Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719

Pussy Sher ( Music Band )

Could someone please speedily delete this. It is a complete fake Google search] named to include a rude word in Farsi. Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. Prioryman (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And gone. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Digirami

Digirami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user seems to have made it a point to vandalize any and all pages that I significantly contribute and it is getting to the point where I am being forced to do one of this (personally ridiculous) reports since I think wikipedia is to contribute. As crazy as this sounds, check the logs three days ago on my block and you will notice that he and a user named PeeJay used a double-team tactic to get me blocked. Since I am not too experienced in wikipedia, I fell for it. However, I did study up on it and it seems this user feels the need to create an edit war on anything I heavily contribute to, even those pages which are far from Digirami's interest (as I could see on the contribution's list on Santos FC, Template:Santos FC, etc. Sincerily, this is getting detrimental and purely disruptive.

I have tried at first talking and discussing. When that didn't work, I merely ignore him. There is nothing else I can do. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. This is a content dispute, plain and simple (more or less). User:Strawberry on Vanilla seems to think any edits I make to the Santos FC and related pages and templates is considered vandalism, even though it is clearly not vandalism. I think some pieces of information should be displayed differently and some information should not be placed in templates (current squad and honors, for example). Truth be told, Strawberry on Vanilla is displaying a high degree of ownership when it comes to this subject and related pages to the point where a user like myself, or another, cannot even edit it to correct from minor mistakes (for lack of a better word) in the article. Secondly, he has never contacted me directly except for a minor comment in his edit summaries (and they have never been constructive; always claiming "vandalism"). My talkpage history will clearly show that. In fact, in two previous instances over content dispute, it is I who reached out with him and to others to help resolve it. Digirami (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Even articles I create at the spur of the moment come under his attack as shown here. I have spent a lot of time turning, for example, this into what it is now. Also, this into that. I have created many more articles and his tactics of disrupting, regressing, edit warring, etc. just to spite are simply detrimental. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain this: you don't own any article, no matter how much effort you put into it. No ones any article. Very simple. Your first example (the Brazil football template) was deemed redundant not just by myself, but by other editors. That's consensus.

But on the whole, what I do is not disruptive. I don't want to play the "experience card", but I do have more experience editing football related articles and am involved with the related WikiProject. As a results, I may know things about what is expected from an article or template that you may not know. So if I see something off (like a template being used for one article, even when it is not needed), I will be bold and fix that. That's the beauty of community editing we got going on on this site. Digirami (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking at his history and, to be honest, I was apalled that I got a ban 3 days ago and Digirami obviously should have had one also. Looking at this, this...I have to ask how does he never get block or anything as such. Gaming the system to continue this is no excuse for regressing and destroying pregress. I have noted several FA (that I have taken for reference) and he doesn't mess with any of those. Mainly, anything I touch. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That bears no relevance to this. But, the other editor (MLitH) had no basis for his complaints against myself or the other editor. He was petty that consensus was not in his favor and I was one of the louder voices in that consensus Digirami (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the Santos F.C. article to its pre-edit war state and protected it. I suggest you both discuss your points of view on the talk page and involve other editors from the football Wikiproject to try to achieve a consensus. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have put this back because I was hoping for a neutral administrator to take a look at this instead. The admin The Rambling Man is currently on process for a request on conduct with evidence of promoting tag-teaming, gaming the system and basic conducts such as double-standards. I am simply structuring my case now. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove the case from this page. I undid both your and Digrami's edits to a pre-edit war state and have encouraged you both to discuss the article on the talk page. I have also asked you to not remove deletion templates from articles which you are involved in. This is disruptive. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

coordinated attack from Dragoncon

Per this and this, there seems to be some effort at organizing an attack by blocked sockpuppet FaheyUSMC (talk · contribs) and his sock/meatpuppets. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Toddst1 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I expect a bit of a hit now that I've declined one of the unblock requests ... childishness, really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Context: This is related to the thread above on Elizium. Toddst1 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Affected articles are The Dating Guy, Least I Could Do, and Teletoon (Canadian TV channel). Evidence of coordinated meatpuppetry, plus an attempt at WP:OUTING me, is this forum thread and this earlier thread (ironically the very citation they are campaigning to insert). Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Revdel is requested at the following WP:OUTING attempts: [1] and [2], [3], [4]; reverts [5],[6], [7], [8], [9]. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Someone who is cleverder than me with the tool should have a look. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Another attempt from right here at ANI: [10], reverted [11]. Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The sad little fellows are stalking my recent contributions as well. Too bad they don't have anything better to do. Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Outing attempt in edit summary here: [12]. Elizium23 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has issued a few range blocks to deal with this. Toddst1 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected pages related to this need to have an eye kept on them. I've reverted a couple of edits to The Dating Guy and RevDel'd a couple more to the talk page. More eyes are appreciated. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently being targeted on my userpage

By User:Dodger. diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 Serendi^podous 09:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Get real Dodger (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have inserted a colon in front of Dodger's comment two word comment above, and Dougweller has reverted Dodger's misguided edits to User:Serendipodous, and I have reverted Dodger's inappropriate restoration (diff) of rants at Talk:Pluto, so this could be considered resolved if Dodger now understands proper procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see:

• Talk:Pluto (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Serendipodous (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Serendipodous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dodger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I note that: Dodger is exhibiting some very disruptive behaviour - he is now given a warning to stop. Failure to do so, including but not limited to harassment of Serendipodous and reverting edits introducing abusive material, may result in a temporary or indefinite block. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 14:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor mass-producing unsourced BLPs

Bad good dragosh98 (talk · contribs) is mass-producing dozens of unsourced BLPs about obscure Romanian footballers, consisting of articles with no content other than an infobox. He has been advised that he should not do this [13] but has continued regardless. Some have already been deleted; others are awaiting PRODding and CSD (A7). He is also re-creating previously deleted articles, complete with the speedy deletion nomination templates (!) [14]. Given that he is continuing to churn out these infobox-only articles, I suggest a short block of a few hours and a note from an administrator. I think a block of at least 24 hours would be advisable so that the mess can be cleaned up. He's not responding to any talk page messages including notification of this discussion or previous warnings. Prioryman (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on his talk page I'd say he has trouble contributing in English, which probably explains the lack of text next to the infobox in most articles. His last one Sergiu Negruţ doesn't have this problem though. Deeper WP:BITE please. 79.119.87.178 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I declined all the speedy deletion requests (that were pedning), as importance was asserted in the infobox, and replaced them all with BLPPROD, left a nice list and explanation on the user's talk page (rather than 20 templated messages).--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Kelapstick. BITE is indeed an issue here, and Prioryman should have done a bit more than simply slap all those templates there, in my opinion. We should encourage good-faith contributions, even if they are not immediately up to par--this is part and parcel of the editor education process, which we all went through though maybe in different degrees. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Raggi2010

Can an admin please look at the contributions of Raggi2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - not a single constructive edit, including some blatant false information, as well as creating numerous non-notable articles, and no attempt at discussion when numerous editors have raised issues with him. Cheers, GiantSnowman 20:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I just issued a COI notice, considering the content of the user's sandbox. WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Of 147 edits, 72 have been deleted. A 1:1 ratio--that's pretty impressive. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of those were reverted. There's a WP:CIR issue here. Any mentors around with an interest in underage football of the English and Icelandic variety? Drmies (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One issue here is that underage football isn't generally considered notable - in fact, even senior players in Iceland's top league aren't notable! I'd be willing to mentor (never done it before formally, though have previously assisted individual editors over a period of time) but the editor seems unwilling to discuss or accept our notability guidelines and concerns. GiantSnowman 22:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Snowman, that is very nice of you. I left them a note on their talk page and I hope they will follow up. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems. If we don't get a response, or we get a negative one, what is our future plan? GiantSnowman 11:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the behavior continues, if more of these articles are created or, worse, the same stuff is recreated, we block temporarily. Feel free to report that on ANI, with reference to this discussion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will continue to monitor, and in the meantime, I have also reiterated the offer of help that you gave him on my behalf. Thanks for the help, GiantSnowman 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, despite a number of editors posting on his talk page offering help/advice, he continues to vandalise Wikipedia. I believe a block would be suitable at this point now. GiantSnowman 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Aw shucks. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Some people just don't get it, unfortunately. GiantSnowman 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-Stalking, Battleground mentality and incivility

User:Artacoana has twice removed my referenced information in the "Region" section of the templates from two different articles, Avicenna[15] and Rumi[16]. Replacing the referenced information with place of birth and place of death which already exist within the template. Calling said edits on the talk page(of Avicenna) as "I'm going to add more precise information regarding the regions the Avicenna resided, including the ruling dynasties of those regions. These information are taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica and will serve as a reliable and academic source. The previous regions were incomplete and did not really make any sense."

When I asked for an explanation on his talk page as to why he was removing my references from Rumi and Avicenna, he contradicts what he had said on the Avicenna talk page, "I am still against adding region within the templates, however they are still there. So, I took more specific details about the regions they resided, including the ruling dynasties. These information are taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica. It is obvious that your reverts indicate that you are one of those who want to steal the cultural heritage of the region and label as the native Iranian (of today's Iran). You are free to report me, my friend! I'm an old Wikipedia user, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

I find this response insulting and damaging to the building of an encyclopedia. IF as he said, "they are still there", then why remove the reference? If you check User:Artacoana edit list[17] he last edited Aug 28th on Herat, just after editing Rumi, then when he started editing again on Sept 4th on Avicenna. He has edited nothing else in between. These edits appear to be more personal than any concern for historical accuracy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And now he has broken 3RR.[18] While preaching rule and regulations on Avicenna talk page.[19] --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note. You're supposed to notify any user who is the subject of a discussion; however, I've done so for you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

On 27 July 2011, User:Kansas Bear asked my opinion as to whether the "Region" section should remain in the template. When I came back from summer holidays, I left this comment in the discussion page of Rumi, saying that addition of REGION is not needed in the template, as it can create confusion (in favour of Iranians!). I've waited for a week and noticed that the section REGION was still there with incomplete and biased information, that had previously invoked many objections in the discussion pages from Afghans and Tajiks who inhabit the same regions Rumi and Avicenna were born, educated and resided. I decided to edit it with information taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica as can be seen here. And I did the same for the article about Avicenna., after I explained the reason for changing the template. What I did was adding details about the regions, cities and ruling dynasties associated with. Lets have a look at the previous version. There were the following regions: Greater Khorasan with no details of the cities and ruling dynasties associated with! Perhaps because today those cities (Bukhara and Urganj) are not located in present-day Iran? And suddenly we have Persia, with Buyid dynasty, and Iranian cities like Hamadan, Ray and Qazvin all mentioned in the template. Why ignoring non-Iranian cities, like Urgenj (nowhere mentioned in the template) where Avicenna resided for long period? Because they are not part of Iran? Is this what we want to see in a free and fair encyclopaedia?

However, without any explanation, The User:Kansas Bear started reverting the whole template here, and here. I asked him instead of reverting the whole template, stating where is incorrect? If he is disagreed with the addition of dates, fine, he can remove them, but why removing some cities and leaving other in favour of a country?! His accusation of my violation of 3RR rule is baseless, I did not change the entire template; I just added cities and ruling dynasties to Greater Khorasan, without removing the region and cities, already mentioned in the template. His unfair placing of warning templates in my talk page is harassment. He had similar unfair accusations towards other non-Iranian user (mostly Afghans and Tajiks), like his aggressive behaviour against the Afghan User:Yamaweiss as can be seen here. This is an example of their impolite behaviour towards Afghans and Tajiks.

My contribution to Wikipedia is clear to the administrators; they have access to users' contribution statistics. I admit I'm not as active on the English Wikipedia as I'm on the Persian Wikipedia. But his accusation of my disruptive contribution is totally unacceptable! My major activities are focussed on the history and the culture of Central Asia. As a small example of my contributions in English Wikipedia is the Template:Chronological Chart for the historical periods of Afghanistan, and the article Ariana, of which the latter initiated by myself. I spend most of my time on Persian Wikipedia, and here is an overview of my daily contributions. One can see the quality of my work in these articles: [20] (Provinces of Afghanistan), [21] (History of Afghanistan) and [22] (template: Archaeological sites in Afghanistan). I have also added many images in Wikipedia commons, the pictures of historical places I have visited. Wikipedia is open for everyone and we are advised to be bold, trying to reach a compromise and avoid edit waring, instead of unnecessarily reporting regular users. Contributions from all skilled and regular users are needed to expand this encyclopaedia.--Artacoana (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As seen here[23][24], User:Artacoana edited Avicenna twice on Jan 12th 2011, yet did not appear to have any problem with the Region section that stated, Greater Khorasan, Persia. Yet once I added[25];>"Buyid dynasty(Hamadan)/(Rayy)/(Qazvin)<ref-Before and after Avicenna, Ed. David C. Reisman and Ahmed H. Al-Rahim, (Brill, 2003), 93.-ref>", this becomes an ethnic issue?? As User:Artacoana has plainly stated, "It is obvious that your reverts indicate that you are one of those who want to steal the cultural heritage of the region and label as the native Iranian (of today's Iran).". This has more to do with some personal animosity against me, thus harassment, than historical accuracy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As seen here[26] User:Artacoana, adds "during the Samanids" to the Region section of the Rumi article. No references. Rumi was born 1207, yet the Samanid dynasty ended in 999! Another indication this has nothing to do with historical accuracy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir! Why would I have animosity against you. I don't know you. You asked me about my opinion. This is a simple dispute and is supposed be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith. Adding Iranian cities of Ray, Qazvin and Hamadan to the template, and ignoring non-Iranian cities of Urgenj and Bukhara, as you did here is obviously not a good faith, and when you do this, you should expect objections from your opponents. You reference to my addition of Samanid dynasty to the template of Rumi doesn't really make any sense. As can be seen here I added the correct dynasties of his time, which I took from Encyclopaedia Iranica. I've been active on English Wikipedia sice Oct 07, 2006, earlier than you, and I'm more or less familiar with most of the rules. The historical accuracy of my articles can be judged from the most academic and reliable sources I'm using. I'm not cherry-picking sources in favour of my country!--Artacoana (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Action required against poster of fake photo

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

Resolved

 – Exidor is blocked for being mean-spirited, and Schyler needs a better camera

Action is required against user User:Schyler for posting this blatantly fake Moon photo onto this page. This is vandalism of the worst kind. --Exidor (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Firsty, what is "blatantly fake" about it? Secondly, your section heading here is NOT appropriate. GiantSnowman 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't you see the Moon is under the fucking clouds?!?!--Exidor (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not. GiantSnowman 22:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)As well as being a featureless circle. This is pretty flagrant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly makes this photo "blatantly fake"? An overexposed moon? I wouldn't call it fake, as much as not helpful in explaining what a Harvest Moon is. -- Avanu (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)As Exidor pointed out, the "moon" is below the cloud layer, which is roughly 238,000 miles below its regular orbit. The "moon" is also a featureless white circle, showing no signs of craters, mare, mountains, or any of its other easily discernible surface features. And it's a sharp, perfect circle as well, with no sign of atmospheric softening of the circumference. If this isn't a pure fake, it's been doctored to the extent that it's unusable here.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not the correct place for this incident. That being said, I'm sorry for any confusion. I remember vividly this night. Exidor may not be familiar with some aspects of photography. With certain values in the ISO a bright object may engulf other similarly colored objects. I assure you the photo is legitimate. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 22:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example: http://www.thegardenerseden.com/?p=2369 -- Avanu (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Note the "softer" boundary in that photo, as well as the haloing (whose absence from the disputed photo would seem inexplicable). If you grayscale that image, you'll see significant differences from the one being questioned. That's simply not what the moon looks like, however the image was generated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to see more editors AGFing here... GiantSnowman 22:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, that picture could easily be seen as "dubious". A easy assumption - something also with the circle of the moon, not quite round or at least with some not normal anomalies.Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. But the photographer has explained the circumstances, which is enough for me - and there was no need for such a rude ANI report. GiantSnowman 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep the image. Remove it from the Harvest moon article on the grounds that it's a lousy photo. Rklawton (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is only a lousy photo of the moon, its a cool photo of those clouds. Monty₈₄₅ 22:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be rash to call this a fake. I see artifacts on the limbs of the moon which hint that the image has been heavily tweaked for brightness/gamma, which brightened and washed out the underlapping clouds. I think it comes down to whether editors like the snap or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps not "fake" but " digitally manipulated" might be a more correct expression. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly legitimate, and not manipulated at all - the moon is simply so overexposed it bleaches out everything in front. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think it's a photo of the moon that has been manipulated, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not look even remotely realistic to my eyes. Perhaps this can be explained by an overeager post-image touchup, but either way, it does not add much of value to the article. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've taken lots of photographs of the moon. The overexposed versions look just like the photo posted. I doubt it's a fake - but it is a lousy photo, and that's really the relevant point. Rklawton (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes and by the way, at full res there is a halo. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Download the photo, load it to Paint, and hit the paintbucket icon in the middle. Amazingly uniformly white. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Use a full photo editing suite, and play with the levels, you will see that the white is in fact not uniform, and is entirely consistent with over exposure. Monty₈₄₅ 22:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, or try Gimp. It definitely has some haloing at the edges. Paint converts it to a 256-colour scale, and thus will lose the detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean haloing at the edges of the moon, like the "ring around the moon"? I put the image through some serious maniputation in PS and couldn't detect a natural halo. Incidentally, halo comes from halation which occurs around any subject which has a light behind it. In this case, any halation should be on the edges of the clouds. Couldn't detect any. Moriori (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This site, with a similar photo, suggests that such a picture could be for real. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of what happens when you over expose a photo of a bright object File:Lightbulb Exposure Demonstration.jpg. Not exactly the same effect, but it demonstrates the basic idea. Monty₈₄₅ 23:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll just note that one important factor contributing to my skepticism is that while the image is dated to 2010 (and the uploader "vividly remembers" the night), the file data says the photo was taken in 2008 with software applied (which could simply be file transfer, of course) in 2010. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never taken the initiative to set the date on the camera. It alwaysvreset when the batter is removed. All other comments, although losing some semblance of tact, are appciated. I am not a very good photographer, but do enjoy it. Since this misplaced discussion has taken off, I think the matter to be discussed is the photo's presence in the article. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 23:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty perfect example of what an overexposed photograph of the Moon looks like. There are visible markings on the right-hand limb, and the lighting on the cloud drops away in just the manner you'd expect from central moonlight. The EXIF data records 400 ISO, 1/10 of a second at f/5.6 - which is guaranteed to overexpose. This photo is 200 ISO, 1/30 of a second at f/3.7, EV -2.0 - if my back of the envelope calculation is right, it's about 50 times darker than the original image was, and yet the moon is looking perceptibly washed out by the light! If the moon was over the horizon just now, I'd be tempted to fiddle with some camera settings and try to explicitly replicate it...

I don't think this image is worth including in the article - it's hard to have an "informative" image for an article like this, and the one above is vastly prettier - but wild accusations that it's "blatantly fake" seem to have very little justification and really don't seem to be appropriate, reasonable or helpful. Shimgray | talk | 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Shimgray, please don't make me cite you for displaying a disruptive amount of technical competence. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This one needs to be removed too, something tells me this isn't real. -- Avanu (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty mediocre photographic fakery

The full moon is in full sunlight. The "sunny 16 rule" in photography says that a proper exposure of an object in full sun is 1/ASA and f.16. In this case, that would 1/400 of a second at f.16, not 1/10 at f.5.6, which is about seven stops overexposed.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The image is an interesting picture of clouds, and a very badly overexposed picture of the moon. When you have a smallish, bright object (the surface of the Moon is in full sunlight, remember) surrounded by a dark background (space, moonlit clouds), the camera's light meter will set the exposure based on what is technically known as a "wild-assed guess". Since the clouds are visible, we know that the Moon will be incredibly, brutally overexposed; it will be completely blown out white all the way across. The fact that the circle is pretty sharp just means he's got a camera with good optics. There's a bit of chromatic aberration visible if you look at the Moon full-sized (it's a bit magenta around the lower left, and a bit blue in the upper right); this is to be expected in a real picture taken with a real camera. The fact that the moon can be seen through the clouds is a red herring; the clouds may be quite thin and only visible at all because of the image's overexposure. I've taken sharp pictures of stars through thin clouds. The time and date reset thing, meanwhile, is a known issue with the D5000: [27].

It's probably not a good picture to illustrate the article, but those of you who are screaming "fake" should be ashamed of yourselves, and even those shouting "it must be manipulated" should probably be giving yourselves a shake. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I always thought it wasn't fake and only so y'all know, now and then I forget that some folks hear the words "manipulation" and "photo" together as meaning something has been done to mislead in a harmful or unfair way. As many know, lots of commercial-level photos are "manipulated" in image software. Shoulda stuck to how I said it the first time, "tweaked" (and maybe with the camera settings alone). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

User:78.28.204.157

Persistent vandalism across various language Wikipedia projects (ru, pl, it, en). Fayerman (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

That specific IP has exactly 1 edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And it doesnt' look like vandalism. However, the user may be causing problems on several projects. If that is the case, m:Steward requests/Global is the correct place to request it. --Jayron32 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Geolocate for this user's IP: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=78.28.204.157&blocks=true&lang=ru Fayerman (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fayerman, there's not much we can do here about problems on other projects. The Stewards at Meta can help, however. Try m:Steward requests/Global and make your case there. They can help you out. --Jayron32 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Fayerman (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:Nick Clegg

Merrows2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has issued legal threats at Talk:Nick Clegg: permalink. They have been removed by another editor. Action is requested. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Merrows2 has been indefinately blocked. --Jayron32 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - Again

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

---

• User:Adam4267 is topic banned for three months from editing articles and article talk pages related to Celtic F.C. supporters, Green Brigade among them, broadly construed. If he doesn't heed this topic ban, he will be blocked from editing and if he breaches the ban more than once, the blocks will get longer each time. There is an overwhelming consensus that outside this quite narrow topic area, Adam's contributions are very helpful to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a previous ANI case, namely this one [28] has resurfaced.

A read of the above and the talk page at Celtic F.C. supporters should give you a good idea of the problem. Essentially Adam has been insisting on adding information that is not neutral into the page, one from the Celtic FC web page, one from a footballing agent dealing with a Celtic player, and one from a marketing company that works with Celtic. All with no secondary sources. See Talk page here [[29]] He was also advised to change his behaviour and received warnings on his talk page from a number of fellow editors, including some he works closely with [30].

When this came to the ANI board before, the suggestion from various adims was a topic ban, but this never materialised, which I think was fair enough as it was worth giving Adam a chance to take stock and change his editing behaviour. Unfortunately this hasn't happened, so what do we do now? Mattun0211 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there was consensus for a topic ban before but the thread was archived without being closed properly. I think we could now enact the topic ban if there is still a problem. --John (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I cant believe this is still an issue. I have repeatedly tried to find a middle ground to meet on with this issue normally relating to supporters groups and where large fan bases have developed (normally due to certain players signing for the club). All it would require from my perspective is for adam to agree to tweak his wording on these issues. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• In light of this, I now think that a topic ban would be helpful. Adam is making valid contributions, but on Celtic-related pages I think he is being led astray (from guidelines, policies, and even common sense). John, do you agree? Drmies (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. That's a terrible edit and summary. --John (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• For crying outloud. We had settled on a 3-month ban before, had we not? And yet the user is continuing his disruptive edits. Make it a 1-year ban this time, and please someone give him an official notice on his page. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe my question has just been answered, but what is the next step?Mattun0211 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, considering that we seem to have a consensus, I think we wait for someone who is not as involved as I am to lay down the law here in formal terms. Honestly, I've never written up or enforced a topic ban, so I don't know the ins and outs. Someone help us out here? Drmies (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
      • It just needs an uninvolved admin to drop a note to User talk:Adam4267 and log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Anybody? --John (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't understand this, why have I been blocked and why is it for a year. No reason has been provided and there has been absolutely no evidence provided to back up any supposed reason, in what way are my edits more disruptive than other users. Especially considering that there has been no consensus established on these pages and that on the Green Brigade page Mattun refuses to listen to User:Oldelpaso's comment (I can see why Adam2467 is unhappy with the text as written) and continually re-adds this WP:OR to back up his POV [31]. He has a clear POV and agenda on this page, [32], [33], [34] and has admitted to this on the talk page [35]. He has also edit-warred on the Celtic F.C. [36] page and threatened to edit-war on the Green Brigade page [37]. He also said he would use "spellgate" (Green Brigade's misspelling of a banner) as a "WMD" (Weapon of mass destruction presumably) and continually tries to add information to that effect, [38], [39], this only stopped when other users, including Drmies, warned him on his talk page [40]. Also he may have been Wikipedia:Canvassing when he opened this thread as he did not post a message to User:LonelyBeacon, User:Oldelpaso or User:Warburton1368. Although it could just be an honest mistke. Adam4267 (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Although its sad that it has come to this i cant really argue about the topic ban given what was said at the previous ANI. However given that no last warning or ban or topic ban was ever given to adam regarding this i strongly disagree with the length of it. Given that a 3 month was proposed but never given last time. This should of been the starting point not a year. As i wasn't advised i couldn't reply before now. Warburton1368 (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with warburton that if a 3 month topic ban was proposed but not enforced per say, then why has this automatically risen to a one year ban? Monkeymanman (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Weeks after that last ANI thread, along with all the pleas and warnings, he started up again. If, through editing other articles, he can show some understanding about careful neutrality and the need for reliable sources and discussion in this topic area, I see no reason why the topic ban couldn't be greatly lessened. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that and im sure he will do what you suggest, but if no warning or ban was actually given from the ANI then is a longer ban not excessive. I just felt that a warning should have been given originally as to say he never learnt from the original one we are giving a longer ban dosent make sense if no punishment was given. I mean you wouldn't do that with a full ban. In the previous ANI a offer of mentorship was given. Would a shorter ban with the help of a mentor to negotiate further problems be of help. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've long said, on en.WP, mentors wontedly learn a lot more from mentoring than the mentored. It can become a trying time sink for the mentor, with the outcome being even longer blocks and bans for the mentored. However, now and then, the outcome of mentoring is a happy one. Given Adam's contribution history which so far as I can tell has been broadly helpful outside the Celtic F.C. supporters topic area, other editors may indeed agree to mentoring as worthwhile (they often do here), instead of a topic ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this topic ban isn't punishment for a wrong done, as such. It's only preventative, a way to stop something which other editors see as harmful from carrying on. Hence, if by some means it comes to be that there is little or no likelihood of it happening again, something like a ban or block can be lifted straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you made the decision with no consensus to make the ban 1 year instead of 3 months, as originally proposed and which consensus was reached. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Could be. I've begun a sub-thread below where editors can comment on the length. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording

User:Adam4267 is banned for one year from editing articles related to Celtic F.C., broadly construed. This includes talk pages. --John (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggest one sentence format: User:Adam4267 is banned for one year from editing articles related to Celtic F.C., broadly construed, including talk pages. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done and logged. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you all, and thanks, Gwen, for showing how it's done. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks everybody Mattun0211 (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please mark this incident as resolved. Glrx (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought it was resolved when you imposed the ban. Apparently we are now into a debate on the appropriateness of the length. Glrx (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Length of ban

I notified Adam that the topic ban was for one year, owing to a comment in the main thread above by KillerChihuahua, along with the proposed wording above, which at the time, seemed as though it had, or would have consensus. Since then, some editors have said they think the ban may be too long. How long shall it be? I'm wholly neutral as to both the length and the ban (editors who think the ban is uncalled for are also welcome to comment on that below.) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• The three month ban was never implemented, so I view the year-long ban as unfair. GiantSnowman 22:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Considering the original ban, reached through consensus was 3 months that is what should be implemented now. It is not the fault of the editor that the ban was never formally enacted and notification given.Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• As i stated above i feel a year is unfair as no topic ban or final warning was ever given. The original 3 month ban is more appropriate. This would give adam time to edit constructively and work with other editors on other football related projects which he has shown to be good at and hopefully return to celtic related edits if he wishes to in better shape. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Three months is fine with me as well, for various reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• The problem is really only on two pages, Celtic F.C. supporters and Green Brigade. I would even say no ban at all except for a year ban on these two pages. The previous ANI gave Adam a choice I think - either take it as a warning, take stock and change or think I've got a way with it and carry on the same behaviour. Adam has taken the latter option. But the problem is very focussed on those two pages in general. For the record, I only notified the admins involved last time and monkeyman as no one else was directly involved this time round. also for the record, I did reply to Oldpaseo's point, directly below. I think adam should take this time to let bygones be bygones - that's the second time he's brought up some of my edits from my early Wiki editing to this board months (or is it years) since they were written, at a time when I had no idea what even basic terms like original research meant in Wiki terms. There is even one which I deleted soon after I wrote it oncd I realised how wiki works, and Adam has gone about reinstating after I delete it. It's this sort of behaviour and attitude he has to move away from. I think he's someone who finds it very difficult to let go of a situation, which is why I suspect we haven't heard the last of this one. But clearly he does some good work on the football pages with the editors who have responded here, so maybe a lengthy ban on just the main problem pages is worth a try. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• A year ban is fine with me. This user was told weeks ago in his talk that he had had a close escape when the original proposal was archived without being enacted, and warned to be careful. They ignored this and continued with the behavior they had been told was problematic. The escalation of the topic ban was made with this in mind. --John (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Just a thought: if Adam is smart, he'll treat this subject ban as a permanent one, regardless of just how long we officially say it's for. Because if he resumes editting these articles the moment the ban ends, he's going to eventually end up getting into the same trouble once again & his time on Wikipedia will come to an unhappy, although probably not quick, end. From what I've read here, he's shown that (1) he can contribute good content in many areas, but (2) F.C. Celtic is a hot-button issue for him. All Wikipedians have hot-button issues; the smart ones stay away from them, don't get into trouble over them, & become established & respected Wikipedians. (Which means there is hope for me.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• With reference to what i said above, because the original 3 month ban was agreed upon but not imposed, i think this should mean that any ban given at this moment should be 3 months. Although John has correctly reminded us about the strongly worded warning given to Adam about this situation the last time it was raised at ANI. In that respect the one year topic ban could be justifiable. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand where john is coming from with him being told by dmries that he was lucky and giving advice which was correct but as it wasn't official or a really a warning i feel to escalate is inappropriate. Given three months was the initial decision thats where i feel it should go as i have said aboveWarburton1368 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• We need to get this over with: things that drag are things that get archived. I see a consensus here for a three-month ban on Celtic-related articles, and barring any further revelations, I am going to ask Gwen if she can adjust the time period at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Would agree with that. Mattun0211 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I have just happened upon this discussion and am wondering who on earth you all think you are. How can you "topic ban" someone in this manner? Let alone make some arbitrary decision on it's length. How do you intend to impose and enforce such a ban? Who is the judge and who is the jury here? This discussion seems a little unfair on the user and I can't see how it is justified. Has this user actually ever been blocked from editing wikipedia for disruptive behaviour? If not then how on earth is a 3 month topic ban even worthy of discussion, let alone a 1 year ban. This isn't the way to treat valuable wikipedia users. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why they call it a kangaroo court. Seriously though, we are all amateurs and we simply don't have the manpower or level of organization to maintain a consistent infrastructure for the myriad cases of this and similar caliber. This isn't "RfAr material", but a decision needs to be made. --84.44.228.119 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So there have been some edit wars, but it takes two (or more) to edit war. Have there been any blocks? Come on this is a case for mediation in the first instance. Has an WP:RFM even been considered? Diplomacy is the answer! Not punishment.Polyamorph (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A topic-ban isn't "punishment", it simply prevents further damage until the underlying conflicts can be addressed and hopefully resolved. In that sense, it may actually facilitate mediation since it gives the user a real incentive to develop insight into why the community regards his edits in that particular area as problematic. --84.44.228.119 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's punishment, at least in the manner that it has been imposed here it is. This seems pretty much like a lynch mob to me, and I feel very sorry for the user. I'm a completely uninvolved editor but from what I can see the user has been editing in good faith. Polyamorph (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody doubts the user's good intentions, but they don't change the fact that his edits are problematic and that he has so far resisted all attempts at actually communicating with him about his editing in that area.

If a topic-ban is what it takes (1) for the community to prevent further damage and (2) for the user to start listening to the community's concerns, then that's on the user, not on the community who isn't interested in "punishing" anyone but merely in doing what's best for the project.

Again, I agree with you in principle that all this isn't "proper" (i.e. formalized) proceedings, but we simply have to look at each individual case and try to determine the best course of action. In this particular case, consensus appears to be that a three-month topic ban is required. It is a rather strong measure, but please consider the user's behavior in and around those articles. --84.44.228.119 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I for one object to a three month topic ban because I cannot see any evidence that appropriate action has been taken by all users involved and univolved to resolve this issue more amicably. Be nice to the user and you may start seeing some results. Don't drive another valued editor away from wikipedia. To be fair I've looked at a couple of the edits that seem to be at issue here and can't really see what all the fuss is about. Sure I'm not football expert but I haven't seen anything remotely worth a topic ban, unless of course someone could actually provide some real evidence here that it is actually justified. There are disagreements on wikipedia all the time, that doesn't mean we should gang up on those whom we disagree with the most and eventually drive them away from articles where they actually may be able to make a real difference to. What's best for this project is diplomacy. The user has replied in this discussion and has been completely ignored! Has any form of dispute resolution actually been attempted? Polyamorph (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban was decided at the previous ANI [[41]. I was against it at the time however it wasn't given as the ani was archived before issued. The issues appear to have continued and the ban was given by admins set at a year 9 months more than discussed at previous ani. That is why its being questioned to return to previously discussed time length 3 months. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the previous ANI and am not convinced by the arguments there, certainly very little evidence of disruptive behaviour has been provided. I'm not disputing that there is a problem but I think the problem is on both sides and needs to be resolved by diplomacy and following the correct dispute resolution procedure. This does not appear to have been followed. Therefore, as the IP user above notes, this is a kangaroo court and is not fair on the user. The user is being ignored and people are pushing their own point of view on the users actions and behaviour instead of concentrating on content and real dispute resolution. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the part where the editor in question refuses to abide by consensus, engages in edit-warring, appears to be interested in making their favorite soccer team look as good as possible, and makes no indication of accepting various guidelines such as WP:RS. I don't think you can accuse the other editors here of that. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we see evidence of this? Adam4267 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. This, this, and this show the need for a topic ban. At this stage we are just haggling about the length. How long do you think it should be for? --John (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Poly. A few points - firstly, with reference with a point you made on your talk page [[42]] that "Admins are just normal editors with some additional tools". I would disagree. For one thing, admins have far more experience of disputes like this than you or I, have more experience of the likely outcomes and more experience of how to achieve the best results for everyone concerned. A good example of this is Gwen Gale's comment that mentoring tends not to work, for instance - the value of experience. Take away this "kangaroo court" if you will - the result will the break down of wikipedia.

Admins, in my experience (and most editors come to that) always reference any allegations against other editors. You make accusations, presumably agianst the main editors involved which include myself, monkeyman and drmies, of bullying and disruption [[43]]. Can you show where this has happened? I hope you won't be resorting to episodes in our early wikiering career years ago which we have put down to experience and moved on from.

above you say "To be fair I've looked at a couple of the edits that seem to be at issue here and can't really see what all the fuss is about." I presume you're referring to the three main issues on Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters that Adam continuingly insisted on trying to include, which are that:

1/ Celtic shirts outsell Man Utd & Arsenal shirts in Nairobi - sourced from someone associated with Celtic and published by Celtic.

2/ A marketing company that works with Celtic claims that Celtic have 7 million Japanese fans

3/ A broker arranging a deal to take a Honduran player to Celtic claims teh deal has sparked "Celtic mania" in Honduras.

You presumably don't see anything wrong with these. I would argue that these edits all come from people associated with Celtic, so are not neutral under WP:NPOV. To reiterate WP:IS says "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." But you presumably disagree or have found some secondary sources to back those claims up? Can you show them to us?

As for your comment that dispute resolution hasn't been sought - this leads me to doubt you've read through the talk pages concerned properly. To save you the trouble - here's a list:

1/ I have left a post on the RS noticeboard here. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters

2/ I have put some points on the reliable sources noticeboard 1. Feel free to add to it/comment, I just put a few queries up there. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters

3/ Cptnono, in his American way ;, has shown us a way forward I think; "There should be no question that Celtic have a global fan base. Screw the sources used and delete them for not meeting WP:V. But instead of spending the few minutes to post here go and Google News Archive it to find a better source. And then laugh at Celtic for sucking" Mattun0211 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters

4/ Hi Adam, I've reverted your edits as I think ideally you need to take this to the reliable source discussion page as fanzines are undoubtedly a questionable source.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade

5/ Adam please, please, please, please take your two sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree and if you think they can be regarded as reliable references. Until then i cannot accept them as such. I have learned from past experience that sources such as those have no weight in their reliability.Monkeymanman (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Talk:Green Brigade

6/No, I will not be forced to clear every single addition I want to make to this page with the pair of you and/or the reliable sources board.Adam4267 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade

7/ it's probably time for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade

8/ I have left a question on the RS noticeboard about these sources here Monkeymanman (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade

9/ Adam - rather than go through this for the upteenth time, why not take it to one of the noticeboards. You have been very reluctant to do that on a number of occassions, for some reason. Inclusion of Youtube has already received advice from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard here [6] Mattun0211 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade

In short myslef, monkeyman and drmies have all tried this approach. Part of the problem is that some of the noticeboards seem to receive little traffic, but in any case adam has consistently decided to ignore tham and the advice given.

As regards the idea that he hasn't recived any warning, he clearly came within a whisker of a three month ban, escaped without punishment and decided to continue exactly as he was before. How much warning do you want? Mattun0211 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

People born in French Algeria : Nationalistic edits by Dzlinker

Hello,

The user Dzlinker is processing a wave of nationalistic edits by replacing French Algeria by Algeria in biography pages of French people born in pré-1962 Algeria, here are some examples:

• Yves Saint Laurent (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Jean-Pierre Elkabbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Évariste Lévi-Provençal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Pierre Rehov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Jean-Luc Azoulay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Albert Camus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Jacques Derrida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Claire Messud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Patrick Bruel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ;
• Claude Cohen-Tannoudji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

On each article he was reverted by many users, but he keeps pushing his nationalistic edits.

I'm not asking to block him, but to explain to him that he can't push his PoV this way, but that he has to start a global discussion about people born in French Algeria to seek for a new consensus.

Thanks in advance.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• While I don't agree with their edits, I do not see where in this content discussion there is any kind of talk going on, on their talk page or on the articles' talk pages, about why their edits are (supposedly) wrong. No discussion from your side, no discussion from their side--I think you know where this might lead to, after the edit war at Template:History of Morocco. Omar, engage in discussion before you come to ask for the stick. To put it in other words: there is nothing actionable here for an admin right now. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay then, I'll try to discuss that with him, even if, I think, the one supposed to start the discussion is him, since he's one who breaks "stabilized versions" and who is reverted by many users, but no prob' ; I hope that it will work this time (since discussion is never easy with him).
    Thx for the answer.
    Omar-Toons (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Omar, we've met before, I believe, and I hope you understood this in the spirit in which it was offered. Yes, perhaps they should initiate discussion, for the two reasons you cite, but they don't. At that moment it becomes incumbent on you (in my opinion) to at least make an effort. If you make that effort, and it's beyond reproach, and they fail to respond and/or modify their behavior, you can claim without doubt that you're dealing with a disruptive/incommunicative/whatever editor. It will take more time, but the end result is more likely to be a. changed editing behavior or b. forcible behavior modification. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
      • This is better suited for a request for comment since a private discussion between you two is unlikely to yield anything or get attention from uninvolved editors. The standard practice is to put the constituent country at the time of birth; however when you look around this is not the case everywhere (e.g: People born in ex-soviet union or People born in Al-Andalus). Tachfin (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

        Tachfin, I never said such a conversation should be private--it shouldn't be. It should be out in the open, but an RfC is a bit heavy-handed at this point, in my opinion. And such conversations, on talk pages etc., often are useful--and if they're not, they provide evidence of engagement or disruption. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

        Drmies, I agree with you; I was referring to a discussion that would be between user:Omar-Toons and user:Dzlinker on their talk page. As there have been some attempts here for exmaple. Regards.--Tachfin (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

        • I notified user:Dzlinker Tachfin (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
          • My standard approach in these situations is to revert the change, make a post on the article's talk page explaining the reason for the revert, then make a post at the editor's talk page notifying them of both the revert, the concern, and the talk page discussion, ending with a request for their input at the article's talk page. This seems to work in the majority of cases. N419BH 05:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

this is really totally non human. I asked to discuss the matter with this reverter 2 months ago [44]!!! i suggest a block on him since he refused the talk imposing his PoV. Dzlinker (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk may go on the same page (tp). Dzlinker (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So... I see that it will not be easier than before.

