Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641

User:Jrkso

User Jrkso keeps edit warring at. He has been blocked for edit warring recently and just removed that from his talk page. I have ask him multiple times to make his point through discussion not to edit warring but he keeps going with misleading edit summaries for the last reverts. I am stopping here and i am soon offline so i would appreciate if somebody could have a look at it because i think the article Afghanistan should doubtless have a section about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). IQinn (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Both have violated 3RR. Jrkso's been blocked for that before. I cannot find a diff of Iqinn being told about the 3RR rule. Anyway, both editors have stopped edit-warring and are now discussing on the talk page, so a block is not warranted. A neutral voice might help.--Chaser (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I have not violated 3rr. That's ridiculous, not all of my edits are reverts. Please have a better look before you throw false accusations.--Jrkso (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have. From WP:3RR, "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." Without looking too closely, all 4 of your edits today at least removed the same information that begins with "These steps have been reciprocated so far with an intensification of bombings..." You can argue that the first was simply an edit, but the next 3 edits "reverted" the restoration of that material. --Onorem♠Dil 15:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok the first may be considered an edit and the last two should be counted as one because I was adding new info and some how (probably due to me being very frustrated at the time) I didn't notice the number of my reverts. I think I did 2 1/2 reverts, I'll try to becareful next time. Anyway the problem should be over with me and IQinn although he is still POV-pushing.[1] Thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

A while back, someone created a blog on Blogspot under my name, in an attempt to discredit me by linking me to NAMBLA and communism: [2]. I informed the administrators about it, and we decided that the best solution would be for me to post a disclaimer on my talk page, which I did: [3].

Now, however, a newly registered user (User: Fairness4all, who is also a possible sockpuppet of User: TPCFanFor Facts, User: Sinekyre or User: FactsRFun2, all three of them being single-purpose accounts that have identical POV and editing styles, and only edit Political Cesspool-related articles), has posted a snarky comment on Talk: The Political Cesspool in which he asks me "By the way, "Mason", when are you going to update your Blogspot blog?" [4]

This leads me to believe he is probably the person who created the blog in the first place; the blog itself is so obscure that I doubt anyone but its creator (and me, of course) is even aware that it exists. Since the blog itself is a blatant, severe personal attack, I think an admin ought to block Fairness4all until he takes the blog down. Perhaps someone should do a checkuser on him to see which of the above accounts are sockpuppets of his, so they can be blocked too. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What happens outside wikipedia is not wikipedia's problem. That said on the grounds of being sockpuppets they could/should be blocked after due wikipedia investigations. (and not to mention, a warning/block for personal attacks)(Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

It's not clear that they're socks - Fairness4all was actually created over a year ago [5], the others are newer. Seems likely that they're all fans of the site and discussing something elsewhere, but only one of them did something somewhat hostile.

We could checkuser them, but it's not clear if there's grounds for it right now.

If there are further issues on-wiki that rise to the level of personal attack, or they appear to be advocating for the site in some disallowed manner here, we should definitely intervene. But so far it's not clear that any of them (or all of them together) have done anything wrong.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fairness4all has now been blocked by another administrator. —Soap— 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

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.

---

Re:Talk:John Birch Society: The following comment by User:Viriditas appears to be a personal attack on another editor:

Collect, that source does not say what you say it says, and I think you know this.... To go to such extreme, convoluted distortions of a reliable source, tells me that there is something wrong with your ability to read and comprehend, Collect. I want to apologize if you have special needs, perhaps you could request the help of another editor who can explain this to you. I hope Collect is mature and sensible enough to recognize that he has made a serious error in judgement and now needs to concede this point.

This is not the way to discuss content disputes and I think Viriditas should withdraw these comments. It is also offensive to people who have special needs.

TFD (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DR. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see any attempt from you to discuss this on Viriditas' talk page. Why are you bringing it here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's complaining about the content dispute ... but about the somewhat unparliamentary language (your parliament may vary).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, so why hasn't he discussed it on Viriditas' talk, which is the first step in dispute resolution? Particularly since a read of that discussion shows Viriditas trying to patiently push water uphill vs. Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Viriditas presents a clear reliable source on talk, and a long discussion ensues, in which it appears Collect doesn't comprehend. Bringing this one incident to AN/I, without talking to Viriditas about the language used on Viritidas' talk, isn't the most effective use of dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Has Collect complained about the language, since he was the intended recipient? If not, then I suggest the question of NPA is moot. As for "special needs" = illiterate; not all illiterate people have special needs (in the medical sense) and not people with special needs are illiterate, but we can hardly censure an editor for inaccuracy (otherwise the depletion of casual editors from WP would be startling!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am now formally complaining about repeated and iterated acts and words by User:Viriditas. He "userfied" [WP:Josh Billings]] sans any notification to me, and wothoput going through any actual discussion process of any sort. (Hard to post a diff of nothing, I fear). He routinely says [6] The body of evidence is huge, and for you to dismiss experts in the scientific community on this subject as "self published" is laughable. This isn't in dispute by any rational person, so it's probably time for you to "give it up". Rules, guidelines, and policies do not exist to be "respected" and, of course his own personal RFC/U [7] which splendidly exemplifies his outlook to anyone who disagrees with what he WP:KNOWs. TFD and I do not always agree, to be sure, but he has not gone to the lengths Viriditas has gone. Collect (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're upset and angered that I moved a user essay that you wrote into user space per Wikipedia:Userfication. Is it true, Collect, that "essays mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, may be userfied"? It sounds like you have a personal vendetta against me, Collect. I moved that essay on August 31 after finding it had been created on 30 January 2010[8] by you, with no edits by any other user during that time, and little to no links.[9] In fact, all of the links found were added by Collect, and stem from other essays he wrote and spammed links to on talk pages. In the above response he spams another essay he wrote, WP:KNOW. If people believe that after seven months your essay should be in main space, then ask an administrator to move it back. Stop trying to copy and paste the material back into the redirect[10] as that is not how we move articles. You've been here long enough to know how Wikipedia works, so please follow the rules. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The procedure is to use MfD on any such essays. And notifying people is a grreat idea. In fact, it is required. The essay is now back in mainspace. If you wish to nom it for MfD, do so. Until then, leave it be. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Routine housekeeping requires MfD? Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas isn't alone in "having his own personal RFC/U which splendidly exemplifies his outlook", is he, Collect? I don't like incivility either, but more than a few users (scroll down from the link) have considered your behavior to be attacking, too, since you bring up the issue. Glass houses, you know?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting you found an RFC/U which the main proponent later apologized to me for, and where with 14 people CANVASSED before the RFC, they still did not make a majority <g>. And, of course, the 5 sock puppeteers who were later banned (including User:Ratel, who was quite vociferous, indeed). Sorry - no one charged me with personal attacks in that one at all. What I was charged with was being tendentious in pursuing WP:BLP rules - and where Jimbo agrees with my position on such BLPs. Now do you really want to go there? <g> Collect (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, could someone address Collect's misunderstanding of WP:PSTS which he has now spread tendentiously to several talk pages? Collect is continuing to misrepresent the definition, concept, and usage of tertiary sources like reference works, claiming that tertiary sources are unreliable. In his latest series of edits, Collect has claimed over and over again, that sources like Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary of American History (published by Charles Scribner's Sons and hosted by Gale online) are unreliable. Since this appears to be a stubborn, fundamental misunderstanding of PSTS, could someone set him straight? I've explained how the sources are reliable, but Collect won't listen to reason. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I "claimed" that the EB online uses "suggestions" from anyone at all -- and pointed out the "suggest edit" tab on every EB online article, and also showed where this had been shown to be true. More than that - how reliable is any encyclopedia which takes suggested edits from anyone? <g>. Collect (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia Britannica article in question was written by Jeannette Nolen, social science editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica, not by a user suggested edit. The material you dispute in that article is supported by scholarly studies, such as Groseclose & Milyo (2005), Turner (2007), and DellaVigna & Kaplan (2007). Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Every reference work contains errors. Ones which have a policy of correcting errors are not automatically less accurate than those that don't. Newspapers are not inaccurate because they make corrections based on reader input. If there is a dispute over the accuracy of EB, that should be settled at WP:RSN. In general, tertiary sources are allowed though we should not based our articles on them. They can be especially valuable in providing overviews and summaries.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the dispute is over the use of tertiary sources. In this case, Collect claims that the Encyclopædia Britannica is not a reliable source. On another talk page, Collect claims that the Dictionary of American History is not a reliable source and can't be used because he can't personally verify the information. The pattern here is one of opposition to any edit he personally dislikes, obstruction to normal talk page discussion to resolve the opposition, and deliberate obfuscation, where he tries to confuse the issue under discussion and prevent any resolution that is at odds with his own personal POV. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though, that Viriditas would do well to withdraw the comment. Editors shouldn't address one another with condescension, and doing so would keep this from turning into yet another long thread of mutual recriminations that take up so much real-estate here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the comment and it is now struck out on the talk page.[11] Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Collect has banned me from his talk page, could someone ask Collect to stop making copy and paste moves? He has now, for the second time, restored a copy and paste move.[12][13] I specifically requested him at 21:52, 27 September 2010, to stop with the copy and paste moves and use the appropriate procedures to request a move. As it stands right now, the essay in question is appropriately located in his user space. Collect has been here long enough to know that we don't move articles with copy and paste, since we want to preserve the page history. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 27 September 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.

Unblock request of behalf of User:BlueRobe

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 am making a request on behalf of BlueRobe over his one month block. The blocking administrator has said he supports the proposals laid out for the unblock.

• 19 September
  • warned by myself Does not appear to be a PA, certainly uncivil but it needs context, it was in response to this [14] Having an editor carelessly saying it would be better to just delete your proposal is going to get under your skin
• 21 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo Certainly a caustic remark, [15] However it was borne out of frustration over the insertion of an obviously anarchist group The Workers Solidarity Movement into the article.
• 22 September
  • warned by Fifelfoo This is not a warning, it is a request to refactor a comment from a previous warning
  • warned by Jrtayloriv This is not a warning, it is a response to a previous warning
• 23 September
  • warned by myself Definitely an unneeded comment, telling an editor to sod of is not on, but again a comment born of frustration in being told that his talk page contributions are just OR and have no substance.
• 24 September
  • warned by Marknutley This one was certainly another PA [16] But again it is sheer frustration which is causing it.
  • warned by FellGleaming This is the same as my one above, do two cautions for the same thing count as one?
  • abuse4 warning from Fifelfoo Was in response to what looks to me like a mild joke, i would not call it a PA and not a level 4 template one [17]
  • warned again by Fifelfoo Again another warning which does not appear warranted to me, [18]
  • warned by Jrtayloriv This is not really a warning as such, it is a comment in a thread from one of the warnings given above
  • warned by Lawrencekhoo This is also the same as the warnings above. He has been warned three times for the same offence? Is it any wonder he got frustrated?
  • warned again by Lawrencekhoo This is a duplicate diff, Same as the one directly above.
• 25 September 2010
  • warned by Born2cycle This is in response to BlueRobe saying get a life freak a definite PA but taken in the context of a constant stream of warnings (some for the most trivial matters) will lead to these sort of response`s.

From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" [19] when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" [20] instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article [21]. I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This one is quite interesting, the first diff which Jeppiz says Blue calls him an angry freak [22] has no such comment in it. The second Diff, Ranting and Raving [23] yes he does say that, but then again if an editor had moved my comments (a breach of TPG) and then said BlueRobe now claims to have read the nomination, which is great a clear provocation, given the opening comment from Jeppiz to BlueRobe [24] and his second [25] Very clear provocation from Jeppiz and it is little wonder BlueRobe responded in kind

Results of diffbomb

All in all the above diff bomb which was dropped on ANI is not quite what it was made out to be. A lot are duplicates and some are not as uncivil as made out to be. Some are the result of extreme provocation and a lot of the personal remarks are down to sheer frustration. I e-mailed BlueRobe and told him i would appeal his month long block if he gave his word that he would refrain from further personal attacks on other editors. He has given his word.

Proposal

As blue has given his word he will refrain from further personal attacks on other editors i ask his block be lifted with the following conditions.

• He accepts a 1R restriction on Libertarianism to prevent any further edit warring or perceived edit warring. Time period to be decided on this by you.
• An interaction ban (of sorts) User:Yworo User:Fifelfoo User:BigK HeX and User:The Four Deuces be requested to not post on User:BlueRobe talk page, this is to help fend off further antagonism. If they feel BlueRobe has made inappropriate comments they post on my talk page and i will mediate the matter.
• This will give Blue the chance to prove his worth, i believe he is an intelligent person who is not used to wiki and is letting his frustration get the better of him. An unblock now while the RFC/U is running will give him the chance to show he can contribute to the project in a constructive manner. I am of course taking him at his word that he will remain civil, should he break his word the one month ban can of course be reset.
• I will also offer my services as a mentor to BlueRobe and try to help him along. mark nutley (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments From The Community

• oppose - I have little patience for 11th hour changes of hearts. He had plenty of chances to alter his behaviour before being blocked. He can serve out his month if he wants to prove he can change.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without comment on BlueRobe, I am not comfortable with a resolution placing Marknutley as 'mediator' or 'mentor' between a troubled user and the rest of the community. Marknutley has far too much recent and ongoing difficulty in constructive interactions with the community to fill this role. He is himself currently under a community-imposed civility parole ([26]), among other restrictions (summarized, along with conduct issues, in this open Arbitration finding). Marknutley also seems to have a poor grasp what constitutes a personal attack (see this spurious warning to another editor, given in response to this comment). It is of particular concern that this sort of error is being made in the same area where BlueRobe edits. Finally, Marknutley is not an administrator, and lacks the technical ability to restore BlueRobe's block if there is trouble. Requiring that problems be channeled through him is a recipe for failure. While Mark's intentions are good, he needs to demonstrate that his own house is in order before he tries to help other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

TOAT that was not a warning, it was a request to withdraw an accusation of disruption made towards another editor. I fail to see how trying to defuse a potential argument can be deemed a concern? mark nutley (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a firm grasp of what constitutes a personal attack, which suggests strongly that you probably shouldn't be the one monitoring any sort of civility parole. As I said, your intentions are good, but you haven't demonstrated the skills to be an effective mediator. Your response here – which seems to entirely miss the point of my remarks – cements that perception. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- BlueRobe's latest bunch of RFCs/ANIs should make it clear that a block was warranted. Even if mark nutley were neutral in this dispute (and he's not), he'd be the last person that I'd pick for mentoring, due to his long history of incivil behavior and POV-pushing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- If he's repentant? he won't mind serving out his block. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose BlueRobe has not only shown poor interaction with other editors, but is unwilling to accept that articles must use reliable sources and that synthesis is not allowed. I find it indicative that BlueRobe will not change by his including editing restrictions on other editors as part of the conditions he is willing to accept. I have only posted to BlueRobe's talk page three times. Two times were to complain about templates he placed on my talk page (one accused me of vandalism) and the third was a polite mention that he had reached 3RR for the day. mark nutley's poor history of interaction with other editors as evidenced by his many blocks make him a poor choice for mediating. TFD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The interaction restrictions are not BlueRobes conditions, they are mine. He had no part in writing the proposal. The point of the interaction restriction is to help defuse the situation mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 27 September 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.

Systemic bias by Editor Varlaam

Editor Varlaam appears to be using Systemic bias in editing some Africa-related film articles by changing the Manual of Stye (MOS) of the articles. He has unnecessarily added a flag icon template into the infobox of this article (Template:Infobox_film discourages the usage of flag icons), and also added a currency Wikilink into the infobox_budget section of this article. WP:FILM's goal is "to standardize the film articles in Wikipedia" - the currency data field in the infobox_budget section of film articles (e.g. here) is not wikilinked, thus the addition of a currency wikilink with this explanation in the edit summary is not in adherence with the standardization goal of WP:FILM and suggests systemic bias. I've asked Varlaam to revert his edits but he has decided to ignore the issue. To avoid edit war, this issue is brought to this board. Could an administrator please look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold um horses, Amsaim. Disagreeing with a diktat of Wikiproject Films is not the same as systemic bias. As far as I can see, he has done two things - he has put a flag in an infobox, which I presume offends some edict of the film project re keeping infoboxes tidy, and he has wikilinked to the Nigerian naira, which I for one would find useful, as it is a less well known currency (lets face it, most currencies outside the dollar, yen and euro are less well known!). For that, you have dumped a wodge of text on his talkpage accusing him of systemic bias (do you even know what this means??) and reported him to ANI. I see no attempt at discussion anywhere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hint, systemic bias would be converting all the currencies in the film infoboxes into dollars, so there was a standard comparison against the Hollywood box office. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This certainly is a novel way to avoid an edit war: ask an editor once to revert a change you disagree with so as not to "cause" one, and if they don't and ignore you, it's straight to AN/I. Whatever happened to Bold, Revert, Discuss? This report seems a bit "much"... Doc9871 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And accusing them of "systemic bias" for one edit. Cracking :) Recommend Amsaim closes this now, before thatfootballerwhoshallnotbenamed comes into play. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Six-minute block of TreasuryTag by SarekOfVulcan

Thread retitled from "A six-minute block really is just taking the piss...".

I mean come on, seriously? SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) blocked me at 15:03 for a petty non-3RR reversion against an alleged consensus – with which they were anyway slighty involved [27] Within two minutes, I proposed a perfectly reasonable compromise. Then Sarek unblocked me at 15:09.

So aside from the conflict-of-interest issue, I think it is absurd that I was blocked when a decent 'ceasefire' was so transparently within reach. So this either smacks of a poorly-thought-through block which almost immediately proved un-necessary, or a cool-down block designed to push me into making a compromise; and, as we all know, cool-down blocks are not allowed.

Sarek suggested that I refer the issue here for wider input. Note that I am not asking for any sanctions or any particular result other than the fact that admins in general, and Sarek in particular, should not be so trigger-happy with the block button where compromise is just around the corner. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So, it looks like your "reasonable compromise" was actually proposed by Sarek, and you ignored him and continued edit warring. Then after he blocked you, you started to behave and abided by the compromise... seems like a good block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm... can you provide a diff of Sarek first proposing the compromise? Because I'm fairly sure that that is not what happened. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your diff proving that Sarek first proposed the RfC actually took place 12 minutes after I first raised the prospect of an RfC on this issue, did it? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See below. Either way the compromise was discussed before the block (not after as you suggest), but you choose not to do that, and instead to keep edit warring. After the block you suddenly seem to become reasonable and comply with the compromise. Then come here trying to make it look like Sarek is the one being unreasonable. It appears like the block is what made you actually file an RfC and stop edit warring. The block made you stop edit warring, so it was a good block, imo - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, it was proposed by TT, and I said I didn't think he'd get the result he expected, but he was welcome to try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Either way, he didn't actually do this until after the block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Rule #1: protect first. TT took it upon himself to break WP:3RR and is unapologetic about it. This ANI report will generate far more heat than light. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  At no stage did I "break WP:3RR" – seems you're generating the heat! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing, though no one comes out of this smelling like a rose. Suggest we close.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"...against an alleged consensus"; there you go - good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fairly ropey as arguments go, but no more so than I expected... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Point of order: The block was 24 hours, later commuted resulting in a block of six minutes total. Admittedly a bit of pedantry, but this should be made clear as the (current) section header is ambiguous. –xeno^talk 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• What is the point of blocking someone for something they say on their own talk page? Exactly what disruption does that prevent if you aren't protecting it or blocking them from editing the same? Was TreasuryTag behaving inappropriately to some degree? Probably. Was this a good block? Not particularly. Should SarekOfVulcan be desysopped over it? No. --B (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Um, the original block was for edit warring on Flesh and Stone, not for anything he said on talk. And WP:NPA applies on all namespaces; hence, the second block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  While it's true that no personal attacks applies to user talk pages, a block alone doesn't stop a user from making personal attacks on his or her user talk page. It's analogous to the police arresting a drunk and then leaving them in the custody of a liquor store. --B (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) This particular section concerns a block for edit warring; you appear to be talking about the more recent block, one that the editor isn't really disputing at this point. –xeno^talk 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good block: TT was edit warring, and a six-minute block convinced them to discuss rather than continuing. I'd say that's about the most efficient block I've ever seen. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

David829

David829 (talk · contribs) creates legitimate, if unsourced, stubs on notable Top Ten hits by country music artists (example: Hey Bobby). I have warned him at least twice that he must put at least one source in the article, but all he does is remove the warnings and continue to make the same mistakes. It's clear that he's not paying any attention to what I'm saying, and he might need a bit stronger action to get his attention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just swung by to see if my own concern had been covered and I saw yours. Yes, I think this individual needs a timeout. He's one of these editors who focuses on a single subject and never acknowledges the concerns of others. Thanks for posting this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to block him when he is actually creating usable content. After all, many thousands of our users commit the identical fault. Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is part of the 5P. This seems more like a refusal to work with Wikipedia's principles. Block seems appropriate due to the ignored warnings. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I had to walk David829 (talk · contribs) through step by step on how to create an article, because he genuinely didn't know how. If TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) had taken but a minute to show him how to add references rather than shouting at him the first time he posted on his talk page and attacking him in edit summaries, we probably wouldn't be here.

There are so few users who are trying to create and improve the country music articles the best way they know how. What are we trying to accomplish by blocking them all? Eric444 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While creating unsourced stubs can be annoying, as far as I know, it's not generally a blockable offense. Nor should it be. Plus, it sounds like he's likely to improve at this point. Nothing to do here... Hobit (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock of recently blocked serial copyright violator?

Hello. Someone - but who? - was recently blocked (indef?) for uploading endless webscraped airliner pictures. I can't remember the username involved, but Verybluesky (talk · contribs) seems likely something feathery that quacks. So whose sock is this? Help please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Last year we had ANigg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now indeffed, who sockpuppetted for a while. I hadn't seen this newer one you refer to, but could easily have missed it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...

Viper 265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

...And a whole rats nest of IP users in 88.106.0.0/16, which I rangeblocked for a week about a month ago.

I'm filing a SPI for Verybluesky on the most recent, Yattum SPI thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GWH, it was Viper 265 I was thinking of. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Magic 8-ball says no: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yattum. So this is a new user, who needs to have the copyright policy explained to them and have the images re-tagged appropriately as to where they really came from. Do you have time to / are you familiar enough with that to do it? If you're not sure, I can do it later today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

Moved here from AN - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like a proper investigation to be done(though I don't think it's likely to happen given my past experiences with this site)as the user Higgys is accused of being associated with a past account I had, Kagome_85. This account, Higgys, had nothing to do with me and was in fact made by another user which no investigation was done on this particular user, and this user is Blackmagic1234, who made a new account Mousykit but is no longer using it. The account Higgys was made to harass another account I had, after I stopped using the Kagome_85 account and made a new acount, Kagome_77, which the user Higgys harassed me on. I believed that you could make a new account as long as you did not use the old accounts, which is what I was doing. The user Higgys did accuse me on my Kagome_77 account of vandalizing the Kathleen article, which I had done in the past, and the Ruby Gloom article, which I never vandalized. I would like the accusation of the account Higgys being associated with my account Kagome_85 to be removed, as it was NOT an account of mine, and it was used to harass me with, so why would I make an account just to harass myself with? And the only reason I am pointing out about Blackmagic1234 and his new account Mousykit being Higgys is that what I said in the Kathleen article this user would only know, as at the time this user was someone I knew in person and thought was my friend, and the fact that I would randomly get a message one day on the account Kagome_77 that I was using by the user Higgys saying I made vandalism edits to the Kathleen article(which I had made in the past), however, I do not vandalize anymore, sice I am now more mature and not as stupid. So please remove the sockpuppet accusation of me being associated with Higgys since I'm not and I know probably many people would say they aren't associated with any accounts that vandalize but I'm making a different point: I'm admitting to the fact that I had used OTHER accounts to vandalize, however Higgys was not an account of mine, it was an account created by another user in order to harass me with. 142.177.43.186 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you choose to not insult people here, as you did me on my talk page, when I told you I got CU confirmation the account was created by you. It isn't just IPs CU's look at, it's also behavior, user-agents(your internet browser), editing times(when you log on and start editing), and so on.

Also, you are wrong on our policy regarding alternate accounts. If your prior account was blocked, and you created this new account to get around said block, then that is block evasion. If you do not wish to be blocked, the proper course of action is never to evade, but to request unblocking on your original account.

Lastly, the CU confirmation did not use any old accounts for the link, but one you recently created. Mousey2010 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), to post a harassing message on your ex's new account's talk page(that they used to try and get away from you) over and over and over again(this time with Mousey). It linked the Mousey account with your Higgys account. No other past accounts were compared. It is quite obvious Mousey was yours.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threats

Resolved

 – Bearian (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to get some opinions on this edit and this edit, both on this article. These accounts may also be related. Are these legal threats block-worthy? My opinion is "yes", but I've been editing the article in question, so I will step aside for another admin to evaluate. TNXMan 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty clear legal threat and I've indef'd both accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They look like legal threats to me. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags and POV pushing

User:JCAla, a heavy POV-pusher, not only fills articles with his own personal anti-Afghanistan POVs but also keeps removing tags. [28]. I warned him many times but he keeps removing the tags and giving nonsense reasons.--Jrkso (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a checkuser around?

Resolved: Editor granted temporary IP block exemption. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to address questions meant for a checkuser, so I'll do it here: I recently put up a block on an editor for WP:3RR violation on the IP. Another editor has shown up in the autoblock. You can see the threads at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Block of 217.157.202.160 and User talk:FunkMonk#Unblock request for background. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you need a list of all CheckUsers at the English Wikipedia, they can be found here. HeyMid (contributions) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16 again - Can we make this the last time?

Resolved

 – ChaosMaster16 indefinitely blocked by LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See also: Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes § pifeedback.com as a source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 68 § Pifeedback.com, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625 § Problematic user: ChaosMaster16, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626 § Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637 § Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again) - Yet again

ChaosMaster16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A little over two weeks ago I reported User:ChaosMaster16 for persisting in adding content from pifeedback.com despite consensus that it's not a reliable source and numerous discussions including ANIs. He's currently blocked for a week for edit warring,[29] but I happened to notice this question on his talk page. Despite all the discussions, he's still adding information sourced from pifeedback.com in complete disregard of the community's decision regarding that website. Surely it's time to once and for all put an end to this even if it means a much longer block. ----AussieLegend (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been involved off and on with this, having originally argued him out of getting blocked on one of the previous ANI discussions, and subsequently being approached by ChaosMaster16 for advice a number of times, I should comment. In my view, the user's biggest problem is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. When asking for advice he seems only to be interested in advice that suits what he is about to do anyway, and fails to hear the uncomfortable parts. I agree that it's become painfully obvious that he really needs to understand that he needs to follow community norms. There is also a page at User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse which seems to store only pifeedback.com data for insertion into articles. I'm sorry I have to agree with AussieLegend here, it means the time I spent trying to help was apparently partially wasted, but in fact I'm still trying to help, even now, since the only way he will avoid long term sanctions seems to be to wake up to the rules now. Perhaps a block until he can convince an unblocking admin he really understands the problems here is a "cruel to be kind" solution at this point. Since he is blocked, I added a note that any responses he would like to make in this thread will be copied across for him. I'd appreciate it if anyone else who has his talk page watchlisted could do that when I'm not around. Sleep beckons right now, actually.  Begoon&#149;talk 20:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ChaosMaster16's attitude has gotten progressively worse, at several places a strong ownership attitude is present. While he often participates and (re-re-re-)starts discussions the end result is almost always a refusal to get the point and he just keeps going. When in discussion he often gives the impression "that's fine" and then later just changes it back again, without edit summary, while normally one is given, followed by some extra edits. On the specific pifeedback.com issue, I think it's time to just blacklist the website, although it seems a bit overkill as it is only (as far as I can tell) this user adding the links. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went to block ChaosMaster16, per the rationale provided here, indefinitely for disruption in regard to persistently backsliding on promises not to use the pifeedback.com site as a reference, per consensus detailed above, to find that they are already blocked 7 days. From a review of the brief discussion on their talkpage, it appears that this is again related to TV viewing figures. Is this related to the same matter? If it is, then I do not want to vary the blocking admins sanction without discussion. Under the circumstances I will not take any action until the blocking admin comments (which I will now invite him/her to do). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The block was for violating 3RR, about how many digits after the , to use for the ratings, the color of the episode list and some other nonsense. Last block had nothing to do with the pifeedback.com issue. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

    As the 3RR block is for 7 days from the 26th of the month I feel we can wait for the blocking admin to respond to my request to comment here - if no response within 36 hours please ping me and I will enact an indefinite block. I am also thinking that if there is only the one editor using the pifeedback site then blacklisting it when the account is blocked is pointless - or rather, it is a better point to keep it, because if ChaosMaster16 does sock around his block the darn thing will likely use the same site. It makes sock detection easier, and thus any appeal by ChaosMaster16 can be judged against it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks LHvU for the note. My block of seven days was narrowly limited to the 3RR violation about the rather petty issue of colours and decimal places on a TV ratings table. I have absolutely no problem with any administrator extending the block due to these other issues. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response, I shall enact the block. Per my rationale I am not going to blacklist the pifeedback site. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks anyone?

Pinknp (talk · contribs)

This user should be watched, per this edit, just in case they decide to come back using their sibling's account.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to "hint" at that in my replies to that post, and that account hasn't edited since - but nevertheless well worth watching under the circumstances.  Begoon&#149;talk 23:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Two users fighting

Resolved

 – User:Endofskull has warned editors against further flame wars. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

173.79.0.63 and Heavydata seem to be fighting. If you look at their user talk pages, it seems like both of them are flaming each other. I seems to me that both of them should be punished. Endofskull (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Too early to report them here - drop a couple of NPA warning templates on their talkpages; if they stop, then great, and if they don't then bring it back here or perhaps AIV. No criticism to you for wanting to sort this out, but there are a couple of steps you can try before bringing out the big guns. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I removed the ANI notice, and added a personal attack notice. If it happens more, then I'll bring it back here. Endofskull (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Spamming by a large company

I've seen a lot of spamming by small companies; this is the first time I've ever seen a large company attempt to do so. User:MerrimackPharma attempted to place an article about pharmaceutical manufacturer Merrimack Pharmaceuticals. The article was then repeatedly updated and spammed by a series of sockpuppets. I invoked WP:BOLD, deleted the article and locked down the title. Sure enough, someone tried pasting a verbatim version of the deleted content under the slightly altered title of "Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc." This was done by User:Scienceiscooool, a user with no previous edits.

I believe that this is a serious enough situation as to warrant a formal complaint from the Wikimedia Foundation to the upper-level management of this firm. Never in all the years I've edited this site have I seen such a spam attempt from such a company of this size. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of an overreaction unless you have evidence that this was the result of corporate policy or directive. It's more likely that this is the action of one or two over-zealous employees than a corporation-wide conspiracy. ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The socking is a concern, but the company itself is likely to be notable. Admins can do whatever is necessary to prevent re-creation of an inappropriate article, so I'm not sure why the Foundation would need to be involved. The best place to work out issues like this is probably the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, since the people there usually try to negotiate with the promotional editors and get them to cooperate. No objection to the admin actions taken so far, but the sources of the deleted article were pretty good, and we might be able to use an article on Merrimack Pharmaceuticals. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PMD is right that this is unusual: companies that large usually spam the mainstream press directly, so that WP can quote the spam as coming from reliable sources ;). I don't know whether the WMF is likely to actually formally protest but you might as well inform them. It has made some news when WP has gotten spammed by offices of US Congressmembers and the like. The admin actions were fine and I'd have no objection to keeping the redlinks protected for a while. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the spamming is coming from on high but rather from one or two employees. They might be operating from orders from highers-up, but with no proof, I thought the Foundation might be justified in alerting the company to the problem. The subject is certainly worth an article, but I was concerned about the unusual amount of spamming going on. I admit to being a bit leery deleting an article on a notable subject, but these were extraordinary circumstances. If anyone would like to unprotect the redlinks either now or down the line, I have no objections. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, while I can't quarrel with PMD's intent, a positive alternative course of action would have been to engage the (likely COI) editor and inform them of WP:COI. As the PharmaCorp is most likely notable, it might be wise to unprotect the redlinks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of that issue, shouldn't User:MerrimackPharma be indeffed as a likely role account? rdfox 76 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Never mind, I really should have looked before I posted there... rdfox 76 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Timmy Polo

Moved to WP:AN § Timmy Polo

Block threat to expert contributor

Hi,

I'm an expert contributor who has just been warned of blocking, see User_talk:Optimering, because I have made a number of edit reverts to particle swarm optimization. I have explained in detail on Talk:particle swarm optimization my reasons for these reverts. Could an official administrator please investigate the matter?

I am a researcher and not an expert in wikipedia procedures.

Thanks.

Optimering (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see our policy on original research.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! We don't immediately have a way to confirm who you are, so we can't rely on that. Your edits need to stand on their own. The best way to do that is to cite reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for publishing original research (not even accurate, brilliant research), as Daedalus969 has mentioned. Jehochman ^Talk 07:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I read through some of the diffs, and you seem to suffer from WP:OWN. Also, you argued in your edit summary here about not including a detailed explaination of a topic. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. In regards to the warning, User:MrOllie was perfectly correct in warning you for WP:3RR in a content dispute. Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've put a welcome message on your talk page that has a bunch of informative links regarding the issues with your contributions. Perhaps you may wish to view it, check over the links, and let myself or another experienced editor know if you have any questions? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bad edits r dumb is in violation of WP:CLEANSTART

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

---

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked by Fox. B.e.r.d. promises "little or no trolling" if he returns under a new name. Doc9871 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) User notified.

User:Bad edits r dumb is in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. Please see the following fact pattern.

User's account is an alternate account

• The user's first edit summary supports: [30]
• At least one involved Check User has confirmed that this is an alternate account (though not directly but by second-hand): [31]
• The user admitted this is a secondary account in a self-filed RFCU: [32]

User's edits are disruptive

• A cursory look at the user's talk page [33] shows multiple cautionary notes and warnings starting on September 14 [34], which began a mere 20 minutes following the new account creation [35] and an abundance of good faith has already been assumed.

• The user did not heed any of these cautionary notes, requests, or warnings until the user was blocked on September 23[36] after receiving numerous "final warnings". AIV report can be found here
• The locus of the disruption was the the user was failing to provide proper and accurate userspace warnings to other users following reversion, deletion nomination, etcetera. Additionally, the locus of the disruption was that the user failed to use proper English and grammar which led to a number of confusing situations due to bad edit summaries and messages on relevant talk pages. [37] [38] [39]
• The user showed a willful disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines up until the point that they were blocked.
• The user's disruptive behavior has generated much editor attention to the point that their talk page garnered nearly 300 hits on September 23. [40]

User demonstrates a willful intent to disrupt

The user's disruptive behavior continued despite having been informed that it was disruptive and a request for it to desist.

• The user was asked on September 19 to refrain from using poor English when communicating. See: [41]
• The user's poor execution of proper English and grammar is purely by choice. The user has demonstrated full-well the ability to communicate eloquently and without the use of the borderline nonsensical, idiosyncratic, and highly-questionable communication. See: [42] [43] [44]
• The user's behavior therefore can be categorically characterized as trolling under WP:TROLL.

User ignores offers for personal mentoring

In order to help show a good-faith intent to improve their own behavior, several offers for adoption were offered to the user, which were each rejected:

• User:MJ94: Adoption suggestion, Mentorship decline and accusation of "being mean to Bad edits r dumb.
• Rejection of User:RobertMfromLI: [45].

User's disruption continues

• The user contradicts his or herself, sometimes acknowledging their behavior as constructive, and sometimes as disruptive. [46] [47]
• Cursory look at today's edits: [48] [49] [50]

Conclusions

Under WP:CLEANSTART, "...the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities." I respectfully suggest that given all of the activity since this new account was created that the behavior which likely led to the setting aside of the original account has clearly resumed. Further, even if that behavior pattern is not matching precisely with the original, I further respectfully submit, that whereas editing Wikipedia is a privilege not a right, that it is incumbent upon the relevant administrators and checkusers involved to ensure that NO disruptive behavior recurs under a CLEANSTART account. This user's behavior has garnered significant attention of a large number of editors. I submit that there can be no argument as to the disruptiveness of this user at this point.

