threats). They have contacts with the Police, and have indicated previously that this is the kind of thing they would handle. Also threat can be revdel/oversighted (which would probably be wise) as they can recover it if necessary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I've selectively deleted. Not sure I've done it right, so happy if someone can check. As to oversight, dunno - deletion may be sufficient.--Scott Mac 16:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Deletion is sufficient. Thank you. The Foundation is aware. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC) RevDel'd (2010-10-26T12:06:59) by User:Scott MacDonald. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Estadio Benito Villamarín needs attention ASAP

Resolved

 – No admin action needed at this time. –MuZemike 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Something weird has happened here: Estadio Benito Villamarín. Has it been really renamed? The article is in a very scary state with unsourced negative claims involving very public persons and entities. This might have already spread to other languages, so I thought this might be the time to get more people involved. --Ras (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already begun cleaning it up and I see no BLP problems with it. Thanks for letting us know. Of course you can and should remove such unsourced material which negatively portrays a living person. See WP:BLP.JodyB _talk 15:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a real-world incident behind this (centering around Manuel Ruiz de Lopera). I found one reference which is of great help - at least the article rename was just. Thanks for help, btw :) --Ras (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fi.wiki(!) seems to have more references about the renaming process. I agree, the BLP issue is resolved. --Ras (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Low-level disruption from multiple accounts

Resolved

 – accounts blocked

--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have stumbled upon...something while reviewing my watchlist. Last week CactusWriter blocked 22alatham for 24 hrs for copyright violations. The account had been created on October 12 and has not been used since the block. Today User:18alatham popped up on my watchlist editing the same article where the 22alatham account had introduced the copyvio. The 18alatham account was created October 25. I poked around a bit and also found User:11alatham and User:10alatham. All of the accounts edit footy articles and have created articles that have been speedily deleted. Now here's the crux of my question: As these all seem to be throwaway accounts, and none appear to be editing to evade a ban, does anything need to be done to connect the accounts? I can't start an SPI as I have no clue which is the master account and honestly, although mildly disruptive, I'm not sure if there is any policy being violated by using the throw-away accounts. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You could still start an SPI using the oldest as a master, and there would perhaps be cause for it if you believed the accounts were editing like this to avoid having all the related warnings piling up on one account and thus leading to a block. Having five accounts with level 1 warnings rather than one account with a final warning and a block. It depends if it becomes disruptive enough that reverting and ignoring becomes ineffective. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I ran across the same set of users following up on an AIV report this morning. This seemed to clearly be the same user creating multiple accounts to escape scrutiny over continued copyvios. I blocked the lot of them as socks, deleted the recent clear copyvios, and placed a two week block on the master (10alatham). Apologies for missing this discussion; if anyone disagrees with the result, I'm open to alternatives. Kuru (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV - backlog

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Urgent attention needed at WP:AIV, which has a half-hour backlog. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting attention now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate vadalism warnings?

Resolved

 – No admin action needed at this time. –MuZemike 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche is involved in a debate on whether Andre Geim is or is not Jewish. Without commenting on the substance of the debate, I noticed that User:Epeefleche issued vandalism warnings to 3 seperate editors who apparently made edits countering User:Epeefleche's POV.

Warns FurrySigns and Furry protests

Warns Therexbanner

Warns Gladsmile once and then again

Per WP:NOTVAND "if an editor treats siuations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors" - I feel User:Epeefleche's warnings were innappropriate. Anyone agree? NickCT (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Notices Issued

to Gladsmile

to FurrySings

to Therexbanner

to Epeefleche

Thanks NickCT (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's wrong to give people vandalism tags even though they weren't reverting vandalism, but I don't see it as a blockable offence. Secret ^account 19:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

i dont see the word "vandalism" in any of the given warnings. am i missing something?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Removal of Content" warnings are vandalism warnings - See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus templating the regulars is rude. Perhaps we should just remove the warnings? Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

so epeefleche is alleged to have used a template that is considered a vandalism template despite not including the word "vandalism." is this something we need to spend time discussing?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think so. I'll just remove the templates in question. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ecx4) To NickCT: Technically, the word was not used, but the implication (or similar) is made in the specific warnings chosen for the last 3 (disruptive editing, section blanking). I suspect a warning of any sort for good faith edits, where a discussion has not concluded, is probably not appropriate. On the other hand, a request for discussion would have been more appropriate, especially since more people seem to disagree with the inclusion (of assumed religious beliefs). On to the topic at hand, since it (religion) is usually a "hot topic", I'd support the removal of the content unless a citation could be found. A similar situation occurred on another article I was involved in (as the mentor of the person working on the article) and consensus was, on such matters, without a valid source, one's religious beliefs should not be assumed in a WP:BLP - and in that instance, the rationale for including it was pretty much the same.

Side note, I do not believe templating a regular, who warrants a TRUE vandalism warning, is rude. There have been plenty of regulars who, after long years of good editing, seem to "lose it". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Even is situations like that, there is no need to template them. Talking nearly always beats templating. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@brew - It's good to see POV-warriors sticking together, but really??? Really?? You're going to argue that a "removal-of-content" warning is not a vandalism warning b/c it doesn't include the word "vandalism" in the warning? If that was the case, why is the warning offered on Wikipedia:Vandalism and what-the-heck is page/section blanking if not vandalism?

@Theresa Knott - That works for me. NickCT (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The templates applied don't use the word "vandalism" in their text, but they're drawn from the list of standardized vandalism warnings: {{uw-delete2}} and {{uw-delete3}}. It looks like the (automated) edit summaries used by Epeefleche imply that the editors he warned were engaged in page blanking or destructive removal of content. The template also suggests (inaccurately) that the editors here didn't explain their edits in their edit summaries. Without commenting on the underlying subject matter, it strikes me as decidedly unhelpful to use these sorts of templates in lieu of actual talk page discussion over what appears to be a content dispute. This isn't an appropriate use of Twinkle, and Epeefleche should be cautioned here — misuse of automated tools may lead to their withdrawal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record Epeefleche has been warned about his use of Twinkle vandalism templates previously [169]; see also this 2009 ANI discussion [170] and this one from AN a couple of weeks ago [171]Slp1 (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I have removed the warnings in question. Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa Knott! NickCT (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User page advertising question

Resolved

 – Userpage deleted, account blocked for a username violation. –MuZemike 21:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Transcluded from my userpage after the adminhelp tag went unanswered for half an hour.

Hello there, quick question. Suppose I see a user who uses their main page as an advertisement for a company or product, as I recently saw with User:Handary, who was advertising the companty Handary S.A.

What is the appropriate course of action. Since I didn't know what to do, I put the user page up for CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising.) I considered also reporting the name to usernames for concern, but decided to wait until after I got an admin response here before proceeding further.

This situation happens a lot with me. Since I work at Articles for Creation, I see about one of these a day on average. The AfC was declined as a copyright violation, so that isn't a problem, my questions are more about the user and the userspace.

Thanks, Sven Manguard Talk 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: After posting this, User:Handary was deleted by an admin. The questions still remain though. Was I right to propose a CSD on a person's userpage? Should I have reported the username? Also, as always, further related advice is welcome. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming it fully fits the criteria, then yes. I've filed many such CSDs (among others), and to date, none have been denied. The unambiguous part of the G11 requirement is the important criteria modifier that needs to be met for userspace. There are also more guidelines about this on the various docs about userspace and related topics). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - see WP:CSD#General. The "General" speedy criteria, starting with "G", apply to all namespaces. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Non-admin, but frequent CSD-tagger, comment You were correct; I do that with some frequency myself. It's usually an easier call when the account name is obviously promotional, which, in context, seems to cover this one. G11, along with the other general CSD, applies to all parts of Wikipedia, not just articles, so you were right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. What about the username. Should I report that? (It's the company name.) Sven Manguard _Talk 20:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that would fall under promotional, so yeah, you can make a UAA report. I'd do it myself, but I'm using Internet Explorer, and I can't access Twinkle at the moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Username blocked. ~ mazca ^talk 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This was archived before I could thank everyone, but I'm still going to thank everyone: Thanks everyone. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor translating an article to another Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Resolved on the Turkish Wikipedia. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Rapsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also tr:User:Rapsar) has translated WP's article La Massana into Turkish Wikipedia here and here. WP's policy on translations is Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate; it says editors who are doing translations of foreign-language articles into English Wikipedia must attribute their source by writing both an edit summary in the translated article on the destination Wikipedia as well as a talk page notice, saying where on the foreign-language Wikipedia they obtained their source material. I think the same principle applies between any wikis. At the moment, trwiki's La Massana has no such attribution in an edit summary on the article or on the talk page.

I asked User:Rapsar to remedy this oversight on Turkish Wikipedia. He replied, "I didn't just translate it. I found some extra sources to write the article. BTW, we don't have any policy like this in tr. Wiki. So, I can't do this."

Although User:Rapsar is one of the most active and experienced editors on Turkish Wikipedia, I think his position is out of line with WP's copyright licensing GFDL and CC-BY-SA. As for Wikimedia Foundation's policy, I think the terms of use require editors on all Wikipedias to acknowledge their sources when doing translations of articles from other Wikipedias. If it is correct that Turkish Wikipedia does not have any relevant policies about translations, it seems there is potential to encourage widespread copyright non-compliance. For all I know this may have been happening for some time in other articles on Turkish Wikipedia, not necessarily translated by User:Rapsar. It needs further research by somebody fluent in Turkish; I am not, so I cannot check. Apart from Turkish, what is the current position on other language Wikipedias?

Are there any administrators here who could provide policy-based advice to User:Rapsar, and are there any Turkish-English bilingual administrators here who may be in a position to help Turkish Wikipedia come into copyright compliance? I have informed User:Rapsar of this thread. I hope this is the right forum to raise this issue; please say if it is not. Thanks. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure what the English Wikipedia can do about this other than advice the proper procedure...what goes on at the Turkish Wikipedia is outside our jurisdiction...however, I will admit in this case the lines are a bit blurrier since it involves cross-wiki activity. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So, are we essentially just toothless dogs who can bark but not bite? What's the point of having a copyright in Wikimedia Foundation's projects? 85.94.184.115 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll let other people weigh in; I'm just not sure as to what to do. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the way other projects are dealing with copyright issues, in particular the attribution requirements for the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, you should take it up with the wikimedia foundation or on meta. We at the English wikipedia are indeed toothless dogs. (Some people here may not be toothless, but that's something they got outside the English wikipedia.) Alternatively, I would suggest a good faith effort to communicate with the Turkish wikipedia (rather then one member if you believe the issue is widespread) in a first instance would be advisable. Most wikipedias do have embassies I believe (tr:Vikipedi:Büyükelçilik appears to be the Turkish one) and there is also Wikipedia:Translation which may help you find people who can help you comminicate if necessary. P.S. Well technically I guess English wikipedia contributors to the article in question may have grounds to sue people who have violated their license which is something they gained from here but that's obviously a dumb road to go down. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Question might be better posed at Meta? Just a thought.    Thorncrag  19:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at the Turkish Wikipedia embassy pointing out this discussion and asking for someone who knows Turkish to bring it up for discussion at the appropriate place on that wiki. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to also bring it up on Meta. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will ask on Meta. Thanks Ks0stm, Nil Einne, Thorncrag for your thoughts. Meanwhile, since there are many admins on WP with experience of copyright issues, I'd appreciate hearing their thoughts too, although some of them tend not to edit much on Sundays. Please leave this thread open. I think it would be useful to have further input here once Meta have had a chance to consider the issue. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for a generic question on copyrights (I don't really know where to ask since it isn't really an issue for us per se but perhaps Wikipedia talk:Copyrights) but if your question is about the whether the Turkish wikipedia practice is okay, I would agree it's not. If they're using content from some under wikipedia with a CC-BY-SA license, even if they're adding additional info, they need to attribute the original source (which will have the edit history) in some way whether a link in the edit summary or in the talk page (precisely what is necessary I don't have enough experience to say). Even when copying within the English wikipedia, you are supposed to link to the original source article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I read you post at Meta page, so came here to ask a qustion. I edite in Russian WP generally, and I use the articles of English WP. please write, what you would like it be written, if the translation was made of English article to other language division of WP. Thank you in advance. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, an attribution to show where the article came from in an edit summary and on the talk page would be fine. I don't think the wording is important, as long as it includes a cross-wiki link to the article in enwiki, e.g. [[:en:source_article]]. I suppose you could use a wording similar to Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate which says editors who are doing a translation of foreign-language article into English Wikipedia must attribute their source by writing both an edit summary in the translated article as well as a talk page notice, saying where on the foreign-language Wikipedia they obtained their source material? 85.94.184.115 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

thread at Meta. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This needs attention. Reuse of Wikipedia content without attribution is a violation of the copyright of our contributors and one that should be easily addressed. Has there been anything from the Turkish Wikipedia embassy? If not, we might speak to tr:Kullanıcı:Elmacenderesi. I've chosen him not entirely at random; he is an admin and checkuser on the Turkish language Wikipedia who also speaks English. I found him on meta:OTRS/personnel. I often use that list to find multilingual admins on other projects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rapsar tells me that this has now been addressed at the Turkish Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide notice