Maybe we can find a solution through WP:CCN?

Omar-Toons (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ahem. "non human"? The 'proposal' linked to by Dzlinker starts with "stop defending your false useless point of view". That's nonsense, and we don't have to take that seriously. It is also written in a grammatically challenged way, raising issues of English competency--a fair point, given that this is the English wiki. I note also that they do not address the perceived problems with their edits, noted here by a couple of editors--instead they call for a block on Omar. That's ridiculous.

  Dzlinker, if you wish to help your case, help it. If you don't see what the problem is (and it seems like you don't--perhaps also a linguistic issue) then it is fair to ask whether you have the competence to operate here. Omar, I'm not sure if that board is the best option since Dzlinker's commentary hardly rises to the level of political discourse; it is little more than knee-jerk responses which can be dealt with by successively warning for what is really vandalism: disruptive and unsourced edits with an ethnic slant. Drmies (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, if this is a clue of the "discussion" we are supposed to start (even the previous one was more meaningful), I don't think that we will find a solution through Dialog... Correct me I'm wrong. -- Omar-Toons (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I am of the opinion that this might not be a only a "user issue". I think Dzlinker can be reasonably convinced; normally constituent country of birth -which still have to be defined according to each case- is indicated, which in this case would be French Algeria. But I can't find a policy or a clear a consensus on this and thus this is not applied with scrutiny and random searches indicate that it boils down to the main contributors preferences. A centralized discussion about country of birth has taken place here back in 2008, result: no body could agree on anything. Also keep in mind that sometimes users come from other wikis which had adopted other standards which of course do not apply here; this should be clarified for users who might not know it. Tachfin (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

french algeria is not a country it's a colony an historic entity imposed by blood and fire!

like british america or any thing else,

i took a look here it says he was born in present-day virginia.

if instead of french algeria we say in present-day algiers or oran or any other city, it's more correct than algeria or french algeria,

this's a good overture, hope w'll get threw

Dzlinker (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Freedoms of IP editors

Hi!

I do not know if this is the appropriate place within wikipedia for this or even if such can be dealt with but here goes.

202.124.73.181 (talk), has perform two acts which may not be permitted by IP users vs. registered accounts:

1. the user has put Proposed deletion/dated template on an article Metadefinition I created and
2. has voter on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art).

If IP users are allowed to do these two acts, please advise. If not could someone either remove these or take whatever appropriate action is needed.

Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IP editors are permitted to WP:PROD articles, and are permitted to participate in AfD discussions. Monty₈₄₅ 03:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears it is actually two IPs, 202.124.73.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 202.124.72.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Monty₈₄₅ 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

They can do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, no problems there. IP editors are "allowed" to do anything which they are technically able to do, such as edit existing articles and comment in discussions. Anything IP editors are NOT allowed to do has already been prevented at the software level. --Jayron32 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a problem. Why are two separate IPs on Australian cellular networks making such edits to the same article within a 24 hour span? N419BH 05:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd think the cellular provider, more than likely, automatically assigned another IP address to the phone for the second session. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of this being a potential WP:DUCK situation. N419BH 06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lacking a block on either IP I can't see why they'd be trying to sock behind another IP. Likewise if it were an editing dispute (I'm not aware of one) they'd more likely try coming back through an open proxy or something, to make it look like someone else. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see a motive to WP:DUCK because the AfD looks one-sided. Marshallsumter hasn't suggested a potential sock. I'm more concerned about Marshallsumter creating a large number of dubious Dominant group (X) articles similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art). My read is MS is looking to suppress opposition. Glrx (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - that seems to be the real problem. Marshallsumter is synthesising dubious articles, and the IP (if it is a single person) has merely noted this, and acted accordingly. Entirely right and proper behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be a WP:BOOMERANG thread about Marshallsumter's (re)creation of another article that fails WP:OR policies rather than what IPs are allowed to say. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An examination of User:Marshallsumter's contribs identifies several articles:

• Metadefinition
• Dominant group (art)
• Dominant group (Moon)
• Dominant group (stars)
• Dominant group (petrology)
• Dominant group (extinction)
• Dominant group (economics)
• Dominant group (astronomy)
• Dominant group (meteoroid)
• Dominant group (evolutionary biology)
• Dominant group (anthropology)

All of these articles are currently in AfD with the exception of metadefinition (which is proposed delete). Glrx (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW I am the proposer of most of those, and that is not my IP - I will say however any mentors who want to approach Marshallsumter and explain why all of these articles are being deleted are invited to do so. WP:SYNTH and even WP:FRINGE issues abound...--Cerejota (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Drrll disruptive behavior at WQA

User:Drrll insists on refactoring the closing commentary on the report at WQA he opened against User:Hrafn (which included spurious allegations against an admin and a report here at ANI). He did it twice already. I have reverted him twice and placed escalating templates (and a comment in between) explaining why this is unacceptable. Diffs on request.--Cerejota (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, tactfulness comes in handy in these situations. Drrll probably reads your close as a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is my opinion, Cerejota, that you often fan the flames of these disputes rather than helping to extinguish them. Drrll and I don't see eye to eye on much of anything, but I can empathize with his refactoring and reversion. Message to Drrll: try to ignore Cerejota. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your point, but there is nothing uncivil in what I wrote - unless you consider pointing out that there was a consensus that there was no merit to the report of personal attacks as "uncivil". --Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Read closer: your close could be perceived by Drrll as uncivil and as an attack on his character. When you close a report, try to put yourself into his shoes, no matter how hard you might find it. If you had, you would have closed it with a short message simply stating that no action was required. Instead, you launched into an editorial that only served to upset Drrll. We're not here to pour gasoline on the fire. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe competence is required and the rules tell us to assume good faith and no competent person assuming good faith can see my closing as WP:UNCIVIL:

“ WP:HORSEMEAT has been obtained, and it appears the only editors who thinks User:Hrafn has engaged in personal attacks is User:Drrll. There is however an equally generalized view that Hrafn should make his witty, collaborative side outshine his witty, Grumpus Maximus side, because it can lead to misunderstandings and feelings being hurt - and hence gets a big whack of The Trout^tm. Drrll has been advised that forum shopping (real or perceived) is highly frowned upon, and that perhaps a little more patience and tolerance with users who are harsh of temperament is advised - simply being offended by someone one is in a dispute with is not a reason to seek intervention from admins and un-involved editors. If Drrll disagrees with this assessment, or if there are other future issues with Hrafn, Drrll is advised to seek WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI - in general the report at WP:WQA was not well taken, and there is little reason to believe the response would be different in the future. However, Drrll is advised to read and understand WP:BOOMERANG before reporting anything.--Cerejota (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC) ”

So I think your comment is more about the beef you have with me, than some deeper insight into Drrll's psyche. I would prefer to hear his reasoning, and of course opinions of people who do not patronize me at every opportunity :) --Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your close violated WP:CIVIL when you edit warred and deleted Drrll's final statement from the WQA report, not once but twice.[45][46] It remains deleted at this time. You should not have closed the report due to your heavy involvement in the discussion and your obvious "beef" with Drrll and the fact that Drrll himself objected to the close in the comments you deleted. When faced with such a situation, you revert your close and request the help of an uninvolved party. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By this definition, pretty much the entirety of wikipedia is uncivil! I have no beef with Drrll, at all (in fact, I do not recall ever being in an edit conflict with him) - do have a beef with false reporting and false claims of personal attacks against admins and editors in good standing. I do find interesting in your logic you support his refactoring of my closing comment, yet not my reversion of his borderline vandalism - you seem to think my behavior was uncivil but not his. That's ok, it only solidifies my opinion of you.--Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and no need to repeat I reverted him twice. I mentioned it at the very top of the report. :)--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you fail to report that you, not once, but twice deleted the 182 word, 1049 character closing response from Drrll that commented on and questioned your close? Per WP:CIVIL, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." Are you ignoring the concerns raised by Drrll, Cerejota? Based on these concerns, why did you not revert your close and ask an uninvolved user to do it instead? To summarize, you violated CIVIL and you edit warred over the closing of a WQA. WP:BOOMERANG? Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. Yet you are hardly in the position to opine, calling me a troll, and instructing editors to engage in meatpuppetry:[47] zoooooooooom - thats the sound of WP:BOOMERANG!--Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to 1) restore Drrll's comments that you deleted 2) revert your closure, and 3) request someone uninvolved to close the WQA? Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not upon your request, for obvious reasons. And even then, I do not see the reason why, so I would need to hear a persuasive argument from a non-patronizing, uninvolved editor or admin whose judgement I trust, and who doesn't have a proclivity to poison the well when he doesn't like what is being said.--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, I would strongly urge you to avoid accusing every editor you're in a dispute with of being incompetent. That you link these accusations to WP:CIR when you make them does not make it OK. 28bytes (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not making clear that my use here was rhetorical (ie explaining myself) and not intended to be part of the report. I think Drrll is very competent and so is, obviously, Viriditas.--Cerejota (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would never have dreamed of closing that WQA, because after commenting on the situation in a way that one party wasn't happy with, it would not have been helpful. Cerejota has already pointed to the rule "competence is required". As a corollary, a certain minimum amount of good sense is also required, and this applies to Cerejota as well as everybody else. Hans Adler 08:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cerejota: Except perhaps for Hrafn, I am the editor that has had the the most heated disagreements with Drrll in the past month or so. Quite honestly, I strongly dislike his editing style, fillibustering, forum shopping and general unwillingness to listen and accept consensus, and find it hard to empathize with him. Nevertheless, I was taken aback by your closing summary, and can certainly see why Drrll could interpret it as antagonistic, inflammatory and taunting (telling a forum shopper to continue forum shopping was especially questionable). All the more so in that it came from you, who has had a mano a mano with Drrll resulting from this WQA. I generally support you in your battle with Lionelt et al., but here I think you overstepped the bounds, and ended up pouring gasoline on the fire. Furthermore, I think your responses to Viriditas above were out of line. In my opinion, it would be best if your took a breather, refactor the closing comment to be as terse and matter-of-fact as possible, and withdraw this ANI. I don't see anything constructive coming out of it, or in any further discussion of the matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight, and thank you for taking the time. However, who is this Lionelt you speak of and why I am in a battle with him? This is news to me...--Cerejota (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My mistake. I confused you with another editor who was in a dispute with Lionelt. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding and harrassment

Resolved

 – User:Ruairí Óg's identified and blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Vintagekits.

User:Ruairí Óg's despite me having already warned them here about it along with examples, has recently decided to plow through my edit contributions to either revert changes or make changes where something doesn't suit them.

Proof that they have been stalking my edit contributions is the fact that from 21:15, 31 August 2011 to 21:58, 31 August 2011 (here is their contribution list) they edited at least 18 articles where they had never made a contribution, but where i just had. You could argue that they were going through people articles to make changes, however when every single one is an article that i had just edited shows that that is not the case.

Not all instances of his edits are reverts, however Ruairí Óg's is clearly trawling my edit contributions despite being told that it is harrassment.

Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule [[48]], where he simply removed it calling it vandalism.

Regardless of the 3RR and any content disputes - stalking and harrassment is very uncivil.

Mabuska ^(talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Ruairí Óg's is definitely following Mabuska's contributions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that regardless of stalking etc. their edits on Luke Wilton seem not neutral, and their edit-warring is certainly not acceptable. The talk page discussion indicates that they are not even willing to engage in reasonable discussion on sometimes tricky issues. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Which of my edits on the article's talk page indicate an unwillingness to engage in reasonable discussion? I'm curious. JonChapple^Talk 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Drmies is using "their" to refer to Ruiari, as in their edits, not everyone. Maybe i'm wrong, clarification please? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Ruiari's edits are under scrutiny here, and I use singular 'they' to refer to Ruiari. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to all of us with a plural "they". My mistake. A most troublesome word indeed... JonChapple^Talk 15:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska is a biased and distruptive editor who crusades across wikipedia pushing a pro-British, anti-Irish agenda. That is a given and recognised and acknowleged be multiple editors in discussions with him. He is also backed up on every page by Jonchapple and the pair have been inolved in canvassing with each other to ensure articles remain skewed to their POV.

Yesterday I noticed a number of dubious POV edits carried out by Mabuska on articles on my watchlist, most of which were undertaken against policy and towards his POV.

Unless I am a complete idiot then I am of course going to look at the rest of his recent edits to see if he was up to the same mischief on those articles as well. If that is "harrassment" or "hounding" then this is a mad house. I would call it conscientious editing.

This is not stalking or hounding this keepin an eye on a disruptive editor, am I supposed to ignore edits which are against policy because they are made to articles not on my watchlist.

I will come back to the reasons that made reverts in a moment but I would like to deal with Mabuskas other claim first.

Mabuska states that "Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule 45, where he simply removed it calling it vandalism."

Who was I warned by? Mabuska. Forgive me if I take what Mabuska says with a pinch of salt. Mabuska warned me about edit warring on the Luke Wilton article page. You wont need to think to long about the reason that Mabuska was in conflict with regards this article.

As I said Mabuska has an agenda and a strong pro-British POV. That is to remove any reference to any person or body being 'Irish' and to push a 'British' and 'Northern Irish' identity on all pages. This is highlghted in this exact article.

Mabuska removed refereced material which described Wilton as Irish. Simply removed it, no discussion, no alternative source, nothing. Just removal. The removal of sourced information without disussion is vandalism.

Now Mabuska had been on this article before. Have a guess what the edit was? A very revealling one and one he makes on literally 100's of pages, a pattern I will explain and provide evdence for. He changes the nationality in the infobox from Irish to British. Cloaked under the wonderful edit summary "per WP:MOSFLAG, also adding actual nationality". No discusson, no source to say why the current nationality is not the 'actual nationality' and no source to prove the altered natioality, pure POV and agenda. Now am I living on this planet or is this the type of dsruptive trouble making editing that needs to be stamped out.

I later changed it back, this time adding a source (how quaint) here.

But Mabuska did not like that and reverted back to British, removing the source and replacing it with his POV and NO SOURCE. Is this how wikipedia works?

Then after some edit warring his friend who has been engaged in canvassing with him, User:Jonchapple turns up to help him (like he has done here) in his edit war, with one of the most fantasic edits I have ever seen. Again removing sourced information with a quite frankly ludacris edit summary stating "and here's one calling him an Ulsterman: www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=26127. See how it could get messy without self-identification? Newspapers can print what they want". Ulster is a province not a country or nationality and obvious he thinks his opinion carries more weight than "newspapers" so we obviously dont need WP:RS anymore because we have Mabuska and Jonchapple, brilliant.

Above, Drmies states that I am unwilling to enter into a discussion. That is funny because I am the one that said the edit warring should end and the matter should be taken to the talk page. Maybe Drmies can also count my edits on the count page as well.

For example here is another article where this same pair are arguing that a boxer who's nickname is 'Ireland John Duddy, who is referenced to by multiple reliable soures as Irish and even is pictured with an Irish tricolor drapped around his shoulders is 'not Irish'. This is the level of the agenda that we are dealing with. This pair thinks they have make edits without needing a source and ignore sources that do not suit them.

Going back to the edits from last night. I will go through a few to show you the reason I edited them. Please note I did not revert all of his edits just he ones that were blatantly POV pushing. Again, as always the edits will be to push a pro-Brtish anti-Irish POV across wikipedia.

• Bronagh Gallagher, Mabuska's edit is to remove the nationality in the info box from stating that she is Irish. He includes the spurious edit summary "and as far it appears, she has no connection to the RoI, so best to avoid a potentially problematic marker". The editor knows full well that you do not have to be from ROI to be Irish and that those from NI are equally entitled to be Irish or British. Again no fact tag added, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources of a high calibre would show that she is Irish. But that des not suit his POV.

• Stephen McGonagle, Mabuska's edit is to add a Northern Irish identify. There has been a long understanding that the term 'Northern Irish' should never be used to desribe someones natoionality because it is technially not a nationality unlike Welsh or English. Whereas Mabuska crows and immediately reverts even when sourced edits are made to describe someone as Irish, here Mabuska adds the highly controvertial description of 'Northern Irish' with NO SOURCE.

• Eamonn McGirr, Mabuska's edit is to the removal of the term Irish and replaced wih 'Northern Ireland. No fact tag, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources would show that he is Irish. But that AGAIN does not suit his POV.

• Lisa McGee, Mabuska's edit is to remove the nationality in the info box from stating that she is Irish. No fact tag, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources of a high calibre would show that she is Irish. But that des not suit his POV.

It is Friday evening and I am damned if I am to go through every single edit hypocritical, POV ridden edit that he has made but hopefully an admin with even a single bit of witt about them will see the orcastrated agenda and attempt to wholesale remove anyone from being desribed as Irish whilst replacing it at every turn with their favoured unsourced term and arguing black is white when a sourced edit is made contrary to their POV. If you wish me to further explain my edits I will.

Mabuska and his crony are here to cause a fuss and ensure no one can check on their POV editing, plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruairi, so far as I can see, you are in the wrong on every one of those. The Wilton source did not support identification as of Irish nationality, there's no source demonstrating that Gallagher has Irish nationality, Mabuska realised his mistake with McGonagle and corrected himself etc etc. You appear to be edit warring on multiple fronts, and I suggest that you stop promptly and discuss the matter in a civil manner on the relevant talkpages. If a public figure born in the six counties chooses to identify as Irish, there will be sources which recount them doing so, and if there are, Mabuska must accept them. What is not acceptable is carrying on like you have above, and it will result in trouble if repeated.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am in the wrong am I? "The Wilton source did not support identification as of Irish nationality". Maybe you are missing the point on purpose. Mabuska swapped the nationality from Irish to British - No source used whatsoever. Where is his source to "support identification as of British nationality"? I added a source which describes Wilton as Irish. But you seem to have an issue with that but dont have an issue with the editor that makes controvertial edits and nevers uses a source. I find that extremely strange. One person using sources is bad, the other person that feels they dont need sources is fine. Please explain to me the logic of that because I can not get my head around it.

Then you said "If a public figure born in the six counties chooses to identify as Irish, there will be sources which recount them doing so, and if there are, Mabuska must accept them", their is no policy that states their must be self identification. Take the John Duddy article, despite multiple sources calling him Irish and articles showing him with the Irish flag Mabuska and his friend JonChapple argue that he is not Irish. The is the kind of argument that I am up against. However, despite me putting forward multiple sources on that article these are not accepted by Mabuska and his friend but their UNSOURCED edits are supposed to go unquestioned for fear of being labelled a stalker. He plays a good game, I'll give him that and knows how to work the system. Maybe I need to be as sneaky, sly and slippery.--Ruairí Óg's (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You want I block you for incivility? No? Then dial down the aggression please. Now, you and I both know that if someone is born in Northern Ireland to British citizens, they are entitled to British citizenship. We also know that ROI regards anyone born anywhere in Ireland as entitled to Irish citizenship, anyone born to an Irish citizen elsewhere in the world as entitled to Irish citizenship, and anyone born to someone entitled to Irish citizenship as also entitled to Irish citizenship. So he could be an Irish citizen, but then so could my kids and they are qualified to play cricket for Yorkshire. We also know that under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, individuals born in the six counties can hold citizenship of both countries or choose to hold only one. You are assuming he flew to the States to start his career on a green passport, and he's never held a red one. Do we actually know that for certain? Incidentally, boxrec seems to insist that he's British, on the grounds that your nationality is where you are born, which isn't always the case, so I think they are dubious as a source for that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You may have already noticed Elen of the Roads, but Ruiari Og's also likes to keep repeating the same old accusations without reading explainations given. I described the Luke Wilton edit below (before their last response here) but they ignored that and rehash the same accusation regardless. This is what i have continually had to put up with, and to me its bordering on serious disruption as they are totally unwilling to listen to other peoples arguements or follow reason, whilst making continuous bad faith and uncivil accusations that have no backing or evidence whatsoever despite refutes being given which show their arguements being utterly groundless.

To further highlight Ruiari Og's unwillingness to engage and eagerness to twist things to suit themself, on the John Duddy article talkpage i offered a compromise that the picture might be enough to state he is Irish if its in context, yet Ruiari states that compromise is "utter lunacy". I gave him an avenue to have Irish added to the article but he threw it back in my face. How can i work with this? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I expected more groundless accusations, but by heck your really ramping it up a bit to drown out the discussion. Whilst i know better than to bite, i have to refute these utterly groundless claims and twisting of things to suit the false picture Ruiari is trying to paint:

1) Ruairi Og's claims of a so called anti-Irish, pro-British pov, are supported only by a very select picking of my edit history. Notice how they never mentioned all these articles i've edited but never removed the term Irish from: Robert_Greacen, Éamonn O'Doherty (sculptor), Charles McGuinness, Laura Patterson, John Park (VC), Bobby Browne (footballer born 1912), Liam Ball, William Beatty (surgeon), Don Mullan, need i go on? I don't think so. I think that speaks volumes on its own. Oh wait here is a talk page discussion where i backed the use of the Irish for a Northern Irish person.

I also suppose articles that i've created or greatly expanded such Cruithnechán, Keenaght_(barony), Lecale, Tirkennedy, Tirkeeran, amongst many other articles are all anti-Irish despite the fact they almost all solely go into Gaelic-Irish history and i've made quite a bit of use of Irish-Gaelic in them!

2) In regards to "canvassing", i warned JohnChapple that his message to me could be considered canvassing. Where has any canvassing actually gone on? More than likely JohnChapple has been doing the same as you - trawling through edit contributions, and that is no fault of mine.

3) "Who was I warned by? Mabuska." - JonChapple left you this warning for you breeching 3RR which you removed. I think he may be in breech of it himself.

4) When it comes to Ruiari Og's sources, they have been told even by an administrator, User:Canterbury_Tail, that the sources don't backup Ruiari's claims, but they argued and reverted an administrator anyways! Every source they've provided doesn't mention what they use the term Irish for - it could be nationality, ethnicity, or topographical, or simply an abbreviation of Northern Irish which is all too common with the press. They've been told of this before but act on regardless. Their sources aren't explicit enough for a problematic and tricky issue. That is not pushing a POV or anti-Irish agenda - thats trying to keep the article neutral.

5) When it comes to these articles: Bronagh Gallagher, Eamonn McGirr, Lisa McGee - i contravened no policy. There is no evidence or sources in the article that they should be listed as Irish above anything else especially when they could also be easily called British or Northern Irish. The most neutral path is to leave it out altogether without explicit evidence. I was recently told by several editors and a couple of admins that for UK BLP's we have to go with self-identification due to the problem of Irish/Scottish/Englush/Welsh or British etc. None of Ruiari Og's sources meet that criteria. In fact most BLP's on NI people leave out a description altogether which makes perfect sense considering the problem!

6) Stephen McGonagle is a different kettle of fish altogether. I left Irish in the article and added Northern Irish seeing he was from there and spent most of his trade unionist career in Northern Ireland. I kept Irish because he later in life moved to the Republic and was a member of its senate which would clearly mark him out as also being Irish. Quite obvious really.

7) Also who is saying Northern Irish is a nationality? I've never said it was. It's a topographical term meaning someone from Northern Ireland - if your born in Northern Ireland it's quite safe to say that they are thus Northern Irish regardless of your citizenship - and sources are only really needed for questionable statements or things open to question. Terms such as Irish and British are problematic however and many editors who work on Ireland related articles would tell you that. Also there is no clear marker as to whether a term in the lede is being used for nationality, it's not an infobox where its explicitly stated as "Nationality".

8) On Luke Wilton, he wanted to fight for the British title, and well seeing as Barry McGuigan had to get British citizenship to fight for it all those years ago, i'd assume you still have to be a British citizen to fight for it. Maybe i shouldn't assume things.

I'll let our actual edit histories do the talking, and from what i can see there is no justification for Ruiari Og's to be stalking my edit contributions.

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This SPI is probably relevant to the discussion. Valenciano (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an impressive piece of work. If that SPI does not lead to an indef block (and I don't see how it couldn't), and wiki-hounding is not deemed established, then a block for edit-warring and disruptive and tendentious editing is still an option. Drmies (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sod it. I thought he sounded familiar. The first thing I wondered when this came up was 'why has this account 2007 managed to avoid a block previously, given its manner.' The answer is that it was created 28 July 2007 - two days after Vintagekits was indeff'd for the first time - but stopped editing 14 April 2008 when Vintagekits was trying to get unblocked, and had been rumbled for socking in February of that year. Didn't come back until 21 July 2011, so that's what six weeks from starting editing to ending up here. Blocked indefinitely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Note for anyone editing in this contentious area. The Good Friday agreement included the following provision

• (vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

This gave bodies such as FIFA and the Olympic committee conniptions for a while, until they all decided to accept whatever it said on the chap's passport. In determining what to put under 'nationality', other than 'Northern Irish' - which just describes where they come from - no assumption should be made, and a source should be sought. If they have a passport, it may be reasonable to go by that, as FIFA does. At the same time, if according to a reliable source, someone from Northern Ireland describes themselves as "Irish from Derry", it should be taken that they have identified as Irish, as is their right (or equally, if they declare themselves "British from Londonderry" they should be identified as British). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've no problems with any of that at all as self-identification is the most neutral way to take it IMO when we can't get an explicitly clear source.

Wierdly enough i always suspected that Ruiari Og's was a sockpuppet for somebody, but i never guessed it would be VintageKits who i can still remember. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I never spotted the VK link, something I should have done given how involved I was with VKs editing. I must be getting old. Canterbury Tail talk 11:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fakirbakir - personal attack, disruptive editing, not assuming a good fight

I would like to report predominantly for this: "Samofi you are a Slovak nationalist user who hates Hungarian pages" (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary). Iam not nationalist, I have adviced him to move the page Principality of Hungary to the sandbox, because there was a lot of unsourced matherial [49]. It is very hard to make a conversation and compromises with this user because he is confident about his right. Instead of the discussion, he calls me again a nationalist and contact the administrator [50]. He often finds a contradictions without the reason, for example at Andras Hadik page: [51]. Btw I used the Hungarian source in this article. Also I have used the Hugarian sources in the articles about Janos Jedlik, Imre Thokoly, Balint Balassa and others. So to call me a nationalist who hate the Hungarian pages touched me deeply. He and his meatpuppet[52] Koertefa vandalized my talk page for a few times with unjustified warnings. I have read them, accepted and deleted but they were put back [53]. He also abused other editors because he is too keen about his own right: [54] [55] The most significant problem is that this user redirect pages, delete or rewrite a lot of matherial without the discussion or consensus [56]. He just tries to use his own point of view and the sources which he likes (usualy magyar nationalistic, or as he said "patriotic" sources) - this is a English wikipedia and all significant points of view should be mentioned and we should discuss the big changes or the new articles. And I was deeply touched by this: [57]: "Now I know who is the disruptive user. I did not want to believe your editing at page of Principality of Hungary or Page of Hungarian invasions of Europe". I just recommended to move his new article to sandbox - they were like a not neutral high school essays and I opened the discussion. Because according the majority of english language source (including the sources from hungarian authors for example: http://books.google.cz/books?id=SKwmGQCT0MAC&lpg=PP1&dq=history%20of%20hungary&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false) the Hungarian principality in the 895 is the fiction, they just came to the Carpathian basin. Hungarians started to make their own state of the modern type after 955. It was the conquest of the Carpathian basin by Hungarian and Kabar tribes. From the article: its not known where each of the tribes settled the originaly. Tribal chiefs became a local aristocrats. In the book is nothing about Hungarian principality before 980. There is written: There is no reason to believe that the conquering Hungarians considered the Carpathian basin their final home. The were a semi-nomadic people. So are we creating a new Hungarian history in wikipedia? About Hungarian invasions: Invasion - "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer". According to the majority of sources it were raids, they just wanted a food, guns and gold. The semi-nomadic people were not looking for a permanent territory. Hungarian raids: 522 searches - http://www.google.cz/search?q=%22hungarian+raids%22&btnG=Hledat+knihy&tbm=bks&tbo=1 and Hungarian invasions of Europe has a 0 hits: http://www.google.cz/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22hungarian+invasions+of+europe%22&btnG= So are we going to create a new famous Hungarian history in the 21. century? So the points for a ban: this user attacks the other users, this user is not open for a discussion because this user tries to use only "patriotic"(as he said) hungarian sources supporting his point of view, this user manipulates with facts, this user removing big content or redirect the articles without consensus. Its my report, thank you. --Samofi (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admins, Samofi wanted a speedy deletion at page of Hungarian invasions of Europe, and a speedy deletion at page of Principality of Hungary. He did not appreciate my work. I used reliable sources about the themes. I was upset because of him, because his aim is to ruin my work. I apologized about my tone at talkpage of Principality of Hungary. As you see, he uses offensive tone in reference to me.Please check his editing. at Page of Natio Hungarica or Page of Martina Hingis. He disregarded the admins two times. He does not like subjects if those have connections with Hungarians.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, be careful with his links, for example, my conversation with RHaworth was not full citation. User_talk:RHaworth#Principality of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It was just a nomination for a speedy deletion, i recommended to use a sandbox and the discussion was opened. You attacked me that Iam nationalist and you called admin. So why did not you discuss with me? I have not deleted your work dear friend. And you again dont discuss about you just a blame me. This is not about me but about You, so stop to attack me and stop to show a strong battleground behaviour. Talk about You and not about me. I did not know firstly that users were admins - so I made it in my best will (after i knew thant they are admins i stopped). So stop to talk about my edits and stop to be offensive to me. "He does not like subjects if those have connections with Hungarians". Why do you say it? Why do you make a chauvinist from me? I like to edit historical articles related with the Kingdom of Hungary and I try to discuss. Its you who tries to make a nationalist form me. Its the reason why you are here, its reason for your ban. --Samofi (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samofi, Why do you threat me?Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I just reported your behavior and I dont threat you. Only you think that I threated you. Your reactions to me are not compatible with the rules of wikipedia. personal attacks, not asooming a good faith, no discussions, removing a content without consensus ([Royal Hungary]). My opinion was that principality of hungary did not exist in 895. The majority of the books about Hungarian history says nothing about this early principality. I cited from one of them, but I can find much more. What was your reaction insted of discussion? You called me a Slovak nationalist and you told a much more bad things about me. So thats the reason why I reported you. --Samofi (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Its the reason why you are here, its reason for your ban"- You have threatened me. You would like to see me as a banned user. I apologized because of my statement (talkpage of Principality of Hungary) a few days ago, I do not want to repeat myself.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

it was just a statement and not threating. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threatening --Samofi (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black. User Samofi is much more guilty of these issues than user Fakirbakir. I agree that user Fakirbakir should not have said that sentence (and it is good that he apologized), but he was obviously provoked by user Samofi. User Samofi usually edits articles related to either Hungarian history or people with Hungarian origin. He mostly concerns with adding negative statements and deleting information (or initiating the deletion of whole articles), instead of real constructive contributions. He doesn't really know what "good faith" means: he rarely discusses the issues on the Talk page of the articles before giving warnings and accusations. An example could be his attack on my Talk page User_talk:Koertefa#Google_searches. Therefore, user Samofi is the one who disturbs others and unable to settle differences by civilized discussions (which should be primarily done on the Talk page of the articles). The aim of the whole accusation of user Fakirbakir is that user Samofi wants to intimidate editors with different opinions. -- Koertefa (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a next personal attack:"User Samofi usually edits articles related to either Hungarian history or people with Hungarian origin. He mostly concerns with adding negative statements and deleting information (or initiating the deletion of whole articles), instead of real constructive contributions." Which one negative statement have I used? Did I delete a whole article? I have a real contributions. Its user Fakirbakir who delete the reliable content: [58] here is the lot of sources: [59] Than he redirected article Royal Hungary without discussion and consensus: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history And please to translete what have you written about admins in your talkpage (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Koertefa):

"Dear Koertefa, As you see, user PANONIAN (the first one, who redirected principality of Hungary, a Serb user)and user Samofi (a Slovak user) can ruin our editing easily. Unfortunately, English editors, administrators do not know Hungarian history however they can judge existence of page without any (proper)historical background. But, your comment will help us because that page can be "free" again, it depends on wish of admins. Thank you for your supporting! (Nálam kicsapta a biztosítékot ez az admin húzás) Fakirbakir (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)" "You're welcome, and it is sad that articles such as this could be redirected based on vague arguments, for example, claiming that it was an unwanted fork. I think that this topic clearly deserves an own article and hope that the protection will be removed, soon. Probably, as you suggested, we should find an unbiased admin for that. Naturally, we should not give up, even if there were some malicious edits and unfair redirections (és ezen az átírányításon én is eléggé meglepődtem). -- Koertefa (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)" --Samofi (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not assuming a good fight?! [60] Must be some sort of Freudian slip from the filer. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sean Peyton Ross

Sean Peyton Ross (talk · contribs) Not sure if this is the right place for this. I posted a message regarding concerns about the content of the user's userpage with no response. The user has since posted more links to unrelated websites and personal information. If this is the wrong venue please let me know and I'll take it there. Mlpearc powwow 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved this from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User notified. Mlpearc powwow 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you think is wrong with the user page? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong his user page by itself, but the only edits of this account are limited to his facebook-style user page. His "friends list" made me chuckle. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone just needs to tell him that we expect people to start editing articles, too, not just userpages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CustoMess

Resolved

 – Article provisionally restored per IAR and AfD re-opened. Hope Fastily won't mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fastily deleted the article CustoMess as a copyvio of a book. I informed the admin that the book got its content from Wikipedia because the book's description says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" Apparently I'm being ignored. Can someone undelete the article so that the AfD can continue correctly? SL93 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on Fastily's talk page (and informed him of this thread). From what I can see you are correct. Fastily doesn't seem to be editing right now; if he doesn't come online sometime in the next few ours I guess I'll go ahead and restore it, and re-open the AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I didn't inform because I didn't think that it was necessary since it isn't meant to get him in trouble. I am hoping that he didn't just skip over my message to respond to other later messages. SL93 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" ... it's pretty unambiguous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

However, this was a simple request for undeletion: the AFD, not Fastily or Fastily's behavior, was the subject. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Exidor blocked indefinitely

I have blocked Exidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for incivility and personal attacks. If you go through his contributions, the examples are plentiful. I gave him a warning about this and received this response. In light of his incivility taking place throughout his entire "career" and his user page's statement, I have blocked him indefinitely. Review is welcome. either way (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Has he been blocked before? That seems REALLY like overkill. You should never block someone indefinitely as a first recourse, even if they tell you to fuck off as he did. -- Avanu (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A block would be good, but a permanent one seems a bit harsh. GiantSnowman 22:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Also agreed. He was very civil posting on my talk page. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Schyler, the post he made to your user talk was a template. The only thing that was his personal writing was the "You think you're smart, don't you?" heading. The notification of being on ANI was through use of {{ANI-notice}}. either way (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that is what Schyler was referring to... GiantSnowman 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

He has not been blocked before, but if you look through his edit history, there are plenty of examples in a very short "career." Also, if you read his user page, it's clear his intent is to not work within the parameters of a Wikipedia environment collaboratively. I'm headed offline, so if a consensus is reached to change the block, I'm more than okay with it. either way (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In checking his contribution history, he's been here since 2007. One of the tenets of civility is that we don't template the regulars. While I think he should not have used profanity, it is not a requirement that we always demonstrate perfect behavior in Wikipedia. We're expected to be Civil, but not to stop being human and fallible. I think this block needs to be removed immediately and a discussion needs to take place first. -- Avanu (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that nobody was "templated," I've always gotten the impression that WP:DTTR is a means to protect the average, well-meaning editor from getting a generic nastygram after messing up once or twice. That clearly isn't the case here; it only takes one look at the user page to see that User:Exidor is acutely aware of the rules and just doesn't care. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

He may have started editing in 2007, but he's got 189 total edits, took a pretty lengthy "break" between October 2009 and January 2011, and is clearly abusing edit summaries and other editors. He's not a "regular" as meant by the DTTR essay. Doc talk 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x158 Good block. @Giantsnowman: This is NOT a permanent block. As soon as he demonstrates he won't behave incivily, he can rejoin the Wikipedia community. --Jayron32 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on the user's edit history, I'd say an indef block is long overdue. If he wants to edit, let him first explain how he's going to change the tone of his edits. Rklawton (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Good block. There's a big difference between editors that don't understand what a collegial editing environment is, and those that do, but state an intent not to follow it. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) "Fuck off, idiot" is a personal attack without question, specially when it is a response to a good faith intervention on the part of an admin. If the block allows email and appeal it is a good one, but not giving the opportunity to reform or at least WP:ROPE on a first block is a bit wee too harsh.--Cerejota (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at their talk page (which is full of responses like that) and the edit summaries on their contribs, the only surprising thing is how they haven't been blocked before. As ever though, "indefinite" <> "infinite". Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Looking at Exidor's edit history, although they have been around for a long time, it seems like they have long periods of not editing at all. Odd. -- Avanu (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps this should have been done on 21 July 2008, or on 10 August 2011. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• It's kind of a shame, since "Exidor" is a pretty cool user name. It's not "Black Kite" or "Drmies", but it's not bad. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • He was escorted out the exi' do'r. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I was waiting for somebody to say that! LOL — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• I think the indef should stand, but talk page access should be given back so they can appeal the block when and if they decide to edit collaboratively. The response to Edgar was indisputably a personal attack, but we generally indulge a degree of venting by the blocked user on their own talk page. It is not so terrible as to warrant taking away their avenue of appeal. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think the talk page access should remain revoked; look at their responses to other editors on there.... GiantSnowman 12:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the block. Exidor made it abundantly clear that he had no intention whatsoever of abiding by any civility policies for any reason. He will not be missed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Good block. Sometimes you get an editor who edits so rarely, and across so many areas, that the fact that he is abominably rude gets overlooked. This appears to be such a case. He can email if he wants to be unblocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User holding stake in contents wielding his administrative power

I am in dispute over WP:N and WP:SOURCES with user:Jehochman who is an editor who happens to be an administrator
After reading comments on WP:DR it looks like this is the place to come for a dispute between a normal editor vs administrator.

• he posted a whole bunch of links that looked spammish, so I blanked them in addition to adding my vote and comments

I am not sure if I broke any policy, however instead of reverting and civilly explaining if or what rule was broken as I would expect from an administrator, he responds by wielding authority and retaliates by blanking my delete/keep vote as well as my comment.

This is the comment he left. I didn't know he's an admin at the time, but when I did, it became clear he's wielding his administrator power "Don't edit my comments. (A) Not spam, (B) I will have you blocked if you do it again."