Respectfully submitted,   Thorncrag  22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved Editors' Comments

Hi I cannot type a lot of stuff write now because I am on my iPhone but I would just like to say that I acknowledged (see the infobox on my talk page) that my behavior PRIOR to my block was dumb and it was a disruptive thing and I am sorry. However AFTER I got unblocked, my vandal fighting and new page patrol work has been very good. I cannot link to it right now becos I am in my iPhone but pls review the comments in the MfD discussion pertaining to the deletion of my barnstars. Users praised my contributions and noted my improvement. I feel I am being endlessly nitpicked AND unappreciated and maybe even wikihounded. Maybe i will write some more comment when I get home tonite unless I am TOO SLEEPY :-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• User thanked you for trolling - I suspect that was not a compliment. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I am not talking about the barnstar itself i was talking about the MfD disussion about the deletion of said barnstar. If someone could provide a link that would be appreciated. In that discussion I was not thanked for "trolling", but rather. My contributions were praises and I was called a NET POSITIVE.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link: [51] - nor does it state what you claim. Quite the opposite for the most part. The closest thing to what you claim is that if this is behind us, then let's let it drop. Sadly, you are the subject of the AN/I because it is not behind us. In addition, you may wish to try not to mischaracterize other's statements to form your defense. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And one vote of support as a net positive. Dont confuse one such vote as consensus (hence my comment about misconstruing the statements as a whole based on it). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

as a sidenote, CLEANSTART doesn't exactly apply here. Clean start is for problematic editors who wish to return and contribute positively and avoid the baggage and scrutiny of their problematic account. My old account is in good standing but I don't wish to use it for privacy reasons and for various other reasons I dint wish to discuss. --Bad edits r dumb (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to further suggest, that CLEANSTART users must be fully cognizant of the fact that they are being given a second chance, and thus, they should be well-aware that their behavior should be top-notch and practically above reproach. Furthermore, it logically follows that a CLEANSTART user should painstakingly take into consideration the suggestions and warnings issued to them and have a desire to act on each and every reasonable request imposed upon them instead of continuing their perceived disruptive behavior. This user has—if even at all—only very weakly done so, and instead assumed a default position of arguing with and biting those who offer them advice.   Thorncrag  23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The rest of my (involved editor) comments:

• Continuous disruption, starting 20 minutes after creating a new account, will indeed bring attention to you. Numerous repeated disruptive activities will continue that attention. That is not wikihounding - that is the consequences of your own actions. In these instances, your responses have even sometimes been to tell the people (either directly in text or in edit summaries) to leave you alone. One cannot pretend their bad behavior did not occur by simply trying to prevent those who notice it from pointing it out.
• You claim or imply more experience than very experienced editors, admins, abusefilters and more - yet your actions clearly indicate otherwise.
• You claim admins and abusefilters (as well as editors, who through their track record, prove to be more experienced) are wrong - as one example: [52]
• You have implied or stated that it is we who need mentoring and that we/others should approach you for assistance instead of the other way around.
• You repeatedly try to push the limits and even ask (repeatedly), if you do (disruptive behavior) again, will you be blocked. You've been told yes, then proceed to do so anyway. [53]
• If you are an experienced editor with a previous account in good standing, you should know better than to be disruptive, and to troll.
• If you are on a cleanstart, then you should know better than to violate it's terms (much less in 20 minutes)
• If you are an admin, you (all accounts) should (IMHO) be banned for life. Wikipedia editors are not such a person's personal plaything to be toyed with and tested in such a fashion. If that is the case (you are an admin), this is very disingenuous and a betrayal of the trust granted you when the community gave you the additional tools/powers granted (to me, that such tools are not linked to this account is irrelevant - all behavior on every account should be to the same or higher standard that they expect of every experienced editor and admin).
  • Of course, this last one may not apply, but as the nature of the previous accounts are hidden to the rest of us, I bring it up solely because it is a possibility.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have been involved with BErD since I first noticed him. Throughout his time here, as this report says, he has been disruptive. After I posted a report at AIV regarding him and he was blocked, he came back. Although he is now (seems to be) using proper templates, he is still using "textspeak" after saying he would stop, then claiming everyone talks like that, and loves it. Then, he responds to a comment, not with an apology, but with this. The cycle just keeps going. Why are we letting him do this? It's crazy. He's clearly and blatantly trolling. I say, no more chances. He's stopped listening to us. This is his game. If he wanted to be productive, he would listen to everything mentioned here. MJ94 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Aw, what the hell, I'll wade into this too. I'm the one who made the comment that at MFD user:Bad edits r dumb is a net positive to the project, and I'm standing by it, for the time being. He appears to be using the proper vandalism templates now, which is good. God knows that I'm no fan of text-speak, but I also acknowledge that I can generally understand it, at least as Mr. r dumb applies it. There's really no reason for anyone to get their panties up in a bunch over this editor's behavior. If you don't like talking to him, don't talk to him. Buddy431 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• With respect (to both you and your opinion), I wish to make the following points. That you understand textspeak does not apply to a large majority of Internet users, nor does it properly portray (in any fashion) the severity (or lack thereof) of warnings given or edits performed. Also, I would surmise that since numerous editors have problems with such, there is reason for concern. Consensus and all, and the way such actions are perceived and all. Additionally, there are guidelines about making one's edit summaries accurate and understandable - and since we can clearly say that not everyone understands textspeak, such should not be used in edit summaries. While (outside of this AN/I and notifying them of the decision at the MfD) I have stopped talking to him, that too does not end scrutiny (or consequences) for disruptive behavior. Nor does the implied "if you think it's disruptive, which I dont, then dont talk to the user" fit this scenario. If that were the case, we'd all simply have to ignore everything (and everyone) who we thought was disruptive. Thus, while you are entitled to your opinion, there are those who thing BerDs actions are disruptive and/or trolling - who should not simply be told to pretend it didnt happen or "go away" (as the editor in question has, on multiple occassions, responded with some form of). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Additionally, all the things he listed at a self request for CU for leaving his old account, he has done under this account. MJ94 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• This also coincides with BerD mischaracterizing my statements and concerns, even after I went to great lengths to explain them. I do not dispute the validity of the additional (2nd? 3rd?) account. I wished to request clarification that (1) this was not repeat of previous bad behavior trying to be hidden by no longer associating with the earlier accounts, and (2) this was not something more egregious than that, and thusly (3) the severity of the repercussions were warranted (or should have been more extreme). As explained to BerD, (assuming good faith) and doing so would end the continued speculation they opened the door for by publicly admitting to multiple accounts right after others accused them of possible sockpuppetry. I did explain I did not like the fact that they grossly mischaracterized my statements and actions. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• In BerD's defense (as the situation(s) behind the previous account(s) has not been made known to us), though there may be an implication made in their statement that supports previous "bad behavior", I do not see them clearly stating such, and thus cannot act upon/comment on what I see only as an implication - thus, as noted before, I hope for clarification by those with the ability to do so, to confirm or deny previous bad behavior as it applies to current activities. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have had a fair amount of interaction with BErD, and was on the fence about his use of improper English and refusing to use templates when warning other users of vandalism. However, based on this edit and this one, I find that this user is quite capable of using proper English, but simply chooses not to despite many warnings from other users. I have come to the conclusion that this user is most likely trolling the project, trying to find out how far he can go with disruptive behavior while still appearing to help the project by patrolling vandalism. Given how much time has been spent by other editors in policing BErD's work, I suspect that the disruption outweighs the assistance, and that it is time to put an end to the disruption. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editors' Comments

• Obvious solution is obvious. Ban/indef block this disruptive user. MtD (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• (Clarify (at 00:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)): Involved Editor's resonse (against at this time)): Without further information regarding (without outing, unless required) this user's previous activities, I would not and could not support an indef ban/block. I believe the only event (at this time) that would allow me to support such is if the editor in question's other account(s) are/were admin (or similar) accounts, in which case, I would fully support a permanent ban of all accounts for the reasons I stated above. Furthermore, at this time, without more information on how either (a) past behavior should/should not be a contributing factor in this or (b) whether or not the user's other account is a special status/rights account, I think it is too early to make any proposals of the sort. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Robert. The next time he is disruptive, I say we block. If, after that, he ocntinues, indef block. He obviously did this disruption under his old account also, or he wouldn't have left it. MJ94 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've been watching this unfold since his block, so I'm thinking around the same thing as MJ94, but with trying to persuade him about adoption and how that is the right way to go. Buggie111 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but even if we were to lay to rest entirely the question of this users multiple account activity, which in my mind still remains highly suspicious, the trolling here is so painfully obvious (note the "nagging busybodies") that it frankly surprises me that we would give the user any additional leeway whatsoever. The atrocious use of grammar which we have already established is purely by choice, which behavior continuing after having been politely requested to be corrected, COMBINED with the faux portrayal of child-like thinking clearly contradicted by some of the users actually eloquent and intellectual postings, can now only be attributed to be clearly trollish behavior. This charade, in my opinion, needs to end.   Thorncrag  01:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• To Buggie111: Adoption has been suggested multiple times and refused. Mentorship has been suggested multiple times and refused (because, BerD (or so he claims) is more experienced than all of us). In addition, BerD has made it very clear on their talk page as currently formatted that: "i do not want to be adopted, i do not want you to be my mentor, i know a lot of things about wikipedia so if u want ME to help YOU i can do that because i am nice, except when i am grumpy and mean (i will try not to edit when i am grumpy and mean)" thus I think that option should be removed from any proposed remedies, as I truly believe, even if a mandatory mentorship is proposed, BerD will fully disregard any advice given. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

At some point this user will be flushed down the dumper. The real question is how much time should be wasted before the inevitable is realised. MtD (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Hopefully never. Though their own actions will determine that (and the results of the checkuser and more info I requested below, if honored and acted upon). One of my adoptees was recently here (before I adopted him). He willingly confessed to his actions, promised never to do them again (and has been living up to those promises), accepted very strict sanctions, accepted me as his mentor (before having one became a mandatory requirement even) and has turned a stub into a GA article. Only BerD's contributions will determine which path they take; the proverbial dumpster or a contributing editor with no future incidents. I will not and cannot predict their future actions, so, will not make the assumption that they are "irredeemable" until they prove such - or a consensus is reached indicating the community (or portion thereof that responds here) believes such is true. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Rob. I didn't meen flat out offer it now, I meant offer it when more blocks and warnings have been issued. This is a bit of a gruesome example, but think of how the terrorists act in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film), with demands being shown as the better option as each hostage dies. But, your comment about him refusing to listen is also wierd. I might ask for some offline help to aid me. Buggie111 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only annoying thing this guy has done (since being blocked) is to use abbreviations on his own talk page, rather than spelling all the words out in full, and delete comments off his own talk page. I think that's really stretching the definition of "disruptive", although clearly it annoys some people. I really, really don't think we should be excluding people from Wikipedia based on the dialect of English they write in, unless they're writing stuff in the articles that's hard to read. I suggest an alternate solution: the editors who find his manner of speaking annoying should avoid him, as he is doing his best to avoid them (up to the point of deleting their comments from his talk page). Otherwise, his editing seems to be entirely constructive. Almost all of us were twelve years old once. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Then I suggest you review their recent contributions from when their block expired. In their defense, they have made an "effort" - but honestly, how much of an effort does it take to speak normally in edit summaries? While it is theoretically possible, I doubt anyone thinks in leet speak, meaning the use of such in edit summaries is intentional: "wut..... think u misspell something here pal", "wut! u added something that was not notable", and admission that "maybe" they will still continue to do such: "ok oops sorry i try not to do this type of thing, but maybe i will still do it, but not very much".
  
  Related note, when i see comments like that, or the previous ones in the vein of "LOL delete some untrue edits" and worse, I for one would not take the edit or warning seriously as the edit summary implies it is a joke. Surely we dont want that. Again, one must make a conscious effort to take mental thought and convert it to leetspeak - and doing so on edit summaries is against policy (you know... the whole clear, unambiguous requirement part). I could care less what they do on their own talk pages - I even would have supported them when they removed the most recent comments there during this AN/I (but chose not to in order to honor their request not to contact them there). On a related note, I find their username offensive. It assumes bad faith and generalizes virtually every single editor with an edit count of over a thousand as bad editors. A bad edit (AGF) can simply be an accident, as I am sure any of us who have edited frequently has made. I also find their userpage statement about such to be offensive in the same vein. I also find it ironic that they told an admin (and other experienced editors) that their restoration of warnings on someone else's userpage was correct and that the admin and others were wrong - all while they wish to have the right to remove warnings from their own page. Yes, they can remove such warnings, but there's an interesting irony there indicating they know the rules when it benefits them, and ignore them otherwise. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Kragen: WIth all due respect, I don't think you properly reviewed the above evidence or discussion. His failure to speak properly (again, by choice as has been established) in user warnings and edit summaries is what caused this whole charade to begin in the first place.   Thorncrag  04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've asked them to consider changing their username. –xeno^talk 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am generally one who leans more towards AGF, but I think this is a case where it is time to escort this editor to the county line and say, "thanks, but no thanks." What policy supports this? None that I know of, but sometimes administrative discretion can be used for the good of the community, even if not directly supported by an explicit policy or guideline. In my opinion, this is either: an editor who is intentionally trolling, consciously switching between eloquent English and text-speak in a manner intended to provoke a response; a user in need of developing better skills for working with the community, but who refuses all suggestions and offers for assistance in a manner that shows disdain for this same community; or possibly some misguided experiment to test how Wikipedia handles and responds to such behavior (remember WP:NEWT?). In any case we need to put an end to this. I do not think the prior account is a significant consideration, as I think the actions under this account speak for themselves. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Time to drop per CU results which MuzeMike furnished. From this point on, this is a very dead horse. Collect (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike refused to provide such results. He confirmed it was a good cleanstart; which means it no longer is a good cleanstart, and CU is permitted. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This also recently happened. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He has shown, on various occasions, especially recently (through AfDs, CSDs, reverts and numerous posts & other actions) that he does have a very good working knowledge of Wikipedia and it's policies and guidelines - but simply chooses to pretend (or imply through his portrayal of himself) otherwise when it suits him. So, I'd let that one go. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal so Further Informed Discussion can continue

At this point, I would like to request that an uninvolved checkuser verify/eliminate/elucidate on the following (each individually to ensure each is covered):

• This editor is not part of cleanstart (and thus has violated it's meaning/intent)
• This editor is not trying to hide previous bad behavior by deciding to utilize this account to hide actions under the previous account(s).
• This user is not (nor was) an admin or has held any other position above standard editor.

I do not believe proposals of sanctions/repercussions can be fully determined in a fair fashion (for any party involved) without the answers to those questions. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: as proposer, with it clear that WP:OUTING (IMO) need not occur during this process unless a certain procedure or guideline requires it. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. Quite sensible.   Thorncrag  01:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. It's the right thing to do. Buggie111 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support I agree completely. If he's abusing cleanstart by hiding past bad behavior, that's obviously not acceptable. Sounds good. Didn't MuZemike already say it was an okay cleanstart, though? MJ94 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am looking (cant find it, but the page has changed more than once), though I do recall BerD making some claim on their behalf. As he was brought up more than once (and notified by me via email of such before this AN/I), I will ensure he has been notified about this AN/I so he can speak for himself. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose User should be judged on their contributions. If he's being disruptive thats all that matters, not what his other account was. We have CLEANSTART for a reason. -- ۩ Mask 04:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP is not a place for fishing expeditions - MuZemike made a fairly clear statement which ought to be sufficient. Collect (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This echoes what User:Shirik (an admin and checkuser clerk) said when he declined my Sockpuppet Investigation that I opened on myself--that this is not an appropriate use of Checkuser. This admin also opined[54][55] that my edits "weren't really that disruptive" and that he doesn't see "what the big deal is".--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rationale behind this proposal

It is my belief that appropriate "sanctions", if any, cannot be determined without the community being aware of the information requested above. If BerD is not as experienced as he states, then more strict sanctions should probably not be requested (regardless of the falsity or misleading nature of such claims, I do not believe they should suffer greater repercussions for something not true). If they are, then somewhat more strict sanctions should be considered. If they are, and have shown a pattern of such behavior in the past, then I believe even more strict sanctions should be considered as they are possibly violating an official or unofficial cleanstart attempt, as well as actively and misleadingly attempting to hide such behavior (which my interpretation of cleanstart indicates is not the purpose of cleanstart). If they do have userrights (on their other account(s)) greater than that of a standard editor), then I believe their actions under this account should result in the strictest of sanctions for so grossly betraying the community trust and trying to hide such actions by doing them in a new account.

Inotherwords, cake, and eat it too. The editor has claimed they have nothing to hide (re: their actions on their previous account - see their "archived" talk page and the SPI that they initiated), thus (along with my rationale above) leaving my proposal as an opportunity that serves both the community as a whole or the editor in question; in a fashion entirely dependent on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on such repercussions while protecting the user from any false claims (if any) of experience they have made. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement from User:MuZemike

I have already ran a CheckUser on the user upon suspicions that were brought up by other users, and I know who this user is an alternate account of. Instead of blithely blocking for what would be extremely weak socking reasons (which I thought would have been more "abusive" and would not helped), I contacted BErD via email and asked what is going on. As he said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bad edits r dumb/Archive (diff), he is an alternate account, but for reasons of privacy, he wishes not to have disclosed of whom. Moreover, I feel that it would go against my ethics as a CheckUser to disclose that myself publicly and without his consent.

That being said, this does not mean that I condone BErD's disruptive behavior as of late; I already contacted the admin who first blocked BErD for disruption, and I completely agree with the block. As far as WP:CLEANSTART is concerned, I felt that it was OK for him to edit with the BErD account. Now if the community (or another CheckUser) feels that he is trying to avoid scrutiny, I certainly understand that, and that is a valid point. Having communicated with BErD privately, I feel that I am not in the position to make that assessment and most certainly not to take any administrative action over. –MuZemike 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I clarified above, no one wants the user outed (or if anyone does, I will vote against it, unless it is an admin being outed). But, surely a concise summary such as "4 blocks (for whatever), 17 warnings for (whatever), multiple bad reverts" (as simply stated as that) will not out the editor and will ensure that sanctions are justified.

"Now if the community (or another CheckUser) feels that he is trying to avoid scrutiny" <-- not sure how we can determine that without the summary of their actions as requested-->. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue for me is if the prior account was an account in good standing or not. If he abandoned the prior account for disruptive behavior, and this new account was doing similar behavior, that is NOT a clean start, this is a bad sock. If the prior account was in reasonably good standing, was not under a block when it was abandoned, etc. etc. then this one should stay. In general, I trust MuZemike judgement on this, but just wanted to state that, having just reviewed this, the issue is whether or not this is a true clean start, or if this is just someone who wants to reset the sanction meter on a prior dirty account, with no desire to reform his behavior. --Jayron32 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are the same as your's, Jayron. If he was disruptive on the last account, it's a sock, which should be brought to light. If he was a normal editor, this point can be dropped. If he was an admin, than, well, measures should be taken. Buggie111 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And this has happened before, done by a rogue admin, with the protection of other admins (I've been around Wikipedia since it started, back when IIRC there werent even real accounts in the fashion there are now - this is simply the first account I have edited under). I was not going to bring that up, but steadfast refusal or willing to ignore providing a non-identifying summary (unless it is an admin) kinda raises my suspicions and brings back memories of why I quit using Wikipedia for more than half a decade (and it wasnt what happened, it was how other admins handled trying to hide the rogue). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies by RobertMfromLI

If this user (their other account(s)) is not a sysop or other higher privilege account

• I believe the message has been firmly delivered and is fully understood (per their recent contributions as noted here: [56]).
  • I suggest elevated warnings (lvl 3?) for blatant repeat behavior (I also suggest an occassional mistake or two should be allowed for and acted upon based on it's severity; we are all human).
  • I suggest, regardless of their desires in this matter, that for clarity of the elevated warnings proposed above, that templates are allowed for this purpose only - OR clear non-templated wording to indicate the elevated warning level(s).
  • I suggest more severe repercussions on blatant recurrences (14 day or 30 day block?)
  • I suggest the editor continues to purport themself with the clarity and eloquence they have proven they are capable of in all scenarios outside of their talk page and userspace.

pls stop calling me "they". this is bad grammer. my first edit makes it clear wut my gender is.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is "wut" good grammar, or even English? :-) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

do as i say, not as i do.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If the user (their other account(s)) is a sysop or holds other higher privilege account

• I propose a permanent ban (note, I very specifically did not use the word "indefinite") of all accounts they hold for betraying the community trust, using other editors as their personal playthings, and intentionally separating behavior they should know is trolling and disruptive from their account that holds the special privileges.

This just leaves a checkuser confirming that the other account(s) do not hold special privileges. This is solely my proposal, please feel free to make your own.

 Confirmed: other account(s) is/are non-admin (per MuZemike below). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed by ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Support all propositions. --intelati^(Call) 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: regardless of their mischaracterization of this attempt to let them off the hook and mischaracterization of other incidents (since that is not the subject of this AN/I) and since I should not use such mischaracterizations as the basis for creating a biased opinion, I support the proposal I entered above. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• COMMENT from Bad edits r dumb: I think RobertMfromLI and MJ94 are spending an undue amount of time and effort Wikihounding me and complaining about me when I believe that my contributions since my block have been EXCELLENT. I do not know why they focus so much time and attention on me after my block; I had to ban them both from my talk page because they would not leave me alone. My old account was NOT an admin account and I have never been an admin and never tried to be and admin and DO NOT WISH to be admin. I think RobertMfromLI means well, but he is way to consumed with minor things like my grammar and when I try to make a lighthearted joke and things like this. Again, PLEASE REVIEW MY CONTRIBUTIONS since I have been blocked. they are so good, that it staggers my mind (with some minor slip-ups, becos no one is perfect). RobertMfromLI is way too involved to be calling the shots here (I think he may be upset at me that I rejected his offer of mentorship and things like this). Some people nitpick too much. That is all I have to say on this matter until next time I have things to say on this matter.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wow! It's always nice to see an editor in abject awe of their own contributions. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. Maybe I exaggerated a little to make my point ;-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's alright; sometimes I shock myself (though generally with my own stupidity). Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• COMMENT to Bad edits r dumb: I was not the person who created this AN/I, and I just proposed NO sanctions for your previous actions and you decide to make false claims about me and my intent (as you similarly mischaracterized the whole SPI thing)? I'm baffled. I did not propose a block, ban or warning (unless you are an admin, for which I will not take your word - nothing personal, but that's what checkusers are for). And I clearly state that occassional mistakes should be allowed for. Perhaps you may wish to re-read my proposal. Once you clearly understand it, I will offer my support for it. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim you started this AN/I thread and I have no issue with the user who did. What I mean is that--far more than anyone else--you and MJ94 have been spending an extraordinary and inordinate amount of time and effort nitpicking my edits and trying (largely unsuccessfully) to drum up antagonism toward Bad edits r dumb--this effort could be better sent (pardon the wikicliché) improving the encyclopedia.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggested you find a mentor (as your behavior indicated you may need) - not that I become that mentor. I've spent a lot of time trying to defend you (including above where others read implications in your statements at SPI that I could not support since you said no such thing). I suggest NO repercussions for your previous actions, even though your recent contributions prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that you were fully aware of what your previous actions entailed. I compliment you on your recent edits twice. Please explain the antagonism in that. How is complimenting you and proposing no sanctions for an AN/I I did not start antagonizing? My only other option was to allow others to propose sanctions. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – I can assert that BErD is not an alternate account of any admin here. Hopefully, this puts some people who were concerned about this at ease, even if a little. –MuZemike 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is this trolling or what?[57] 67.122.209.115 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is, and I've commented over there. He's wasting their time at the Help Desk asking to see CU records because "wut if they r talking about me behind my back and saying rude things (e.g., Bad edits r dumb is dumb)". I am firmly of the "troll" opinion with this one (even though he does revert vandalism, which is helpful). Plenty of non-disruptive vandal fighters out there, too... Doc9871 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to all parties

I'd like to request that all parties please review the ARBCOM's position on trolling located at: m:Troll and m:What_is_a_troll?. The fact that so many good-intentioned editors are still assuming good faith is quite frankly unbelievable to me (many of whom may not be aware of this thread and along with it all of the evidence presented). It is patently and uncontrovertibly obvious that this user is a troll by the clear and convincing evidence that has gone un-refuted. The sooner we can all agree that this person is a troll, the sooner we can do something productive about it.

Further, I would like to point out that when it comes to trolls, whether their overall contributions are a net positive is not relevant. Additionally, while this user has shown extremely weak amenability to reform their behavior, it should be weighed extremely carefully. It's not surprising coming from someone currently the subject of so much scrutiny.   Thorncrag  06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. Let's not also forget that by this user's self-admission, that he or she is "a very experienced editor" who does not meed mentoring. Assuming this is true, then the user immediately proceeding registration onto a campaign of disruption, then further proceeding to deliberately provoke other editors who interact with them in response to the user's initial disruption—if this is not trolling then I honestly and genuinely do not know what is.   Thorncrag  06:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I am a troll. I think you confuse "troll" with someone who has a bit of wacky sense of humor and occasionally sometimes makes some bad decisions abt what is appropriate but on the balance is a good editor. And i disagree with whether someone is a net positive is NOT RELEVANT that's just silly. I will not name names becos it would be very rude, but I can think of SEVERAL editors who have been here a long time and have a history of saying outrageous and ridiculous things just to upset ppl, but most of the time they are productive and they r allowed to edit. I think u r very very very very wrong, but I still respect your opinion even though i strenuously disagree. :-D--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is abundantly clear that we are being very skilfully trolled here. And we are indulging this because...? → ROUX ₪ 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Becos according to some (obviously you are not among them) i am, despite my flaws, a net asset to the community and a skilled vandal fighter and very knowledgeable about policies and things of this nature.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• To Roux: Because no one seems to want to take action? Because requests for non-identifying summaries of previous activities that may have been in violation of cleanstart were ignored? Because before we get anywhere, all sorts of promises to never do it again are made, taking up lots of space, even while things like this (during the AN/I) [58] take place? A previous consensus for the information noted (and clearly noted it could be provided without identifying information) still sits above. I think, at this point, none of us responding know how to actually end this, and need an admin and uninvolved checkuser to come in and address this. :-) But those are just my guesses... I've actually never ran into an AN/I like this before. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Formal allegation of avoiding scrutiny

I would furthermore formally allege that this user is deliberately attempting to avoid scrutiny under a new account. The fact that the disruption began so soon following creation of this new account is highly questionable, and sufficient cause for this question to be raised. Moreover, whereas it is not the place of User:MuZeMike to reveal the user's previous account as he is bound by privacy policy, it may also be true that he should choose not to confirm or deny the user's previous behavior under the same policy. I therefore demand the original account be revealed, or in the alternative, the editing rights of the new account be revoked either by agreement of the user or by force.   Thorncrag  06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with this proposal, it is a bad proposal. I am not try to avoid "scrutiny"; you can scrutinize me as much as you like--in fact u have been scrutinizing all my edits, and G-d bless you for that. My previous account is in good standing. While i am not trying to avoid scrutiny, I am trying to maintain PRIVACY and if my account is identified, that would compromise my PRIVACY so i would have to start all over again. I think the matters of privacy that cause me to start a different account are none of ur businesines, thx.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Then would you be ok with a summary of the blocks, warnings and other problems that arose on your past account (ie: 5 blocks for disruption, 2 for edit warring, 3 warnings for whatever)? That would in no way compromise your identity. And it is rather disingenuous to claim that your other account is in good standing. Of course it is, otherwise a cleanstart would not be permitted. But that says nothing about whether it previously wasn't.

I suspect you will selectively choose to ignore this question as you have in the past. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB

• Support: the proposals and plans above, preferably in a fashion that does not disclose identifying information of BeRD.

And at this point, I find I must cease responding to anything other than proposals of actions or sanctions or remedies. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Much simpler solution: the data on the other account is findable via Checkuser. Muzemike should provide it to Arbcom, a member of which can post here to confirm/deny the allegations of evading scrutiny, assess whether the other account is in good standing, etc. → ROUX ₪ 07:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Huh. This question on the helpdesk asking how to see the CU and Arbcom email lists, including the gem "I just don't like it when Arbcom talks about me behind my back," seems pretty clear to me that this account is indeed evading scrutiny of some sort. If the previous account was indeed in good standing, why would Arbcom be talking about it? This is leaving aside the fact that if the user behind the account is so experienced, s/he would know they can't see those emails, and thus why the question? → ROUX ₪ 07:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again at Help Desk: [59] ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was a legitimate question and not in any way silly.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) MuZeMike already informed ArbCom (he told me he was obligated to do this via email, and I tole him I understood) of his findings. This is why I was concerned that ArbCom was talking about me behind my back. :-D--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Roux, I think you are misunderstanding. He didn't inform ArbCom because there was anything especially problematic with my old account; he was ethically obligated to inform them about what he knew about me once I confirmed onwiki that he and I had emailed one another about my alternate acconut.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should emphasize that I am not implying that ArbCom has approved, reviewed or even tacitly condoned my every activity; I am just stating that (as far as I know), MuzeMike has forwarded his knowledge of my alternate account to ArbCom, per his duties as a Checkuser.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have asked Arbcom to comment, here. → ROUX ₪ 07:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM. I would like to further argue, that even if this user's prior account is in good clean standing with no history of disruption, that this in and of itself a clear-cut abuse of multiple accounts and avoidance of scrutiny. The fact that the disruptive account came after the alleged "clean" account (a violation of avoiding scrutiny, instead of vice versa, a violation of clean start) is purely moot: it means that the user is still using one account cleanly and another account disruptively. This is wholly inappropriate and this needs to end, yesterday.   Thorncrag  08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Using one account cleanly and another account disruptively" is known in wiki circles as having a "good hand/bad hand" account. That is not the case here because I have unofficially retired my old account and no longer use it. I am not abusing multiple accounts. THIS is my ONLY ACTIVE account and will be for the foreseeable future. I use it do undo all the bad edits and help new users and things like this. I have already made this clear--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to above proposal

I would also like to propose in addition to above, that the user be instructed not to create a new account without first obtaining permission from the arbitration committee as the user's use of multiple accounts and other behavior is currently highly suspect by the community.   Thorncrag  07:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Fully ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits r dumb is not perfect but mostly he is a WONDERFUL editor

Hi everyone, I am Bad edits r dumb and I am the subject of this AN/I section. I would just like to update u about my recent edits to show you that I have been doing a very good job and staying out of trouble. I am getting a lots of good feedback about my edits. For example one editor gave me some compliment and said "nice work" and other editor said my anti-vandal work is exemplary!!!! At the same time i did some more dumb thing, like i ask a silly question on the Help Desk (because I heard some ArbCom ppl were talking about me and I wanted to know wut they were saying, but I think i phrase the question in a very silly way), but later I apologized. Finally, I always try to listen to feedback especially if the feedback is not given in a rude or hostile manner. For example, some highly respect editors said that my user name is inappropriate, so I tole them I WOULD CHANGE it very soon, and I plan to get a new user name within one week :-D. In conclusion, i think I am doing a good job, but if I mess up pls tell me and I WILL FIX THE PROBLEM.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For starters, it's been suggested to you that you change your username, like yesterday. It's inappropriate: if this is a "bad" proposal, then it must be a "dumb" proposal, right: "becos Bad edits r dumb". The community doesn't necessarily have to tolerate the antics of editors who have clearly demonstrated a) an ability to function and text normally, yet b) choose to "go against the grain" by being disruptive. It's a diverse project with editors from all over the world, but possibly "smart alec" editors (not a personal attack) need to consider growing up and editing like adults. BTW (and there's nothing wrong with this): is English not your first language, or is their some other reason why you choose to shorten "because" to "becos", yet "serious" to "serios". I'm thinking of Balki when you do this, but it's not an '80's sit-com. And Borat you ain't... Doc9871 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well... ok if it will help, I will expedite the process of getting a new user name, but first I have to think of a REALLY GOOD user name, but i will try to do that ASAP. And i don't necessarily want to say whether i was raised with English as my first language or not, but sufice it to say that everyone in my community talks like this as well so it is hard for me to break the habit!! I do appreciate that it can cause a lot of annoyance so i have done my best to minimize and restrict it mostly to my talk page, especially when I am doing new page patrolling and not just having casual discussions. :-D--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On the fence until now but this and responses above using child's speak seal it for me: user is here only to troll. Let's not waste any more time here. User's good-faith contribs... however few there are... can be made from his other account. Indef here and get back to encyclopedia-building. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But I cannot use my other account for reasons I do not wish to do discuss but they have nothing to do with being blocked or being a disruptive editor on my other account things like that.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

• You have chosen to do a good job only after the start of this AN/I.

Bullshit (pardon my swearings). I made a ton of productive edits and started using Twinkle to do appropriate vandal fighting well before this An/I.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• You repeatedly, on numerous occasions, tell editors who point out your mistakes to stay away from your talk page (thus preventing from abiding by: "if I mess up pls tell me and I WILL FIX THE PROBLEM")

That is is so not true. The only people I banned from my talk age are you and MJ94. Everyone else is welcome to post, and I have discussed and addressed issues in a civilized manner--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To give one example, one time this angry Hare Krishna guy had a problem with my edits and he posted a very long and multilingual rant on my talk page, basically condemning me to hell, but I responded in a calm and compassionate manner and then we had a civil conversation, and by the end of the discussion we HAD BECOME FRIENDS. this shows that I do not ignore people just for criticizing me.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so what you are saying in all of this is, due to what you mention directly above, and your good recent contributions (skipping the whole Help Desk thing), that you were previously choosing to be disruptive, but then decided to stop when this AN/I started? Keep in mind, as noted in this AN/I, the cause for this AN/I was that you resumed the same behavior after your block expired - at which time the AN/I was filed. The edit histories and summary at the top of this AN/I prove it and prove that I was not lying above as you imply (nice use of the word "or" to cover yourself on that though). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Even during the AN/I, you decided to ask Help Desk [60] a question you fully knew the answer to due to the issues raised here about CU and related matters.

I admitted alrady this was dumb, but I was very frustrated when i heard rumors that i was being discussed in private.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• You don't listen to feedback, you reply (in edit summaries) with "pls pls pls pls stay away from my talk page. Feel free to join the discussion on AN/I. Ur not welcome here" or "Pls resist the urge to edit my talk page; I've tole u that ur not welcome" or "i have tole this editor he is no longer welcome on my talk page. he always give me a hard time even when i try to be a good editor" and too many others to list - all for people who pointed out issues you created.

I do listen to feedback (see my examples above), but I don't have patience for Wikihounding.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• You repeatedly pushed bad behavior asking if you'd get banned for it [61] then request an unblock that states "i will start to use the templates MOST OF THE TIME unless i feel the user would benefit from a personal note" (that you will still decide to do what you want when you want to - until you became the subject of this AN/I, at which time you have proven you could have been constructive to begin with but chose not to.

Again I started using twinkle and fighting vandals in a proper manner almost immediately after I was unblocked. U r either mistaken or telling lies.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please end this? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should close this AN/I thread and you are free to scrutinize my edits in the future which will be AWESOME and will not have to much mistakes, but maybe ocasional mistakes.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look, Bad edits r dumb, you state "I mess up pls tell me and I WILL FIX THE PROBLEM". Many people have told you what the problem is. You are capable of using proper, acceptable English, with correct spelling and grammar. You are messing up by intentionally refusing to do so. To fix this problem, start communicating as expected, with proper spelling and grammar. At this point, you either:

a) Are continuing to refuse to do so to prove a point

b) Are not capable of doing it correctly

Either of these is disruptive to the project. If you cannot use proper English, then you lack the competance to be a contributor here. If you can use proper English, but continue to refuse to do so, then you are just being disruptive for disruption's sake. It stopped being "a joke" or "lighthearted" when multiple editors told you to quit it, as they have done. So please, let it rest, and get with the program. --Jayron32 06:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

• Blocked.  f o x  09:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call. The user's talk page is an interesting comment on the extreme patience of the Wikipedia community (although it might also be an obvious invitation to trolls). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:24, 28 September 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:Combo Pwner

Combo Pwner (talk · contribs), besides multiple vandalisms to Barack Obama ([62]), made a personal attack on User:DGG ([63]). When I issued them a personal attack warning (only a second level warning, though they should have received previous warnings for not only vandalizing Barack Obama but reverting their vandalism after it was removed), this was their response to me. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And they just attempted to delete this paragraph. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gosh.. I am so sorry man, that was my little brother messing with my account when I taking a nap. I am truly sorry for what has happened, and I will not let it happen again. Combo Pwner (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Combo Pwner's closing of this thread. Please don't close threads when you are the subject of them. Dayewalker (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "admin" user box from his user page, as well as the "trusted user" template which was commented out. This person ain't here to write an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there are some cold people on the Internet. Don't you understand the "admin" user box is just a fun, innocuous joke? Wow... Combo Pwner (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Then lighten up, man. It's just the Internet...nobody's forcing you to look at anything.Combo Pwner (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, out there it's the Internet, in here, it's building a credible reference work. Keep that in mind, and stop screwing around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's my user page, and my user page is not a credible reference work. Combo Pwner (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying it was your little brother who vandalized the Obama article? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I was taking a long nap, and upon waking up I caught him red-handed, apparently vandalizing and flaming. Sorry for the trouble. Combo Pwner (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Combo Pwner - It's against policy here to impersonate administrators. Putting the userbox on is a form of impersonating administrators. We routinely block people from editing for impersonating administrators.

We have worse things to focus on and spend our time on, but please be aware that you've pushed about as far as you can get away with before you get blocked for disrupting the encyclopedia.

If you are here to improve Wikipedia, don't do any more pushing buttons or joking around until you're familiar with our policy and our social interactions here. Go work on articles, ask for help if you have questions. Things will be fine.

If that's not your intention, please chose whether you want to keep joking around long enough to get blocked, or if you just want to move on and find somewhere else to have fun at. There are plenty of websites whose purpose is having fun.

It's up to you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Edit conflict - I've blocked ComboPwner for 24 hours for incivility, disruption, and because the "my little brother did it" excuse is really old and unoriginal. If any other admin thinks this is too harsh, feel free to unblock. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't. Hopefully, he has done the right thing, told on his mother or father or significant other, and had said brother grounded or otherwise punished for what he did. –MuZemike 04:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 04:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I as well, since he didn't seem to think his brother really did anything wrong[64]. Unless, of course, that was the brother talking... Doc9871 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the dog didn't get at his homework this morning either. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On the bright side of things, his evil little brother is also blocked. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hrotovice was blocked by Arbitrator Risker without a valid explanation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Blocked for socking per rubber dub dub~! Move along now, people.

The reason for blocking was multiple accounts but it's blatantly false. I was editing British Isles pages correctly and i demand an unblock. Hrotovice2 (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So it's blatantly false that you're using multiple accounts, but you're on ANI complaining that you're blocked? Uhh... quack? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your new account has been blocked and instructions for properly appealing have been left on the talk page of your original. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 28 September 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.

Any Pakistani admins?

I just blocked Tariq babur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24h because he keeps creating content and articles about himself and his family members, and has not acknowledged or responded to numerous messages on his talk page or discussed any edits on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Oh, and there was the incident of removing the images from Muhammad, but that is normal. Perhaps someone with a language in common could have a chat with the user? Guy (Help!) 11:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have left him a message. Its in Hindi, which is very similar (especially if u are writing in English script :) to Urdu, the national language of Pakistan. It basically just explains that we have tried to make him understand that it is not appropriate to make articles on family members; I told him we are sorry to have blocked him, but as he did not respond, there was nothing else we could have done. I told him his block is only for 1 day; but emphasized that it is vital that he responds, in English or Urdu, whatever works, or else he may be blocked again. I recently encountered a similar problem with Shopnomukarji (talk · contribs) - no response whatsoever. I guess it really can't be helped, since obviously they must be understanding English to contribute here. Shiva (Visnu) 00:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am taking the liberty of copying the translation kindly provided above to the talk page. It will assist anyone who is checking that page who does not know about the posting here, and who reads neither Hindi nor Urdu. If this is a problem, feel free to undo my cut-and-paste. Bielle (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Right thing to do - should have done it myself. Slipped my mind completely. Thanks :) Shiva (Visnu) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No pakistani admins YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he can be contacted here:

http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/صفحہ_اول

Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Tariq hasn't returned since the block's expiration. HeyMid (contributions) 15:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Threat by FreedomForAll123

Resolved

 – Indefed for block evasion--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FreedomForAll123 (talk · contribs) made a death threat on Aafia Siddiqui (diff) and made similar comments on my talk page after I reverted the threat as vandalism (diff). Fæ (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not that's a death threat, it's definitely block evasion. Indefed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The user provided a phone number, which may or may not be theirs, a couple of times, and in both instances they were redacted, but I notice there's still a live copy here on Fæ's talk page. Perhaps this should also be redacted/oversighted? Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Revdeled that as well. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Justa Punk, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Blocked by MuZemike~!