Resolved

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities contacted

Parasect (talk · contribs) posted on his user page that he is committing suicide today. What is the proper procedure for things like this? ~NerdyScienceDude 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC) WP:SUICIDE provides a guideline. Jarkeld (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I have requested that MuZemike (talk · contribs) run a CheckUser so we can contact the proper authorities. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oh good, it looks like I found the right venue. Thanks. ~NerdyScienceDude 23:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) We have user essays, but no official procedures. I for one think it's high-time we change that, post-haste.    Thorncrag  23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you guys. The Foundation is looking into it right now and will take responsibility to contact the local authorities Jalexander (talk) -WMF 23:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide Reporting

Resolved

 – Looks like there is little else to discuss at this point. As a P.S., the WMF is currently refining their procedures for situations like this. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to vote to change Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm to official policy? I'm not sure where to post this, but it seems it is the consensus right now, so why not make it policy?--TalkToMe_c^intelati 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with doing that. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those areas that isn't/shouldn't be subject to community consensus; the policy needs to come down from the Foundation, though probably with community collaboration.    Thorncrag  00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I can't state how strongly I support this idea. Wonderful idea. I suspect Godwin will have something to say about it. He should be notified of this. However, there is nothing that states such a policy can only come from the foundation. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 8)No, it should not be policy, only a guideline. We cannot force people to carry out those actions, and we are certainly not going to sanction people for failing to do so. Further, it is ridiculously involved and sets out expectations that are unrealistic. Risker (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing a threat protocol internally right now, and consulting with similar organizations. I think it's likely that we'll emerge with some sort of guidelines, but I'm not comfortable mandating a particular course of action. In the meantime, the FIRST thing that anyone does should probably be to email emergencywikimedia.org, which notifies us. Then, continue with the steps at WP:SUICIDE. That way, we can get involved as soon as we are notified. Thanks for your concern, everyone. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If a person blocked for making a comment like this (for example Parasect, who is apparently a teenager, is now blocked from everywhere including his own talk page, and currently only has the standard ANI notification on his talk page) wishes to inform the WMF that there is no need to pursue discussions with the authorities further, what is the best way for that person to achieve that? And, should that be briefly explained on the person's talk page? Just thinking that, although we should assume suicide threats are genuine, we also should make it simple to avoid taking up more police time than strictly necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

instructions have been updated per your above statement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it policy at this time. First, although the current threat appears to be serious (or at least, to be a sincere cry for help), the majority of such threats are from attention-seeking teens: an official policy requiring us to give them attention might lead to an increase in threats, which might cause us to miss the real ones. Second, we traditionally don't require action from users or admins. And third, because this is an area likely to lead to real-world moral and legal consequences, I think that any policies regarding it should only be made with ample help from Mr. Godwin and the Foundation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A policy that says report the incident to [emergency staff contact] should by no means be deemed controversial and it absolves users of any other obligations. It's then up to staff to decide what to do, as it should.    Thorncrag  00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong agreement with Risker and FisherQueen. No to policy at this time; many of these "threats" are merely trolling -- an anon scribbling on your talk page, "I'm going to kill myself" is not anything anyone should be obligated to report to authorities. This particular case is different because it's an editor with a history here. Beware hasty actions that have the aroma of a moral panic, which this one does. Individuals may report these things in accordance with their individual judgement. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I shall shortly be gone from here, for one reason or another. I'd prefer it if the fuss was minimised. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Er... Rod, could you clarify whether you're planning to log off for the evening, to retire from Wikipedia, or to commit suicide? This comment is a bit unclear for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's report Rod. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm let's see. A teenager and established editor who makes a suicide threat is almost immediately blocked (including from his own talk page), doesn't even receive the courtesy of the standard talk page template for such things, and is reported to the police. An admin and established editor makes a rather more vague threat but of a similar nature, and it's a subject for levity. If my name started with M, I'd make some cynical but pithy comments about this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* another Malleus reference? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was my first! Ever! I'll stick with "he who must not be named" in future, I suppose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If it would be appropriate, would someone from the foundation please let us know how this situation turned out in the end? I think it would help alleviate some editors concerns if we know what the end result is, as I think we're all hoping for this to be resolved for the better. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, should we really drop an AN/I notice on possible suicide user talk? For one, as has been pointed out already, if the user is just a troll it would seem to only serve their jollies, and for two, I see no reason to risk mis-interpretation of the message that the user is in trouble, particularly if they really are in a suicidal mind frame.    Thorncrag  03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the appropriate place to raise it, although emergency@ might've been even better - which is now in the guidelines (it wasn't before). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is blocking him policy? And if so/not, is it appropriate? I for one would be more for him being able to talk on his page... even if it meant watching what responses are posted. As long as he is talking... (and sometimes, that's all people need - and it give the chance to point him in the right direction - on that note, from scanning his userpage and realizing he's in the US, I posted the NSPH number). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy saying to do so. There is an essay saying that it has sometimes been done. It's not an easy situation for anyone. I personally would also support allowing him to post on his own talk page. Yes I'm sure there are potential drawbacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ks0stm, there are very few circumstances in which the police would report back the outcome to us, and even fewer under which I'd be free to share it here, unfortunately. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As we are discussing this I will reiterate the same advice I have given in the past (both on and off WP). Whilst we in LE are always happy to recieve notification of suicide threats such as this please do not simply report it as an emergency by default. These will always be acted upon as an emergency, tying up policy time and effort and risking taking away from other emergencies. They will wake up the ISP's and get log records and dispatch a patrol car :) Factor in how often this happens on the internet and you will not be surprised how often such responses occur. One common fall out is the poster/troll can be in trouble for wasting police time etc. Obviously; if the message seems urgent and clear then the right response is to call the police ASAP. But if the message is ambiguous, unclear or contains no immediate urgency then please report it as a routine matter. I realise that is something of a difficult distinction to make here, especially as non-experts, and so we should always err on the side of caution. But many incidents look a lot like trolling, so a little discretion will always be appreciated. Ultimately: we are not, and should not be, responsible for the actions of others. EDIT: although, to clarify, in this case contacting as an emergency was the right response. I'm only saying the above because of the vastly more vague suicide threats I've seen reported in the last few days :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not meaning to rain on the parade, but it seems WP:TOV was once up for policy/guideline and was rejected by the community. Just FYI. Basket of Puppies 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been up for policy multiple times, and failed. The reason that it's an essay is that there were two prior attempts to do a "real policy" that failed horribly badly; I wrote the essay to cover what admins were doing in best practice, and then various people have fought over making it a policy on and off since then.

There isn't and probably never will be unanimous agreement on it. There really doesn't need to be; if some other person doesn't want to get involved and objects to this way of doing things, that's fine; anyone who sees the situation and choses to do what most admins (and the Foundation) feel is a best practice, here it is.

Responding up a bit to Errant / tmorton166; Your point is well taken, but keep in mind that Wikipedians (even administrators) have no special training in determining how credible threats of suicide are. We've been told unanimously by law enforcement and psychiatrists that if any individual person feels that it's credible at all, reporting it and having the LE and professionals figure it out is appropriate. When people report, they need to do so accurately conveying what was written, so that we don't cause a mistaken response. But we aren't experts.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This point: When people report, they need to do so accurately conveying what was written is not, I think, currently mentioned in the essay, and is worth adding. There was a recent incident recently where someone had made an edit that to me seemed obviously just a lamentation about the problem of teen suicide and a past tense reference to a past victim; but it was reported to the authorities anyway. It may be appropriate to report such things because, as you say, we are not the experts in deciding what needs action and what doesn't. However, if that approach is taken, then it's essential that what is reported to authorities, is the exact text posted by the person, not an opinion about what we think it means. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll note here, since an update was requested above; the user in question is back on Wikipedia and therefore (implicitly) alive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User has been unblocked and plans on seeking counseling. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, jeez, no, don't propose Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm as a policy. You'd have the "Wikipedia is value-neutral, and we can't say that it's better to be 'alive' than to be 'dead'" crowd. You'd have the "A person is perfectly free to take his own life if he chooses", the "This is an encyclopedia, not a helpline, and it's none of our business", the "This shows cultural bias; in many cultures, taking one's own life is seen as a perfectly valid form of self-expression". You'd have the slippery-slopers: "Oppose, next we will be required to report threats of non-fatal self-mutilation - what if a person threatens to smoke a cigarette, that's deadly too". The "By proper care and attention you mean consigning them to the crypto-fascist police/psychiatrist system when what they really need is...". I'm sure there's arguments I haven't thought of. And then the trolls on top of that. I am not at all certain that you could get a majority, let alone consensus, to adopt this as a policy. Herostratus (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that's what most (or any?) of us want. But a delineated method of how admins should handle such things (block talk page/dont block talk page... etc) or delineating places that editors who want to can point a user to for help, and a place where editors who want to can report such things for an admin to review would be nice. Along with a few other things listed above. I for one would jump in and offer what help I can, even if (which it probably would be since I am no expert) it meant only posting a helpline number and ensuring it was reported to the appropriate WikiPeople to follow up with authorities. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to help, and believe it's serious, follow the procedure in the essay, and report it here and to the foundation as requested. That's the best practice. It not being "policy" doesn't mean "Do something else" or "Don't do that". It just means we don't force you do to that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and will do. First time being involved in such an issue, so a lot of it is new to me and I am still reading up on everything between my other activities on WP and my RL (no really, I do have one, I swear!). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ONE WEEK FREEZE requested on deleting US election/candidate articles

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

 – There is strong support for the notion that existing policies and guidelines are adequate to deal with articles surrounding candidates for U.S. elections. In other words, there is significant opposition towards treating these articles differently vis a vis the deletion process. There are some who support the proposal of the OP in the original thread, but consensus seems clear that this is not going to be implemented. Furthermore, there is no support (near universal opposition) towards sanctioning those involved in tagging such candidates articles for deletion, in cases where the tags are applied in good faith towards articles which may not likely meet the notability standards. There's not any other discussion here which involves administrators, as it is devolving into unhelpful sniping. The rest will be collapsed for readibility of the rest of this page. --Jayron32 06:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