• The edit with edit comment I feel is inappropriate to be coming from an involved admin and blanking that appears retaliatory

To threaten to use admin power over a disagreement on an article he that he originally created that is being challenged presents an issue of WP:Involved#uninvolved and blanking out my contents in retaliation is a poor representation of what is expected of an administrator.
In the article itself, he restored contents that failed verification despite my detailed edit note.
* Restoring contents despite having failed verification
Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes perhaps he shouldn't have said he'd block you being WP:INVOLVED but he was right to restore his comments that you improperly removed. This is a discussion about whether or not Aaron_Wall is notable and he has every right to list links to sources that he thinks establishes notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly it. As someone who holds the power to do so, I feel that asserting power is abusing privilege much the same way someone who has direct power to effect your status telling you "I will have you fired" for something they personally didn't like. if you check his edit and my edit immediately preceding it, you'll see he not only restored what I removed, but he removed my deletion vote and my comment about his WP:COI in what looks like a retaliation. Since he's admitted his involvement in subject matter and his bias, I left him a WP:COI note on his page, because I feel that based on his closeness to the topic and his admission that his perspective is biased as an insider, I felt that there is a COI and he responds with threatening sounding confrontational message on my user talk.

• Will seek sanctions if you leave a message again
  

He replied claiming harassment and threatening to seek sanctions if I write on his user page again. I feel position advantage leverage again. Is this how Wikipedia expects administrators to use their position when they personally disagree with comments left on their user page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no example of him misusing a "position advantage" here. Where in that post did he say "If you post here again, I will block you"? He said "I will go to ANI and ask others to examine the case and see if sanctions are needed." These are two very distinct things. Also, please WP:AGF. Yes, his revert of your removing his links did remove your delete vote as well, but it's more than likely that he did not realize that as he reverted you. Please do not assume right away that it is "retaliation." either way (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"I will have you blocked" is not the same as "I will block you", is it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Coming from someone who has the ability to do it personally, it can be construed as the same. It didn't become objectionable to me until I realized he holds administrative power. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for us to do here? The AFD is on going. Based on this comment, it seems like Jehochman is more than willing to work with the community/other AFD participants. His removal of your comments was him reverting your removal of his links (so it's likely he didn't notice your comments in his revert, or just forgot to restore them). He reverted you once on the actual article. All of these incidents took place 2-3 days ago. As BWilkins points out, his statement of I will have you blocked is not a threat saying "I will personally block you." What do you want us to do? either way (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To provide clarification if his confrontations and threats to have actions taken is appropriate while being in position of authority as an administrator. His comments came across as threatening when I learned that he's in position of power with the ability to impose a ban or to make influences using his position as an "administrator". It is like a professor in position of being able to remove a student telling a student "I will have you removed from class" vs another student telling him the same. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

But he did not say he would block you or in any other way use his admin tools to further any agenda. You deleted someone elses post in a discussion (a pretty serious no no to most of us here), he warned you not to do it again or you could be faced with a block, which often does happen to people who continue to modify others comments without their consent. Heiro 18:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You were deleting another editor's signed, non-abusive comments in a discussion; it is entirely unsurprising that you were warned that continuing that behavior could lead to a block. The fact that Jehochman is an admin should only have indicated to you that he would have a pretty good idea of what constitutes block-worthy conduct.

While your intentions were no doubt good, you were badly misinterpreting our rules regarding spam, and accusing an experienced Wikipedia editor of being a spammer. Continuing to beat the dead horse here doesn't reflect well on your judgement, nor does your decision to pester Jehochman with spurious templated warnings on his talk page: [61]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the use of IPSocks in deletion discussions [62] is really not a good idea. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a surprise. I find that the IP is in Romania and its made an edit on one page I have not touched whatsoever. I just changed my password and I'm trying to figure out if someone else's been getting into my account. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion on threats of homicide

Hi all, I apologize before hand if this is inappropriate. I have been getting emails from one of the indefinitely blocked users of Wikipedia called Catherine Huebscher (talk · contribs), threatening me with dire consequences if I continue editing Madonna related articles. The first message came yesterday saying such offensive language I won't post here, and the second one arrived today with threats of maligning my name across internet. What does one do in these cases? The user in question was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks and foul language usage on Who's That Girl (1987 film) and W.E (film). After block the user came back through IP socks and tried to post negative comments again. Alas, I was instrumental in catching the socks. It seems he/she has a personal vendetta against me and is suing terms like "I know how to deal without scumbags like you, and wipe your ass from editing ever". Please help. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Depending on your e-mail system, it's simple enough to block all e-mails from her e-mail addresses. Posting here simply feeds her need to upset you. Rklawton (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wondered if it was better to notify the community. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Depending upon how often you use the feature, you can go to Special:Preferences and uncheck next to "Enable e-mail from other users". Unless you've posted your email someplace, and as long as you haven't emailed back to the person, they would no longer be able to send you emails. The downside is that it will impact all potential senders of emails from being able to send you emails via the "E-mail this user" link on your userpage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another administrator has blocked Catherine's access to the EmailUser interface. Unless you have ever replied to her e-mails (and she therefore has your address), she could only e-mail you by creating another account—so please continue to report suspected socks at WP:SPI as you previously have. I hope her comments are not distressing you in any way. Best, AGK [•] 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AGK and Barek. I have blocked that particular email-id from my account. Alas it seems I have to continue blocking ids until this stops. It was a wee bit stressful as nothing like that has happened to me before. Thanks guys again. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And bear in mind that you can always report threats of violence (WP:TOV) to the authorities if you wish--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but after a brief overview of her edits, I'd say she looks a lot like the sock of User:Cathytreks (banned here and in Commons). They both take an obsessive interest in celebrities, they've both created their own fan websites and then used them as references in articles, they've both been described by various editors as "crazy" - and much, much more. Cathytreks has created multiple online personalities, so we can just add one more to the list. Except that Catherine Huebscher is already indef'd you could pursue CU and see what turns up. Speaking as her former nemesis, Cathytreks is harmless, so if they're the same, you have nothing to worry about. Rklawton (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: In my opinion If that person is doing that to you, I'd just suggest that you call the police and let them deal with it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To all concerned, should I really call the cops? I'm in India and this person is somewhere else as per the CU geolocation data. After receiving these threats I was searching internet with my id when I came across this and this. All of them seem to have originated from the time this user was indefinitely banned and seems to be directed at me. Should I just ignore this and not add fuel to the fire or go to the cops? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton, I was seeing Cathytreks edits, and I admit, they are surprisingly similar to Catherine Huebscher. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It'll take me awhile to review her edits, but here is an interesting quote: "My source cam straight from Justin's blog and Justin Kreutzmann himself who is my friend." Now, tell me who wrote it (without peeking), Treks or Huebscher? I can't tell the difference, either. Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if you called the cops they wouldn't do much. Even some very prolific cases of internet harassment can persist for years because the authorities don't do much about them. Hut 8.5 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton, did Cathytreks ever edit article of Paul Robeson? If so, then its a confirmed sock. Thanks Hut for your response. Seeing the situation, should I appeal for a ban. I really don't like these stresses nor do I condone such behavior. I like creating articles and that's what I do. My track says so. Anyways, you guys are more experienced at this and decide. I'm fine with whatever you comes come up with. This is just nonsense. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Cathytreks never edited the Robeson article, but her obsessions rotate. At one time it was Star Trek, then Lincoln, another time it was John B. Bachelder, Kennedy, and so on. Rklawton (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You might want to contact YouTube and get that account locked down (and hopefully that of the person who created that account). –MuZemike 17:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing all edits to Catherine's talk page, it's clear to me that her learning curve and intelligence levels don't match Cathytrek's, and I'd be very surprised if the two were the same. Sorry I jumped the gun. Some days I miss my old nemesis. Rklawton (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Gamewizard71

I've blocked Gamewizard71 (talk · contribs), as he's making edits making it difficult for me to revert his improper move of "List of years in X" to "Timeline of X". As I posted on his talk page, if he promises to revert his moves before making other edits, I'll unblock. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate, please feel free to unblock.

For what it's worth, over 10% of his total edits are in this last set of moves, some of which might be copy/paste. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked, but there are a few more copy/paste moves this month which need work. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is resolved. I've unblocked, but there are other complaints (see, for example, WT:MATH#Undiscussed List -> Outline moves, and a fair number of problems noted on his talk page. Now that I've adding a current complaint, I'll inform him/her of this thread. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

He is still moving pages, claiming that List of general topology topics was in outline format (hint: it is not). Meanwhile the discussion at Mathematics wikiproject has unanimous support for undoing all his moves, and I suspect that other wikiprojects would agree. A block could be necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please also see this edit, for an example of a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as probable violations of WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a warning about the page moves. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The consensus at WikiProject Mathematics seems to be that all the page moves ought to be undone. Is there an admin willing to assist with this large task? Jowa fan (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have undone as many of the moves as I can, but I can't fix them all. (I'm not an admin and there are pre-existing redirects.) Can someone fix the rest of them? Ozob (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, it seems like it is about high time to discuss the overall disruptive impact that Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines has had on the project as a whole. The modus operandi of this (small) group of editors seems to have been unilaterally to rename "List of..." articles to "Outline of..." instead, despite what seems to be a clear consensus against these moves. Many of these moves have been reverted over the years, but many have not, and the continued presence of these articles seems to have perversely perpetuated this dubious enterprise. See, for instance, User:The Transhumanist's arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines that because there are hundreds of "Outline of..." articles, the project should be allowed to continue. This argument seems to have convinced other editors at that discussion, who felt that MfD was not the right venue for the kind of discussion that could affect hundreds of existing articles. However, it seems to me that WP:OUTLINE does little but disrupt the project. Various RfC's have been promised over the years, but none have actually been issued (as far as I can tell). On the contrary, the modus operandi of this Wikiproject seems to have been, rather than soliciting any kind of community input, instead to throw everything at the wall knowing that something must stick. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Let not a clearly misguided overly-bold efforts of one editor determine the purpose and impact of the whole project. Those pages should not have been moved without proper discussion; I think everyone can agree. If we don't want to call lists "Outline of..." then we don't have to. However, you should not describe the whole project as "disruptive impact" unless you are suggesting all of the project's work is disruptive. The editor was never endorsed by the project or any consensus to carry out the moves, so please don't blame the project and assume some good faith. The lists are useful and so is the category/banner by which to find them. Yes, those moves were undiscussed; yes, there is no consensus for them; yes, it created work and angered many editors now. Unfortunate, but so it is. Let us now revert these moves and do proper consensus building. Do you perhaps want to start an RfC about this (naming convention; project purpose; list necessity; etc.)? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Myself, I do think all the project's work is disruptive. That's because I have never seen it do anything except make disruptive moves. I would welcome an RfC on the forcible disbanding of this project. Ozob (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2011

So this Outline of video games is a disruptive article [63]? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a special case because the audience for the video games article isn't interested in text? But normally the readers of an encyclopedia are expected to be, well, readers. Hans Adler 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's another example of the project's modus operandi: Here is the move from the original title, List of video gaming topics. You can see easily from the lack of discussion at that page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games that consensus was not even attempted. Ozob (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Like lists, outlines are not articles. And they are almost completely useless. (Some kinds of lists have the same problem, by the way.) I don't see them as a legitimate part of the encyclopedia, and they are certainly not worth the disruption they are causing by encouraging hyperactivity of a certain type of editor who apparently is not interested in working with text. In my opinion outlines should either be deprecated or used out of article space (preferably into portable space, as they are somewhat similar in purpose). Hans Adler 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that this is the misguided effort of a single lone-wolf editor is flawed. This is how the project has historically behaves as a whole. It seems that every six months or so, we're left cleaning up after project members like User:Transhumanist (who, as far as I can tell, is the de facto leader of that project). It has to stop, and the long-term damage to the project should be reversed. There may be some valid "outlines" as such, but most "outlines" I have seen were simply moved en masse over the years from lists, without any regard for their contents. It seems that there has been a very clear consensus against this, demonstrated over the course of every public discussion I have seen on the topic, yet insufficient community will to do anything about it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean User:The Transhumanist. Ozob (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with the history of the project and controversy surrounding it. As much as my comment was in good faith, it doesn't seem to have been taken so. As before, all I can suggest is opening a well-formed RfC. I have no problem with following consensus, even if that means deleting the outline pages or something. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Elimination of outline articles

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Elimination_of_outline_articles. Ozob (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Late medieval Doom paintings

I object to this abuse,[64] especially on an article talk page. It makes it harder to work together, and probably puts off any new contributors. Maybe someone who works well with Ceoil could ask him to tone it down a bit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And ask them that I pretend to like and trust you- given what Ive seen , not bloody likely; and all suspicions now fantastically confirmed by your petulant run to a/ni. Grow some stones. And by the way doom paintings are early medieval, but thats some pretentious section heading all the same; well done. It might be excusable if you wrote the article and were self promoting, but you didnt, and diefantly refuse to distinguish between 11th and 15th century painters. Across more than a few page I've tried to explain that an 11th century fresco carries a far different message to a Michelangelo. But does it sink in? Not at all. On and on, and now here. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not wanting to rain on your parade, but surviving English Doom paintings are 14C and 15C there are very few earlier than that. Beauchamp Chapel Warks mid 15C, Lutterworth late C14, Beckley Ox C14/15, West Somerton Norf mid C14, Holy Trinity Coventry C15, well you get the picture. John lilburne (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure John, but those are specific examples; Doom paintings originate in the early 11th c. in manuiscripts and frescos, best as I have seen. But anyway, would you label Judgements by van der Weyden, van Eyck or even Michelangelo as having the same intention, ie to scare the populace. Would you go further and report anybody who removed thoes labels to this notice baord. This is a content thing. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The English ones tend to be Romanesque/Gothic in style with some resonance to French C12 works. They are moralistic in nature and much like the sculptured western portals showing similar scenes at the cathedrals of Amiens, Bourges, Notre-Dame Paris. Some as at Lye in France simple show Christ in Majesty with Angels blowing trumpets. Michaelangelo has a far more sophisticated style to the works in village churches. However, the subject depiction conveys the same message whether by Michaelangelo painting for the Pope in Rome, or by a jobbing C14 painter in small village church. John lilburne (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But the later intention is quite different although the subject matter is the same; hence the suggestion of a spin out. My impression is that doom paintings were limited commissions of journeymen to reflected a very restriced dogma for a very specific purpose. When you get to the likes of Bruege and Bosh, well, thoes guys were letting their imagination run wild, and god only knows what they were thinking. Michaelangelo was always more interested in form and anathomy, regardless of what Paul wanted. But all this is irrelevat, a discussion like this (which I enjoyed by the way) is impossible with tom, he goes as far as "No. Doom painting. End of Story". I can deal with him by ignoring, I suoppose. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with Ceoil's points about the article's content - any disagreement is moot now anyway, after another editor's changes and the plans for a new article. What I object to is being called a "small minded know nothing prick" and having him tell me "fuck you". That seems well beyond the bounds of civility, and likely to interfere with editing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you cant handle being called a tool, best thing to do is stop acting like a tool. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record I did, rightly, call Tom Harrisson a "small minded know nothing prick", but a week ago. And for the record again, I want to build the new article tom mentions above, reason we are having this fight is because I want him to have nothing to do with it, as he knows nothing and is seemingly willfully ignorant. The other editor disagreed with Tom compleatly, did not edit the doom article, just mentioned that renessance Judgement paintings were a different altoghther, and should have their own page. Precisely the thing I was arguing with Harisson about. Nice spin, man. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact the other editor substantially rewrote Doom paintings last week. I'm happy with it as it is. I object to you saying "fuck you" to me, as you did earlier this afternoon, and I object to your calling me a prick, as you do just above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And again, I'm okay with having a separate page for the Last Judgment in art. I said so here. You responded by saying "I'd prefer if you preoccupied youself with other, resource draining, ill prepared FAC noms", eventually ending the discussion with "fuckyou". Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't disagree there's no reason to bait over a bunch of talkpages only to end up here. Just let it be. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil has an interesting point as to the intentions of the works and artists discussed. The subtle and not so subtle differences between various artists transcend themes, and otherwise give rise to various misunderstandings and misreadings...Modernist (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout?

Ceoil should refrain; rather he should say: "Mapplethorpe - you". 98.163.75.189 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ceoil has now been blocked for 48 hours by yours truly; hopefully his behaviour won't persist - if it does, so will the block. Ironholds (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ceoil stopped editing at 21:23 and was blocked at 7:49. Is that a punitive block to stop an on-going situation. Just curious. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, since every time Ceoil speaks to Tom Harrison, it seems to involve some reference to genitalia or sexual acts on Ceoil's part, maybe it is to stop an ongoing situation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, Elen; as I made clear in my block notice, it is not just the string of personal attacks that is the problem - it is his refusal to accept them as his problem and his tacit admission that he will make more as he sees fit. Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to move Non-trinitarian back

An editor has moved the page "Nontrinitarian" without discussion or consensus. This subject has been previously discussed at length and the non-hyphenated form was the preferred version. The editor who has just moved it has not been part of past discussions to my knowledge, and the only communication on this was in the edit summary of the Move itself. Please move "Non-trinitarian" back to "Nontrinitarian". Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done For future reference you can do this yourself using the "Move" function. Just make sure that, unlike the person who moved the page in the first place, you check and make sure that the move is a good idea and hasn't already been discussed and rejected, as this move was. N419BH 06:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Regular" editors can't do it if there is a redirect there. The Move process fails because the page already exists. -- Avanu (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I should have started with "Thank you". I appreciate you taking a moment to help with that. -- Avanu (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The editor who moved it a moment ago, has *again* moved it, and left a slightly more insistent edit summary. I hate to ask, but... would you mind moving it back once more? I was just about to leave a note on his Talk page about getting consensus for this, and noticed he already moved it again. -- Avanu (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a regular editor and the move worked fine even with the redirect there; perhaps there is some other issue which prevents you from moving the page? I'd rather not start a move war so I've instead pinged the user who did the move asking him to undo it. N419BH 07:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Must just be something I did wrong at first. I don't move pages very often. It looks like I was able to move it without a problem. Thanks again. -- Avanu (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've got the page watchlisted in case it's moved again. Still figuring out how to fix the double redirects. N419BH 07:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why admins lurk here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, non-admins can (generally) move an article over a redirect if the redirect only has one revision in its history. Any more than one and an admin is required. Jenks24 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe that moves can be undone by anyone if there have been no edits to the redirect which is left behind since the move occured. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right, since having an additional edit (or more) would create a need to preserve the page history to be compliant with the CC license.

By the way, a move discussion has been initiated at Talk:Nontrinitarianism concerning the movement of this page. The initiator of the discussion, Jasonasosa (talk · contribs), opened with a rather uncivil statement, and included what might be considered a personal attack in the edit summary. N419BH 09:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just while we're on the subject of Jason, is this userbox entirely appropriate for a user page? How can you "highly oppose" a gay or trans person's lifestyle? Very odd. User:Wolfdog406/UBX/Natural Family JonChapple^Talk 09:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say not, whilst not a PA on an indivdual, it does come across as a PA on a group of people. IMHO, the userbox should be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not an especially "nice" userbox, and it is pretty negative (as opposed some a UBX saying "this user supports heterosexual relationships", or something). On the other hand there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with being opposed to GLBT lifestyle (and associated politics, as listed in the usebox). As long as it focuses on the UBX owner and is not saying "X lifestyle is idiotic" (or worse) then there isn't much concern IMO. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's also ironic that the UBX contains a spelling mistake - ignorance often leads to xenophobia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah you're right, I never noticed that it was missing the "t". Jasonasosa (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not really sure why Avanu fixed it ... I think the message was much more effective with the spelling error) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What it really needs to say is "This user highly supports telling other people how to run their lives." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The user removed the offending userbox. However, it remains at User:Wolfdog406/UBX/Natural Family. It should be deleted. Ironically, its creator claims to be against Nazism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the original topic... I have move protected the article for two weeks to encourage discussion on the talk page. LadyofShalott 14:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note: the userbox User:Wolfdog406/UBX/Natural Family was previously deleted (under the name User:Wolfdog1/notoGLBTlifestyle) at an MfD which can be seen Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Discriminatory userboxes. (Wolfdog1 is Wolfdog406's old userID). I have therefore deleted the userbox as WP:CSD#G4 (though to be honest I would probably just have whacked it as G10 anyway). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocking request: User:CRumens

A request was made to blacklist the spammed website 'Best Poems' (details given here) by one editor hopping between many accounts. Using the account User:CRumens the editor responded with a personal vitriolic attack. It seems he has been blocked twice before. As the above log shows many IP addresses were used to post and repost the weblinks, but clear WP:SPAM warnings were given in the edit summaries. I request the account User:CRumens (created on 26 August 2011) is permanently blocked and also other sock puppets if possible. Such speech has no place on Wikipedia. To be clear, there is nothing on this or any other of the other user pages or in edit content to reference Algerian or any other descent. User:CRumens has been notified of this post. Thank you. Span (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

CRumens also hasn't edited since August 26, and his last post was asking how to delete his account. I get this funny feeling that we won't be seeing him again, anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect he will turn up in different guises all over the place. But still. Span (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's always possible. Regardless, it seems I was wrong. As CRumens mentioned on your talk page, I received a short email from the account. I've indef'd CRumens, as they don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Let me know if something else comes up, Spanglej. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Faturorum and disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT

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

No. Just no. --Jayron32 04:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Malleus Fatuorum is a talented editor and hard-working Wikipedian whose many contributions one must admire. I would still respectfully request that if some kind uninvolved admin would ask him to stop posting aggressive comments at WT:DYK it would be a benefit to the project by freeing up considerable time for more worthy tasks. That page is intended for "discussing improvements to 'Did you know?' " Instead, discussions of practical matters are disrupted by random rumpus-questing freeform insults such as ...

• You have explained nothing, you have simply obfuscated. The page says "This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles". I assume that you can read? Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Have you actually understood anything that's been said here? Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• There's no sense here, just entrenched positions based in a cult philosophy. I gave an example earlier today of an article that was taken to FAR at 34kB (5918 words) and ended up kept at 19kB (3335 words), a lesson that very few here seem prepared to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• You may of course assume whatever you like, but it is quite clear to me that Rjanag has no experience of article improvement as opposed to article expansion. And considers that article improvement is no part of DYK's remit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Or else? Plagiarism in DYK is endemic, part of the culture. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Your answer is yes to what? That DYK's mission is to improve articles and the encyclopedia? I think you might find that a hard sell. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• No, it doesn't, so why tell porky pies? Any old shit is passed at DYK, and reviewers clearly don't even take the trouble to read the whole article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• But on the basis of less being more I'd suggest that "This serves as a way to" panders to the prolix proclivities encouraged by the defenders of DYK. There have have been many better suggestions made on this page, of which Kiefer's stands out as one of the few written by someone with a full complement of brain cells. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Of the past 250 comments on that talk page, 49 were made by Malleus Fatuorum. Since I don't know what more to say, I will stop there and ask more experienced people to comment. Sharktopus ^talk 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Many of the opinions you quote from Malleus are shared by others like myself. DYK is broken. You don't like that he is being a bit snarky? Have you tried WP:WQA? What exactly do you want an admin to do? Ask him to change the way he disagrees with other editors about DYK?Griswaldo (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus has said much worse---and has had much worse said to him. The above is NOT wp:point, might be borderline civility... but even there it is weak. Of all the cases that I've seen brought up about Malleus, this is one of the weaker complaints. IF you want to make a complaint, it might be better to expound on what you think his POINT is and what you think he's trying to accomplish.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is of course fully entitled to his opinions. What I am requesting is that an admin could ask or require him to post those opinions freely everywhere he wants to post them except at WT:DYK. Does it not seem to you a bit excessive that fully one-fifth of the posts to a page supposedly about improving a project, which I take it you agree needs improvement, are not about improving DYK but about provoking fights with people trying to improve it? Do you think it will improve DYK to disrupt the efforts of people to improve it? I am not trying to make a case "against" Malleus. I am trying to make a case on behalf of people working to improve DYK. Sharktopus ^talk 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think if every fifth post at DYK, over hundreds and hundreds of posts, is from Malleus, who doesn't submit anything to DYK, then that's him failing to make a point, not him making a WP:POINT. Any person could suggest that he would benefit the encyclopedia more by spending his time elsewhere, so why does it need an administrator to do it? Is an administrator going to make him do so? I don't think so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With the caveat that I am not uninvolved here, I would be as likely to warn you, Sharkotopus, for POINT violations regarding your recently-removed section about Malleus at that page. Some of his commentary may seem abrasive, but so is that of others, and both "sides" make some decent points. Ending the discussion artificially would not resolve the underlying issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not trying to disrupt anything then or now. No, you are not uninvolved, but I salute your self-identification as having a previous opinion. My point is not that MF is the only abrasive person at DYK, it is that he is completely off-topic if the topic on that page is improving DYK. The only "improvement" he has suggested is that DYK should reward shrinking articles instead of expanding them. Sharktopus ^talk 03:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Like Griswaldo, I share at least some of Malleus's opinions on DYK (though probably not all of them, and I'm a much better hypocrite than he'll ever be). Sharktopus, what exactly are you looking for? A topic ban? You won't get it. Besides, I think his comments serve a purpose if only to keep editors on their toes. For instance, I don't believe that plagiarism is endemic or rampant among DYK contributions, but there is no doubt that a. every single instance is one too many and b. there's been a lot more than single instances. There is also no doubt that many reviewers do not take the time to read carefully and check all references (just a quick look at the hook...), and that many contributors contribute things that are ordinarily referred to as shit (that's not, of course, the stuff that you and I have contributed there, ahem). So what's the point of pointing that out, as Malleus likes to do? Well, I think editors active at DYK need to know that they can't take the easy way out. There are a lot of hardworking, good-faith editors at DYK, and I assume they shrug their shoulders at MF's comment, thinking either that he's right or that he's an idiot. His comments, I believe, are not really for them--they are for the ones that spend thirty seconds looking to see if the hook is cited (god forbid the footnote comes in the next sentence, or at the end of the paragraph!) and say OK, pass it on. Now that I've vented that, your later remark: "he is completely off-topic if the topic on that page is improving DYK"--no, he's not. Unfortunately he is quite right, and even if he were wrong, those comments--while abrasive, perhaps--are still to the point. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I see that Malleus also, apparently, used the word "shit". I just want editors to know that I wasn't aware of that and had no intention of plagiarizing him. Malleus, if you thought so, please accept my apologies. If Moonriddengirl or ArbCom consider this problematic but think RevDel is too drastic, they can replace it with "tripe". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Apparently, even worse than that, User:Rjanag used the words "stupid" and "silly". (Not actually about anyone, but he did type those letters in that order.) Malleus was most upset by this, and I guess we can all understand why. A period of reflective thought is now required from all involved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I would not consider myself uninvolved as I have a collegial working relationship with Malleus. I have not been active at DYK lately, but I just read through the DYK talk page and I agree with the points Malleus has made. Which means he must have made points about improving the project, right? The bulk of the posts that you seem to object to are ones that Malleus has made advocating changing the DYK criteria - that means those posts are directly relevant to the discussion page. While you may not agree with his arguments (putting the word improvements in quotes - tacky), other editors do, which means the debate should continue on the project talk page as it is quite on-topic. I did notice that Malleus has made other posts that are directed at editors instead of the project, but Malleus is not the only one who has personalized the debate - I find it quite telling that you have singled him out and not mentioned the equally bad behavior of editors with whom you agree. Karanacs (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Pretty much per Karanacs, I think Malleus has ruffled some feathers by speaking plainly about some problems. Anybody there should refrain from personalizing disputes they may be having. Otherwise, what admin action is being called for here? --John (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Surely that's obvious, I should blocked. Resistance is futile. Malleus Fatuorum 04:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I was asking that you stop posting so frequently at WT:DYK, especially in cases where you are not sticking to the topic of a particular discussion section but are just rambling about how much DYK sucks and how the mission statement should be changed to make it clear that DYK sucks. But why are you here? I see most of the people responding so far to my request for an "uninvolved admin" are already over on your talk page slapping you on the back and passing out party hats, don't you want to hurry back there and join them? Sharktopus ^talk 04:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sharktopus, I have a party hat for you as well, and a whoopee cushion, but you'll only get it after you stop trying to muzzle people. You shouldn't be surprised at the response you're getting here, but you could make an even bigger mistake, which is thinking that there is a fan club that rises to his defense because it's him. As it happens, his comments were valid and in the right place--even if they might be completely wrong. I would say the same if someone came here asking for Rjanag or you to be quietened. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I get a whoopee cushion out of this, at least it hasn't been a total loss. Thanks, Dr. Mies. Sharktopus ^talk 04:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • • I am willing to place money on the fact that that is not going to happen --Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What, block Malleus for saying (in his way) what lots of editors already think? Gwen Gale (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time Gwen, as you've probably forgotten, but I never will. Malleus Fatuorum 04:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Problem with an Admin

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.

---

Got a problem with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. He nom'd two of my most recently uploaded images for CSD, claiming they were replaceable, even though I put "no" in the "replaceable" field when I uploaded them, making it pretty clear they weren't, he deleted them anyway (about 20 minutes after CSD'ing them). He has told me to "go away" so talking it over with him isn't going to get me anywhere. It's quite clear FPS has misused his tools since he deleted an image he CSD'd (something that appears is frowned upon) AND deleted an image that was 'not replaceable, though he claims it is. Can anyone help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User has been notified of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which images are these? (and for those non-admins here, what were they of?) N419BH 06:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They were non-free images of a living person in the public eye, and therefore eminently replaceable. As to whether FPAS should have deleted them via CSD, since they so clearly failed WP:NFCC#1 they wouldn't have survived an FFD anyway so what's the point in policy wonking about it?. Unless there's something I'm missing as to why we can't have a free photo of Angie Goff? Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(cc) File:AngieGoff Jan2011.jpg and File:AngieGoff Dec2009.PNG, two non-free, obviously replaceable photographs of a living public figure, journalist Angie Goff. Standard case of WP:NFCC#1 and foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy violation, living person. Discussion at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Angie Goff Images, where NH himself acknowledged that new free images of this person can be created. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why this clearly spurious complaint shouldn't be closed? There's no admin action required here. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Request review of a block

Can an uninvolved third party take a look of my block of DeathToEnemies (talk · contribs)

The user has been edit warring over the addition of copyrighted content (copy and pasted from multiple Wikipedia articles, with no credit to the original sources of the information, nor to the multiple editors of those articles whose combined contribution histories are being omitted). The user has brought this up at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#UMMMM...., User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#OMG, and at User talk:Barek#Really ... as well as receiving a warning at User talk:DeathToEnemies (this last one has been removed by the user).

As it's clear copy/paste copyright issue, I feel comfortable with the block - but would still appreciate a third party to review it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A friend of the user has also posted an unblock request (but on my talk page, instead of at user talk:DeathToEnemies). I've left it for now, and will let someone else address it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. Perhaps the next one will be even better. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, good block. Will post as much on talk page of the user and his/her friend. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AfDs not closed

the following AfDs have not been closed, so without contacting a specific admin, could an admin close, thanks.

• K-1 Fighting Network KHAN 2007 in Seoul
• K-1 Award & MAX Korea 2009. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In the case of such AfD's, it's best to check whether they have ever been placed on a daily AfD log page. These two haven't, and so they have not been closed. They should even now not be closed, but placed on today's log page and closed seven days from now (and a note explaining this should be added to the AfDs). Please be carefyl always to follow step three of WP:AFDHOWTO. Fram (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added them to today's log page and stuck a {{relist}} on both of them. It should be fairly clear. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD template removal by User:Alex Kynitzin

Resolved

Has removed the AfD template from Person first approach in therapy twice already, and I have templated his user page twice, seems unresponsive other than this removal.--Cerejota (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert, warn, and report at WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 13:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's at the WP:3RR point now, I've blocked for 48 hours.--v/r - TP 13:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thanks guys, didn't have to AIV :)--Cerejota (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

User: AritaMoonlight81 on the Haplotype O2b page

AritaMoonlight81 (talk · contribs) was engaged in an edit war with the ImtheMars (talk · contribs) on [65] regarding where the Haplogroup originated. The edit war led to a series of non-productive edits which were eventually reverted by Ebizur (talk · contribs) to a NPOV version, but AritaMoonlight81 (talk · contribs) persisted in advancing his own POV after the revert. Particularly problematic is AritaMoonlight81 (talk · contribs)'s misuse of sources to advance his own interpretations that are not properly sourced, and which is in pursuit of his original edit war with ImtheMars (talk · contribs) even though said user has stopped editing the article. This includes the bold claim that the academic source cited in the article, Hammer et. al, is erroneous, which lacks basis and authority, and independent interpretations of the data according to his own POV. When I reverted the edits, he simply reverted them back without any attempts at discussion and/or mediation. Looking at AritaMoonLight81 (talk · contribs)'s talk page, the user has apparently been accused of such behavior before, so I doubt this is an isolated case.Lathdrinor (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

He has previously been accused of edit warring alright, but I have no idea which one of you is right (he seems to be citing a reference to a reliable source, and we're not talking about Holy Writ here), and I see no discussion on the talkpage. Article has been fully protected for 10 days - you two can talk about it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ellen, here is my issue with his edits: his edit war with ImtheMars (talk · contribs) was a POV conflict, since ImtheMars (talk · contribs) was trying to claim that Haplogroup O2b originated in Southeast Asia, a claim that isn't sourced. However, the article as it stood (after Ebizur (talk · contribs)'s revert) did not claim this, as the edits made by ImtheMars (talk · contribs) had been reverted. 's subsequent edits claim things that aren't claimed in the sources he cites. The article Karafet et. al. (2005), which he cites, makes no claim whatsoever that there are errors in Hammer et. al (2006), yet AritaMoonLight81 (talk · contribs) writes that "[this] suggests possible errors in Hammer et. al." Moreover, he makes the claim that the Balinese article's results "suggests that Haplogroup O2b did not originate in Southeast Asia," even though as far as I can see the article does not make this claim, and interpreting data from primary sources and drawing independent conclusions from them isn't the process Wikipedia editors are supposed to follow. His edits therefore strike me as edits designed to push a specific POV, and which aren't encyclopedic. Lathdrinor (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent press template