User:Justa Punk is back again in the form of RestorationJP (talk · contribs). As of now, she has reverted revisions, placed back a personal attack template at User:Justa Punk and left a threatening edit summary for me. Bejinhan talks 05:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see the pattern. That userpage was semi-protected because she edited using an IP. So I'm making a wild guess that those reversions she made with this current account was to bypass the protection. Bejinhan talks 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a blatant sock of Justa Punk. I don't do much of this, so another admin may want to check that I've not messed anything up. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably wanna leave a block notice on the talk page as well as the user page, but otherwise correct, I believe.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed:

• LordJP (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ReversalJP (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Corporal RC44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Private Public (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 15:24, 28 September 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:Bus stop engaged in disruptive editing

Resolved

 – content dispute no administrative action required The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bus stop is engaged in disruptive editing in article Judaism and violence. They have repeatedly deleted material (regarding violence in the Book of Esther) that is very well sourced, and clearly within the scope of the article. Bus Stop deleted the material several times including [65] and [66]. Then the article was protected for 3 days (21 Sept to 24 Sept) to prevent edit warring, and a civil discussion ensued on the Talk page between a few editors (sources for the material were requested and provided), but Bus Stop chose to not participate in that Talk page dialog during the protection period. After the protection was lifted, Bus stop has again deleted the material twice [67] and [68]. The material is extremely well sourced. Bus Stop seems to dislike the entire article, and their reasons for deleting this specific Book of Esther material are hard to comprehend (such as the query here [69] or here [70]). This is a clear case of disruptive editing simply because - apparently - Bus Stop does not like the material, and finds it offensive. A similar ANI was filed 10 days ago here [71] but nothing ever came of it, and the pattern of behavior is continuing. What is the remedy for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT problems? --Noleander (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing problems with the text that Busstop removed, and that he may well be correct in his elisions. For example, per WP:UNDUE, who exactly is Elliott Horowitz that his views merit a paragraph in the article? As for the other sources, placing a keffiyah is not a violent act in and of itself, so that source does not support the text. Same with Frazer; the text does not discuss violence, it discusses whether or not the burning in effigy is an affront to Christians. What I am seeing is subtle original research and synthesis, and that the removals may well have been warranted. The fact that something is written in a text is not enough; it has to be pertinent to the article without any leaps or assumptions on the readers part and it needs to pass WP:UNDUE. -- Avi (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Those issues are for the Talk page, and were already addressed (in excruciating detail) there. There are vast amounts of reliable, academic, secondary sources on the topic. This ANI is regarding Bus Stop's inability to engage in dialog on the Talk page in a rational manner. --Noleander (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Content being discussed there. -- Avi (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I encourage people to participate in the RFC at the aforementioned article but I am closing this as otherwise I see no admin action neededThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Noleander! Can you please stop your editwars and your anti-Jewish defamation POV push on quite a few pages?Salamaat (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We should not conflate the content dispute with the behavioral issues of Bus Stop. Bus Stop has been banned from WP before for similar disruptive behavior, and it is important to record continuing examples of such behavior. Bus Stop does sometimes seem to make good contributions, but the issue here is refusal to engage in productive, forward-moving dialog on Talk pages. I don't expect any action from this particular ANI, since user Avi successfully derailed the discussion about behavior :-) But I do expect admins to be more pro-active in encouraging editors to engage in productive dialog. --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Naxoshk - a flood of COI spam links

• naxos.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• naxosmusiclibrary.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Naxoshk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Has been adding (and continues to add at an alarming pace) the following links to Naxos Records on virtually every classical composer article on Wikipedia:

• www.naxos.com - The World's Leading Classical Music Label
• www.naxosmusiclibrary.com - Essential Resource for Music Professionals

He/she has continued to do this despite my note on their talk page. Since I left the warning they've added the links to yet another 7 articles on the already huge list. Can an admin keep and eye on their contributions and block if it continues. It's going to be a huge amount of work to revert them all. Note also the huge number of files from Naxos uploaded by this user to commons, all of which claim that the copyright is owned by the uploader but no OTRS ticket. Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor is blocked here. I have revertlisted the domains for now, most use is appropriate, though the edits from this account were way too spammy (though maybe well intended). I have reverted quite a number of edits, and cleaned the rest (as well as some other edits regarding this domain). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Naxos site is used as reference for a lot of pages -- it's actually a very good resource for a lot of info on lesser known composers that Naxos has happened to record -- so one might want to be careful and only target links to the main site itself, which seems to have been what the spammer added. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They've also uploaded a bunch of tracks to Commons -- I've posted at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems to have them checked out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Doc Quintana and football

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:AN3

 – The complaint is edit warring, so this should be at WP:AN3. This is simply turning into a content discussion, which is not what ANI is here for. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Doc Quintana has been edit warring across a number of articles on American football. It begun when he started an RfC at Talk:Football about what to call the various sports called football in articles about them (association football, American football, Australian rules football, etc.) His proposal is to enforce some kind of standardization across all articles on sports called "football". The proposal hasn't garnered any consensus at the RfC, and in fact most participants have been against them, but a few weeks ago he went around making the changes anyway ([72][73][74]) Since then he has been consistently edit warring with others who have removed his changes [75][76][77][78][79][80][81]. Myself and others have tried to work with him[82][83] and get him to stop edit warring,[84][[85] to no avail. He seems to think that WP:IAR gives him license to edit war.[86]--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that Doc Quintana started a report at AN (here) while I was typing this up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

There's already a thread that's already been started on WP:WQA on this. I brought this issue here about an hour ago but removed it to move it there to AN and then WQA at advice I recieved on my talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Quintana (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately this requires administrator attention at this point. Your edit warring across a wide swath of pages has become very disruptive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. uses that same style. Did Doc Quintana make that change also? Or are we seeing POV-pushing from the soccer lovers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Soccer articles are the core of the content dispute: soccer articles from most countries use "football" pipelinked to association football; those from Canada and the U.S. use "soccer", and others use just "association football". On the other hand articles on other football codes typically link directly to that code (American football, Canadian football, Gaelic football, etc.) in at least the first instance. That discrepancy was the point of the RfC, but this is a content matter to be handled through discussion. The problem here at ANI is that Doc Quintana is engaging in cross-article article edit warring, which is disrupting a wide swath of articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That style was first used in the 10th edit the Manchester United article,[87] seven and a half years ago. Why should American football be treated any differently? Most folks going to the Pittsburgh Steelers page are likely to be Americans, and seeing "American football" are liable to think the lead was written by a soccer fan who can't stand the thought of any other sport being called just "football". Wikipedia has a bad enough rap for various alleged biases. Try not to add to that situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's a content matter, to be dealt with in the appropriate venues. The incident here at the incidents noticeboard is that Doc Quintana is edit warring across numerous pages in contradiction to any consensus at the RfC or the article talk pages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's more than a content matter, it's a policy matter - of how wikipedia presents itself to the world. How many of those who support the "consensus" are primarily soccer fans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's how Wikipedia presents itself to the world, then the vast majority of the English-speaking world understands "football" to be Association football. But it's not even about that - it is a content issue, and should be dealt with at the relevant place. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's not being dealt with, it's being POV-pushed against American football and in favor of soccer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a soccer fan, I watch American football. I can't speak for everyone but several users who have weighed in against Doc Quintana's proposed changes seem to be primarily American football fans, or at least are not particularly devoted to soccer. If you feel strongly about it feel free to weigh in at the RfC. However, it still leaves us with the fact that Doc Quintana is edit warring, which disrupts the articles themselves and undermines any consensus the RfC could achieve.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, me too, me and my pals watch American football every Sunday, played by the National American Football League. Oh, wait... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"American football" is just football in the United States, thus the article should reflect that. Therefore, the word "American" is not necessary. Tommy! 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was an article about a not-obviously-US-centric subject, then fair enough. Here - no, just use "football" and pipelink it. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out multiple times, discussions on content in terms of this should be at the RfC. This ANI discussion was opened because of edit-warring by a user, which is what we should be focusing on. Can we please get some comments on the actual issue at hand, please? Silverseren^C 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue is a content dispute. You've got an editor who thinks he's right and is going ahead regardless of the alleged "consensus". Trouble is, he IS right, and other editors who've gotten wind of this debate are now siding with Quintana, and the "consensus" is no longer so obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is your opinion that he is right, current consensus in the RfC is still against you. Regardless, that doesn't matter, the user in question and any other user involved in the edit warring should be stopped, because it is edit warring regardless of who is right. Silverseren^C 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It occurs to me that people just aren't getting the message here too, Silver Seren. The content dispute should be kept at the RfC, and not dramatised here. The issue here is the inappropriate edit-warring. No offence is intended, but maybe this clears things up a little for those not paying attention. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 20:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This happens a lot at ANI. :/ Silverseren^C 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
          • There are two things I want to clear up here.

1. There's no consensus for or against anything.
2. Both sides are edit warring here, but i've tried to extend an olive branch several times to try and find a compromise on this, and the other side doesn't seem to be interested in this.

I'm going to let it calm down for a few days and see if they're interested in a compromise then. Bugs hit it on the nose: this is wrong , I consider it an IAR situation, but I don't like edit warring and I want to resolve this issue, not to drag it out. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No Doc, there is, almost by definition, no situation when WP:IAR allows going against consensus: IAR states that if a rule prevents you from benefitting the encyclopaedia, ignore it. If consensus says by ignoring that rule you're harming the encyclopaedia, then that's what you're doing; we work on consensus here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And if you feel that the discussion is not representing a fair consensus because it contains too many partisan viewpoints, or whatever other reason, then you can take it through one of the many dispute resolution options to attempt to get some more neutral opinions. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How does the project benefit by allowing a pro-soccer bias? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Using WP:IAR to circumvent consensus is simply disruptive and a misuse of policy; I'm not going to comment on the content dispute; that doesn't belong here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The opponents need to get with the program, and support a consistent approach instead of displaying hostility toward American football just because it isn't soccer football. Then there won't be any dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Call to close: could an uninvolved admin please close this now? It's clear that there are two issues: edit warring (which should be at WP:AN3), and a content dispute (which should be at the articles' talk pages or at one of the dispute resolution processes. There's clearly no reason for this to be at ANI, and it's starting to generate more heat than light. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd almost suggest it go to WP:LAME if i wasnt so sure there would be an ARBCOM case coming out of this The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

for the creation of a revolutionary dictatorship (or not)

User:Lecen has asked me, as an administrator, to step into this brouhaha. I don't think that the situation (yet) requires any service that only an administrator can dish out. On the other hand, it would benefit from the attention of one or more patient, cool-headed and neutral outsiders. (The ability to read Portuguese would be a plus.) Whether or not I'd be disqualified simply by having been invited by one side in the dispute, I'm certainly disqualified by the immense amount of (WP-unrelated) work I have to do in the next three days. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would love to help, but my political positions would almost certainly prevent me from being patient and cool-headed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Quickie 3RR block?

Resolved

 – thank you Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since User:Drfragment is not at all subtle about reverting on Accursed Lands, can someone please block him for 6RR here? He's erased my warning from his talk page. I would myself as blatantly obvious, but I'm involved. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's appropriate given this dialog. I'm not happy about the discussion going offsite, but there's nothing admins can do about that except discourage it.--Chaser (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just blocked him. While there's an ongoing discussion, the amount of undoes he's done is clearly disruptive. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. A block is certainly within admin discretion given the number of reverts.--Chaser (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reichstag Climbing in Progress

Morning admins! Can I please leave this for your attention, it was notified to #wikipedia-en as a possible edit war, and looks like mass Reichstag climbing by multiple IPs. Looks like it's in need of a semi and multiple blocks as needed/warranted. Cheers. BarkingFish 02:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Words fail. Is something wrong with my eyes? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have semi'ed for a week, but ... This was very slow motion (3 edits on 9/28, 3 on 9/26, etc). Can someone (who's autoconfirmed) identify the last clearly good version in the edit history and go back to it for the time being? I'm too busy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Oops, I filed a request for page protection when I saw this on IRC. @George. This has been going on since at least May 2010. I can't find any good version (at least not through my skimming). Netalarm^talk 02:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I hadn't seen this ANI thread, and fully protected this seconds after GWH's semi-protection (which I did not see) per a request at WP:RFPP. My rationale for full protection rather than semi-protection is here, but I have no problem if another admin wishes to downgrade. I also reverted to the last revision before this month-long edit war started. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I believe that page is going to be featured on the next episode of "When Adolescents Attack", on FOX. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not make derogatory remarks about editors without accounts, please. Looking at this diff, it appears that the multiple undoes by 24.44.119.71 (talk · contribs) are merely an inefficient attempt to revert to a version that agrees (in all but a couple of the dates) with the source cited. Uncle G (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, that appears to be what he primarily does. See this. Netalarm^talk 03:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the night, but will reiterate that I have no problem if another admin decides to change the protection level, protection duration, or the version protected (not trying to be presumptuous, just heading off drama). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a LaRouche Sock On my Talk Page

Will some one administer a proper block? Cirt and I were having our normal NPOV sparring match this afternoon and we agree to have Will Beback give an informal 3rd opinion and he accepts. I log off For an hour or two now got a sock on my page. Block and check-user if necessary please.

Inviting Will Beback is guaranteed to produce the following result: because Rick Ross is a critic of Lyndon LaRouche, Will Beback will advise a course of action that will make the Rick Ross bio as flattering as possible, and remove any information that would call his expertise into question. [[User:Dismal Science|Dismal Science]] ([[User talk:Dismal Science|talk]]) 8:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Dismal Science (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I could speculate which one of our indef blocked LaRouche socks that was, but there's no point. They're now indeff'ed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Defer to judgment of admin Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work I didnt have time to use the{{subst:ANI-notice}} on his talkpage The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:83.177.142.170 and Category:Hungarian inventions

83.177.142.170 (talk · contribs) is on a spree (evidently not their first) tagging anything and everything, no matter how tenuous as a Hungarian invention. I suggest the Clueiron, a clearly British invention. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted them and WookieInHeat has warned the IP. Try WP:AIV if this restarts The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time I did that I was sent off with a flea in my ear, as it was a content dispute rather than vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time mention in the report the extent to which the user is adding this claim, and that they're blatant hoaxes (which is vandalism). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is an invention by a Hungarian-born inventor who spends their adult life in the US a Hungarian or American invention? That's the crux of many of these categorizations. It's "obvious" that they're POV-pushing and trolling, but according to the almighty policy, we're back to Randy's fighting skeletons. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing resolved tag as this still appears to be an issue. Does anyone have any sources to either confirm or refute whether any of these changes are accurate or POV pushing?  7  03:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Many of "Hungary's inventions" were in fields of 19th-20th century engineering that I'm pretty familiar with (and Romania has similar problems, not to mention the current Coanda-1910 furpile). The issue is less about sourcing, more about interpretation of policy. The most problematic ones are in groups, with several examples of each:

• If a Hungarian expatriate in (usually) the USA lives there most of their life and invents something (Lunar Rover Vehicle) in the USA, is that Hungarian or American?
• If a Hungarian "invention" pre-dates a similar British invention (Jendrassik Cs-1 turboprop engine) by a couple of years, except that it doesn't work, than is that invention Hungarian or British? In this case, the British surely (by logical consistency) invented either the jet engine or the turboprop, but not both. Britain is generally considered to have had the jet engine idea first, but were beaten to flight by the Germans. The turboprop concept was in Hungary early on, but again they were beaten to actual flight.
• If a Hungarian emigre, Leó Szilárd, lying in a wartime British bathtub, has the conceptual idea behind the atomic bomb, does this mean that Nuclear reactor technology (several vast steps down the chain of invention) warrants description as such?
• Then there's the regular problem of, "Where the hell is Trieste this week?"

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Category is bogus. I suggest CFD. Also the article Gömböc has an awful lot of spam. Bah. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The category is far from bogus, the only question is over its members. Although many people in "the West" tend to regard both countries as a suburb of Elbonia, that's quite unfair and both had 19th-20th century engineering traditions just as capable of innovation as anywhere else. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at User talk:Dougweller

Possible legal threat at [88] by a probable IP hopping sock [89], [90]? Heiro 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not a legal threat, saying that allegations have been overturned by law courts is not a threat and describing the edits as slanderous is opinion (and not one that is apparently shared) only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Rite on, wasnt sure where the line was, and Doug seems to be offline presently. Heiro 22:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• "it is slanderous" seems rather legalthreatish. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "I'm going to sue you" is a legal threat. "This is a false accusation" is somewhat less so. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Indeed. Describing something as "slanderous" isn't an opinion, it has a strict legal definition: either it's true or it's not. It seems more like an accusation, and combined with the mention of courts, gives the impression that there's a legal threat in there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I feel that someone as experience as Dougweller will not be concerned - and in the doubt of whether it was intended as a chilling effect I think we can leave it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You should all swing by the BLP Noticeboard more often. ☺ See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive94#Motsoko Pheko for starters. Then see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Motsoko Pheko. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just found this thread. I've replied to the IP, and it certainly isn't going to chill me in any way, but I appreciate Hiero's report particularly as it was in the middle of the night my time so I wasn't around. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, looked a little peculiar, and surmised you were away for the night, figured I would err on the side of caution. Heiro 06:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Resp to UncleG; I tend to try and restrict my pontificating to as few boards as possible - just part of my efforts to make this place more welcoming to editors... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Traintracksfourty

Resolved

 – User indef blocked, diff oversighted. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Posting of homophobic incitement to murder on own talk page--Charles (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Link to diff here. Ishdarian|lol^wut 07:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User is indef blocked by Materialscientist, I've requested oversight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs have been oversighted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Protector of Wiki

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by PeterSymonds → ROUX ₪ 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved}} No admin action required. However: POW, tone it down - your reply to Michael Hardy was inappropriate, and comments like that are likely to result in a trip to WP:WQA. (And on a personal note: can you start referring to admins as either "admins" or "sysops"? "Mods" is just wrong). TFOWR 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

{{unresolved}} Still an issue --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen in his notice at the top of his talk page, Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs) migrated to the English Wikipedia only a month ago, after being blocked indefinitely from the Simple English Wikipedia for incivility (contribs log). Since September 10 this year, he has (mostly) been writing ALL CAPS in his edit summaries. He responded by telling that he will "[...]try to tone down his comments where possible", but yet after that he simply continues using all caps. He has attemped to spam his own talk page by putting a 1000 px large smiley image (reverted). Today, he wrote in an edit summary that Alpha Quadrant is rude. Only two days ago, he received an only warning for posting this comment. As can be seen in his block log at enwp, he has already been blocked one time, for posting this comment. I think all of this are cases of either disruptive editing, intentioned trolling, or he simply has massive temperament problems.

I honestly think at least a(nother) block is in order. HeyMid (contributions) 08:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: PoW was not the user who initially added the smiley face — see 1 and 2. However, PoW did increase the smiley face image to 1000px — see 3. It seems to me that he does not take criticism and advices seriously; is this a case of WP:Gaming the system? Wikipedia is not a playhouse. HeyMid (contributions) 09:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties/admins may also want to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer#User:Protector of Wiki. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer request and some of general demeanour reminds of the "SMASH ALL VANDALS MUST DIE DIE DIE"-type vandal fighters they have sometimes around here. WP:AGF and WP:CIR are all very well, but perhaps PoW needs to take the initiative a little less easily and gel a bit more around here? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe PoW needs encouragement to be a little more collaborative and a little less abrasive, but I honestly don't see that they've done anything actually disruptive. The ALLCAPS is mildly irritating, but it does not appear to me to be hurting anything. Same goes for the ginormous smiley face. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"not your talk page! not rude at all! you are the one being rude!" It does seem a lot less "rude" without ALLCAPS, doesn't it? Edit summaries should be no exception: type like every other editor when composing them. He can "shout" in lowercase all day, and it's far less disruptive. It's one keystroke... Doc9871 (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I just don't see the big deal. This is not worth sanctioning someone over. Reyk _YO! 09:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If that were the only issue sure, but users banned on other projects should be on a very short leash and should not engage in behaviour that winds other users up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal with just turning capslock off. That said: I'm quite surprised to see this up now, because he actually seems to be making a decent effort at being, well, tolerable. (Despite the "well, I'm still not going to play nicely" edit summaries.) Take for example, the AfD notification on his talk. I was suitably impressed by his response to it. To be honest, I think that he does have good intentions. This community attracts all kinds of temperaments who are just trying to help, and the most harmful of these aren't the kind like him. He doesn't need another block at this point. Just as long as he can start making less drama, he'll be a good counterbalance. sonia♫ 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty well sums up my impressions of this user. Reyk _YO! 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sonia as well. In his defense, PoW was bitten by an admin no less before his arse comment. I've reviewed the article in question and found that PoW was clearly correct while Michael Hardy violated numerous policies in his defense of the article. Nevertheless, I'm troubled by PoW's ongoing defiance of all requests to tone down his/her behavior. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread is completely unnecessary. So he uses some caps, which I admit are annoying, but not block worthy. I see no reason for a block; agree with Sonia. Tommy! 12:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/Heymid

"Mod" lesson not learned — see this diff. Note that I now have warned this user about this concern, hoping that he becomes/is aware of this concern. It turned out to be relatively pointless; he responded by refactoring the headline and saying that "Mods are mods" (the opposite). He apparently believed I wanted him blocked (which was not the case).

I'd like to point out that his constructive comments (and mainspace edits; excluding his "shouty" edit summaries and comments) suggest that he may have good intentions of being an active user at Wikipedia. He is still a relatively new user though; he has been at the Simple Wikipedia only since July 19, 2010, as can be seen in his prev contributions log. He probably just needs more time and experience. I don't know. HeyMid (contributions) 08:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, "mods" is just a personal peeve of mine - if POW, or anyone, really wants to call admins "mods" there's nothing to prevent POW doing that. The real concern is civility, but that's not - at this point - a concern for ANI. TFOWR 08:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

He has also asked User:Armbrust questions about what he would do if he were a "mod" on his RfA; this is just a misnomer though: he's not breaking any policies, it's just mildly annoying that he's using an incorrect term. This doesn't really have any further relevance to a now-resolved ANI thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Maybe he needs a mentor? HeyMid (contributions) 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried that informally on his talk page and finally gave up. He may have taken a few of my suggestions, but it's clear that he's not budging on the remaining issues. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually while on the topic of questions at Armbrust's RfA; it seems that PoW essentially asking for a second opinion on a personal attack for which he was blocked previously, and suggesting that a sysop making the same comment would have been treated differently. Does this strike anyone else as rather WP:POINTy and possibly forum shopping? It's particularly disruptive that the user has chosen to add such questions to a user's RfA for no apparent reason other than to make a WP:POINT, imo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  It is definitely a point issue that he is having. As for his previous block, is amusing he still thinks its not appropriate now that another user is complaining about some of the issues he was blocked for. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  For completeness, I will mention that he did the same thing at Ron Ritzman's recent RFA. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, it seems like he is trying to use WP:ADMINSHOP to prove that "mods" are kinder to each other than to "commoners". Buggie111 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalking?

It would appear from his talk page that Clementina (talk · contribs) is growing uncomfortable with Protector of Wiki following her around. I only noticed this following his approval (again, all caps edit summary) of an article she nominated at T:TDYK. This is slightly worrying. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears that POW has read this thread — see this diff. HeyMid (contributions) 07:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User warned and directed to WP:HOUND. Let's try not to use "stalk"... T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she has complained about being uncomfortable about his hounding on IRC to me as has Griffinofwales, however I haven't heard that he kept hounding griffin since I warned him. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ALL CAPS

User:Protector of Wiki has continuously used ALL CAPS in all of his edit summaries. He has also used exclusively, the Only Warning template when a new editor vandalizes or makes a inappropriate page along with a ALL CAPS edit summary. Eight editors, User:X!, User:UncleDouggie, User:Lothar von Richthofen, User:Airplaneman, User:Heymid, User:Sonia, User:Trusilver, and myself User:Alpha Quadrant have asked him to stop using ALL CAPS, as it is considered shouting and biting newcomers and is therefore disruptive. Protector of Wiki has told us that he wishes to emphasize by using all caps. We have suggested using bold text instead, as it is not considered shouting. However he continues to use all caps as well as the only warning template. According to this he has been blocked from Simple Wikipedia for incivility and also recently blocked here for 72 hours for incivility block log. Can someone else please try and talk to this user? Thanks --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I give up. That basically illustrates that he's not willing to cooperate with little things like fixing "mods" or capslock, and that he's being pointy. My tendency to err on the side of good faith only goes so far. sonia♫ 00:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think that his behavior is worthy of a block at this time. He's going to either get his act together or land in more hot water soon enough that will make the course of action clear. I am impressed with his content edits and logic in article discussions. He has been a benefit to the project, but at the cost of some upset editors. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Frankly, POW can call sysops "Purple monkey dishwashers" if they so choose, and so long as their choice of language doesn't fall foul of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA it's not an issue (it irks me, but that's more because it's just incorrect). My personal view is that there are behavioural issues here, and that sooner or later POW is going to cease to be an editor here. But we have in no way reached that point yet. ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARIES are annoying, and I'd hope POW stops it, but it's hardly an ANI issue. I'd suggest WP:WQA, maybe, but until there's a continuing pattern of behavioural issues this isn't an ANI issue. TFOWR 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a point however where his all caps etc becomes pointy editing which is blockable. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Using inappropriate warnings can also be blockable if he really refuses to stop. —Soap— 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just found this. Buggie111 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How many people in this day and age really don't know that ALL CAPS on the interwebz is offensive and uncivil? The diff posted by Buggie111 shows me that this is a highly problematic editor who either doesn't "get it", or is a deliberate troll. The account name itself implies a POV warrior or battleground mentality. POW ought to either be blocked or at least must agree to mentorship. The ALL CAPS garbage and the disruptive editing needs to stop now. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely. I'm not quite sure what the game is here; he clearly takes some pleasure in the disruption. His talk page is littered with warnings about inappropriate behaviour. I glanced at his recent contributions and the hounding of certain editors and the RfA edits are clearly a concern that PoW doesn't get. Hopefully a break will do him good, but I'm fairly convinced further warnings are a waste of our time. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think our patience has been tested enough - his recent activity (shunning warnings, etc, abrasive tone) has been on the verge of trolling. His calling admins 'mods' has also been irritating, as is his referral to editors as 'commoners' (Wikipedia is not a social hierarchy), the worst part is how he refuses all comments, and continues to use these terms, eg. "Yikes! Three MODS and 2 COMMONERS are hounding me! ". Connormah (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, he sonds like a funny guy, but I think he was probably trolling and disregarding the standard for wiki behavior, so if he got blocked, that was probably the RIGHT thing to do. :-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I applaud PeterSymonds for putting himself out there and making the call on this. It was becoming increasingly obvious that POW was making this into his own little game. He knew that by warning him, others were upset with a behavior, so he continued that behavior just to frustrate others. Glad that this disruptive behavior has been capped with this block. either way (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good block, POINTy disruption and general unwillingness to edit collegially. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good block; I was one of several users who attempted to reason with the user and ask him to stop misusing terminology and typing in capitals, and the response was continued WP:POINTy disruption. It's apparent that the user is doing more damage than good. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Petersymonds, you have my applause. This person has been nothing but trouble the past few weeks. I echo all the comments above. Buggie111 (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I fully endorse PeterSymonds' action, mainly due to his recent (and current) behavior. Also, please note that PoW's talk page access has now been revoked. HeyMid (contributions) 10:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - It also appears Protector of Wiki still doesn't get it. He still thinks that he is a "victim of conspiracy". --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, it seems that no-one has opposed this block. HeyMid (contributions) 14:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ban discussion

I have had little in the way of interaction with this editor, but I'd like to call in his defense at least a discussion of the matter to confirm his indef-blocking and make it more official whether or not he is a net benefit (loss?) to the encyclopedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The user is indef blocked, not banned, which is completely different. I also don't see such a ban happening just so soon after his indef block. Maybe if they start socking to evade their ban, continue their abuse, but not before.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not ban, but block. HeyMid (contributions) 14:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of sanctions at WP:GS/BI

The area of the British Isles naming dispute is under probation as per WP:GS/BI. After numerous attempts, over a period of months, to get the message to User:Triton Rocker[91] (who is serving a topic banned from making edits in this topic area) and User:LevenBoy[92] (currently blocked for the second time for breaches of WP:CIVIL in the topic area) vis-a-vis appropriate conduct. For this reason I have decided to issue a six month civility parole (beginning at the time of their return form their current blocks) to both editors. I am taking this here for outside review.

For further reference this SSPI report alleging tat LevenBoy and Triton Rocker are socks [93]- shows a high level of 'editing in concert' to make a point by these two editors as do their posts to my page[94][95]. I believe there is a WP:TAG/WP:NINJA issue here.

In the last few weeks two long term sock-puppeteers have popped up once more. First User:Aatomic1 [96] and in the last few days User:The Maiden City[97]. These users are bringing there disruption from areas covered by 'The Troubles' RfAr resolutions to the British Isles naming dispute topic. Other sock-puppeteers such as User:MidnightBlueMan (aka User:Mister Flash[98]) have been working in this topic area already. These users are both encouraging and involving themselves in disruption of both enforcement threads and the topic in general. In the light of this higher level of disruption I believe we need to adjust our remedies to deescalate this situation.

Therefore I am bringing this here as I wish to add the issuing of 3 lesser editing restrictions to the current probation system, and to add a full topic ban to the list of remedies at WP:GS/BI. The lesser restriction are as follows:

1. Civility Parole: a strict enforcement of WP:TPG, WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS.
2. Interaction bans: editors are banned from editing with, reverting (in any way), commenting upon or to, or in any other way interacting with a defined other user or users.
3. Revert parole: editors are restricted formally to 1RR in relation to all Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics - with the exception of obvious vandalism and reverts of proven banned users.

All to be enforced by escalating blocks. (eg. 24 hours, 48 hours, 5 days, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year/indef) I'm suggesting we add these as discretionary sanctions for use before we jump to topic bans in the hope that said users will adjust their behaviour. I have already informed the patrolling admin, User:TFOWR[99], of this and they fully support these sanctions[100][101].

Also I'm suggesting we add "TB02: Topic banned from editing in naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, the British Isles naming topics widely construed. Banned from commenting upon or otherwise discussing this topic."

Finally I'm also suggesting we add time limits to all current and future restrictions. Triton Rockers current ban has no duration and is to best of my knowledge indefinite. I'd suggest we add 6 and 12 month periods to all restrictions and then go to indefinite if necessary.--Cailil ^talk 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

wording and time limits

• Strongly oppose time limits as these are a constant source of complication in these schemes; simpler to deal with restrictions which are explicitly lifted. What an admin can do, if he/she elects, is: spell out that in the event that he/she is not willing, able, or available to deal with an appeal, if x, y and z happens for t period of time, then that can be considered as that admin's approval for sanction to be lifted (eg; "If I'm not willing, able, or available to deal with an appeal of this sanction, then: I will approve for this sanction to be lifted if you do not violate your topic ban for six consecutive months. You may ask any uninvolved admin to lift this on my behalf in such circumstances."). The rest is ok. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, like TFOWR, I'm open to tweaking this. If time limits are a complication I'd be happy to remove them. In that event LB and TR would be placed on civility parole until lifted, and TR is serving TB01 until it is lifted--Cailil ^talk 09:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also noting that the imposing admin's approval is all that is required for lifting the restrictions (community consensus only req if such approval does not exist). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Ncmv - I'll add that text when this is closed--Cailil ^talk 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) though you won't need to add that bit as it was part of the original probation terms I drafted/enacted; those details would still apply to these. What needs to be worked on + drafted, well-before this is closed, is what the log will say - and others need to have an idea of this. (Eg; the first line in the log says that TBs may be imposed on any user who add/removes, or editwars over x. So what are the circumstances upon which these other sanctions may be imposed? Disruption?) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Right and I like how you've organized and phrased it[102]. I'd suggest that we should have a "how to" for TB02, so that it should be used if disruption persists after other remedies (ie CP01, TB01, TB03, IB01) have failed to remedy the issue. Otherwise I think the new layout is clear and pretty self explanatory--Cailil ^talk 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Realizing I had actually not answered you. yes the lesser remedies should be used for specific disruption ie 1RR applied after multiple warnings to stop (what ever disruptive reverting relating to the topic - case specific) and a block related to this are ignored; civility parole for persistent incivility in edit-summaries comments or in arenas related to the topic (ie talk pages the BISE board, enforcement threads etc) after multiple warnings to stop and a block related to this are ignored; interaction bans to be imposed if hounding users or persistent incivility occurs or is evident over a prolonged period and has not improved.
TB01 and TB03 seem pretty self explanatory. If disruptive edits (ie addition of OR, misleading links, other disruption) and edit-warring, over names/titles/etc, to articles persist after a series of warnings and blocks and lesser remedies are not appropriate (or have failed to ameliorate the situation) TB03 should be used. If only edit-warring persists or is an issue TB01 should be applied.
If after either TB01 or TB03 are applied and incivility persists, and continues after further warnings and blocks are ignored then TB02 should be used. TB02 could be used if appropriate after a series or combination of lesser remedies (ie 1RR and CP01) have failed to de-escalate teh problem. But, as above, TB02 should only be a last resort--Cailil ^talk 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent)A more concise phrasing might be:

Topic bans should be used to prevent disruption where lesser remedies are inappropriate, ineffective, or have failed to ameliorate the situation. TB02 should be used only after either a series of lesser editing restrictions, or limited topic bans (TB01 or TB03) have failed to ameliorate the situation.
Lesser restrictions should be applied to remedy disruption, as appropriate, after a series of warnings and blocks have failed to de-escalate the situation.

--Cailil ^talk 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments re civility paroles

• In agreement with recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• In full agreement. --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. (For the record, Cailil had discussed this with me (section: "Time to adjust the sanctions") beforehand). I note Ncmvocalist's comment re: time limits, and am open to "tweaks" in that regard. I appreciate that time limits may cause procedural issues; however, I also quite like the idea, as indefinite limits seem - to me - to be a little excessive. TFOWR 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed and very much needed. Thanks for the clear and firm intervention - hopefully it will continue to assist a more thoughtful and intelligent approach to BI-related issues, which does appear to be developing sans the recent activity from the listed editors. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe the complaining admin could show us some diffs. I've been watching this from the sidelines. It seems that the complaining admin took exception to some reasonable comments on his talk page by LevenBoy. Together with other editors he has then been engaging in what appears to be a witch-hunt against LB and TR, as have others by raising SPIs, blocking these users, including a talk page block so LB can't even respond to this accusation. This is an extension of the battle between Irish nationalists and others on Wikipedia, where one party is trying to silence the other by this sort of thing. The complaining admin should recuse himself from this since he is from Ireland. LemonMonday Talk 12:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  The matter of these restrictions was raised and agreed at the last Triton Rocker ANi- and will be applied to any editor from any 'side' who repeatedly breaches WP:CIVIL.
  Ignoring the spurious accusation of collusion (a breach of WP:AGF on its own) for the moment, by conflating a person's country with their reasons for editing LemonMonday, your comment is in breach of WP:AGF. Basing an assumption of bad faith on an editor's race/gender/religion is not acceptable behaviour and I'm giving you the opportunity to redact that remark before the matter is escalated--Cailil ^talk 16:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Well I resent your intimation that my suggestion of recusal on your part is in any way connected with race/gender/religion. It is a slur against my character of the most serious kind and I urge you to immediately withdraw it or I may have to escalate it. Think of it like this; if there's a rugby match between Ireland and England the referee would under no circumstances come from Ireland. If he did, and someone complained about it, they would not be admonished in the style of your astonishing accusation. Think of this whole issue as a kind of rugby match; it's certainly a conflict, so someone who identifies with one side of the conflict, however indirectly - as in your case - has no place to be refereeing it. LemonMonday Talk 17:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  This is not a rugby match, but if it were it would be one with multiple participating referees and 807 more watching from the sidelines. Every decision Cailil makes is visible; every block is subject to review if {{unblock}} is requested - and every review has been upheld by other admins. If this were a rugby match it would be unlike any I have ever seen.

  Nor is this a conflict or a democracy, where decisions are made based on strength of numbers. It is a consensus-based process. The apparent inability to understand this is tiresome, and is precisely why Cailil has, I believe, been forced to raise this latest proprosal. Until editors - yourself included, LemonMonday - understand that shouting loudly about other editors' nationality is absolutely not going to work, this process will be bogged down. I refuse to let that happen.

  Too many editors at WT:BISE believe that by shouting, socking, complaining, repeating the same irrelevancies, attacking, or otherwise playing in a team of one - too many editors are wasting too much time. It's pissed off the community, it's pissed off too many admins, and it's pissed off me. Well, here's where the push-back happens. Here's where things get put back on track. Here's where the idiots who want to piss about learn that their silly little games are over, and they need to find somewhere else to play. TFOWR 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  I couldn't have said it better TFOWR. LM this your last opportunity to redact rhetoric conflating nationality and bad faith. Further off-topic or otherwise inappropriate use of the talkspace will be prevented--Cailil ^talk 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  A quick way to see some examples would be to go through the history of WT:BISE - any edit I've made with the word "snip" in the edit summary will show an example of civil or NPA problems. TFOWR 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Here's one recent example. I've chosen one from an editor who's now indef'd as a sock, though obviously this proposal is intended to cover all current editors, not blocked socks. TFOWR 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I also agreed with this and appreciate the effort made by Caili and TFOW in this area. Bjmullan (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments re expanded sanctions

• In agreement with recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• In full agreement. The community needs to recognize the disruptive editors and take firm action, and allow editors wishing to collaborate to get on with it. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed (with my caveat, above). TFOWR 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As ever, easy and simplistic notions of what civility and good wiki-behaviour is and is not, are being used as a stick with which to tactically eliminate opposition in a highly contentious area of dispute in a very dubious and little watched side-venue, the conduct of which should have gone to arbitration long ago. Anyone who claims that BISE produces legitimate examples of cluefull CONSENSUS wrt to things like NPOV needs to have a serious word with themselves. Civility is not just about not being rude or edit warring, it is about preventing gaming, tendentious editing, and systematic POV-pushing, and generally not being an uber-tactical rules savvy WP:DICK. Unless or until there is some evidence that that page and this ongoing and never-ending dispute is being oversighted with all of that in mind, and topic bans are actually being applied to those who are doing the real harm to the pedia while maybe not being so dumb as to say boo to a goose or break 3RR, then this 'push back' should absolutely not be tolerated as a meaningfull act. Maybe we should just get BISE and all of it's obsessive participants to arbcom already. It is high time that the people who are paid to consider all behaviours against all policies, not just the easy to enforce ones, got involved. I have stayed away from BISE for a while, but I can guarantee if I looked in right now, I would be able to pick at least five classic unactioned examples of WP:TE in the last week or two, and I am not talking about the low-hanging fruit from the naughty kids, I am talking about the serious stuff, the stuff that actually makes this pedia a wholly non-neutral and agenda pushing vehicle for what can only be described as a concerted exercise in social engineering. Infact, shit, I will probably get one of these topic bans myself for daring to utter these words, and I am just an observer to these edits, that's how back to front this entire dispute is getting. MickMacNee (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you have 5 examples of tendentiousness show me please (I'm serious). But please remember this and other enforcement threads are not a soapbox--Cailil ^talk 13:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Wikipedia is plenty big enough for troublesome editors to find outlets for their talent away from areas where it has been shown that their editing is problematic. The alternative is to completely exclude them from the project. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. My only concern is that blocked/ban editors need to be made fully aware of what restriction are placed on them and they need to acknowledge that they understand it. I know that in the past TR has pleaded ignorance when he did something wrong. Bjmullan (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Compaint(repost)

Section of text that was archived before responses could be posted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Moved here from AN - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Hi, I would like a proper investigation to be done(though I don't think it's likely to happen given my past experiences with this site)as the user Higgys is accused of being associated with a past account I had, Kagome_85. This account, Higgys, had nothing to do with me and was in fact made by another user which no investigation was done on this particular user, and this user is Blackmagic1234, who made a new account Mousykit but is no longer using it. The account Higgys was made to harass another account I had, after I stopped using the Kagome_85 account and made a new acount, Kagome_77, which the user Higgys harassed me on. I believed that you could make a new account as long as you did not use the old accounts, which is what I was doing. The user Higgys did accuse me on my Kagome_77 account of vandalizing the Kathleen article, which I had done in the past, and the Ruby Gloom article, which I never vandalized. I would like the accusation of the account Higgys being associated with my account Kagome_85 to be removed, as it was NOT an account of mine, and it was used to harass me with, so why would I make an account just to harass myself with? And the only reason I am pointing out about Blackmagic1234 and his new account Mousykit being Higgys is that what I said in the Kathleen article this user would only know, as at the time this user was someone I knew in person and thought was my friend, and the fact that I would randomly get a message one day on the account Kagome_77 that I was using by the user Higgys saying I made vandalism edits to the Kathleen article(which I had made in the past), however, I do not vandalize anymore, sice I am now more mature and not as stupid. So please remove the sockpuppet accusation of me being associated with Higgys since I'm not and I know probably many people would say they aren't associated with any accounts that vandalize but I'm making a different point: I'm admitting to the fact that I had used OTHER accounts to vandalize, however Higgys was not an account of mine, it was an account created by another user in order to harass me with. 142.177.43.186 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Interesting how you choose to not insult people here, as you did me on my talk page, when I told you I got CU confirmation the account was created by you. It isn't just IPs CU's look at, it's also behavior, user-agents(your internet browser), editing times(when you log on and start editing), and so on. Also, you are wrong on our policy regarding alternate accounts. If your prior account was blocked, and you created this new account to get around said block, then that is block evasion. If you do not wish to be blocked, the proper course of action is never to evade, but to request unblocking on your original account. Lastly, the CU confirmation did not use any old accounts for the link, but one you recently created. Mousey2010 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), to post a harassing message on your ex's new account's talk page(that they used to try and get away from you) over and over and over again(this time with Mousey). It linked the Mousey account with your Higgys account. No other past accounts were compared. It is quite obvious Mousey was yours.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:55, 27 September 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.