closed discussion collapsed for readibility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is a week and a day before the U.S. elections, and suddenly a lot of candidate articles are being deleted (examples: Scott M. Sipprelle and Douglas Herbert). This is not the time for this. The world will not end if we wait a week, but we will get lots of unwanted news coverage if this continues prior to the election, seriously harming the reputation of Wikipedia. I have no quarrel if someone deletes an article which was slapped together in the past week or so by a rabid partisan and has no non-partisan voter information links, etc. I do have a problem with articles which have been around for months, show quite a number of people spending time and effort, and weren't discussed for notability until now. I wish I had caught some of them earlier myself (such as the Herbert article), but I didn't, so for now I added some links and did some formatting - and will be more than happy to nominate it for merging after the election is over. But imo it wouldn't be right to rush to judgement now, and certainly not to nominate all the 'challenger' articles now just so I could delete them in a week, the day before the election, as seems to be the 'new plan'. Think of Wikipedia's reputation. Several of us have been marking articles for merging, we have participated in discussions, but some articles were missed, and some articles didn't reach a clear consensus so we're waiting until after the elections. 'We the serious workers' have been trying to assume good faith. I can't say the same for these "johnny-came-latelies". (And yes, partisanship can be seen in deleting likely-to-win candidate articles for one party, and only "no-real-hopers" from another. Thanks for asking.) Flatterworld (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Am I missing something? Douglas Herbert hasn't been deleted. It hasn't even been sent to AFD Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It had (very appropriately) been turned into a redirect to the article on the district, since this is a pretty pathetic excuse for a claim for notability; but another editor reverted the redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Yes just noticed [172]. Sorry I missed that Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It should be simple: articles that meet the GNG and WP:POLITICIAN are kept, and articles that don't are removed. I think Tarc's approach on Douglas Herbert above was pretty good: redir for now, and if people happen to win the office then they would be notable and could have an article (which could just be retrieved from the history). How many articles on candidates for the UK Parliamentary Elections did we allow to persist earlier this year? An alternative to how Tarc was approaching it is that questionable notable candidates for offices can be put up for AFD, you know. I bet the questionably notable candidates for offices attempting to use Wikipedia to further their campaign would love that. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Indeed. We've consistently treated such candidates in many elections for many nations, states, provinces and localities the same way. In this specific case, I am not seeing much notability, yet. Resolute 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) And at this point what is accomplished by sending one of these candidates to AFD when we don't know what the status will be when the AFD is over? Candidates sent over last week, no problem. If they are already at AFD, no problem. But let's hold off on any new noms because by the time the AFD is over the AFD will be over and we'll have a better sense of what is going on.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)Strong Support I agree. At this point in time, sending articles to AFD will be counterproductive. Whether the candidate currently meets N or not, all we are going to do is end up with a number of AFD's and long debates over notability---which in most cases will not really be determinable until next Tuesday anyway. EG An article gets nominated for AFD tomorrow. The AFD runs it's course. We have a lot of people checking out Doug's page at the last minute to find out who the candidate is. They see the AFD tag and join in the discussion. Suddenly we have a score of politically motivated individuals chiming in on a debate concerning notability. If the AFD ends in favor of keeping the candidate, but they fail to win what happens? Do we keep the failed candidate because we ran an AFD the week before the election and the people who joined in the conversation were interested in the debate? Or if the AFD ends in favor of deleting the candidate, but they do win the position, thus becoming notable---do we delete the article because the AFD said to delete? In other words, by the time the AFD comes to resolution, we will have a clearer picture of who really meets our notability guidelines. In the mean time, I agree with Flatterworld, if we send a lot of articles to AFD because they haven't won yet, we might get a lot of coverage. Any time debating these candidates right now would be wasted and would likely be riddled with people coming to the AFD pages from outside of WP. Let's just put a moritorium on them until after the election at which point we can better and more accurately assess who is worth keeping and who we have to get rid of. Plus, at this point in time, the person(s) who are likely to nominate these articles are going to be the ones who have interest in the elections---eg more motivated by politics than by WP policies/guidelines.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTEMoving ot Neutral I still think this is a good idea, but I just went through the last 3 days of current AFD's and 3 days worth of AFD's just prior to the 2008 election cycle. I was convinced that there would be some obvious examples showing how this had been abused, but I didn't see it being abused. Is it a concern? Yes. Am I willig to revisit it? Definitely, if you can show me how it was abused in 2008 and is being abused right now. So eventhough I can see the benefit of of the proposal, I'm not sure if I am convinced of the need.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)NOTE 2: Moving back to support.Tarc has decided to make this into an issue and has decided to be pointy about these cases. In any AFD the guidance should be for the closing administrator. The closing administrator shuold not be acting to delete these cases until next Monday or Tuesday at the earliest---at which point, having this discussion becomes a moot point. Any guidance provided needs to be based upon the final resolution of the election. Any !vote taken prior to that is guesswork as to what the situation will be at that time.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it were, we would have a lot more articles on people's sister's cousin's friend's Myspace bands. Syrthiss (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)You are exactly right, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is why we SHOULDN'T be deleting anything until after the election. At this point running an AFD is wasted time and energy. In the time that it takes us to run an AFD we will have a more conclusive answer as to whether or not somebody is or isn't notable.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC) oppose I understand where the requester is coming from, but this is inherently non-workable. Does this mean, for example, that every city council candidate, every non-starter candidate (though I like that Rent is Too Damn High party guy!) can set up a page on wikipedia and not have it deleted until after next Tuesday? Obviously we don't want a flood of non-notable candidates setting up pages on wikipedia and being retained unexamined. Finally, if we do this for the US, why not for other countries? Elections in Burma are coming up as well with thousands of candidates, minor and major, who should be covered by this generalized one week exemption. To be brief, this is an unworkable bad idea. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I would go along with a caveat, that this would only apply to people who are running for positions that are generally deemed notable (Governor, US Congressmen, and US House of Rep.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) That still lets in a host of minor candidates (like the Rent is Too Damn High party's Jimmy McMillan who is amongst seven candidates running for Governor of New York). Also, what about Burma?--RegentsPark (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The fact that you can mention the Rent is too damn high party and people know what you are talking about clearly indicates Jimmy's notoriety and the fact that he's become an internet sensation. As for Burma, we are only talking about positions wherein notability would generally be perceived if they won (Congressmen,Governor,Representative.) If we are talking about a Burmese position that generally conveys notability, then fine... but I don't think the Burmese get as rabid about editing wikipedia.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) JM may or may not be notable but that's precisely what AfD is there for. Meanwhile there are four other candidates, and I saw them all on the debate, but even I can't remember their names. Bottom line, there are lots of countries and lots of elections with loads of minor candidates who are there just for the heck of it. I think this is a slippery slope that is best not ventured onto. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC) RegentsPark, I was clear that I was talking about articles which have been around for months, NOT those recently created. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Support per Balloonman. We can do all the cleanup needed next week. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose Many don't even pass the requirements of WP:BLP. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST, and being on Wikipedia should never be used as an attempt to actually gain some kind of notability. I still have a userspace draft around of someone who was notable on their own and then ran for city council, lost, and the article was deleted ... there are too many wannabe's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC) oppose subjects should pass notability. There are far too many no name, no chance of winning whatsoever articles out there. If they are notable they stay. If no they don't seems reasonable. We should not have a moratorium on removing fringe people who have no notability. The problem with most politician articles is noone cares until the week before the election so the only time to remove them without them having an unneeded article forever is now. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for every third-party write-in candidate for city dog catcher and similar elected offices. Candidates that meet Wikipedia's usual criteria for inclusion should be kept while those that fail these standards should not be saved just because they might someday become notable. --Allen3 talk 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Support And ask that sudden spates of negative information be avoided in any such BLPs. The deadline on WP is long enough for this. Collect (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, as redirector. - I'll explain my rationalization here. Following participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Barr (Kentucky) last week, I decided to sift through United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 – complete list to see what else was there. What I found was a lot of people with Wikipedia articles who do not meet the threshold of either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, so I redirected them to the appropriate district race article and section. I left alone anyone with a hint of notability...i.e. state senators, mayors, city council, leading businessman, etc... Everything I redirected was the article of a person who had done nothing else but be nominated by their party to run for office; Rep, Dem, and Green were unspared. Even some of those who were only candidates but seemed to have demonstrated sufficient notability (i.e. Stephene Moore I left alone. Purposefully leaving these notability failures in place for a week under some kind of silly "freeze" proposal is tantamount to free electioneering IMO. Non-notable is non-notable, whether a week or a year before an election. Nothing was deleted, so if any of these people actually win, that simply gets undone; nothing is lost. I'd rather not waste AfD time on certain redirect results, so the desired outcome her would be for Flatterworld (and InaMaka now that I look at some contribs here), two warring factions of an ideological debate if I ever saw some, to restore the redirects. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) At the time the Stephene Moore article was created, she was considered the likely winner. I'm not part of some 'warring faction' here, and obviously you haven't checked out my contributions to figure that out. Flatterworld (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Oppose per BWilkins: if the fact that they're running for a notable positions means they suddenly hit the news in a week, then an article can be written at that point. But any subject which does not meet our notability guidelines now can and should be deleted, and any article simply attempting to use wikipedia to gain notability or advertise their polical campaign should be speedily deleted as G11. Note that I have not looked at the articles specifically so I'm not making any specific recommendations for AfD or speedy deletion in any particular case, but I strongly oppose a blanket against-policy "freeze" of taking these articles to AfD; the articles should be assessed against policy in the same way as any other article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose As per BWilkins and Giftiger wunsch - being a candidate no one ever heard of shouldn't guarantee an article, certainly shouldn't let people use us for publicity. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Support and Clarification: I am talking about official candidates, on the general election ballot, for U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator. Many of these are involved in "Tossup" races, so our readers are indeed interested in learning about them - particularly in following the links to Project Vote Smart, Open Secrets, Follow the Money, the FEC, etc. Furthermore, I am talking about articles which have been around for months and no one was interested in deleting them. There are articles which were discussed/merged/deleted earlier, when tempers were a bit cooler. As I said earlier Douglas Herbert is an example of an article I wish I had caught earlier. Scott M. Sipprelle is another article I restored today, and I suggest you consider that. He's not a "no-hoper" (unlike Herbert), and there's definitely growing page views. Assuming we exist to provide information, and assuming there's some wisdom in crowds as to what they're interested in, I simply see no reason to delete all these articles right before the election.. Flatterworld (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Note the above comment is also by the nominator, so when/if it comes time to tally, don't double-count. It has nothing to do with no-hopers or shoe-ins, it has to do with the project's accepted standards for notability, and just being a candidate doesn't cut it on its own. An encyclopedia is not a campaign guide. Also, if you look at the complete list, the majority of challengers don't even have pages. I'd wager that the majority of what does exist for these non-notable figures were started by staffers or close-to-the-source partisans. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) But a candidate as you mention in a toss-up race would qualify because of significant coverage, yes? JodyB talk 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose WP:Politician does a fine job of handling these articles. Any candidate with significant coverage in reliable sources stays. No need to make some big change here. JodyB talk 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Again, see [Scott M. Sipprelle]] which I restored today. Flatterworld (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment -- Here is another example: The next to last version of an article about Ed Potosnak, who is a Congressional candidate in the district next to that of Douglas Herbert. This article was turned into a redirect three days ago, but nobody has reverted it, so it's still a redirect, to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010#District 7. I agree with the originator of this thread that the week before an election is not the time to be disappearing and/or reappearing articles about candidates, especially major-party candidates for a national-level legislature. In fact, I would make it a longer period than that. So I am neither supporting nor opposing the "one week freeze" since I don't think it goes far enough. I would go for a retroactive freeze going back to (say) the beginning of October, which I assume would be even less popular with those who oppose the current proposal. Then I think there needs to be a discussion about WP:POLITICIAN and whether it is too restrictive, but that can wait until after the election. Neutron (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) No, it does a lousy job when there are hundreds of articles and only a week before the election. As I said, see Scott M. Sipprelle which I resotred today. Flatterworld (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) That article should stay because it has significant coverage in reliable sources. JodyB talk 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Excellent example - you should have checked the discussion on it as there was clearly no consensus to delete and Tarc simply acted on his own. That's the partisanship I'm talking about, and why we need a freeze. Flatterworld (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) When in the linked example you start using phrases like 'it is an insult', and calling people partisan I start to think that you may be getting too heavily involved in this discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Syrthiss, you misread that. That was a separate comment about each District in the election article itself. I checked the official candidate list form the Secretary of State and found lots of candidate which weren't listed as candidates in the District section. Nothing to do with Potosnak. Please stop jumping to wild conclusions bsed on a quick skimming of a Talk page. Flatterworld (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I misread nothing. In the link you give discussion here (I agree with no connection to Potosnak), you say that to leave names out "is an insult". Syrthiss (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ecx3)Until next week any discussion on these candidates is meaningless. Plus, if you are going strictly off of coverage, then any failed Senatorial/Governor/Representative from one of the major parties would be notable and this whole thing would be meaningless. Until next week, all people will argue is that there is a ton of coverage, but ignore the guidance about failed candidates.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It might be too early to close right now, but this does seem like a discussion which won't go very far unless something changes in what it is that is being asked/proposed here.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. We should not be an election campaign notice-board. Let the normal rules apply. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Support Per Flatterworld.--InaMaka (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Support While I understand the concern that Wikipedia can be used for political promotion by non-notable candidates, a week out from an election the risk of ill-intentioned deleting outweighs it. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC) So, we send the world a signal that Wikipedia is not for promotion except for a week before any election, when it is open house for candidates' campaign posters? JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) See WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Any disruptive nomination will be speedily kept. You're not proposing watching out for disruptive nominations, however, you're proposing allowing non-notable individuals to use wikipedia to further their political campaign and make them immune from community discussion. That cannot be allowed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: Does anyone else find it concerning that the last two support !votes have come from users who have been left a note by Flatterworld which isn't exactly neutral? "The deletes are being done by people I don't recognize being involved in any actual article work." [sic] GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Well, Flatterworld did also post that same message to OrangeMike who appears to oppose above (supporting the redirect) at the same time. Syrthiss (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I noticed that, but it doesn't alleviate my concerns that the message was campaigning, being a non-neutral message. It should have been a simple notification, not attempting to colour the discussion by suggesting that those in favour of deletion are somehow less entitled to their opinion. The user also should have informed those who proposed deletion or created the redirects, or it is also votestacking, addressing only those who the user feels may agree (the fact that Orangemike disagreed doesn't change that, I don't see Tarc being notified, for example). Actually Tarc was notified, but with an entirely different message (and a rather less civil one). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc was the first person of the four people notified. Granted neutrally worded is the preferred manner, but he did notify people on both sides of the spectrum and did so promptly and in limited scale.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Giftiger, I left messages for the only two Wikipedians who have been involved with lots of election and candidate articles on an ongoing basis this time around, including earlier discussions of when to delete, merge, etc. OrangeMike I remembered as being quite involved in 2008. You really should try viewing the contributions of each of us before you go into ooh!ooh! mode. (btw - I didn't appreciate Tarc's attitude, particularly after all the contributions I've made in this area. Anyone who calls me 'sport' in such a contemptuous fashion deserves whaevert they get, imo. 