Lots of heat, little if any light. Try a WP:RFC. lifebaka++ 03:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This report is in reference to the use of {{Press}} on discussion pages. It is not about if the story is a reliable source. It is not on if it should be an external link in an article. The highly biased FrontPage Magazine had a scathing piece that mentioned several articles.[66] There has been reverting on multiple article talk pages on its use with other media stories in the template. I could accuse the editors who are trying to remove it as censoring information and being biased but I think there is a good enough argument to keep without going that route. Although we might disagree with the conclusions the piece made, it actually offered some useful stats. I for one appreciate the feedback. I want to know how people read the articles we right regardless of their political leanings. An example is his critique of the Glenn Beck article. I have been a proponent for not including an independent "Controversy" section since such sections are POV in nature. However, the author actually thought it was more POV to have the criticism scattered throughout. We should be able to handle criticism without shutting it out. And when the criticism actually has in depth figures and analysis then it means we should at least have it available for editors to see. Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Next thing you'll ask us to add it to User:newyorkbrad's page because he's mentioned there too. There should be a common sense limit to adding the same opinion piece to dozens of articles that are barely mentioned in it. Seek WP:CONSENSUS beforehand for controversial changes involving multiple artiles, like by starting a RfC. ANI is not the place for that. Try WP:VPR. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC) This is linkspam: the article is nothing more than an attack piece on Wikipedia on David Horowitz's blog/website. The template refers to articles which are "mentioned by a media organisation". I don't see how a personal website can be seen as a media organisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Why don't we link to posts at Wikibias or any of the other blogs critical of Wikipedia? They've also mentioned specific articles. As Andy says, they're mere blog posts: they're not reliable sources, and they're not reputable "media organizations" for the Talk page either. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Cptnono et al, the press template is actually being used for two articles (part I & II, both by David Swindle ---> essays) from the same source i.e. David Horowitz's online blog FrontPage Magazine. They are How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part 1 & How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part 2: Coddling Progressives. These entries were originally generously added (or spammed depending on one's view) to the talk pages of Al Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Maher, Che Guevara, Glenn Beck, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann by User:Truthsort. However, their additions have been reverted by User:AndyTheGrump, User:Xenophrenic, and User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper respectively, only to be re-added by User:Hearfourmewesique and User:Cptnono. For the record, "Part I" attacks me personally (not sure if I am covered in WP:BLP) and makes a range of specious arguments (for which I was given no chance to comment or respond), essentially painting me as either indicative of, or the quasi-head of, some coordinated "Left(ist) cabal", which has in the author Swindle's words (no pun intended) "Conquered" Wikipedia. For the record, "Part II" attacks the administrator User:Malik Shabazz personally, and again makes a range of accusations questioning his editing integrity / identity etc. Not only would I wager that this polemical editorial (one might call it a "hit piece") is WP:Undue, considering Wikipedia is mentioned dozens of times in the press daily, and that the source may not meet the requirements of WP:Reliable; I believe it also is extremely unfair and unscrupulous in it's accusations and insinuations towards myself and Malik Shabazz - for which we are given no chance to retort.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC) {{Press}} is for legitimate media outlets IMO, not for every two-bit anti-Wikipedia crank that churns out blog-like "articles". If it fails the WP:RS test, then it isn't suitable for this in-page citation. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC) @Cptnono: If you believe the blog screed posted on a non-reliable (if not banned) source "actually offered some useful stats" or "feedback", then find a suitable Wikipedia policy page, bias page or "village pump" equivalent in which to discuss that material. Spamming that link into numerous BLPs when the piece only mentions those articles long enough to compare them to other BLP articles (usually a single sentence) is not productive. It serves no useful purpose to post that link to BLP talk pages. That, alone, is enough to reject the spamming of your link, without even mentioning that the screed also "outs" Wikipedia editors, disparages Wikipedia BLP article subjects and contains numerous ridiculous inaccuracies. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC) You see, Xenophrenic, I specifically did not mention any editors. I also did not spam anything since I was not the one who added the link originally and I disagree with it. So how about you try and argue the discussion? If you want to accuse people of spamming then come out with it but I assure you I do not read that filth. And like I said: We are not discussing the appropriateness of an RS. It has nothing to do with RS so don;t hal;f raise that spectyre.Furthermore, I have just reverted an editor who chose to remove the link to this discussion. He was making it hard to keep the knee-jerk "your censoring bastards" editors at bay. I would prefer to think that editors just don't like the link. Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC) You see, Cptnono, I never commented on your mentioning or not mentioning other editors, so ... you lost me there. Spamming links has nothing to do with who spammed those links first, or whether any of those spammers agree with the links. Which discussion do you think I am arguing, if not this one? I agree that we are not discussing the appropriateness of a reliable source; but the fact that the source does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards has already been raised, so ... too late. Now back to the main concern I raised, and that you have glossed over: The screed to which you linked does not serve a purpose specifically related to the articles upon whos talk pages it was placed. If you feel, as you seem to have indicated above, that there is some sort of useful information in what you linked, then please find a suitable forum for its placement so that it may be discussed -- surely there must be a "Wikipedia is biased" venue somewhere. Mass-linking it to many BLPs is not proper placement. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC) If Redthoreau cannot stand behind what the author said he said then I am OK with removal. I would prefer editors see feedback but would rather not see an editor slandered. Redthoreau, please confirm that you do not want the link due to a misquote and/or outing so that we can get this revdeld. However, if you just don't like the tone we should keep on discussing it.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Cptnono, there are a myriad of inaccurate assertions and insinuations just towards myself in the "part 1" editorial - to say nothing of the accuracy of the entire piece. (1) He identifies me as part of the (political) "Left", which I do not self-identify with. My own personal political persuasion is not relevant to Wikipedia and I purposely do not identify with any political party or philosophy on my home page. (2) He refers to my "Redthoreau" name as "telling", with the quasi-McCarthyist insinuation that since my name contains the color "red", that I must be a communist/Marxist etc. Setting aside that simplistic absurdity, and the fact that I am sure the author himself favors Republicans i.e. "red state America", the name doesn’t have anything to do with politics – as the "red" is my nickname based on my appearance, and the "Thoreau" is because Henry David Thoreau is my favorite author (and not a communist or in many ways even of the "left"). (3) The author claims that I am "the primary author and watchdog of Humberto Fontova's entry", which I would also dispute. (4) The author misrepresents my position by stating "Fontova’s informed view is missing from the (Che Guevara) entry because Redthoreau objects to Fontova describing Che as 'revered by millions of imbeciles.'" However, this is not my position (as he knows since he cites one line from my post), as I have a very detailed and ---> lengthy explanation on the Che talk page (citing specific policies) explaining why Fontova fails nearly all Wiki benchmarks for inclusion at present, and why he has in the past long before I even edited the article. Finally, making matters worse, I would have given the author this information myself, but I was not even contacted for a chance to address his accusations (I provide my email on my talk page) – which is a basic tenet of journalism 101.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Like I mentioned on your talk page, I don't care if he attacked you. But if you feel he has made blatant misrepresentations of you then we should not have it here. I would be fine revdeling this ANI, talk page notices, and edits. I feel that the author has some good things to say. Some of what he laid out was not off the mark. But we have to watch out for blatant lies especially when it comes to living people and one of our own. Just make sure that you can honestly say the guy went from constructive criticism to lies.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Why should it matter if the news article misrepresented an Admin? We're not using it as a WP:RS to support a claim one way or another. What matters is WP:V. The article exists online and is accessible, and tens of thousands of people have read it. Wikipedia should be acknowledging that, not fleeing from it and sweeping it under the rug. Moreover, it's been said here that Front Page Magazine is David Horowitz's blog. That isn't true. FPM is an online news magazine that includes Horowitz's blog, but the two aren't identical. FPM publishes reports from dozens of contributors, one of whom is David Horowitz. The articles we're talking about extensively cover a number of pages in our encyclopedia and make what sound prima facie like empirical claims in their regard. That they're unpleasant for some of us to acknowledge isn't in itself a reason to disqualify their validity. And certainly the fact that two Admins are mentioned in a negative context needs to be taken into account when considering those two Admins' opinions here. If there were newspaper articles critiquing my neutrality as an editor, naturally I'd be made uncomfortable by having them linked to through the Press Template. But does that matter? Is that a valid consideration? I don't think it is. What matters ultimately is that Front Page Magazine is a news site unto itself – biased, yes, but not a personal blog, and kosher per the criteria of Template:Online source.—Biosketch (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Nice straw men. The fact is that these are David Swindle's blog posts (David who?) and linking to them from an article's Talk page is probably a BLP violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC) No, that you disagree doesn't make it a straw man. A BLP violation, on the other hand, is a valid concern. Whose bio?—Biosketch (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC) See the list of biographies linked above, add Morris Dees, and scratch Che Guevara (BLP doesn't apply). In short, almost everybody who is mentioned in Swindle's blog posts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Stop bickering and Malik is not innocent in deflecting/changing-the-subject-sort-arguments on this one. But it doesn't matter anyways. If Redthoreau was needlessly dragged through the mud then that is all we need not to use. Just waiting for his confirmation that the writer was actually wrong before signaling complete support to not use the link.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Maybe a case can be made a-la BLP violation. I'm still pretty sure that linking to an article on the Discussion page that says stuff about Al Gore that isn't in his bio doesn't qualify as a BLP violation because no claim is being made directly vis-a-vis the subject of the BLP. Otherwise we'd have to erase any mention of Fahrenheit 911 and even having an article on it because of the claims it makes in reference to George W. Bush. What I definitely don't understand is what User:Redthoreau has to do with this. So what if the articles said negative stuff about how he edits Wikipedia? Wrong or right, why should it matter at all?—Biosketch (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I'm still pretty sure that linking to an article on the Discussion page that says stuff about Al Gore that isn't in his bio doesn't qualify as a BLP violation because no claim is being made directly vis-a-vis the subject of the BLP. I think you're 100% wrong. We can't use a link on the article's Talk page as a back door to include information not reported by a reliable source that would not be acceptable in the bio itself, just because the blog post says Wikipedia ignores the fact that the subject snorts coke/robs nuns/sleeps with young children and small animals. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Right. Our BLP policy states"BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." This by the way includes comments on other editors, even if we often deal with them in other ways. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Biosketch, "what I have to do with this"? I am cited as either a textbook case of / or the ring leader for – the "Left", who he claims is supposedly "conquering" Wikipedia through dishonest means. It's not just that he criticizes me WP:NPA, he makes untrue accusations against me with no cited evidence, and his editorial is devoid of any context whatsoever (+ last time I checked, I am a living person as well). He clearly doesn’t understand how Wikipedia functions or its policies, and cherry picks 2 of the 3,000 + articles I have ever edited to make sweeping generalizations about not only myself, but the hundreds of thousands of other Wiki editors – who are in his imagination being "conquered" by some shadowy leftist cabal of gate keepers with the mission of systematically "rewriting history" by keeping Wikipedia from looking like his stated paragon of truthful reporting - Conservapedia. Lastly, what are his qualifications to opine on how Wikipedia supposedly functions or operates? Has David Swindle shown any notability or recognition for having the slightest clue about the topic he is writing about – other than the fact he is a blogger for several ultra-partisan websites who thinks "It’s Evil to Pay Janitors $50,000 Salaries", "Barack Obama is a Socialist Working to Destroy America", and "Ann Coulter (is an) 'elegant' and 'sophisticated' Exorcist"?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Betting pool Facepalm We should have a betting pool on this "piece" on the personal blog of David Horowitz resulting in severe meat and sock puppetry in the topic areas covered for at least a year from now. Every time some political demagogue decides SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE WIKIPEDIAS, WHICH R SRS BZNS, we have to deal with the tons of POV warriors, some of which actually have staying power. What are the bets that this will result in another scandal like the CAMERA sock/meatpuppets? One advantage of extremely low RfA participation is that at least this time the admin massacre will not be as severe... This is why we should have a separate wikipedia for current events and BLPs. Then the controversies here can be nerdy and geeky and awesome, not the "MY TRUTH IS BIGGER THAN YOUR TRUTH" bs. --Cerejota (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Tell me you didn't just imply David Swindle is a demagogue. And if you're gonna write a check to the effect that editors here are POV-warriors/socks/meatpuppets, you need to have capital in your account to be able to cash it. To which editors are you referring and what evidence are you basing your accusations on?—Biosketch (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 2 I haven't accused anyone, I just made an observation that bears out from experience. Also, if you do not consider the piece he wrote demagogy, you seriously should reconsider taking on Wikipedia as a hobby - because it was a demagogic attack on every principle we stand for, or at least, try to stand for. --Cerejota (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Absolute nonsense. Criticism directed at an individual doesn't equal demagoguery. And his opinions regarding the BLPs he discussed issued from a quantitative analysis of the ratio of critical content relative to the overall size of the BLP. His conclusions weren't based on the identities of the BLPs. He drew conclusions based on empirical data, which led him to construct a pattern in relation to the BLPs he sampled.—Biosketch (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I get it. Swindle is a misunderstood scientist. He didn't set out to prove his theory that Wikipedia is controlled by leftists; he came and took a statistical sample of articles and came to that conclusion scientifically. If you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Cerejota likes this comment by Malik Shabazz--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Are you in the business of selling bridges to people? I guess that would make sense. But the fact is this was probably the first time either of us ever heard of David Swindle before. Whoever he is, he wrote an interesting article suggesting that a pattern underlies the manner in which certain biographies are presented to the public. He published it at a news site affiliated with David Horowitz. His article implicated two editors as sharing much of the responsibility for the way things are here. One of those editors is you. Now there's a campaign to ensure that the article is never mentioned again outside the confines of this Noticeboard.—Biosketch (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Please read the sources provided at Reliability of Wikipedia and find real scientific data on the topic. There is bias in English Wikipedia, but it is not political bias, it is geographical/language/ethnic bias that allows for overcoverage of Pokemon and endless American tv series episodes and under coverage of Kazakhstan or what happened in the 8th century in what is now Kenya. By and large, whatever political bias has is that it tends to the centrist, because NPOV cancels the extremes, but that only offends extremists, which is why I call the article demagoguery.--Cerejota (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Malik, apparently we missed the memo that obscure websites like NewsRealBlog (where David Swindle is the Managing Editor --> link), which photoshop Jimmy Carter to look like Yasser Arafat, while Horowitz hyperbolically denounces him as a "Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, (and) Liar", are just academic outlets for serious and objective qualitative research.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Gotta admit, thats a hilariously bad shoop...--Cerejota (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC) [Swindle's] article implicated two editors as sharing much of the responsibility for the way things are here. One of those editors is you. Boo hoo, boo hoo. Get real, Biosketch. Do you really think I give a flying fuck what some neocon named Swindle says about me? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC) More seriously, we are getting Swindled :)--Cerejota (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Some of us, anyway. Good night. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Fuck your face palm Cerejota (and forget anyone who cries over me saying "fuck" because that is basically what a face palm is and Cerejota knows he was being a condescending dick with it). Like I said: If Red thinks he was spit on by the source the I am fine not using it. But don't pretend there were not valid reasons to use it and don't poison the well by being a jerkoff. But since I am a betting man: I think it will go nowhere. The author will finish his "essays" on Wikipedia and editors will choose to ignore it. Unlike you, I actually give a shit about how articles read. Unfortunately for me, that means that even biased opinions get some play. I would laugh if he actually discussed this ANI but doubt he knows the project well enough. Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC) This is why we can't have nice things: people think they can abuse anyone who disagrees with them, like Swindle does. I do care about how articles are read, I just don't respect opinions that are designed, consciously, to disrupt the project for ideological reasons - regardless of what those reasons are. Its bad enough when editors wipe their asses with WP:HONESTY and start claiming with puppy eyes that they are not meatpuppets brought together by off-wiki stealth canvassing, but then on top of that we have to deal with "POVBOTS, ACTIVATE!" messages in the blogosphere. Which reminds me, what Swindle is doing is a total violation WP:CANVASS proscription on stealth canvassing, and when his user account is located, it should be indef blocked for such behavior. In particular launching personal attacks against specific editors was pretty awful. Its sad that you support such anti-wiki actions while claiming to defend the wiki, and I seriously think you should then reconsider this hobby if people who disagree with you make you so mad. Am not even mad, brah. Also, please read facepalm, I think you seriously mistake the meaning of it: being exasperated is not the same as being a dick. Telling people to "fuck off", however, its pretty much the definition of being a dick - and is not justified even as a response to dickery.--Cerejota (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC) This is tiring. A series of "cry wolf" name callings will not change the essence here: the "blog" is an online magazine, and Swindle's writings cannot be deemed as "unreliable" just because they don't appear plausible to some editors. This is the ultimate proof that his article is 100% right: not only is there a "consensus gang" that keeps articles about Michael Moore and other "commies" heavily biased, but the mere mention of these unlawful tactics is instantly wiped from talk pages. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC) So the proof that the blog is correct is that people suggest that it isn't? Isn't conspiracy theory logic wonderful... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC) No, the proof I talked about is that there is bias, and there is a clan of editors enforcing it. Funny... you're the guy that vigorously protects Michael Moore's article from any source (even multiple WP:RS by all Wiki standards) that exposes him as the conspiracy master he is, yet you have zero problems calling those who disagree with you "conspiracists" without any proof but your own logic. Isn't this charade wonderful... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC) What is even funnier is that I've made precisely one edit to the Michael Moore talk page, and none at all to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC) We discussed the Moore issue on ANI the NPOV noticeboard (diffs can be provided upon request), and by the way, I replied to your queries yet you left me hanging in a very convenient spot. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Here Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Michael_Moore you mean? Where everyone told you that we (a) don't usually have 'controversy' sections in articles, and (b) definitely don't base them on original research? I suppose that everyone else that disagreed with you there is part of this red plot too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Hmm... no, not "everybody" since more than a few editors agreed with me. "Don't usually have" is not a valid reason, per WP:OSE. And finally, there was no original research, just your – and other editors' – laziness since no one actually verified the source I provided. Please, at least don't lie, OK? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Go boil your head... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Nice, it's down to ad hominem now – how about a decent reply? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC) And your ridiculous conspiracy theory isn't ad hominem? If you prefer, a microwave would be quicker... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC) My conspiracy theory? I'm lost now... or am I David Swindle all of a sudden? But of course, all this is nothing but a scrim hiding your failure to examine Michael Moore Hates America or take it seriously, same goes to Swindle's article, which actually uses data collected from examining various WP articles, to conduct a legitimate analysis. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Some of the comments below Swindle's editorial (which also attack several Wiki editors specifically against WP:NPA) are golden! Paging Mr. Poe! Below are my two favorite ... Wikipedia is the online mouthpiece for the secular atheist islamo-fascist anti-jewish communist pro-gay environmentalist wiccan culture that George Soros and Al Gore want to impose on good christian americans! You have been warned! — ImWithBachmann, FrontPageMag, August 30, 2011 Wake up folks it's not just PBS, NPR, Wikipedia and the lamestream liberal media that are biased! Even the Christmas holiday has a liberal/letfwing bias, ever notice how Santa Claus​ wears red (just like those Hugo Chavez​ thugs and chinese Maoists) and has a thick beard, just like Marx! — I'mNotParanoid, FrontPageMag, August 30, 2011 So "wake up", because "we've been warned"!!!  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Wow... how nice of you to mix lame user comments with the actual article in order to discredit the article. Another fine example of how serious the editors in this thread are. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC) And did anyone else notice that on Wikipedia, the herrings are red too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC) And the "whack" in {{trout}} is red too... and the uncreated articles are red, clearly an invitation to fill them up with red ideas, hmmmm maybe there is a conspiracy after all...--Cerejota (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Careful Cerejota, how deep down the red rabbit hole do you want to go?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC) A radical suggestion May I suggest that this thread be closed? It's clear that Cptnono's original purpose, asking for outside opinions, has been thwarted by our bickering. Let's just call it quits. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Wouldn't you just love that... no. Please address his concerns, along with Biosketch's and mine. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I've already done that. Maybe you should read before you type. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I see lots of red herrings. Have you countered the main point – being that Swindle's article compares and contrasts WP articles based on content and proportion, thus conducting a legitimate analysis? Have you explained why Frontpage magazine cannot be taken as an RS (other than pointing at political cartoons that exist in any major newspaper)? Etc. etc... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC) You've been here for two years and you wonder whether FrontPage can be used as a RS? Maybe you should search the archives at WP:RS/N. As for the rest of your message concerning Swindle's blog posts, res ipsa loquitur. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC) More shiny words with no meaning. This is actually what constitutes demagogy, maybe you should read a dictionary... Besides, FrontPage is not used a a factual source, but a third party analysis mentioned on a few talk pages, which is obviously different altogether. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC) There is a difference between a serious third party analysis and a plain hit piece.TMCk (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC) What is your criteria for annulling the legitimacy of this analysis and calling it a hit piece? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Common sense.TMCk (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I will ask again, and expect a scholarly answer this time: what is your criteria for dismissing the analysis, other than the fact that it carries an opinion which differs from your own? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC) That there is total lack of rigor in the methodology used, and there is confirmation bias in the hypotheses put forward. There is also a lack of peer review that submits the study to a process of scientific verification by scientific peers.--Cerejota (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Swindle present claims, such as "there is much less criticism of public figures that represent a certain part of the political spectrum", backing it up by numbers from several concrete examples, such as the failure to fully cover Al Sharpton's anti-semitic and anti-white actions, while retaining a disproportionally large controversy section on Ann Coulter. He couples that with the fact that Wikipedia is highly ranked on Google, thus feeding its inaccuracies to the public. This seems reasonably rigorous to me, as he makes sure his claims are backed up. On the other hand, there is no need for peer reviews here, as this is not used as a factual source for an article, but as a small "media mention" section on talk pages. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Without getting into the verifiability issues of those specific cases (on which I do not have an opinion either way), they are what in scientific discourse is called "anecdotal evidence". As you can read in the wikilinked article, anecdotal evidence in general is ignored in scientific research because "of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases". From a scholarly perspective, Swindle's articles fail even the basic standards of seriousness and method.--Cerejota (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Swindle cherry-picks his data. And yes, if you are representing this as science, it needs to be judged by the appropriate standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Put simply, even if Swindle is correct (And again, I am not saying either way) on his criticism of the Al Sharpton article, he takes an specific example and then stamps the whole project with the "biased" brand. Making generalities out of specifics is a violation of the scientific method as generally understood. His views are an opinion with no a shred of scientific validity, and his conclusions are direct attacks on the entire project. Defending him is ludicrously disruptive.--Cerejota (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC) FrontPage is not a reliable source anyway. I fail to understand why this is at AN/I. If there is a reliability question it should go to RS/N, where I'm sure editors will be reminded that this is not a reliable source, on top of being highly biased.Griswaldo (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC) What Administrative Action is Sought Here? What administrator intervention is needed here? This is not the appropriate venue to discuss the reliability of sources, which is what the discussion appears to have devolved to, though I don't understand the original posting here either. Can this be hatted or otherwise cloesd?Griswaldo (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC) As I understand it correctly, the issue is spamlinking of the Swindle piece using {{press}} on the talk pages of the mentioned articles. In addition, my section, even if it quickly lost this aspect too, was intended to alert admins about the misbehavior that generally accompanies off-wiki stealth canvassing. --Cerejota (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC) To your point Cerejota, perhaps the named articles in the Swindle piece i.e. Al Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Maher, Che Guevara, Glenn Beck, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Keith Olbermann, Humberto Fontova & Morris Dees - could receive semi-protection (if they don't already) from ip edits for the time being?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC) There has been no edit warring or vandalism by IP editors, so asking for semi-protection would be unwarranted. On a whole there doesn't appear to be any continued edit warring on the article talk pages over the addition either, despite a couple of reverts on each initially. I just don't see the need for admins here, nor do I think AN/I is the place to establish or reaffirm consensus regarding the validity of using a hit piece from FrontPage in the recent press template. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Countering Fluff with Facts The real issue here is not Swindle's conclusion, but the examples of bias he raises. True, it's anecdotal evidence when it comes to claiming that all of Wikipedia is biased towards one side. On the other hand, there are several types of bias, found in different places – all these are backed up by what has been defined as WP:RS, links below: George W. Bush on PBS; An issue that required the intervention of none other than Jimbo Wales himself on The Daily Telegraph, backed up by the relevant article talk page; Pro-terrorist organizations and generally anti-Israel on Haaretz. These are just a few examples I found following a quick search on the expression "Wikipedia is biased". My point is simple: we cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater here, in other words – we should not discard the evidence simply because it's followed by a faulty conclusion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Zhand38

• Zhand38 (talk · contribs): Longterm difficulties working in a collaborative environment: hundreds of edits adding promotional and unsourced content, a determination to edit war using multiple IP accounts, apparent copyright infringements and removal of maintenance templates. See discussions [67], [68], [69], and this comment [70], which nicely sums up the attitude. User Donlammers has been very patient trying to deal with this, but the endgame seems to be ownership of the Cincinnati Zoo article, padding it with unsourced text, numerous NPOV violations, poor writing, and a resulting diminution of the article's quality. 76.248.145.169 (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not looking for any trouble and because I did create the animals and exhibits section, I do believe I deserve recognition for it. I worked for 6 months finding all the right info. I also have citated everything. <-Comment by User:Zhand38 (unsigned)

Vast tracts are unsourced, promotional, and unencyclopedic; to offer but a few examples:

• This attraction opened in 1993, and is rated the greatest and probably the most favorite attraction at the zoo. Jungle Trails received the American Zoo and Aquarium Association's prestigious exhibit award in 1994. It is a naturalized rain forest habitat, teeming with rare and exotic wildlife and hundreds of plant species from Asia and Africa..... When you walk through the trail, you feel a transformation that your not in Cincinnati anymore. the first trail is called the Tropical Asian Animals trail. The first exhibit is an island and holds one of the howlers of the morning, the Mueller's Gibbon, there you will see a Mother Daughter pair. Keep going down the path way and you will see a very large bird, the Lesser Adjutant Stork, and the large exhibit aside from that contains a single female Sumatran Orangutan named Lana....M'linzi was born on December 7, 1982 from Ramses I and Amani. She can be identified by her angry looking eyes.....When visitors walk in it is full darkness, and then they realize they are being stared down by one of the largest owls in the world, the Eurasian Eagle Owl. Keep going and there is a small domestic looking cat, the Pallas' Cat who recently had Zoo Babies and can now be viewed in the CREW building.....The exhibit also held a Giant Anteater and Golden lion tamarins but it is once again now home to the largest monitor lizard species, his name is Hudo and he is a Komodo dragon. Hudo came to the zoo in the summer of 2010 when the building re-opened, he also has two amazing indoor and outdoor enclosures......Close-up viewing on both dry land, as well as dramatic underwater viewing of magnificent animals, including charismatic manatees, provide an exciting experience for every zoo visitor..... I starts out as a Greenhouse, it simulates the humidity of Florida which is the whole point of this attraction. The first exhibit everyone seems to miss contains a single and large American Alligator.....These amazing exhibits were opened in the year 2000. If you go to the right of the under-water viewing area there you will see an uphill enclosure, this exhibit contains a single Barred Owl.....Sea Lions This exhibit was opened in 1877 but it didn't look anything back then like it does today. Before guests walk into Wolf Woods they will see Callie and Duke, the California Sea Lions. They had to be separated from each other because Duke is blind and Callie kept messing with his tail, but everything is all good now.

• There is even a section for gorilla miscarriages. In short, the article is a shambles. Though there's something to be said for retaining the description "charismatic manatees." 76.248.145.169 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Zhand, Wikipedia is not the place for recognition. All contributions are documented and can be accessed through the history tab at the top of the article page. Please read WP:OWN so you can understand Wikipedia policy on ownership of articles. As to some of the substantive issues, I find myself in agreement with the sentiment of IP 76.248.145.169. I have looked through your contributions and have concerns re: WP:SPA, and think you need to research and better understand Wikipedia's neutrality policies, especially concerning Impartial tone/aesthetic opinions. I can understand the IP's concerns and exasperation, but would simply like you to look over some of those policies and put prospective edits in the talk page so other editors can assess for tone until you get better at this. I truly believe your contributions to be, by and large, good-faith attempts at improving the article, I just think you need to do some serious introspection about the unencyclopedic style most of your edits are written in. VanIsaac_WS 03:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Truth is a bitter pill: the article is full of trivia, and 80% of the content is entirely encyclopedic. I just removed an invitation to meet the gorillas. I think we have yet another competency issue here, judging from their work on the article as well as the humongous number of warnings and notifications on the editor's talk page. The article needs serious cleaning--I don't know if User:Donlammers has given up already--and it needs to be kept clean. Good faith notwithstanding, this kind of editing is not conducive to the project. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a second suicide threat from Zhand38, and sent a message to the emergency WMF contact email. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I reported it as well. I suggest the thread be closed. VanIsaac_WS 04:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I just indef blocked Zhand38 for repeated disruptions here. I had already warned him, and he continued to cause problems. If and when he decides to stop acting like a petulant child, someone may unblock him. --Jayron32 04:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(2ec)Thank you Qwyrxian. I see that Jayron has blocked Zhand. I'm sorry if it was my trimming that did it, and I know I have undone a lot of hard work by Donlammers who had been chipping away at the promotional prose, but I felt that this was the only way. At Wyandanch, New York, at least we had something to work in, to change into encyclopedic writing--that was not the case here. Drmies (talk)

I think that lost content is charming although not encyclopedic, and clearly it does reflect a lot of work. Is there a site somewhere for "lost from Wikipedia" text where people memorialize interesting stuff removed for policy reasons? Zhand, if you are reading this, thank you for your contributions which I am sure interested and informed many people. Sharktopus ^talk 04:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation for the above admins who helped on this. Perhaps the deleted text can be saved to the user's page--it appears that they're very young and disinclined to working collaboratively on Wikipedia. I wonder if they may eventually be unblocked on the condition that they contribute under the ministrations of an experienced editor. 99.173.21.46 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they were disinclined to working collaboratively. It's more that xe approached it in the manner of a homework assignment. That sort of approach has a great deal of ownership invested in it, so the rather explosive reaction to its reversion is understandable if undesirable. I think a mentor would go a long way to helping Zhand38. --Blackmane (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've left him a very long note with some suggestions for what to do now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

86.128.16.180

Resolved

 – WP:BOOMERANG (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(moved from AN)

• almost only dirsuptive edits masquarading as "reverting vandalism" (only 1 of them was ever constructive, many are repeated)
• not reacting on his talk page
• THIS

Discipline him or something. --Dr. Wyspa (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a standard edit war. Also, the complainant here just started editing today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Wyspa, is there a reason why you are using two accounts evading your block again? –MuZemike 13:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, the following have been indefinitely blocked as  Confirmed socks of banned user HanzoHattori (talk · contribs):

• Dr. Wyspa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ahuviya Harel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Underlying IP range blocked. –MuZemike 14:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As the sockmaster was indef'd 3 years ago, should his current edits be reverted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Working on it. One of them, Clank (Ratchet & Clank) is being worked on my another editor (whom I just contacted), so that may not be reverted. –MuZemike 16:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass delinking

User talk:Pokemonblackds for some reason has delinked many articles from a fast food chain. When asked about it here User talk:Pokemonblackds#Yanking McDo he replies it was a test, but has not replied further and has not undone his removal of links. I smell some kind of ideological battle. Any thoughts? Is there a way to mass undo his "test"? Heiro 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 72 hours and several users are in the process of reverting his delinking. The next question is whether he should be blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing/incompetence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)User has been blocked since I posted this, just noticed as I was informing them of this thread. Thanks EAGLE. I'd say block indefinite, either incompetence or some kind of ideological crusade, either way, do we need it?Heiro 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen nothing but "test edits" from this user, even before this latest episode. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never ran across them before, just happened to notice on one article I had watchlisted and decided to check their other contribs as it seemed fishy. Considering they just came off from an indefinite block only about 2 weeks ago(blocked since Jan)[71], maybe a reset back to indefinite is called for. Heiro 23:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked for having "bot" in his username, not because of disruptive editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Support indef block. This person needs to provide a very good explanation before editing privileges can be restored. Favonian (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Indef. Does anyone see a positive contribution buried somewhere in here, or even any contrition? Bulk mayhem like this and only 72 hours? What do you have to do to get an indef block these days? -- Oh yes, posting to an AfD seems to do the trick. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The 72 hour block is not definite, but I had to block him at least for the short term before a more thorough review of his edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the speed of the link removals, it seems highly likely a bot is being used via the account, but it appears the requirements of WP:BOTPOL are not being met. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's just using the unlink feature in Twinkle. Note the (TW) in the edit summaries. Ravensfire (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Strictly construing the rules, under the definition at the top of WP:BOTPOL Twinkle is a bot in that there are a number of functions, including unlink, where edits are made without the user approving the edits to each page. Actually, almost everything Twinkle does could be argued to be in violation, as when making an edit using Twinkle you do do not typically see the edit you are making until it is already made, while the policy requires a tool show you the edit to be made and have you approve it. Monty₈₄₅ 23:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the second episode of Twinkle unlink frenzy I've seen in a week. Seriously, why does it have this option? The consequences of its misuse, or accidental use, suggest it is the kind of tool that shouldn't be available to non-admins. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note the related discussion at WT:Twinkle#Unlinking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Sliceofmiami

Controversy is nothing new at Talk:Calvary Chapel. Recently, however, I think there has been some good movement towards consensus on some difficult issues, but the disruptive behavior of User:Sliceofmiami has been a major challenge. While the problems include some substantial incivility (much of it directed at myself), I think the most important issue is the user's consistently tendentious editing, which makes it very difficult to make progress on improving the article.

I have not generally been involved with this page, but I did step in to mediate a controversy nearly three years ago, and was fairly successful in that endeavor, I think. Based on that exchange, a month ago I was asked to weigh in on the current controversy. I contributed to an already-moribund mediation cabal case and cross-posted to Talk:Calvary Chapel. In the ensuing conversation, I proposed a compromise edit, which at the time seemed to meet with general approval. One or two editors have since voiced some reservations, but I am confident that consensus can be reached on that particular issue.

What I didn't know was that that consensus was reached so easily because User:Sliceofmiami was on a several-month break from the page. He soon returned and began advocating for a raft of poorly-supported edits that all would put the article subject in an unfairly bad light. I and others engaged him in conversation for a while, but it was very frustrating because every time a good point would be made against his suggestions he either ignored it and continued arguing his original position, or he dropped the subject and went on to another one. For example, he has complained that sections of the article that describe the subject's beliefs and practices are largely drawn from sources published by the article subject, from which he charges that the entire page is simply advertising; but when I responded that the same charge could be leveled at the article on the Catholic Church, he consistently refused to respond to the point ([72][73][74][75][76][77]), and eventually dropped the subject and went on to other equally-unconstructive subjects. More recently, he has again made the same original charge, without any acknowledgement of (much less response to) the counter-argument. This is only one example of many that could be cited of Sliceofmiami's tendentious behavior.

Sliceofmiami's incivility is also an outgrowth of his tendentiousness. He seems convinced that those who disagree with him are "fans" of the article subject and that only he is objective. He has repeatedly tried to tag the article with the {{fanpov}} template and labeled his opponents as "fanpovs" and "fanbois" (the latter a pun on WP:COI, another perennial accusation of his). Here are some extended rants directed at me (which suffice to make the point, though many more could be cited), including one accusing me of being a blind acolyte of the article subject's founder Chuck Smith, and two others accusing his opponents of being some kind of brute squad for Chuck Smith. In fact, as I have clearly disclosed, I left the article subject organization 15 years ago and have significant disagreements with it; my primary motivation in this discussion has been to portray the article subject, including its substantial weaknesses, fairly and in context. My theory is that I have attracted his particular ire by forging ahead to work for consensus changes to the article, rather than being paralyzed by his tendentiousness.

Finally, I would like direct attention to this section, in which practically all active editors on the page came to a consensus regarding Sliceofmiami's disruptive behavior. In particular, User:Ltwin (a well-respected and long-established editor who has not been involved in the discussion except for sage comments such as this) urged Sliceofmiami to reconsider his behavior and the rest of us to cease the back-and-forth with him. Unfortunately, Sliceofmiami does not appear to have taken Ltwin's advice.

Thank you for your attention. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blue, without having looked at all the diffs and without having read through all the material, I still think I can say with some confidence that unless you have specific violations to report, such as 3R or edit-warring or other unequivocally disruptive behaviors (by which I mean 'simple' disruptions), your best route is probably Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I hope others will weigh in here and comment, and I don't mind being overruled here, but this seems to be a pretty serious (and complicated) matter in which simple administrative solutions might not be forthcoming, and I wish you the best. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with BlueMoonlet's assessment of the situation. Sliceofmiami's conduct has been that of a griefer, and Blue's edit summary shows but a tiny history of the overall behavior which is well documented on the talk page in question. As a matter of fact, I am surprised Blue did not include this shocking example of incivility in this discussion. Please also reference my email to arbcom-l on 8/31 at 9:18 PM ET regarding more serious issues with Slice. Finally, recent examples of edit warring by Slice when other users have gained consensus can be seen in multiple cases: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], and [83]. 71.199.242.40 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading through some of those diffs, and the talk page, and the article history, it is clear to me that Sliceofmiami is a longtime disruptive presence here. Besides waiting for the next edit war and counting up to 3R, for instance, perhaps an RfC is the best way to go. Alternately, a topic ban might be proposed, but there also I'd like to hear from some of the regulars here to weigh in. IP71, while I appreciate your comments, you are involved in this as well, and I am interested to hear what a non-involved person (as I was) has to say. RfC? Topic ban? A block for one reason or another? No dessert? Drmies (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a note on Sliceofmiami's talk page, warning them that ongoing edit-warring on Calvary Chapel is not to be tolerated. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Miner [sic] incident: can't get editor to talk to me

On the article Antony Murray, I can't seem to get User:Alan Liefting to talk to me in any substantive way about categorization. I've asked in edit summaries and I've asked on his talk page. There, he answered me, but not to explain to me why the categories I added to the article were wrong, simply to repeat his eariler edit summary admonition to go learn the WP category system. (!!)

I'm hardly a tyro editor, I've been here for over 6 years and have about 90,000 edits to my credit, but I readily admit that I haven't specialized in categorization. I want to do it right, but that means that someone has to explain to me what I did wrong. I kind of figured out with earlier cats I added that there were more specific one I could use, which I didn't know existed, and Liefting has left those alone since I changed them, but I really don't understand why Category:Phosphate mining isn't an appropriate category for an article about a man who operated a phosphate mining business. I see no sub-categories that would be mnore suitable, so I'm at a loss to understand. Liefting (another long-time editor) appears to specialize in categorizing, so I assume it would take mere minutes of his time to teach me, but for some reason he refuses to do so. "Go thou, and learn thee the system of categories before thou shall wed the fair maiden!"

I would appreciate it if someone could drop Liefting a note to let him know that colleagiality isn't just about being polite, it's also about helping when other editors need help, and not simply blowing them off with a superior attitude. Of course, I suppose it could be a matter of competence on his part, but reading his talk page, I doubt it. (He did, however, tag the article with a BLPPROD, when the subject is clearly dead – as indicated by the "Obituary" listed in the refs – but I assume that was just an oversight.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

While it doesn't excuse his refusal to communicate, he's actually correct in removing the category in question: there's not an impending need to categorize every person by random words that appear in their biography. From the brief biography in question, it doesn't look like he's really well known for his involvement in phosphate mining; if he had stayed in said occupation he likely would have never done anything to merit a Wikipedia article in the first place. It would be like claiming, because he worked in McDonald's as a cashier for a while, he should have "McDonald's cashier" as a category. Furthermore, even if he had been famous as a phosphate miner, the correct category would be something like "Phosphate mining people" or "Phosphate miners" or someting like that. Still, I can't see where in this biography that categorization makes any sense. There's multiple reasons why it shouldn't be categorized that way. Which is not to say that User:Alan Liefting shouldn't have done a better job of communicating that to you. He should have. But the lack of communication doesn't mean automatically that what you were doing was right in the first place. --Jayron32 03:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• (slow-motion edit conflict, I got pulled away from the computer mid-response and just came back, but FWIW here is what I wrote) As per Wiki-usual, this seems a minor spat that incrementally grows because each thinks the other is being a bit of a jerk. You aren't acting 100% optimally here, either. In utopia, he would have explained the removal of the categories the first time he removed them, but since you seem willing to concede that he knows more about categories than you do, why on earth are you continually reverting his removal, instead of stopping, and asking first? I understand your frustration too, but if you read his response he's pretty clearly telling you what's bugging him. Humor me and try this experiment:

1. Go to the article talk page, and start a thread saying "I don't understand what I did wrong with my Category:Phosphate mining categorization (or whatever your remaining questions are); it seems reasonable to me, but I haven't specialized in categorization. Please explain."
2. Go to his talk page, say you got off on the wrong foot, you'd like to start over, and you realize he probably knows more about categorization than you. Invite him to join you at the article talk page, because even after looking at the contents of the categories (which I assume you did) you still don't know what's wrong with adding that one.
3. If you're saying to yourself, "I shouldn't have to do that, he should have to do it first", then you're approaching it with the wrong attitude.
4. See what happens.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron32 and Floquenbeam - Your information and suggestions seem good, and I will follow them. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

General hostility of a "new" user in the I-P topic area

Resolved

 – Blocked. Let's see what the inevitable unblock request brings. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• REmmet1984 (talk · contribs)

Given the prolific sockpuppetry and whatnot that has infested the Israeli-Palestine topic area over the years, brand-new accounts that are immediately hip-deep into contentious areas are greeted with a reasonable degree of suspicion. The latest is "REmmet1984", created on 10:21, 4 September 2011. 10 minutes in, this user is already getting into reverts at the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, removing sources from Electronic Intifada with an edit summary of "non-notable sources", a curious phrase choice for a new user. After that it is right to the grandaddy, Israel and the apartheid analogy.

Even to those here unfamiliar with the topic area, this should be bleedingly obvious that this is a sock of someone. But apart from that, REmmet1984 is already characterizing others with descriptors like "anti-Israel editors such as yourself" here, which I removed per WP:NPA, but was reverted. Warnings by others have been left on this person's talk page, most reverted with an edit summary of "garbage".

Either way one wishes to look at it...a returning blocked/banned user or a plain ol tendentious new one...this is a topic area thatdoes not need yet more poorly-behaved participants. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Whilst this is clearly not actually a new user, that's irrelevant; it's clear that this user is not here to edit collegially. If, of course, they provide an unblock request promising to do so, then we will see. As ever, review of this block is welcome. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I took a second look at this with CU, but I'm new to the tool so I had to get the more experienced folks to check my results. Anyway, just  Confirmed that he's taken to running a little sock circus… All blocked. AGK [•] 09:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar keeps censoring other people's comments

Firm advice offered; no administrative action taken. Debate itself has progressed to RFC. AGK [•] 09:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Shit like this has been going on forever at Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher. She/he keeps censoring comments inconvenient to his/her thesis that the article does not have a POV bias "per WP:TPNO/WP:NPA" despite these comments not being anything that could even be construed as personal attacks, and despite being told several times not to do this (e.g. [84]), and despite Agricola's objections to being censored (e.g. [85]). I don't know what it'll take to make him/her understand to stop this stuff, but some admin help would be appreciated here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC) The Elizabeth Rauscher article and its talk have been at the center of a POV/NPOV shitstorm for a few weeks now, and both sides are clearly boiling over after a slow escalation. It was brought to the NPOV noticeboard (and that thread is still active) here, but I appear to have been the only uninvolved editor who weighed in, and though I was thanked for my response, the sides continued to snipe at each other. The current RfC on the article talk was put forward at my suggestion when Agricola asked what s/he should do about the stalemate, but I see that the discussion there is pretty much the usual suspects making the usual arguments and continuing to get frustrated. It's no longer about the content, but the content and the fact that the sides don't like each other. I suspect Dreadstar's behavior in redacting others' comments now is just another manifestation of utter frustration; however, that doesn't make it ok. Those aren't really personal attacks he's removing - they are, at worst, impolite and uncharitable phrasings of possibly-valid objections, not nearly to the bar I would require to sanction redactions such as Dreadstar is performing - and especially given that he's an editor heavily involved in the acrimony of the talk page, I'm not at all pleased to see him editing his opponents' comments. The article clearly needs some supervision by people uninvolved in the dispute, so I'm pleased (if one can be pleased about drama at all) that this has finally worked its way to ANI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC) He's been hatting and redacting other people's comments at Talk:Pregnancy ([86][87][88]) as well. Perhaps he is frustrated with that topic also. Additionally, he's been using revdelete on Talk:Pregnancy[89] even though he is involved in a content dispute. Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Haven't looked at the first part and so no comment on that, but the use of revdelete appears to be perfectly OK, one of the regular editors on the page edited logged out, revealing their IP. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Struck, thank you for clarifying. Skinwalker (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Dreadstar, what you're doing is essentially Wikipedia:Town sheriff kind of stuff. We should probably get that accepted, then you would be able to call in a neutral editor who would accomplish the same thing you're trying to do on that page, only better and with more community muscle behind it. Be——Critical__Talk 19:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC) There is no way that should ever be accepted. We've got a long history of not altering other people's comments except in very limited circumstances around here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Examining his RFA also shows that this is not the first time Dreadstar does this kind of stuff. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dreadstar#Discussion (oppose section) for a long list of similar edits on other paranormal-related pages (always in the side of the paranormal quarks). I suppose it might be time to consider a topic ban. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC) This is not that new for a behavior from Dreadstar. Back in June, in a deletion review discussion, he redacted my comments [90] - and re-reverted my reverts three times[91] [92] [93] - only stopping when being told so by some other editor [94] ("Only three words in the nomination could be called personal attacks by any stretch of the imagination. Dreadstar was wrong to remove more than those three—and particularly wrong to add his own words above Damiens’ signature; Damiens was justified in reverting the changes."). I guess he didn't get the message at the time . --damiens.rf 20:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC) The last time I recall hearing of Dreadstar, it was because he made an out of process reversal of an arbitration enforcement block (see WP:AESH) I placed on an editor who was (if I recall correctly) editing from the point of view that pseudoscientific or paranormal subjects ought to be covered more sympathetically (or less unsympathetically) in Wikipedia. In this case, I agree that Dreadstar has engaged in disruption by illicitly editing comments of others that were critical of that point of view, but which were not personal attacks. This pattern of disruptive conduct in the topic area of pseudoscience (as which parapsychology, at issue here, is categorized) could justify requesting some sort of arbitration enforcement restriction of Dreadstar based on WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  20:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Sandstein, it doesn't look very good for you to be posting here without revealing how highly involved you are with Dreadstar, having taken him all the way to ArbCom without first engaging him in conflict resolution. In that ArbCom, you wouldn't stop calling for him to be desysopped even when everyone, including the Arbs, told you that such action would be unjustifiably drastic. You showing up here just looks like you're trying to get him by any means which come along. Be——Critical__Talk 21:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I have mentioned Dreadstar's previous conflict with me in the immediately preceding post. That is why I do not intend to take any action here, but suggest that others do so.  Sandstein  21:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately I agree that this is not new behavior. I detailed Dreadstar's history of fringe advocacy and misuse of administrative tools[95] in the evidence for WP:AESH (warning: TLDR). I think an arbitration enforcement request should be the next step if he keeps this up. Skinwalker (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Comment. The context within which Dreadstar refactored some comments was that Agricola had been making quite a few personal attacks and personal remarks. So far as I can tell, that had stopped, as had the refactoring on Sept 3; then Headbomb undid some or all of it on Sept 6. My advice is that the matter be dropped (whether refactored or unrefactored), because the page had settled down, and people are now commenting helpfully in an RfC to resolve the content issue. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Could you provide a few representative diffs for Agricola's personal attacks? Skinwalker (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I'd prefer not to, Skinwalker. Suffice to say that at one point almost every comment was directed at editors, not content. I briefly considered taking it to the Wikiquette board or AN/I, but my preference was to hope it would end, rather than risk perpetuating it by going to one of the boards. And it did stop, so all is well. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC) What point was it? Surely you can link to a section header at least. Was it here, where Agricola tries to discuss sources but gets shouted down by Dreadstar with spurious accusations of incivility?[96][97][98] Or does this flood of editor-directed comments remain redacted? Because I'm really not seeing it. Skinwalker (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, the dispute on Talk:Elizabeth Rauscher is not over but is in fact ongoing, with Agricola posting earlier today[99] to complain about the redactions, and Dreadstar once again commenting out his posts[100]. With all due respect, why are you asserting that the talk page has settled down when it clearly has not? Skinwalker (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Because SV is involved, and a sizeable chunk of the dispute revolves around her behaviour and her edits. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I am disinclined to intervene if the discussion is progressing toward RFC, but I do agree that Dreadstar's contribution to the discussion was unhelpful. That refactoring nonsense is not on, and had I noticed his actions at the time I'd probably have blocked for disruption. Dreadstar would also be well-advised to worry a little less about crying "NPA!" at every turn and a little more about participating in the debate, because I'm sure he has much of value to add. I'll link Dreadstar to this thread, and then close it. AGK [•] 09:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user:Slowking4

I was alerted by User:DGG to the edits by user:98.163.75.189, who ran into a block for persistently adding external links which were reverted by User:XLinkBot (the bot reported the editor to WP:AIV, and the editor was blocked by user:5 albert square). DGG unblocked and alerted the operators of XLinkBot: User talk:XLinkBot#unblock. That prompted me to review the edits by the IP. Indeed, I think that indeed a block was not warranted, and actually the links the editor has been adding were all OK, though on XLinkBot's revertlist (as in many cases, these links do not comply with the guidelines, but since there are exceptions, they do not qualify for blacklisting - we are talking YouTube, MySpace, FaceBook, Twitter etc. links here).