Unarchiving this because no admins commented on the issue. Requesting comment and third opinion/etc.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. An indeffed blocked user who is known to sock comes here under an IP and is complaining that a disruptive account, which is also blocked, is misidentified as one of his socks? And we should care because...? --Jayron32 04:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe them either, but WP:AGF and all. Perhaps I'm just giving faith where none is due.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if I believe them, I don't care. We aren't in the business of making sure his list of assumed socks is correct. Lets take it that he's right. The Higgys account should be blocked. It is. His account should be blocked. It is. There's no point in wasting the effort necessary to make sure that the association is literally correct at this point. So let him be right. It doesn't make any difference. --Jayron32 04:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain a bit more. If the Higgys account wasn't already abusive and disruptive, it may be worth looking into unblocking it. But given that it isn't going to be unblocked even if it wasn't a sock of the OP, what's the point? Still, don't just take my word on this. See what others think. --Jayron32 06:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're spot on. Actionable issues can and should be raised at ANI--there's nothing the Wikipedia community cares about here. Jclemens (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a reason it was archived without comment/action ... because it's nothing that needed action in this forum. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

IP repeatedly adding copyrighted info

119.74.142.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added copy-pasted information from http://www.pkms.org/aboutus.htm to Singapore Malay National Organisation. From the article history I assume they are the secretary of this organisation as two other users - PKMS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mohd Nazem Suki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did the same. I've warned them twice today and advised them that they can donate it but they've reinserted it again. Any ideas what to do? Smartse (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. We start with a brief block of the IP. If it expands to multiple IPs, we semi-protect the article. I've blocked the IP and am watchlisting the article. We'll see where it goes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Smartse (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

False accusations

After I tried to redirect Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album), User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz undid the redirect and said my edit summary was "misleading." I then nominated the article for deletion with a rationale of "no sources found except Allmusic," and his response was to call me out for a "disruptive nomination" and that I didn't have a valid reasoning. This is not the first time he's falsely accused me of bad faith; when I redirected the Big Time Rush discography, he undid my redirect at least twice and said that I needed to discuss it — and when I told him that I didn't feel a need for discussion because it was a 100% duplicate of the parent article, I got the silent treatment. What's more, I withdrew Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reggie_Young and closed it, and he reverted my closure as "inappropriate" for no reason.

It's clear that Hullaballoo has some sort of grudge against me, and is insanely dismissive when I try to ask him why he keeps making such asinine accusations. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other instances of HW and you disagreeing on articles on similar subjects? I am just trying to see if there is any pattern, and not prejudging any reply, and seeing if a voluntary interaction ban might be an agreeable solution? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, just the Marty Stuart album, Big Time Rush discography and Reggie Young. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to drop an ANI notice on them - I would like to hear their side of the story, in case an agreement to not get into each others hair will resolve this. If there are other issues or a voluntary arrangement is impossible, then I suppose the community might have to discuss how to resolve it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how else I can get through to him; he reverts or ignores me every time I try to say something on his talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have dropped the notice on them. Let us see what happens. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per these comments between HW and me, I think we should wait to see what responses there are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen such a bizarre, and slightly Byzantine, attempt to game the system as this complaint. TPH has been posting uncivil, borderline profane tirades (other users have recently described similar TPH comments as "tantrums") to my talk page and elsewhere, for the last week or so, on most occasions where we're on opposite sides in editing disputes. As is the acceted practice of many experienced editors, I generally ignore such comments, especially when they ask for nothing more than the same information I already set out in the edit summaries, comments, discussions, or whatever that such posts respond to. No editor in this project has an obligation to respond to comments like "What the hell is your problem?", "answer the damn question," or "WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?!" (caps in original).

In the immediate dispute, TPH responded to statements I made in opposition to an AFD he started by making an uncivil post to my talk page (which I deleted) and striking my post from the AFD with the inflammatory comment Struck out as blatantly false accusations of bad faith. Bawwwwwwwww. [103] TPH then vandalized the article involved, removing the wikilink to the page on the music label involved, apparently to buttress his spurious claim that the label was not notable. (I had recently corrected the link, which had earlier pointed to a dab page rather than directly to the label's page.) I reverted TPH's edits. It might well have been better for me to have left TPH's inflammatory comment in place, but in the moment I viewed it as the sort of pure vandalism that I'd seen removed from other AFD discussions.

TPH continued to make uncivil posts to my take page, but continued to ignore the substantive issues in the underlying dispute, so my response did not change. Finally, TPH posted his complaint here. He then placed an ANI notice on my talk page, but immediately removed it, replacing it with what appeared to be an apology for his earlier posts, characterizing them as his being bitchy. [104]

TPH then returned to ANI, continuing to press his complaints, rather disingenuously avoiding mentioning his apparent apology and his removal of the ANI notice from my talk page. Having left the impression on my talk page that he was letting most of the conflict drop, he simultaneously complained here that I was not engaging in the conflict. I've never seen anything like this in WP dispute resolution, whether in complaints from experienced or inexperienced users.

With regard to the particular matters TPH raises:

• My comments in the Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album) AFD are self-explanatory, and their accuracy is easily verified. As is made even clearer from other users' comments in the AFD, TPH's claims that no sources could be located were false. In particular, TPH's claim that AllMusic provides only "a one-sentence summary" is conspicuously untrue [105]. It's also rather curious that TPH applies a rather different deletion standard when it comes to other articles; in the current AFD for "Hello Mannequin," he argues that the subject is notable because it was "released by a notable act on a blue link label,"[106] precisely the standard he rejects here.

• The Reggie Young AFD is a simple matter. TPH initially performed a substantive AFD close on an AFD which he initiated (and in which I participated), with a dubious rationale that did not accurately reflect consensus. After my objection, he reclosed it as a simple withdrawn-by-nominator, which addressed my objection.

• The Big Time Rush discography question is equally simple. The exact resolution of the matter is not terribly important, but a collaborative project is always better served in cases like this when such matters are resolved by discussions with the editors actively working on the articles, rather than by a drive-by editor who pronounces "Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer."[107] Let them decide whether the discography should be merged, of if similar content be removed from the artist article.

TPH's account of our interactions is grossly incomplete and misleading. As I recall, the first time we crossed swords was in [Atlantic Records discography RFD], where multiple users characterized TPH's actions as inappropriate/disruptive, a theme that is hardly unique to me. In more recent disputes, I was one of several users who criticized TPH's edit warring, with misleading edit summaries, over a large set contested redirects.[108] In [recent AFD], I criticized TPH's apparently spurious claim that certain claims ogf notability could not be verified.

In fact, TPH's recent history regarding AFDs and redirects shows other clear incidences of dubious if not disruptive behavior. For example:

• TPH nominated Trey Bruce for deletion after removing the (imperfectly) sourced claim that Bruce had won a songwriting Emmy Award from the article; he avoided mentioning that claim in his nomination. His rationale was "doubt it won HIM an emmy,those don't go to songs." The claim was, of course, easy to verify, and there is at least one Emmy Award given annually to a songwriter for his/her song. TPH made no effort to edit responsibly on this point.

• TPH redirected Robb Royer to Bread (band), asserting the songwriter had no notability outside the band. In fact, as the relevant articles clearly state, Royer had won an Academy Award for Best Song.[109] This situation is particularly problematic; while TPH typically removes all backlinks to redirected articles (itself a practice of dubious value), he stopped removing such links to this article at about the point where he would have reached the relevant Academy Award article, an indication that he recognized the inaccuracy of his lack of notability claim but was unwilling to correct himself. Instead, he apparently opted not to remove backlinks, when removal would highlight the incorrectness of his action.

• Without discussion or notability tagging, TPH summarily redirected award-winning or award-nominated episodes of CSI, including "A Bullet Runs Through It" (Edgar Award nominee)[110]; "For Warrick" (Emmy nominee)[111]; "Gum Drops" (Emmy winner, inexplicably redirected to the candy rather than the relevant episode list) [112]; "Blood Drops" (WGA award nominee)[113]; and many more. TPH's s actions here and in similar redirection controversies also violated the Arbitration Committee's "Episodes and characters 2" decision, particularly with regard to the "Fait accompli" principle.[114]

TPH's talk page shows that, in the last few weeks, his editing practices have been criticized by a significant number of editors and administrators. For example:

• Sept 9; two editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for a grossly inappropriate edit summary [115]

• Sept 9; two different editors, including one admin, criticize TPH for uncivil/insulting edit summary(ies) [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Longhorns_.26_Londonbridges

• Sept 18; multiple editors criticize TPH for systematic redirects of a large set of articles without following procedures established by consensus [116]

• Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for misusing TWINKLE by leaving explanation field empty [117]

• Sept 18; editor criticizes TPH for edit warring without discussion over disputed redirects [118]

• Sept 18; two admins cite TPH for "multiple abuses of rollback and Twinkle in content disputes" and threaten him with loss of TW and rollback and possible blocking if abuses recur [119]

• Sept 19; admin warns TPH over disruptive editing, stating that "multiple editors are expressing concerns about your recent editing practices." TPH responds by commenting, inter alia, "Have we all gone stupid or something?" and "Being civil hasn't been any more effective, so what do I lose if I scream?" [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive_13#Concerns

• Sept 21; called out for referring to another editor as "Douchey McNitPick" in edit summaries [120]

• Sept 21; another editor criticizes TPH for "an enormous number" of uncivil comments in edit summaries [121]

[final segment being written, will appear very shortly] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• • It seems to me that things might be easier if you two didn't interact - not really too interested in laying blame on one party or the other. If TPH makes a CSD which HW thinks is wrong, why not assume that any other editor will notice and let them contest it and TPH agree not to go to HW's talkpage or engage with HW if they do oppose a CSD - let other parties see if there are any issues? If both parties voluntarily disengage then all these issues become moot, surely. Is this something the two of you can agree to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That simply limits me and leaves TPH free to continue the inappropriate editing I and other editors have been objecting to. Why not tell TPH to stop redirecting articles, nominating articles for deletion,and removing content and tags from articles, on the same principle that other editors will notice and deal with? That will stop most of the unpleasant interactions between TPH and far more editors than me? What you suggest isn't a compromise; it simply gives TPH what he wants, but doesn't deserve; while offering me something of no value. Not that individual interest should govern at the expense of the encyclopedia. Fundamentally, I don't see how the issue I raised which brought TPH here -- TPH's frequently making objectively false claims to promote article deletion -- would "become moot" if I were to stop bringing it up. It would just be a minor league, no, Little League "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I was considering it a matter between the two of you - certainly TPH initial post was only in regard with issues between the two of you. If you consider TPH's editing inappropriate then surely someone else will take up the issues? If TPH thinks your actions are inappropriate, then wouldn't other people be asking questions at your talkpage? My point is, whoever is right then surely the two of you cannot be the only one(s) who know it. Why not withdraw personally from interacting with each other and allow third parties to continue the discussions. Otherwise, unless you are happy to have a possible imposed interaction ban after a discussion here, why not certify a RfC together and see who the community believes to be working best to policy? ANI is not for dispute resolution, and it appears that the behavioural issues are based on disagreements over content in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument here in the slightest. When did "Let somebody else do the dirty work" become policy? One of the few things that's become absolutely clear to me about Wikipedia is that there are far too few editors working on important tasks compared to the workload involved, and that dropping one of those tasks means, most likely, that no one else will pick it up. I've just finished a sweep of several weeks through just one category of nonfree images, removing scores and scores of unlicensed, NFCC-violating images from BLPs. The majority had been sitting around for well over a year. I've purged hundreds and hundreds of "references" to Wikipedia mirrors, most of which were equally long-standing. The idea that the supply of editors available to clean up on-Wikipedia messes will always meet the demand for cleanup is Pollyannish at best. The idea that "surely" someone will come forward is hardly sound. Please note that I am the fourth editor in barely a week to find that editing disputes with TPH lead to a messy incident; he's particularly annoyed about me because when I take the point in a dispute, "my" position is more often supported by the community than "his." With policy and the community "on my side," to grossly simplify matters, it would be irresponsible for me to disengage. TPH shows no interest in disengaging; earlier today, he stuck a gratuitous and uncivil personal attack on into an AFD nomination.[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._G._Quintel}] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue, as presented here, is the interactions between the two of you - and I am trying to suggest a simple solution; stop interacting. I am generally familiar with both of you editors, and neither of you are regarded as noxious or otherwise poor contributors. As for the polciy which allows other people to take over regarding issues or concerns, I cannot recall its name but the principle is "It's a wiki; anyone can edit - no one is required to". I suggest that if you don't voluntarily agree to leave each other alone, then I will start one of those poll things here to see if there is consensus to stop the two of you interacting - same result, but it is taken out of your hands. OR. You could both agree to start an RfC over the issue in contention, and find who has consensus. Either way, this is ultimately a content dispute which ANI cannot resolve - except to stop it by keeping the two of you apart. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

After thinking upon this further, and because I don't like "crowd sourcing" bans, blocks and restrictions, I can also offer a couple more alternatives. To resolve the dispute, you could try asking for a third opinion on the matter, or to resolve the issues between you there is the option of asking for WP:Mediation, or even both. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Dear reader, this is a Wiki - if you have any suggestion or comment, even if it is the reverse of what I have been suggesting, please feel free to do so - it may be that your input is what resolves this issue. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Easy enough for me to keep from crossing paths with HW anymore; if we do, 3rd opinion. No need to drag this out any further, consider it resolved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib Merger

Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article had an RfC open up two and a half weeks ago and only one editor other than the proposer comment on it. Today, User:89.139.219.61 has closed and merged the article stating that "The result was merge" [122]. From his wording in the diff, it looks like he is also the one to propose the merger. I tried talking to him, but I mistakenly linked him to WP:AFM, not noticing that it is still a proposal. I have already reverted three times and I don't want to start an edit war. Am I mistaken in reverting him, or should the article not be merged? Ishdarian|lol^wut 14:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:89.139.219.61 notified. Ishdarian|lol^wut 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've undone the close on the talk page, reverted to the version before all the reverting, and protected for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the merge is undone, please remove the merged content from Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib. This is ludicrous to have a merge tag where the content has already been merged. I cannot do it because a bot reverts me. 89.139.219.61 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added {{main|Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib}}. It's an editorial decision, but it could make sense to have a summary in the Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Made an account, summarized as you proposed, but I'm still being reverted, very unfair. PPopiuuu (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Children and minors in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, should this even exist? Is there something more notable about child deaths in this particular conflict to any other conflict where civilian minors have been killed? Isn't this a POV-fork topic? Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib are notable for the significance and attention received, fair enough, but without sounding callous I question the validity of this article. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My initial concern was that it might be trying to push a viewpoint for one side or the other, but at least a quick look through it suggests that it is not a POV-fork, and that the information in the article is important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Bugs--appears NPOV and well sourced on initial examination. I think the summary style approach probably works best for this material. What administrative action is still needed here? Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:EN470Maryland inserting copyrighted material to Eastern National

New user, EN470Maryland (talk · contribs), inserting copyrighted material to Eastern National. User was reverted once 1 and inserted copyrighted material in again 2 after being warned 3. I also reverted 12.111.220.150 (talk · contribs) here and 71.185.143.18 (talk · contribs) here for inserting the copyrighted material prior to EN470Maryland. I warned them as well (which can see on their talk pages). Not sure not sure if the IPs are the same as the registered user or not. Will notify these users of this posting immediately after submitting this post. Akerans (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked EN470Maryland for copyright violations - I made no comment on the likely legal threat to your talkpage - and User:12.111.220.150 (whose address, per Whois, resolves to EASTERN NATIONAL !) for a month for same, with messages regarding WP policy on both copyvio's and conflict of interest. I blocked 71.18.143.18 for 48 hours only, since it could not be determined if there was a physical link to the subject matter (may have been a coffee shop or the editors home address, posting outside of work), although it is apparent that it is the same individual(s) in each case. Should the editor indicate that they are familiar with WP policy and will abide by it in future then there would be no need to seek my permission for unblocks. In the "legal notice" to Akerans by EN470Maryland, there was some comment about inaccuracies - these issues may be raised in any further communications. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments Deleted From Talk Page

BigK HeX has on several occasions deleted and/or hid my comments on the Libertarianism talk page. My comments, none of which violated the talk page guidelines...WP:TPO, were all in good faith but BigK HeX removed them because he does not agree with my viewpoint. The reasons he ostensibly gave were that my comments violate the "not a forum" rule and/or the "original research" rule. The "not a forum" rule was not relevant because my comments were all geared towards facilitating and focusing discussion. The "original research" rule was not relevant because I clearly specified that my original research was not intended to be used in the article itself but was merely to help editors visualize the topic.

Here's the list of instances...

• First he moved this diagram I created to my talk page... Scope of Government
• He then hid this comment...Request for Critical Thinking using the "not a forum" justification.
• I reposted the same comment with clarification as to its significance towards improving the article...Improving This Article. He moved both over to my talk page
• On my next comment...Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal...I specifically warned him not to remove my comment..."BigK HeX, or any other editors who disagree with my point, let me forewarn you that if you hide or move this section to my talk page...a sufficiently clear pattern will be established and I will definitely report the incident." He did not remove that comment.
• Today he deleted my comment Political Ideology Diagram with the justification that "original research" was not allowed.

Deleting somebody's comments just because you disagree with their viewpoint is highly disruptive and unacceptable behavior. It's exactly these types of cheap tactics which help put BlueRobe's "Incivility" in context. Just to be clear...my viewpoint is based on numerous reliable sources that indicate that libertarians do not advocate abolishing the government...scope of government. Xerographica (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been a lot of soapboxing on Talk:Libertarian which has been preventing progress on the article. Much of it has come from Xerographica. Most of it involves attempting to argue from personal opinion or from generalities without any sources whatsoever and as such it's been a big time waster for all concerned. I approve of BigK HeX's actions in this regard, none of the discussions he moved or hid had any chance whatsover of being productive discussions with respect to improving the article. Yworo (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX did not remove your comments because he disagrees with you but because they are soapboxing, which is disruptive editing. While you are entitled to your opinions, talk pages are not here for that. You should restrict yourself to discussion of improvements to the article using reliable sources and referring to WP policies/guidelines. I would recommend your being blocked in order to prevent this continuing disruption. See the [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Soapboxing discussion thread already set up about this. 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Constant accusations of "soapboxing" also help put BlueRobe's "incivility" in context. Regarding the accusations of "personal opinions" and "without any sources whatsoever"...those accusations are fundamentally untrue as I specifically mentioned that my viewpoint is based on numerous reliable sources...scope of government. --Xerographica (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am an involved editor at Libertarianism. Xerographica has been soapboxing consistently; examine the provided links for reliable sources supporting the material posted. This makes it difficult to respond to Xerographica's relevant editorial commentary; as, the effect of soapboxing a political article with personal political views is highly disruptive. While the page disruption is a problem, it is less of a problem if it is shutdown immediately after it starts. Removing soapboxing to User talk: was a good thing. It was the right thing to be done. Xerographica should refrain from presenting original research and personal political opinion on Talk:Libertarianism as it is disruptive. However, BigK HeX is too passionately involved in editing Libertarianism for the "seen to be done" component of "done and seen to be done." The editorial and content disagreements between BigK HeX and Xerographica are current, and, as such BigK HeX should let other editors remove OR and soapboxing to user talk pages when it occurs. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again with the "soapboxing" and "personal opinions". This is another perfect example of the context of BlueRobe's "incivility". My viewpoint is supported by numerous reliable sources...scope of government. Just because you disagree with my viewpoint is no justification whatsoever to delete my comments from the talk page. Xerographica (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The link you claim demonstrates reliable sources is no such thing. The lack of publisher, dates, and page ranges makes both the verification of reliability and verifiability of your quotes impossible. I do disagree with your editorial view. I have never removed any of your commentary from the page. My desired outcome here is that you cease posting in a disruptive manner; and, post your editorial comments about improving the article in a constructive manner. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if we had uninvolved editors still quickly clamping down on the WP:OR and soapboxing. However, in the absence of such, something has to be done about (what is, in my opinion) blatant disruption on the talkpage. In order to stick to productive lines of discussion, I'm willing to be that person, and, consequently am willing to have my actions subjected to the scrutiny. Aside from the roughly 5 editors that engage in the soapboxing on that talk page, I'm confident that everyone familiar with that situation would agree that the OR is adding loads of unnecessary trouble at an already-contentious area. BigK HeX (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's certainly big of you to offer to delete comments that you disagree with. Xerographica (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I stated my intention to delete soapboxing and blatant WP:OR. Being that I am putting myself up for scrutiny which -- if unjustified -- would surely be blockable, I do consider my decision as something of a sacrifice. BigK HeX (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Later today, I plan to defend my actions more fully. BigK HeX (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In Xerographica's first example of material removed he wrote, "To try and facilitate visualization of the debate in terms of the scope of government, I created a bell curve diagram. For those of you that tend to get original research confused with critical thinking...this diagram is a good example of actual original research" (my emphasis).[123] The next section hidden was "Request for Critical Thinking".[124] It is all original research and disruptive. TFD (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please specify the policy that states that original research is not allowed on the talk page. Xerographica (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

From: WP:SOAP:

This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.

You have been politely told you're pushing too far with your behavior there. Let me give you an uninvolved admin's viewpoint: You are just about at your last warning, on pushing that hard there. If you keep going, it's blockable behavior.

Please step back and work collaboratively with the other editors there. Avoid Soapboxing or other advocacy activity on Wikipedia. It's not here for that purpose.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you misunderstand my question or are you saying that original research is the same thing as soapboxing? If you're accusing me of soapboxing it would be very helpful if you could please offer some specific comments of mine which you would consider to be "soapboxing". Given that all of my comments have been based on numerous reliable sources...it's very very unclear what is meant by "soapboxing". Xerographica (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked a set of leading questions, including the gloriously inappropriate comment:

"According to WP:NOT#FORUM, talk pages are for discussing how to resolve problems with articles. The problem with this article is that certain editors lack critical thinking skills. To solve this problem, we first need to identify which editors fall into this category. Therefore, all the editors of this article should answer the following questions..."

The combination effect you're having is clearly advocating a point of view. You're doing that disruptively. The questions you asked were soapboxing. The article edits and talk page edits of late are soapboxing. The question you asked is across the no personal attacks policy border.

You're pushing too hard. You're pushing yourself into the corner. The way out of that corner is via being blocked. Whether you chose to keep pushing or simply relax and participate in a more acceptable manner is up to you.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither my "leading questions" nor my "gloriously inappropriate comment" were in violation of any wikipedia policy. My comment was obviously impersonal and I specified how it was relevant to the content. Also, how can questions be considered "soapboxing"? Seriously? Yeah, obviously I'm advocating a POV...the same POV as Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises...names that probably mean nothing to you given how you viewed my questions as "soapboxing". Naw, I'll keep pushing their POVs to try and balance out how hard the anarchist majority have been pushing the POVs of Chomsky and Rothbard. If you want to block me for trying to correct the balance of a clearly unbalanced article then by all means knock yourself out. --Xerographica (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Asking leading (or misleading) questions is a classic political tactic to poison the well of a discussion against your opponent. In this case, anyone who disagrees with you is implied to be "lack(ing) critical thinking skills." And further, that's not a question about improving the article's content, it's your opinion about the abilities of other editors. Not to mention you're still insulting editors by your "names that probably mean nothing to you" comment here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX presents the Xerographica Soapbox Matrix

Editing other users' talk page comments certainly should not be done without good reason, and I'm aware of the potential problems. I chose to do so, and I feel the extreme persistence in this form of the disruption may justify my actions. In my defense, I post the following examples from the past few weeks of the behavior that prompted my action:

	Soapboxing / WP:OR link	Result	Xerographica's reaction
1	[125] Early soapboxing about his definition of "pseudo libertarianism" ... fairly minor incident	[126] warned about soapboxing	[127] indignation .. minor incivility
2	[128] unsourced taxonomy, pretty clearly original research	[129] asked to provide sources, [130] section eventually collapsed	[131] indignation
3	thread of clear soapboxing on "major tenets"	[132] I collapse thread, [133] eventually informal mediator collapses the thread	[134] attempted to reintroduce thread until intervention by the informal mediator
4	[135] original research premised by "I created a bell curve diagram"	[136] I moved to his talk page, [137] eventually collapsed by a total of 3 editors	[138] attempted to reintroduce until intervention by the informal mediator
5	[139] ranted about earlier Original Research being removed	[140] collapsed by the informal mediator	none
6	[141] started a thread to prompt editors to engage in "critical thinking"	[142] I collapsed this first section	[143] apparently he introduced a new follow-up thread on the belief that "The problem with this article is that certain editors lack critical thinking skills. To solve this problem, we first need to identify which editors fall into this category."
7	[144] original research with calculations based on his personal hypotheticals	[145] warned about soapboxing	[146]
8	[147] thread premised with "This diagram...is original research"	[148] I deleted the thread	created this ANI notice

As apparent from the early responses to this ANI, many editors find the extensive soapboxing and WP:OR to be counter-productive. He's been averaging one new disruptive thread once every 2½ days, and since we're here, can something be done to help reduce the disruption? BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments 1

You know why I would never delete any of your comments? Because I'm completely confident that I can counter them with reliable sources and sound logic. Clearly the only way you can counter my arguments is by deleting them and then trying to get me blocked. Such behavior is sad and pathetic. --Xerographica (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Or ... what I've actually said is that I delete those comments because they're disruptive and counter-productive. It really should NOT take dozens of warnings that Wikipedia places ZERO value on editors unsourced "facts", and, accordingly, we do not have to waste time on them.

As for you being blocked, YOU started this ANI. If you don't want scrutiny of your actions, then starting an ANI isn't the lowest-profile action to take .... BigK HeX (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

All my comments are well sourced. How you can pretend otherwise is beyond me. I started this ANI because you were deleting my comments. I had already asked you to cease and desist so there was no other recourse. I don't want you banned or blocked...just to play fair. Xerographica (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are NOT well-sourced. You freely admit in some of them that you are engaging in Original Research (see: [149], [150]). The obvious recourse, when many editors are telling you to stop posting your personal "sound thinking" on the talk pages, is to stop posting it. BigK HeX (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See...even if I could get away with it, this is exactly why I would never delete your comments. Of course original research can be well-sourced. If my diagrams weren't well sourced then you could easily provide reliable sources that disprove them. But because my diagrams are well sourced you delete them rather than admit that you can't disprove them. --Xerographica (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you think the diagrams, statistics, etc that you concoct have to be addressed at all is only another part of the problem. The article talk page is NOT A FORUM for people to debate your philosophical outlook/"sound thinking" with you. BigK HeX (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great if you actually did that. Your source has to explicitly make your point. Making arguments attempting to generalize a long list of unsourced quotes, or working from "reason" or "sound logic", is original research and can't be used. Neither can presenting a long list of quotes and saying, "these don't say anything about that". The source has to say precisely what you want it to support, nothing less. If you've got such sources, by all means present them. I don't think you do, thus the long-winded argumentation, which is not what Wikipedia is looking for. Yworo (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The quotes were all sourced and they explicitly support the point that libertarians do not want to abolish the government. Libertarians recognize that the government is necessary to protect all citizens from harm. Any long-winded arguments on my part are because you proponents of libertarianism being synonymous with anarchism fail to see the obvious pattern. What happens when somebody fails to see the obvious pattern? You draw them a diagram based on reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Original diagrams cannot be "reliable sources" by Wikipedia standards. See WP:V and WP:OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious pattern" is original research. Other editors have citations supporting their points of view. Your "obvious pattern" doesn't override their explicit sources. There are libertarians of both stripes. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never denied that the word "libertarianism" has multiple definitions. My argument has always been that each definition represents a different ideology...and each ideology should have its own article. --Xerographica (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That argument has been repeatedly rejected, including in a fairly recent RfC that brought in outside opinions. Yworo (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If people with inside opinions can't grasp the basic argument even when I draw you folks a super simple diagram...then what makes you think that outside editors, who don't even care about the topic enough to improve the article, are going to grasp the argument? --Xerographica (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above - you're pushing way too hard, and if you continue you'll be blocked for it. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN, a sub-policy of WP:OR: You are not allowed to make your own conclusions based on sources, and cite that for your evidence. It doesn't work that way here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to quote me where I proposed it as evidence. On the file page I specified that the purpose of the diagrams was to facilitate discussion. Xerographica (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. You did so right here, complaining that editors won't listen to your own conclusions of the sources based on your original research, as they rightly should do. You've done so several times in this thread, but I'm not going to waste my time here when everyone can see them clear as day. What you need to do is recognize this fact, and learn to abide by policy. You are in the wrong here, and no amount of denying it will change that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments break 2

Xerographica please pay heed to Georgewilliamherbert, he is uninvolved here and is a fair guy, just drop it mate and continue to work on the article, perhaps some drafts in your user space would be a good way to go mark nutley (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Continue to work on the article? Every edit I did to the article was reverted by the anarchists. Now they even delete my comments from the talk page. Not only do they get away with it...but uninvolved editors accuse me of "personal" attacks when I said that "certain" unnamed editors lack critical thinking skills. It's tyranny of the anarchist majority...a majority that gets larger as they continually bully those with opposing viewpoints...and uninvolved editors just jump on the bandwagon...because the majority just has to be correct. --Xerographica (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Trust me on this, GWH is not the srt to jump on bandwagons, he has always struck me as fair and reasonable. If he says you are pushing this to hard then you probably are. It is not difficult to post what you want, i see what you are trying to see it just needs to be rephrased so as not to appear soapboxy mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be coddling. There is no simple rephrasing that would fix his comments. His entire approach is flawed, and steeped in WP:OR. It needs a complete overhaul. So long as he thinks concocting his own novel conclusions is fine as long as "they're based on reliable sources", we will continue to have this problem. He's been warned literally dozens of times oftentimes by editors with no involvement, yet he refuses to stop disrupting the talkpage. Something's gotta give. Given the intentions he's stated here, it's pretty clear he plans to continue. BigK HeX (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. In the Libertarian article talk page, there are two people who continuously misquote and misapply wp:talk page guidelines and (related) wp:nor/wp:ver. The one myth is that sourcing is a requirement for existence of a statement on a talk page, and that one can delete other people's talk page comments if they lack citations. The other complete misreading is failure to read the guidelines which allow deletion of other people's content only for some very specifically enumerated (more eggregious) "violations", and otherwise prohibit it. BigK is one of the two people who continuously get this wrong, and either do delete or threaten to delete based on (per their interpretation) alleged violations of guidelines such as wp:NotAForum, or their misinterpretation of wp:nor/wp:ver to say that something can be deleted from a talk page if it does not have citations. The former deletion is a violation of talk page guidelines, and the latter is doubly wrong by being that plus a mis-reading of wp:nor/wp:ver. In some respects even the above discussion reflects this misreading. While they often claim the opposite when doing them, these deletions are in violation of talk page guidelines.

I don't want anybody to get "smacked", there is too much of that going on between the participants at this article. I just suggest an experienced admin person clarify the rules and guidelines with respect to the "deletion of comments" issue here. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, it is Xerographica's behavior that has been admonished here, and, as such, I would ask that you stop characterizing my actions as "misapplication of policy" and,, more importantly, that you STOP encouraging the soapboxing. BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I was only reflecting on the narrow topic of application / misapplication talk page guidelines. And wp:nor/wp:ver with respect to talk pages. On those narrow topics I stand by what I said. I have not done the depth of analysis to intelligently reflect on any soapboxing issues. I have no quarrel with anybody,(including yourself) nor desire to see anyone found "guilty" of anything. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think discussion about the topic is reasonable IF it can lead to improvement of the article through better understanding of the topic. So there is some leeway there, and I think BigK has been a bit overzealous with some of the comment removals. However, this is understandable considering how far over the line many of the other comments have been. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs

Xerographica exported the problematic behavior to another article, Talk:Night watchman state [151], after all the warnings above and his responding to them.

I have imposed a 48 hr block for disruption and the various problems described above. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since we're on the matter here, I could use advisement on my own behavior. I hate to have to play moderator, while I'm also involved in the dispute, but the alternative is far more unproductive, IMO. When Xerographica (and others) first started arguing their WP:OR in a new talk page thread every few days, it was ignored, as is common practice. However, the problem only exploded from there, to the point that one informal mediator and then a later one have both run out of time to attend to the misuse of the talk page. We're running out of dispute resolution options, and if my actions to stem the talk page misuse are borderline questionable, I don't see things going anywhere but downhill. Advisement from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated! BigK HeX (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you're having problems handling it and it's getting worse, reporting it here (faster, but higher drama typically) or to an uninvolved admin via their talk page (slower, but lower drama) are excellent responses. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank heavens the issue of unrelenting SoapBox and WP:OR is finally getting administrative attention. It's been almost a full nine months of it, with a couple different groups of editors, but particulary bad since June. I can't remember if we brought the issue here before, with all the ones that have come here from Libertarianism, but better late than never! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just did a little research on Night watchman state (AfD discussion), coming across it at AFD patrol. Our article on it is pretty rubbish. (The name Lassalle doesn't occur anywhere, for starters.) The lengthy screed at Talk:Night watchman state#Libertarianism and Minarchism really has no relevance to how it could be made better, though. (I have some ideas and suggestions. Mark nutley, Carolmooredc, feel free to come to my talk page.) Speaking with my content writer's hat on, I have to report that I don't feel comfortable contributing to an article if that's the sort of lengthy irrelevancy that I'd have to wade through time after time. And that's just one article. I can sympathize with the concerns expressed here. Uncle G (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that we brought up and made a finding on a second issue, I would still like a reading on the subject of this entry. More interested in clarifying the topic for all concerned than reflecting on BigK's or anybody's actions. I would distill it down to these two example questions:

1. If I feel that somebody has written something on a talk page that violates WP:NotAForum, can I delete it on that basis?
2. Can I delete someones material from a talk page due to them failing to provide a citation for what they wrote in the talk page?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on nothing more than what is in your hypothetical, deletion is probably not a good idea (and, in case you're confused about that, your hypothetical does NOT seem to match the general regard for the case in this ANI). Ultimately, Wikipedia works by the general will of the community. If you take questionable actions, you should be somewhat confident that the community would vindicate your actions. As you can see here, it's pretty certain that you will be brought up for scrutiny.

I'm not sure of your experience level with Wikipedia, but I don't recommend experimenting with talk page deletion based merely on your opinion that my deletions were unjustified. Not saying it is, but *if* that was your intention, it could be seen as POINT-y. BigK HeX (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that. I think that the answer to both of my questions is clearly NO. I think that that is very clear cut in the policies and guidelines, and that it has not been followed in this article's talk page. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that you (and the blocked editor) seem to be the only ones to hold that opinion of my actions ....? Does that tell you anything? BigK HeX (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User created an uneditable page

Resolved

 – Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee has been deleted. –xeno^talk 13:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So doggamn has created a page whose name is so long that I am unable to edit the page to mark it for deletion, or even to link it here. Checking the user's contributions should quickly show which page I'm referring to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Already resolved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user has no contributions; has it already been deleted? How can it be so long you can't edit or link to it? Are you editing from a mobile phone? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, you should probably update your browser. -Selket ^Talk 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My old PC is on IE 6, and I had no trouble getting to the link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I considered re-creating that article. But I couldn't find a reliable source. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed is Kill me when i die (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 15:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When I click on the red link above, my fully-updated version of Firefox experiences a connection reset error. Anyone else? May be worth filing a bug on this.    Thorncrag   00:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems (Firefox 3.6.10 on Mac OS X 10.5.8), though the page does look a little funny. Ucucha 00:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on WinXP... I'm sure it's a browser-specific URI character limitation, but putting a limit on title lengths might be a good idea to prevent this kind of thing.    Thorncrag   00:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem for me using FF 3.6.8 on WinXP SP3. I just get the usual create page with the message "A page with this title has previously been deleted." --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... now I'm wondering if it's something else like firewall or web filter that might cause the problem for some.    Thorncrag   00:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem for me FF3.6.10 on die!Vista!Die...sorry Vista Home Premium v6.0 SP2 Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just upgraded to FF 3.6.10, but same result. I hesitate to ask, but is the reset repeatable on your setup? --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've narrowed it down to a web filter or firewall issue. So nothing for us to worry about at this point :-)    Thorncrag   00:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

vandalism accusation

[152] Locking an article by making a false vandalism claim in order to promote an agenda is not the behaviour we expect of admins, no? . Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That admin action appears to violate WP:INVOLVED. I vote for reverting the page protection and discussing the issue like grown-ups. SnottyWong ^confer 22:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise listing it at WP:RFD to propose the retarget, thus you can gain consensus there. The page shouldn't have been protected by an involved admin though. Still, RfD is the best place to take this now. ---Taelus (Talk) 22:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There's something rather odd about that debate or edit skirmish or whatever to call it. The admin is redirecting "Murder music" to "Stop murder music", which seems logical given the context; and the OP keeps redirecting it to "Music", which makes no sense on the face of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR violation on Coffee Party USA

In a two-hour period, IP user 166.137.138.125 has reverted six times on the Coffee Party USA article: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. An admin might need to intervene to stop the IP's edit warring. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also asked for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. I'm not commenting on the content of the IPs edits, only the edit warring taking place. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See the top of this page - AN3 is thataway. David Biddulph (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, David, but this is a bit more complicated than a simple AN3 report. The IP is using multiple IPs over a long period of time, which has already resulted in the article being locked down once. Admin attention would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Range is too large for a feasible rangeblock, if it were to come to that. (166.137.0.0/16) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 again

• Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Said user is at it again - having evaded a ban by the skin of his teeth. [153] has him accusing an editor of "telling lies." [154] has him readding material which is contentious to a BLP against consensus clearly reached (he is the only one seeking to ad the dirt). Seems the clear warning shot across the bow was not going to affect this one. Collect (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I disinvited him from my talk page at [155] so he decided to test the WP rules about this almost immediately at [156] with a quite argumentative post. Since he had been clearly disinvited, I suggest that a major behavioural issue exists. Collect (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• One thing - your last diff is by User:Viriditas, not Screwball23. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Two very similar behaviour problems at one time gets confusing. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please refrain from making personal attacks against me again. I am in the process of documenting your ongoing incivility, talk page disruption, and edit warring for community review. I have enough diffs to deal with at this time, so please avoid giving me more work. For your recollection, Collect, you have previously been accused of being a "tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and gaming the system/using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith." According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect you said you would stop edit warring, however, your edit warring continues to this day on articles like Fox News Channel, as does your continued tendentiousness and assumptions of bad faith. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• - user notified - Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Several complaints have been brought to ANI about this editor in the past and he has been offered advice which he has chosen not to follow. I would recommend a block this time, since other approaches have proven ineffective. TFD (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support an editing restriction at this time, his repeated additions that all portray Linda McMahon as negatively as possible are clearly disruptive and against consensus at the articles and he is constantly being reverted and edit warring against multiple users. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Did'nt we have one of these archived (without action) only a couple of days ago?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was this ANI thread I think from seven days ago, same issues. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments pending; awaiting response from Jclemens to talk page post.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread had been marked "resolved" in all good faith, by user Jclemens. I requested that he revert that so I could appropriately add a comment here, and he very kindly did so. ( Thanks, Jclemens. )  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

New information

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

This section could have been just as approprately titled "User:Collect again". Screwball23 was appropriately blocked, but WP:BOOMERANG definitely applies here. Collect has also been a long-term edit warrior on the Linda McMahon articles and he merits a block for that, too.