'Assume Good Faith' is not a suicide pact.) Flatterworld (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Well, I can't say that I cared much for unilateral reversion of the redirects without thought or comment, so "Touché, Pussy Cat!. :) Tarc (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN exist for a reason. Notable candidates stay and non-notable candidates go (or get redirected to the appropriate election artic) per WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. As I've stated quite a few times in related Afds, I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. If a non-notable candidate receives coverage in the context of the election, then per WP:BLP1E a redirect should be made to the election article. Location (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, if we're putting in bolded stuff here. I fail to see how this is different from any other form of crystal ballery. If the candidate later becomes notable, we can always put the article back iff such a thing happens. If not, why give such articles special treatment? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose.' The candidates that people are actually interested in will be covered by the media and they're notable. The others, no great loss. That's the point of WP:GNG.  Sandstein  05:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Support, with some clarification - Many of these articles that are being proposed for deletion have existed for months. Why would all of the sudden a whole slew of articles for challenger candidates from major parties be considered non-notable now? Why not shortly after they were created? That is why I believe these AfDs are in bad faith. However, I do think that a moratorium on AfDs should be specific to federal legislative or gubernatorial races where the candidate is either in a major party that's on the ballot or is a prominent third party challenger (i.e. Tom Tancredo for the sake of argument in the Colorado gubernatorial election, 2010). As I said in one of the AfDs, it's not like these are articles for the city dogcatcher. --NINTENDUDE64 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose These candidates are, most of them, simply not historically notable in any sense. Putting a moratorium for the duration of the election amounts to legitimizing propganda and spam, which is what a lot of these bios amount to. Moreover, thisdiscussion should definitely not be happening at ANI, which is a board many editors avoid like the plague. WT:AFD or an RfC is the natural place to discuss any proposed freeze on AfDs. RayTalk 05:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Bad precedent to keep non-notables with regard to upcoming notability. It would open a floodgate of no-good articles. When a person who is not otherwise notable gets elected, they can have a bio article here. Before that time? No. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Doesn't this raise a BLP concern? I'm breaking this out into a separate area because I think Collect has made an extremely salient point that might get overlooked by people looking at this primarily from an AFD/Notability criteria. This is the final week before one of the most heated elections in American History. Venture onto any candidates page or issue and you'll see a ton of heated debates. I've been called to moderate a few over the past few weeks and it is never fun. As the final week approaches us, we will be confronted with people nominating candidates for deletion based upon notability issues. This can be done in an attempt to discredit said individuals. As such, the nom itself would become a BLP concern. Even if the nom isn't, then there may be allegations/statements made on the candidates AFD pages that are not supported and cross the line becoming a BLP violation. No we are not a campaign notice board, but there is no harm done to wikipedia in allowing these articles to exist for one week more (the length of time it would take to get an AFD through anyways) to find out who really does and does not meet the expectations of POLITICIAN. Any !vote now doesn't really matter, what happens in a week (when the AFD would end) will really play a huge role in whether or not an article is kept or deleted.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I of course agree, but some of those 'Merge' notices (including some I posted myself) were made with the consensus of the workers at the time that they wouldn't be acted upon until after the election. We deleted and merged the obvious ones (such as a no-hoper candidate/staff doing a quick cut and paste from their campaign site, no outside refs other than those quoting the campaign site) but the rest we decided to give the benefit of the doubt for the time being. My crystal ball is on the blink, unfortunately. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC) "No harm" ? Really? Also, I will note again that I paid zero attention to party affiliation. As far as I can recall, (R), (D), and even a (G) all met the ax. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Er Tarc, you missed the entire point. Nominating them MAY DO harm, leaving them without an AFD tag avoids the BLP issue. And last time I checked noharm was an opinion on an essay, whereas no harm is one of our key policies. Guess which one wins?------Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Lemme get this straight. Your argument is that readers coming here to look up info on the candidate would be negatively prejudiced by a big "This article is subject to deletion" banner, therefore we should forgo the AfD process? Like "hey, this clown can't even keep a Wiki article? Hah, I'm not voting for him then!" To that I would say bullshit. And honestly, I question the basic voting competence of anyone who comes to an "anyone can edit" to find honest information on a political candidate. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Nominating an article for deletion based on the fact that it doesn't meet our policies is not a WP:BLP problem, and claiming such is a horrendous failure to assume good faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc, deleting a Republican 'contender' and a Democratic 'no hoper' is hardly the same thing. I restored both, and will now check the others. I also note you're not the only one doing these deletes, which is why I posted the freeze request. Flatterworld (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It doesn't have to be nominated with the intent of causing harm. In some cases it will be, but the reality is that the effect might be.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Well, that's utter nonsense I'm afraid. Any article may be nominated for deletion if the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria, and it's not a BLP violation to nominate such an article. If you can demonstrate that specific articles meet our criteria, then they will be kept. If they don't meet the criteria, they'll be deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Doesn't the fact the article exists pose another massive potential BLP problem. In that people could edit them negatively/positively. So for that reason we should summarily delete all of these articles to avoid any such problems. Ok, that was sarcasm, but I think there is strong rationale for imposing strong delete requirements on non-notable politicians in the run up to an election, it's easily the biggest example of "recentism" causing a groundswell of NN articles. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, no. The software flags a lot of vandalism-type edits which are then corrected. Flatterworld (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't see the BLP concern here. As noted, our notability criteria is what it is. Either an individual meets it, or they don't. If they don't, their article can be put up at AFD, redirected, PRODed, etc. I see no value in changing our process because of what can only be characterized as highly speculatory fears of some kind of undefined harm resulting from us following our own policies. Resolute 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Who creates these? Analysis; Scott M. Sipprelle > Demintz13 (talk · contribs) Douglas Herbert > Wikipeople101 (talk · contribs) Scott Eckersley > MO Ro mney (talk · contribs) (with a likely WP:COI from a Jeckersley (talk · contribs) Jim Meffert > Ribaldknave (talk · contribs) and contribs from Wildgopher47 (talk · contribs) John Flerlage > Crudblue (talk · contribs) What we have here are one-and-dones using the project for political advocacy. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, and who is likely to nominate them for deletion? People using the project for political advocacy. And when it goes to AFD who is going to participate? AFD regulars? Wikipedia regulars? In many cases yes, but for the next week we are likely to get a strong dose of political advocacy intejected in there. It would be easier and clearer just to wait.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (NOTE:Redacted with italicized info added.) Baloonman, I seriously suggest you start assuming good faith rather than accusing the entire community of acting upon political motivations, because such accusations simply make it clear that you have a conflict of interest here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Besides the Tea Party article where I've been asked to moderate, you'll find that I haven't participated in any political articles/afds/etc---I find them tedious and laborious--especially at this point in time where we have tons of people crawling out of the wood work to participate on these articles. I think we would be much much better served waiting a week until we know who won and who lost. But I will concede that this comment might have been taken too broadly, as many people might not be motivated from that perspective.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The fact is, the only arguments which are worth anything in an AfD discussion are arguments which demonstrate that the article fails to meet wikipedia policy or guidelines, such as WP:GNG and the like. As always, any arguments to delete an article on a notable subject without a policy-based rationale, will simply be ignored. Disruptive nominations will be closed as speedy keep. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) So for the next week, we will get "Delete, candidate is only a candidate, has not won the position, therefore does not meet WP:POLITICIAN." Which, come next Tuesday is outdated because the candidate did win and is now the Representative/Senator/Governor of a state? Waiting a week, the time it would take the AFD to run anyways, will give everybody a much better picture of who really meets our Notability guidelines and who doesn't.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we can't predict whether they'll win their elections or not. At the moment, many of the candidates are not notable. That means at the moment, the articles should not exist. If they are elected and thus meet the notability criteria afterwards, the articles can be freely recreated. I would suggest that any of these articles which are deleted at AfD, should be userfied so that they may be easily updated and returned to mainspace if they do overcome the issues raised at AfD, otherwise they can be discarded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It's because we can't predict that it is a waste of time to have these discussions. Any AFD started after tomorrow, the election will be over before the AFD is over. Any discussion that occurs BEFORE the election results is largely predicated upon the final outcome of said election. That being said, I did move to neutral above because I'm not convinced this is a problem needing an answer or an answer looking for a problem. In other words, I think sending articles to AFD this week is a waste of time, but I don't think we need to legislate not sending them to AFD.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC) If they win, then the articles get un...wait for it...redirected. No history lost, and editing goes on. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) While you snicker and smirk at our readers who were trying to find informationa bout the candidates BEFORE the election. Brilliant. Flatterworld (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks to the actions of Tarc, ininstating support of the ban. It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one of his Pointy AFDs should do so from the perspective of not whether or not the article meets notability today, but rather will it when the time comes to delete it?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but that is extremely misguided guidance you're providing, then. Anyone who weighs in on the discussion should do so with reasons that are grounded in actual editing policies and guidelines, not gazing into Professor Trelawney's crystal ball to predict election results. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The earliest they can be deleted per policy is Monday night. The night before the elections. Any guidance provided re deletion/keeps will be premature/heated/and a waste of effort.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It's not Wikipedia's job to serve as a platform for non-notable candidates in an election. People looking for information can go to the websites of those candidates and local papers, advocacy sites, etc. As to AFD being a waste of time, if there are five candidates in one election, all of whom are presently NN, only one would become notable next week. Four of those articles would still be deleted or redirected, and in the case of the winner, any admin with half a brain would simply close their AfD as mooted, since every "delete - nn" argument would be obsolete. Resolute 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) And Resolute, what administrator with half a brain would delete an article the night before the election knowing that the candidate might win the next day? What kind of press would that garner wikipedia? I can see the headlines now: "Wikipedia Deleted the articles of 20 newly elected politicians due to notability the night before the election." At a certain point, common sense has to come into play. The only smart thing that an admin could do next Monday or Tuesday would be to relist the article.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) All 20 of which would be restored before the newspapers hit the stands. Of course, it is unlikely that anyone but The Register would care too much about that, and the obvious rebuttal is "they weren't any more notable than any other candidate before they were elected". Resolute 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Balloon, ca you pelase drop "they will be deleted" canard? They were, and hopefully will be again, R-E-D-I-R-E-C-T-E-D. That means that the casual reader that some are so terribly concerned for here will not meet a dead end, will not wind up in an "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS TEH SUXX0RZ!" press article on election night. As far as they are concerned, their "search" will simply take them to a congressional district section of their state's elections. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc, you know very well that as far as our readers are concerned, your version of a Merge (which has only been a redirect in the articles you've hit so far) means the material is deleted because they won't see it. Or are you telling us to believe that our typical reader will know enough to scroll up to the top of the election article (because the redirect is to the District section), click on the redirect, then click on History, then look for the earlier 'long' version of the article, then click on that, and finally read it for the information you're claiming has not been deleted - as opposed to our readers assuming there never was an article, just a redirect from the get-go. And of course that's not even possible if they're using the mobile version of Wikipedia. You seem to be rather delusional about our readers. As far as our readers are concerned, you deleted the article. And they will not be able to rely on Wikipedia to learn about the candidate before they vote. And you think that's hilarious. Flatterworld (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Whelp, that's that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby I take the above straw poll as non consensus leaning towards oppose, for a "freeze", so off we go with a few trial balloons. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Dear Tarc: Flatterworld has made very good points and it is only a few days from the election. I noticed that you have taken it upon yourself--without any input from other editors or even rudimentary attempt to reach concensus--merge complete articles out of existence. Please see: Michel Faulkner. Under no circumstance does the discussion above give you the ability to be the judge, jury, and executioner of some of these candidate articles. The discussion process alone will take up the remainder of the time between now and Election Day. Please keep that in mind when you head out to release a "few trial balloons".--InaMaka (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, because inviting community discussion as to whether an article should be deleted, per long-established, regular process, is the same as being "judge, jury, and executioner". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) And I would take this to be a case of being extremely WP:Pointy---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC) No, it is a case of having to deal with several obstinate editors who wish to circumvent notability guidelines for the sake of an election, or (in Flatterworld's admission) for the sake of how the media may view the Wikipedia getting rid of candidate's articles before an election. I'd rather not take the time to create an AfD for every article that this crew has reversed a redirect on; I'd optimistically like to see a bit of snowfall on the two created so far, then come back here with that showing of consensus and handle the rest without the need of AfDs. Hence the "trial balloon" term. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Anybody who snowball deletes them will be doing so against polcy. The earliest these can be deleted, will be Monday night the night before the election. If we have a mass deletion the evening before the election, then I too would be thinking about what the media might say. No admin in their right mind would delete one of these articles the night before. Thus, again, I call it pointy.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Invoking snow, where appropriate, is not against policy. If there are no valid keeps, I could see these wrapping up in a day or two. I have to think if I'd gotten on the ball with this a week or so ago then all this wouldn't have generated so much noise. But y'know, shit happens, and here we are on 10-25-10. I find the "but we're only 8 days away" argument to be quite poor. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC) sorry to but in but, the day we/you/I give a rat's azz what the media might say or write is a sorry one in deed, imho. Stick to policy/guidelines. Forget about the day before election business. There will always be something happening event/election wise....anyways, carry on :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Invoking WP:SNOW is fine where the deletion is non-controversial. The discussion here should show that any such deletion, in this topic area and at this time, would be controversial, and thus SNOW does not apply. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) If anything it will snow keep... and you might as well pull Scott's nom now and concede that he is notable.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) COMMENT. Tarc has also requested an AfD for Steve Raby, so I added him to the list above. Flatterworld (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC) This is a major problem This poses a major problem, as several excellent points have already been raised. However, one point which I think is forgotten is that if we let every single candidate (official or otherwise) have an article we risk having articles for non-notable candidates (as in, no third-party coverage) which gives them undue weight, AND those articles are very exposed to BLP violations whereas they won't likely be watched well. It's a double-edged sword. The community really needs to decide how to handle this from a process standpoint and evenly enforce whatever process is adopted by consensus. This is very much like Schrödinger's cat: a candidate cannot be both notable and non-notable at the same time. I would argue that for several reasons, an candidate being on the ballot is not enough notability to warrant an article.    Thorncrag  20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, and define and distinguish why A7 wouldn't be invoked either.    Thorncrag  20:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) If you think A7 is an option, then you should probably review the CSD criteria. CSD is explicitly set for a lower threshold than N. All it requires is a credible claim to significance---anybody who is running for Senator/Representative/Governor clearly is making a credible claim to significance. So, even if an article clearly fails to meet N/POLITICIAN, that does not mean it is eligible for CSD.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)I would have no problem with limiting this proposal to the major parties for Senator/Representative/Governor. We've already had one person start AFD's to make a WP:POINT... if he had chosen to let somebody else do so (or even wait a few days) this would have probably blown over, but he made a conscious decision to do so and post that decision here (the epitome of POINT.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I disagree. Whether running for office is a credible claim is a philosophical question, not a question of Wikipedia policy. Personally, I question if it is. But that's not up to me to decide (or you, respectfully).    Thorncrag  20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Once again Balloon, it would be in your best interests to stop lying and misrepresenting my actions here. I have no "point" to make; I wish to see ANY article held up to our established notability guidelines. Whether it is a politician, a famous person's son, or a toy makes no difference to me; show that it is notable, otherwise it should be canned. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Thorncrag, your first point is NOT what we're arguing. The argument for the freeze is only for deleting articles this close to the election which have been around for quite awhile already. imo it shows serious disrespect and contempt for some volunteers here who, I presume, have been working on these articles in good faith. Now it looks for all the world as if some thought it would be hilarious to let them seek out all this third-party coverage, format footnotes, do all that work - just so someone like Tarc could pull the rug out from under them a week before the election. Jerking our volunteers around is not in the Wikipedia mission statement. The campaigns have been going on for over a year in some cases, and it's disengenous for anyone to now suddenly claim that hundreds of articles have to be 'justified' right this second. Or in Tarc's case, simply deleted and redirected and letting the rest of us' 'figure it out' if we happened to stumble across them. Normal people post a 'Request for Merge' on both the from and to articles, and wait until consensus is reached. Look at the history of these articles, and anyone could have requested a Merge months ago and had it properly discussed. As we did for many articles. As for the consensus on treatment in general, we have one: once someone wins a primary election (yes, that counts as an election!) they're 'notable enough' that we would wait until after the election to merge any article someone might create for them providing it otherwise met the standards for an article. If the article needed work, it would be tagged as such and improved. Most arguing is about candidates prior to the primaries, such as: "Joe Blow created a website, claiming he's running, but his only endorsement is his mother." And yes, those arguments are fairly short. That's not what we're talking about here.Flatterworld (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I was not advocating any of the points asserted in this dispute, only stating that I felt that notability for candidates is an issue that is worthy of discussion, even if it was brought to the forefront of our collective minds by less than straightforward means. I was trying to re-focus the discussion away from the dispute and more into discussion on this guideline or policy.    Thorncrag  21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Flatter, I think you are confusing Thorncrag and Tarc.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC) While I understand that this will all be more or less moot in a week, I don't believe we should have some sort of emergency injunction against AFDing these articles. Let's all just calm down and not do anything drastic in either direction, shall we? Some of these also-rans may still have received enough attention to be considered notable, and some of them not. Waiting a week to start parsing the wheat from the chaff seems reasonable, but there is no need to codify it. If there is a particular editor that is making numerous bad faith nominations we can revert and/or block them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)Um, once again, there is no bad faith on my part, and you'd be hard-pressed to make such a charge stick, but hey, knock yourself out. I tried to take care of some of these by simple redirects, which were declined. Other editors before me tried PRODs, which were declined. Bringing these to AfD is simply the next logical step; what cannot be handled editorially now needs to be handled formally. I could have jumped straight to AfDs with these a week ago and avoided this "OMG ELECTIONS NEXT WEEK!!!" horseshit, but I assumed (incorrectly, given the caterwauling that has ensued) that redirecting and preserving the history in case the persons ever became notable would have been an uncontroversial middle step. Tarc (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Beeblebrox, I think you totally underestimate the amount of time it would take to check all the articles out every day. And now I've found a sort of 'reverse issue'. I just updated United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2010#District 5, wikifying Mick Mulvaney's name. So look at his article - as in, who worked on it after the article included that he was running for US Rep. User:Orangemike (see above). He made plenty of edits, but it never, ever occurred to him to link to the actual election article? Or include any of the usual non-partisan voter links (for which there's a handy-dandy template created years ago to save me the work of entering each separately)? Really? All we have here is the equivalent of 'spider food' - anyone googling the guy's name would go here, and only here. The links on the election page? They'd never find them. And User:Jerzeykydd worked on that article as well - he's blocked until after the election for reverting edits to add third-party candidates to election article infoboxes, but my argument with him was about his creation of tons of articles for Republican candidates, NONE of which had the usual non-partisan voter information, just a five-second cut-and-paste from the campaign website. (I fixed a lot of them, until I realized he could create them a lot faster than I could fix them.) He added the '2010 run for U.S. Congress' section in the body of the article about the election (it was already in the lede) and - how odd! - there's a blank line where the 'See also' link template would normally go. Circumstantial 'evidence' for sure, but he's another 'experienced Wikipedian' who's well aware of the election articles. Do we have people playing games here? Definitely. I'm just pointing them out. Flatterworld (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC) It's kinda hard to follow this train of thought. Are you accusing Orangemike of being a sock of this Jerzeykydd? Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) No, I think he's accusing Orangemike of having political bias. Either way, it's a pretty strong assumption of bad faith, and Flatter really needs to reign it in. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Proposed Injunction against Tarc til After the Elections Yesterday a proposal was made to freeze AFD nominations on political candidates. While I initially supported the proposal, I withdrew my support from the original proposal because I didn't see the need. There were some comments that if somebody were to start sending a slew of bad noms to AFD that we could deal with that, Beeblebrox wrote "If there is a particular editor that is making numerous bad faith nominations we can revert and/or block them." Shortly after I changed my position, Tarc makes the announcement that he takes[the above straw poll as non consensus leaning towards oppose, for a "freeze", so off we go with a few trial balloons.] So WHILE his actions are actively being discussed here he decides to make a WP:POINT by starting some AFD's on the subject. It should be noted that there was no clear consensus at the time (beyond my stating that upon reviewing the history that I didn't see the need for a general injunction. Tarc immediately nominated two articles for AFD. The first being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert where the current !vote remains 8 keeps, 3 deletes, and 1 redirect. Nintendude, who as far as I can tell had no prior involvement in this discussion called the nom "obvious Bad Faith. While Brewercrew said that Wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our BLP policy. Unless they are unequivically unnotable (not this person), these afd's should be speedily closed per our BLP policy. The second being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination) where the current !vote is 8 keeps, 0 deletes, and 1 redirect. Again it is called a bad faith nom by Nintendude and JodyB. In this AFD GiftigerWuncsh defends Tarc Can we stop questioning the faith of the user who proposed this with a very clear, policy-based explanation, and instead focus on refuting their points, also based on policy? A "bad faith" nomination is one which is made solely as vandalism or to cause disruption. Giftiger also commented on Tarc's page about the claims of bad faith. The Third AFD being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby which currently stands at 8 keeps, 0 deletes, and one redirect. This time Giftiger writes, "(criterion 2.5) rationale clearly indicates that the nominator has failed to make any attempt to check for sources, since a very brief perusal of the links in the header here shows numerous reliable, third-party sources in newspaper articles. An identical rationale has been used for multiple other AfDs, and such a rationale very clearly does not apply here." InaMaka later wrote, "Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point." user:Giftiger wunsch went on to strike his comment on Tarc's page wherein he initially stated, "frankly I'm getting fed up of the various accusations of bad faith being thrown around, especially in relation to your AfD nominations." Giftigier also wrote on tarc's page, "I do think it has become clear in this instance that the subject meets the general notability guideline and should be kept; therefore I'd ask that you withdraw the nomination and allow the AfD to be closed." I joined in saying that if such were to happen that I wouldn't pursue a general ban on AFD's ANI as I saw no need outside of Tarc's actions. Tarc responded with "Mr. Balloon, I do not value your opinion in the slightest. Withdraw yourself from my talk page. Now." So I left him with a final note warning him that, "if you do choose to bring other articles to AFD, then I will definitely consider it WP:POINT at which point, I will have no problem with taking this to ANI." His response was to delete the warning (no problem there, with the edit summary "What part of 'do not post here' confuses you? Will a colorful acronym help?" After being warned that his edits were disruptive and that I would take him to ANI if he continued, he opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Potosnak. Guess, we will now have to show how Potasnak meets the GNG (but I can't do that til later). In summary, Tarc opened the AFD's DURING the discussion here with his post above basically saying, "I'm going to force the issue." People who are seeing the discussion disagree with him, even one of his bigger defenders has (apparently) started to see his noms as bad faith. And after getting a warning, he decided to do so again. In 4 years of Editing, this is probably the first time I've brought somebody to ANI!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Facepalm There was no consensus, leaning towards an outright oppose, for the "FREEZE" proposal. Since this coterie of editors (Flatterworld, InaMaka) were unwilling to reverse their reversions of articles that I redirected, the next logical step was simply AfD; what could not be handled editorially now had to wind its way through the red tape. I am not here to make a "point", and I have kindly told this user, in no uncertain terms, why that is the case. In these nominations, I did not single out a particular political party or a geographical region, I am not employed by any campaign or any candidate. I have looked at dozens and dozens of challengers candidate articles over the last few weeks, and if there was even the slightest bit of notability beforehand...e.g. state congress, mayors, city council, I left it as is as it was an easy WP:GNG pass. Those I redirected, and subsequently had to nom for AfD, were of people who I feel fail both the WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I am quite on the deletionist side of things around here, and am fully aware that the bar I set for notability may not be quite as high as others do (i.e. I discount coverage of the candidate in local media as routine and not an example of the depth/breadth of coverage that WP:N needs). But guess what? That's why we have discussions. Ballon and Flatterworld and everyone else are free to weigh in at the AfDs. But honestly I am getting pretty sick and fucking tired of refuting this same "OMG POINT" accusation. It is demonstrably false, as I have no goal here other than to see Wikipedia articles held to notability standards, regardless of being a year or a day or a week from election time. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC) While Tarc's stated goal may be as he says, the actions are different and suggests that he wishes to make a point. As you can see from the AFD's so far, he is largely alone in his thinking. I called on him to withdraw the nom of Sipprelle and wish he would do so now. These are not appropriate. The "facepalm" image doesn't suggest much of an interest in discussion either. JodyB talk 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC) No, the facepalm is to express extreme frustration with people lobbing accusations at me that are 100% false. You included, now. I have stated quite clearly that I have nominated articles that in my assessment are failures of the notability guidelines. There is no grander "point" to be made, so please, drop the tinfoil hats. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) The time has come to ignore all rules and do what's best for Wikipedia. I can't believe somebody nominated Stephene Moore for deletion and that it was taken seriously, even by an administrator. People looking up major candidates such as Moore (and yes, it's a nationally watched race) for campaign research are one of the reasons why we're here; to produce a useful resource, and frankly, few things are more useful than that. Can we at least exercise more restraint here in chomping at the bit? Kansan (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) WHOAH, hold up here...don't tie the Stephene Moore mess to me. That was a few weeks before all this, and if you'll take note of that AfD, I called to keep it. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I had not been aware of the Stephene Moore AfD previously, but looking at it now and in light of all these other AfD's, it does seem curious, Tarc. There you said that Mrs. Moore herself (not just the race itself) was notable because she is running for her husband's seat, and received coverage far and wide because of it. But don't you get tripped up on "notability is not inherited"? (A principle I don't think is always true, witness the hundreds of articles we have on people (some of whom are infants) whose sole claim to fame is that they are somewhere in the line of succession to the British crown, but that's a subject for another day.) Every candidate for Congress gets news coverage, and every candidate for Congress is running for someone's seat, usually an incumbent member of Congress. Now if she were running against her husband, that would be different in kind, not merely degree, from all these other races. But as it is, there just isn't enough of a difference. Please note that I am not joining in the call for an "injunction" against you, but I don't think your actions have been very helpful, either. Personally I think this is more evidence that the entire deletion/discussion process should be completely revamped, but that's also a subject for another day. Neutron (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I called to keep that article given the extensive media coverage that the woman had received in regards to running for her husband's seat. I think it'd be a stretch to apply "not inherited" to that, and I am usually the one trying to make those sorts of stretches. :) Tarc (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC) As Balloonman pointed out, I accidentally posted in the wrong subsection and was not trying to accuse Tarc of being connected to the Stephene Moore incident. Kansan (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I think Kansan's comment was intended to go in the general discussion above, not in this specific subsection.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I've asked Kansan to move the comment if it was intended for the parent section an not this one.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) It was, but because it's been responded to and spawned a side discussion, I had better leave it at this point in time. I apologize for the mess. Kansan (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Support injunction. I am not sure exactly what Tarc does here on Wikipedia, but its certainly not encyclopedia-building. An analysis of his contribution history reveals drama-mongering, unpleasantness, among other problematic behavior. Most recently he tagged an article I expanded for speedy deletion with a nasty edit summary [173] on false grounds.[174] Not satisfied he started an afd discussion, which resoundly resulted in a consensus to keep.[175] The article then earned a DYK.[176] While my run-in with Tarc is not connected per se with this issue, it is yet another example of Tarc's disruptive nature here at Wikipedia. There was nothing gained by his tagging Nava Applebaum for speedy and then nominating for deletion except to waste the time of the editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia. All these afd's are the same. None of them are getting deleted and they are just wasting editors' time both here and at afd discussions. Tarc will most probably respond by attacking me, which of course will cloud the fact that Tarc, who is here since 2005 is nothing but disruption.[177]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC) The Appelbaum thing was a pretty disgusting affair, and quite the good example of why I touch the topic area very infrequently these days. There is no question at all that an article about a girl who died in an explosion is completely not in line with notability policy. As with much of the I-P topic area, partisanship ruled the day. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Frankly, if anyone but Balloonman was proposing this, I would have characterized it as a vindictive attempt to silence/censor someone with whom they are in disagreement. However, I do believe this is proposed in the same good faith that I believe Tarc nominated the articles at AFD under. Very few political candidates are notable, and there is no reason why America's mid-term election candidates should be treated any differently than any other locale's elections. The AFDs were fair game, and will resolve themselves as is natural in our system. There is no need for sanctions of any kind. Resolute 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the compliment. I will say that I did not pose this for OrangeMike who has also nominated articles for AFD because I have no questions about OM, but rather for Tarc alone because of his flippant attitude. If he had waited until the ANI discussion above had resolved naturally, I would not have had any issues. The fact that he came in on an issue that he was involved in, declared victory, and immediately declared that he was sending up "balloons" is why people question this activity. His actions curtailed the discussion here because he wanted the people at AFD to decide---which is the definition of WP:point. He's had numerous people tell him to stop, including a former supporter, but he continues on and has indicated that he intends to continue. And then he attacks those who critize him.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Tarcs actions seem in good faith to me, if you live in Kansas (or another American state) and your local papers are commenting on a election then a candidate may appear notable but in the wider picture, political candidates are not noteworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Kansas? Are you dissing Kansas?! Flatterworld (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC) comment ive only seen tarc a few times but he always seems interested in being rude and disruptive. it looks like he was violating the WP:POINT policy here. my interactions with him have always been unplesant such as for example here[178] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise). even if he has genuine good goals at wikipedia he goes out of his way to insult and be rude to fellow users. this current problem looks like he is just doing everything he does here to annoy people. i cant assume good faith when someone is so rude to me. Aisha9152 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Despite monitoring political biography Afs for a few weeks now, I have only became familiar with him in the last 24 hours. I have had no interactions with him to assume that this the slew of Afd nominations were made in bad faith. Although I completely agree with his reasoning, I think it was unwise to make those nominations prior to clear consensus in this ANI. Doing so has caused a reactionary response of "keep" in all of those nominations which will make it more difficult to delete or redirect what I perceive to be non-notable political biographies in the future. Location (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, even the supposed "disruptive" AfD brought up in the proposal here has gained support from other editors (even if it may ultimately end a keep, though that's not certain either, as AfD is not a vote), so I don't see how it's obviously disruptive. We can sanction people for making obviously bad AfDs (nominating George W. Bush or hydrogen), but I don't see how this is sanctionable behavior. It's exactly what AfD is designed to do—bring an article where it's in legitimate question whether it passes the content policies before the community for a discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Strongly oppose. Severe case of bad faith by the proposer of this injunction. Corvus cornixtalk 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) someone could say this assumptions bad faith too but im not going to because i dont want to get involved. Aisha9152 (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose any sanction. You may disagree with Tarc's actions, but they seem to me a not unreasonable attempt to hold on to our agreed notability standards. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Support. His disruptive actions have wasted more than enough time of other volunteers already. Flatterworld (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Strongly oppose I've had some very unpleasant run-ins with Tarc in the past, but his actions here are completely consistent with Wikipedia's agreed deletion processes and notability standards. You don't get to try to change the rules, and, when that looks like it's failing, try to sanction people who are following the rules for being "disruptive." RayTalk 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Definite oppose. Having just reviewed the entire thread for the first time, Tarc's nominations here are indeed the next step in our processes. All I see is a number of editors, including the initiator of this proposal, specifically targetting one editor (Tarc). as Balloonman has admitted he made this proposal because of Tarc's alleged "flippant attitude", I'd suggest this proposal was not made in good faith and is conduct unbecoming of an admin. StrPby (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry Str, flippant attitudes is exactly what defines making a wp:point. The motive is to stop a person from making numerous AFD's less than a week before the election. What purpose is served in sending them to AFD this week? Why not wait a week? If you were any of these candidates, would you want an AFD tag on your page questioning your notability a week before the election? I'm sorry, but that is the epitome of what our BLP policy is all about.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Siamesehare, repeated copyright issues, and repeated creation of non-notable articles, templates, etc...