Actually, when reviewing the edits and the warnings, I noticed the following things:

• In total the editor did receive 15 warnings from XLinkBot (history) - but never went to User talk:XLinkBot to comment. They did however comment on the talkpages of other users (e.g.on the 7th of July).
• There are many more warnings concerning the edits of the editor (see history of talkpage) by 'regular' editors.
• The editor replies promptly to warnings, often somewhat WP:POINTy, to the warnings received (e.g. 'take it to the blacklist', 'a bot block, really?', "how many false warnings can i collect?".
• The remarks imply that the editor does know its way around ('take to ANI').
• The editor has a significant log for the EditFilter - filterlog.

That gave me at that point an immense quaaaack-feeling. The style of editing, knowing its way around, said that this was a regular editor editing logged-out. I could not pin-point which editor, but the case is clear at that point.

However, the IP is implying that they want to stay anonymous:

• Advice from DGG to create an account here did not convince the editor to create one ("the more ip's get deprecated, the more i want to be one: "encyclopedia anyone can edit" indeed. it's unclear to me how "serious" a pseudonym gets treated, witness your talk page. i looked at the hierarchy of users, i don't see any tools i want. i kinda like the CAPTCHA: it's giving me lots of vocabulary words for some automatic poetry.")
• Again from DGG diff, .. by "encouraging" ip's to get accounts, are you not papering over the problem? does it not merely mask the symptom of the out of policy bot? ... all ip's are spammers; all ip's, and now new users can't be trusted to create articles. clearly this is a project for the convenience of the admins, not the editors or readers. the hostile environment continues because it's convenient. ....

Now, ever since the beginning there have been provisions in XLinkBot regarding these things, and this could have been resolved earlier given proper notice. Note, those provisions were first off-wiki, but are now accessible to every admin on-wiki. Also, ever since the beginning it is known that XLinkBot does make some 'mistakes' (but reviewing, by far most of the reverts are indeed cases which should be removed, either on the basis of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, or on WP:NOT or even WP:COPYRIGHT). Of course, it is possible to find links which XLinkBot should not revert (otherwise these links would already be blacklisted), that has also been one of the provisions since the beginning. And it is also made sure that all the edits of XLinkBot can be reviewed by recent changes patrollers (XLinkBot intentionally does not have a bot-bit for that reason).

I do take it upon me as one of the bot operators, that I did not notice this earlier and took appropriate action earlier. I will take action so this will be noticed earlier on (and hence, can be handled upon earlier on).

Today, I noticed the following three edits:

• diff - changing the unblock request of 98.163.75.189 (I should have noticed this last week).
• diff - changing a comment from 98.163.75.189 regarding a post by user:Intoronto1125
• diff (followed shortly by diff - warning Intoronto1125: "please stop leaving wrongful notices on my talk page. it is disruptive" .. the notice was on the talkpage of the IP, not on the talkpage of Slowking4.

and unrelated, though showing the mission: diff.

Hence, the IP, 98.163.75.189 (talk · contribs), is Slowking4 (talk · contribs) logging out, and, IMHO, trying to disrupt Wikipedia processes, on a mission trying to make a point. I'm sorry, making pointy edits is not the way to show 'wrongdoings' on Wikipedia.

Since I am involved in XLinkBot's edits, and have commented towards DGG regarding the IP, I think that it is better that I leave this to independent review. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4, as the mission seems to include to show that new users are also treated badly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The problems about external links such as the ones he has been adding have increased as even very conservative organizations and people who would in earlier years have used official websites, now use places like Facebook for their principal sites, or even put their official material on YouTube & the like. And of course, it's our policy to link to a organization's external site, if we have an article on them. Obviously most links to Facebook etc. will be bad links, sometimes very bad links to copyvio or worse, but not quite all of them. (I tend to see this because I do a lot of work with organizations and their often COI editors) I have been dealing with this user while AGF, but not naïvely so: I quite realize from my own as well as reported experience that a user who takes a stance like this may be acting deliberately in such a way as to play games with us, or even to be borderline disruptive. I finally made clear to him--at least, I hope I made clear to him -- that I was not going to exert myself to defend his work if he continued to refuse to get an account. That he may have been involved in similar activities before, disappoints but does not surprise me. I have nothing but the highest regard for Dirks's actions in this and related matters, but, like Dirk, I think some wider involvement would be better. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK I'm going to comment here on my decision to block. I blocked the user because they were editing BLP articles and adding information to them but using Twitter etc as a source to that information. The Twitter accounts they are adding isn't even a verified Twitter account so could be almost anybody with that account, therefore, there is the chance that the information being added is false. I decided to err on the side of caution with it being a BLP, and as the editor had had plenty of warnings about the links they were using, I blocked them (I think for 31-48 hours). --5 albert square (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Slowking4 decided to log out again, and comment on the threads on their user talkpage here. Still no understanding of why this behaviour is considered disruptive and pointy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Farsight001, incivilty, personal attacks, and edit-warring

User Farsight001 keeps removing talk page comments on the Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases, see here, here and here. In addition, she practiced name calling in her comments (>>if you want to rate the article, IP hopper, actually rate it.<<) The comment she is removing as given is about the article's deficiencies and has a suggestion how to improve it.

The same user is already warned against the same bad behavior earlier here, here, here and here, where she uses foul language and racist slurs.

My understanding the Wikipedia guideline is good faith, collaboration, and ultimate respect of other users and different points of view.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As I already tried to explain to you multiple times, calling you an IP hopper, even if that is not what you are (though it is painstakingly obvious that you are), is not name calling or any sort of policy violation. In addition, I also already explained in the edit summary that a discussion on this exact subject already exists. You are trying to start a new one so you can ignore the previous comments where you were disagreed with rather than continue the conversation and address what was said in response to you.

Lastly, 3 of the 4 of those were not warnings. One was a mere query on my talk page. Another was retracted by Eraserhead. A third was a completely invalid warning as I in no way used racial slurs, nor is use of profanity a violation of policy. (though not the most charitable way of speaking). And the first one involves you, hopping from IP to IP in an attempt to circumvent the 3rr so you don't have to actually discuss the issue.

Also, I am not a she. I am male.Farsight001 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)I don't approve of removing talk page content (such as here, for instance), but it is true that there already is a thread on that talk page, and that lengthy commenting has slipped into soapboxing. Betty, please stop removing talk page content (and please drop the all-caps). IP, please stop soapboxing. I am not going to restore the comments by reverting; IP, you are welcome to add concise comments to the earlier thread. Your claim that it's "RCC clergy or ... some deaf and blind Catholics" who are editing the article, BTW, is easily read as a personal attack, and that in itself is actually a valid reason to scrap those comments: "ultimate respect of other users", right back atcha. Since this is a bit of a gray area, between commentary on the article and soapboxing, others here may differ--this is my personal opinion. I propose no administrative action, unless this escalates, in which the personal attacks should be dealt with first. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid false accusations! This comment "RCC clergy or ... some deaf and blind Catholics" does not belong to me!--71.178.110.141 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG. My name is not Betty. Also, I remove talk page comments when policy dictates in - if the comment is not there for article improvement, if an active discussion already exists on that exact subject, or of the comment is disruptive are all valid, policy based reasons for removing talk page comments.Farsight001 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your user page--it's the user page that is called Betty, not you. Mea maxima culpa. Here's the thing: you removed talk page comments when you say policy dictates it and you're just going to have to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with you on what is dictated when by which policy. It's a matter of interpretation; there is no black and white in this issue. I am suggesting to you that you probably should be careful with removing comments. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I misread his user page, too. I think he named his user page Betty like someone who names his car or his boat. And here I always thought user pages were gender-neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Mine is transgendered, though I don't wish to disclose that given that my user page's employer is a bit oldfashioned and my user page doesn't want to get their benefits revoked. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment User Farsight001 is warned eight times about his incivilty and edit-warring by eight different users on his user talk page. The pattern of his behavior is always same: arguing, accusing, attacking, disqualifying instead discussing and collaborating. I've removed one of his comments and, at the same time, warned him for being incivil and offensive. He reverted it thinking that his Pardon my french, but who the fuck are you is the way he could address some people here. Needless to say that pardon my french is a chauvinistic slur that cannot be used here. I do not see which Wikipedia guideline approved his who the fuck are you? Moreover, his technique of attacking others include lies as you can read it here where he stated: "removed a citation needed tag and provided no citation to replace it, removed a citation and replaced it with a citation needed tag" which was countered by the administrator: "So your objections are total wikilawyering and are not about the actual content? What do you care? The edits were an improvement. (And I don't see where he removed a citation...did the article even have any citations before? You're the one removing the only reference...)" Adam Bishop (talk). The same way he removed this article improvement

The fact is that user Farsight001 needs a time to learn some good manners and stop using Wikipedia guidelines to justify his ways of arguing, accusing, denying, edit-warring here. Those eight warnings are the proof and evidence of his bad behavior.--Eleven Nine (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there Nelly, tone down the rhetoric - "pardon my French" is not a "chauvinistic slur". You're getting a little extra riled up, and it's making you grasp at non-existent straws now, which serves to merely weaken your overall argument here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Eleven Nine, I do NOT have 8 warnings on my talk page. I have six. And as I already explained, most of those are invalid warnings. One was retracted as a mistake, 3 were basically baseless accusations of vandalism or personal attacks when what I said didn't even come close. One was for edit warring as a result of an IP editor that refused to start a discussion on the talk page. My reverts were an attempt to get him to do just that. It actually worked, though he really only chose to mock me. Which leaves the only real and valid warning for edit warring on the sex abuse article, which you were just as involved with and I still question.

As for my "lying", perhaps you should include the VERY NEXT THING I said on that talk page, which was to admit I misread what I was doing and made a mistake in editing. There might be lying involved here, but it's not by me. Also note that this involved the same IP hopper that is currently "involved" in the catholic sex abuse cases article and which I have highly suspected is user Eleven Nine for a while now. And as for the Cloyne diocese article, perhaps you should read it more closely. There was nothing deceptive in that edit summary.

Now I'm pretty sure this is not the place we are supposed to be discussing this, so if you want continue this discussion, please put it on your or my talk page. (unless some Admin comes along and says its fine here, but I highly doubt that.)Farsight001 (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, this is certainly a place to discuss this. But I have the feeling that we're done here--the incidents, in my opinion, don't rise to the level of blockable offenses. I hope that the IP and Farsight will both tone down the rhetoric before they do stray into personal attacks. BTW, this warning was indeed spurious, as I have said also on Farsight's user page. But before I propose that someone close this, Farsight, accusations of sock puppetry are no light matter, and if you are serious you should start an investigation and put your money where your mouth is--for the time being, I'm going to pretend that it wasn't said. Y'all just cool it down, and someone please re-read and close this. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Drmies to not block Farsight. He is not aware how much harm he is doing to Vatican Curia and their clergy by defending nonsense in that article. Let him believe that he is right, important, knowledgeable, "far"-sighted.--216.52.207.75 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To IP216.52.207.75: Even cynical defense is a defense.

To Drmies I've removed Farsight's comment for finding it rude and offensive. I do not want to be ever addressed by who the fuck are you. It's not just about this phrase, it's about the whole comment. Instead of getting an apology from her, she 'justified' it and put the comment back! This user was warned not eight, rather nine times, for her incivilty and violation Wikipedia's rules. Six of them are marked by a warning sign, but three others are clear warnings too: 1) Farsight, are you actually reading the text you're RV-ing to?, 2) Your participation is disruptive, 3) It seems that that is your only real reason for reverting him (of course we have a word for this too, wikihounding...) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC). So, the evidence of intentional violation of Wikipedia ethics by Farsight is clear.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, what's clear here is your intention to harass me and lie about my edits. Anyone who actually reads your links WITH context can see that what you say and what is reality are little in similarity.Farsight001 (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

David A's userpage

I'm not even sure this is an incident but I feel I'm a bit out of my depth and not sure how to proceed. As currently written, David A's userpage reads (and truthfully it's written in a confusing manner) like a number of BLP figures are out to get him and one is specifically named (if I am reading it correctly) as trying to drive him to suicide. I broached the subject with him on his userpage but his response has left me concerned and more confused than when I started. Can people check out the userpage and my conversation on his talkpage and either tell me that I've got completely the wrong end of the stick or there is an issue to be dealt with. (Yes I have informed David of this thread). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can't look much deeper than I just did since I gotta run off, but it seems to be the page ought to be blanked/deleted and Cameron, you do not have the wrong end of the stick. I hate to leave this, but I have to--I thought I just give you my 2 pennies real quick. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  Now blanked; if he goes near it again, he gets whacked with a stick. Cameron, thanks for bringing this up. Ironholds (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Contentious IP

84.203.66.161 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

This is an IP who is making persistent POV edits at David Irving and is completely refusing to discuss anything he does despite repeated requests to do so. Could someone please block him to help him get the message that he can't do that? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: this has already been reported at WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.--v/r - TP 14:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:B-Machine

Blocked 3 September 2010 for personal attacks. ([101]) Long-term pattern of disruptive behavior, with several requests to stop following 3 September 2010 block. ([102], [103], [104], [105])

Recent personal attacks

• Talk:27 Club Revision as of 11:35, 7 September 2011
• Talk:Afro-Brazilian Revision as of 17:54, 1 June 2011
• Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis Revision as of 12:09, 19 May 2011

Recent activity removing editor comments on talk pages

• Talk:African American Revision as of 10:40, 24 August 2011
• Talk:African American Revision as of 11:33, 23 August 2011
• Talk:African American Revision as of 10:17, 22 August 2011

WP:BATTLE

• Talk:List of wars 1945–1989 Latest revision as of 10:19, 22 August 2011
• Talk:List of wars 2003–2010 Revision as of 17:50, 24 July 2011
• Talk:List of wars 2011–present Revision as of 09:27, 28 June 2011

Sottolacqua (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Going back a year in some cases? Not much we can do if the activity is not immediate and current... WP:RFC/U is thataway ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the links above showing disruptive behavior by User:B-Machine are from 19 May 2011 or later, and five of the nine edits provided are from the past 16 days. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the warnings on the user's page are all from as recent as 2 May 2011—Not sure what you mean by "going back a year"... Sottolacqua (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think BWilkins is referring to the September 2010 block as "going back a year". I reverted B-Machine's personal attack of today, and can say that this user is demonstrating an unacceptable pattern of behavior, to which the 2010 block attests. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Several of these are from the last month including the last day or so. You can't show a pattern without going into the past. So some evidence would probably be a little older in that case. There does seem to be an on-going issue with this users behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Could this not be interpreted as a legal threat? I don't know anything about this user, so I would guess that it might mean appealing to Wiki authorities, i.e. this board, etc. However, it is ambiguous enough that a really lame legal threat was where my mind first jumped as an uninvolved party. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would assume they're talking about wiki authority = admins which is not a legal threat.TMCk (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Jotamar and edit warring

Jotamar is an uncooperative and disruptive editor. Please block him. He has reverted my edits five times on the Paella article from August 24 to the 29th:

• [106]
• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]

I warned Jotamar three times about his reverts:

• [111]
• [112]
• [113]

He ignored all of my warnings.

Jotamar's reverts on the Paella article resulted in a page protection. The administrator who protected the article has pointed out that he will not remove the block until Jotamar and I stop the edit war. However, I have made two attempts to negotiate with Jotamar. My first attempt was in the form of a compromise (before the page was protected) where I replaced some information I had deleted previously.[114] Jotamar rejected this compromise by reverting me. [115]

The second attempt at negotiation was in the form of a message I left on his talk page where I encouraged him yet again to compromise with me. [116]. He has chosen not to respond.

Also, his list of contribs shows he made 14 reverts on 11 other articles on August 24:

• [117]
• [118]
• [119]
• [120]
• [121]
• [122]
• [123]
• [124]
• [125]
• [126]
• [127]
• [128]
• [129]

I sincerely believe Jotamar deserves to be blocked until he demonstrates he's willing to edit in a more cooperative and constructive way. Lechonero (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty standard content dispute to me. Please see WP:Dispute resolution. — Satori Son 21:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Satori Son: I just submitted this report a couple of minutes ago. The very least you could do is read through it before dismissing it as a content dispute. Lechonero (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I did read through it, and I looked at each and every one of the links you provided. And you changed the time of your report above. My opinion stands (on Jotamar's behavior, at least...). — Satori Son 22:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the time of my report to be more accurate. I forgot to sign my report when I first posted it. Then a bot automatically signed it for me. I then replaced the bot's auto signature with mine. Later, I realized my signature didn't accurately reflect the time stamp of the report's diff so I changed it so that both matched. You should check diffs before making accusations. Lechonero (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards agreeing with the OP. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the OP? Lechonero (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Original Poster" - the person who started the discussion, and in this case, you. It's a carry-over from usenet, my guess is.--Shirt58 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand what's all the fuss about. Lechonero deleted some sourced content that had been in the page for several years, and I reverted the deletion. I have explained my reasons in the article's talk page, which is the right place to discuss this, not here or on users talk pages. My last post hasn't been answered so far. Jotamar (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I also see no bad behavior from Jotamar, here. In fact, I'd be inclined to call Lechonero's behavior the problem. When you make a massive change to an article, and it's reverted, it's up to you to go to the article's talk page and discuss it. But, the difference is close to splitting hairs. Since the article is now fully protected, you all can figure out what is or isn't correct together by discussing it; if you can't come to an agreement, use dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: I couldn't disagree more. Keep in mind I made two attempts to compromise with Jotamar. He rejected both of them and then later insisted that he was correct. The above diffs prove that. Lechonero (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Harassment by Fastily

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

User:Fastily has not abused the admin toolset by asking a question.--v/r - TP 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Yet another processing of my request by Fastily, who absolutely refuses to heed advice to stop responding to whatever I post at WP:RFP/R, etc. Given that this advice is far from isolated, it is clear that Fastily will never learn his lesson. A block of minimum 7 day length is place. If, he continues with the brusque behaviour that he is very much capable of and has displayed, a much longer block or de-sysopping is needed. At that point it would be self-evident that he lacks the temperament to be an admin. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 04:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved editor, with recent diffs like that I'd have outright denied your request, and your post here merely confirms. Fastily was nice enough to question what has changed in the months since the links he mentioned, and your action here confirms nothing has. I suspect a WP:BOOMERANG in the near future. N419BH 04:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent? Only when |v| is not << c, but we are on Earth, and in this context, several months is hardly recent. The most I have done here is to raise a grievance, and name one attack in my initial post here. Lastly, to make myself abundantly clear, I have never abided by WP:AGF and never intend to; otherwise something known as vigilance can be at a deep loss—you are lulled into a false mindset of security. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, it isn't my fault if Fastily neglected to look at "what has changed in the months" since those links occurred. Simply because I post here indicates nothing has changed? This makes zero sense. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah. That ANI report that led to your being blocked, again. Also, that ANI report in which it says that "he [Fastily] was acting within his admin capacity it is certainly within is purview to accept or reject the RFPP." *Sigh*. Fastily, yes, stay away please from this editor. HXL, or whatever you go by, stay away from ANI, or get blocked for disruptive whining. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Why should an admin stay away from an editor who feels harassed for receipt of correct administrative notice? Then all disruptive editors need to do to avoid observation is to whine about the perceived disagreeable tone of administrative oversight. ^Bongo_matic 06:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked twice? Last time I checked it was once, with the only adjustments made by JamesBWatson to reduce the length of the block served. You ought to do a check as well. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, nice edit summary. Ya might go have a look at WP:NPA. N419BH 05:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all a personal attack. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly IS a faith-based personal attack. If you tell a Christian that they are not actually loved by Christ, the man who loved even the worst of sinners, there is no greater insult. Honestly, I would have blocked you for that, and racial/religious blocks are not typically of a brief duration. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You do understand that Xiaoyu's comment came only after Fastily had used the statement "Jesus Christ", by itself, clearly as an expletive, to Slakr, right? I don't see how we can take Xiaoyu's comments here as a personal attack in any way, and it's not really any less civil than the comment it responds to. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your statement above, "I have never abided by WP:AGF and never intend to" pretty much says it all. Your hostile and combative attitude also says it all. The fact that this has been raised repeatedly in the past, with no change on your part, says it all too. N419BH 05:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Context does not explain it away. "Jesus Christ" in the context is a statement of exasperation. "and Jesus Christ would not love you now" is and will always be a personal attack", no matter how you slice it. It is not a valid response (especially in a permanent edit summary) to slag a faith in any way, shape or form. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A mere cultural difference, is it? Does it matter at all if I think of someone in a certain way and do not express it at all? It only says that I always intend to maintain a questioning attitude, and never accept anything for granted unless it has proven itself otherwise. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A cultural difference indeed. You're at odds with Wikipedia's longstanding culture. There are many very good reasons for assuming good faith in an open project like this. -- œ^™ 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for recognising this. It never ceases to amaze me how binary people can be... Not AGF does not mean assuming malicious intent...it means to never stop questioning in your mind—and this rarely has to be combative, like N419BH so falsely points out above. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fastily asked a highly reasonable question IMO, the reaction from Xiaoyu of Yuxi adds weight to the concerns. Think that Xiaoyu of Yuxi should be asked to wait six months before making another request and should do so in such a way as to draw attention to how he now believes in WP:AGF Mtking ^(edits) 05:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• A cultural difference is a cultural difference, and as I said before, holding views but keeping them to oneself gives the same result. Also, "the reaction...adds weight to the concerns"? Oh...I clarify my views further in a non-personally-offensive manner, and it causes a storm? This means only one thing, and it is not good. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, just wow N419BH 05:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wow what? A hint at retiring, and you create all this fuss? —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'll put it this way. What is your goal here at Wikipedia? Why do you edit? N419BH 05:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• No. Please first answer why you fussed (and in a brusque, immature manner, too) over a simple hint at permanently leaving the project.
• It can be summarised as follows (this has held true since March): WP has not had a record that the great majority of the towns, townships, etc. in the PRC even exist. Something needed to be done to fill this void. In the process, I hope to expand my knowledge of geography. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note to all: Contrary to popular belief, ANI does not exist so that quibbles and disputes can be discussed in a new forum. N419BH, stop arguing. Xiaoyu, stop arguing - and furthermore no, Fastily will not be blocked, for a minimum of seven days, or at all, for raising perfectly legitimate questions; the fact that you decided to respond by having him trouted and/or desysopped shows precisely how legitimate those questions still are. Ignoring the inherent hilarity in somebody justifying a lack of AGF by saying that it simply means they always question taking umbrage at a question, I would advise you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Fastily is not going to be sanctioned for doing something perfectly acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and my apologies. Xiaoyu, you are absolutely correct that Wikipedia's coverage of Chinese geography (and for that matter, the geography from Asia, Africa, and South America) is sorely lacking. I would strongly encourage you to continue adding to this under-represented segment of the encyclopedia. I would advise you however to shy away from rollback. You will find it's seldom needed, especially now that Cluebot NG is online and reverting the vast majority of obvious vandalism. Twinkle's rollback function works just as well, and has the ability to use a custom edit summary. You will also find regular rollback leads to many more headaches than it does solutions, as it is a common gripe of reverted users to come to ANI crying wolf over abuse of rollback. I am sorry for my own lack of good faith in this matter. N419BH 06:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• I thought I was familiar with the tone of this editor's writing. Having just refreshed myself with his former account name, it is now clear. I had commented in the ANI report in which HXL was blocked, which Drmies has referenced as it was I who made that comment about Fastily's use of admin tools. It does not seem the past few months have made any difference to Xiaoyu's approach to interacting with others. It's all well and good to have a questioning attitude, none of us would learn otherwise, but not when it leads you to snipe and snap at people with a questionable attitude. Quite frankly, I'm surprised there's not been a block on Xiaoyu for recurring disruption. --Blackmane (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Rude BC/AD warrior at Jesus and other pages

Resolved

Alexandre8 blocked by Sarek for personal attacks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite consensus being established for years to use both both BC/BCE and AD/CE, Alexandre8 (talk · contribs) has been removing the BCE/CE parts on the grounds that using both is "divisive." When one upstanding editor reverted him and explained what the consensus was, he called this editor "divisicve." When I reverted him and again explained the consensus he said I was trolling.

Despite being (of his own admission) agnostic, he then removed further instances of BCE/CE as being "socialist" because the page was "Christian" (because any idiot knows that Muslims, Bahais, Hare Krishnas, and New-Agers have no beliefs about Jesus whatsoever). This is completely ridiculous: I do not need his protection from... Me...

He has serious problems with this sort of behavior, as he has carried his BC/AD war against "socialism" (because any idiot knows that the economic theory is really just an excuse to change the calendar to piss of Christians!) on other pages, such as Abraham. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Members of the jury, I take great delight in asking your kinds sirs and perhaps madams to the attention of Ian's usage of "any idiot" and general oneupmanship attitude. Inflammatory behaviour tends to spark a fire. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Little worth in defending myself on this page. On abraham page you changed without consensus so you're in the wrong. Other pages I'm simply defending logic. If logic is offensive to you I suggest you take your opinions elsewhere. Members of the jury, I take great delight in asking your kinds sirs and perhaps madams to the attention of Ian's usage of "any idiot" and general oneupmanship attitude. Inflammatory behaviour tends to spark a fire. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your reverts which these such messsages show you are just as POV as any other.

Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (202,211 bytes) (Proper revert. Of the two of us, I'm the Christian. You (by the admission on your user page) are an agnostic.)"

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC) your attempts to "protect" Christianity are honestly ridiculous. You're agnostic. I'm Christian.

Such comments seem to suggest that my lack of faith conflict with a dating system. Completely wrong really. I'm a linguist, I defend BC from a linguistical point of view. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have already warned you that the particular combination of editwarring and personal attacks that you are using will get you blocked very quickly. WP:ERA clearly states that no wholesale changes should ever be made without prior consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

after your warning I made no further atttemps to change the pages. I read your warning after the last change. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Good.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, personal attacks aside, I am concerned about Ian's behaviour too. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In what way? Your comment without elaboration isn't useful.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The merits of one editor's edits over another should never be judged based on their religions. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

None of Ian's comments here suggerst that he is judging the merits of editors by their religion. I am at a loss to understand what you mean. Perhaps you have misunderstood Ian's jokes. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul it is recommended that you read all of the content. Perhaps you were missing the parts where it is self evident. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Non admin comment - For what it's worth, and it isn't related to the above behaviour issue, in academic texts Jewish/Christian/Agnostic scholars generally follow the SBL Handbook of Style, which I believe, without checking it, probably would input both on this specific issue and also on others which keep on popping up in edit wars. I'm not suggesting the SBL Handbook of Style be adopted by Wikipedia, but a similar Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Religion) page might be useful, along the lines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy). It's just a suggestion, and my bad if it already exists.. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments on other editors aside, WP:ERA is there to prevent edit wars, and I see Alexandre8 ignoring it, bringing up the same old arguments it was designed to prevent on at least 5 diverse articles, including Muhammad ‎, Māori people and Achaemenid Empire. This is blockable activity and I strongly suggest it be stopped. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just found this comment by Alexandre8 "The whole argument behind BCE CE is flawed and therefore this system should not be furthered.", which makes it clear, if that was necessary, that he is trying to remove it from our articles. He is on 3RR at one article and has made 3 similar reverts on other articles in the last 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had multiple run-ins with Alexandre8 over the last year or so and he does get locked into edit wars, especially around a few issues. That said, much as I disagree with him I think his heart is in the right place in respect of WIkipedia. He is just a bit naive and needs mentoring or similar. I'd suggest a block is going a bit far, maybe an overall 1rr restriction might break the habit? --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just read both participants the Riot Act. Suggest a long block for Alexandre8 the next time anything like this arises. I wouldn't be against 1RR like Snowded suggests either. --John (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor also frequently edits articles to substitute gender-specific for non-gender-specific language; eg [130], [131], [132], [133], [134] and many other examples. Edit summaries and talk page comments make it clear that he is involved in a one-man crusade against what he deems "pc language". This is not an appropriate manner of editing, and edit-warring with several editors over several articles in pursuit of this goal is certainly not acceptable. RolandR (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • I missed that. Hopefully he's clear that he's to stop the editwarring over BC/BCE, perhaps we need to tell him the same thing over other issues? Maybe a topic ban on anything to do with "pc language"? Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most of those edits are correct.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure that this is a political issue, except with specifically Jewish topics, it is about a scholarly convention. I am concerned about a general patter on WP:Tendentious editing on articles about ancient history in general, although religious figures does seem to be a prime subset. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My Jewish friends typically used CE and BCE in formal writing. Overall, the majority of the world are not Christian, but they do use the conventional dating system. Insisting on AD and BC is the real "political correctness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:ERA is quite clear on the topic. Needlessly switching between the BCE/CE and BC/AD formats should be viewed in the same light as needlessly switching between English variants, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for that everyone. I'll add this following end note. I'm quite concerned about RolandR's habit of stalking whereby he was appearing on everypage I was editing and reverting my edits. I asked him to stop which he did eventually, but am concerned he has popped up here. Either Roland you're getting in conflicts with people everyday and thus appear on this page frequently, or you're checking my history daily which I find pretty creepy. Additionally, I find your userpage highly offensive and inappropriate and if you really wanted not to inflame people you'd remove the inflammatory content. I doubt that' will happen though. I appreciate snow's stance on this, as he knows we disagree a lot but 9 times out of ten it's in a calm manner. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not stalking that is standard procedure for dealing with editors disruptively introducing similar material or changes over a wide range of articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

True. And no one has to look at a userpage. I find Alexandre8's comment in his infobox, "Mopping up Wikipedia of the colour red", offensive, but I don't expect him to change it. I presume Alexandre8 is referring to the 'Fuck Nazi's' image. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am of course referring to that image and the content of it. Calling someone a nazi is quite frankly disgusting, and the use of Fuck makes it explicit. It is not an opinion but an attack. That is the difference between my POV of the colour red and Roland's opinion of what constitutes a nazi, and what one ought to do with one's member regarding their activity. If roland wishes to engage in civil debate might he reconsider the use of this image? Alexandre8 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Roland is calling anyone a Nazi. He is saying that he disagrees with Nazis (actual Nazis of the kind that think they do palestinians a favor by hating jews) and don't like them. I also agree that generally polemic userpages should be avoided.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre8's complaint is spectacularly obtuse. The image depicts a stereotypical "White power skinhead", standing for thuggish far-right politics. The caption says that the Palestinian cause is not helped by being supported by Nazis - obviously a reference to the fact that some far-right anti-Semites support Palestinians because they hate Jews. It's perfectly normal to refer to far-right anti-Semites as "nazis", because the word refers to ... far-right anti-Semites. Calling an actual Nazi a Nazi is not "quite disgusting"! Paul B (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

One should expect a diverse group of editors to comment on this page, especially anyone who shares your interest in dating systems. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul it's very easy to defend someone you agree with. All I'm asking is for someone to judge the messsage on it's inflammatory content. The content being that it is confusing right wingers and nazi's, and then telling to get fucked. This simply cannot be viewed as constructive whatever your views on the political spectrumAlexandre8 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"it's very easy to defend someone you agree with." What on earth is that supposed to mean? Who says I agree with Roland R? Agree about what anyway? The image does not confuse "right wingers" with nazis. It depects an actual nazi, or, if you prefer, neo-Nazi, but the difference is irrelevant in this case. It's not a picture of George Bush is it? The image in question refers to neo-Nazi anti-Zionism being used as a cover for anti-semitism. It does not attack the right in general any more than an anti-Stalinist cartoon would be attacking the left in general. Paul B (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul discussion is over. This is about BCE/CE. Your only comments so far have been based on my end note about RolandR. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree this discussion should end but if you make a questionable claim, it's reasonble for people to question that claim. It should not be necessary to discuss your entire post, particularly since other people may already be doing that. If you don't want people to query questionable claims, either don't make them or withdraw them when people point out the problems in what you have said. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

We were here to discuss your edit-warring against consensus to adjust the format of dates, and I think that issue has now been resolved. If you wish to start another topic on the content of someone's user page, I suggest starting a new section. We have traditionally allowed fairly wide latitude in what users may display on their own space, so long as they are making good contributions, although I personally am not a fan of this policy. --John (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just found the following claims from Ian.thomson, the user who initiated this complaint.

"http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Druid&diff=prev&oldid=367707175 I insist that we use the secular BCE and CE instead of the Christian-focused BC and AD." "http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=403424057 Here I replace Christian dating (BC) with secular dating (BCE) in the Abraham article."

This seems to suggest that he is just as intent on changing BC AD to BCE/CE as I am to maintain the norm. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they are about your rudeness and false accusations of bias, epitomised by your BC/BCE edit-warring. Your inability to understand the meaning of the cartoon and your consequent further false accusations are part of the same pattern. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

RUDENESS? Rich coming form you. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And so what? Has he editwarred over a wide range of articles to institute those changes without prior discussion? If he has how does that make the fact that you did the same thing any less problematic. You cannot justify your own bad behaviour by finding faults in others'. Also you are not "maintaning the norm" - the norm for each article is established by consensus on the talkpage, you went against that norm in each case. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but hypocrisy is always amusing. And I was referring to the history of english speaking humanity norm of using the normal system, not the specific article norm. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That norm in so far as it exists does not apply here in wikipedia where usage is guided primarily by policies and consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware. Ok can we close this topic now? It's come to an end. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alexandre8, you are aware that the Druids and Abraham weren't Christian, right? As Maunus pointed out, the consensus in both articles was to use BCE/CE, as has been evidenced by all other editors reverting the few attempts to change the article. You'll notice that I never try to change articles relating only to Christian belief and folklore to BCE/CE, because those subjects only relate to Christianity.

La goutte de pluie and John, my statement to Alexandre8 of 'you're agnostic, I'm Christian' was not a statement of religious discrimination, but a counter to Alexandre8's edit summary "by is wikipedia based purely on socialist values? This is christian page, leave your bull" when he undid my reversion. The implication that he was protecting the article on behalf of Christianity from me is laughable. If you had bothered to actually look at the article's history instead of jumping to conclusions, you would have seen that the editor I refered to as "upstanding" is Slrubenstein. If you had bothered to look at my userpage, you would see a log of various instances where I fought to prevent Christian POVs from being pushed onto the encyclopedia. If I was attempting to discriminate on religious grounds, why would I be siding with a Jewish editor in favor of secular dating? Please do not pass judgement on what I say I make unless you know the context. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Over now? Alexandre8 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And Alexandre8 has called me a troll again for issuing a warning when he removed another editor's comment. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Really How old are you? Alexandre8 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Old enough not to name call. And here he's either calling Paul B or me a troll. I'd issue a NPA warning, but he's under the delusion that they only count if they are given by admins. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest three things that will certainly help. One is for the two of you to stop replying to each other here on one the talk page. Two is not to change the existing format of dates, except when an inconsistent date is added to a consistently formatted page. Three is not to discuss one's own or anybody else's religion or politics in the context of a dispute here. If the sniping keeps up, a short block will be necessary to stop this disruptive thread. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock Needed

I am requesting a range block on 74.178.192.0 - 74.178.255.255. This is due to continued vandalism from that range, all of which is licensed to "JAX ADSL CBB" in Jacksonville, FL (possibly from Jacksonville NAS). The vandalism is the addition of unsourced information to television station pages after numerous warnings on numerous IPs to stop. WP:TVS has started a progressive removal (after this thread) of the offending information and the IP vandal is readding it back. I am aware that a rangeblock would carry a large amount of collateral damage, but playing whack-a-mole isn't working anymore. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The vandal was using 74.178.195.23 within the last hour (which has been blocked for 2 weeks). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There are recent constructive IP edits in the proposed range, so there will be substantial collateral damage if the block is implemented. What about semi-protecting instead? Monty₈₄₅ 03:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone should go over there and smash the guy's laptop. I don't know about rangeblocks--what I do know is that it's a lot of articles. Semi-protecting may be the best thing, but I would like to hear what others have to say. And should this be permanent? All this work for someone with nothing better to do. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, those slogans are seriously stupid: "Your News, Your Team". Brrr. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response, getting things together before bed. If the only way is to semi-protect all the TV station articles, then that's what will have to be done. I suggest it be permanent since the vandal will just come back after a set length of time, which he has with the IP blocks.