The block that King of Hearts placed on Screwball23 for personal attacks and edit warring was very well-earned: I support that fully, and nothing that follows should be interpreted otherwise. But Screwball23 had no opportunity to respond here before he was blocked. If he had, a more complete picture of the events that led up to the filing of this report would have emerged and Collect would have been blocked for edit warring, as well.

I've been watching those events unfold since the end of August, and I'm very familiar with the three editors most involved: Collect, Screwball23, and FellGleaming, who's under present discussion elsewhere on this board, and who initiated the previous ANI post against Screwball23. I've never edited the Linda McMahon article where most of this started, btw, although I did edit Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010, once, a few days ago. I have, however, taken strong exception many times to the behavior of Collect and FellGleaming, both in forums like this one and on the talk pages for multiple articles, and have also criticized Screwball23 over the Linda McMahon articles, although to a lesser extent.

I can take the time to provide diffs, if necessary, although I'm really sick of this whole thing, and would prefer to spend my time more productively. But it should be pointed out that Collect and FellGleaming acted in a blatantly POV-driven way over a long period to remove everthing they could from the Linda McMahon articles that was unflattering to her, usually under the cover of BLP policy. I note, however, that despite their both having taken the matter to the BLP noticeboard, their allegations of BLP violations were rejected there as unfounded. One of the items that Collect edit-warred with Screwball23 to keep out the Linda McMahon article, for example, comprised indisputable evidence that McMahon had improperly interfered with a Federal investigation into her firm's involvement in promoting steroid use among its wrestlers. That was relevant, well-sourced, and our readers have the right to know of it.

Further, two completely completely uninvolved editors at the BLP noticeboard were highly critical of both Collect and Screwball23. User Macwhiz said he thought they both should walk away from Linda McMahon, and expressed surprise that an admin hadn't blocked them both.^[157] User Balloonman, after two hours of research, sided with Collect on the content dispute, but also stated his agreement with Macwhiz, saying, "But I have to agree with MacWhiz. This is almost getting to the point where a subject ban might be appropriate."^[158] These opinions are in concordance with my own: When I took the Linda McMahon article to Requests for Protection a couple of weeks ago to ask that it be fully-protected (it was) I did so not just because of Screwball23's edit warring over the article, but equally because of Collect's and FellGleaming's long-term warring.

I'll also note that Collect has a well-documented history of edit warring and tenditious editing in support of his political POV. The admin who closed his RFC/U for very similar behavior in May of last year, said:

"Given Collect's behaviour following the unblock, I'm restricting Collect to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months: He is free only to revert the most straightforward kinds of vandalism. If he makes a single revert to any political article or political BLP, I will block him from editing for at least two weeks... If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption."

Collect has claimed that the process that led to this outcome, and its related Arbcom request was compromised by socking and canvassing, and he says that the main proponent later apologized to him for initiating it. He appears to think the complaints were entirely unwarranted, the result of error or conspiracy on the part of other editors. That could be true; since he didn't provide any evidence for his claims I can't evaluate them. But I nevertheless will observe that someone probably has to work pretty hard to generate these kinds of comments from other editors. Similar complaints have been made in the past few days, btw, with respect to Collect's participation around the John Birch Society article, on that article's talk page.

I'd like to ask that an admin take a second look at the revision histories of the Linda McMahon articles. I believe it will be clear that Collect, helped by FellGleaming, was an enthusiastic participant in a long-term edit war with Screwball23. Coupled with nearly identical actions in the past, I think Collect also needs a block to make it clear to him that he can't continue this same behavior with impunity.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you will explain why you made this claim when I have, in fact, made very few edits to that article? The ill-formed RFCU had FOURTEEN people CANVASSED at the outset - and many of them have since been banned from WP. And whose originator apologized to me! Trying to raise it from the dead is inane at best. So lets look at the record: Linda McMahon I repeatedly used proper noticeboards for. Screwball23 did not use the noticeboards for outside opinions. Screwball has made over eight hundred edits, I have made 18, some of which were minor. On John Birch Society , I have made a grand total of 68 edits. On the Linda_McMahon_U.S._Senate_campaign 2010, I have made 26 edits. Screwball 186 edits. So as for edit warring - looks like we have the likely suspect in hand. What I do find disturbing is that you berated me for not notifyine Screwball<g>, but your message on my UT page only says you posted on this thread, and does not say you seek to bash me. As for me in any was co-operating with Fell Gleaming, our overlap is de minimis entirely on WP. 7 articles out of close to 2000. Aha -- you are just over 1000 edits and know about users with over 10,000 edits? Fewer than 100 article edits? Your own greatest contributions are to WP:AN and WP:ANI? About half of all your edits in the past month alone? A total overlap with me on two articles? Hamlet would notice. One solitary edit in 2007, then nothing until 2009? Half your edits in your own userspace or "minor"? And your ANI experience consists mainly of [159] where you failed to notify the person you accused of being a sock <g>. Among a laundry list of other things. Ah yes - the person was not concealing any identity. Complaint dismissed. I suggest you get a bit more seasoned OS. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's how I "berated" you on your talk page in the new section I created there:

"I've added a comment. I don't know whether it's strictly required, but I'm informing you of it since the thread had previously been marked as "resolved" by another user. BTW, please remember to inform users when you comment about them there. I don't know whether Screwball32 might have seen your post if you'd done so, and thus have had time to respond before he was blocked, but it's possible."

Yeah, that's some wicked harsh berating, alright. I knew with absolute certainty, of course, that seeing this message from me you would revisit this thread. And I was right, of course. So if you're implying I was somehow trying to hoodwink you into not looking, well, we both know better, don't we? And re this, that you mention, you're the only person who has ever taken exception: I'm perfectly happy to have any user review that in detail. (Although I mentioned possible socking there in passing, because the new account - which I never identified - was obviously a very experienced user, you'll see if you read the post that the principal concern I had was COI-spam; it was eventually all deleted.)

As to your classic ad hominem response about our respective edit counts, well, I actually smiled to see that. I knew you'd respond that way:

"Collect has often answered worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors, instead of swaying his own behaviour,"

wrote administrator Gwen Gale in closing the RfC/U about you that you say someone apologized to you for starting. And if you think my referencing your old RfC/U about the same pattern of behavior was "inane at best" then you might like to remember that I would never have even known about it if you hadn't made a great point just two days ago of bringing up another user's RfC/U that took place around the same time as yours. Btw, if the RfC/U about you was as invalid as you're claiming, and your behavior was really just misconstrued or misunderstood by all your critics, then by all means link to the retractions you're mentioning. I'm not going to try to answer the rest of your criticisms about my contributions; I agree they're fairly humble, although I often take hours preparing or researching a single post. But even though you have the higher edit count I'd very much rather have my edit history here than yours.

I'll close by saying that all I'm asking is that an admin look at the revision histories of the Linda McMahon articles, and decide whether Collect, too, was edit warring. Admins are plenty smart enough to figure that out without a lot more discussion from either of us.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was just edit warring. I thin it was also repeated incivility and combative mentality that got screw blocked. If collect and Fell have demonstrated the same tendencies then they should also be blocked. I think we neecd to see difss showing edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a non-TLDR version of this with diffs, please? Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • OS is tickedsatisfied that Screwball23 gor blocked. He blames anyone who was at all involved in any way with the articles where SB23 was found to be incivil for this, and thus goes around looking at edits from everyone well over a year old. My own few edits on LM were done precisely in accord with the requirements of WP:BLP, as were edits made by an admin on the WWE history article. OS, to be sure, is a new editor by number of mainspace edits, though his edit pattern is puzzling at times. That basically summarizes this whole TLDR stuff <g>. Collect (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from speculating about the emotions of other editors and assume good faith. Need I remind you of your long and sordid history of making personal attacks and assuming bad faith, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect? Does this need to go back to arbcom? Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Collect, please stop mindreading; you're not very good at it. As I said at the outset:

      "Screwball23 was appropriately blocked ... [but] Collect has also been a long-term edit warrior on the Linda McMahon articles and he merits a block for that, too. The block ... was very well-earned: I support that fully, and nothing that follows should be interpreted otherwise."

      So in your own words exactly, when you objected to being called a "conservative" as a "personal attack", kindly do not assert that I hold an opinion which I do not have. I ask that you redact such claims. Thanks. The editor you addressed had the decency to do so, and I have every confidence that you do, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Short precis remedied. As I have not in any way "edit warred" on the LM article, I ask you redact that claim. Thank you. Collect (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback abuse and block threats from User:Kwamikagami

See User_talk:Kwamikagami#Rollback_abuse and IPA_chart_for_English_dialects#Chart) for context.

At IPA_chart_for_English_dialects there are a set of tables listing the IPA sound values of different Anglophone accents. The abbreviations used in the table are listed at the beginning in a key. One user tagged the abbreviations because the citations in the corresponding columns some way below were unreferenced. I have to say that this was one of the most bizarre "edit-wars" I've ever been involved in (now resolved thankfully with User:Aeusoes1), and I had to resniff my coffee a few times to make sure I wasn't drugged and that other long-standing editors could hold this as a reasonable position. I was of the opinion that cn tags should go where they are needed ... so on abbreviations only if they are needed for the abbreviations ... thought this pretty uncontroversial.  :User:Kwamikagami does not have this opinion, for reasons best known to himself.

Kwamikagami continues to assert that my actions were "disruption". I explained for him and any others at Talk:IPA_chart_for_English_dialects#CN_Tags the position. His use of rollback and the "term" disruption I hold to be not only disrespectful, but worrying behavior in a fellow admin, and have let him know my opinion (I could have been nicer, but was nice considering the context). He has now reaffirmed his belief that my actions form part of WP:DISRUPTION and has threatened to block me in future.[160] From the wording, I take the threat to mean that he will hover around my contributions looking for the next excuse to do this. I realise the threat may seem rather childish or frivolous, but he is an admin and I have to take this seriously as 1) a threat to myself and 2) concern about his judgment regarding other editors. I believe his threat, his tendentious misuse of WP:DISRUPTION, and his use of rollback necessitate community feedback. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is frivolous. I do not need to apologize for reverting disruptive edits like repeatedly deleting citation tags. You didn't even dispute that they were needed, only that they should be placed elsewhere! If you wanted them moved, you should have moved them. And of course I will revert or block you for future disruption as well. Complaining that I'm "threatening" you for saying that is like complaining that a police officer "threatened" you when he pulled you over for crashing a red light and let you off without giving you a ticket, but told you he would give you a ticket if you did it again. Such drama. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of you should be ashamed. You've collectively established that both a central CN tag and the lack of tags are wrong; you both agree that section-specific CN tags are appropriate. Edit warring between the two mutually agreed to be wrong solutions? Calling each other names on talk? Threatening blocks?

Rollback isn't relevant. The edit warring is. The block threat is.

For shame, both of you. Identify what sections need CN tags in the article talk. Don't do anything else other than put tags in those sections. Once you all agree the sections that need them have them, then remove the central ones, but not before.

Oh, and:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, George, but deleting maintenance tags is inappropriate, unless the concern has been addressed or the tag is frivolous. — kwami (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You admitted that the tags should go elsewhere. It would have taken you a couple of minutes at most to edit and put them in the right places rather than hit "revert", going back to a version you admitted wasn't good.

Again - Edit warring between two versions you both agreed were wrong????? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Accept the slap as I definitely edit-warred and shouldn't have, and could've been nicer. :)

On a related note, rolling back the edits of other experienced users/admins without commenting on talk, even in these current rollback tolerant days, is contrary to policy and more importantly very disrespectful, while threatening to block users in a disagreement is intolerable. Not sure Kwamikagami is getting that ... he's still completely unapologetic. @ Kwamikagami, I'm far from convinced you understand the purpose/spirit of cn tags any more than the WP:Disruption page, but I explained the matter on the talk and if you wanna play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT then that's your own business ... don't much care now given that the matter is settled on wiki. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:SluggoOne not allowing me to assist a new user who needs help; keeps reverting me

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

---

{{resolved|Bad edits r dumb blocked for disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving this; there is strong consensus for removal of this user's tools. The discussion is not over just because the thread starter was a troll.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

{{unresolved|Tool abuse is apparent; there appears to be consensus for their removal. An uninvolved admin needs to review the thread and act. It may have been created by a now indef'd troll, but the abuse remains apparent.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)}}

Resolved

 – Bad edits r dumb has been blocked (not in regard to this incident), SluggoOne has had rollback and Twinkle removed per consensus here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is so mind-jarringly simple and clear-cut that I can't believe I am soliciting opinions on AN/I.

• As her very first edit, new user Darya Gorbatyuk posted a general knowledge question on her talk page.

• Before I could welcome her and assist with her question, SluggoOne deleted her question with a terse edit summary

• I scolded SluggoOne for his rudeness (via edit summary) and restored her question and attempted to assist her and welcome her to Wikipedia.

• SluggoOne reverted me

• Scarcely believing what I was seeing, I reverted SluggoOne and scolded him on his talk page

• SluggoOne reverted my attempt to assist the new user AGAIN, using rollback

Could some one please give this poor new editor a hand? Apparently, the appallingly rude SluggoOne has some sort of problem with my assisting her.

The only reason I brought it here is that don't want to violate the 3RR rule. I strongly feel this user should be welcomed.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits r dumb has, per MuZemike, engaged in sockpuppeting, which is a blatant violation of core Wikipedia policies. My first edit was over five years ago; since, I have never been blocked. Unlike Bad edits r dumb, whose "first" edit was fewer than two weeks ago, I have never been blocked from editing. I wait with baited breath for this bored troll to get the boot. Şłџğģő 08:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What in the world does your block record or my use of an alternate account have to do with your inexcusable rudeness toward a new user?--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

SluggoOne - Your actions were still incorrect in this situation, regardless of any previous or future block of this user. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I'm replying to you is because, if I recall correctly, I've encountered you before and you came off okay. I have no idea who Huntster is, and Bad edits is a troll, so neither is getting attention from me.

My point is, since nobody seems to have picked up on it, is that, per this edit summary and several other violations of policy, I believe the reporting user is a sockpuppet who is throwing a fit for no good reason. That you and Huntster missed the fact that you're dealing with a bored troll makes me a little unwell.

This all started here, with this guy claiming, apropos of nothing, that my edit indicated I'd bitten a newcomer. According to Huntster, nothing of the sort ever happened. That the newcomer got rescued by the bored troll Bad edits r dumb is getting ignored. Sadly and predictably, the newcomer has, like so many other editors to English Wikipedia who aren't good English speakers, vanished. What is the issue here? Şłџğģő 08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the user has vanished after what happened on their talk page? Your rudeness is a bit much as well, stop calling people trolls. mark nutley (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be this guy, but if the user was going to edit so badly, per WP:COMPETENCE, it's for the better that they disappeared. English Wikipedia is crippled by legions of articles on various foreign locales that are written in similarly broken English. Also: User:Bad_edits_r_dumb is a troll who needs to be blocked. Call a spade a spade in this case, would you? Are people bothering to click on links here? Or are we, for whatever reason, assuming good faith on a guy who's already failed (so to speak) a Checkuser? Şłџğģő 09:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Replied on Sluggo's talk page. Basically, in this situation, Bad edit's history is irrelevant. He was trying to help someone (unless I'm missing something here), and Sluggo slapped him down. This is not acceptable. To both parties, please stop baiting each other, otherwise the heat to light ratio here is going to get seriously unbalanced. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and I will not engage Sluggo any further (I was admittedly very harsh when I scolded him). I do, however, feel that someone (if not me) should welcome the new user and try to help her out.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edit your right to greet new users, but unfortunately since you seem to have got into hot water at the moment, I agree with your proposal, wait until your in the clear. On the point of Sluggo I concer he reverted me when I was helping out a newish user who was getting upset, and called me impatient in his edit summary--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a welcome template to the top of her page, and you've done about as much as can be done with regard to her question. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I make it a point to never edit unless I can back up what I did. Here's Lerd's edit, which was indisputably BITE-y and abrupt; my edit, which came so close to Lerd's it was almost an edit conflict, was far, far more polite and welcoming. But hey. Lerd "concers" that I bite the newcomers. Şłџğģő 09:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How was my edit BITEY? I posted a message to help wtf09, you posted another friendly message helping him using the welcome template then you deleted mine calling me impatient why did you have to do that? I don't want to start an argument but you shouldn't have deleted my post with a snippy comment like that--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You told the editor his article was "deleted as spam." The word "spam" has tons and tons of negative connotations; I would support removing it from all these templates because it's so mean.

"Impatient" was "snippy?" I disagree. If I recall correctly, and there's a good chance I do not, I used "impatient" instead of my first choice, "BITE-y." I'm willing to step back from my claim your words were BITE-y. I think you approached it like the editor had a thick skin, which you (or I) can't know to be true. The welcome template is far more gentle than calling something "spam." If you're really, really bored, you can look through my edit history regarding this stuff. I almost never call anything spam. Şłџğģő 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While WP:BITE is only a guideline, it is quite clear that it has been violated. Also WP:NPA for calling another editor a "bored troll" appears to be on point. Lastly, use of alternative accounts is not "sockpuppeting" - the user appears to have operated properly in that regatrd, and accusing such a user is quite bad form. Now we have violations "right here in River City" of multiple personal attacks and clear violation of WP:BITE. I suggest that this be clearly noted. Collect (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you even look at the thread on Bad edits r dumb above? If you didn't, then I don't think you can claim he has "operated properly in that regard". Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(-indent, reply to SluggoOne) I'm sorry if article deleted as spam came across as rude to Wtf09 but I was telling him why it was deleted so he knows what can and cant go into wikipedia, he asked why it was deleted i told him why and gave him some advice, you deleted my comment which is against the talkpage rule, you shouldn't have done that unless it was a blatant personal attack--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron. Regardless of how inexperienced BErD is, what you did was wrong. Buggie111 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bad edits r dumb's past history has absolutely nothing to do with this report, Sluggo, and I would advise that you stop deprecating him/her. It seems quite clear to me that your removal of a good-faith question from a new user was, most definitely, bitey toward them. Bad edits r dumb reverted it and posted a helpful response to them. At that point, you should have left the situation alone, as another user was taking care of it and it wasn't your problem anymore. However, you then started a revert war over the issue, using Twinkle no less, clearly violating WP:TPO more than once. I do believe that some action needs to be taken here. Silverseren^C 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per my comment below, I think Sluggo1's actions were unacceptable. Even if, hypothetically, the new user's question was so horribly out-of-bounds as to merit immediate removal, on what planet is "not how that works" a response that is in any way helpful to the new user? My word, even our assuming-bad-faith vandalism warnings are more insightful, and I'm surprised that sluggo1 did not tag the user's page with such a warning. On the point of Twinkle, access has been removed for far more innocuous uses in the past, and I'd support the removal of Twinkle access in this case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary and proposal

I first encountered User:SluggoOne in a dispute over whether an article was or was not advertising subject to speedy deletion. (I was not the first editor to do so that day, either.) In the course of our "discussion", SluggoOne invoked Jesus [161] and extended the invitation "eat me" [162].

I thought SluggoOne merely needed to hear from a third party that his/her tact needed an adjustment, and was simply going to take my concerns to the incivility noticeboard, but then I noticed this thread.

Though I loathe to repeat, I want to place here the detail that may be needed to take durable action against SluggoOne.

User:Darya Gorbatyuk's very first edit on Wikipedia was a post to her user talk page: "Darya Gorbatyuk (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)i have a question "what are some of the sumerian names they had in mesopotamia?"

SluggoOne decided to respond by reverting Darya Gorbatyuk's edit with the edit summary: "Not how that works".

User:Bad edits r dumb apparently noticed this and restored Darya Gorbatyuk's edit, and then answered the question by kindly letting the user know that the user talk page isn't the best place for the question and referring the user to one of the reference desks. [163].

SluggoOne then returned and reverted both Darya Gorbatyuk's question and Bad edits r dumb's answer, with the edit summary, "I deleted it, because that's not how WP works." Bad edits r dumb then restored the question and answer, and SluggoOne actually deleted it a second time! [164] User:Cameron Scott intervened to restore the question and answer a second time. [165]

When Bad edits r dumb complained on SluggoOne's talk page [166], SluggoOne called the post "crap" and proceeded to personally attack Bad edits r dumb by bringing up Bad edits r dumb's block record. [167]. The rest of the talk page thread, in all its rudeness, it there for all to see.

My own encounter with SluggoOne proves to me that SluggoOne's rudeness and incivility permeates the entirety of SluggoOne's conduct on Wikipedia, that SluggoOne fully intends to ignore policy and guidelines (including those on criteria for speedy deletion, user talk pages, talk refactoring, biting newcomers, and civility), that this user has shown no interest in correcting this behavior (even here, the personal attacks in an attempt to undercut the credibility of the reporting user have not ceased), and that, in my opinion, Wikipedia would be much better off without this user.

I think the appropriate action would be a block of at least one month, during which SluggoOne can take the time to read all the policies and guidelines SluggoOne now ignores, and SluggoOne can reevaluate how he/she may contribute harmoniously and constructively on Wikipedia. --Bsherr (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If one disagreed with Sluggo1's edit the correct action would have been to explain one's disagreement on his talk page rather than reverse his edit with a disparaging comment. One could also provide advice to the new editor on their talk page without re-instating the question. Whether or not Sluggo1 was correct to reverse the original comment is a judgment call, and therefore I would close this discussion thread without further action. TFD (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware such a revert was permissible. Could you identify in policy or guidelines where such a revert is permitted, please? --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How did the new user's question violate talk page guidelines? And if it did not, then Sluggo's removal violated WP:TPO. Silverseren^C 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think Sluggo1's conduct in this matter has been appalling, and if there were an obvious edit restriction that would prevent it from happening again, I'd be all for it. But a block is too much in this case; it would not solve the problem, and would largely be punitive. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would at least take away SluggoOne's rollback permission. HalfShadow 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the block as of now, But Yes with the removing the rollback.--intelati^(Call) 16:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• You can disregard my input if u want to, because I am an involved party (and apparently a "bored troll" according to Sluggo), but for what its worth I do not think blocking SluggoOne would be helpful at this stage. I do fully support removing rollback rights from this user. If he continues to abuse Twinkle, u should remove that as well, but this is just my opinion.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block, Support rollback removal I don't think this is egregarious enough for a block to be necessary, but I do believe that the user's use of rollback was not within the perview of that tool and, thus, the user should not have access to the tool any longer. Silverseren^C 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all draconian punishments. Suggest loss of Twinkle and rollback, as a "warning shot" should work. Collect (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block, support taking away rollback and Twinkle. Reyk _YO! 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• half oppose a month is too long. A week is better. He's very combative and not working well with the community right now. his response on his talk page to the last two comments made to him there on this issue show that. His behaviour was completely inappropriate. In addition he marked his initial revert minor, blanking someone's talk page isn't minor. People have conversations and ask each other all kinds of non-directly wikipedia stuff all the time via talk page. There is absolutely no reason why this user whose only edit was to their talk page should have had their question blanked with no explanation. I still haven't seen anything cited by him or anyone else that shows his edit was appropriate. We really don't him interacting with new users if that is going to be how he is going to carry on.--Crossmr (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support I absolutely cannot see how a longtime user like Sluggo could think what he did was acceptable in the slightest. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • ADDENDUM: These [168] [169] [170] seem like definite personal attacks. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Shameless bitey behaviour towards a novice user, seemingly for no reason? Attacking the person who reported it rather than discussing the problem? Harsh tones elsewhere? Not good. But I doubt that a block is the best solution here and now. bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different proposal

(edit conflict)Everything here has been plainly outlined, so I don't think I really need to repeat it, but I will try if I need to(eg, request it or something).

To the point, per Sluggo's abuse of TWINKLE and rollback, which is only supposed to be used for blatant vandalism(in regards to rollback, just to be clear) is out of line. To that end, my proposal is that both tools(TWINKLE and rollback) be removed, and Sluggo warned against similar edits in the future by an admin. By now, the edits are past, and the new user has been welcomed, however the abuse of the tools is still apparent, and until they can see why their edits were wrong, I am not comfortable in them having them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer, of course.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes--intelati^(Call) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support- see my vote for the other proposal above. Reyk _YO! 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Silverseren^C 23:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Concur, both tools need to be removed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As a reasonable intermediate proposal, but would prefer in addition to a block, as above. --Bsherr (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - per rationale of Daedalus969 and rationale in objections raised in earlier proposal. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• half support If he isn't acknowledging the behaviour and indicating that it won't be repeated, then he needs to be blocked to prevent further disruption. If he still believes his behaviour is justified then there is an open threat of continued disruption. A block is required.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support A much better solution than the block proposal. What was done does not really merit a block and as of now, removal of rollback due to abuse would be enough. He hasn't continued the reversions now, has he? Bejinhan talks 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - contrary to the statement above, it seems from SluggoOne's edit summaries[171] that rollback was not used, since rollback does not allow edit summaries. (At least that is my understanding). TFD (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, rollback was not used when SluggoOne deleted Darya's comment initially, but rollback was used when he reverted Bad edits r Dumb (i.e., ME) when he re-blanked the page.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can rollback the first edit to a page, can you? What would you be reverting it to? So, it was impossible to rollback Darya's question on the talk page. Silverseren^C 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant; the user clearly used rollback to rollback something that was not blatant vandalism. Also, what you say is indeed impossible; the link is blacked out and is non-clickable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support as surely not draconian. Warranted. Collect (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sluggo simply can't get along with users, i've applogised for my post on wtf09's page, and intend to use welcome tags from now on, Sluggo however seems to have come to blows with several editors over welcoming new users, including Bad edits and me--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:58, 29 September 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.

Sock puppet interest in WP:SPI

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected. Why didn't I think of that? (Rhetorical question...) TFOWR 13:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A recent SPI report was closed by another admin, citing WP:DENY (with which I fully concur). Since then, IP socks have been reverting the close. I've been blocking the IPs (short blocks) as the pop up, and rolling back the "un-closes". I'm not online much at the moment, so any help watchlisting the SPI report would be welcome. TFOWR 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Or we could just semiprotect it, as has been done. Granted that doesn't let us play whack-a-sock, but maybe the socks will go find something else to do that doesn't involve their mother's basement. Syrthiss (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection works for me ;-) My concern was if a good faith editor wanted to raise an SPI, but I suppose if that happens in the next week we can cross that bridge when we come to it... TFOWR 12:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, tho I don't see too much worry about that. In general, the main SPI page is semiprotected. I'd contend that any IP that wants to address this particular spurious SPI is going to be the sockmaster so no real loss. Syrthiss (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind short-term semi-protection in times of problems, but would rather that it be unprotected most of the time. I've filed SPI's before and will probably have occasion to file them again. I don't have any interest in that particular report, though I've had some encounters with its subject in the past. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best approach, if required, would be to use {{edit semi-protected}} on the SPI report's talkpage. TFOWR 13:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by Roger491127

I am coming here straight from a Wikiquette alert which appears to be failing in its mission of letting an editor know that his participation style and editing behavior must be modified for a more collegial style. Roger491127 repeatedly used insulting words in the Wikiquette alert discussing his insulting behavior, and in this pair of edits he removed all meaning from the Wikiquette alert, deleting the initial statement describing the alert, and adding yet more content discussion from the article talk page about Gustave Whitehead, after being repeatedly told that article content was not a subject of Wikiquette alerts. I consider this to be disruption to make a point, a violation of WP:POINT. Roger491127 has a history of disruptive interactions on Wikipedia. I do not know what the next step should be. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I warned him about the deletion, but if someone else would like to engage him at more length, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, I would think the next step would be perhaps a WP:RFCU, if you think it would be certified. — e. ripley\^talk 01:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we together have explained enough of what this conflict is really about. In the article Aviation history there has been a section about Whitehead's airplane flights in 1901 and 1902 for several years. Until recently this section used around 60% of the space of the section about the Wright brothers which follows it. Recently two editors, Bilcat and Binksternet cut the section about Whitehead down to a few sentences. I argued against that change. This is all a conflict between pro-Wright (and obviously anti-Whitehead) people and people who are trying to present Whitehead according to the verifiable sources. Carroll F. Gray is obviously defending the Smithsonian and Orville Wright and is working on the article about Gustave Whitehead, questioning all sources which say that Whitehead built and flew a motorized airplane years before 1903. A few days ago Binksternet started working on the Whitehead article too. It is not about my way of expressing myself, it is a conflict between Wright devotees and people who want to present the verifiable sources which say that Whitehead built and flew a motorized airplane years before the Wrights. Roger491127 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As Binksternet can not win an honest discussion with me he has started a series of processes against me in the wikipedia administrative structure. I think he should be warned instead of discussing my way of behaving myself. Look at what I have done before I was attacked in this way by Binksternet and base your judgement on that instead of what this process has lead to.

You can study the way Carroll F. Gray is expressing himself in the discussion page of Gustave Whitehead. The last part, after my last text is very revealing for the way Carroll F. Gray is working, demanding formulations which are intended to question all text which is positive for Whitehead, demanding wordings which is full of weaselwords like "assumed", "Kosch assumed, without stating a source," so now we need sources to cite a source. If that principle is used in all articles we would get a wikipedia full of formulations which makes all sources sound suspicious. Here is a sample of how Carroll argues for such formulations. Roger491127 (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Herald article and drawing

The writer of the Whitehead article in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of August 18, 1901 is widely believed to have been sports editor Richard Howell, but no byline appeared on the article. In 1937 Stella Randolph stated in her first book that the author of the article was Richard Howell, but she did not give the basis for her assumption. No record is known of Howell ever claiming credit for the article or the article's drawing of the No. 21 aloft. Howell died before the revival of interest in Whitehead.

Kosch assumed, without stating a source, that the author was Howell, and said, "If you look at the reputation of the editor of the Bridgeport Herald in those days, you find that he was a reputable man. He wouldn't make this stuff up."[36]

O'Dwyer, in an article in Aviation History, said, without stating his source, that Howell was "an artist before he became a reporter." [20] The same article said, "O'Dwyer, curious about Howell, spent hours in the Bridgeport Library studying virtually everything Howell wrote. 'Howell was always a very serious writer,' O'Dwyer said. 'He always used sketches rather than photographs with his features on inventions. He was highly regarded by his peers on other local newspapers. He used the florid style of the day, but was not one to exaggerate. Howell later became the Herald's editor.'"[35]

DonFB, this looks good to me. That would take care of my concerns, thanks (thank also for the "assuming that Randolph/Kosch assumed" phrase - terrific). written by Carroll. Roger491127 (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet has also joined the people who are trying to discredit Whitehead, study what is happening in the discussion pages of both Gustave Whitehead and Aviation history where Binksternet and Bilcat have cut down the section about Whitehead to a few sentences from what it has been for years, a section which used around 60% of the space used for the Wright Brothers which follows it. The behavior of Binksternet, Carroll F Gray and Bilcat should be investigated, because it makes wikipedia look bad. They are history falsifiers who use weaselwords and innuendo in wikipedia articles which gives a very confusing and faulty impression. And Binksternet is trying to use formal procedures in the wikipedia administrative structure to subdue and scare me. That is a deplorable behavior. I better copy this text because Binksternet will probably delete it. Roger491127 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate username?

Resolved

 – Report has been filed at WP:UAA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't too sure on this but I was wondering, does the user Hornymanatee's username violate the Username Policy for being possible innuendo? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

'Possible'? It's a single entendre. → ROUX ₪ 09:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, this is more suited for WP:UAA, not ANI. StrPby (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral changes made to this board's editnotice template

Moved to Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Recent changes

Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Disgusting racism

Resolved

 – Blocked until July 2011

I thought I should draw attention to this edit by the occasional vandal 74.231.187.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It seemed particularly egregious, and I thought a word from an administrator might be a good idea. -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

More. Should I take it to WP:AIV? -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me to be vandalims and nothing more.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mackie777 refuses to engage in discussion

I have been trying to engage Mackie777 (talk · contribs) in a discussion about an article she has created about some cartoon characters. She has essentially copied an article on some Simpsons characters and changed a few facts in the infoboxes. Since I could find no indication that these characters were individually notable, I originally redirected the article to the article about the show in which these characters appear. However, Mackie has reverted that change on several occasions (here, here and here), despite my efforts to discuss the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I left a notice on his/her talk page saying she has to start discussing things and that she'll be blocked if she doesn't. 67.42.154.201 (talk · contribs) is clearly the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of list of industrial music bands, needs semi-protection again, range block maybe

Resolved

 – IP blocked, page protected, thanks. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 16:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the best place to report this. Basically, the list of industrial music bands page keeps being vandalized by an IP, but the specific address keeps changing. If you look at the recent history, you can see it's being blanked by a group of IPs in either the 89.244.?.? or 94.134.?.? ranges. Not sure if a range block would be good either, but edits like this make it clear that whoever this is has no intention of stopping their disruption. Any help or advice would be appreciated. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 15:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You could try WP:RFPP and asking for the page to be semi-protected until the IP gets bored --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) semiprotected the article for a month. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd vandalism

Striated darter is, I'm sure, a lovely little fish, but it's article history is not so pretty, with lots of juvenile vandalism. But the odd thing is that some of those recent vandals have also contributed positively to other fish articles (I noticed Fantail darter and Pirate perch). For a moment I thought maybe accounts had been hijacked, but none of these editors have made very many edits, so my latest guess is that these accounts and their early edits were part of a class assignment and now the true colors are showing. Anyway, it raised my curiosity but I have to run off, so I thought I'd leave it for you, in a different time zone, who are already sipping cocktails. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost for sure. All four of the accounts were created on August 26, so either it's one person who for some reason decided to create 4 accounts, or it's four classmates playing around. I did not block them, because it seems like they stopped after getting the warning messages (the one further warning, from XLinkbot on Cwhite44's talk page, is a false positive ... the bot was actually adding vandalism back into the article there after Cwhite44 reverted himself). —Soap— 18:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I left an only warning because it was clear they were messing around way too much, and I'm glad to see they stopped. Let's hope they get back to writing articles about fishies, as class assignments or not. As a sidenote, I've noticed that Wikipedia's animal coverage suffers from rodent overpopulation, so those contributions are welcome. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The latest Sinbad Barron sock, a.k.a. Prince of Kosova

Fairly obvious by looking at the contribs: [172]. Athenean (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked indef, and all edits reverted. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated forking of articles and refusal to listen Lilbadboy312

Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly recreating the article for the song "In the Dark" released by JoJo taken from her ree mixtape Cant Take That Away from Me. Firstly he created the article at In the Dark (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was reverted lots of times but he recreated the page lots of times. Then he/she recreated the page at In the Dark (JoJo Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and even uploaded images taken from his own personal blog. Then after being warned for the final time here, I gave him/her a final warning here. And then surprise surprise, after being notified of the recent article's deletion he/she cleared his talk page here and then recreated the article In The Dark (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Its obvious that the user in question has questionable editing practises. He constantly has image issues thanks to him uploading inappropriate images and then goes ahead disobeying consensus and administrators by creating inappropriate page forks, making NO attempt to engage in any kind of discussion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please comment on this... it does require some kind of intervention. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Although this does not yet require admin intervention, you will see that a couple have commented and now have some eyes on the editor. Step one though: they had never been welcomed - and unless they know all of the rules, how can they know they're acting improperly? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading watchlist notice

Resolved

 – Notice changed. To discuss whether this notice should be there at all, please go to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#notice for recruiting Article Assessment Team for the Public Policy Initiative — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please remove this severely misleading watchlist notice – which appears to relate only to reassessment of articles related to public policy in the United States, as opposed to all Wikipedia articles – until the text has been fixed? Thank you. Hans Adler 08:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How's "The Public Policy Initiative is testing a new article assessment system on pages under the project's scope. Interested article reviewers can sign up now." ? sonia♫ 08:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Ideally there would also be a link from "Public Policy Initiative" to an article or project page where one can find out what it is. Hans Adler 08:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This should do, then: "• The Public Policy Initiative is testing a new article assessment system on pages under the project's scope. Interested article reviewers can sign up now." sonia♫ 08:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are giving a random project watchlist notice space? unless it is project wide, or will have significant impact on the whole community I see no reason to give it watchlist notice space.--Crossmr (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss making changes to it here, we can discuss whether or not it needs to be there here. That's a change as well and we need an admin to take care of its removal. From the looks of it, that talk page is extremely low traffic and a discussion there won't go anywhere. Changing it to unresolved.--Crossmr (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely why WP:WHINE should redirect here. Everybody who wants to draw attention about anything will dump stuff here for that reason. –MuZemike 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't here it would have been some other page. ANI had the misfortune of being the right page at the right time. 2004 was early enough that it was adopted like only a fresh idea can be adopted, but thats old enough now that it seems as timeless and immutable as stone. Why does everyone dump stuff at ANI? Because everyone reads this page. Why does everyone read this page? Because everyone dumps stuff here. It's beautiful in its self-fulfilling propagation, like a photon zipping out into space, it's magnetic field propagating it's electrical field and it's electrical field propagating it's magnetic field. -- ۩ Mask

Or perhaps it should be renamed some something like Wikipedia:Community forum or something similar to the Village pump? –MuZemike 16:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Partially answered my own question: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Problem with this board, and two specific proposed solutions :) –MuZemike 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was more about, "Why is it okay to bring it here for a change, but not okay to decide if we actually need it now that it's been brought here?" The user could have made the editprotected request on the page.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I brought it here because I wanted the watchlist notice to be removed fast. As you can verify, it took 2 hours for an admin to act on my watchlist notice. ANI used to be faster, but even that seems to be a quiet place nowadays. Hans Adler 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because ANI gets diluted with other, more mundane crap, many admins have lost the motivation to take action. I don't blame them, hence my proposal above. –MuZemike 04:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dcahole redux - now including copyvio

71.139.18.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dcahole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following from the unresolved but now archived thread started here a few days ago, User:Dcahole has returned. They have undone much of the clean-up work done by User:Cameron Scott. Note that person behind the account has a longstanding grudge against Cameron Scott, as well as myself.

In this edit User:71.139.18.157 cut and pastes multiple paragraphs from a magazine website. The IP is quite obviously the same user as Dcahole, per this edit.