Resolved

 – User warned. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone talk a look at User talk:Siamesehare and see what the best course of action is? The half a zillion warnings doesn't seem to deter him/her. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well - it seems, he/she is having trouble understanding the fair-use policies, i would suggest someone leaves a non-automated message on his/her talk page and see if he/she responds. I think Siamesehare is not responding to the messages just because they are automated. If the user continues to upload images inappropriately after the non-automated message is left on his/her talkpage, then i suggest a block, because this user is in lack of communication and fails to abide by our fair-use policies. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User Zucchinidreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has raised an RFC at Talk:Peter Sutcliffe#A request for comment on Rodhullandemu's behaviour (and also at User:Rodhullandemu/Request for comment) claiming that "His behaviour has been monotonous and of a consistently POV and unreliable tone," and that "Rodhullandemu has deleted neccessitated and extremely verifiable information. His continuum of edits is deforming for the community at large." There is no evidence of this, and it appears only to be a way of evading the "2 user" criteria for initiating RFC/U, and out of some kind of revenge because he does not like being wrong.

But there's more. This is part of a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing that he has been carried out on Peter Sutcliffe, ignoring requests from other users to discuss his editing and respect consensus, ignoring explanations about image use policy (even uploading images to Commons and falsely claiming permissions and licensing for them [no diff-deleted from commons as a copyvio], and claiming ownership of other images on his talk page [179]). He has reported an IP to AIV that hadn't edited since June 2008 [180] and claimed that this was "after final warning" - he obviously hadn't checked that a warning had been issued as the talk page would have shown him last being communicated with in May 2008 when a 55 hr block was issued. This follows a few days after he reported an IP who hadn't edited for a year [181]. He blatantly lied to another admin claiming I had re-edited his comments on my talk page to make them say something else [182] and asked for me to be blocked.

His whole history of contributions is one of disruption, and I'm afraid that this is either someone who is being deliberately disruptive for schizzles and giggles, and feigning naivety, given that he wikilawyers so much, or someone who - and I'm trying to be delicate here, not uncivil - has some underlying problems which are preventing him from getting the point. GwenChan 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not respond to such ludicrous and fatuous allegations, with the caveat of ones that are WP:POV. The editor disliked my editing because it conflicted with her WP:POV (Point of view) they've replicated the incidents above to display a false flag of pseudobehavioural edits, which I haven't taken part in. The links above have been replicated ad naseum.

1) The consensus point- the information on that file was being shuttled from place to place, and as such was minor editing, incapable of causing any reasonable minded person any trouble.

2) The imagery- the imagery was reverted on a copyvio so that I could proof-read the address, but I appeared to miss the cut button, so the defunct link was kept on the page. That really is not bad faith, but assuming I meant anything by it, was, and is.

3) The blocking of the I.P- I mistook the history page as a flagged warning, and will undo it, although WP:GOODPRACTICE suggests bringing that up on the editor concerned's (my) talk page.

4) The second I.P- My computer was undergoing updating and I blindly followed through the process, and I will apologise for that publically, and to the party involved, here, as a matter of public record.

5) The comments I had made on the user concerned's talk page said they were pushing a point of view; therefore they ARE NECESSARY AS PART OF WIKIPEDIAS THREE CORE POLICIES.

6) I asked for her to block because she had re-factored my assertions about her editing being POV, and I asked for her to be blocked for only a few hours.

No one fair minded would accuse me of anything more than accidentally eidting wrongly, but being good in faith when I edited wrongly.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not have POV on the article which has been the main focus of your disruption - it is not "POV" to ask you not to remove given names and ages of victims, for example. That is common sense. Similarly it is not "POV" to ask you to discuss major edits to the article on the talk page.
• Deciding to remove information and sections against consensus does cause reasonable minded people trouble, and reasonable minded people do not do it.
• The imagery was not reverted so that you could proof read the address, you reverted it persistently after at least two other editors took the image out due to it being tagged CSD for copyvio. You then claimed you were the owner of the image.
• The blocking requests of the IPs (and I didn't mention the drive-by CSD tagging you did, which although you later went back and reverted, you didn't strike out the CSD tag from the user's talk page) is indicative of your editing - you don't read what's actually on the screen before pressing buttons. At the absolute minimum you should be blacklisted from automated editing tools.
• Accidents do happen - but not with such frequency and consistency.
• Another example of your persistent refusal to listen to other editors' advice - you were just asked not to take red links out of articles, and despite acknowledging that request you then go back in to the main space and start doing it again!
• Once again, you are blatantly LYING and accusing me of altering your comments on my talk page to make them say something other than that which you wrote. I did no such thing, and to accuse me of doing so is the fucking pits. GwenChan 21:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have three questions for Zucchinidreams.

1. Please provide a diff substantiating your accusation that Gwen refactored your talk page comments, that is, post a link to the change she allegedly made. I can't find it in the history of her talk page. An example of a diff is contained in my next question.

2. When you made this comment (that's a diff right there) on your talk page, were you claiming that you own the image to which you were referring?

3. If you were so claiming, was that claim truthful or untruthful? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The I.P I reported put seriously pornographic images onto a page. They needed to cool down their editorialising.

Gwen chan refactored my comment in the section on her history that says reply, goodbye. I sent an e-mail to the makers of the image, but have yet to recieve copyright info- however, one incident does not a ban make. As for the red-links, they were nonsensical, and removed correctly, and I'd advise Gwen chan to read WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK before she comments on my history page. It is a lie to say I was warned about not refactoring red links; in fact, the message warned about unnecessary removal of red-links, and I have complied with that message. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through Gwen-chan's talk page history (it's not very long). It seems to me that Zucchinidreams behaviour is not stellar there and includes failure to assume good faith, falsehoods (about Gwen chan refactoring Zucchinidreams comments), posting twice after being asked not do so, and making threats. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.53.235 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am making a clean break. I will not edit any articles that User:Gwen-chan has had a hand in making, including the Peter Sutcliffe article, because it seems obvious we can't agree. I will, further, be making no more requests for deletion, or for copyright, or for RFC. Thank you and goodbye.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Again with the false accusation! "Gwen chan refactored my comment in the section on her history that says reply, goodbye." I did no such thing! Either show the evidence or apologise and admit you're lying, for fuck's sake. Making a "clean break" = simply moving your problematic editing from one article to somewhere else. It seems so far that you are a (possibly unintentionally) disruptive editor who is dishonest in both their dealings with others and with regard to copyright/licensing of media, who can't stop himself from throwing mud and false accusations at anybody who attempts to question your actions. Rather than closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and humming that you are going to edit elsewhere, you should at minimum ask for help and a mentor. GwenChan 09:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd calm down - it's not worth it. Everyone can see that you didn't refactor any comment made by Zucchinidreams on your talkpage. I believe what he is referring to is that you deleted various of his comments. Zucchinidreams, editors are entitled to delete comments from their user talk pages. It is not considered inappropriate, and it is DEFINITELY not refactoring. So you can stop making the allegation, we've all now seen what happened.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My actions were wrong- out of ignorance, but that doesn't excuse it- I apologise publically to Gwen-chan and rodhullandemu for my remarks. I am deeply sorry, please forgive me.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very honest thing to have said. I appreciate your openness. I hope the two editors concerned will accept your apology and everyone can move on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While I accept your apology for the talk-page thing, I still think you should consider asking for a mentor to avoid getting into this situation again. GwenChan 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will opt to find someone to adopt me. I echo User:Elen of the Roads in that I hope we can all move on from this state of affairs. Thanks. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Stalker?