@Drmies, the "Your News, Your Team" slogan, that is really in use at KEYT-TV. So that one you can blame on the station not the IP user. Just a stupid slogan. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Homer, I don't doubt they're really in use. I found some more pearls as I went through some of the edits by your anonymous friend. If you have an estranged brother, that's probably him. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, they always said I was twins. :) But no, no brother here. On the area I watch (via my watchlist) I have removed the offending lists. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It would basically mean semi-protecting every single US television station article, as far as I know. The editor is active on at least dozens of TV stations across the country, on all networks. This issue has been raised at ANI earlier this year, and we got no action--you can see that discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Reviving a discussion about a disruptive editor(s) (and it includes a link to a slightly older discussion). A complete list of IP addresses that a group of us have found engaging in this behavior are listed at User: Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. An edit filter was created, which seems to have stopped part of the problem, but not all of it. One solution I tried was to get agreement at WP:WikiProject Television Stations to remove all unsourced slogans from all TV Station articles, and then just auto-revert every addition, but there was no consensus for that. Part of me would like to just semi-protect all TV Station articles, but the rest of me realizes that's too extreme and that many legitimate non-confirmed editors do add info to these articles. Short-term protection wouldn't work, either--the revolving IP has been known to take editing breaks of one or two weeks, only to come back with exactly the same edits.

Additional note: while looking through the archives to try to find the previous discussion, and I found a much older report--Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive425#Known sock--why not blocked?. Or even this one from back in 2006? It doesn't really matter all that much who's doing it, since the IP changes all the time and is in a fairly large range such that a rangeblock isn't feasible. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If a range block isn't feasible an edit filter sounds like the next best thing, as it should at least be able to at check for any IPs in that range making an edit to a page with a certain category or type of infobox. Neutralhomer, you may want to consider proposing such a thing on WP:Edit filter/Requested, noting exactly what text (e.g. category or infobox) should be part of the search criteria. 28bytes (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

aside: Would it be possible to make a special subpage at Project Television, or somewhere else (sock investigation page) to put the black sandbox? I really want it off my books, so to speak. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind me doing so, I will be glad to move it over to my userspace, if you all don't mind keeping it up to date (I only watch a certain area, so I wouldn't see all the IPs used). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a little concerned that several users are now going through TV station pages and removing all of the slogans. Personally, I think that is very much the right call per WP:V, but several other editors objected at the WikiProject page. The suggestion there was to basically issue a verification challenge--i.e., tag the sections as unreferenced, explain on talk, and give other editors a chance to find references. 06:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is doubt over the accuracy of content, why is it in the encyclopædia? Leaving unsourced trivia around for months until somebody else gets around to seeing if it's true or not is unlikely to be the best way forward. Removal may be a reasonable response if the vandal is so prolific. On the other hand, removing a thousand unsourced slogans because of one incidence of vandalism would be disproportionate. bobrayner (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

@Bob: There is far more than just one incidence of vandalism. We are talking over 50 different IP addresses, that I know of, and tens to hundreds on each of them. This is wholesale vandalism and IP hopping at it's highest. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

An addendum to this, and linked to this ANI. User:Milonica is now going through and wholesale removing slogans and other content from TV station articles, saying they are dubious. While there is poor sourcing for many, some of that stuff is accurately backed up in various external links (if you actually look). The ones WP:OR I am familiar with are highly accurate. This information has accumulated with a lot of contributions over the years, from a lot of different editors. While they might be relying on their memories, public corrections for years are far more accurate than a single editor making a short-sighted decision to delete all this content. Wholesale deletion of anything is a bad idea here, particularly in this subject. Trackinfo (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said on Milonica's talk page, personal recollections are not valid sources for Wikipedia, ever, for any kind of information. Even the subject of a BLP cannot say "No, that's not what actually happened" based on their own memory. That's just how Wikipedia works. The real question is how "dubious" these slogans are. If we can agree that they're highly dubious, they should be yanked immediately, and it's up to those who want to add them to re-add with sources. If we're not sure, then maybe we should tag them for awhile to give people time to find sources (of course, I have no idea what kind of sources one could find, unless there's a book about slogans used by news stations). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record I was not removing the content out of spite or any other reason, I was doing it in good faith. Like Qwryxian, I have no idea where an editor would go to find such sources for these slogans. For now, would it be okay to just remove the "localized versions of xyz campaign" slogans? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 15:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am perfect fine with the slogans being removed as they have no sources and the source that is available would break our WP:OR rules immediately. Plus, as already stated, it isn't encyclopedic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been removing those slogans for years now, and much of the associated material, such as long lists of "Former personalities" full of updates about pregnancies and deaths of non-notable people. These slogans aren't just unsourced, they are also utterly trivial--the mere fact that they are unsourced is indicative of such. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Alcatraz editor branching out to Kennedy assassination

For several months an editor with issues of competency and POV has been periodically editing subjects relating to Alcatraz, primarily focusing on List of Alcatraz escape attempts and on the prisoners involved: Frank Morris, John Anglin, Clarence Anglin and others, with the view that they survived. Apart from the POV many of his edits have been ungrammatical, misspelled, or have inserted subtle reinterpretations into articles. The editor is now branching out into Titanic-related articles and venturing into articles relating to the Kennedy assassination with his own interpretations. I've blocked the IP on several occasions, but it's a highly-dynamic IP from Car Phone Warehouse in the UK, and it appears that rangeblocks would be detrimental, although the 92.16.x.x range might be amenable. Recent IPs include 92.16.21.194 (talk · contribs), 92.16.9.12 (talk · contribs), 92.16.4.81 (talk · contribs), 92.16.9.123 (talk · contribs), 92.22.101.31 (talk · contribs), 92.16.21.78 (talk · contribs), 92.21.186.22 (talk · contribs). Eyes are needed on articles, and perhaps some advice on rangeblocks: a /19 block on the main range might work, but I've avoided anything above a /20 block in the past. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the latest IP (92.16.9.12 (talk · contribs)), who noted on the talkpage that they're "not good at writeing." Acroterion (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Or spilling, for that matter. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 16:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Heath Evans vandalism semi-protection requested

The Heath Evans article has been getting hammered with vandalism by several ip addresses. Could someone please take a peek and see if protection is justified? Thanks Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

3-day semi protected. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A persistant pattern of tendentious editing by User:Bus stop

I think it is readily apparent that User:Bus stop and myself have had disagreements in the past, and I'll readily admit that on occasion my own behaviour has been less than examplary. However, in recent days, in a discussion over our Adam Levine article, Bus stop has displayed a pattern of systematic obstruction to reaching a consensus. To cut a long story short, the debate has been regarding Levine's ethnicity, ancestry, and faith, and the degree to which any of these should be discussed in the article. We are all agreed that none of these matters are related to his notability, but there seem to be reasonable grounds for adding a little background information. After much discussion, Bus stop proposed the following text:

Levine is Jewish.[34][35][36][37] "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."[38]

"Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop."[39] [135]

In terms of content, this seemed to meet the concerns of the others involved in the discussion, but it seemed to me to be problematic from a style point of view. I therefore proposed a rewording, and after some discussion with User:All Hallow's Wraith, we arrived at this wording:

Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side. As was noted in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, "Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop." [41] [136]

As can be seen, there is nothing in this that wasn't in Bus stop's proposal, other than an attribution of the quoted text to the Jewish Chronicle (as required by WP:INTEXT). I had assumed that this would be acceptable to Bus stop, but he has for some time gone out of his way to avoid either accepting it, or explaining what he sees wrong with it. Instead he has moved a comment I made in reply to User:causa sui against my express wishes, and in violation of Wikipedia:Indentation guidelines, [137][138][139] attempted to start a debate about a statement of mine that was irrelevant to the text being discussed [140], repeatedly ignored my request that he explain what he sees wrong with the proposed text, again proposed versions which use direct quotations without inline attribution (as required under WP:INTEXT), and complained that the version proposed by me doesn't state that Levine is Jewish, when it self-evidently does [141]. Finally, after I suggested that I would edit the article anyway, unless it was explained what the problem was, Bus stop finally replied by suggesting that my wording "Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side" was somehow unacceptable on the grounds that I am "insisting on taking two sourced assertions and writing them as one assertion". [142] Frankly, I cannot see any logic in this at all, given that it can all be sourced from the Jewish Chronicle article, as Bus stop is well aware. At this point though, I think I've just about had enough. This endless nit-picking over words (on talk pages as well as in relation to article content), diversionary tactics, unwillingness to give a straight answer to a simple question, and general obstructive behaviour when things don't go his way, are symptomatic of a pattern of behaviour grounded in Bus stop's obsession with labelling people as unequivocally 'Jewish' regardless of its relevance to article content. Frankly, I think he is a net liability to Wikipedia, and is likely to remain so, for as long as he is permitted to persist in this manner. I understand that he was topic-banned in the past over this, but he evidently feels free to behave like this regardless. I can see no solution other than a permanent topic-ban on him in relation to any article regarding the ethnicity, faith, or other 'Jewishness' of any individual. He is just too emotionally involved to adhere to WP:NPOV, and to behave in a collegial manner.

At this point, I think I'd best leave this for others to respond to - if further evidence of Bus stop's obstructive behaviour over the long term is required, I will of course be prepared to provide it, but think the latest episode alone is quite sufficient to demonstrate why I see his behaviour as unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Article ban? Are there issues outside this article? This seems, quite frankly, one of the most hilarious cases of nitpicking ever. Now, boomie time, no need to exaggerate the danger this user represents... I know you Grumpus Maximus, etc, but come on, why the hyperbole? Just today I saw two attack accounts created, and some dudes page extremely vandalized with death threats and stuff. Those are dangers to Wikipedia. Some dude that doesn't work well with others and seems to nor realize when there is enough horsemeat is not a net liability to wikipedia, probably just to himself :)--Cerejota (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Issues outside this article"? See Bus stop's block log: [143]. See this thread on my talk page from June, where four experienced Wikipedia editors (Yworo, Collect, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, Topperfalkon) discussed the problems that Bus stop has been causing - sadly, nobody took any action at the time [144]. Do a search on Wikipedia talk pages for this [145] where you will find Bus stop frequently refers to the following website: Judaism 101. Bus stop has repeatedly tried to use this as a source for assertions about Judaism after I pointed out to him that its own author states that she is not an expert on the subject. And note this [146] entry on Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn, where Bus stop cites the said non-RS website for the following: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do". And then note that Adam Levine (the person whom the current discussion is about) is almost certainly not Jewish, by this definition. This is entirely typical of Bus stop's attitude to sources - when they suit his arguments, they can be used (actually, must be used is more likely, from his POV), but if they don't he conveniently forgets them. Still, if you think this is exaggeration, fine. Maybe I should stop wasting my time trying to prevent Wikipedia turning into a enthnoreligious database full of misleading crap about how all the good guys are Xish, whereas all the bad guys are instead from Y, where every BLP has to include a compulsory section on the religion of the person's maternal grandmother, and where having once been inside a synagogue makes you a clear adherent of a religion, but refusing to have a Bar Mitzvah cannot be taken as any indication that maybe your commitment to the formal practices of the same isn't quite a strong as the adherents would like to think. The simple fact is that Bus stop doesn't give a rat's arse about 'truth', 'verifiability' or even common sense if it gets in the way of his obsession with Jew-tagging. He consistently twists sources to say what he wants them to, and then stonewalls when people point out that they don't: between the time that I made my initial proposal on the Adam Levine talk page regarding the proposed text [147], and the time that bus stop finally came around to giving his (bizarre) reason for objecting to it, [148] he had made around 20 edits to the talk page [149]. If it takes that long to get even an irrational answer out of him over his objections to the minor rewording of content he had already proposed, just how exactly do you expect anyone to have the patience to work with him? So yes, he is a net liability to Wikipedia - and if he isn't, then frankly, Wikipedia has a grim future... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump today moved List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates to a pointy title. This user seems quite obsessed with this issue, as we see above. Will he undertake not to make further moves of this kind? Warden (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for the move. It was clearly inappropriate, and I shouldn't have let my frustration get the better of me. So no, I won't do it again. As for me being 'obsessed' with anything, yes - if you think that trying to ensure that Wikipedia articles are even approximately in line with policy, and not used for endless ethno-boosting is an obsession, rather than something to be expected from contributors. This isn't really the appropriate place to discuss what is wrong with the laureates article however - If you want to pursue this further, I think that another thread would be more appropriate (where will of course depend on whether you are concerned with my behaviour, or with the violations of policy present in the list). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But why this particular list, as opposed to the more egregious ones, such as List of Jewish American politicians, or List of Jewish American entertainers? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume, just for the purpose of this discussion, that Andy is right and that Bus stop is a "liability" to Wikipedia. Even so, this particular "controversy" doesn't seem like the one that should trigger administrative action. As an aside, I don't like any of the wording, either the first, or the second. The stereotypey (just made up the word) phrase "Like a lot of Jewish musicians" makes me cringe, whether it's sourced, quoted, or pronounced by a supreme being.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed cringe-making, and the source is not sufficient to support the fact, as it's the writer's opinion only. (In fact, absent a massive survey of some kind, I don't see how you can source that kind of over-generalized statement.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I remind people that this is AN/I, and this thread isn't about article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always about content, and this thread is about the intersection of behavior and content, not uncommon on ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If the content in question was under dispute, that might well be true. However, the usage of the particular quote you cite was agreed on by all the participants in the talk page discussion. Bus stop suggested it, and others agreed. It is the remainder of the wording that is at issue - or rather, it is Bus stops stonewalling etc in regard to the rest of the wording that is at issue. If you want to engage in a discussion on article content, I suggest you do so on the article talk page. Further outside input would be most welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to problems on Wikipedia, this is definitely a case of WP:SHED. But, FWIW, as someone who actually had enough time on his hands to slog through the essays they've written on Talk:Adam Levine, I have to say that Bus stop exhibits (for whatever reason) a marked inability to communicate with others. Frequently he leaves replies that simply continue whatever he was saying previously as if no reply had actually been given, though he formats them as if there is a discussion occurring. That can be frustrating, and it would in my opinion be actionable if the issue being debated weren't hall-of-fame level triviality. For my part, I'm blocking people who edit war on Adam Levine and leaving it at that. Andy, if you are sure that more action is necessary, I think a user conduct RFC would be the next step. Regards, causa sui (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you may well see this as 'hall-of-fame level triviality'. If this was just about Adam Levine (who I didn't know from Adam anyone else before seeing a comment about the article on BLP/N), I'd just let Bus stop have his way, stamp Levine with a Jewish 'identity', and ignore the whole thing. But then he'll go on and do exactly the same thing somewhere else. And no, it isn't just about an ability to communicate with others. It is about an inability to actually perceive the subject of Wikipedia BLPs as anything other than subjects for his obsession. The only thing that matters is to classify them as 'Jew' or 'non-Jew' - and this is downright offensive. It makes no room for any nuances, exaggerates what is often a minor part of the subject's life (if relevant at all), and makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Bus stop isn't alone in this obsession with tagging people as members of some group or other, but others with similar proclivities are usually at least capable of communication. If I though that a RfC/U was likely to get anywhere, I'd support it - but I don't. Wikipedia already has policies and guidelines regarding the expected behaviour in article talk pages, but they simply aren't being enforced. We don't need to look into Bus stop's editing history, or anything else - it won't tell us anything we don't already know. He stonewalls, endlessly nit-picks over trivia, forum-shops and then drives everyone else away with his endless repetitions - and gets rewarded for his behaviour. His simple stubbornness usually results in 'concessions' to him that have nothing to do with the merits of his arguments. Maybe this is symptomatic of a fundamental flaw in the way Wikipedia works - but I don't think it needs to be. A willingness to actually deal with stonewalling non-communication by methods that don't themselves result in further prevarication would be a start. So, if anyone wants to start an RfC/U on Bus stop, I'll of course participate (though I think it would be better initiated by someone else, given our past history), but I don't think that this is likely to actually solve the fundamental problem, which is that Wikipedia rewards bad behaviour on talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop has a remarkable propensity for lengthy posts iterating his same few points - on any topic remotely connected with Judaism. See Talk:Judaism for examples, as well as innumerable noticeboard discussions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And he's at it again

Just as it looked like we were moving towards a consensus on the Adam Levine article, Bus stop has chosen to post another lengthy repetitive screed [150], where he totally ignores everything anyone else has written, drops any concessions to consensus, and restates a POV that has already been rejected as unacceptable. This is no longer merely tendentious - it seems to me that it is now a matter of basic competence. If we can't ban him from topics in general, can we at least ban him from this one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I have asked a question (or two) of you here. I believe it is on-topic. I don't believe you've addressed it before. I would appreciate if you would use the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, you are merely repeating the same points you have made many times before. Endless repetition isn't 'on topic'. Furthermore, this isn't the appropriate place to debate article content. I have complained here about your behaviour on the talk page, which I (and others as well, apparently) see as tendentious, and contrary to expected standards of behaviour. I would like to see your response to this. Do you accept that you have been in the wrong? And if not, can you explain why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you post at the Adam Levine article 24 hours ago that "the term 'Jewish' is ambiguous and contested".[151] On what do you base that?

I think there is a working model at Wikipedia: if reliable sources establish that a person is Jewish, that carries the greatest amount of weight. Also, no source is contesting that Adam Levine is Jewish.

Here (two weeks ago) you altered the Talk page heading at the Adam Levine article to read: "Is it Wikipedia's job to assert that someone has a Jewish 'Identity'?" I find at WP:TALK that "Section headings" should not be "one-sided".

I think that reliable sources are capable of establishing—for Wikipedia purposes—that a person is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, please read the comment I made immediately above your last post. Thanks however for providing further evidence for why you need to be sanctioned for tendentious editing (and forum shopping too: this thread isn't about article content) AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I had to dig back about a month, but you posted this diatribe:

"Nice try. A Jewish media source asks specific questions about his background. He gives polite answers to the questions asked. So this means that he accepts everything the Wikipedia ethnotaggers wish to state about him? Yeah, right. And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all? Logic might suggest at least partly (ethnically), but given the fact that the article (before I removed the ethnotagging) went out of its way to point out that his maternal grandmother wasn't Jewish, according to Halachic law, he isn't. I think this is nonsense, but the ethnotaggers tend to argue otherwise - except here they don't. I wonder why? - Actually, I don't. Sadly, Wikipedia suffers from a surfeit of POV-pushers and obsessives from all sorts of backgrounds, who will use whatever argument they can to slap a label on someone, regardless of what they argued the last time. If Adam Levine considers himself Jewish, and is proud of the fact, good for him - but that is for him to decide, not the Wikipedia Committee for Ethnobureacratic Classification and Stereotyping."[152]

Shouldn't you be "sanctioned" for the above? Bus stop (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

andy - both you and bus stop have serious issues of stuborness. andy you are no less responsible for the edit warring on the adam levine page than is bus stop. and each time we (you, him, me and other editors) get close to a consensus, you get angry at bus stop and bring to AN/I....stop it already. there is no reason for this. we have reached 99.9% consensus on what should be said. leave it. and stop running to here everytime you are uncomfortable. please. for all of our sakes... Soosim (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, that is a misrepresentation of the situation. Regarding consensus, as far as I'm aware we have reached it now. And as for Bus stop's last post, I think it merely serves to illustrate his problematic behaviour further. He is obviously trying to deflect attention from his own tendentiousness - and has been noted, he has been doing this on Judaism-related articles for years (long before I started editing Wikipedia). AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—how do you reconcile the following with Talk page guidelines?

"And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?"[153]

It is just an opinion. Do you make a distinction between your opinions and that which is supported by sources? WP:TALK says "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions…" Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it 'just an opinion', it isn't my opinion, as I make entirely clear in the rest of the paragraph. Learn to read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That little bout of incivility was wholly unnecessary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This entire thread would be entirely unnecessary if it were not for Bus stop's endless recycling of old arguments, misrepresentation of others' comments, and general tendentious obsessiveness. Given that he has chosen to repeat this here, in the very thread where I raised it (and also chosen not to respond in any way to the comments about his behaviour), I think it is only reasonable to conclude that he is either intentionally doing it to provoke people, or is entirely devoid of the social skills necessary to participate in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Either way, he needs to be shown the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

andy - again, please stop. bus stop, please stop. you both are equally at fault here, but andy, your response to me was 'it's all his fault.' fine, so be it. try to seek peace and pursue it. life is better that way. Soosim (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not both equally at fault here. Or if we are, where is the evidence? I am a little confused as to why you commented here at all, given that the discussion at the Adam Levine talk page seems to be resolved (at least in part due to your assistance, for which I thank you), and the only ongoing part of this thread seems to be bus stop's attempts to drag the issue up again here. If you want 'peace' then don't make negative comments about others without providing evidence to back it up. If you think there is a problem with my behaviour, you are of course permitted to raise it on this noticeboard, but please do it an appropriate manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "If you think there is a problem with my behaviour, you are of course permitted to raise it on this noticeboard, but please do it an appropriate manner."

Yes, there is a problem with your behavior. Not surprisingly it is a verbal problem. What is an "ethnotagger" and should I have to defend myself against charges of being an "ethnotagger"?

On the simplest level it is not even standard English—not to mention not based on any Wikipedia policy. Should I be tarred and feathered with, instead of feathers, the word "ethnotagger"?

I'm sure that you can put into standard language what it is that you wish to say in this regard. The shorthand is not conducive to dialogue, and nor do I want to want to converse in such a way that all we are doing is throwing verbal barbs back and forth. Do you know of any instances in which I have labeled you with inappropriate language? Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

O.k., if you prefer, I'll spell it out in plain English. You are obsessed with attaching the label 'Jewish' to people on the most dubious grounds, regardless of its relevance to the subject: "ethno" as a prefix meaning "of a people, culture etc", and "tagging" meaning "attaching a label to". Not hard to figure out, was it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with Bus's editing here. It consists of editing within the accurate policies of wp's rules. I think that Andy is mis-stating matters when he refers to Bus's actions as "dubious grounds". And, of course, the "obsession" accusation is not appropriate; if it were, one might see such accusations directed at Andy, from a glance at the diffs pointed to.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming to be a neutral observer here? Given that you, like Bus stop (even more so, I suspect) edit almost exclusively on a single subject, I hardly think that you are in any position to make comments regarding who is 'obsessed' by anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

True enough I have an example of Epeefleche caught in Amber being argumentative, tendentious, whiny, and finally unpleasant. John lilburne (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

• Bus stop to refrain from edits adding or removing ethnic identity other than as part of a significant expansion or new article for a period of one month. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Huge sock farm?

Resolved

 – Ok, got it --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

While watching the user creation log, I kept coming across newly created accounts with identical new user pages being done through Outreach:ACIP. This has been going on for months. I did a Google search for "Hello, my background is in biology, with a main interest in snakes." which appears on the user pages of all these accounts. The search came up with over 500 accounts. What is this? I can't imagine it's some class project; what class has 500+ students? A cursory scan of some of these accounts shows a few edits per, then nothing. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a sockfarm, it's a rather silly pre-loaded boilerplate text that the "outreach" mechanism offers new users as an example of what the userpage could contain, and many users never think of changing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. And here I thought the world was full of people with a "main interest in snakes". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool. So now I don't need to feel so bad about whacking spammers who like snakes, when before I thought they might actually have been real humans (who liked snakes). When can we start filtering on this and auto-blocking too? 8-)

Well, probably most of them are in fact real humans. Who in reality don't like snakes at all, and never noticed this is now being claimed about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts: first, does anybody know where that text is actually defined? (Somewhere in the MediaWiki namespace? A template? Some .js file?) I want to go and vandalise it. Second, do we all agree that such a userpage, if it's remained untouched by its owner, can be summarily deleted or blanked? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

many editors never bother with looking at their user page. There isn't any really strong reason todo so, especially if one only intends to edit a little (at first). But deleting it can send a very wrong message. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, found it. Apparently it's in MediaWiki:Customusertemplate-ACP1-welcomecreation. But strangely, I just tried out creating an account, but never got to that page. How do new users get there? – Fut.Perf.Sock aka Not Actually Interested In Snakes (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Shucks, I was going to put them all on a plane ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

For a while there I too was trying to figure out why there was a sudden flood of bilingual herpetologists... at the very least, why is it that we have a place for them to put a picture of themselves? I haven't seen a single user do it yet, and I somehow doubt I will. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of the corporate accounts (who quickly get blocked) put their company logo there. No individual editor has used that spot, though. Most don't change the sample text either (hence all of the new editors who seem to like snakes). Singularity42 (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So are we now "The the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided you don't suffer from Ophidiophobia" ? - Arjayay (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm crushed by such a venomous response :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks and dubious image uploads

I have a problem with OberRanks (talk · contribs), formerly known as Husnock (talk · contribs), about dubious image copyrights. This is a user of long standing and a former admin, but with a troubled past, and I am afraid he may be back to his bad old ways now. In 2006/2007 there was a painful affair involving poor image uploads and unreliable copyright claims, escalating into a desysoping and a pattern of sockpuppetry, during which then-Husnock entangled himself in an ever more embarrassing net of lies. Some relevant links: Arb case, AN thread, AN thread, troubled return under new name.

Here are his most recent uploads:

• File:1stuniforms.jpg: a schematic drawing of an 18th-century British uniform. Uploaded on 31 August.
  • The true source of this image is nba-sywtemplates.blogspot.com, an amateur site specialising in the production of such graphics, where it is released under a non-commercial-only license. The authorship claim of this site is very credible and consistent with the whole nature of that site.
  • OberRanks initially named as a source "National Maritime Museum (...) http://www.nmm.ac.uk/" (i.e. a museum in Greenwich, UK), author: "Naval Historical Research Staff", released as {{PD-author}}. No specific source link to the file was given.
  • There is no trace of this file, or indeed anything resembling its kind, on the website of this museum. No explanation has been given what a national museum would even be doing with an amateur-produced drawing like this, and why the museum would claim authorship on it when it was clearly created elsewhere. The museum has numerous photographs of similar uniforms, but nowhere uses drawings of them.
  • On being challenged with a {{di-no permission}}, OberRanks claimed that "[i]t was e-mailed to me from them about six to eight months ago, specifically their Naval History Research section" (evidently, in context, referring to the UK museum.) [154]. He also claimed that he had already forwarded the relevant mails "to Wikipedia", and promised that he would do so again, sending them to OTRS.
  • Asked for clarification, he later stated that he actually hadn't sent the information to "Wikipedia", but to an unnamed administrator. He also stated he had asked his original source to send permission again. [155][156]
  • Strangely, at this point, that contact person no longer seemed to be at the Naval Museum in London, but at the National Archives (NARA) in the US, the institution where OberRanks himself says he's employed. OberRanks has never explained this inconsistency. There is also again no explanation why anybody at NARA would even bother to handle an amateur-produced image that they clearly didn't create themselves and that has no relation to their own holdings, exhibits and online material.
  • OberRanks has evaded questions for further explanation. He has refused to name the administrator to whom he allegedly sent the earlier permission mails; he has not fulfilled his promise to forward these mails to OTRS; and the contact person at the archive has also not been heard from again.
• File:RnOriginal.jpg: a photograph of a 18th century British navy uniform, uploaded after the discussion about the previous file, on 7 September.
  • Now, this file, ironically, is in fact from the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich [157]. This is certainly the original source, since it is a photo of a physical exhibit owned by that museum. It is clearly marked as copyrighted (© National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London) and non-free.
  • This time, OberRanks claimed it was sourced to yet another unrelated institution, the "U.S. Navy Historical Center" in Washington, and released under {{PD-USGov}}. He gave a postal address of that institution as a source for verifying the permission, but again no link to a use of the file on their website. Again, there is no explanation why a US Navy institution would be claiming authorship on an image that was clearly not created by them, and why they would bother to distribute such files privately to individuals when they are apparently not part of their own holdings or online exhibition.
  • Again, OberRanks has refused to forward the pertinent mails to OTRS. He has again claimed to have asked his source to instead write to OTRS directly [158], but again no such permission seems to have materialized (although, to be fair, this was only a day ago.)
  • On realizing that he wouldn't find much support among administrators, he retracted the image, claiming he now believed "it was lifted off the Internet and then e-mailed to me" [159][160]. Thus he has denied any responsibility for the copyvio for himself, and instead blamed it on his anonymous alleged source. Given the fact that he had previously claimed three different institutions as having provided him with material, he has thus implied that three different people, all professional archivists, researchers or librarians, in three high-profile national institutions of the US and UK, all committed copyright violations for his sake.

At this point, I have a strong suspicion OberRanks is not telling us the truth about these images, and I have told him as much [161]. OberRanks is clearly unhappy I have drawn the connection with his prior troubles, but the similarity of the apparent problems then and now seems so strong I believe it is quite pertinent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought this matter was closed [162]. Bringing up the Husnock account is also completely irrelevant and strikes of WP:BATTLE. That was a very complicated situation from nearly five years ago when I was deployed to the Middle East and under a great deal of both personal and professional stress. It was resolved long ago by working with several administrators and has nothing to do with any edits on Wikipedia today. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is slightly relevant, in that you flamed out then in a cloud of mendacity, and the current situation is due to an alleged lack of honesty in image rights. Actually I am not convinced your errors here are deliberate but more likely due to lack of proper diligence. Either way the problem with copyright needs fixed, and having mentioned Husnock here I think Fut. Perf. may now safely tajke it as read that we remember the situation and do not need to be reminded of it again. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing TFD discussions and TFD tags

Betty Logan has asked me to report this problem to ANI. This user continues to remove the TFD tag, and a TFD discussion from WP:TFD, see Special:Contributions/Betty_Logan. I have asked this user to stop, but he/she continues. I had originally attempted to help fix the errors with the template in question, but this user claimed WP:OWNership. If this is a user experiment, then put it in user space, but individual users do not own templates in template space. The constant reversions and removal of TFD templates and discussions is completely against policy. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is possibly resolved now that User:Reaper Eternal has stepped in. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You made a change to the template, Betty reverted you... and you made it again with the edit summary "rv per WP:OWN"? That is completely inappropriate. Accusing someone of ownership does not give you a free pass to ignore WP:BRD and start an edit war. 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Betty should not have removed the TFD tag. That's clear. Repeated instances of that are a reason for warnings and eventual block.

The rationale at the TFD and these three edits should earn Frietjes (talk · contribs) a WP:TROUT at least for dramatically escalating this situation.

Everyone just needs to calm down. Betty: keep working on the template, it's not hurting anything and not going anywhere, for days if ever. — Scientizzle 18:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(Moved here from WP:AN, where I edit-conflicted with Scientizzle in his close.) I warned Betty Logan for edit warfare since she persistently removed the TFD tag and blanked the TFD nomination, something that is not allowed. It had nothing to do with the template's content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Frietjes, let me add: nominating the template for deletion because your edits were rejected strikes me as poor form (and quite trout-worthy, as Scientizzle suggests above.) Betty does not own the template, but neither do you: you do not get to force in contentious changes without discussion. If you have other changes you think should be made to the template, I strongly suggest using its talk page to suggest them rather than trying to edit-war them in. 28bytes (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Harrassment by editor Frietjes

The debate revolves around this template I have been developing over the last few days. It creates collapsible elements for a table as can been seen in my sandbox here. The creation of this template is the result of this discussion to add collapsible elements to a table. This was the result of a long discussion and the collapsible table was the result of a consensus. However, the code is complex, and require data to be input several times, hence the creation of the template to facillitate data entry. This is clearly not a "user experiment", I have developed a template that will be in the table on the main article. As you can see it is not quite ready yet, there are one or two things left to be sorted out. However, Frietjes made some alterations to the template that covered up the wiki rendering, which I subsequently reverted because I need to see the wiki rendering for the templates it uses. Accusations of WP:OWN are absurd, since he doesn't know what the template is supposed to do, has not taken part in any of the discussion on the design of the collapsible table, and how can I develop it if he keeps changing stuff that I need to see in order to finish off the development? This is completely avoidable, it will be finished in a couple of days and will then be used in the article. Any design changes will be discussed on the article talk page and accommodated if that is the will of the editors. Now he has nominated it for deletion, which is ridiculous for a template that is being developed for a clear designed purpose. I don't know why he is harrassing an editor who is trying to do something positive on Wikipedia, and reflects a consensus on an article that he didn't participate in. This kind of intrusion makes it very difficult to develop the template for article use. It is not currently used anywhere else, it harms no-one where it is, why aren't I being left to finish its development so it can then be used? Betty Logan (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You are developing something in template space, as such anyone can edit it. That is a key element of the wiki. Your comment that he had no reason to touch it since you were editing it does sound like a bit of an ownership issue. If you don't want others to touch it you should probably develop it in your own sandbox instead of in template space where you will get other editors editing it. I would also note that just because you created the article doesn't give you the right to edit war removing a tfd notice from the page either. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the possible 3RR issues at this point, one suggestion that might help - mark the Template page with one of the "under construction" templates, provided the template is currently undergoing frequent editing by you. Doniago (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Betty, please do take the above comments into consideration. If you want to ensure a "private" work environment in the future, please utilize your own userspace and/or {{underconstruction}}. Never edit-war over an XfD tag, no matter how meritless you may consider it--the community has a pretty decent track-record of rejecting inadequate deletion rationales in fairly short order. — Scientizzle 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that blanking a sour grapes deletion discussion for a page under construction falls squarely within WP:IAR. Going through the full process to get to a snowball / procedural keep the sake of process is pointless. Perhaps a little better communication in the collaborative spirit would help all around. If you get off your procedural horse and just ask for patience, how could anyone say you're not allowed to debug a template you're working on? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Because a nomination even if it is sour grapes may be a reasonable nomination and we still have to go through and find that out. The creator of the article/template can't just decide for themselves that it is. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• In retrospect I probably should have developed it in my sandbox, but it never occurred to me that editors would want to edit a template that is currently not in use on any article. When you are developing a couple of templates in conjunction, sometimes it is easier to do it in template space so you don't have to alter the template names in the code, or at least have them redirecting through my sandbox, or edit them after the fact. Basically it was just easier, and it was only going to take a few days. If you look at the edits my reasons for reverting him are pretty clear i.e. I need to see the template rendering to finish off developing it. Even that is difficult now because I have AFD tags getting in the way of my test cases because they won't allow me to remove the tag from the template. Anyway, I'm sorry for removing the deletion nomination, I won't do it again, and I will develop templates in my sandbox from now on, but I'm just a bit disappointed at Frietjes's actions (because personally speaking I wouldn't thwart an editor's actions to create what could be a useful template), and even more so with ReaperEternal. I think this was one of those situations where an admin could have simply done a bit more than just hand out 3rr warnings, and asked the other editor leave alone until it was at least finished. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:136.152.179.109

This IP (and numerous similar variable IPs) began editing around 17:07 on September 8th. It suddenly accused me of blanking a userpage. Since I had no history with the IP in question, I warned them for an improper warning, which has since resulted in hounding at my talk page as well as at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism regarding a completely unrelated issue. The IP has even admitted that they are using a system that generates variable IPs, yet is consistently hounding me. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:AGF, and consider listening to other users instead of misusing rollback. There is no administrative action to be taken against this user. Also please don't remove comments concerning your reports at AIV. Such removals will get an army of admins reviewing your recent activity instead of the user you reported. Thanks. No sympathy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

@zzuuzz: The issue here is where the original issue came up, which is unknown. Because the location was not referenced, I warned the IP for an invalid warning which has since spawned this. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you think it was entirely unconnected to your edits, like random or something? Could you have though about it a bit more or made a query? I'll say what I've said many a time before - IP users are often the ones you should listen to the most. Please afford them a little respect. And there is still no admin action to be had here, so perhaps we can all get back to looking at the user you initially reported to AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly that; I viewed the history and saw it as a new IP that I had no history with. What started all this was a mistake rollback (rather than content removal); I agree that this can be done with at this point. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The section header of my initial message to you was poorly phrased; it was not actually about you blanking other people's pages, it was about you reverting other people blanking their own pages. It was directly in response to your reversion of Grebe's blanking of his userpage in this diff. It was thus also directly relevant to your AIV report on Grebe. Although I erred in not linking you to a specific diff, I assumed you would know what it was about because my edit to your talk page was less than five minutes after you reverted Grebe's blanking of his own page. I gave you a heads-up that you shouldn't editwar on with other users on their own talkpages, you reverted my warning as 'vandalism' and gave then gave the IP an incorrect warning template telling them not to use incorrect warning templates. I posted on your talk page again pointing out that you removed a policy-based relatively friendly notice as 'vandalism' and handed out an incorrect warning template for it - and you replied accusing me of violating NPA.

I'm editing from an academic network that consistently changes IP's and there is nothing wrong with that, please see WP:IP's are human too. Also, you did not notify me of this report as required. (Please note, I do have a user account, I just sometimes RC patrol when I'm not logged in while I'm in class. I have had no previous interaction with Calabel and I don't see telling someone they are violating policy as problematic - so editing while logged out is not be a violation of WP:SOCK. I will disclose my user account to any CU or admin who really wants to know.) 136.152.129.144 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I placed a notice on one of your other IPs, not knowing which one you were presently on. Had you pointed out where you were talking about, I probably wouldn't have warned you in the first place. Over and out. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, what I was attempting to do on Grebe's page was revert his addition of copied>pasted material. The rollback therefore re-generated the warnings, incidentally. Now I'm really over and out. ;) Calabe1992 (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you did now, I missed it before - but it's odd that you notified that IP and not this one. You knew it was a shared educational IP that I was no longer using, you knew what IP I was currently on (because I was posting actively on your talk page,) and I'd told you that posting further warnings/messages there would do nothing but confuse other users. It was technically acceptable to notify me there, I guess - but it seems kind of bad faith.

There was nothing wrong with the content Grebe added to his own page. Are you seriously suggesting that there is something wrong with quoting a Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia when linking the source/attribution? That meets all of the GFDL's requirements and it would be absurd to say you can't quote Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia :/. BTW, I've only used two IPS (just pointing that out because some of your comments make it sound like every one of my posts uses a new one.)

Please be more careful in the future about what you use rollback on, what templated warnings you post, and what comments of other users you remove. When someone shows up on your talk page telling you they think you did something wrong and linking to specific policies about it, try to engage with them and figure out what they were talking about instead of just ANI'ing them. 136.152.129.144 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I recognized your new IP as, well, just that, a new IP, and didn't recognize any edit like what was described, and therefore warned it to stop posting incorrect warnings, and so on. Now I see what's going on here. BTW, the incorrect rollback has been edited; I know that removing warnings from your own page is not against policy. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You had only made five edits today at that point, and only one of them restored a warning in someone else's userspace. I definitely should've linked a diff, but I did say "Do not edit war with someone to restore warnings in their own user space" and it's still bizarre to me that you didn't get what it was about. Even so, please be more careful with what you label vandalism as well as what you give templated warnings for. Even an incorrect warning cannot be described as vandalism, and even if you think the warning is bad you should not use a template abuse template for a nontemplated warning. It's also never a good idea (and is against policy) to remove other peoples' comments about yourself at places like AIV unless they are 100% obviously trolling - and even then you should really let someone uninvolved do it. Please review the relevant policies that govern what it is and isn't okay to rollback or label as vandalism. And again, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the content Grebe put on his own page - it was not any form of copyright or policy violation. Even with IP users you need to assume good faith. Anyway, anyone wandering by this should feel free to go ahead and hat it unless Calabe objects. 136.152.129.144 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The messiah is here

Resolved

 – Blocked by Orangemike. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Josjoha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

As far as I can tell from his rambling edits [163][164] this guy thinks he's the messiah. Or something like that. And he's using Wikipedia talk pages to notify the world of this. No, really. Now, I have no particular opinion on whether that's true, but I'm quite certain that this is not what Wikipedia article talk pages is for so I reverted both of these edits. His response to this was to post a rant at his talk page that looks like one part antisemitism ("When will the jews stop their treason?"), two parts personal attack ("fool" "shmug" "you stink") and a dash of possible legal threat ("never heard of diligence in matters of law"). It's all very hard to make sense of and I'm not sure if I'm being threatened, insulted, attacked or trolled.