I would appreciate some admin assistance in resolving the issues raised in the original ANI post, as well as dealing with the latest shenanigans of Dcahole. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

SPAM warning left, haven't had time to check the copyvio... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped the article back to the last known "good" version - the copyvio is undoubtedly a copyvio, the other editing (i.e. removing sourced criticism) looks dubious as well though. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Verified copyvio; there are some differences, but the majority of the text mirrors the site. HalfShadow 03:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that GWH has given what amounts to an only and final warning to Dcahole; any further issues regarding either copyvio or targeting Cameron Scott or Delicious Carbuncle, and it is cluestick application time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, I don't wish to sound unappreciative, but Dcahole is only the latest in a series of socks and IP accounts used for this purpose. A member of ArbCom assured me that I am wrong in my identification of the user behind these accounts -- but that Arbcom are aware of the identity of the user -- when this came up in July related to some trolling on Wikipedia Talk:Child protection. The same user has also targeted User:Schrandit, another long-time adversary. I suspect that the user has no particularly strong feelings about Men's Health (magazine), but they have successfully derailed my attempt to address what I feel is a clear-cut COI issue. In other words, blocking the Dcahole account isn't addressing the problem (although why the account isn't blocked yet is beyond my comprehension). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

While ArbCom members have CU permissions it may be best to email Checkuser with your concerns, as they may then be reviewed by others - and even if your suspicions as to a sockmaster are not correct, abuse of multiple accounts may result in some actions being taken. Outside of CU confirmation (or otherwise) or WP:DUCK we can only deal with the individual accounts at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did copyvio from that magazine's site, I used it because it was written by Men's Health to sell subscriptions and it did a good job of just talking about the content. Everything else was adding sources. I didn't remove sourced criticism, I added it. I did remove something from Cameron Scott that was false and not in the source, that is the sum total of any grudge or attacks. I don't know who any of them are but if this is how Delicious carbuncle acts then I guess they would have grudges held against them. They added "Conflict if Interest" and besides the external links- all 22 were to official language editions of the magazine - has offered nothing but accusations. They did an investigation and this is another thread filled with with hunt rhetoric. I never attacked anyone, all I did was add sourced content, besides the one which I tried to summarize but still meets a copyvio problem I was putting in exactly the information the encyclopedia should have with sources. When everything was deleted you removed not just the one copyvio section but all the other stuff was fine. If anyone has a grudge it is Delicious carbuncle against Men's Health, they seem locked horns in preventing it from being improved with sourced content. Can someone whose not making things up about attacking please look at everything besides the copyvio and see if it's OK? Dcahole (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone is overlooking the obvious here - that the redlink's user ID is an obscenity directed at the OP here. Accordingly, I have reported his username to the proper authorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that was discussed in the linked thread at the top. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been indef'd for username violation, but he's arguing that it's a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised; he is telling the truth about that being a name, but I find it an AMAZING coincidence indeed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording of his unblock request suggests someone who has had a previous run-in with DC under different ID(s) and/or IP(s). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the user name is inappropriate. The user said it was some common irish surname or something. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Aye, an amazing coincidence. And it's an amazing coincidence that his first few edits went after a user with the initials DC. A most unfortunate coincidence, begorrah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Targeted killing

• Targeted killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A dispute at Targeted killing (history) has resulted in the following report filed at AN/AIV:

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Targeted killing; vandalism after final warning. Editor has been deleting completely both the page targeted killing and its attendant talk page. That page is a new, 100K, 150 footnote article. He apparently dislikes it, and has deleted despite a final warning. This is a re-post w/the below explanation as to why deletions of this sort are vandalism under the guideline. Note: this is certainly vandalism, which wp:vandalism states includes "Removing all ... of a page's content ... with no valid reason(s) given in the summary" inasmucch as there has not been "a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content"Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Whether or not there's a good reason to remove the content is debated, so this is a content dispute. I'm not going to remove this one again, but I can pretty much guarantee it will not be acted upon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC) It is by no means a content dispute -- there is nothing about the content that is in dispute. Yet it is being deleted. Under the guideline, one needs a "non-frivolous" explanation for removal of apparently legitimate content. We have none. We don't even have a statement that the content is not legitimate.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I think a key issue is whether or not the consensus was reach in this discussion last May. If not, this can be treated as a content dispute to be further discussed in the newly opened RFC. If it has, than continued removal of the new article content can be considered disruptive editing against consensus. Should this discussion be moved to AN/I? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Even if disruptive, it's not vandalism per Wikipedia's definition. ANI may well be a good place to discuss this, though.

At this time both editors have reached 3R, but have not violated 3RR. This issue has been moved here for further discussion. A prior discussion relating to the fork and a new RFC are linked in my prior comment above.

Should administrative action be taken or should we let the RFC run its course? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Full protected for one week, there is a conflict ongoing at both the article history [173] and talk page history [174] (did not protect the talk page). There was also a report at WP:AIV about this, did not seem appropriate for AIV, [175]. Other admins, feel free to review, change the protection if there is consensus for that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since there have been no further comment, should we closed this out with no further action and allow the RFC to run its course? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche placed a comment at 03:40, (30 September 2010) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. When I raised the issue on Epeefleche's talk page at 03:53, that using vandalism in the history of the article over a content dispute is not acceptable behaviour. Far from telling me that (s)he had also posted to AIV Epeefleche made a statement "Third of all, the scrip chose the specific words--if you don't like it, take it up with the scrip writers. It is the standard language." I leave it to others to decide if this is honest behaviour and the comments by Epeefleche on talk, talk:Assassination#RFC: Should there be a separate article called Targeted killing and in the history of Targeted killing civil and likely to help build a consensus, or uncivil and likely to hinder the build a consensus.

I would like to know what script Epeefleche used to put comments into the history of an article as clearly it is open to misuse if it is used in content disputes, and because the link to wp:vandalism is hidden behind unconstructive the user of the script may not know that it is being used. -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Answer: The tool used was WP:Twinkle. (More on the editor's talk page.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tom N for the more detailed explanation on my talk page. I would like to know if anyone considers the way that Epeefleche used Twinkle to be an abuse of Twinkle. -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If they screwed up with it the punishment tends to be removal for a significant time. There's a strong contingent on the wiki (including myself, full disclosure) that consider these functions on these tools to be unclueful in the extreme to begin with. Automated messages telling someone that this random other person (maybe, maybe a bot) has a problem with something they did are an abuse to begin with. At some point we changed from trying to recruit new editors from people dicking around by using hand written notes (you know, to show that there's a community here and not just a walled garden of information) and instead started trying to fill daily vandal-busting quotas to accumulate EXP on some twisted WP RPG. -- ۩ Mask 09:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, at the root of this issue is a content dispute; pretty much all fights on Wikipedia originate over content. The question is whether Philip Baird Shearer is obeying the rules insofar as editing against consensus, seeking to resolve issues through discussion, etc. It doesn’t seem to be the case here. This is an issue of whether the term “targeted killing” should be an article unto itself. Given that the U.S. Government is using the term, it would be unconscionable for Philip Baird Shearer to redirect searches on that term to “Assassination”, which looks too much like POV-pushing. Wikipedia works best when the consensus view prevails and breaks down into complaints like this when editors flout process. Greg L (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"It doesn’t seem to be the case here" Is an RFC not "seeking to resolve issues through discussion"? "it would be unconscionable for Philip Baird Shearer to redirect searches on that term to “Assassination”, which looks too much like POV-pushing." Given that the term had been a redirect since Tazmaniacs redirected it on 19 February 2006 (after a discussion that it should become a redirect until 00:21, 30 September 2010 when Epeefleche created a new article, I think your statement "it would be unconscionable for Philip Baird Shearer to redirect searches on that term to “Assassination”, which looks too much like POV-pushing." is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here. I have reviewed the situation and have the following comments:

• Both editors were edit warring, which is unacceptable. That they stopped at 3 reverts is not really important, and both could have been blocked for these actions.
• However PBS's edits can not be called vandalism as they were made in good faith. Therefore the edit summaries used by Epeefleche were inappropriate, and this certainly was misuse of Twinkle. I will refrain from removing access to this tool at this time, but will post a warning on Epeefleche's talk page about this.
• The appropriate course of action when you don't think a page should exist on Wikipedia is to follow the deletion process. Nominating the article for deletion would have been preferable to edit warring over a redirect.
• The discussion mentioned by Epeefleche is recent and, although not unanimous, does show significant support for a new page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Let's be clear here. What would you think of PBS deleting the entire 100K, 150 footnote article "abortion"? Simply blanking the page? Multiple times, despite multiple warnings? Because he claimed -- in his explanation, a bare edit summary -- it was simply a euphemism for "murder", and therefore should not have an article? (While the "murder" article has only a comparatively brief mention of abortion). And claimed that the extensive talk page discussion such as the one that Martin describes above does not show consensus.

That, by analogy, is precisely what is happening here.

I'm happy to:

1. supply all the diffs (some of which are now below), and
2. the detailed chronology, and
3. reflect PBS's 6 deletions (of the article[176][177][178] and the talk page[179][180][181]) within a mere 2+ hours, with bare edit summaries that fail to provide a reasonable basis therefor, and
4. his spurious assertion that it is merely a "euphemism" for murder (an assertion I addressed multiple times) lacking consensus as his edit summary bare explanation,
5. detail my multiple efforts to engage him on his talk page while he was doing this,[182][183]
6. the multiple entreaties and warnings to him to desist, explaining why his bare edit summaries to the extent that they even pretend to be substantive, are frivolous -- to no avail,[184][185][186][187][188][189] and
7. the many, many references I pointed him to of scholars and judges and others who say that "targeted killing" is not "assassination" (while, as with "abortion", there are as the article indicates some with a different view), and
8. the precise language of wp:vandalism which specifically describes "page blanking" without a non-frivolous rationale as vandalism, and
9. describe how the assumption of good faith is a rebuttable one that melts away after an editor rebuts it by his actions.

If people need more, I will do so. But in a nutshell, this is what has been going on. And I see no evidence that PBS "gets it". It could reasonably be assumed by some that he deleted the article and its talk page 6 times in 2 hours with something short of a "good faith" intent. Something short of his obligations under wp:admin to model appropriate behavior, and to avoid edit warring. As to PBS's saying he fails to see the consensus which the above editors and others see, and saying that he fails to see how targeted killing is anything other than a euphemism for murder (after I've provided him loads of citations) -- as they say back in Texas, "don't pee on my leg, and tell me its raining".

This is precisely the sort of heavy-handed inappropriate behavior that drives away good editors. It is not behavior that one with the bit should display.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

[Add--as I've also added some diffs above] As an example of the language I pointed PBS to that showed his assertion that targeted killing was simply a euphemism for assassination was not a universally agreed fact, I pointed him to, inter alia, the following:

As reflected in the article itself even as I came upon it, there is clearly a substantial body of thought that targeting killing is not the same thing as assassination ("Pro:...They also oppose the use of the term assassination, as it denotes murder, where targeting such leaders is seen as self-defence, and thus killing, but not a crime.[33]"). Assassination is categorized under murder, which is an unlawful killing. Obviously, it satisfies someone's POV to put it there. But there is clearly not a consensus view in RSs that it is unlawful, and assassination. See also: The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, by Georgetown Law professor Gary D. Solis ("Assassination and targeted killing are very different acts") The Impact of 9/11 and the New Legal Landscape: The Day That Changed Everything? Day that changed everything?, Matthew J. Morgan, Bob Graham ("There is a major difference between assassination and targeted killing.") "Targeted Killing as Active Self-Defense", by Amos Guiora, 36 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 319 (2004)("Targeted killing is also not an assassination") Fatal Choices: Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing, by Steven R. David ("there are strong reasons to believe that the Israeli policy of targeted killing is not the same as assassination") "Targeting Terror: The Ethical and Practical Implications of Targeted Killing" E Patterson, T Casale, International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, Volume 18, Issue 4 January 2005, pages 638-52 ("Perhaps most important is the legal distinction between targeted killing and assassination.") Ireland and the Middle East: trade, society and peace, Rory Miller (2007)("Targeted killing ... is not 'assassination' for three reasons") "Targeted Killing and Assassination: The US Legal Framework", William C. Banks, Peter Raven-Hansen - U. Rich. L. Rev., 2002 ("Targeted killing of terrorists is therefore not unlawful and would not constitute assassination") Responses to Terrorism / Targeted killing is a necessary option, Judge Abraham D. Sofaer, March 26, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle ("When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action.")

As well as to this detailed discussion by scholars and others of the very issue, in the targeted killing article, here.

PBS's response? He just ignored me, and kept on blanking the page and inserting a redirect instead to the assassination article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If their edits are made in good faith the placing warnings on a person's talk page does not justify calling someone a vandal. You say I deleted the article I did not, you say I banked the article I did not. What I did do is revert to the redirect that has existed for may years. I say that here, because although are aware of that, you did not bother to mention it! Initiating an RFC is hardly the action of someone not willing to discuss the issue! I would ask interested parties to look at User talk:Epeefleche and Talk:Assassination and decide for themselves who if anyone was/is not willing to discuss the issue.

Epeefleche As an involved editor in this case I will not take any administrative action against you as that would be inappropriate. But if in future, if it is bought to my attention that in a content dispute in which I am not involved, you use Twinkle in the same as you did when reverting my edits, I will prevent you from using it under the Blacklisting clause. If you the persist in accusing other editors of vandalism when they are making good faith edits, and it is bought to my attention I will block you account until you agree not do do it. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Martin’s observation that the article is best dealt with via an AfD and not editwarring is brilliantly simple and should definitively settle the matter. I consider this ANI finished. Greg L (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to see all you great editors having this dispute. It appears to me you all make goods points. Why not just let a little time pass to see if the things people are accusing each other of doing is actually a pattern of one editor or another. That said, I do not think blanking out an entire article and talk page without first obtaining consensus is a wise idea. I certainly hope it was not vandalism. Targeting killings are substantially similar to assassinations, but they are significantly different to earn a separate article. This particular article, targeted killings, looks really well done, and it really has little to do with assassinations, let's be honest. So I hope everyone will get along and improve, not remove, the article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments 100 percent, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche you claim that what I was doing was edit-warring, so presumably you must have thought that you were edit-warring, if so why do you persist in reverting it you thought you were in an edit war?

Epeefleche you write "Let's be clear here. What would you think of PBS deleting the entire 100K, 150 footnote article "abortion"? Simply blanking the page? Multiple times, despite multiple warnings? Because he claimed -- in his explanation, a bare edit summary -- it was simply a euphemism for "murder","

Epeefleche I did not delete or blank the page. Delete and Blank have specific meanings and you are using the terms. My first two reverts were:

• 01:28, 30 September 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (rv to last version by Sceptre. There is no consensus that this euphemism should be a separate article)
• 02:31, 30 September 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (revert to last version by PBS. There is now an RFC. Let that run to see if there is a consensus that a new page should be created.)

the first was a revert to a previous version not the "delete or blank the page" that you claim and the second was after I set up an RFC not " in his explanation, a bare edit summary ..." which implies that there was no other correspondence.

Also in the same statement above you write "his spurious assertion that it is merely a "euphemism" for murder (an assertion I addressed multiple times) lacking consensus as his edit summary bare explanation," Where did I say that targeted killing is an euphemism for murder I said it was an euphemism for assassination. Why do you distort what I said like that? Do you intend to deceive or was it just a careless mistake? -- PBS (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• PBS -- you were edit warring. You received multiple warnings for page blanking and edit warring. I was not (and did not receive any such warnings). Reverting your blanking of the article, that was not accompanied by a non-frivolous explanation, is of course appropriate under wiki guidelines.

Furthermore, you are under especial wp:admin obligations not to engage in edit warring. Continued behavior of this sort can, and I understand has, resulted in admins being relieved of their bits.

When I say "blank", understand it to mean that the result of your edit is that anyone seeking to access the page "targeted killing" and its talk page, by searching for its name -- targeted killing -- would not reach the 100K, 150 footnote article in question or its talk page. And, as the diffs show, would instead be directed to a page that was completely blank as far as the 100K, 150 footnote, material is concerned. As was the case in your six edits here.[190][191][192][193][194][195] But perhaps you knew that, and are just engaging in wikilawyering to deflect the focus from your behavior.

What in the world makes you think that, with the conversation having concluded and reached a consensus -- as a number of other editors have now confirmed -- you can just blank the page, because you want to get additional months of input? How many months do we need? And why should the cost of your personal effort to blank the page be that you blank it for the term of your misguided RFC, of a question already asked and answered? Your first reason was frivolous -- there most certainly was a months-long discussion with a consensus. And your view that the phrase is merely a euphemism is no more credible than if one were to say that abortion is merely a euphemism for murder. Your spurious assertions were responded to, you were warned many times, and you continued headlong with your six blankings. As to euphemisms, I mean to say "euphemism for assassination, analagous to one calling abortion a euphemism for murder".

I would appreciate it if you would admit the error of your behavior, and agree to desist. You don't seem to be taking responsibility for your inappropriate actions here. Epeefleche

Opinion from Tom N There comes a time when the most productive action is to agree to disagree. WP:AGF can mitigate most of the issues discussed above. The May discussion appeared to lean in favor of the new article, but there was no clear statement of consensus and I believe that some (in good faith) would assume no consensus, while others (also in good faith) could assume consensus in favor of the new article. As for the reverts, PBS clearly stated his reason for the reverts, so I would not consider the reverts frivolous (although I would allow for the possibility that others would, in good faith, consider those same reasons frivolous). I believe "Vandalism" is a term sometimes used too frequently in cases that could be considered content dispute, if one considers the possibility that another editor has other than a destructive (aka unconstructive) intent. As for deletions, removal of established material without good reason (preferably stated in the edit summary) is clearly unconstructive. Reverting recently added material is another matter. If this had been a material addition to an existing article, the WP:BRD process would apply. For a brand new article, the deletion processes (CSD, ProD, or AfD) would apply. Content forking (and alleged POV forking) adds a shade of gray to the situation, but I think it would still have been best to apply ordinary deletion nomination processes.

Back to my original point. Epeefleche and PBS: You have both stated your cases and neither appears inclined to acknowledge any merit in the other's position. Further discussion will not likely change that. I (and others) have listened to your arguments and reviewed the situation and have elected not to take any administrative action other than to protect the subject article. (Although as one admin pointed out earlier, the edit warring alone could have justified blocks.) It is not likely that further discussion will change that. Please AGF, forgive any perceived transgressions, and agree to disagree. It's been four months since the prior discussion, I think we can wait a little while longer for the current RFC to establish or affirm the consensus regarding the article.

One side note: PBS - In this edit you included a statement "But if in future,..." that could be interpreted as possible future prejudice. I assume that was not your intent, but it might be wise to refrain from any potential direct administrative action against Epeefleche. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Tom, mainly.
  • Both editors edit-warred, but neither is admitting that they did anything wrong.
  • It is clear from comments above, and in an email I received, that Epeefleche still does not understand that characterising these edits as vandalism was incorrect. I fear that removing this editor's access to automated tools may be a necessary step in the future.
  • I would also counsel PBS that taking administrative action against Epeefleche would be unwise.
• I think we could mark this as resolved now. We're unlikely to make any more progress at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange vandalism pattern at Mark Madden

I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at Mark Madden. For the past week, various IP addresses, all starting with 114.74 have been vandalizing the page in strange ways. This user adds some plausible sounding content with references that do not support the assertions, combined with other, obviously wrong information. He/she/they only makes one or two edits a day, so the pattern took awhile to emerge. Also, my own user page was vandalized. [196] Since the IP addresses shift slightly for each edit, I am not sure what to do. I can't even tell if I am guilty of 3RR! Help? Tarastar42 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply if you're reverting vandalism. It can't or nobody would be able to revert it. HalfShadow 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

<blush>. Yeah, I guess that seems really obvious... duh. Sorry, I am new! Tarastar42 (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. The best thing to do in this case is probably to ask for semi-protection. That way only users with accounts can edit it. You can do that at WP:RFPP. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hounding and off-wiki harassment by a WP admin? (User:KimvdLinde)

I have seen editors of sexuality pages receiving off-wiki harassment before, but I have never seen it coming from an admin, especially during a content dispute in which the admin is currently involved: http://heathenscientist.blogspot.com/ .

I am no stranger to controversial topics in sexuality, and I appreciate that there will always be editors and admins who disagree with me on one issue or another. However, for an admin to be reverting edits and issuing warnings on the one hand and then attacking me (and other editors) off-wiki is a clear example of what “creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith” (i.e., WP:HARASS). In fact, giving into one’s POV while editing and intimidating editors with admin authority behind it suggests grossly poor judgment.

I have had no prior interactions with User:Kimvdlinde, until this AfD discussion. She then began sending me off-wiki emails regaling me with her off-wiki experiences as a scientist becoming embroiled in academic disputes. She then began reverting edits of mine, but left unanswered my request to untangle a problem she had with the content versus me personally [197]. Still participating in the content dispute at pedophilia, she is now making off-wiki attacks against me and the other editors participating in the discussion.

(We can, of course, discuss the content of the relevant edits, but to avoid TLDR, I will hold off unless asked. For the record, however, the statements User:KimvdLinde makes in her off-wiki attack are inaccurate. Two final notes: I have acknowledged my off-wiki identity, so I do not fault User:KimvdLinde for using it in her blog. Second, although User:KimvdLinde uses a pen name in her blog, she also acknowledges her identity: She link’s her userpage to her personal page, http://www.kimvdlinde.com/, where she acknowledges that the heathenscientist blog is hers.)

— James Cantor (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The pedophilia article is suffering from serious issues, and in my frustration dealing with it, I wrote a blogpost explaining my feelings about the article. I have reproduced the blog post on wiki, because I stand by what I wrote. I will answer the unanswered question so we can take that one out of the equation.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Pedophilia article is only suffering from "serious issues" according to KimvdLinde and another editor. Sticking mostly to authoritative sources on a medical issue is not a "serious problem." Pop culture calling a sexual interest in everything under 18 "pedophilia" and people wanting that in the article as if it is a valid definition of pedophilia is the serious problem. As long KimvdLinde doesn't start sending me emails, I really don't care what she writes on her blog about that article or me. I am sorry that James feels harassed, however. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not harassment; it's the views and observations of a person. There isn't anything harmful or demeaning in the blog, and I speak as an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless Kim redacted her original post, the "worst" I see that she said was that you do "not always know the limits of self-promotion", a statement she makes an effort to back up. That is mild criticism, not harassment. If I were you I'd either take it constructively or just ignore her and move on. She is just one person (admin or not) and if you feel her off-wiki criticism has no value, you are free to pay it no heed. -kotra (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether I believe her off-wiki attacks have any value; the question is whether editors/admins who feel frustrated enough lob off-wiki attacks is editing in good faith. A administrator acting in the best interests of WP would not intervene herself, but ask another admin to intervene; and would be answering questions on wiki about official warnings given on wiki rather than ignoring them and instead writing attacks about the warnee off wiki.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• - User:James Cantor should stop immediately adding his own self promotion conflicted articles. - I have watchlisted the user. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to invite anyone who wants to to watchlist me. However, by reading the pedophilia talkpage and its archives, for example, one will find that my suggestions for RS's that KimvdLinde faults me for providing were indeed posted on the talkpage and not the mainpage, and that the majority of my input for many months has been limited to answering questions posed specifically to me or referring specifically to me.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You added an external link to the sexual addiction article on the 11 September, to an interview with yourself,please don't do this again. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You leave out that I indicated my association with the EL on the talkpage, inviting others to review it (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Sexual_addiction#Disclosure.). You also leave out that I have made 100's of non-controversial edits to that page itself, not a single one of which has anything to do with me personally (I have not published any research articles on the topic), and not a single one of which has been contested by any other editor in the many months since I made them. (If my goal were to for self-promotion, I would not be using a very efficient method of going about it.)

Despite my asking it several times, no one has yet said that there is any problem at all with the content of the EL in question. The productive thing for an editor to do is read the EL, and either decide that the EL is relevant, informative, etc. and support it, or decide that the EL is irrelevant and delete it. For an admin to delete it and refuse to answer questions about the deletion, responding only with an off-wiki attach is not, in my opinion, appropriate (regardless of whether one believes that my own behavior was appropriate).— James Cantor (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not leaving anything out, you added it and that is unacceptable, as I said don't do that again, If you have the idea to add a self promotional external link to content conflicted to your editing here, open a discussion and allow consensus to arise and if there is a consensus on the talkpage to add your desired personally related interview then please do not add it yourself, allow an uninvolved user to add it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COS says simply "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest." 24.205.45.49 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for the link, personally in this case it doesn't appear to cover the issue, as cherry picking your own interview as an external link is not actually covered by that. Wikipedia is not written by experts and not read by them either. If users want to add their opinions and cites about themselves they would do well imo to discuss it well on the talkpage and as I said it would be a stronger position if they did not add it themselves. So called experts would do better by not editing in their field, they have a mountain of conflict of interest and as such are so involved to be unable to edit in that area in a neutral manner.Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

At least that clarifies that the disagreement is not about page content, but about one's POV about expert editors.— James Cantor (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave my thoughts on this above in this section. Really don't have much more to say about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider the comments in the linked blog to constitute either hounding or harassment, and I don't believe that admin interaction is required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the blog post does fall within Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks, and does a great deal to drain credibility from KimvdLinde. It is an incredibly petty thing to do. I have been driven to distraction by other people's behavior on WP, but I feel no need to do such a thing as create an attack page. Regarding alleged self-promotion James Cantor, I have always known him to ask first before incorporating any source he is an author on, and he has never added one over the objections of other users. When he one such suggestion], I suggested an alternative textbook source that fulfilled the same purpose, and we went with mine instead without any heated argument needed.Legitimus (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, everybody his opinion, but the facts show he inserted an external link of an interview of himself to an article, so your assertion that he always ask is incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed true that for that article (sex addiction), which is only infrequently edited, I put the EL in myself and disclosed all the information on the talkpage, whereas for highly followed or disputed articles I do exactly as Legitimus describes. (And no one is saying that the actual EL I added was at all problematic.) If Kim (or anyone else) would like to start an RfC on me, then we can have that discussion properly. However, the question here is whether it is appropriate for an admin to disparage an editor off-wiki while engaging in content disputes with that editor on-wiki and while acting in her admin role on-wiki with the same editor (rather than ask another admin to intervene).

1. In fact, when I was asked to provide an opinion at the AfD, my very first comment included the disclosure of my relationships with the topic and with other editors. However, Kim immediately opined that I should not have revealed those conflicts/interests[198], only to have another admin opin that I was correct in including the disclosure.[199]
2. When I updated an editor's comment on behalf of that editor [200], Kim intervened to say I should not [201], again only to have the original editor say I was correct [202].
3. Moreover, Kim's not answering questions from me on the topic was not an isolated event: e.g.: [203].

So, after each of the above, when Kim decides to write an off-wiki attack about me at the same time as engaging me in content disputes on-wiki, and at the same time as refusing to answer questions about her admin actions on-wiki, it is perfectly reasonable for me to question Kim's decision not to pass off her admin role. That Kim faults me both for overhandling COI and for underhandling COI makes it reasonable to question if the goal here is really about COI at all or about an opportunity to just fault me for whatever she can find. It is not unreasonable for me to indicate that the appropriate thing for Kim to do is to let another admin handle issues she perceives with me.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

James, as off-wiki attacks go, it was unusually temperate. There's been much worse behavior in comments on this range of topics on-wiki also. We've enough problems with these articles without going into side issues that can only exacerbate things. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

James, let me be blunt about things:

1. Adding links to interviews with yourself about a specific topic is not okay; it is blatant self-promotion.
2. Importing your off-wiki dispute with Andrea James is questionable, especially when you paint her as the attacker and yourself as the victim, while, after reading many of the webpages devoted to the dispute, it is not that clear who is at fault. Instead of immediately attacking her, you could frame it as a conflict or a dispute and leave it in the middle who is at fault. That would suffice for a disclosure, and leave the off-wiki drama off-wiki.
3. Removing external links to Andrea James pages when you are having such a high off-wiki conflict is really not okay. You berate me for things that happened before this blog post and when we did not have a conflict yet, you are in a full conflict with her for a long time, and yet, you think you have the right to remove external links to her webpages? I smell hypocrisy.
4. I work as a biologist, and if I edit pages I am an expert on, I take care that I first use sources that are from other people, especially those that have a different opinion from me. Why? Because I think that is the proper way to go. Only when there is NO other source then my own stuff, I will add it. I would expect from an expert like you that you could drum up at least a dozen reliable sources other than your own articles. But no, you had to promote your own article.

Anyway, I think you regularly skirt the rules of what is acceptable, and I am glad you brought yourself to the attention of the admins. Next time I find something that I consider inappropriate, I will contact an uninvolved admin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my only request.— James Cantor (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two longish observations to make:

• Encyclopedias traditionally give the more precise, and often more restrictive, definitions of terms that are used by experts, rather than those that are in use in the general public. That does not imply that these definitions must also be adhered to elsewhere in the encyclopedia, unless it is done with a potentially misleading link. Sometimes we seem to be overdoing it, as in the case of influenza, where a reader who is not aware of the distinction between influenza and other influenza-like illnesses could easily come away with the wrong ideas. When editing in a problematic area such as pedophilia, it is extremely important to keep in mind that conflicts about definitions are very common in Wikipedia, even if the term in question is totally harmless. (I have myself been involved in long discussions between many editors about the meanings of the words Leeds and city, for example. See the archives of Talk:Leeds.) It is easy to miss this and make incorrect assumptions about another editor's motives in such a context. This is only one of many typical scenarios in which we tend to jump to conclusions about someone else, and which make the guideline WP:AGF necessary.
• Reading KimvdLinde's user space essay, I had a trivial problem that turns out to be rather serious in this context. The second sentence of the second paragraph says this: "If you have to believe the people of the Clarke Institute, he would not have been a pedophile even when it had caused him distress, because the child is too old." (My italics.) This is very odd, because there is no real referent for "he" in the preceding. Someone with disturbingly inappropriate sexual fantasies was introduced in the previous paragraph as "[f]or example, if you have many sexual explicit fantasies about [...]", but that doesn't really fit. This creates confusion in my, and presumably many readers' mind: Who is this he? Is she talking about someone in particular? And precisely at that point follows this sentence: "James Cantor, an active wikipedia editor who not always knows the limits of [...]". The sentence continues with "[...] self-promotion [...]", but at this point this particular named Wikipedia editor is already a pedophile in the reader's mind. This is not appropriate at all and needs to be corrected pronto, even though it is probably just an innocent oversight. Hans Adler 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I am still trying to assume good faith, but now that I have realised the title of the original blog entry was "Pedophilia whitewash at Wikipedia", this has become significantly harder. The choice of words clearly implies an assumption of bad faith. It must be possible for a scholar on a criminal topic X to contribute to this encyclopedia without being accused of being a supporter of X merely for daring to promote the scientific lingo to which they are used. Hans Adler 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I disagree with your first point, and don't care to comment about that essay myself because the issue is addressed in reliable/academic sources. I gave my reasons on the article's talk page, but since you repeat the matter here, and you love analogies, assume for a second the year is 1970. Our homosexuality article should read, according to you, "Homosexuality is a mental disorder defined in the DSM-II as ..." Do you not see problem with that? The points that KimvdLinde raises above (and in his essay) reflect wider society use of the term pedophilia, and there is academic commentary over such (mis)use. Did you ever see a media article titled Ephebophile Priests, for instance? Me neither, and neither has Thomas G. Plante or Philip Jenkins both of whom discuss the use of the term in society [204] [205] [206] Excluding such discussion from the article because the word has a narrow definition in the DSM, which declares it a mental disorder, thus (according to some, including yourself) making it the exclusive domain of psychiatry and psychology, is obviously not neutral. You might have heard of political discourse purposefully conflating pedophilia and homosexuality, in part playing on the difference on the age of consent for homosexual versus heterosexual acts, in the UK for instance: [207] Even in the US, religiously or politically biased books trying to prove a link are not uncommon. (Here's one by Jim A. Kuypers [208]). These are issues that should be addressed in the article. Just because some word is given a specific meaning in the DSM, it should not preclude other discussion about its uses, especially when the editors that do not agree to have those viewpoints discussed (and by that I certainly do not mean endorsed) in the article, also reject a separate article discussing these wider issues as "POV fork". Finally, it should be obvious now that your analogy with influenza is weak, because nobody uses influenza in a derogatory fashion. It might get you in trouble at an airport, but otherwise saying that "X has a flu" instead of "X has a common cold" is no big deal in layman contexts. Declaring someone a pedophile is an entirely different matter, and it's sometimes done for ulterior motives. Merely dissing this aspect in one sentence at the end of the article as misuse of scientific term is obviously ignoring an elephant in the middle of the room. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Declaring someone a pedophile is an entirely different matter, and it's sometimes done for ulterior motives." At least we agree on that. I am astonished that apparently User:KimvdLinde is getting away with insinuating, apparently without any evidence, that a named Wikipedia editor and scientific researcher on the subject of pedophilia is pedophile himself. She has been editing since I explained the problem above, so presumably she knows about it. In fact, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't deliberate in the first place. There are only two possibilities: Either she knows something very important that I don't know, or she doesn't. In the first case she would have an obligation to notify Arbcom so they can deal with the situation. In either case she had an obligation to shut up. Hans Adler 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Tijfo098, it is not only the DSM which calls pedophilia a mental disorder. It is generally considered a mental disorder among all of the medical community. And this should not be equated to what went on with homosexuality, as if pedophilia has any chance of never being considered abnormal. Again, I am not calling you a pedophile, but pedophiles are always comparing "their hardships" to that of the LGBT community, especially gays and lesbians. Every LGBT person I know or have known has passionately objected to this comparison for many reasons. And regarding the article, it is not as though compromises have not been made. I have no problem discussing other uses of the term in the "Other uses" section or the "Misuse of terminology" section. But the editors arguing for inclusion of the general/wrong use seem to feel that it should come first in the lead because it is the more popular use among the general public and that the article should be half about the general/wrong use as well. That is what I disagree with. WP:UNDUE has something to say about what the general public thinks. The general public needs to know what pedophlia truly is first and foremost, not walk away from the article thinking they are right in their misuse of the term. And the media has sometimes made the attempt to distinguish between misuse and correct use of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Flyer22 writes: "It is generally considered a mental disorder among all of the medical community." Medicine outside psychiatry does not deal with issues like paraphillias or mental disorders unless they have a well understood etiology, like Parkinson's disease or Huntington's chorea. If you can cite a survey of the opinion of the general medical community on pedophilia in relation to medicine, it would be good addition to the article.

• Flyer22 writes: "And this should not be equated to what went on with homosexuality, as if pedophilia has any chance of never being considered abnormal." Mental disorder and "abnormal" (which is just as imprecise the layman's use of pedophilia) are two different notions, otherwise homosexuality would still be a mental disorder today. You don't seem to have much background knowledge on the paradigm used in classification of mental disorders, so here's a quick review from Robert Spitzer, the guy that wrote the first DSM(-III that is) def for it: [209], "... it will be apparent that the question 'Is condition A (whether it be homosexuality, schizophrenia, left-handedness, or illiteracy) a disorder?' is more precisely stated as 'Is it useful to conceptualize condition A as a disorder?' or 'What are the consequences (to society, the individual with the condition, and the health professions) of conceptualizing condition A as a disorder?' [...] It became clear to me that the consequences of a condition, and not its etiology, determined whether the condition should be considered a disorder." There's no deep biomedical insight about pedophilia that makes it a mental disorder, but the obvious observation that these individuals might act on their impulses with very bad consequences for the children involved. And if you think homosexuality was removed because of some great biomedical discovery, that's not the case either--it was put up to a vote by entire APA membership, something unprecedented before and since. Although officially the failure to change homosexual orientation by medical treatment officially had nothing to with this, Spitzer writes: "If there were a 'treatment' for homosexuality (I use quotation marks because the term presupposes pathology) that was available and effective in most cases, I very much doubt that there would be much objection to classifying it as a disorder." Ouch.

• Flyer22 writes: "pedophiles are always comparing [...]" I suppose you don't want to make the same correlation about Richard Green for writing this paper, questioning the validity of pedophilia as a mental illness. I don't even embrace his position, but I do find it strange that it's not even mentioned in the article, given that he is a prominent academic. And by the way, he finds the same flaw in the DSM-IV-TR definition as Kim did: "So what then of the pedophile who does not act on the fantasies or urges with a child? Where does the DSM leave us? In Wonderland. If a person does not act on the fantasies or urges of pedophilia, he is not a pedophile. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder."

• Flyer22 writes: "The general public needs to know what pedophlia truly is first and foremost [...]" You realize you're talking about an operational definition, right? So, "truly is" is meaningless in such a context. Introduce yourself to the next variation (from the current DSM-5) pedohebophilic disorder. Speaking of DSM-5, they also make a distinction between "abnormal" sexual orientation (paraphilia) and a level of that which causes harm or disstress. In part, we can thank our esteemed editor and psychiatrist James Cantor for that distinction. You can look it up on the rationale page of any paraphiliac disorder: "The Paraphilias Subworkgroup is proposing two broad changes that affect all or several of the paraphilia diagnoses, in addition to various amendments to specific diagnoses. The first broad change follows from our consensus that paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders. We are proposing that the DSM-V make a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia by itself would not automatically justify or require psychiatric intervention. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others. One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder."

• I hope I didn't waste my time typing all this, and you'll be more informed and less combative in the future. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am already thoroughly informed on the topic of pedophilia. And just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean they are being combative; it is not as though I gave you attitude in my initial reply to you on the Pedophilia talk page. You came back at me with attitude. Moving on:
• "Medicine outside psychiatry does not deal with issues like paraphillias or mental disorders unless they have a well understood etiology, like Parkinson's disease or Huntington's chorea. If you can cite a survey of the opinion of the general medical community on pedophilia in relation to medicine, it would be good addition to the article." ...I don't even know what you are trying to get at here. Goodness. Maybe I should have phrased it as "most researchers in this field" for you to get the point. I shouldn't even have to provide a source for you on that, if you are well-versed in this topic at all.

• With Mental disorder and "abnormal" being two different notions, it has nothing to do with my background knowledge on the paradigm used in classification of mental disorders; it has to do with my personal belief...which is that pedophilia is a mental disorder and is abnormal. I don't need a quick review. There's no deep biomedical insight about pedophilia that makes it a mental disorder, you say? James and other researchers would disagree with you on that. James has tackled much of what you address already. And I know why homosexuality was removed. I am saying if you think pedophilia has any chance of being removed, think again; it will always be considered a mental disorder...and abnormal.

• So what then of the pedophile who does not act on the fantasies or urges with a child? Uh, he would still be a pedophile. The act is not required for diagnosis. Distress is. A person not distressed over the urges or fantasies and who just repeatedly masturbates to them has no disorder? No, they have a disorder. How can one who has a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children not have distress? It's distressing not getting to act out those fantasies. This is further addressed below in my comment (where James touches on this). And again, the DSM is not the only layout we follow.

• Yes, I realize I am talking about an operational definition. Do you realize that the operational definition of pedophilia is the authoritative definition of pedophilia and if the common use definition (a sexual attraction to everything under 18) were pedophilia, then everything would count as pedophilia (even attraction to adult-like bodies)? Therefore, there is nothing meaningless about wanting people to stop conflating a sexual attraction to an adult body (17) to a sexual attraction to a child's body (7). 17 is a long ways away from 7, and those sexual attractions are completely different; they cannot both be pedophilia. That is my point. Further, I am not sure how what you stated in your most recent reply has anything to do with common use of the term, since pedophilia by itself in the above link is still only speaking of a sexual attraction to prepubescent children -- unless you were trying to say that pedophilia should not be defined as a mental disorder first and foremost because the disorder part only applies to pedophiles who are distressed by their sexual preference, which it seems you were -- but James already addressed that on the talk page, at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 14#Blatant Bias, and explained it this way: Not exactly: Pedophilia (and hebephilia) would remain classified as mental illnesses in the DSM if the current proposal is successful..... I can certainly appreciate the question about how one could be primarily attracted to children and NOT be concerned about it. In practice, of course, it nearly never happens: The very fact that the person is coming to see a professional qualified to apply the DSM (physician or psychologist) denotes that the person is distressed (or was sent by the legal/correctional system). However, there is certainly evidence that there exist "gold star pedophiles," as Savage put it, and there exist research projects attempting to study them. The largest one I know of is in Germany, called the Dunkelfeld Project. In my opinion, pedophilia NOT being a disorder is indeed a fringe belief. Personally, I have a more middle-of-the-road view: Pedophilia IS a disorder, but the central feature of pedophilia is its sexual (paraphilic) aspect, not its mental illness aspect.