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a comment from another editor popping up on the talk page of Hemingwayswhisky (talk · contribs), accusing them of stalking and doing nothing but undoing their edits. A quick glance reveals they may have a point. Does anyone care to look closer and ponder possible action? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I figured I'd do him the courtesy of giving him a warning but, yeah... his account consists basically of reverting my posts, most of which are spelling, etc. Thanks. John2510 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

At first sight it looks like a true bill. Do you have any idea why or if it is another editor you are aware of? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno... There was a guy in Pittsburgh who threatened me (and ultimately an admin) a couple of months ago, no telling if this is him... reincarnated: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=383763596 —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not so much basically, as completely, it seems. (Was the other user notified of this discussion?) Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(Okay, so there's 1 edit that wasn't related to John2510.) Is there any situation you know of that would have spawned such a direct edit summary? Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I placed a note on both editors' talk pages, yes. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well unless there is a very good explanation it looks like a straightforward attack account. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be a few sporadic IPs that John2510 reverted in Siberian Husky, all of them making the same edit as Hemingwayswhisky but none in the same range. It might be the same person who got frustrated at being reverted and just decided to go after John2510 having nothing better to do. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I came to the same conclusion. I have to say that edit warring over light verses heavy loads is insanely dumb given that both terms are subjective . Why not loads up to # pounds or something similar? Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek

There's some indication that this is the same guy that threatened me and an admin a couple of months ago. Using an IP address he made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owens_%26_Minor&diff=378432901&oldid=378401340, which was restored by the subject editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owens_%26_Minor&diff=prev&oldid=391153240. I don't believe I edited at that page at all... so he didn't follow me there. Can someone trace the subject's IP and determine if it's in the same area (Pittsburgh), and therfore likely the same editor that previously threatened physical violence? Thanks John2510 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That account now sleeps with the fishes. Obviously up to no good. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the article for a month, since otherwise we'll no doubt have the IP nonsense again. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog

Resolved

 – Nothing else to do here. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion shows a 63 item deep backlog. I only checked because I have been waiting for a G6 on Robert_Kendall for 20 minutes. Thought it might be worth mentioning here. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to fear... I've seen it over 200.  7  03:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are times when I wonder why they call it speedy deletion... it took one puff piece I found yesterday 9 hours to get "speedily deleted". Of course, I give our admin corps full credit for nailing attack pages, which is the most important part. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@ 7: Wow. Either way, it's down to 10 now.

@ TBotNL: I think "speedy" is relative; AfD and PROD take 7 days, Speedy takes a few hours.

Sven Manguard _Talk 04:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Back when I was a young, aspiring admin who first focused on speedy deletions, the "backlog limit" was 75, and it wasn't uncommon to have a backlog of well over 100. Definitely things have changed within the past year, I don't know what, which has resulted in generally lower volumes of CSD-tagged articles and instances of when CAT:CSD is backlogged. The issue is nowhere as bad now as it was about a year ago. –MuZemike 05:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw at 300 once. But that was years ago, possibly before I even created my account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The backlog has gotten better since the implementation of the new Article Wizard, which has encouraged users to create new articles in the userspace, greatly solving problems regarding patently non-important stuff. But yeah, I wouldn't call 9 hours outside of the normal realm of speedy. Its not impossible to be deleted within a few minutes, depending on how many admins are working on the category, but anything less than a day is not to be worried about. If it needs to go NOW, (such as eggregious BLP stuff), then ANI can get a faster response. But for the run of the mill garage band vanity pages, a few hours is no big deal. --Jayron32 07:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't delete articles that have been listed for under an hour unless they're housekeeping, copyvios or attacks. I generally think A7s, which are by far the bulk of speedies that I see, should be given at least an hour to clear them up. It was actually I question I got asked in my RfA, and one that doesn't seem to get asked anymore. Maybe I should revive it. GedUK  07:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found that User:7SeriesBOT does a good job removing some of the easy CSD's, but even it appears to have slowed down - does this mean there's less CSD tagging going on? 63 is not a backlog ... and speedy means "anything less than 7 days" in most cases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy really only means 'no community discussion'; that's what's supposed to make it fast, so yeah, anything less than 7 days is speedy! GedUK  11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There's been discussion at other locations (Like the New Page Patrol talk page) about trying not to use CSDs, not biting newbies, and not outright rejecting things in favor of more moderate actions such as tagging, prodding, and AfD nominating to show the article the back door Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, one suggestion a few of us keep repeating (to no avail as of yet) is to have a speedy userfication process, which would take care of most or all of those problems. But honestly, there's no good way to tell someone that their garage band doesn't belong here, or their new colon detox panacea isn't notable enough. No matter how you say it, people won't like hearing it, but it still has to be done; on a Friday or Saturday night, I can easily blast through tagging 30 such pages in about half as many minutes. Not that I'm heartless, but it has to be done, and it won't get done unless someone does it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:The Persian Cataphract

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Persian Cataphract (talk · contribs) needs some looking into. This is an old user who has been around, though infrequently, since 2006. He seems to be fairly knowledgeable about his field (not quite the typical run-of-the-mill ethnic warrior), but there's one serious problem about him: he totally refuses to abide by civility standards. Almost every posting of his, through all these four years, has been an insult [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], He was warned the other day and refused to change his tone [188]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FPaS beat me to it. TPC may well be right on this issue, but his behavior is ridiculous - he knows it may get him blocked yet continues to make personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First diff is current (from 24th) and blockable by itself - it's clearly aimed an one editor and TPC knows perfectly well who it is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, not acceptable.--SPhilbrickT 12:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The first diff definitely is blockable, and this diff [189] could be interpreted as a threat to recruit meatpuppets, to put it kindly. Kansan (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. I have serious doubts this user intends to ever be constructive or collegial ever again. –MuZemike 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparent wikihounding by Off2riorob

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

1. On October 24 I commented at an AN. I criticized the disruptive editing of Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (that led to his nine blocks in the last year and a half), and supported (with detailed rationale) sanctions against Off2riorob.
2. Mere hours later, he started an edit war with me at Andre Geim.[190][191]
3. The most-recent posting on my talk page at the time indicated clearly that I was involved in a dispute at the Geim page.
4. Wikipedia has over 10 million articles.
5. Off2 had never edited Geim before.
6. Yet he abruptly appeared, to edit war with me at that very page.
7. On that very issue. Leading to the page ultimately being protected due to an "edit war".

I find this wikihounding and disruptive behavior to be more than slightly disturbing to my own enjoyment of editing, and just the sort of behavior that cannot be tolerated. If the "cost" of making an honest accurate criticism of another editor's disruptive editing is that he is allowed to disrupt the editing of the editor who spoke up, that is highly disruptive to the project as a whole, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• So you're saying that disagreeing with you on one page is wikihounding? I hope you can give more examples than a single page where he's started editing later than you. So far this appears to simply be a dispute, and has no place on ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Except, why did Off2RioRob just happen to go there after Epeefleche made a comment about Rob's editing behavior? I mean, Rob's first edit to the article was to start up an edit war over an issue that was reported on Epeefleche's talk page. Is it all just coincidence then? One article can be wikihounding if it is incredibly unlikely that the editor involved went there for good purposes. Silverseren^C 07:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Silverseren.

1. The chance that he would edit any one wikipedia article? One in 10 million.
2. The chance that he would edit an article, just by chance, that he had never edited before: Clearly smaller.
3. The chance that it would be the very same article that the most recent post on my talk page indicated I was in a conflict on? Way smaller than that.
4. And that his edit would be on the precise same issue as mentioned on my talk page, taking the opposite view of mine, and not just taking the opposite view but also -- edit warring?
5. And that he would do so in one of his very first edits after I had criticized his nine blocks for disruption, and suggested he be sanctioned?

No, I don't think we can reasonably assume this is chance.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's rather more likely, given that an edit war resulted, that there was simply a dispute on the article. A single incident isn't enough to categorise the behaviour as wikihounding. Note that seeing that you've recently edited an article and deciding to take a look, Epeefleche, is something many people do all the time, and is not wikihounding on its own. Doing so and then disagreeing with the user's edits isn't wikihounding, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I also ask why you feel it so relevant to this discussion that you need to italicise off2riorob's block history? Can you clarify how many of those blocks have been for wikihounding? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I also ask why you feel it so relevant to this discussion that you need to italicise off2riorob's block history? – oh give me strength. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 09:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add, TT? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that your previous so-called contribution to this thread was querying another editor's use of italic text, I'm really not sure that you're in any position to be criticising others for lack of constructive content... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 12:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is obviously not random chance. One wonders why O2rr is doing this, especially after his very recent disruption issues. Asking for a block? → ROUX ₪ 07:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason to intervene per Giftiger wunsch. If memory serves me correctly, Epeefleche was not happy with the outcome of the AN and wanted it to be reopened but it was not. I think Epeefleche should pursue a RfC/U or simply avoid interacting with Off2riorob altogether (and if not happy with these two options, be willing to be involuntarily interaction banned from him, but these sorts of involuntary sanctions are something we'd like to avoid generally, unless absolutely necessary). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You have the situation precisely backwards. Of2riorob followed Epeefleche, not the other way around.→ ROUX ₪ 09:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this hounding? I hope not! Quite often I notice a topic on someones talk page while leaving a message (or even just seeing their TP go by on my watchlist) and go by to have a look. Given this is a BLP it is exactly in Rob's terrain and he took his established permission on the issue (i.e. there is nothing out of the norm in his approach to this). So, yes, he appears to have got to the article via Epeefleche. But that does not mean it was malicious or hounding. At best storm in a teacup, at worst Epeefleche trying to find a (tenuous) way to re-open discussion over Rob. When he can make no turn on the wiki without Rob popping up to resist or oppose him then we have a hounding issue, and I would be on his side --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that rob has not edited the article or talkpage since the 24th, so there is nothing ongoing. Unless epeefleche wants a block then this is the wrong venue. Quantpole (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I regularly have issues with an editor's contributions on BLP, and I make it a habit of checking their contribution lists to see what they are editing, because I know I will sometimes find further problematic editing. Even if I don't find any problems, I may take an interest in something they've edited while reviewing it - just because I spot something on the article. Is that wikihounding? Granted, I suppose an over-sensitive editor might feel it's intrusive - but that's life on an open wiki.--Scott Mac 10:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Except, that's not what happened here.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wikihounding" as a charge requires a lot more than "he started editing on an article I own" type accusations. Many editors have edited/watchlisted well over 1K articles - and it is amazing that there are as few overlaps as there are in the first place. Collect (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