This is a new account, and I'm not sure if it's premature to ask for an indef, but believe me, nothing good is going to come from it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple troll is all. You'd get a quicker response had you just gone to AIV and reported it as a vandal only account though :) Colofac (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It reads like either someone going through a really bad manic episode or just a general troll; either way, keeping him around isn't going to be productive. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 19:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request for IPadWanderer

IPadWanderer (talk · contribs) is a new editor who had the misfortune to post to an open AfD and has now been indef blocked as a sock, of the AfD'ed article's creator. This is a bad block. Checkuser was inconclusive - it appears their IP is simply a different ISP altogether. Behavioural evidence is far too minor to support any claim of WP:DUCK. In a campaign of several heated AfDs (one editor, with support from a second, has taken it upon themself to delete pretty much everything created by the original editor) the blocked new editor contributed entirely properly to one of these AfDs.

An unblock request has since been denied, on the grounds that the request didn't address the claim of socking - a claim that two other editors have both agreed just doesn't stand up.

Accordingly I bring this to AN/I. It's a bad block, and now it looks as if we're closing ranks to avoid admitting we made a mistake. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree that's a very bad block. It doesn't seem likely that it's a sock account given that it was created the day before Geek2003 made the post on the AfD. Yes it could be good planning, but is it really likely that someone would go to that much trouble to add one extra vote to an AfD on such an unimportant topic? The only odd edit is this one, and that's more likely to be the kind of n00b mistake that many editors make. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The checkuser was ran on 3 September 2011, so I took another look. Based on an edit made since then, on 6 September 2011, I think it  Likely that IPadWanderer is Geek2003. AGK [•] 11:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I do wish we'd drop this idea that CheckUser is anything other than a waste of time. It doesn't prove anything at all and is simply used as a shield for blocks like this one. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, install a MediaWiki and run CU http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser. It works.--Cerejota (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have done. It works fine, as long as people don't have dynamic IP addresses and no two people from the same ISP edit the same wiki. Otherwise you get shed loads of false positives. It's a crap tool. Absconded Northerner (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you get a lot more false negatives. The chances that two people, with exactly the same editing environment, behavior, and ISP, edit the same article are statistically impossible. CU catches all the amateur hour socks, has serious problems finding more sophisticated ones. It works, and anyone with a Wikimedia deployment knows it works.--Cerejota (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser throws up more false negatives, but it can throw false positives too - I've been on the end of one myself, hitting an IP-space vandalism block. If you have a corporate environment, it's very likely that the IP seen by WMF servers is that of a proxy, not a user. The environment may also be one from a corporate managed desktop, where everyone's browser is forced into the same Mao suit. Combine that with an interest (not necessarily a COI) for the company's own products, or in my case, edit-warring over the HQ home town's football team, and you have false positives that can look alike to Checkuser. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Checkusers don't confirm accounts as each other just because they edit from the same ISP.... If that were true, half of Wikipedians would be socks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!1!! AGK [•] 14:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the block based on behavioral grounds, namely how they edited the same articles (Avaya IP Phone 1140E and Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones) in the same period of time. For what it's worth, my block was not based on the AFD. It's true that the CU came back as possible last time, but now it's likely, so that seals the deal even more for me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit history to Avaya IP Phone 1140E [165] does not look like socking, just from the interleaving of the edits on 2nd September alone. As to the Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones, they made only one edit, to remove a simple duplicated word typo. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, what I meant is that the technical (checkuser) data of his edit on 6 Sept 11 meant I could make a match. The behavioural link is less clear, which is the type of situation in which CU data can be especially useful. Regards, AGK [•] 14:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is typical for Wikipedia. Basically, Checkuser is a way to hide the decisions of bad admins from proper scrutiny. The sequence always goes: Admin makes bad decision -> Checkuser supports that decision -> decision upheld. And of course the results of the CU can't be released because that would implicate the original admin be a breach of privacy. It's a joke. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you know of a better tool for that particular job, I'm sure WMF would be happy to hear from you regarding it. If not, I'd suggest you keep your passive-aggressive faux concern off the noticeboard, and off Wikipedia. Have you ever read WP:CHK? If not, read it. It's quite enlightening. Rather than belittling a tool which is restricted in both visibility and scope to protect the majority of Wikipedia users, try actually improving Wikipedia in some way. And remember that Wikipedia, with a number of exceptions that can likely be counted on the finger of one finger and have a finger left over, is a volunteer effort. I have nothing more to say on the matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The status of Wikipedia as a volunteer project is irrelevant to the qualities of the CheckUser tool, and I don't really see why you bring it up. Checkuser has limited use in cases where somebody is socking from the same IP, but beyond that it's largely useless. I say this based on my experience of CheckUser on two different wikis, using several different versions of the tool up to and including the latest (not going to say which wikis because that would pretty much give my identity away). Your defense of it is based on what exactly? And I'm not being passive-aggressive, I'm aggressively stating that the weight given to CU results is undue, given the incredibly limited results it returns. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd intended to step away from the "discussion" (and I use that word loosely at this point), but I do need to note that you have neatly avoided my question. Do you have, or know of, a suitable replacement for the CU tool which would serve the purpose better? And since you brought it up, albeit indirectly, has the use of the current CU tool, under current policy, affected you directly? The latter question appears to be very pertinent considering your vehemence that CU is useless at best. It makes me (and possibly others, though I can only speak for myself) think that you may have been indicated or implicated in a WP:SPI at some point in the past, either accurately or inaccurately. I'll also point out that CU is a tool, nothing more, and the results of the use of that tool is subject to interpretation by its users, and is therefore limited in usage to editors who have demonstrated to the community that they can be trusted to accurately judge when to use CU (and, by extension, when NOT to use it) and properly gauge those results. Given the significant restrictions on that tool's use under WP:CHK, your "aggressive" position that its results are "given undue weight" lends even more weight to the question. Additionally, although admittedly subjectively, I find your position completely ignores WP:AGF, which is in what WP:CHK is grounded. And finally, I would be ecstatic if the raison d'etré for CU would disappear completely, and in so doing, obviating the need for CU itself. I don't see that happening as long as Wikipedia itself exists, so to close the loop, I'll ask again if you have or know of a tool that would do a better job. That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't answer you before because it's another irrelevant question - something of a specialty of yours it seems. The availability of a different tool is totally orthogonal to the accuracy and utility of CheckUser. You don't seem to have read my comment properly either - I clearly state that I have used CU myself, which is how I know it's useless. I've also seen enough cases here where CU is, essentially, being abused. In the original case here, a user was blocked after a "Possible, but inconclusive" SPI. This is typical of how CheckUser is used on this site - to back up a bad decision no matter what the result actually is. Since you obviously haven't used CheckUser yourself and seem simply to be doing the usual wagon-circling job that always occurs when someone has the temerity to criticise an admin, I'm not going to bother discussing this matter further. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"I clearly state that I have used CU myself" Can you clarify? When? How do you know CU is completely IP based? What about browser signatures which combined with an IP and a date make things pretty clear. Since you have no better tool, then surely you will admit that CU is better than behavioral evidence. Honestly, all I see from you is the same "wagon circling" that you claim N5lin to be doing and you've provided absolutely zero technical support for your argument.--v/r - TP 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Please read my comments before responding to them. Absconded Northerner (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I already did. Since you have nothing to add, I'll assume that's the end of your knowledge on the subject. Good day.--v/r - TP 20:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You obviously didn't, or you wouldn't have asked a question that I already answered. Since nobody is prepared to make any sensible suggestions, I'm not going to bother following this thread any further. Messages on my talk page will find me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I read "my experience of CheckUser on two different wikis" and I asked you to clarify. Being vague does not answer a question. Asking for clarification is not asking a question already answered. The most I can ascertain is that perhaps you've installed two different copies somewhere but you weren't clear on that. I'd know to know your background with CU and I've asked you to detail it. If you can't, then I am satisfied that I was right and your technical knowledge of this tool is limited to the words already expressed above.--v/r - TP 23:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you haven't read my comments: "Since nobody is prepared to make any sensible suggestions, I'm not going to bother following this thread any further. Messages on my talk page will find me." Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Like your previous comments I did read it, and also like your previous contents I was critical of it's message. As your lastest comments prove that you are still following this thread, my criticism of anything you say is well founded.--v/r - TP 00:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

for what it is worth, avaya puppetry is going on

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ManagementMan/Archive - also failed CU, but HelloAnnyong concurred that meatballs were being made.

Hey I will be the first to admit paranoia, but all this recurring drama at Avaya/Lucent out-of-production tech cannot be a coincidence. I respectfully ask you godly possesors of The Mop, look into the sacred scrolls of The Cabal and root these dude(S) out. In my view this is a train to ArbCom if not dealt with sensibly...--Cerejota (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

it will be a pity to lose this information, but in almost all cases this should have been written as combination articles, not individual products, which are very rarely able to show notability here in the absence of excellent review sources. That the person involved insisted on continuing to write in this manner after all the criticism and deletions is disappointing, as is the resort to socking. I urged him early on (under whatever name--I forget which he was using at the time) to combine the articles himself before they got nominated for deletion, and advised him that entering multiple articles of this sort in this manner at the same time is almost always going to get them deleted. Many people doing this sort of PR work learn quickly--he didn't. People sometimes simply don't know what to do, and an ideal response upon seeing the articles might have been for us to combine them. But it's very difficult for us to be so proactive when faced with the multitude of bad articles. I sometimes try to fix things like this, but in this case there were just too many--and I'm more likely to want to help out an editor who is more cooperative. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC) .

Are you suggesting that IPadWanderer is either a COI account or a meatpuppet of those mentioned here? If not, I fail to see what relevance that has to this issue - which is about a bad block of an uninvolved editor, not some greater investigation into other socking. I note also that there is no allegation made that Geek2003 is involved in any such events.

If this stuff is relevant, then say so and round up the culprits accordingly. Otherwise it's far too close to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the oversize drama in the avaya topic area on the part of SPA, means there is sufficiently reasonable cause to believe a concerted effort to influence the Avaya topic area, and that this effort is sophisticated enough that it can beat CU cursory investigation, and that regardless if this block was a good or bad one, it was a good faith attempt to protect the wiki. We all make mistakes, but we shouldn't be so quick to jump in and scream "BAD BLOCK" without more than a cursory investigation into the issues. Along with encouraging responsible and respectful PR people who follow WP:NOPAY we should discourage irresponsible WP:GAME meatpuppetry.--Cerejota (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I unequivocally consider it a bad block, done without adequately investigating the circumstances. I was also discussing the underlying issue of the less than cooperative insertion of these articles in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you're an admin, can you not simply unblock on your own authority? It will be interesting to see whether or not this new user even bothers to come back, given its unambiguously negative reception so far. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will not undo another admin's block once the matter has been brought here, regardless of what I think of it, unless there is clear consensus from previously uninvolved people that I should do so. That's the sort of unblock that ends up at arb com. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This does not look like a good block. The editor's contributions were not disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

legal threats for "illegal" image

Resolved

 – Blocked by OrangeMike.--v/r - TP 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

KirthMersenne (talk · contribs), previously 70.109.144.96 (talk · contribs). "Reverting to again show the image will be an illegal act that will be imputed to Wikipedia, but also to you. Google on "2257 record keeping requirements" to learn more."[166]. He is disputing sexual images File:Autofellatio6.jpg and File:Fluffer_on_set.jpg, both hosted on Commons and both showing a template saying it fullfills the requirements of the "Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act warning".

Autofellatio should be semi-protected for a few days. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mugginsx is using sources from a fringe site to suppress reliable sources

When I first responded to this user in WP:BLPN, I thought I was dealing with a dangerous misconception that suppressed a reliable source for no reason, but I did not know it was part of a dangerous attitude and possibly part of an effort to discredit mainstream press sources. Typicallky this user will oppose news source X [widely-accepted as RS] using WP:SYNTHESIS to pull statements from user-generated videos posted on a problematic website (caseyanthonyisinnocent.com) to advance a new argument, arguments not echoed on any other reliable source.

Example: no news source says that a witness (Krystal Holloway) for Caylee Anthony case recanted. Mugginsx tries to use caseyanthonyisinnocent.com videos that said witness did actually recant or "effectively recanted" or "in other words, recanted", using legal dictionary definitions, saying the judge "threw out her testimony" for "prior inconsistent statements". This proves to be more than an argument about semantics as other editors on Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 10 found out that such recanting did not occur and that (based on three reliable sources) the judge actually told the jury that Krystal's testimony could only be used to judge the credibility of another witness, not judge whether Casey was guilty.

When I edited the Death of Caylee Anthony article on September 1st, the source caseyanthonyisinnocent.com, which I assume was inserted by Mugginsx, was still used in article space!

In a BLPN archive here, the user can be seen attempting to suppress other reliable sources (four references from mainstream news sources!) using similar original research. The user was successful at convincing others to accept the suppression of these references, but the others were doing it out of compromise with this very tendentious editor -- a suppression which was alarming to me and which I later reversed. The only person who called me out about it however, was Mugginsx, who unrelentingly attacked me on my unrelated RFC and attempted to coerce me with legalism into retraction of a statement where I had mentioned that the user should edit based on "verifiability, not truth".

This user indeed, seems very concerned about "the truth" and will call for the suppression of reliable sources in order to pursue "the truth". I find this very alarming. In this archive, the user pushes for a statement that reads: "Information retrieved from a flawed software detection system was presented by Prosecutor at trial and erroneously show that someone in the Anthony family had searched for chloroform several times...." (Words bolded by me for emphasis).

The user time and time again tries to use his "paralegal experience" to bludgeon others in disputes: "You will have to trust me on this because this is one thing that I really know about. I have been at these kinds of trials, done criminal paralegal work, looked at sworn statements, listened to contentious testimony". [167] In the same archive, the user tries to discount secondary sources in favour of his interpretations of primary sources: "Since the newspaper have slanted the story, the trial tapes are the main source and maybe the only source."

I would pursue this issue by normal dispute resolution means except it appears that the user is unrelenting in his harassment of me and uses legalistic language bordering on legal threats to get me to retract. Use of such quasi-legalistic language (that falls short of an explicit threat) was also noted by User:Carolmooredc here. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I was asked to comment here. I edited that article for a few days last month, and it was clear that more than one editor was trying to prove a thesis in either direction. Editors should choose a small range of the best-quality sources that reported on the trial in-depth (e.g. Reuters, which had a dedicated trial reporter), and stick closely to what they say. The editing situation I saw was that random sources were being used to prove each and every point that might push the article in one POV direction or another; it's never a good idea to use sources like this, but in this article it's particularly ill-advised because the reporting of the trial was very poor.

  Muggins is right that the trial is the best source, but it has to be used carefully as a primary source—purely descriptively—which is not how Muggins always used it. As an example of that, Holloway did not recant; that's one example of the OR I saw. Where views differ as to how to interpret the primary source, the best secondary sources should be used to settle the issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with the RfC, La goutte de pluie does describe just some of the problems on the Death of Caylee Anthony article caused particularly by the hyper-active behavior of Mugginsx. If people find this behavior of concern, I can provide more diffs to support her comments. (I could go into other behaviors but don't have energy to come up with dozens of diffs. I have been considering bringing various issues here for a few weeks.)

Note that USer:Conti finally deleted the "caseyanthonyisinnocent" video links as possible "parodys" at this diff, and the one following. And while I knew that trial videos could probably be found at more reliable sources, noting that would have brought up yet another round of hysterical accusations, denials, etc. from Mugginsx that I didn't have the time or energy for.

I have been hoping that all the arguing I've done - plus the necessity to go to WP:BLP in the above named "Defamation" issue - has cooled Mugginsx enthusiasm for using her own interpretations of videos (for which she only started providing timestamps after much badgering) over what is said by reliable sources; or her insistence that a WP:RS that happens to contain even court or legal documents describing negative things about non-notable persons cannot be used at all. Any discussion here certainly might encourage her not to replace WP:RS with WP:OR, claiming her legal expertise gives her the right to do so.

There is no doubt that, as SlimVirgin says, WP:RS can be misused. However, as I proved with the Krystal Holloway paragraph, if you read a few of them you can figure out what happened. If someone then wants to prove something right or wrong using video of the trial, fine. But if they refuse to provide time stamps and transcripts of whatever minor point they are trying to prove, that's problematic. Also, a possible parody site like CaseyAnthonyisInnocent which has multiple short clips of one person's testimony easily might have edited the beginnings and ends of videos in a problematic way. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That was another big issue with the way Muggins was using video as a source. We need links that go directly to the video, with a precise time stamp, but during the few days I was at the article, those details weren't offered, which made finding things very awkward. But it's also important to watch the entire testimony to make sure nothing is being taken out of context. This is why editing that article involves a lot of work, and why finding a small number of key, trustworthy secondary sources is so important. It's easy to say, "look, Holloway seems to prevaricate here, or seems to agree with Jeff Ashton there." But in fact, if you watch her testimony from start to finish, she does not recant, and I haven't seen any good secondary source (i.e. a source with a dedicated and trained court reporter) say otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mugginsx

• This is a retaliatory action by this former administrator and troubling editor La goutte de plurie to deflect from a false statement that she made about me and refuses to retract. The falsehood she made about was here - (not at the discussionboard she was never a part of), but here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources.2C_not_the_.22truth.22 It states that I made a statement about "blacklisting WP:RS to pursue my paralegal agenda".

Another administrator asked la goutte de plurie to prove that I made this statement and was apparently ignored so, it was closed by Administrator Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise as unsubstantiated. See same link above. At that time she also refused to answer Hans Adler and Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise there, at her talk page, and at her bad conduct discussion board linked in next paragraph.

Some of the other issues that she misstates above is her false interpretation of issues resolved long before this at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS. The statement she claims and she refuses to retract is not found where she stated it was, or anywhere else for that matter, because I never said it.

The rest of her statements are a diversionary tactic from her numerous problems here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/La_goutte_de_pluie#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/La_goutte_de_pluie#Continuing_Bad_Conduct here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive715 and other places. She is angry that I continue to ask for a retraction and that is why she brought me here to waste everyone's time and to get attention.

• As to la goutte de plurie allegations of my "suppression of reliable sources" please show where I suppressed any reliable sources or retract the allegation.

As to la goutte de plurie allegation that I use "fringe sources" please show where I have used fringe sources or retract the allegation.

• As la goutte de plurie's Example listed above:

CarolMooredc, who is the editor of some of the material la goutte de plurie mentions, is the subject which la goutte de pluie was also never involved in. To briefly explain that mention, CarolMooredc initially insisted on inserting a factually incorrect paragraph concerning the testimony of a woman named Krystal Holloway. The paragraph, as she first edited it, accused George Anthony, a living person, of covering up a murder or accidental death of his granddaughter which I tried to discuss with her and finally removed as a WP:BLP violation. That conversation begins here at:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_6#Krystal_Holloway and is continued through several talk pages on the article Death of Caylee Anthony until she finally changed her paragraph through the intervention of Administrator Slim Virgin who had watched the trial, and the complete trial testimony of Krystal Holloway, not just the part that CarolMooredc initially inserted a month prior. When she presented it, and we all agreed it was correct, I commended CarolMooredc for it, though, in truth, it was a long and hard battle to convice her because she did not have sound on her computer and did not listen to the long and contenuous testimony. She was also opposed to video testimony until Slim Virgin convinced her that it was appropriate and even essential in this particular testimony. It was also backed up by good references provided by Slim Virgin.

As an aside, due to constant conflict with CarolMooredc on this article, and the several noticeboards which she brought me to, one which was shut down after my one paragraph answer to show HER falsehood, I decided to leave the article and am very happy to go back to my medieval articles. This is the first and last legal article I ever want to be involved in editing. I retired my legal career many years ago and was not happy to revist the horrors of a murder trial and the disagreements with editor CarolMooredc.

• As to Slim Virgin's statement that Krystal Holloway did not recant, she is correct, however Ms. Holloway tried very hard NOT to say the second statement which exonerated George Anthony from having any foreknowledge of a crime, since, in her version that she sold to the Examiner, she stated only the first statement which clearly DID incriminate him. Further, I think we have a misunderstanding as to the difference as to what CarolMooredc originally put in the first edit back in July and what was discussed later with her good intervention. To explain this accusation I must revisit CarolMooredc edits from the beginning and compare to the true testimony said at trial.

Ms. Holloway initially told the Defense, who called her as a Witness, that George Anthony has told her (concerning the death of Caylee Anthony) that "it was an accident that snowballed out of control." What Krystal Holloyway said in her sworn police statement and the Prosecutor on the stand was that "George Anthony told her that he thought it was an accident that went wrong and Casey tried to cover it up.. She goes back and forth with the testimony but when asked to read her sworn statement she states the complete truth which is that he said both statements. She also states that he also said the previous testimony but admits that George Anthony never said "he knew this to be the situation" or "that he was present" at the coverup. Judge Perry then instructed the jury to ignore Ms. Hollyway's testimony except as to the truthfulness of George Anthony. I do not believe that Slim Virgin ever saw what CarolMooredc "originally" put in and that, it may have caused some of the inital confusion in our later conversation in August. One was accusing a man of a crime, one was not. The original statement put in by CarolMooredc can be seen here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=448749163&oldid=440149325

The defense called Krystal Holloway, a volunteer in the search for Caylee, who claimed that she had an affair with George Anthony and that he described the death as "an accident that snowballed out of control". George Anthony denied the affair and ever making the statement.

That was factually inaccurate and clearly a BLP violation because, as stated, it accuses George Anthony, a living person, of covering up the accidental death of his grandaughter, a BLP violation as I said, and a serious crime as stated.

CarolMooredc accusations have been answered and disproven over the various noticeboards she has taken me to. It was settled through the intervention of Slim Virgin.

I will no longer respond to this troubling editor La_goutte_de_pluie. If an adminisrator has a question to ask me I will be most happy to answer. I am in good standing with Wikipedia and have never been blocked. I have only edited under one name and I understand that fact can be checked and I am happy for any administrator to do so. Mugginsx (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Two points: first, Muggins, Holloway did say George Anthony said that. And she stuck to it, despite numerous attempts to shake her.

Secondly, I think it would be impossible to edit this article well without having watched the trial from start to finish. This is why taking that article on is an enormous amount of work—far above and beyond what's normally expected for Wikipedia current affairs articles. Watching it piecemeal can't work, because just as you think you've understood something, up pops another piece of testimony that throws you off. Even if you do watch the whole thing, you're still left bewildered at the end of it. So an encyclopedic familiarity with the primary source material really is required. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Slim Virgin, you are correct that Holloway "said that" but she also said George Anthony said both things. but CarolMooredc did not state both statements in her July edit If you look above, in her initial edit in July which started the controversy, she only stated the ONE statement. That is where the disagreement originated. You came in much later and solved the disagreement - but before that, in July, as shown above, CarolMooredc DID NOT put into the article BOTH statments of George Anthony. JUST THE ONE. Please look above at her first edit and I think it will be clear. When she spoke with you she did not disagree but prior to that in July 16th her viewpoint was different and intractable that only the one statement was made.

I agree with you that one had to watch the trial from start to finish and I did so also. It was CarolMooredc that did not have sound on her computer and was unable to watch it until the time of your conversation with us. I also agree that I was not time-stamping the videos and started to do so immediately after you mentioned it.

• As to La_goutte_de_pluie's allegation that I had any disagreement about the Bradley testimony concerning the "flawed software" it is completely false and I ask her to produce that edit summary or statement or retract that allegation as well. Mugginsx (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to counter Mugginsx twice repeated inaccurate statement. She writes: What conversation begins at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_6#Krystal_Holloway and is continued through several talk pages on the article Death of Caylee Anthony until she finally changed through the intervention of Administrator Slim Virgin Directly above she calls my view " intractable."

• Note that at this diff at 12:50 on July 18th Mugginsx started complaining that I hadn’t reflected that Krystal had said George Anthony “thought” (rather than knew) it had been an accident. I couldn’t find a WP:RS that said thought and questioned it.
• At this diff at 08:51, July 19 - 20 hours later - I remembered that testimony and admitted it; I also believed Mugginsx claim - later proved inaccurate - that the judge had told the jury to ignore all Holloway's testimony).
• SlimVirgin first edited the talk page (and later the article) at this diff on August 19, so she was not involved in that particular debate.
• In fact, as one can read in the section she initiated on Krystal Holloway, SlimVirgin’s position at this diff was pretty much what mine was: Whatever it was that Krystal Holloway said under oath should be in the article.
• So, Ms Mugginsx, remember that just because you repeat the same inaccurate statement a million times, doesn’t mean people cannot prove it inaccurate.
• Re: SlimVirgin's comments on viewing the whole trial, I agree that is the best thing to do, but haven't found a reliable source yet that has the whole trial. And if I watched it, I'd have to write and self-publish a book! :-) Plus I have found that using 2 or 3 high quality sources can iron out the wrinkles in the most contested testimony. It's definitely a lot of work and half of me is kicking myself for getting involved. But properly done, it might convince someone not to kill one of her jurors, merely by showing the defense did an excellent job in poking holes in the prosecution case. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• CarolMooredc, I told you many times in that intervening period that I would not undo any paragraph that you put in referring to Krystal Holloway as long as you put the complete statement in to make it factually accurate and not a WP:BLP violation. For whatever reason, during that intervening period you chose not to do that until Slim Virgin came aboard. I can also go back and show you where I said those things.

I would remind editor CarolMooredc that this discussion is not about her interaction with me, except to answer her initial comment which indirectly refers to La goutte de pluie's allegations. This discussion is about La_goutte_de_pluie's allegations and that is what I am trying to answer. You have brought up these allegations in the past and on several different discussion boards and they do not have to be repeated here again except as they directly relate to La goutte de pluie's allegations.

I cannot answer both of you at one time and yours have all been answered before and in many different places and different talk page and discussion boards. I have withdrawn from the article by my own decision because of your continued harassment.Mugginsx (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will now answer any questions by administrators concerning La goutte de pluie's allegations. Mugginsx (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? These concerns are about your behaviour in general. I did not realise your problematic suppression of reliable sources could be part of a larger pattern. I was harassed first -- I only first commented at BLPN (I really meant to do it as a subsection, but there was an edit conflict). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx writes: I told you many times in that intervening period that I would not undo any paragraph that you put in referring to Krystal Holloway as long as you put the complete statement in to make it factually accurate and not a WP:BLP violation. For whatever reason, during that intervening period you chose not to do that until Slim Virgin came aboard. The fact SlimVirgin had a similar view to mine that Krystal Holloway's testimony belonged in the article made me feel more confidant any edit would not be met with your usual reverts and your talk page entries filled with false accusations and personal attacks. Here's the diff, if anyone's interested. (After all you have reverted or messed with a majority of my edits, often for frivolous or questionable reasons. Now that would be a bunch of diffs that would be easy to find! But we'll save that for a separate ANI, should the problem arise again.) Stop making misleading and inaccurate statements and you won't have to complain about people detailing your errors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the matter be unresolved here, I will push for an RFC and perhaps, arbitration. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mugginsx's demands for retraction

Mugginsx's demands for retraction continue to puzzle me. These demands are quite uncivil and combative behaviour, but perhaps it's how Mugginsx understands how things work in the legal world. I already cited a diff for where he talked about the "flawed software system". I believe the others had no disagreement about describing the 84-chloroform-searches incident as a software glitch, but wished to highlight how the information came to be judged as flawed, including the reticence of an obstinate court to accept the correction. Mugginsx's proposal seems out to portray the prosecutor as someone who would knowingly use flawed and erroneous data -- perhaps this was not by intention, but it raised my suspicions. Furthermore, Mugginsx seems into "truth-based" rather than "source-based" editing. Mugginsx has also repeatedly denied ever using caseyanthonyisinnocent.com as a source, only to be refuted by another editor. These denials would be honest mistakes to me, if I weren't being threatened with coercion to retract my statements at the same time. There are more diffs but I am busy and will cite more if requested. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with facts of the retraction debate, I would like to point out that I was the one who reported to WP:BLPN here that some editors were trying to downplay prosecutorial error (if not misconduct). You can see her comments there, whatever they were. I don't remember. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you mentioned the above link WP:BLPN here. My only comment there was one that led to a compromise and I am proud of it. The topic was WHERE to put the information in, not WHETHER to put it in. I would ask administrators to view it. You mistate it.Mugginsx (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the "Bad conduct" discussion, the "retraction" issue seems to be about this diff where Mugginsx writes: she accuses me of an even more bizarre accusation, i.e,that I stated "that we should blacklist reputable, reliable sources to push (my) paralegal agenda." La goutte de pluie actually wrote in the first sentence of the BLPN section she meant to append to the original and relevant "Defamation" thread: going so far as to suggest that we should blacklist reputable, reliable sources to push his paralegal agenda.

I think the only thing La goutte de pluie has to do here is clarify that Mugginsx wanted to "blacklist" the reliable source for this news article only, because allegedly it contained defamatory information about a non-notable person. Maybe she also could change "paralegal agenda" to "paralegal POV." Or even say Mugginsx thinks her paralegal experience makes her more of an authority on what is defamation than all the $600 an hour attorneys employed by the Orlando Sentinel. So, the bottom line is, it's all Mugginsx getting overwraught about semantics that need just a bit of clarification by La goutte de pluie. In fact, I think I'll put that in the relevant section of the RfCU, since that's the only issue I have any knowledge of. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again, what she must do is prove that I made the statement, because that is what she said. Unfortunately for her she cannot ever do that because I never stated it. That is the issue. You are misrepresenting what was said which is a matter of record here and elsdewhere. Do not reframe the issue because you do not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What you are advising her to do is to misrepresent what she said. Mugginsx (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

She is not reframing, she is expressing a WP:BOOMERANG concern - and she provided a diff that doesn't say what you say it says: it is you who is misrepresenting the diff. I am not very happy at LGDP at this time, but you seem to be taking advantage of her current low status as a license to not hold your own behavior to scrutiny. That is not how the cookie crumbles. --Cerejota (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise she did and further she closed the summary because, in her words: I'm closing this, as the report has remained unsubstantiated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC) and in closing it User:Future Perfect at Sunrise further states: [hide]Non-actionable complaint The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Mugginsx (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't the point been made several times that there was an edit conflict, perhaps the thread even being archived, so that instead of her comment being a subsection of the Defamation thread, it is stand alone and therefore defacto unsupported? As I have documented above, you constantly ignore what really happened to talk about what you think or wish or would like to believe happened to make your point. It's really a misrepresentation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

necessary break

This is becoming a wall of text largely because Muggins and LGDP won't let other people speak. So purpose is being lost here. From the discussion and the points raised, it is clear to me that there are behavorial concerns regarding Mugginsx that are not LGDP's alone, and these need attention. I suggest, to allow this to continue, that LGDP refrain from further participation, as I think her point has been made. Can we then focus on the original complaint? Can we not discuss the content issues and focus on editor behavior? Can ANi regulars ignore that LGDP is participating here, and process this with respect?--Cerejota (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your remark is interesting, but I do not see anyone complaining about not being able to edit their remarks. Mugginsx (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It was LDGP who initiated this ADI. How can you now tell editors to IGNORE LDGP's comments or suggest that LDGP REFRAIN from further comments? This is amazing. Mugginsx (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it is not contributing to evaluating the merits of the original report, namely, about your own behavior. Also, your first comment is puzzling, I didn't say anything about complaints. --Cerejota (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You CANNOT tell other editors to ignore LGDP remarks or to tell LGDP to stop making remarks. She iniated this discussion. Look at the rules. Mugginsx (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked her to *voluntarily* not post, in order to let the conversation flow - a perfectly sensible request, which she can ignore. I have no idea from where do you get the impression I asked other editors to ignore her remarks, I asked them to ignore the fact she is participating to focus on the actual issue, which is your behavior. Its simple, really. And not against any rule.--Cerejota (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This entire discuss is a good example of why we need the WP:V corollary that we are not here to determine the absolute truth about anything. The above discuss is exactly an attempt to do so, with the predictable results of getting everyone further annoyed at each other. As SV said, when the interpretation on content or context of primary sources is disputed we do not try to settle the correct interpretation ourselves, but just report what the responsible secondary sources say about the issue. I think it might be a good idea for both Mugginsx and LGDP to stop editing this article for a while--it is not as if it were a neglected article in which nobody else is interested. In fact, I formally propose a 1 week ban on further edits by either of them about it, anywhere on Wikipedia, and or interaction with each other. This is completely without any implication about who is correct, or whose behavior is at the root of the difficulties. It's just to prevent this continuing. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the article under any discretionary sanctions or a specific one, or would we need a community finding on that point? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already given up the article and have stated here and elsewhere I have no intention of going back to it, or any other legal article. There is no need for a ban. It was I that brought SlimVirgin in and asked for advice and counsel, and if you are going to use a ban, then I think you have to include the people who did the primary editing. The only one here editing on the article now is CarolMooredc. It was she that has brought me to three noticeboards. She also did it to another editor who disagreed with her editing. She threatened other editors on the article also. She was alerted to this one by LGDP. That is the way she wins, by bringing up discussion boards on the same thing over and over again until we leave the article. Well, I left it already and nothing could bring be back to it. It is she that has been blocked for making filthy statements to another editor who has since retired from Wikipedia. So has Celejota been blocked. I have never been blocked and until I had the extreme misfortune to encounter CarolMooredc, I was never on a discussion or noticeboard of any kind. I think you need to check the situation out a little better before you make snap judgments. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As for LDGP, there are many editors who have had a problem with the former administrator as well and no less than Jimbo Wales himself has asked for sanctions on her for her outrageous conduct. I have been a member in good standing for years and NEVER had a problem until I had the misfortune to go unto this article and to have to deal with the outrageous BLP edits of CarolMooredc. Taking a quick look here and making a serious judgment that in fact, isn't even necessary is extremely unfair. Most of us have already left the article but still we are harassed. Mugginsx (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will refrain from discussion other than to say I'm kind of puzzled -- because I made a grand total of one (1) edit to that article. My concern was merely piqued by the BLPN discussion. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And I will refrain except to say that a) there are still editors editing away at Death of Caylee Anthony and b) Mugginsx should file a separate ANI against me complete with actual diffs (and not just section headings since sections can be hard to wade through) if she thinks there is a problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You see? It never stops from these two editors. They feed on this. There was not one charge that they ever tried to discuss except when I asked Slim Virgin to come to the article and I took all of her advice. These editors just threaten over and over again and keep you occupied on one noticeboard after another without proving one thing. You could not PAY me to edit on that or any other legal article again. Mugginsx (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see. The above exchanges indicate why I suggested backing off from the article for a while, though I see I should have included other editors. Personally, I tend to like the idea of at least pausing a disruptive discussion about a BLP by forcing it to stop for a short while, regardless of blame. I tried to find a much milder term than "ban", but I couldn't find anything else that applies within the formal possibilities. My apology to everyone who feels that they themselves are (relatively) blameless. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

[Non-admin/lurker comment] Without making any judgements at all on CarolMooreDC or LGdP i simply wish to point out that Mugginsx is by no means the pure and innocent editor he or she would like to present. Despite his or her words ("...I was never on a discussion or noticeboard of any kind...and NEVER had a problem until I had the misfortune to go unto this article and to have to deal with the outrageous BLP edits of CarolMooredc...") he has had/caused problems before as this edit shows. In fact, Mugginsx spend a long time (as the record shows) attacking the work of another editor and myself as we tried to help him or her clean up the Earl of Clare. I'm not suggesting that Mugginsx may not have changed, but his or her actions here ~ completely justyfying self, accusing others of being of less than good faith ~ are of a piece with his or her actions previously. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it helps to bring up an unrelated 2009 incident about whether someone dead these 800 years was an earl or not. I add you to my proposed interaction ban as far as Mugginsx is concerned. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I simply didn't want anyone misled. I've struck the comment you found unhelpful. As far as an interaction ban goes, whatever ~ i've already been under a ban on interaction with Mugginsx for eighteen months or so and, as a self-imposed one, it's the most effective kind. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a mutual Wikipedia:Ban#Interaction_ban, between Mugginsx and myself. Mugginsx says she isn't going to edit the Caylee Anthony articles, so it's unlikely we'll run into each other. And if she stayed on it, the interaction ban would be a great improvement for me since according to a mutual ban I would not have to defend myself on the talk pages against a constant stream of false or exaggerated or misrepresented accusations, only a small portion of which I have the time or energy to defend myself against, as we have seen above; and despite this noticeboard's description reading: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion." So I have no problem with a ban on Mugginsx and I interacting at all! Though I would have some questions on implementation that could be addressed in the proper place after the ban was imposed if we ended up editing on the same article. Carol Moore DC 11:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Itsbydesign

Resolved

 – Referred to WP:DRN. lifebaka++ 18:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This user started removing from the Femme Fatale Tour the setlist of Nicki Minaj on August 19th [168], arguing that "What Minaj performed (or who with) is not notable as Spears is the main subject of the article. Information is more relevant for Minaj's article." I disagreed, since the focus of the article is the tour (not Spears), and Minaj is a big part of it: some critics dedicated several paragraphs of their reviews to Minaj [169][170] and she is even included in the official poster. I reverted his edits and said that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page so we could discuss it with other editors. He refused, and since then he has removed the setlist three more times. [171] [172] [173] Each time I reverted it and asked him to open a discussion. Today, he made a major change in the article in which he made strange prose changes ("howver"), added sources already present in the article to the lead, removed Minaj's setlist again and removed additional notes, among other things. I reverted his edit and placed a notice on his talk page. He responded by explaining all his edits at last on my talk page, saying that "This is the final time I will tolerate you reverting edits with a a clear and reasonable explanation. Next revert will automatically result an in open case with the Administrator's Noticeboard, no questions asked." I decided to open this myself because I feel I've done nothing wrong and this may be a case of WP:OWNERSHIP, since he doesn't feel like he should discuss any of his edits with anyone. Xwomanizerx (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this issue belongs in the talk page of the article, or perhaps try WP:DRN.--Cerejota (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the discussion to DNR. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, unfair treatment of different users during edit-warring on Boris Berezovsky page

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

This is clearly one editor that is failing to get the point. No admin action is needed, there is nothing further to discuss.--v/r - TP 21:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