That is what James had to say about the matter you just brought up. Flyer22 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously here to advocate your POV rather than reflect what reliable sources write about this. You wrote in the thread you linked above: "Psychiatric disorder" to describe pedophilia is not outdated; it is described that way in every instance by authoritative sources. Being sexually aroused by urine, being beaten, and animals is no better in my eyes. Though being "turned on" by statues and mannequins is not as "ugh!" as far as I see, considering the large number of normal people who are "turned on" by blow-up dolls and sex toys. [...] Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Basically, the paraphilias you don't personally approve of are to be described as mental disorders in Wikipedia regardless of distress or harm, even though the experts delegated to ponder on this did not come to that conclusion, even in the current authoritative version, DSM-IV-TR. The DSM-IV-TR fails to make distinction at the nomenclature level between disorder and paraphilia, but does make one at the conceptual level. This is what prompted the caustic criticism from Green and others, which is acknowledged by Ray Blanchard] [210], whose paper is cited among the reasons for making the (proposed) naming distinction in DSM-5: This approach leaves intact the distinction between normative and non-normative sexual behavior, which could be important to researchers, but without automatically labeling non-normative sexual behavior as psychopathological. It also eliminates certain logical absurdities in the DSM-IV-TR. In that version, for example, a man cannot be classified as a transvestite—however much he cross-dresses and however sexually exciting that is to him—unless he is unhappy about this activity or impaired by it. This change in viewpoint would be reflected in the diagnostic criteria sets by the addition of the word “Disorder” to all the paraphilias. Thus, Sexual Sadism would become Sexual Sadism Disorder; Sexual Masochism would become Sexual Masochism Disorder, and so on. This explanation is from the DSM-5 pedophilia rationale page, so it's not my WP:OR that it applies to it. (click 'Rationale' tab). Whether this language change in DSM-5 will be approved or not, the conceptual distinction in DSM-IV-TR remains, and is discussed in reliable and sufficiently authoritative sources, like Blanchard' review. You, Flyer22, are simply exploiting the language mishaps in the DSM-IV(-TR), which are acknowledged by the experts, in order to preach your POV here, which you have stated clearly enough. (For background: this is not the first mishap of this kind in the history of the DSM re pedophilia. The DSM-IV had an even worse language slippage, which was fixed in IV-TR. Basically, the way DSM-IV was written entailed that unless a child abuser was distressed about his pedophilia, he could not be diagnosed with a mental disorder! Spitzer and Hillard gave it a little trashing see p. 1249. Official explanation from the IV-TR guidebook [211].) What's more telling in all of this is that you don't provide any references for any of your statements, and just resort to emotional arguments and reiterate your gut-driven POV. And since you like quoting James, this is what he had to say: The lede sentence referring to pedophilia as a paraphilia rather than as a disorder and then noting pedophilia's status in the DSM would not (to my ear) significantly downplay or overdue it. [...] I cannot say that I feel strongly, however; [...] it isn’t such a horrible skew (if a skew at all) to include the DSM status in the first sentence [...] James Cantor (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC), and then goes on to say what I said above about the distinction in DSM-5, etc. Apparently, you've seen this before, just don't agree with it. James is nowhere near as intransigent as you're trying to portray him: It is, however, possible to write perfectly good definitions of pedophilia without mentioning that it is deemed a mental illness. To me, both of these are reasonably accurate and NPOV: "Pedophilia is a paraphilia involving the sexual interest in prepubescent children" and "Pedophilia is a mental/psychiatric illness/disorder characterized by having a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children. In my opinion, pedophilia NOT being a disorder is indeed a fringe belief. Personally, I have a more middle-of-the-road view: Pedophilia IS a disorder, but the central feature of pedophilia is its sexual (paraphilic) aspect, not its mental illness aspect. James Cantor (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) If you insist on having James' expert opinion in the article, I'm sure we can cite some WP:RS in which he writes the above, rather than the article's archived talk. But he's not the only expert to have written on this issue. I think I've said all I have to say about this. I ended up commenting on this whole matter because it was listed on the RfC page, FWIW. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not here to advocate my POV; I am all about the reliable and authoritative sources. Every editor who has worked on the Pedophilia article with me for years knows this. You say, basically, the paraphilias I don't personally approve of are to be described as mental disorders in Wikipedia regardless of distress or harm? Nope. Basically, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, and that editor was not making a good case for BDSM being a mental disorder, as if it is always considered one. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is always considered one (by most experts anyway). You say even though the experts delegated to ponder on this did not come to that conclusion? Most experts call pedophilia a mental disorder; that's a fact. I also remind you that pedophilia is not considered normative sexual behavior at all, even if you want to say it should only be classified as a disorder by distress. You keep bringing up the DSM, as if that's all we go by for defining pedophilia. Just because we do not favor popular cultures sources for the article, it does not mean we disregard all other sources and only regard the DSM. You say I am simply exploiting the language mishaps in the DSM-IV(-TR), which are acknowledged by the experts, in order to preach my POV here? Nope. But you are welcome to think so. You say unless a child abuser was distressed about his pedophilia, he could not be diagnosed with a mental disorder? I, and reliable sources, say that not all child sexual abusers are pedophiles. Read that article and the Pedophilia article. There's a reason not all of them would be diagnosed as pedophiles. But constantly thinking about having sex with a prepubescent child...knowing that you cannot legally engage in such acts with that child...is distress, and nothing can convince me otherwise. James was also clear about that. Why do I need to provide references for these statements, when all I say is either backed up in the Pedophilia article or on its talk page somewhere? Yes, I have seen James's take on the lead, but I have seen his other takes on it, where he stresses that pedophilia is about the preference. In his suggestion for the lead above there, he left that out. By accident, I am sure. If you were to ask him, he would still stress "primary sexual interest," not just "interest" in relaying pedophilia as a paraphilia. He also said that "mental disorder" should remain in the lead, just that it didn't have to go first. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And as for Richard Green being in the article, that was brought up, at Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 14#"Is pedophilia a mental disorder?" ... I stated Oppose for the very valid reasons given for not including it. But as can be seen, James was okay with the inclusion...as long as it was correctly labeled. I also would not care if it was included or not...if WP:Consensus was for it. But the main topic going on at the Pedophilia article right now is not whether or not pedophilia should be considered a mental disorder or whether we should mention "mental disorder" in the lead. It's whether or not "mental disorder" should come first in the lead and if the lead/article should give more weight to the layperson definition of the term. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, if Ray Blanchard cites the paper in quesition for specific concerns, in the DSM-5 literature review nonetheless, but the esteemed expert Flyer22 votes oppose, then the rule of the mob on Wikipedia dictates that we could not possible use that source for anything. James Cantor did not oppose, by the way. Just another example why the wiki article is so lame. Never mind that Richard Green's bio was a blatant WP:BLP violation until I fixed it. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only one who voted oppose to including Richard Green. In fact, I was not the first, as can be seen in that link. And I already mentioned that James was not opposed, provided some clarifications. Unlike some others, I simply respect WP:Consensus, though I may often disagree with it. I do not feel as though I am the leader of the Pedophilia article. I really have no WP:OWN issue there, no matter what you and two others think. The only reason I am the main one speaking out for what has been gone over time and time again at that article, mainly with pedophiles who have now been blocked or banned, is because Legitimus is trying to take a break from that article, Jack-A-Roe is too busy these days, SqueakBox is hardly active on that article anymore, and MishMich is completely missing in action. Sniping at and attacking me is not going to solve anything. I don't suspect you are entirely new to Wikipedia, but you don't see me calling you a WP:SOCK. Instead, I am actually willing to work with you. And, again, the issue is not whether or not to include mental disorder in the lead, first or at all; that matter has already been solved on the talk page (recently). And a new lead will be up in according to that, with more emphasis on the popular culture usage of the term. Like Kim van der Linde, I also expressed frustration at pedophiles possibly getting away with not being called pedophiles simply because a child is a little pubescent. This can be seen in the past archive discussion in the current Globalize section on the talk page. I stressed that it's still pedophilia if the child looks prepubescent; it does not take away from the fact that the pedophile is still primarly sexually attracted to prepubescent children. James has also stressed looks. As for the overall article, I do believe that it sould have some sort of Criticism section about the DSM definition and being defined as a "sexual preference" or by simply "distress" and not simply by acts or desire. I will start a brief Criticism section, and you are more than welcome to add to it. Just make sure you have consensus before adding Green. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• • My bad, I made a jump between second person and third person. I fixed my essay. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson redux

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) and I are in the middle of a content dispute at Talk:Turpan#Requested Move. He just made this edit, in which he puts a comment of mine underneath a header "Irrelevant abuse", which I'm pretty sure qualifies as modifying another user's post (see WP:TPG#New topics and headings on talk pages), not to mention it separates it from the comment to which it's responding (although that is elementary by now). Normally I wouldn't care too much and this would seem like a non-issue, but Pmanderson has a long history of problems with disruptive and incivil editing, including several recent ANI threads, and a recent RFC/U. I'm not trying to silence my content opponent or something (indeed, he has already made his statement at the move request), but I do think this is inappropriate behavior on his part. I'm not trying to forum shop here; I think this is a better place to deal with a behavioral issue without wasting space at the talk page (I'm hoping some actual content issues can get worked out there without it descending into bickering; anyway, isn't ANI the place for bickering? :P ) rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Something's got to happen here. Pmanderson is proving unable to get along with people he disagrees with and is willing to move war extensively on these matters (while in this case, Rjanag and he have moved an equal number of times, we must remember that Pmanderson also move warred at Aorist). In my observation, his behaviour is increasingly incompatible with Wikipedia's collaborative environment and needs to be changed. I'm frankly thinking a block is the only way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Georgewilliamherbert has blocked for one month. In related news, the size of Pmanderson's talkpage is a bit much, and he himself admits that it is to be obstructionist to people who aren't 'friends'. I would archive it myself, but don't particularly feel like getting shat on. → ROUX ₪ 03:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I honestly regret that it had to come to this, but I do believe that GWH has done the right thing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Forwarded from PMAnderson's talk page at his request by ( Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) ):

Please post the following at ANI for me:

This irresponsible admin moved Turfan to Turpan, despite strong opposition by User:Alefbe; closed the eventual discussion on the title at Talk:Turfan#Title, and now, after a further inconclusive discussion at Talk:Turfan#Naming in which he was the chief advocate, has moved it again twice (using his bit to delete the redirect). He himself admits that it was not closed by a neutral observer. He then went to Ecit-Warring; and now comes here.

There is now a move discussion, at which he strongly opposed; so I strongly supported. The post he complains about says:

Uh-oh, your support was "strong" [ so I guess you win. As for "demonstrating actual consensus", have you read the RfC, or any of my messages? I will say it again: four out of five editors there presented reasons for moving it to Turpan. How is that not consensus? (Oh, right, because you don't like those reasons.)

A very pretty piece of abuse - and falsehood, since several of those four editors said they didn't much care - and if it weren't for Rjanag's abuse, I wouldn't care all that much myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the notes, discussion, and PMA -

On this particular issue, Rjanag did not falsely indicate that the other 4 uninvolved editors preferred "Turpan". I read the discussion; they all did, in varying levels of enthusiasm (from low to moderate preference, but all slightly preferred "Turpan").

I would like to request another uninvolved administrator to review Rjanag's behavior here for using admin tools or edit warring improperly in a content dispute. I don't see an obvious example as PMA is asserting but would like someone else to make that call, please.

Regarding PMAnderson -

We had a user conduct RFC over the summer. We've had numerous ANI threads. I blocked near the end of the RFC, he was unblocked agreeing to behave better going forwards. The RFC result was essentially unanimous that PMA needed to pay more heed to NPA and CIVIL policies (slight involvement on my part - I wrote a very popular opinion to that effect in the RFC).

I believe the situation is worsening not improving, was already too far over the summer, and reached the point that it cannot be ignored further with this series of events today. I have blocked for one month.

I would like to urge other admins NOT to lessen the block duration this time; I don't see any sign that he "got the message" from any of the prior actions, RFC, warnings, etc. We need to have a sanction that sticks and has effective long term behavior change here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but this was clearly coming. Despite an RFC where there was a preponderance of editors who endorsed that PMA needed to change the way in which he interacted with people, this is the third incivility-related ANI report on him since that RFC closed. At some point, action needs to be taken, for the sum total of disruption. I am not sure this one event, if taken in isolation, would have been a blockable offense, but the entirety of his behavioral history here at Wikipedia has been adding up. I endorse GWH's block of PMA. --Jayron32 03:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@GWH: He is correct that I used admin tools in the edit war, because in retrospect (after the first one, a month ago) I realized I was deleting a redirect to move the page back. I'll let someone else decide whether or not that was justified this time (the move is not being discussed at Talk:Turpan#Requested Move). rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rjanag, there's nothing wrong with deleting redirects in a move request ... policy and Arbcom rulings have made it clear that edited redirects are not meant to be treated as barriers to anything and can be deleted in these circumstances. But moving a page in favour of a name you yourself have come out to support, when a context of formality and procedure has already been established, is bad practice and thus provocative. I don't know if these page move requests were listed at WP:RM, but if they were, then you are vulnerable to the accusation of admin abuse because there is an expectation that RM requests should be closed by [uninvolved] admins only. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, as far as I remember they were never at RM. Pmanderson move warred, I obliged for a bit but then I bit the bullet and opened an RfC. After the RfC died and no one was stepping forward to close it, I went ahead and did it because I felt (incorrectly, it seems) that the consensus was obvious. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

Pmanderson's talk page is currently over half a megabyte long, which as mentioned above, he deliberately maintains in order to discourage others posting there. If I'm not mistaken, that could be enough to crash some computers. The purpose of user talk pages is to facilitate communication between editors, not to obstruct it. I'd like to suggest that some kind admin put a MiszaBot tag on his talk page and instruct PMA to leave it there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. → ROUX ₪ 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please step back and consider what you have written. By all means point these things out to PMA, but this type of policing is not what administrators should be doing. -- PBS (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, this has been pointed out to Pmanderson, and he explicitly stated that he keeps it that long to dissuade people who aren't 'friends' from posting there. Deliberately making communication with other Wikipedians difficult is a) not allowed, and b) Pmanderson is well aware of that. → ROUX ₪ 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, its dishonest and Counter productive The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am shocked to think that anyone who edits in good faith would think of anyone else who also edits in good faith as anything but a friend. Therefore I presumed that what PMA meant is that it deters people who do not edit in good faith such as vandals. I do not think that policing the size of user talk pages by forcing MiszaBot on users, or by other coercive methods, is something that administrators should be doing. -- PBS (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A talk page that can't be edited defeats the purpose of have a talk page. However, since editors can edit by section, I don't see why it would be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason I first brought it up was because I accidentally edited the whole page (I don't remember how anymore, I think maybe I wanted to add two new sections at once) and nearly froze up my browser. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an old browser (IE 6) on an old machine. Just as a test, I edited the entire talk page. It took a little while to save, but it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing aside, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some computers that would freeze up or slow way down just looking at the talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem looking at it with IE 6. I can imagine some Blackberries or Macs might have some issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright?

A couple of days ago I added an addition to Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike‎ with a source to a youtube video which was then removed under alleged copright ground of which he then sent me this which suggests I can't use that under copyright law. Now, (as I'm guessing Wikipedia goes by American copyright law) I told him here that under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, what I was linking to constitutes fair use as it is being used for research purposes (As I doubt people would be going to that page to be entertained) as it is showing an artistic song about one of the people involved. Can someone affirm who is correct? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot claim fair use when linking to a copyright violation. O Fenian (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted on the Talkpage? It contains the relevant law text. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not contain the relevant law text. It contains completely irrelevant law text. O Fenian (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well what is this then: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies". Which would indicate that what I did was not a copyright violation but let's see what the admins make of it instead of all this petty bickering we always seem to do when we differ on something. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It would indicate you are completely ignorant of copyright laws. WP:LINKVIO, and for the record that particular section was directly linked to in the warning you were given. O Fenian (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The copyright laws are not mentioned in LINKVIO so i had to go and find it which does say under copyright law it's OK as it's a copy used for research purposes. In fact if it was added it would be one of 2 that would be actually sourced on that page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The admins don't need to do anything unless you continue to insert the link. It sheds a bad light on Wikipedia to link to copyrighted material as the link to the policy clearly says. If you want to make such an argument you will need to go seek a change/clarification there. You also need to consider why you are linking to it at all. Does it truly benefit the article? Enough for the project to possibly engage in contributory copyright infringement? More than likely not. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. So you are running into two concerns regarding policy. Furthermore, the uploader is not a reliable source. Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And on a similar note, if an admin does feel that the essay Wikipedia:Video links misrepresents the policies and guidelines used to create it (since we still don't have a guideline regarding references but only external link sections) please say so since it could always be improved.Cptnono (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It possibly could because it offers balance on the page as currently the page is all unsourced but 1 republican reactions and I wanted to add a sourced loyalist reaction. But I've noticed that policy says that if it's from a web archive then it's OK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to go take it up at the policy pages if you want a change. Until then you are grasping at straws.Cptnono (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well before I hadn't seen LINKVIO. I'm just saying that because the policy page says (and i quote) "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives" Which would say if I found the same source in an internet archive, it would be suitible to be used without copyright issues? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, only if the archived page was explicitly not copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But then you run into problems with the uploader not being RS. WP:NOTREPOSITORY is also part of a policy that you are ignoring. Instead of fighting to keep a link that has little chance of being accepted by the community, you should fix that problem of the article being hardly sourced.Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The C of E claims "The copyright laws are not mentioned in LINKVIO", that is obviously apart from where it says quite clearly "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". I second Cptnono's "grasping at straws" comment. O Fenian (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure C of E (English, I assume) is aware that obviously Wikipedia operates under that law as the servers are in the US. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, That's why I quoted US law on the issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the law says, you are still required to follow our copyvio policies, right? Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

New filter needed?

It's old, it's tired and it's back via a bunch of copycats. The latest Grawp/Johnny the Vandal variation on that tired "HAGGER?" theme is the slightly Francophone-sounding "Got HAGUER?" and other variations using the new spelling. How old and tired? One of these adorable little children thought he was harming me by - get ready for it - asking if "Lucky 6.9" had HAGUER. I actually laughed out loud. No secret that was my old username, I don't hide it, I haven't used the account in years, had it desysopped in good faith by my request and I established this account above board after returning to the project. So, is creating a new filter worth the trouble or do we just swat these mosquitoes as they appear? Lucky 6.9 aka--PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are people still doing this and thinking they're clever? It's been lame, pathetic and impotent for some time. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User creating multiple bad articles and ignoring talk page warnings

LobãoV (talk · contribs) has created many articles on Brazilian footballers consisting solely of an infobox, with no other content. Many of these articles have been nominated for speedy deletion for no content, and others proposed for deletion as unsourced BLPs. Despite many warnings on his talk page, this user has not made a single reply to any of the warnings -- his edit summary shows 0 contributions in the User talk, Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk spaces. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the assumption (correct or not) that the user is Brazilian, it might help to have a Portuguese speaker post to his talk page in Portuguese explaining the situation. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The user has demonstrated the ability to communicate in English, with edits to Claussio dos Santos Dimas, Marcos Assis Santana, Carlos Robston Ludgero Júnior, among others. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, the English on those pages is not exactly comprehensible, and to me suggests that the user's English isn't really at a level where he might be able to fully understand the policies and guidelines that he is flouting. I still think some sort of communication — in Portuguese — would be a good idea. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps. Sadly, I can barely read Portuguese -- I certainly can't create a sensible warning to this user. I'll try to recruit as Portuguese speaker for the task. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A simple babelfish translation should be better than nothing, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. But he may not even be aware of what a user talk page is, or what the yellow 'You have new messages' tag means. He's never contributed to any talk pages. Perhaps a short block might in fact be the only solution. --Kudpung (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat on Obama sanction page

An anon ip claiming to be a person called "Anthony Ratkov" made an edit on the Obama sanction page that, among other potential violations, made direct legal threats to the Foundation. I've informed the editor the post was directed at. Dave Dial (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat so much as intense douchery, and a block on those grounds is entirely valid. Especially since, if they are so rabid against the foundation, they clearly have no actual interest being here. Also, the personal attack. And the accusation of illegal (rather than 'not tax exempt') behavior. If they're genuine, I'm sure Mike is eagerly awaiting either their email or something from the IRS, two things which I doubt will ever arrive. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that the IP's cute little rant is still on that noticeboard? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is presumably the same person as User:Anthony Ratkov, whose user page is a hymn of self-praise, largely edited by IPs in the same range as the above editor, and which have repeated the same pattern of behaviour in articles relating to US political scandals. Should this user be blocked, and the self-advert deleted? RolandR (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MfDed the userpage, but considering that account has all of 3 edits, none recent, there would not seem to be any reason to block it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that I have just submitted an SPI, listing fifteen suspected socks.RolandR (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of removing all but one (since it had some substantive contributions from others) of this user's discussions at Political scandals of the United States. No sources were being presented, no legitimate efforts to improve the article were being made, it was just a litany of "can we add this?", can we add that?", "how about this?", yada yada yada. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nair

User:ChandranPillaiChandernagar is adding contents which are totally unhelpful and off-topic and personal attacks and i removed it twice and left him a warning here. He added the content back again with a pesonal attack in the edit summary. it will be helpful if a few would add the article to their watchlist. --CarTick 21:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ChandranPillaiChandernager indefinitely blocked and edits to talk:Nair suppressed; racism and cultural xenophobia is not tolerated, even in instances where the contributor is from a minority group in regards to the editorship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --CarTick 23:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over hair removal products? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should get to the root of this. Find out who's at follicle. HalfShadow 03:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your puns are hair raising. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the bald truth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, it is clear that it is user CarTick who is trying to insult other people and doing racial abuse. Admins should punish the real culprit, not the victim. See Talk:Nair#POV_tag and Talk:Nair#Misinformation_campaign. I am starting to lose my trust in Wikipedia, as users like CarTick are using it as a tool to abuse other ethnic groups and any one protesting against it is getting banned. And I don't find anything worth giving a life-ban in User Chandran Pillai's last edit. Anyway... you have your way... carry on. 203.131.222.1 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If, ip user who is of course not ChandranPillaiChandernagar, there are issues with another editors manner of editing - racial or xenophobic abuse, included - then you can bring up the matter on the article talkpage, the editors talkpage, or this page. What you should never do is insult or make racial aspersions regarding other races or cultures (women) in response. ChandranPillaiChandernagar posted xenophobic commentary regarding Christians and Europeans (described them as "Aryan/Nazi") and their lifestyles choices; as someone who is concerned with racist behaviours I am sure you are agree that blocking and deletion is the only possible response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigbrothersorder shouting on the indian articles

Bigbrothersorder (talk · contribs) is shouting in their edit summaries and reverting some users at the indian articles, i encouraged them to come to the talk page but the ignored me and are still at it what do i do?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of things he/she is being a bit dickish with these CAP LOCK edit summaries like "ITS A FACT LOOK IT UP". I left a message instructing him to cut it out, and explaining that the truth is not the truth without cites. Lets see what he does now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks SGGH --Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his changes to Meenas as they appear to be a bit overly dramatic for such a sensitive topic to not have any citations, given his clear agenda. I don't think I'll revert the more minor changes to other articles at the moment because I can't make as much sense out of it due to unfamiliarity with the subject matter. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

he is blocked for edit warring, now there is sock puppet case going on--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of editors from the Indian subcontinent use all caps, it may have to do with Hindi keyboards, or I just may be rationalizing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please watch Stephen J. Cannell

News outlets are reporting that Stephen J. Cannell has died. IPs are starting to hit the article, I'm looking for folks to watchlist it and revert any OR or vandalism over the next couple days. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Resolved

 – Backlog eliminated

Back log at WP:RFPP, seems no body has stopped their in about two and a half hours, 6 pages in que The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe does not seem to get it

Resolved

 – user blocked S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) and now indeffed Black Kite (t) (c) 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

DIFF HERE

BlueRobe (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) Already blocked for incivility, it now appears that -- at the least -- he needs to be blocked from his own user pages, as well. BlueRobe failed to post a positive response to my warning. I have to say that he's making it increasingly hard to see how he will be a net positive to the project. BigK HeX (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur that comment from bluerobe was nasty--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked and talk page access revoked by User:Bwilkins. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked. Only talk page access was revoked. His block doesn't seem to be modified.--Crossmr (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I called this giant time sink 5 days ago . Why doesn't someone just indef him and be done with it. There is zero evidence that he won't continue the disruption when his block expires.--Crossmr (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Wikipedia, in general, has way too much tolerance for users who are unlikely reform. The number of warnings this user has received is staggering; do we expect a sudden change after the 20th warning? The 21st? Kansan (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

“ 13:13, 26 September 2010 Blood Red Sandman blocked BlueRobe (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: Ongoing uncivil editing) ”

- looks blocked to me. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Though that was the block he already had prior to this latest indicator. BigK HeX (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read Bluerobe's latest comment in the diff above. Wow. I didn't realize it was that bad. I have to agree with User:Kansan and note that 1 month is not indef... This kind of blatant disregard for civility cannot be tolerated. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I also believe the block should be extended to indef and wonder whether we should have a community ban discussion. Enough is enough. Yworo (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Indef would be more than a enough, if he starts socking then we can have a Ban discussion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant that his block wasn't modified from what it previously was, only talk page access revoked. There was talk before about letting him serve out his block to prove that he could change. Since he couldn't even do that his block should have been modified, which blackkite has now done, not simply just removing his talk page access.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. An unblock request may be submitted per note on userpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Longer rangeblock required

A couple weeks ago Avi range blocked two small IP ranges for two weeks for vandalism (the result of continued BLP violations despite multiple warnings). Straight off the block the IPs are back adding unsourced religious and descent categories to BLPs (example from today). Would it be possible to get another rangeblock applied? The original discussion can be found here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update: IP has now hopped to 166.216.130.80 to restore the BLP/EGRS violations that were reverted this morning here and here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this the correct venue for this request? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The IPs are still at it, but I have to log off shortly. I've been reverting the BLP violations for nearly seven hours now and seriously need a break. The last three I caught through my watch list were 166.216.130.32, 166.216.130.53 and 166.216.130.26. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

166.216.130.64/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 166.216.130.0/26 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked 1 month. T. Canens (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kafziel and administrative abuse

Resolved

 – nothing good all around. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am looking for comments on my blocking by User:Kafziel. I added a quote from a deletion discussions to my page. It is one of those arguments you see on the page on how not to argue during an AFD. The quote was: "If this guy is such a pillar of the Empire, why is he just now getting an article?" There are dozens of actual quotes that appear in the guideline on how to express your opinion at an AFD. It wasn't attributed to Kafziel on my page where I cut and pasted it. He blocked me for 24 hours for quoting him, citing the quote as harassment. Anyone have comments? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(before the admin lynch mob pops up) Not a very good block by Kafziel as he was involved. That being said, that doesn't forgive or set aside RAN's conduct, especially [212], which I did feel was uncalled for. –MuZemike 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You didn't need to quote him like that, when you knew perfectly well it would aggravate him. He shouldn't have blocked you for it. You've been unblocked. Problem resolved. Unless you actually want to achieve some kind of action with this thread, then I will close it. AN/I isn't the place to come just to complain. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked Richard for 24 hours for repeatedly posting that quote on the article talk page, on his own talk page, and in edit summaries. It is obviously a violation of WP:CIVIL and is in no way constructive (had he answered it in the discussion itself, that would have been different). This is hardly his first block for this sort of thing, and it didn't come out of the blue; I warned him about it specifically. He was fairly warned, twice, and then blocked for a (brief, considering your history) 24 hours. Situations like this have been discussed at the blocking policy page before, and there has never been consensus to prohibit admins from blocking people harassing them. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm the admin who unblocked Norton, just because of who did the blocking, not out of any judgment on the merits of the dispute. I've explained my rationale to Kafziel here, here, and here, basically that he should not be using his admin powers to determine that 1) someone engaged in a personal attack/incivility against him and 2) that this conduct was blockworthy. Incidentally, I only noticed the blocking because I had Norton's page watchlisted to discuss a category he created awhile ago;[213] the header "harassment warning" on Norton's talk page caught my eye. I wasn't involved in the AFD this acrimony seems to have sprung from (if it had a single source) and I don't think I've had any prior interaction with Kafziel. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Wow, a relatively (but not completely) bad block and a bad unblock. Nice. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's no coincidence that WP:BLOCK doesn't prohibit admins from blocking users who are harassing them. It isn't part of the policy for just this reason: Disruptive editors would use it to game the system. That's why it's limited to content disputes (and similar things). If you repeatedly warn a user about civility, and he repeatedly says "fuck you", why would you go running to another admin to block them for you? If some admin came to me for that, I'd tell him to handle his business. Frankly, as an uninvolved admin, you should have used your own judgment about his behavior, instead of just unblocking, copping out, and passing it on to yet another group of people to handle. That's why you have the tools. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This isn't the American justice system where if the cops f-up, the perp is absolved. Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the odds of an admin making a good block of a user they are in conflict with are considerably diminished. Despite the lack of prohibition in WP:BLOCK against the practice of blocking for harrassment, admins would still be best advised to seek an uninvolved admin to perform such a block. The results of not doing that are amply illustrated here. On the other side, I'm sure that RAN will remember that other editors' contributions are licensed as CC-BY-SA and require attribution if quoted, and avoid doing so again. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Talking strictly on the licensing issue — at least in the edit linked by MuZemike, he attributed it to the one who made it, so there's no copyright issue here. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Even more strictly, it's a plagiarism, not a copyright, issue. Richard did use the quote elsewhere without attribution and will realise that he shouldn't. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the typical "gory discussion" described in WP:NOTNAS. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: reviewing this debate over the Wanless article's notability, as well as Kafziel's reasoning for blocking Norton, I can only roll my eyes. Quoting a part of Kafziel's comments to justify deletion of the article may have been a trivial and unnecessary edit by Norton but it was hardly 'harassment', and completely unworthy of an administrative block. I also noted Kafziel's extensive Wikilawyering trying to justify his AfD on the Wanless article, which went on far too long, IMHO. A bit of grace on the part of Admins will go a long way to smoothing over differences on AfD boards -and that was noticeably absent in this case.

As to the merits of AfDing the Wanless article, I've come across many dozens of garage-band music CD articles while doing a quality survey of random articles, plus equal amounts of many other articles I personally consider fluff. However one person's fluff can be another person's endearing lifework, and out of the thousands of articles I've looked at I've only AfD nominated a single one (for a gross OR violation), since virtually all of them can be improved. In this particular case it was immediately apparent, to me at least, that the Wanless article was notable via WP:GNG -Wikilawyering that a Missionary's Convention and the British Medical Journal obituary are unnotable to justify an AfD tag does considerable disservice to our overall project. As a comparison, Dr. Norman Bethune was almost unknown in North America until about 25 years ago, but he is almost worshiped as a deity by 1 billion Chinese for his role in helping China during WWII; however his lack of popularity in the western media (until 25 years ago) would hardly be cause for trying to exclude him from Wikipedia. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC) HarryZilber (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is about the block, not the AfD. But since you bring it up, discussing a disagreement about what constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources is not Wikilawyering. In fact, it's probably one of the most common activities at AFD. Asking questions (like "Is 75,000 surgeries a lot?" or "Are all the delegates to that convention notable?") is not Wikilawyering, either. Asking someone to be civil is certainly not Wikilawyering, and neither is being uncivil, for that matter. So where, exactly, is all this Wikilawyering you're talking about? Besides WP:BIO in the nomination and WP:CIVIL very shortly thereafter, I think the only guideline I referenced was about not being able to speedy-keep the discussion because there was another "delete" vote and I was an involved party... and I eventually did close it anyway. Most of the time I was just asking questions about sources, while being heckled by two inexplicably outraged editors.

I've been accused of a lot of things over the years, but never Wikilawyering. (Case in point, the reason we are here is that I supposedly ignored some imaginary policy.) But I'm always willing to improve when I'm wrong, so can you show some specific examples? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this block, but it has long been my opinion that admins who block opponents attacking them, except on repeat blockees, should immediately post notice of the block on AN/I. This mitigates the increased likelihood of bias in such blocks by ensuring fair treatment for the blockee after the block. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Unnecessarily adding to AN/I is not constructive; if someone has a problem with the block, they can (and will) bring it here themselves, as you can see. The result is absolutely no different. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a rule at present, so my opinion should not be taken as a criticism of yourself. Anyway, I obviously wasn't suggesting adding to AN/I unnecessarily, but leaving notice on AN/I to ensure that editors are protected against unfair blocks. The latter is achieved either by the AN/I notice itself, or probably more often by the foreknowledge that such a decision will be scrutinized for fairness by peers were a block to be made. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that foreknowledge goes without saying? Every admin is well aware that all blocks will be seen by others (particularly in a case like this, where the user has been blocked several previous times). Blocks are supposed to be contested with an {{unblock}} tag (as it was); a debate at AN/I would be redundant. And an admin who isn't absolutely certain he's doing the right thing certainly shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later - he should ask around before blocking. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, I don't think admins act like that. Secondly, sure you can ask around before hand, but with most blocks it'd just be a waste of time and, assuming you got feedback, what's happened since? If some anon or red-link is trolling you, just block them and post a short notice ... atm the more cautious of us, assuming we don't have IM links to other admins, have to go through a tedious process to get help or else get accused of admin abuse and have to spend half their wiki-day defending themselves (like yourself today). With my proposal there is safety for both blocker and blockee, and a quicker more efficient process. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing, except that you think it's a waste of time to ask around before blocking, and I think it's a waste of time to ask around after the fact. But I definitely don't think we should be giving preferential treatment to admins who check in here after a bad block; a bad block has to be treated the same regardless of who reports it, or every block would just become a race to see who can get to AN/I first. In this case, I didn't even have time to post the block message before a) it was contested, and b) someone overturned it without even speaking to me. So I certainly would have lost the race to start a thread here, even if I had been inclined to do so. I think it's much better for admins not to block anyone until they are 100% sure they're right; I never do. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there would be such a race were this implemented. Anyway, are you telling me you were 100% sure you wouldn't get a hard time for your block today? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - I'm not concerned about getting a hard time. I'm concerned about being right, and yes - I was (and still am) 100% sure the block was justified. I have seen absolutely nothing here to indicate otherwise; nobody is citing any policies or guidelines, nobody is defending that user's behavior. The admin who overturned me has admitted he did so for no other reason than that I'm the one who blocked the guy, which means he misinterpreted Wikipedia's blocking policy. It's an easy mistake to make, but it's still his mistake, not mine. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please clear my name?

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

---

Resolved

 – Reverted anon edits, properly applied semi-protection, and Euryalus apologised.

An IP editor was vandalizing Project Runway (season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to add false information about episodes which have not even aired yet, claiming that certain people were eliminated when it's clearly impossible for them to have known that. I reverted them repeatedly, they kept reverting me to add their vandalisms. I reported them at WP:AIV, but nothing was done to block them. Instead, User:Euryalus has full protected the article and claims my edits were edit warring. It is not edit warring when vandalism is being reverted. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As explained on my talk page, page protection was to prevent the ongoing reversions from both sides, and to encourage both parties to discuss their differing viewpoints on the article talk page, which is what that page is designed for. It is not an endorsement or criticism of either editor. The protection is also only for 24 hours, which is hardly mission-critical to the future of this page. Plus I notice that by chance, the protected version is the one preferred by User:Everard Proudfoot, so presumably he/she is happy with it as it currently appears. Lastly, semi-protection was considered, but as the reversions were from anon and established editors, semi-protection would have effectively endorsed Proudfoot over the IP.

But all other views welcome, as always. Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The full protection, and the reason for protection given, is a slap in my face, as if I'm a vandal or edit warrior. This was strictly vandal fighting. There is no possible way the IP editor could possibly support their edits. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Or is vandal fighting now not accepted, and every article which gets reversions of vandalism gets full protection? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not happy, because you are making accusations against me. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, and that was certainly not my intention. No warnings or blocks have been made against you, and the only "accusation" is that yopu participated in an edit war. On this point, I might refer you to WP:EDITWAR - "Administrators must often make a judgment call to identify edit warring when attempting to resolve disputes. In general, repeated reverts made without the support of prior consensus or without sufficient discussion are likely to be considered edit warring."

The short version - an edit war was under way, as the article was being repeatedly reverted without discussion by either party. No one has been warned or blocked, but the article is briefly protected so there can be a breathing space for discussion. Euryalus (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see. So I must now ask every single vandal to discuss their edits now before I can revert them? Do you do that? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've backed it down to semi-protection. What's to discuss about uncited information being added about shows that haven't yet aired?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Good-faith edits are not vandalism; did you even attempt to discuss the issue with the IP? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What is good faith about false information? I am thoroughly flabbergasted by such comments. Making things up is now good faith edits? And please note that I was not the first person to either revert this IP's edits, nor to warn them for vandalism. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, how do you know they're making it up? Perhaps they found the information somewhere else and just didn't give the source. Not condoning the IP's edits, but personally, I assume good faith. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of how reality shows work? Results are never released before the show initially airs. → ROUX ₪ 03:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet, leaks are possible. There have been cases of leaks in the past, so... Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Leaks by their nature not being verifiable kind of only reinforces my point. Honestly this whole thing is monumentally fucking stupid. Everard was reverting clear and blatant vandalism. I am astonished at anyone here who has been defending the IP. → ROUX ₪ 03:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only was it sourceless, reviewing the edits, every time he made his series of edits for April to win the season, there were *different* results for the intermediate episodes.Naraht (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, as I said, not condoning the IP's edits one bit. Just that information on yet-to-air episodes could possibly be verifiable, so it might have been a good idea to ask the IP editor for his sources before reverting further (WP:BRD). As I noted below, the removal of the external links was indeed vandalism and that was reverted correctly. In any case, I don't think Mr Proudfoot's conduct is exactly up to scratch. Checking through the contributions of someone who's left a dissenting opinion isn't very nice. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Everard Proudfoot. He isn't the only editor to do a complete revert on the IP user. User:Inka 888 and User:Intelati did as well. Edits by this IP user included the complete deletion of the entire external links section as well as extensive WP:Crystal Ball violations. Even another IP user reverted him.Naraht (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say at this point, but I agree with Everard Proudfoot. :)--Talktome^(Intelati) 02:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of external links is a different story, that would be vandalism, yes. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for this is at removal of external links section. I can come up with specific examples of WP:Crystal Ball, but just about every edit he made was something about results of episodes that haven't been shown yet.Naraht (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition, several people commented on the IP user's talk page that what he was doing was vandalism.Naraht (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems the protection has been unilaterally reverted anyway, so the issue is a bit moot. Euryalus (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was unilaterally imposed... Really, three established editors reverting uncited future information, and you fully protected? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

the purpose of the protection was to bring a "breathing space" in what was an extended series of reversions. But on a lengthier reading, I agree that some of the IP edits were unconstructive, and have apologised to Proudfoot for any perceived accusation. Euryalus (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if reverting vandalism is considered edit warring I would look at as a WP:IGNORE case even if it was considered edit warring. --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that using WP:IAR on edit warring is not a good idea. That said, yes, reverting vandalism isn't edit warring. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that you mistook the repeated reversion of vandalism for an "edit war" and inappropriately applied full protection? —David Levy 03:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Who me? Yes. And I apologised to the editor concerned, both here and on his talk page. Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that should resolve the issue. At one point, this discussion didn't appear to be headed in that direction (and your 02:58 message came across as a parting shot), so this is a pleasant surprise. Thanks. —David Levy 03:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? That also wasn't the intention either. I'm offending people right and left today. Might be time for a break away from the keyboard :) Euryalus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Nisus can give you a hug. :) Drmies (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

HMS Euryalus, actually. But your classical allusion is appreciated :) Euryalus (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Another view

The contestants in question are living persons. Wouldn't claims that they were eliminated from a reality show without providing a reliable source be a BLP violation and therefore revertable without 3RR or ED coming into play or is this a wikilawyery stretch? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a stretch to me. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not so much of a stretch. When one is a performer, appearing on a show like this provides national exposure which can easily enhance or launch one's career. Claims on one of the top 10 most read websites in the world that one was booted off could quite easily have a negative impact. → ROUX ₪ 03:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Roux. I think that claims as Ron describes them are BLP violations and should be taken seriously--so seriously that they should be able to be reverted, in good faith, without an editor falling foul of 3RR. I don't think this is a stretch. After all, do no harm... Drmies (talk) 04:45, 2 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.