By the above comment I gather that I must have created misapprehensions, for which I apologize. To clarify: it was not an article he had watchlisted, it would appear, as it was his first edit ever at the article. And it was not an article I "own", as I had barely edited it. And it is not an issue of "he started editing on an article" -- it is an issue of him immediately reverting me, and then edit warring, on the precise issue that was last-posted on my talk page as one of different views. And, of course, the timing -- he did this with one of his first edits after I detailed why he IMHO should be sanctioned.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that it is not chance editing, but there is no agreement that it is definitely wikihounding at this stage either. So let's just park the problem for the moment. If it moves over to more than one page then we can come back to it but at the moment no admin action is required. Seems reasonable? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 11:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not chance editing (but 10 million articles? where are the other 6.6 million?) But neither does one incident constitute wikihounding. Like Scott Mac, I've ended up at an article for the first time after going to a talk page, looking around, and seeing something interesting. If there's edit warring,there's a place to report it. For me, I need to see several examples before I'll conclude it is wiki-hounding.--SPhilbrickT 12:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Replying to Theresa's comment) Indeed, as WP:STALKing goes, I can think of plenty of people (myself included) guilty of worse than finding a mention of an article on a user's talk page or contribs list and deciding to have a look. WP:AGF does exist for a reason, and WP:HOUND makes it very clear that simply following another user's edits isn't a violation unless it also involves tendentious editing, personal attacks, intentional disruption, and so forth; while an edit war did result, I'm inclined to believe it would have resulted even if it had happened the other way around, and/or one of the two had had it watchlisted already; that's simply the nature of disagreements. Again, this seems nothing more than a content dispute, and an uninvolved admin should close this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the circumstances in this case simply do not give rise to the conclusions some users have made on the basis of bad faith assumptions. Action isn't going to be taken at this time so it should be closed (until/unless they fit into the circumstances described by Theresa Knott, SPhilbrick and/or Giftiger wunsch). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Theresa Knott. (And with the others who say hounding requires more than a single incident. The word "repeated" is even repeated in the first sentence of the definition of wikihounding.) Now Epeefleche has named in his initial post a number of incidents. Whether those multiple incidents rise to the level of creating the "repeated" incidents needed for wikihounding is the question. I don't know. But I'll say this, when you get wikihounded, it sure doesn't feel great. Let's give deference to Epeefleche here while at the same time being fair to off2r. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, within hours after Epeefleche commented unfavorably on an ANI, Off2riorob clearly looked at Epeefleche’s contributions history and then went spoiling for a fight by editing the same article. This is not a new phenomenon and it strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think it was a random happening. Off2riorob had best go find another article (there are many) to edit. Sufficient editwars and battles occur on Wikipedia by editors accidentally finding themselves in disagreements. The last thing we need is an editor purposely spoiling for conflict. Greg L (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Growing consensus seems to be that that's not what happened. No one's saying it was a random chance, but as has been stated multiple times above, simply seeing an article on a user's talk page, or even their contribution list, and deciding to contribute to that article, is not hounding; many editors do so all the time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes a “growing consensus” here is a transient phenomenon; allowing the thread to run a little longer until the earth turns just once often affords others to get home from work and weigh in. That often results in a different consensus—or no consensus at all. You characterize it as Off2riorob “simply seeing” that Epeefleche was editing on a particular article (hours after Epeefleche contributed to an ANI) and that lead Off2riorob to innocently decide *that looks interesting* and went there to edit. It’s certainly pretty to think so, but your characterization seems like a case of excess rose-colored glasses to me. I hope you are right, for if you are, then all’s well and good and no more wikidrama will come of this. And if there is more bad ‘cess from it, a little time-out for Off2riorob will be in order. Greg L (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Giftiger wunsch, but I believe there is a greater problem than just a single page. And if so, that could be hounding. Depends, of course. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

I already answered this question on my talkpage .. It is nothing more than coincidental, I had no intention of stalking your edits then or ever ... that is the situation, sometimes happens. I had and have no intention at all of following user Epeefleche around and increasing any tension there may be between us, actually I am more attempting to reduce the tension between us by avoiding contributing to those articles, which are still being disputed by others, it will get worked out without me, so I am avoiding further contributions in those disputed articles. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Epeefleche's experience, combined with Off2riorob's statement above where he states he is now "avoiding further contributions" [to CC articles] indicates that a problem exists... again. It is my own view, expressed at various times and pages previously, that Off2riorob is a net minus for Wikipedia. Yes, I have a history of conflict with this editor; however, this latest incident is what I'd call clear cut wikihounding, and should not be tolerated. This is just further drama and a big time sink. Off2riorob continues to push the limits of AGF, and in my view has become used to ongoing gaming of the system. I agree with Greg L above: I suggest that a block is reasonable, given Off2riorob's lengthy, established history of abusive editing. It would be a good thing for the community, as it will demonstrate that community tolerance has limits. With deep concerns, Jusdafax 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Noted for the record: you have had a long-running problem with Off2riorob. I think it will have to be left at that on this go-around, which pertains to Epeefleche and Off2riorob trying to be paperboy to the same house and unfortunate timing and circumstances made for a poor looking coincidence. Off2riorob’s 17:28, 27 October post, above, is entirely satisfactory to establish that no more conflict between those two will arise in the near term. I suggest this be marked as resolved. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Quite a few people are not at all convinced by the claim that it was coincidence. Perhaps some will be persuaded that the problem is resolved for now, given the 17:28 post. But it shouldn't surprise anyone if there continues to be a recurring issue along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Given what off2r just said, this matter is essentially moot and should be closed. Agree with others saying essetially the same thing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploads by Northernhashberry - review of action

Resolved

 – All suspect files have been deleted, newbie user not put on any kind of restriction at the moment, we all make mistakes when learning Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 10:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

}

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

I came across this user in the recent upload log, to find that it appears he's getting his images from a variety of sources and tagging them all GFDL-self. A few examples:

• [192] (non-admins can view the deletion history here; it was a CV of [193].
• File:Subang_Daku_River.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• [194] and [195]
• Uploads with different camera metadata: File:Public Markets.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) vs. File:Immaculate Concepcion Parish.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

I'm thinking of straight just speedy deleting all the user's uploads. Does this seem like an appropriate course of action? It seems like an unnecessary burden to take it through WP:PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i agree just am 'em. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 09:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Restriction?

In cases like these, undoing the damage is one thing. Prevention of further damage is another thing. There are two ways to go about this; one is to block the editor completely from editing. Another way is to impose an editing restriction on the editor in question, allowing them to contribute constructively in other areas whilst prohibiting them from causing further problems in the area where their editing has proved problematic.

Therefore, I propose that Northernhashberry is banned from uploading any images to Wikipedia. The ban to be logged at WP:RESTRICT. An appeal may be made after 6 months have elapsed from the imposition of the ban (should consensus be that the ban should be imposed). Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well this user is a n00b; I don't want to propose that quite yet (I'm not even sure the editor is communicative enough to abide by that). I've already thrown down a block for the latest upload. I'm more worried about is it feasible to speedy the latest uploads? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog, if you have reasonable evidence that a user is a serial copyright vio, you can presumptively delete all their uploads. If there are text edits as well, you need to open a WP:CCI. I would have said the evidence above is quite reasonable enough to hose all the image uploads. I don't believe the chap even understands that there is such a thing as copyright on an image on the web. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I was a n00b once! OK, some editors take a sharper learning curve than others. For the images, I'd say tag them with {{db-f9}} and let those experienced in these matters deal with it. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am experienced in this area. But the wording of F9 ("unambiguous copyright infringement") is such that I don't want to go about speedy deleting them without community consensus, even if I am 95% sure they're all copyvios. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Magog, also I would block him indeff, rather than 12 hours, because he doesn't seem to have ever responded to anyone reporting a copyvio. Block him until he responds and shows he understands what is going on - he'll just wait out a 12 hour block. I don't think a topic ban will work, because he won't understand why (not even sure he will understand what it is!!) If he talks, you may just be able to educate him not to do it again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just delete them. You can remove copyvio items presumptively - it's safer for the encyclopaedia. They can always be undeleted if by some miracle the guy can demonstrate that he actually took the photo. From WP:CCI If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog, you tag them, someone else makes the decision. If declined, there's always PUF. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Derekspage and VHarris44

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the new accounts Derekspage and VHarris44 are one and the same person, and that they are socks of the recently 'retired' Codf1977 but am really not sure what to do about it.

In any event I believe that the behaviour of VHarris44 in particular has been highly inappropriate over the last few hours, including apparently rifling through my talk page history to discover a reference to a university that I have studied at in the past, and then posting details of this in various places, including on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not the same person as Derekspage and don't know what "socks" mean. I think it is Rangoon11 who has been highly inappropriate with his wish to keep adding flags to Law firms even though he knows it is wrong. VHarris44 (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For a brand new user you seem to know your way around Wikipedia remarkably well. I haven't added any flags to any pages, you have gone through a whole series of law firm articles over the last few hours and, without any discussion, deleted the entire lists of offices (not just the flags), even though you know, from the discussion at DLA Piper that you have been involved in, that this is highly controversial.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

funny it is only you who says it is highly controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VHarris44 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not for content disputes. Sockpuppet investigations is thataway. However, I see that there's not been any denial by VHarris44 of the allegation by the OP of posting personally identifying information—that is blockable on Wikipedia, I believe. If this is true you would do well to undo such edits and apologise. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This looks to me like a behavioral problem, not a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The original complaint, yes, not a content dispute, but the subsequent posts seem to have degenerated into an argument over one. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec's - resp to original post)I suggest filing an WP:SPI report, since the Codf1977 account is still fresh enough for CU's to check against the other accounts, as it is patrolled by users who are also familiar with noting similarities between reported editors contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have done wrong posting that he went to a given university, but I read that on his talk page. VHarris44 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It is buried somewhere in the deleted content of the talk page, it hasn't been visible on the talk page since you opened your account. I now deeply regret my honesty in having ever given out that information to users on here. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked VHarris44 for violation of WP:HARASS, as it is clear that that account's purpose was to oppose edits by Rangood11. I still think that an SPI report will determine if there is a history or backtrail to other accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not know new users editing well past midnight was against Wiki's editing regulations although I did not see any relevance with as to why new users would have more restrictions than long-time users as to the time of editing. Aside from that, I believe Rangoon 11 is fabricating stories so he could allow himself/herself to appear more intellectual yet the user does not have reliable evidence to support his claims. I do not know who is VHarris44 or this so called 'retired' Codf1977 and I do not understand why Rangoon11 is accusing me to be the same person of either one or both of the two users. The contents added were minor changes, rearrangements of words, and even the words I added in had references. If you believe my behavior on wikipedia is inappropriate or if you believe I am the same user as the other two users mentioned above, I highly agree this should go under investigation by Wiki administration. If the investigation turns out to be false of what Rangoon11 claims to be, then I believe Rangoon11's foul behavior should be the one instigated on the Administration's noticeboard. Derekspage (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the SPI report came back as all being unrelated. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Creating a page that has been "restricted to administrators"

Resolved

 – Name hasn't been salted or otherwise restricted; user advised how to request creation if not autoconfirmed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

When trying to create and entry for the following: Keith_Hampton I received a message that the title has been "restricted to administrators". I was instructed to post on the noticeboard. Is it possible for an administrator to create the page for me? If not, what are the next steps? (apologies for breaches of etiquette. This is new to me)Sessi10 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Odd, I see no log entry for Keith Hampton, and when I visit it, there appears to be no issue with me creating it (I'm not an administrator). Perhaps it is simply because you are not autoconfirmed? You need to be autoconfirmed, i.e. have made I beleive 12 edits over 72 hours, to be able to create pages. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) was gonna say the same thing; and user has been around since 2007. maybe a glitch. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Been around since 2007, but has made 12 edits it seems, including this posting; so the autoconfirmed userright probably hasn't kicked in yet. I'm not sure how frequently it's updated; probably every 24 hours. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It seems you're not autoconfirmed yet; that's a somewhat misleading message since creating the article isn't restricted to administrators, but if you'd like to create the article, I'd recommend drafting it at User:Sessi10/Keith Hampton, bring it up to standard, and then get some feedback on it and have it created. You could also submit it to articles for creation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)It should be four days and 10 edits for autoconfirmed to kick in...but I don't believe that status is needed to create articles. --Onorem♠Dil 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Just tested it. works fine. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Looks like it's 64 now... (Actually the backlog's pretty much clear now thanks to exposure to the frantic ANI environment, but my point remains valid ;)) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

IP blocked, no further admin assistance required.

IP is attempting to out an editor here and here (twice). Request the edits be deleted immediately please. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) How many more people just read the outing?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I don't actually see an outing, though I only read the first diff... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC) The second one seems to be a threat of an outing, but I don't see any actual outing. Addendum (edit conflict): oh. I saw "contact ..." and took it to mean "contact me to find out", rather than "this user is ...". Fortunately the admin who revdelled it was more astute ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I read it, it was outing. Now blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC) There is a convoluted history here regarding the deletion of the Emily Schooley article which has somehow opened some insane can of worms. The original nominator has been hit repeatedly with personal attacks and has denied any connection to the subject. I originally emailed a request for oversight, but the IP started hitting multiple pages posting personal information and allegations in a number of venues and I could no longer keep up. Normally I don't like to post revdelete requests here as they just add more eyes to the material, but I really needed help. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × >9000)By the way, in future you should submit oversight requests via WP:OVERSIGHT. Putting it here with an "urgent" header is going to attract an inordinate amount of attention. I would have removed the thread and contacted you privately about it but it seemed futile by that point since I wasn't even the first reply. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × Far too many) Looks like the above was redundant to your comment which I eced with, but ANI is never the way to go for oversight. WP:OVERSIGHT usually handles it pretty quick; if necessary and it's ongoing, ask an oversighter to keep and eye on the situation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I always contact oversight or an admin quietly and directly, and in this case I did contact oversight, but quickly became bombarded by the IP's postings. It is rather ironic that one of my pet peeves is editors posting oversight/revdelete requests here for all to see, only to do so myself, but I became flustered when the IP started hitting multiple pages.mea culpa mea culpa. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × googolplex) The best thing to do is to ask an oversighter (or a couple of oversighters) to watchlist the likely targets and look out for further oversightable material. Obviously if rangeblocks would help, they could also be considered. If you noticed that an IP was hitting multiple targets with oversightable material, you could just pass that IP to WP:OVERSIGHT also. Really bringing it to ANI is only ever going to do more harm than good. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:4cneortic

Can someone look at User:4cneortic? I have no time right now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a SPA targeting suspected sock-puppet accounts. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)