Harassment by Justa Punk

User:Justa Punk seems to think that revenge is sweet. She had earlier on used a sockpuppet account and gave me a warning that I am in big trouble.[214] I ignored it and reported her to AN/I. A checkuser was done and she was discovered to have again created multiple accounts. [215] These accounts were blocked and her IP(which geolocates to the State Library of Victoria)[216] was blocked. As it is a dynamic IP, I'm requesting that the whole IP range be blocked/and or my affected user talk page be semi-protected.[217] Here is a diff of another of my report in AN/I regarding this case.[218] I might be overreacting, but I'm sick and tired of this intimidation and vindictiveness. Bejinhan talks 04:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be in the range of 203.17.215.xx. Bejinhan talks 05:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, in cases where a user elects to have their user talk page semi-protected, it's normal for them to set up a subpage of their user talk page that is unprotected where IPs and new users can still contact them. This might be a feasible option in this case. I think I remember seeing a user who had his talk page set up this way, but I can't remember who it was. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, found one...User talk:Kafziel is set up with this method that I mentioned. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was the archived talk page be semi-d. Leonard^Bloom has semi-d it for a week. To be honest, I seriously doubt it would stop here. This has been going on for months. Multiple blocks have been put in place but hasn't worked. Bejinhan talks 06:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Upped the protection time of the archive. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Libeling in a BLP

This discussion is now at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ram Sharan Sharma, per the edit notice for this page which directs BLP issues to the BLP noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice on new user Cartersahomo

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. Need some advice. I've never blocked a new user for first time vandalism. This user's edit filter log gives him away. Should this user be blocked for clear intent to vandalize? If yes, could some admin do this? If not, I'll be watching this page, do leave your comments. Thanks Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And for patently offensive username. Indef, wave bye bye. → ROUX ₪ 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Favonian. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RexxS behaviour

Please see [219] (revert without discussion, with denial there is any issue). This involves an issue I raised some two weeks ago about sortable tables not sorting correctly. At that time, even after repeatedly stated there was a problem with the tables [220], RexxS (talk · contribs) responded with a blatant denial [221] and a condescending insult [222] for which I reminded him of WP:CIVIL [223]. I have invited RexxS multiple times to refactor. Now, given [224] (denial of issue and uncivil demands) and [225] (more condescending insult), I submit RexxS behaviour merits at least a 24-hour block. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See the article talk page & Gimmetoo's talk page (and here) for the efforts which RexxS and Rossrs have each made to resolve this issue. David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• No prior warning (which I JUST gave), and as a neutral party I'd like to see the question raised by RexxS at the article talk answered, because without showing us that proof I can only assume that you are removing the sort altogether without a good reason. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Does not appear like block-able behavior to me. A warning will be sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Penwhale, RexxS was directly warned for civility twice ([226] and [227]). RexxS was also invited to refactor a couple times, which he declined. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a very unfair complaint to me. Both RexxS and I have been asking for clarification for over 2 weeks and Gimmetoo has made vague and/or cryptic comments, has answered a question with another question, and 2 weeks ago withdrew from discussion. He's made statements and has been upset that they haven't been taken without question but has not offered clarification or explanation when requested. There are parts of WP:CIVIL that apply to him too. "(a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;" and "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative". This was a very small issue that could have been dealt with and finished 2 weeks ago, if Gimmetoo had been "reasonably cooperative". It should not have taken over 2 weeks of discussion in 3 different locations to arrive at the point we're currently at, which is still not clearly answered. Rossrs (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I went to the first item the OP complained about, and the sort features appear to be working - and I have an antique version of IE. So I wonder what the OP's issue is with those tables. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it has something to do with the dashes between years. But I went to Rex's last edit, and it works the way I would expect it to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I too cannot see the problem. I've re-added the table. I couldn't find a clear statement of the problem. I've requested an explanation on the talk page. Possibly a misunderstanding? Let's see.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You do indeed need to read the discussions at the three talk pages to understand the issue. Penwhale, I accept your admonishment for my uncivil tone; in mitigation, I can only say that I am an experienced editor in good standing with featured content, and it was the result of complete exasperation at Gimmetoo's behaviour, which I believe warrants examination. Although I am annoyed that he chose to ask for administrator intervention here, I am pleased that other uninvolved eyes are now able to review the situation.

The initial behaviour from 15 September is documented at Jack Merridew's talk page. The issue involves the sorting functionality of two tables at Yvonne Strahovski. Jack was on holiday, and as a regular talk page watcher, I attempted to work out what the problem was with the sorting. As you can see from the edit summaries, following Rossrs's change of hyphens in date ranges to en dashes per WP:DASH, Gimmetoo decided to remove the sortability because he thought it was incompatible with the en dashes we use in date ranges. The fact is that sorting misbehaves whether hyphens or dashes are used. Here is the article using hyphens, dif-hyphen; and a version using dashes, dif-dash. As anyone can verify, clicking the sort icon twice (a descending sort) on the 'Year' column of the 'Television' table incorrectly puts the '2007' row before the '2007–present' row in both cases. The fix for that is to use a sort key – which I did, producing a table that now sorts correctly. See this version, which sorts exactly as it should. I explained all that to Gimmetoo, pointing out that's it's better to fix the problem than to remove the functionality. So far, perfectly civil, apart from what I perceived to be a rather curt attitude on the part of Gimmetoo. I accept that others may or may not see that the same as I.

From there it goes downhill. Rossrs asked Gimmetoo on Gimmetoo's talk page what he meant by his edit summary "Undo sortable then". Gimmetoo claimed "the type of dashes you put in a couple edits earlier were in some way incompatible with the "sortable" option. The dashes you added were in the year ranges; year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility". As I have demonstrated above, this is simply not true, and I objected to Gimmetoo attempting to blame Rossrs for Gimmetoo's own lack of understanding. Gimmetoo then begins a sequence of cryptically asking if "this is resolved?". Although both Rossrs and I have asked him on each occasion to let us know what other issues he found, he has ignored the question until today.

Yesterday Gimmetoo once more removed the sortability from both tables (although only one has date ranges) with the edit summary "(two weeks, no response, still not fixed)". I know that the problem is fixed (as anyone who checks the version prior to his edit can verify. So I reverted his edit with the edit summary "(it's fixed - clearly state your problems on the talk page)". Instead of discussing his perceived problem on the talk page, Gimmetoo immediately re-reverted to impose his version without sorting. As I voluntarily observe a 1RR (for these very situations), I opened a section on the article talk page where I asked other editors to decide whether the tables should be sortable. I also posted on Gimmetoo's talk page expressing my dissatisfaction with his behaviour, and requesting he ceased the edit-war and actually got down to discussing what he thought the problem was on the article talk page. As you can see, Gimmetoo returned to his style of enigmatically hinting that a further problem existed without having the grace to explain what it was.

Today Gimmetoo dropped this little gem: "You are mistaken, and it appears you intend to stay mistaken. I said the sortability was incompatible with dashes. You've seen that diff, since you mention it above. If you wish to continue to ignore what I tell you, then you are currently not teachable. As I said above, your statement ("You may have found a problem with changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges that nobody else on the wiki is aware of; in which case, please enlighten us") reads as condescending sarcasm." which as well as containing a personal attack, completely ignores the facts – dashes or hyphens make no difference; the table has been fixed by the sort key. He still had not indicated the nature of what other possible issue may be present.

At last, Gimmetoo has claimed that the issue which he had kept us in the dark about for two weeks was "It does not sort correctly in some versions of some browsers." That, I'm afraid, is absolute balderdash. It is well-known that some very old versions of Safari will only sort on the first column of a table, but that applies to all sortable tables, irrespective of hyphens, dashes, or any other considerations. Apart from that, there is no other browser where the table does not sort correctly - and even on old Safari, it sorts correctly on the 'Year' column of the 'Television' table!

I am sorry that I expressed my consternation at this behaviour uncivilly, but I think most editors would recognise that you would need the patience of a saint not to become exasperated by Gimmetoo's behaviour.

I would therefore like to see other editors examine whether Gimmmetoo has been guilty of uncollaborative editing, misrepresentation of issues, using re-reversion to impose his view while failing to discuss his objections in any meaningful manner, and a blatant personal attack. I do not wish to see Gimmetoo sanctioned, but I do believe a stern warning to amend his behaviour in the way he interacts with other editors is deserved. He also needs to restore the sorting functionality to the tables that he has removed for no good reason. An apology would be nice, but I don't expect to get it. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to tell the other editor when you post about them on this page. I have done that for you. I'm beginning to wonder if this is one massive communication problem rather than an actual editor issue?Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC) wrong person Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to offer my 2 pennies because as Rexxs will tell you we've argued and compromised lots and have been locked in discussions for several days in the past. He is a fair user and all his edits are done in good faith. I accept that he could have played the situation better and used a more curtious selection of words but at the end of the day he is working to improve accessibility on wiki. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

First, note that I first recognized a problem with the sorting, and fixed it in a way that kept the sortable functionality. I didn't think that was going to be an issue. When that was undone, I highlighted that hypthens and dashes made a difference, was reverted by a third editor with the edit summary "sortable works fine". So I opened up a thread on that editor's talk page to discuss the issue. My position at this point is that I have provided one workaround that fixes the issue, and if that's not acceptable to this editor, then we probably shouldn't have sortable enabled here until an acceptable fix is found.

• At that point, RexxS' became involved with this unsolicited response on that user talk page. Look at that edit. It includes a flat denial of my description that hyphens and dashes make a difference, and the assertion that "[I] can assure you that the table now sorts as expected." It also includes a "recommendation" to ask technical issues on Merridew's talk page - as a response to a thread I started, on Merridew's talk page, to discuss this issue. Rather kafkaesque.
• RexxS continually repeated that dashes and hyphens don't matter. For instance [228]: "Your statement above "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility" is patently untrue." This immediately follows my statement [229]: "Above, I clearly said that "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility". RexxS has not fixed the problem that refers to." Given that RexxS was unwilling to even consider the possibility that my explanation was correct, what more was there to do.
• RexxS replies continued to be obstructionist, until [230], in which he claims I might be too embarrassed to admit my mistake. It was this statement, which drips of condescension, for which I first noted WP:CIVIL.
• RexxS response above illustrates the same issues I am highlighting as a behavioural problem - the denial of a technical problem and the resulting obstructionism. Just to pick a few quotes from above: "The fact is that sorting misbehaves whether hyphens or dashes are used." "completely ignores the facts – dashes or hyphens make no difference; the table has been fixed by the sort key." I have stated repeatedly that dashes and hyphens do make a difference, and the table has not been fixed. And his direct response to my statements is: "As I have demonstrated above, this is simply not true." I do realize RexxS does not believe there is any problem, so of course he thinks that any changes I make cannot fix [what he thinks is] a non-existent problem. I am nevertheless extremely troubled that despite my frequent statement, RexxS continues to deny there is any issue, and continues to mispresent the issues.
• The problem is still not fixed. It exists in Safari 4.
• In summary, I long ago identified a way to resolve the issue for Safari 4 that was compatible with the sortability feature. I'm not tied to that particular solution, but if sortability is to be retained, then I do think some sort of fix is appropriate. If anyone genuinely wants additional details, please let me know. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're the only one that seems to be having a problem with the table, including the version you claimed didn't work at all. You've got to consider the possibility that the problem is at your end. To put it another way, if it works in every browzer but this Safari 4 thing, maybe the problem is within Safari 4. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you made what you described as a "frequent statement" and expected other editors to blindly accept your statement. When you were asked to explain and clarify your point, you made comments saying that maybe the problem wasn't what RexxS thought it was. How was that helpful? I asked you to clarify and you didn't. Your comments looked very much like you had a secret and you didn't want to share it or even give a clue. You asked me if I thought the matter was resolved. I had no idea what you were talking about because you didn't say what you were talking about. You asked RexxS if there was anything he wanted to change in his comments, instead of pointing out what you disagreed with. You didn't make a single clear comment. If you had said two weeks ago, "it does not sort in Safari 4", this would not have escalated. It festered and got ugly because you failed to communicate clearly even though both of us kept asking you to make your point. Today is the first mention of Safari 4. How hard would it have been to reveal this two weeks ago, rather than keeping it up your sleeve like an ace you're waiting to play at the right moment. It's interesting that you call RexxS on civility. I have to admit that you are civil to a fault, but there is a lot lacking in the way you interract with other editors, and I think that instead of RexxS being given a warning, it should have been you for letting this matter escalate when you could have defused it any time. It sorts perfectly in Safari 5, by the way. Rossrs (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If it works in everything except Safari 4, then the problem is not with the table, it's with Safari 4. The complainant should upgrade to 5, and then he should be fine, right? In any case, we can't cease using a function just because a buggy browzer has a problem with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Upgrade. Exactly. But why did we have to go through all this drama just to hear the name of the buggy browser? Rossrs (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the 64K question which the complainant needs to step up to the plate and answer. (Is that enough cliches for one sentence?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I am still met with denials and obstructionism. If I had not been met constantly by denials and failure to AGF, perhaps we wouldn't be here. And "upgrade"? This is an issue for readers - are we going to have a site-notice "best viewed in Firefox"? Safari 5 was released in June 2010 so Safari 4 is relatively recent. Anyone want to look up its browser share? In other discussions we typically support browsers/readers going back at least 5 years. I identified a fix that was compatible with sortable tables in Safari 4 - and yet, for some reason, nobody wants to use that or develop any other fix. Rossrs and Baseball bugs would seem to want WP to knowingly and consciously provide a broken table for some fraction of our readers when a non-broken version is available. Finally, for the editors who have stated it's just my problem - have any of you actually observed how the "sortable" function behaves on this table in Safari 4? I have personally verified this issue on 3 (three) different setups from three different associates. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it works under Safari 5 under Windows Vista. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've isolated the problem to Safari 4. It doesn't make sense to not use a function just because there's a buggy browzer out there. But if you have a workaround that will work in Safari 4 and not cause the other browzers to have a problem, then what you should do is set up a copy of that table on your talk page, install your fix, and notify us when you've got it set up, so that we can test it with other browzers. If everything's peachy, then it could be implemented in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you were not met with a failure to AGF. You were met by two editors who had the nerve to challenge you on your edits and ask you to support them. Any editor has the right to do that and any editor, when challenged, has an obligation to the project to AGF and respond in a clear and constructive manner. You failed to do this, even while the discussion remained courteous, and the tone of your comments made it clear that it was because the editor you really wanted to respond to you, did not. You brought us here. We are here because you refused to reveal what your problem was despite being asked, and you have still not explained why you didn't just speak directly at the beginning when I asked you on your talk page. When I first asked you about it, I was thinking that if I had made a mistake, I would like to know what I did wrong so that I didn't repeat the mistake elsewhere. What could be more 'good faith' than that? All you needed to say was something like "the sortability doesn't work for all browsers, so for some users this could be a problem". You said that it was incompatible, but didn't say that you were referring to a particular browser, so I assumed you meant that it was incompatible entirely. I couldn't see that. It looked right to me, and although you could have easily clarified this, you did not. Where was your 'good faith'? Instead you posed questions that were completely unclear, blamed me for a problem I couldn't even see, and alluded to problems that I could only guess at, and all the good faith I started with was slowly drained to the point where, I'll admit, it's completely gone with you. And you feel that other editors are being obstructive? The sortability issue and your behaviour are two separate issues, and your behaviour still needs an explanation. You started this ANI to discuss editorial behaviour, not to resolve the sorting issue. You started this in an attempt to silence an opponent, and it was only after that failed, that you answered the question you had avoided from the start. Now the focus has shifted to the sortability issue and away from what I perceive to be the consistently poor behaviour on your part. Discussion of sortability doesn't belong here. It's a distraction, and is a technical issue that should be discussed elsewhere. Except we tried that already and you didn't want to participate. Now you do. That's interesting. One simple question for you and in the name of AGF which you have just invoked, an answer would be really nice - why did you not just spell it out two weeks ago for those of us clearly too stupid to guess what you were hinting at? Rossrs (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was met immediately and consistently with point-black denials that there was any problem, and condescending, insulting remarks. After repeated attempts to get some acknowledgment of even the possibility that RexxS might possibly, just maybe, not have the full story, and getting nowhere, there really wasn't much else to do that let it rest a while and give RexxS and you an opportunity to save face. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What "condescending, insulting remarks" did I "immediately and consistently" make to you? It's not only RexxS that you wouldn't give the time of day. No, that doesn't wash. If RexxS didn't have the full story, you could have just given it to him right at the start. You said something like "is there anything in your comment you want to change?" to RexxS a couple of times but how was he to know exactly which of his words you wanted him to change without explaining? You kept saying there was a problem and we kept asking you to explain what it was. I don't need to save face, and thank you for the thought, but you need never do that for me. What you actually said was that you would wait to hear from User:Jack Merridew. I think RexxS and I were just background noise and you didn't explain yourself to us because we weren't the editors you wished to discuss it with. Perhaps there was a danger that we might have resolved it, and then you'd have had nothing to take up with Jack. Rossrs (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Condescending, insulting remarks": I have never known Rossrs to behabe in that manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly evident that it's the OP who's the disruptor here. Note in this diff[231] and lines above it, how he continues to make personal attacks and also persists in the notion that he should be allowed to do his testing within the article rather than on a test page; that if it works for him, that's all the matters. It's fairly evident that he's never worked in an I.T. shop, because that's not how things are done. You post a test version, make sure it works for you, and have everyone else test it. Then you can put it into production. The old saw, "If it works it's production, otherwise it's a test", is not appropriate in a high-visibility situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BB, have you tested any versions of the article in the browser noted? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How would I? And why would I? I have IE, which is the standard where I come from. Safari is apparently a Mac product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to labour the point, but Gimmetto's "fix" doesn't work in any browser. The Safari 4 bug is documented here "With older versions of Safari a table can only be sorted by the first column: all sort buttons have the effect that only the leftmost one is supposed to have." Sorting still gives unexpected results on mixtures of numbers and words because of the javascript algorithm used, not the browser.

I've made copies of the tables from three different versions of the article at User:RexxS/Sorting. Anyone can try them out and see if Gimmetoo's fix (table 1) actually works. You can also see that hyphens or dashes (table 2) make no difference. And you can see that my fix (table 3) did work. That's for any browser using javascript and any operating system. That's the background. Gimmetoo was mistaken that his fix worked, and can't accept that my fix worked. What followed resulted from my attempts to explain this to him, with an increasing sense of frustration at his unwillingness to communicate just what he thought the problem was. Everything else is obfuscation. He still hasn't named the browser that he was using when he made his "fix", and it took two weeks for him to offer the "browser explanation". Gimmetoo, tell us what browser you were using and whether your fix actually worked.

I'll ask then, is Gimmetoo's behaviour in edit-warring to remove sortability from two tables (one of which had no issues) acceptable? Is his attitude toward two other editors who were only seeking to improve the article acceptable? Is his "If you wish to continue to ignore what I tell you, then you are currently not teachable" [232] an acceptable comment to make to a fellow editor? --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

RexxS still denies there is a problem. If RexxS is wrong, will RexxS be blocked for obstruction and disruption? Would RexxS agree to accept a block? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you really trying to fix this problem? Would it kill you to set up a version on your talk page, OR RIGHT HERE, and see if it works for everyone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. The problem I started this thread to address is RexxS' behaviour. I don't want to see it repeated. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And you would be well advised to curb your own behavior, to stop hurling insults about denial and kafka and so on. You may think the world revolves around the Mac, but it doesn't. The key question: Does the table work for you now? If so, can this issue be marked "resolved"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Gimmetoo has not been trying to fix the problem. None of his edits to the tables in Yvonne Strahovski have been constructive (reverting dashes to hyphens in date ranges contrary to MOS:ENDASH, repeatedly removing sortability from the tables). He did not explain what he thought the problem was, despite requests. He did not start a thread on the article talk page to discuss the problems he perceived; I had to do that. At no point has he shown any interest in improving the article, but has preferred to play games with editors who were trying to improve those tables. I fixed the article for almost all readers two weeks ago, and following suggestions from Ucucha, I extended the fix to cover Safari 4 yesterday. The community can rest assured that if I'm not provoked by obfuscation, baiting, and insults, you won't see incivility from me. On the other hand, unless Gimmetoo's behaviour is corrected, it won't be too long before he's back here yet again, with another frivolous accusation against good-faith editors, in a incident that he's manufactured. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, not an RPG where you try to trap and damage your perceived opponents. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the plus side, he's now issued me a civility warning, so at least we know he's got a sense of humor. :) Life is tough when you're stuck with an outdated browser. Oh, wait... :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. But reading through this, Gimmetoo (the OP) is the problem here. He's basically playing games because he can't his way (apparently he can't be arsed to update or patch his own buggy browser). There's nothing else meaningful to say here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali is not uninvolved, and I can provide details to anyone who wishes. In any event, the "fix" for any particular individual may be an upgrade, but this is an issue for readers. (And on what grounds do you claim it is my "own buggy browser" - what makes you think I routinely use Safari 4?). Gimmetoo (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever point you had seems to have gotten lost in this convoluted mess. The solution for the readers is simple; if something doesn't display right here, and the cause is a known bug in an outdated browser, then it is time to upgrade. Simple? Yes. I'd suggest you move on before this becomes a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just tested User:RexxS/Sorting in Safari 4.0.4, and found that the first table (Gimmetoo's version) doesn't sort properly in descending order (it gives 2007, 2007-Present, 2005-2006, 2004). However, version 3, supposedly fixed, doesn't work either: it sorts in the order 2007–Present, 2004, 2005–2006, 2007. Ucucha 16:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally, some progress. Could you please check version 4, along with the note explaining why the ordering of "2007" and "2007-present" was not the issue. And to repeat for those saying "upgrade" - this is an issue for readers. There is a non-trivial fraction of readers using Safari 4 who will see this issue. Shouldn't we do something to resolve the issue, if it can be resolved? Or is it WP policy that browsers more than 3 months old do not need to be supported here? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not think that we should. 3 days or 3 months, outdated is outdated. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

My old home PC uses a version of IE 6 that was probably installed 5 years ago. Yet the table works just fine on it. Another reason not to buy a Mac. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Most people don't keep up with whatever browser updates appear, and we should strive to be accessible to everyone within reasonable bounds.

Gimmetoo, I am using version 4, as I said. Ucucha 17:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. I see I was unclear. I meant could you check the 4th version of the table at [User:RexxS/Sorting]] using Safari 4.0.4. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That one works perfectly. Ucucha 17:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But please note again that the ordering of "2007" and "2007-present" is NOT the issue here. I think an argument could be made, based on the order of appearance dates in this case, that "2007-present" might come before "2007". I was quite happy with leaving that ordering random due to the ambiguity. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please check that on the actual page, which is not the same as version 3. All the same there's a basic issue here - it's a technical problem - hopefully to be fixed one day. Are we to delete all sortable tables using hidden sort keys because Safari v.4.04 doesn't work with them. (rhetorical question).

It might be more productive to take this problem to either Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the issue. There is a problem. It can be fixed. Should we have broken tables when they can be fixed? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ok what is the fix - I'm assuming it's not to remove sortability?Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just tested User:RexxS/Sorting. Items 1 and 2 don't work. Items 3 and 4 do work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BB, again, please ignore the ordering of "2007" and "2007-present", because that was not the issue. RexxS (or someone else, I can't recall now) chose to force an ordering of those two. That's a content issue, not a technical issue. (The only technical issue about that is in how to implement the content decision of a particular forced ordering.) Gimmetoo (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking again at User:RexxS/Sorting, my clunky old IE 6 browzer can sort ascending and descending on all columns, and it all comes out right except for issues with the "2007 to present" in the first column of the first two items. And (chrono)logically, "2007 to present" comes later than just plain "2007". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, but the problem with sorting a table when using Safari 4 or earlier is that Wikipedia pages are XHTML documents. This produces unexpected results in Safari when javascript sets the innerHTML property of an element [ http://www.quirksmode.org/bugreports/archives/2004/11/innerhtml_in_xh.html]. Our script for sorting tables [233] unfortunately makes use of that technique. This is an incompatibility between older versions Safari and Wikipedia, and can manifest itself on any sortable table. It's a known problem, but not the issue here. If Gimmetoo had mentioned Safari initially, I could have explained that it's a site-wide issue. He chose not to do that, but to continually hint that "it was not resolved". If Gimmetoo wants us to abandon all sortable tables, because they may not work on Safari 4, he needs to take his campaign elsewhere. Nevertheless, how can he justify repeatedly removing the sortability from two tables on that basis? I've done what I could to improve that article, at least for 99% of editors, while Gimmetoo has only battled to remove that functionality from those 99%. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If he resumes edit-warring over this issue, he will be stopped cold. If there's a bug in this Safari thing, then he needs to upgrade. If he doesn't want to upgrade (or better yet, dump the Mac and get a real PC), then he assumes the responsibility for the problem at his end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What you just said has been addressed multiple times. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Here's the current version. Now I'll save and see if it works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Films

Year	Film	Role	Notes
2007	Gone	Sondra	as Yvonne Strzechowski
2007	Persons Of Interest	Lara	as Yvonne Strzechowski
2008	The Plex	Sarah
2008	The Canyon	Lori	Release date: October 23, 2009
2009	I Love You Too	Alice	Theatrical Release: May 6, 2010 (Australia) DVD Release: October 6, 2010 (Australia)
2009	Shadows from the Sky	Jill	pre production
2010	Matching Jack	Veronica	Theatrical Release: August 19, 2010 (Australia) Previously "Love and Mortar"
2010	LEGO: The Adventures of Clutch Powers	Peg Mooring	Straight-To-DVD
2010	The Killer Elite		In production (as of May 9, 2010)

Television

Year	Title	Role	Episodes	Notes
2004	Double the Fist	Suzie	1	Episode name: "Fear Factory"
2005– 2006	headLand	Freya Lewis	26
2007	Sea Patrol	Fed Agent Martina Royce	1	Episode name: "Cometh the Hour"
2007– present	Chuck	Special Agent Sarah Walker	55

Yep, looks good to me... and I'm only on XP with IE 6. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, and I have the most up to date sooper dooper version of Firefox. Can we therefore safely state that even if Gimmetoo personally cannot sort these tables because he is using Netscape 2.0 on a 286, this does not give him grounds to delete the sortable table for everyone else, or to complain at RexxS and Rossrs for fixing it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It also works on my laptop which has Windows 7 with IE 8. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Works with Safari 3.1.2, Opera 10.62 and Chrome 6.0.472.63, all under Windows Vista on a PC laptop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Time wasted

This all appears to be to be timewasting and counterproductive bad-cheese because of some editorial decision User:Gimmetoo doesn't agree with. It's proved difficult for me to get a clear answer from them, User:Gimmetoo is clearly a stonewaller I'm not suprised that other editors have had difficulty remaining civil with them.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

From Rex's detailed explanation above, it's clear that the problem rests with older versions of this Safari browser. One problem I have with IE 6 is that for some reason the lettering on wikimedia commons shows up very small and unreadable. On my IE 8 machine it's fine. So do I come here griping about it? No, because I realize that the problem is at my end. It's possible there's a workaround. But I wouldn't be right to demand that they stop using that font just because my old version has a problem with it. It's apparent that this is a known bug with Safari 4, and that's the way it is. Of course, if the OP can find a way to make it work for both his browser and everyone else's, that would be peachy. But removing tables just because he can't read them is disruptive, and I suspect will not be tolerated from here on out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What you just said has been addressed multiple times above. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that he never removed a table. Ucucha 18:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He actually stripped the sortable functionality out of a table. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is now a 5th item at User:RexxS/Sorting which the poster thinks should work for both IE and this Safari thing. It does work on my IE 6. If it still doesn't work on Safari 4, then G2 needs to either (1) get busy and figure out a way to make it work; or (2) find something else to work on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It does work on Safari 4; I tested it. I don't know why you feel the need to mention things that Gimmetoo needs to do. Ucucha 19:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because he's the complainant here, and he has continually denied that the problem is at his end, and he has gotten everyone else to do his work for him. So if it still doesn't work on his browser, even though it works for you, then the ball is back in his court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Ucucha. It seems that if every cell in a column has a sort key, then Safari 4 will perform the same process on each and the table will sort correctly on the key, regardless of the displayed cell contents. I've updated the Television table in Yvonne Strahovski#Filmography to have a sort key on each cell. Is there anyone now who doesn't get the order "2007–present"/"2007"/"2005–2006"/"2004" on a descending 'Year' sort? Apologies to admins & others for the off-topic post, but I believe there are more eyes on the issue currently here. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Works on IE 6 and IE 8. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Works in Firefox 3.6.10 on Windows. I note the first table features Class=unsortable. As I suck at Wiki markup (I can program in VBA, can't do wiki markup, go figure), could you explain what that's doing.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean ! class="unsortable" | Notes ? All that does is prevent sorting by the column of notes. see Help:Sorting#Making_a_column_unsortable That's standard proceedure, sorting by the notes doesn't make much sense.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (who thinks her brane has fossilised)

Conclusion

My unbiased observation is this: Gimmetoo should have clearly provided the technical specifications when a table sort wasn't working. (Isn't that sort of standard procedure when troubleshooting software/hardware these days?) That, as well as the fact that you should not really warn people that you're having a discussion/dispute with. Any thoughts on this? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just got a warning from him on my talk page, and I tell ya what, he's really thrown the gauntlet down now. I've got a good mind to call his phone and hang up when he answers; or maybe press his doorbell and run away. That'll larn 'im. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm content to accept the civility admonishment that you gave me as a neutral observer, Penwhale. I'm disappointed that Gimmetoo is unable to recognise the shortcomings in his own conduct, but expect that either he'll amend that or the community will lose patience with him at some point. Continuation of this thread seems likely only to provoke more drama and draw more editors into conflict – the opposite of what we should be spending our time on. I'd recommend to BB that the best course is not to feed any provocation, but to disengage. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'd recommend that the discussion be closed. The OP wanted the problem fixed, and it's fixed. His complaints about civility don't hold water. So it's time to wrap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Although one thing still puzzles me, and that is why anyone feels the need to sort a table with 4 elements in it. Not that it matters. This is a useful practical example of how to set up such a table. I wonder if it's possible to sort on two elements at once? Or more? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Answered on my talk page. All's swell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Does Gimmetoo not understand that he should not be giving warning to people he is in an obvious edit dispute in? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad the technical issue is resolved in a way that is satisfactory to RexxS. It's regrettable that it took an ANI thread to break through the assertions that my statements were "patently untrue", "completely ignores the facts", and "simply not true", and that "Gimmetto's "fix" doesn't work in any browser." Gimmetoo (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing, really, and I hope this much heat isn't expended the next time someone feels the need to MacGuyver an outdated browser into functioning like modern counterparts already do. Tarc (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Incredible. You state you "first recognized a problem with the sorting, and fixed it in a way that kept the sortable functionality". That revision is dated 10:24, 10 September 2010 and changes dashes to hyphens. I copied the exact table from that diff as Table 1 in User:RexxS/Sorting. It doesn't work for me on FF, IE7, IE8, Opera, Chrome, Nautilus or Konqueror; it doesn't work for Baseball Bugs on IE6; nor for Ucucha on Safari 4. I stand by my statement that Gimmetto's "fix" doesn't work in any browser. Nobody commenting in this huge thread has found your statement to be true. What browser does your "fix" work on? --RexxS (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Incredible. I'll put it bold: The ordering of "2007" and "2007-present" was not the issue. Changing dashes to hyphens fixed the problem I was talking about. I expected we would be able to close this incident now, but you're still denying everything? And you even take credit for the fix [234], without giving me any credit. What, if anything, do you plan to do differently in the future as a result of this incident, RexxS? Gimmetoo (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I think I said that version (version 1 on User:RexxS/Sorting) didn't work because "2007" comes before "2007-Present" in both ascending and descending sorting. Perhaps you won't classify that as "not working", but I don't think it's good practice to have a different sorting order for ascending and descending sorts. Ucucha 12:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This got blown way out of proportion, but I still maintain that Gimmetoo had the power to defuse the situation at any time with an open response to direct questions, and instead chose to make cryptic comments that did nothing to allow a resolution to evolve. Even if Gimmetoo was offended by the tone of RexxS' comments a more productive response would have been to offer his case clearly and without hesitation, instead of offering nothing stronger than hints for two weeks. I don't understand how that type of reaction could ever lead to anything but a negative result. Even if RexxS had disagreed there would have been a discussion and the resolution may have come more quickly and without such tension. That would have completely changed the course of events. I agree wholeheartedly with Gimmetoo that it's regrettable it took an ANI thread, but what is more regrettable is that Gimmetoo seems unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest degree of responsibility for the manner in which a relatively simple disagreement escalated. Gimmetoo also asks a good question, which maybe he'd also like to answer: "What, if anything, do you plan to do differently in the future as a result of this incident?" Rossrs (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rossrs, I'm happy to discuss your comments off ANI, but have you tried to imagine yourself in my position in this scenario? Gimmetoo (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the version that you created that fixed this problem up front? I don't think I've seen it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I try to see all points of view. We can discuss this on my talk, if you like. That's fine with me, and I will join you when I am able to. My time is limited and my availability unpredictable right now and probably will be for a while. I'm happy to discuss this with you, but I won't be able to commit to a timeframe. Rossrs (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, what was the problem that think you fixed on 10 September 2010 by changing dashes to hyphens as you claim? Tell us the problem you fixed and I'll gladly give you credit. You need to give an answer to this, because it's not sufficient to say "the problem wasn't such-and-such"; you need to say what the problem was that you fixed, because nobody else here has seen it. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha has. With dashes, in Safari 4, if you hit the sort button, you get one of four options that cycle. The first "ascending" sort gives {"2005-2006", "2007-Present", "2004", "2007"}, an incorrect sort ordering. With hyphens (and no sort key), in Safari 4, you get {"2004", "2005-2006", "2007", "2007-Present"}. The descending sort have similar problems. As I have told you repeatedly, this has nothing to do with the ordering of "2007" and "2007-present"; that is a separate issue, and this fix doesn't address that issue. Combining my edit with your edit for the "2007" and "2007-present" ordering fixes both issues. Ucucha has confirmed that, too (version #4 on your /Sorting subpage). Gimmetoo (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation at last. I do appreciate your desire to ensure that the tables work in Safari 4, but would point out that your fix (table 1) applies to less than 1% of the browser share market, and does not help the remaining 99%, while breaching our MOS convention for date ranges. Your fix still has the problem that the ordering of "2007" and "2007-present" is inconsistent between ascending and descending sorts on all browsers. Although I accept you may not consider that a problem, many others do, and my fix (table 3) resolved it for 99% of viewers. Ucucha most certainly deserves credit for describing the problem that Safari 4 had with my fix in a way that allowed me to test a fix and amend the article, which took less than 20 minutes. The article in its current state now complies with MOS and sorts properly for everyone who has commented. The only question remaining in my mind is if you had known about the Safari 4 bug since 15 September, why you chose not to fix the article yourself, but preferred to start an edit war on September 30 to remove the functionality from both tables? --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I was met repeatedly with "patently untrue", if you recall. W3schools? Firefox 45%? Chrome 17%? And Explorer 30%? Users of a dev site might provide a little skewed sampling of browser use, perhaps? But ignoring that, when we have an identifiable situation that can be fixed, at what cutoff do we ignore those readers and intentionally not make that fix? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

wutevea; legacy browser, low usage, and falling fast. And Safari v4.1 was released for Tiger and includes v5's javascript enhancements. The buggy v4.0 will be all gone before we could deploy this to some tens of thousands of tables. Merridew 16:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I still think that it's patently untrue that a fix works, if it doesn't solve the issues for over 98% of the audience by whatever metric you choose. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

0.8% and falling fast? And that's for August; September will be on the order of 0.6%. Fugetaboutit! It's not worth snotting-up the wiki-text and confusing editors. Merridew 15:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Persistant reference spammer - need some help

A few days ago I found 83.215.123.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding references to articles that where all written by the same author. When I looked into this further I noticed that similar IPs and one editor (noted on the IP's talk page) had also been doing this over several years and that a few references had been reference spammed all over the place in major biological articles like genome, life and others (see here for 50 instances where I removed them). Based on the long term spamming of these references, where no content was being added, and where they were often inserted into the lead of articles, I felt it was appropriate to issue a 4IM warning to the IP. I checked with another editor to see if they felt this was appropriate and they agreed. Today the IP has commented that I am "the mind police" and continued to add references to articles. Could someone take a look at this and decide whether I was correct to clean up every edit these accounts had made, and what if any action needs to be taken now. Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am taking a look into this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have asked a CU or two if they wouldn't mind reviewing this matter, as there seems to be a number of ip's resolving to a narrow geographical area all making similar edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at a few of the changes, they seem to relate to Biocommunication, and views of biology as a communications system. There are links to semiotics, which seemed weird. So this looked WP:FRINGE. But the references are to books cited from Wiley and Springer, and articles from Nature, so these refs passed editing at major scientific publishers. The new references refer to multiple authors, so it's not obvious self-promotion. There's nothing obviously wrong going on here. I'd suggest referring this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. --John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if the publication data makes an item usable as a source, it still shouldn't be added to an article unless it either substantiates some statement in the text (none of these do) or provides a good place for a reader to go to get an expanded understanding (none of these do). For what it's worth, I took a look at the preview of the Springer book in Google Books, and it's pretty shocking -- I have doubts that anybody actually read it prior to the publication. We're dealing with the academic version of a walled garden here. Looie496 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Which references where from Nature? The references added today where the exact same ones I removed a few days ago where the only coauthor is Luis Villareal. I think it's also worth noting that the authors bio on de.wiki (edited by the same IPs) says they are a philosopher, rather than a biologist meaning that these aren't research papers, but opinionated essays. If you take a closer look at the list of edits I linked to, I think you'll realise that this was some pretty blatant self-promotion. I also forgot to mention that some where even references to books not yet published! Smartse (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. You may be right.

• [235] adds ref to Springer Witzany G (Ed) (2011). Biocommunication in Soil Microorganisms. Springer. Future book. Not good.
• [236] Witzany, Guenther (2010). Biocommunication and Natural Genome Editing. Springer Seemed legit.
• [237] * Witzany, Guenther (Ed) (2009). Natural Genetic Engineering and Natural Genome Editing. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-57331-765-8.
• [238]Villarreal, L.P., & Witzany, G. (2010). Viruses are Essential Agents within the Roots and Stem of the Tree of Life. Journal of Theoretical Biology 262, pp. 698-710.

They look legit, but they're all "Witzany, G" and friends. His stuff in Nature is all in "Precedings", which is a place where people can post papers before they're refereed. [239]. He has an entry in the German Wikipedia at Günther Witzany Google translation Looks somewhat fringe. What's the comment from the bio experts? --John Nagle (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The majority of his papers are single author, and Biosemiotics is a pretty questionable field of expertise. To be clear, he has definitely not been published in Nature, or any high impact factor journal. The Journal of Theoretical Biology (~2.5 impact factor) seems to be one of the less dodgy papers ([240]) but even here he manages to cite almost his complete works. Reading the paper, the ideas he proposes and conclusions he draws with regard to viruses being at the root of the tree of life are pretty bizarre and it's pure philosophy; no data, evidence or even logic is required in 'theoretical biology' it seems. But discussion of his works are not the focus here, he has unquestionably added self-citations to a large number of articles where they certainly would not be added by a neutral party, they add nothing to the articles. He's used many IPs and at least one account (Ynaztiw) and has substantially edited his own article on de.wiki. He made this comment to the user which warned about the references. The blantant disregard for COI, NPOV etc. and amazing persistance (over two years of self-citing) do require some attention from an admin Jebus989^✰ 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)