---

User Black Kite blocked me in the beginning of August because of edit war on Boris Berezovsky page (though it was clearly seen that the other side broke the rules as well but they were not blocked. When I logged under generic user and made a same edit war report on them (users Kolokol1 and Off2riorob) I was accused of sock puppeting and nothing happened. In the meantime above users using highly non-NPOV language supporting Berezovsky completely rewrote his page comparing to what existed there for years, and deleted all allegations regarding this subject. When the block ended and I decided to restore negative materials on Berezovsky to have NPOV on the page, all my edits were immediately reversed by same Off2riorob and another user Bbb23. User Russavia took my side in this dispute, but his edits were also reversed. After what user Black Kite blocked the page. I wrote change propositions on discussion page, yet 2 days have passed and nothing is happening. I've requested on BlackKite's page to unblock Berezovsky page, but again, nothing happened. This user clearly took the non-neutral POV of Berezovsky supporters just because once I mentioned that opinions from Russian media has the same right to be published on wikipedia as British media (which I believe after News of the world scandal has lost much of its credibility). Also Berezovsky supporters mainly refer to Guardian newspaper, and clearly prefer it to Forbes Russia, which is at least as good in my opinion being a respectful business media. The other side clearly doesn't want to participate in the discussion and admin Black Kite is doing everything possible to stop any edits to this page happening and any discussion going further. Himself he avoids discussion any particular points related to Berezovsky but only compares Russian and British media in general, clearly supporting the latter and neglecting the first one. I trust that media sources especially such as Forbes magazine have same rights to be represented on wikipedia at least for NPOV reasons. Please will you take action against Black Kite and appoint another administrator (best not from Britain but say from some neutral country like Brazil, India, China) to judge this page. Many thanks!Deepdish7 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering you blanked your User Talk page, the process of reviewing what transpired is likely to take some time. That's one of the reasons users are urged to NOT blank their User Talk page, although it's not specifically disallowed except under very specific conditions. Archiving is much preferred. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And how would information on my userpage help you? A post there that I created another account? I confirmed that myself. A post related to edit warring? The only way to understand what was happening on Berezovsky page - is to go through the page history. Page was created over years till last August, when a couple of guys just cut half of the text claiming it's "libelous", when all there was is information on investigations against Berezovsky. Then you'll see that I wasn't cutting text by others, but they were and a lot. Unless you go through the history carefully (especially my recent edits which were vandallistically reverted again), you won't understand what is going on this pageDeepdish7 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Deepdish7; You intentionally evaded a block by creating an alternate account, and expect leniency? Do I have that right? Black Kite acted properly. For the rest of this, it's a content dispute. You don't need an administrator to act on a content dispute. Discuss it on the talk page. If that doesn't get any traction, then open an RfC. Nothing to act on here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Gonna have to agree with Hammersoft here. There are times in an edit war when only 1 of the persons involved will get blocked - expecting both, then evading a block to try and get your way is a 1-way ticket to additional blocksville. The rest is, as Hammer says, a content dispute - follow WP:DR or try to convince others to change WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I created alternate account just to submit a similar edit war report on another user Kolokol1. One should be able to submit such report even if blocked, if you ask me. As it's simply not fair to ban one person when the other is doing completely the same Deepdish7 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, now the actual situation. In early August, User:Deepdish7 was edit-warring on the article against a number of editors, not just the one mentioned. Most of his reverts are edit-summaried "removing vandalism". When warned about 3RR he socks with not just two another accounts but also an IP (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deepdish7/Archive). I blocked for a week due to the multiple concerns of edit warring and sockpuppetry. I also watchlisted the page, although by then it had been fully protected due to edit-warring by another admin. After the block expired, Deepdish7 then completely re-wrote the page (which my watchlist picked up) with some serious WP:BLP concerns. I posted these concerns to WP:BLPN and editors alerted by that then reverted Deepdish's edits. He then, again, edit-warred against multiple editors to push his changes back. I could have merely blocked him again but decided to protect the article. I also let him create a sandbox page to show his proposed changes so that other editors could comment. This, so far, has not produced much discussion as he says, but he needs to understand that (a) we take WP:BLP very seriously, and (b) there is no time limit. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • OK now' on the true situation. I was edit-warring against 'two' mentioned editors (Kolokol1 and Off2riorob), not a 'number'. Most of their edits REMOVED material from the article, instead of changing anything or addressing the issues they considered unfair. This is why I reverted their edits to prevent further vandalism to the page. For sure I used additional accounts to complain (even if two and one of them was from office) on what was happening so that the other side could get at least blocked as well. I did not rewrite the page, but added material that was removed. I only rewrote a couple of sentences there. And again you, Black Kite, never said anything particular in the discussion. The only thing you always mentioned is that I stated my preference in this case to Russia-based professional media like Forbes magazine to UK yellow press like Guardian, and I still see no reasons why preference would be given to Guardian as you (together with Kolokol1) claimed should be way to go. I merely think that all sources of material should be represented there. I did not post any libelous materials, but simply links to ongoing (and closed) investigations/charges against Berezovsky. If some investigation was defeated in court by him then this information should be added to the article, instead of removing info on investigation by claiming its 'libelous'. This time there were two of us edit warring (me & Russavia on my side, who also commented on discussion page) against 3 (not really multiple other persons) including Off2riorob from the 1st struggle. I am completely fine with taking WP:BLP seriously, but you should be fine as well with representing media sources from various countries apart from US and UK which you seemingly prioritize over the others even when judging cases where they have no clue what was going on, or are politically motivated to support one of the sides (UK press supporting Berezovsky in this case, as they generally provide asylum and support to criminals fleeing Russia, e.g. Chechen terrorist Akhmed Zakayev or Alexander Livinenko who was protecting Berezovsky in Russia when he committed his crimes). And, repeating myself, now the article is completely off NPOV, and it should be restored. Text should only be removed if it has false information, but if it simply provides information on some investigation (not depending on the outcome) it has full right to be represented. Thanks though for the tip on how to create a shadow page. Still it would be fair if another admin was appointed to this page, and I see no reason why it is such a big problem. I highly doubt that another random administrator would be so highly biased as Black Kite in this case Deepdish7 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You might want to be careful what you wish for. Many administrators wouldn't have been as lenient to you as I was - instead of protecting the page after the 2nd edit war, given your previous behaviour many would have just blocked you again. I decided to give you a second chance. Clearly it may have not been the best idea. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Of course, again you blankly do not want to notice other people violating the rules but only notice me breaking them, just because our points of view are different (you actually do not have a point of view on the article as you never discussed it, all you have is a point on view on Guardian/UK vs Forbes/Russia)Deepdish7 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• A comment on the content issue of the article. I believe I may be the only editor who responded to Deepdish7's proposed changes on the Berezovsky Talk page. However, after his first proposals, I asked him to stop proposing changes to the lead and first propose changes to the body because, naturally, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and it makes more sense to get the stuff in the body "right" first. Deepdish7 dismissed my request and went on proposing changes to the lead. So, being a person of my word, I just stopped responding. Since that time, he's moved on to the body. My plan is to respond to his proposals, but I haven't so far because (a) it's a lot of work and (b) I know there's a lock on the article until September 11, which gives me some time. As for his request for admin intervention, it's frivolous on its face. Finally, I do not like the fact that he did not notify me of this discussion, even though I'm mentioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to our discussion on Berezovsky page discussion board Deepdish7 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
    • To be honest, Deepdish7, given that you've created sockpuppet accounts at least twice and have stated above that you find nothing wrong with doing so, you're lucky that you haven't been indefinitely blocked. I'll say that if I ever found you engaged in block evasion again, I'd block you indefinitely. The fact that you not only have no remorse for your behavior, but have actually come to ANI to complain about being blocked (a month later) is troubling. -- Atama頭 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I very well explained what was the reason for my additional account creation - unfair handling of the process by the admin. But from your comment it looks like you don't assume there can be any case ever where admin could be wrong. It's like absolute truth which noone should be ever able to challenge. You have such a 'democracy' here!Deepdish7 (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
        • No, we don't have a democracy. There are some limited circumstances where an alternative account is allowed. Block evasion is not one of them. -- Atama頭 06:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
        • You know, Deepdish, it'd help your argument a lot more if Black Kite was actually wrong. You still haven't provided any sort of useful argument in that vein. Nor have you provided a reasonable explanation for your additional account; if you feel like your block is unfair, you should request an unblock. Evading your block is never acceptable. lifebaka++ 14:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I actually did that and reported that other persons were engaged in the very same edit warring and also had 4 consequent reverts in 24h. Nobody wanted to listen though - I was told that unblock requests should only address the person who was blocked, and no further actions will be taken against others who did exactly same thing. One should at least have right to complain, when blockedDeepdish7 (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• support indef block until understand that alternate accounts to evade blocks are not allowed coupled with messing with editors in good standing, this is not a nice position to have. He can go and argue for a change of policy if he wants, but willfully disregarding policy is not allowed.--Cerejota (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • sorry could you please elaborate a bit more - who in this case are 'editors in good standing'?!! and again, i used another account not to evade a block, but only to report violations of Wiki rules by another person. I will go and argue for a policy change then, and do it right now. It won't change anything with all the bureaucracy that you've created here, but as the number of claims for change mounts maybe ultimately it will produce an effect. Also if you're all here following rules so strictly - why would you not obey the Vandalism policy then, and not block those guys Kolokol1 and Off2riorob, who ravaged Boris Berezovsky page? All you have here - is frivolous behaviour by admins who judge events from their own point of view, which has nothing to do with NPOV as declared on wikipedia Deepdish7 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Can I suggest that proposing a change of policy so that you can break at least three Wikipedia policies may may not be the brightest idea you've ever had? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • You very well notice my violations but seem to complete ignore violations of vandalism and same edit-warring policites by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. As well as Bbb23 who seems to have joined the crowd. And btw I did not break BLP as all info I added was well-sourced. Though the guys who you cover apart from two above policies have violated NPOV, which makes them breaking 3 against me 2Deepdish7 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
    • As is too often the case, Deepdish7, you are digging yourself into a deeper (no pun intended) hole with your responses. First, you dodge the issue of why used alternate accounts. You could have argued policy from your Deepdish7 account. Second, I suggest you read WP:VANDALISM before tossing the label around so freely.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Really?? I suggest you read it yourself in the first place. As well as Black Kite, who is either completely biased, or just avoids it completelyDeepdish7 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Deepdish, stop already. Go through the WP:AN/EW archives and see the literally hundreds (or thousands) of times that only one party in an edit war has been blocked. You're not overly special, so don't kid yourself. Evading a valid block to try and correct what you and nobody else feels was an error clearly is not a brilliant move - the old saying is that "two wrongs don't make a right". You don't get to pick and choose when and where the rules are applied - in this case, I concur with the the original only one person blocked, and can see no reason why you're still even remotely being allowed to edit this project while you continue to feel your actions were correct, when they clearly - and by policy - are not (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You are digging yourself into a huge whole. You have shown no evidence to support your claim against black kite nor has he done anything wrong. You really need to stop the accusations. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

As an addendum, I have blocked DeepDish for 31hrs. By that point, this should have archived. Maybe he will have read the entire discussion, and maybe one or two of the linked policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:777sms doing strange edit

777sms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going throught articles, probably at random, and squeezing out blank lines after section headings, and re-spelling CommonsCat to Commonscat (both are valid redirects). Can someone let him know that he's doing more harm than good? I tried. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've notified him of this thread. I note that SarekOfVulcan has told him to knock it off, and I agree with Sarek. These are pointless changes, and he seems to be edit-warring to keep them in. 28bytes (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator warn Dicklyon that Don't refer to good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia as "junk". Dicklyon, Never do that again. Thanks.--777sms (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I already received and ackknowledged that warning. Sorry; I got tired of typing "restore spacing". Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, first things first: are you going to stop making those cosmetic edits? 28bytes (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Block this kid, it's obvious he isn't here to help. Colofac (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:VividNinjaScar and User:Darkquest21 refusing to comply with the consensus

We have an issue in Talk:Games for Windows#Games for Windows and XBOX.com merger. Users VividNinjaStar and Darkquest21 are refusing to comply with the consensus without providing a convincing reason and constantly revert me arbitrarily. I considered posting the issue to WP:AN3 but eventually decided to come here.

After a discussion in the aforementioned talk page on July, I felt that I was being mistreated and that the discussion is not fair. Therefore, I took the issue to Mediation Cabal. The case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 July 2011/Games for Windows was opened. To my surprise, three mediators unanimously advised in my favor (although one of them posted his consent in the talk page instead of the case.) However, two days ago, when I put the new consensus into action, I was reverted arbitrarily.

As you can see for yourself, these two users do not discuss the subject of dispute at all; they just discuss me and my conceptions of another entirely different matter. Even the title of discussion ("Games for Windows and XBOX.com merger") is irrelevant. (A mediator has commented on this.) They have refused to willingly un-revert themselves.

I also think that these two user accounts are perhaps sockpuppets, judging by the contents of their user pages as well as their similarity of tone and speech patterns. Fleet Command (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just read their most recent messages in article talk page. As I have explained there, it appears that they have not even seen my 7th of September edit in the article at all. Apparently, they only reverted because I was the editor. Fleet Command (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That is actually rather false. I reverted you changing the URL again, not because you were the editor. I don't know why you would feel the need to lie about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VividNinjaScar (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I DID NOT change the URL even once since July. This is the only edit that I made to the article since July and as you see, nothing is changed in it. Mind you, I had the right to completely overwrite the old URL, per consensus. But I didn't. Fleet Command (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate action by administrator User:TenOfAllTrades

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

Lots of opinions provided that this complaint has little, if any, merit. ItsAlwaysLupus should drop it. lifebaka++ 23:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Methinks this is clear WP:BOOMERANG, in particular WP:NLT violations at WP:ANI as pretty awful.--Cerejota (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Nice to see that you're having a non-academic fun here. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down, I am just being funny, and please stop the libel. Are you an admin or bureaucrat?--Cerejota (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on. Impersonification is the lowest kind of comedy. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

U MAD BRAH?--Cerejota (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated personal disputes:

• Edit warring with a sockpuppeter over the Disco article See: November 29, 2008
• Dispute with a User:Legolas2186 over the Allmusic credibility on Madonna (album) / reported his misbehavior

I believe one administrator used his administrator rights improperly and even defamed me on the block message. Namely, he accused me of an edit warring that never happened (only 1/2 reverts actually occured, see below) which I find outrageous. This is not by any means personally inclined so I would like other experienced administrators or bureaucrats to comment this situation. I assume that this situation was just a huge misunderstanding from User:TenOfAllTrades.

I'm now taking this request to this board, since the administrator's actions definitely scarred my name on this "block log" list forever.

I would like to present this situation to you in the most neutral point-of-view.

The beginning

This incident started the day when one user Nickyp88 reported me of edit warring over the "Moves Like Jagger" article but first let's go back to the event that triggered this situation.

• 23 August, 2011: I noticed that there is already mentioned "nu-disco" in the article and the infobox, so I added a suitable category for the genre.
• 25 August 2011: Actually two days later, User:Nickyp88 added a term "disco-pop" to the infobox [174]
  • Note that the user had been criticized by the same reasons he is now accusing me of
  • Here, I reverted his edits, assuming that this belongs to a "composition" section whereas the genrebox should contain more relevant and contemporary genres.
  • User:Nickyp88 posted one of these generic warning templates warning new users on my talk page. I removed his assumptions, then he coincidentally removed the content from his talk page.
• 26 August 2011: User:Nickyp88 reported me on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board, even calling non-controversial categorization – that means changing category from "disco musicians" to more accurate "(-demonym-) disco musicians" – disruptive.
  • Although I was perplexed by the absurdity of the whole situation, I still assumed good faith yet multiple unrelated users called me obnoxious and uncivil, basically considering non-abusive ad hominem reactions as abusive. Again, it wasn't personal – more like it was intended in a jokingly manner, which some users regarded as "vile personal attacks" – but I let you to form your own opinion on this. I personally would never bully a user so the accusations are not true and outrageous. I used the term "angst-ridden energy" in a good faith manner as a reference to a possibility that people under [the influence of] emotions - like you, me or User:Nickyp88 - are doing various things like for example reporting you to AN/I for basically doing your job and because of one (!) revert in a random article (note that it wasn't even a 3RR situation).

The Happening

As you can tell from my personal statements, I mostly make exaggerated humorous responses, especially on my talk page. This has been used as an excuse to call me a "personally-attacking non-productive member of the community" which resulted in a 24-hour ban. As the other users from AN/I will not tolerate my "personal attacks", I will not tolerate inappropriate actions made by either users or administrators.

• The administrator officially banned me because of this unrelated edit of mine (which was coincidentally a revert of Nickyp88's unreferenced speculation), which was intended to change the category from "Disco musicians" to "Nu-disco musicians" per WP:COMMON and backed by the URB (magazine) reference, let me cite: "To die-hard Kylie Minogue fans, the Australian nu-disco diva can do no wrong." which put an end to this absurd dispute, since it disproves the unintelligible summary of User:Nickyp88 ("Nu-disco. No. Disco, Nu-disco is different than disco") and clearly shows that User:TenOfAllTrades's reaction was excessive and then harmful. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your initial response to the block was "whateva" and you never appealed it. Yet now, six days later, you suddenly care? Anyway, you were blocked for a pattern of behavior, as established in this ANI thread, not a single "unrelated edit".--Atlan (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

He also said he "couldn't care less". See diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Are you experienced administrators or bureaucrats? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• It is irrelevant and that you think is it is no concern of mine.--Atlan (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From an uninvolved editor. I looked at the history of this little tempest and finally gave up. My sense, though, was that you need to move on, tone down your rhetoric when editing (lose your sarcastic style that you admit to having - it's not conducive to virtual communications), and spend your time on something other than resurrecting this dispute. Even here, your rhetoric is over the top. You really think that a 24-hour block will "scar" you forever? You really think that Ten "defamed" you with the block? Come on. Use your time more productively, and drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• See above. As I said before, this is not a matter of revenge, this is more like a matter of principle. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Having read through the original AN (thanks Atlan), I have to ask "do you want to drop this now, or do you want to find yourself in even more trouble." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What trouble? Since when you can't openly express your opinion in a public place? Your advice sounds like a tiny "threat" to me. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a promise. If you continue to accuse Ten of All Trades (or anyone else) of libelling you, you will find yourself in even more trouble. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a promise by the terms of the definition. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that "This has been used as an excuse to call me a 'personally-attacking non-productive member of the community' which resulted in a 24-hour ban," do you have a diff of this happening? You should also review the difference between WP:BANs and WP:BLOCKs, because they are not the same thing. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymologically these two words have a similar meaning (especially the first one). ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As I asked above, do you have a diff of someone using the block as an excuse to call you a "personally-attacking non-productive member of the community"? 'Cuz if you don't, we ought to close this. lifebaka++ 20:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your reaction is somewhat paradoxical since it was the other way around. Either way, let me get my time machine. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, I fail to see how there's an issue with the text of your block log. lifebaka++ 00:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As the administrator in question, I'd say that the independent views to this point have pretty much grasped the essence of the situation; I don't think there's anything important to add, though I am willing to answer any specific questions that might be floating around. As an aside, I would greatly appreciate it if ItsAlwaysLupus could make an effort to tone down the legal language; declaring that he's been "defamed" (above) and accusing me of "libel" isn't appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That quote and the context in general sure seem to be very reliable and serious. To be serious, the word libel, as defined by... Wiktionary "a written (notably as handbill) or pictorial statement which unjustly seeks to damage someone's reputation" and by this definition I somewhat feel that the particular content of the block message has a damaging effect on someone's reputation, i.e. me. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just be cautious about your use of legal terms on Wikipedia. Often you can get across the same point without having to use language that might give the implication that you're considering or are currently pursuing legal remedies. See this advice to help you avoid giving that impression. If others suspect that you might actually be taking that course, the common procedure is to block you indefinitely until the legal matters have concluded, or until you make it unambiguously clear that you don't intend to be making legal threats. -- Atama頭 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. However, have I said anything about lawsuits? Did I say "I'll sue your assess"? No, I did not. Complaint/tongue-in-cheek- sarcasm ≠ legal threat. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've said this before to you IAL, in at least two different places, and I might be wasting my time by doing so again, but these responses to people don't work on Wikipedia. "I mostly make exaggerated humorous responses"... You're playing to an unappreciative audience. Those kinds of comments may crack people up if done in person among friends or acquaintances, but when dealing with strangers solely through text your meaning isn't clear. And often these statements are just inappropriate or unproductive. I'm guilty of making a joking or off-color comment now and again, but generally only in already light-hearted discussions or to help defuse tension. Your comments often have the effect of either inciting irritation or making a tense situation worse. And sometimes your comments devolve into actual personal attacks, which you can't simply handwave by claiming that you were only making a joke, especially long after the fact. I'm not bringing this up to nag, but because I don't want you to get blocked if you honestly aren't meaning to offend people. -- Atama頭 17:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, indeed. Honestly, I believe that these exaggerated responses are so obvious to not-to-be-taken-seriously but maybe I was wrong. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm an administrator, and have been editing Wikipedia for a few years so I guess that makes me an experienced one... For what my opinion is worth, you have sown the wind and reaped, not a whirlwind, but at least a little blowback. I think, relating to your point just above, you certainly are wrong if you think that exaggerated responses can be easily distinguished from actual attacks. It's just not that easy to get irony over in text when you can't accompany it with the quizzically raised eyebrow. I see nothing wrong in TenOfAllTrades' actions, and suggest that you (a) tone down your interaction style here and (b) in the meantime tolerate the antipathy towards yourself which you have engendered. In due course, if you can behave more collegially, you will find that other users react to you more warmly and sympathetically. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. I only disagree with the false part of the block message issued by the said administrator. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As I indeed said in the earlier thread, your comments were uncivil and obnoxious. If you think you're being charming when you say rude things: you're not. It is not everybody else's responsibility to understand that what looks like blatant and unfunny rudeness is actually your attempt at humor and should be excused. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a bit harsh response with elements of WP:ACCUSE. Calm down, please. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm plenty calm, thanks; I have no reason not to be. I'm simply being frank, because I tend to think that stating the situation in a clear manner is an effective means of communication. Probably more effective than posting wheedling, condescending insults over a period of several days, although clearly the latter is much funnier and would win the respect of everyone around me. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupus, as you very well know there is no better way to rile people than by suggesting they need to calm down. Theoldsparkle, you really should know better than to bite when someone yanks your chain. The last responses from each of you have added nothing constructive to this discussion. I strongly suggest that we all now wait to see whether any other uninvolved, experienced users have anything to say on the matter; we have each made our positions abundantly clear. If no new opinions are forthcoming to support or deny the original request in the next 12 hours I suggest we close this down. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Before you close this thread let's make something clear: Do you, therefore, agree with the "And edit warring" part in the block message of mine although as I explained million times before (and provided diffs) it did not occur? Do you find it legitimate? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring does not require breaking the 3rr mark. I read through the diffs in the previous ANI report and found your comments towards Nickyp88 to be downright demeaning and reprehensible. If you're intending to be humourous then find some other way to do it. Subtle humour towards strangers in a text based environment does not work. At this point, there does not seem to be anything actionable against TenOfAllTrades nor ItsAlwaysLupus (this time). More heat is being generated than light. --Blackmane (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what edit war looks like. Do you believe that it is right to label me the same way as the examples in the link? You see, this is the reason why I am asking here. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Still looking for an experienced Admin to weigh in? I have both, & I have been known to make "exaggerated humorous responses".

Far as I can see, TOAT behaved appropriately here, & you're sore about the block. That's the short answer; miscellaneous comments follow.

While I don't know if Atama is really a lawyer, I do know A. is right about defamatory language: even being banned permanently from Wikipedia is not libel. (It simply means you are no longer welcome to contribute here.) Then there is the issue that Ellen of the Roads mentions: to put what she wrote in different words, ItsAlwaysLupus, when you find yourself in a hole, first step is to stop digging. And you are in one right now. Lastly, it's been a general rule of thumb on WP:AN/I that the longer the opening statement of any thread, the greater the probability its author is way off base; your original post is pretty long, ItsAlwaysLupus. -- llywrch (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for you opinion. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I'm as far from a lawyer as you can get (well, I took a Washington State Law class once in college I suppose). I just know what WP:NLT says. -- Atama頭 16:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Whaa? But I thought you wrote above that you were... Okay, when I read "IAL" late last night/early this morning, I thought it meant "I am [a] lawyer"; now I see you were abbreviating ItsAlwaysLupus' username. In any case, blocking/banning is not libel. (Nor is it an indictment, a letter of attorney or marque, nor even an actio in Roman law.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been here seven years so does that make me experienced enough to have an opinion on this? :) (Is anyone sure that there is a direct correlation between depth of experience and judgment or wisdom anyway...?) I don't have anything to add to Atama's comments. ItsAlwaysLupus should admit error and move on to avoid further scrutiny (and boomerangs). Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please review Image Situation

I need a neutral admin to review the situation which led to this message [175]. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise challenged an image at Royal Navy uniforms of the 18th and 19th centuries, which is fine, leading me to post a "hold-on" response to a speedy delete image notice. Future Perfect appears to have gotten angry with my challenge, deleted the image himself, and then posted a message that I was lucky not to have been blocked. Furthermore, when I asked what the problem here was, perfectly willing to work with others here, this was posted as well. [176]. What you have here is someone with admin powers involved in a dispute, deleting material themselves, and then threatening the other party in a dispute with a block as a punishment. I cannot think of a greater violation of admin trust and powers. I would like a neutral party review - BTW, I am actually fine with the image delete, just not about the admin abuse. -OberRanks (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• On the other hand, perhaps you could explain why you edit-warred to include an image which quite clearly failed WP:NFCC#1? FPaS' edit summary on the first removal was quite clear, and it's not even a debatable failure of policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Warnings and use of the delete tool are appropriate when enforcing our non-free content policies- as would be blocking, as FPaS said, in certain cases. This is not a "content dispute" in the sense of determining how to format a page, or whether a particular factoid is needed in an article, this is policy enforcement, more comparable with removing negative information about living people or spam. If you're not familiar with/do not like the non-free content criteria, that's fine, but if that's the case, you should not work with it, and most certainly should not revert administrators who are working to ensure that articles are policy-compliant. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of any kind of dispute is that a party in the dispute, especially the nominator, should not themselves make deletions nor use any kind of admin enforcement tool against other parties in the dispute - rather alert uninvolved admins who would then review the situation and make the call. There was also no intentional edit warring, as Prof FP was making reverts in the middle of my own addition of new material. When I saw what was occurring, I posted my concerns on the article talk page and stated I would no longer revert any changes and abide by whatever decision was made. I have just been seeing more and more of this on Wikipedia, with angry admins using their enhanced editing tools to their advantage. In any event, image deleted no harm done, I suppose. -OberRanks (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Most of the time I leave non-free image issues to the experts but my understanding is that WP:NFCC is one of the few policies that is enforced "prescriptively". That means that "out of process" deletions of non-free images are sometimes necessary and doing so is more acceptable then it is for articles. Yes, this image had to go. What I don't support is treating those who disagree with an image deletion, even near "slam dunk" cases such as this, as if they were vandals. OberRanks had what he in good faith believed was a plausible argument for retaining this image. Shouldn't he have been allowed to make it without having it called "disruption"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ron, of course- an explanation of reasoning, leading to a discussion on a talk page, would have been fine. That's not what we got- we got someone edit warring, canvassing (as the article was under "attack"- pretty clear who accused who of disruption first) and sarcasm. There was no attempt at discussion, just rationale twiddling. Assuming good faith is nice, but, as FPaS said, this is an experienced user who should know better, or should at least know not to edit war if they don't know better. OberRanks, again, you can cry wolf about FPaS being "involved" all you like, but I know that all but the most timid of admins would be ready and willing to use their admin tools to enforce policy in unambiguous cases. This failed the NFCC- another time, it may be a copyvio, it may be material contrary to the BLP policy, it may be spam, it may be contact information, it may be inappropriate external links. All of these can be added in good faith, yes, but all of them should be removed with the utmost prejudice. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • • My fault for only looking at the image history. Yes using the term "attack" to describe a good faith attempt to enforce NFCC was uncalled for. BTW, is it common practice to remove images tagged with {{Di-replaceable fair use}} from articles before the images are deleted? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
        • That's purely a matter of taste. When I'm lazy, I usually don't do it, but just do the Twinkle tagging and wait for ImageRemovalBot. If I have the article open on the screen anyway, I sometimes do it immediately. Per WP:BOLD, simply removing an item and orphaning it is always a natural and legitimate response to a poorly used non-free image, just like with other kinds of poor quality content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, then if it's just a matter of taste. What you should consider doing in the future is either not removing the image from the article or if you do, don't remove it again if reverted. Just wait the 48 hours until another admin deletes it. Yes it was an all but obvious case but Ober was willing to "go with whatever the admins decide". I take that to mean that if a second admin reviewed his dispute but still deleted the image he would have been cool with that, it was the image being removed from the article early that he didn't like. Yes NFCC issues are serious but I don't think an NFCC 1 case needs the same level of "immediacy" as a BLP violation or an NFCC 2 violation on a getty image. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Just to add to this: the whole notion of "involvedness" is bogus. It's a speedy deletion process. Speedy means, by definition, that a single admin can do it from beginning to end. The tagging is in no way analogous to the "nomination" in a regular XfD process, where you hand off decision to somebody else; its function is purely informative. This deletion was entirely within regular process, with the sole exception that I didn't wait the usual 48 hours, to cut short the edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Only partially correct imho. Yes, speedy deletion does not require that the tagging admin and the deleting admin are two different people - although it's customary. In this case though the alleged problem was WP:INVOLVED and that applies in any situation (remember: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community"). Per INVOLVED, "best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator" (emphasis added), so you could saved yourself, OberRanks and others a lot of time and bad feelings if you just had passed the matter to another admin. Just because something is obvious doesn't mean you have to do it yourself, does it? Regards SoWhy 17:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your description of the 'customary' process accurately reflects real practice. Admins are expected to know and follow the speedy deletion criteria, and as long as they are doing so with competence and good faith, they don't need a 'seconder' to push the button. As an admin, if I see something that (I believe) obviously meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, I feel no reluctance to carry out the deletion on my own. It is neither customary nor constructive to add an extra 'paperwork' step; the reason why the speedy deletion criteria are scoped as narrowly as they are is because individual admins are expected to be able to apply and enforce them on their own without recourse to second opinions or lengthy discussions.

The two circumstances where I would use a speedy deletion template (as an admin) are 1) where I am genuinely unsure about whether or not a particular criterion is met, and I feel that a second opinion would be useful; and 2) where there is a legitimate perception that I am involved (I haven't investigated this situation beyond reading the above discussion, but it seems that the claims of involvement are rather strained) and there might be some 'judgement call' aspect to the deletion. The whole "may be seen to be involved" question must necessarily be subject to a "reasonable person" test, and it doesn't preclude an admin from acting where his only previous 'involvement' was in his capacity as an administrator—and would seem to have been the case here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

on the contrary, I think we need a rule that one admin not use speedy by themselves except in the case of vandalism (and the usual other special cases). Absent these special cases, there's generally no rush, and I've never seen a time in Wikipedia when at least two admins aren't present--we no longer have the large CSD backlogs that we did a few years ago. Nobody is able to judge the degree to which he might be over-involved--indeed, the time he is most likely to be over-involved is when he adamantly says otherwise, because if he knew he were too involved he would have already withdrawn from the issue. In particular, if a speedy of mine is challenged in good faith i am precisely not the person to decide whether to do the actual deletion. Saying that one admin is qualified to handle something disputed all by himself is the administrative equivalent of OWNership. That said, people will make honest mistake about whether something is so utterly routine they can act alone. But I think any admin who normally uses admin tools like Ten says they do, might need to be checked on a little--not that this means I am saying he has ever used them incorrectly. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's customary but I don't think it should be a "rule", admins "should" use their best judgement on the matter. When it comes to non-free images, most of the NFC criteria, aside from 8, are for the most part objective "yes/no" issues. However, the "48 hour wait", which doesn't exist for any of the article criteria, is there for a reason. It exists so that anybody with an objection can have that objection be given proper consideration by a third party. I agree that this case is an all but slam dunk case and if I were the third party reviewing it when the 48 hours was up, I would have deleted it. However, the edit war that happened on the article over an image that was going to be deleted in 2 days anyway was unnecessary and led to bad feelings on both sides. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The speedy deletion criteria are the "usual other special cases" where an admin can use his sole judgement to carry out a deletion. The very first line of the policy is "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media." You are certainly welcome to seek second opinions on all (or any) of your speedy deletions at your discretion – and I noted earlier that I support and encourage admins to do exactly that if they aren't sure about the application of a particular CSD criterion – but it just isn't required. (And your observation about the lack of a backlog at CAT:CSD is something of a red herring. Is the absence of a backlog simply because admins have become more confident of their competence at applying the speedy deletion criteria? And even if the system currently has the capacity to handle additional paperwork, should extra rubber-stamping be encouraged simply because it is feasible at the moment to do so?) If you would like to suggest a change to CSD to require admins to always tag, you are welcome to do so—but I doubt that you'll get much traction.

Speaking generally, if a speedy deletion is challenged in good faith, WP:DRV exists for the purpose of allowing community review; this isn't a WP:OWNership issue (and I'm not even sure how that concept maps to admin actions). In the extant case, it appears that this was a black-and-white case of an image that would never satisfy the NFCC.

I must disagree strongly with your conclusion about the ability of admins to determine the level of their own 'involvement' in an issue. Your reasoning employs a catch-22: if an admin says he's too involved to act, then he's obviously too involved; if an admin says he isn't too involved to act, then he's most likely so over-involved that he doesn't realize it. It's a lose-lose. One of the major criteria we apply to evaluating admin candidates (implicitly or explicitly) is whether or not they understand where to draw the line with respect to their own involvement and conflicts of interest. Admins who don't understand those rules or who consistently fail to make those judgements reasonably get desysopped. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TenOfAllTrades. I usually speedy delete immediately. In most cases, there is no danger of being "involved", the pages are by new users and on subjects I have no connection to (their band, the cool girl in their class, the impressive new product "we" are selling, ...). Feel free to check my (or everyone elses) speedy deletions, and instruct me on where I did go wrong, but please don't slow down speedy deletion just for the sake of it. One of the reasons we don't have a backlog is because admins do NPP and delete pages immediately. Fram (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OberRanks' very first paragraph in this discussion. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is a heavy-handed admin. I can cite numerous examples of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's abuse of admin powers including this diff [[177]] where a tag that I placed on an article indicating a dispute was deleted without any discussion to resolve why I had placed that tag on the talk page. When I raised the same issue at dispute resolution, and despite my specifically asking for the involvement of an independent admin to oversee the dispute, see [[178]], it was User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, an involved party, who ignored the obvious conflict of interest and like a tyrant decided the result. Moreover, I too was threatened with blocking if I continued to edit on the article even though I had reasonably placed a dispute tag and was ignored, even though I had gone to dispute resolution and was ignored again. It was not necessary to treat OberRanks in that way. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise needs to treat people with more respect.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In a trial, alleged criminality outside of what the defendant is being charged with at trial is inadmissible prior to a conviction, since it quickly becomes impossible to investigate every issue thoroughly and make a reasoned judgment on each one simultaneously. Attacking Future Perfect's character by making multiple allegations of impropriety can only confuse this discussion. If you think Future Perfect acted improperly in another case, please follow user conduct dispute resolution process. causa sui (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Future Perfect's tone in the quoted diffs is excessively dismissive and inflamed the situation unnecessarily. Hopefully he will learn that it is better to bite one's tongue and avoid such provocations, regardless of the propriety of the backlash.
2. Arguments about involvement are succinctly refuted by J Milburn. By the OP's own narrative, Future Perfect deleted the image because he felt it fit one of the criteria for speedy deletion. I do not see evidence that anyone is disputing his judgment on that question, so there is nothing in his use of sysop tools to evaluate. Having the opinion that policy is being violated in his presence and using sysop tools to correct the situation in his administrative capacity -- the whole reason we gave him the tools in the first place -- is exactly not what WP:INVOLVED is about.

Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Song article violations

Resolved

 – Just CharlieJS13 whining again. Blocked by Reaper Eternal

I'd like to report the following users; Tbhotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Chasewc91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Legolas2186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Nickyp88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Wikipedian Penguin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for their completely unacceptable behaviour as they are changing music genres in song articles without a source, particularly Tbhotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose behaviour has been completely unacceptable ever since he existed on Wikipedia. It started in April last year when he changed the songwriter on Lady Gaga song articles, by refusing to accept a consensus that songwriters are attirbuted to the album booklet details, not websites such as BMI/ASCAP. He proves an extremely dangerous threat to the entire Wikipedia community, and I want this user indefinitely banned. The other users in question have disrupted song articles in a similar way, therefore I'd like it if these were banned too. Thanks 17:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you at least provide diffs? I think I recall somewhere that English is not Tbhotch's first language. He may have trouble sometimes understanding, but my experience with him is that he is a good contributor and may only need things explained a little more than others.--v/r - TP 16:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

According to one of Tbhotch's edit summaries, the IP posting this ban request is themselves banned -- I just don't remember offhand which banned user it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's this one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has worked extensively on music/song/album/charts articles, the supposed "dangerous" editors named above are some of the most proficient, thorough, dependable, accurate and respected editors we have at Wikipedia, particularly pertaining to articles on songs/singles and pop music. As anyone who has worked on these types of articles would know, they are some of the most-vandalized, and surely would be horrible shape if not for the continued hard work of the above-named people. - eo (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm flattered. I'm just doing my job and I do not appreciate when people assume bad faith of me when all I am doing is the complete opposite. Thank you eo. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia Penguin said above, I'm really flattered, this notice came on my talk page out of no where. I haven't edited any articles recently either so I was like "what?!" Thank you eo :-) Nicholas (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And also, the user that messaged me on my talk page was not at all involved with any music articles. The user apparently doesn't know how the music articles are like, as for eo said, they are one of the most vandalized articles and it is stress inducing when arguments and things happen. Nicholas (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You pathetic bastard Nicholas - I hope your whole family dies.

U cnt stp me ill edit til i die. (Or, I'm amazed by this users persistence). Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I was the user that messaged all involved parties. I myself am uninvolved and did not create the ANI report. The IP hadn't been banned yet when I started notifying folks.--v/r - TP 23:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WHy not just have a rule that any report that is not notified in a reasonable amount of time (15 minutes or so) is closed? The only time I have done an any report and not inform the user, I at least had the decency to request someone else do it. We shouldn't honor sneakiness by paying attention to it without notification.--Cerejota (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because you are just making up excuses to try and shoot the messenger rather than address a potential problem (not saying there was one in this case)--Crossmr (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. automatically shutting discussions because of paperwork errors are reminiscent of WP:wikilawyering. The people that frequent ANI are quite good at recognizing when someone hasn't had the opportunity to respond, and like TParis (TP), above, these things tend to get sorted out quite quickly. VanIsaac_WS 01:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Content moved from userpage to article space

Apologies if this isn't the right place, I've never had cause to report anything before. Kindly redirect me if so. A few days ago, the entire page+history at my userpage/sandbox was moved to article space (at Ranveer Chandra). I can't find any information at RfM, that's why I'm here. The move is a problem for several reasons. First: the content is not ready, I don't think it would pass WP:NOTABLE and I don't want my name associated with bad content- especially biographical content! Second: I wasn't informed in any fashion. Third: Ranveer Chandra now reflects the history of my sandbox, making it appear as though I made multiple edits to that page when in fact they were all test edits of my own sandbox, and User:Matttoothman/sandbox no longer exists. I'd like for this to be reverted so I can get my history back, and I don't want my account associated with Ranveer Chandra. The content is only a few weeks old, and quite small, so I don't feel that it violates any userpage policy re: keeping draft articles. Thanks for your attention. If the right answer is "just revert it", I'm glad to do so - but I want to make sure that the history of both the article and of my sandbox are properly sorted. Again, longtime editor, first time admin-help-requester. Thanks, Matttoothman (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like IP editor 24.22.248.28 asked for the draft to be moved to mainspace.

If you want to delete the edit history before a certain point—before you began drafting this article, say—that's easily done. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In the alternative, of course, you could move it back to your userspace. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Any solution that doesn't make it look like I'm the main editor of an article on a living person who I don't think is notable is fine with me. I had the same idea as the IP editor (working on pages for TR35 winners), but I don't want to support this one publicly, yet. What's the least disruptive solution that leaves me out of it? I'm done with the project so I really just want to wash my hands of it. ALso, thanks for the quick response(s).Matttoothman (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Two more options. You can request that it be moved back into your userspace or you can add request its deletion by adding {{db-g7}} to the top of the page (or blank it).--Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

One of those options is probably best. Under the terms of the GFDL, you have to be listed as a contributor to the article, so there's no way to keep the article (in mainspace) and remove your name as a contributor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the page restores all aspects (history...) to original state, right? If so I'll just do that and then blank it...will that prevent this happening in future?Matttoothman (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, the move request was made here. Monty₈₄₅ 04:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, moving the page keeps the edit history just the way it is, but there would be a redlink for Ranveer Chandra and the draft would be back in your sandbox. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

After you move the page back, you should tag the redirect at Ranveer Chandra with CSD R2. If the IP editor or anyone else wants to restore the article from your draft, he can ask you. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, deleted redirect, blanked page per much excellent advice. Thank you to all.Matttoothman (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Using content from another editor's user space is uncommon, but it has come up before, for example WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Copying content from userspace (January 2011) and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Reusing content from another user's sandbox (June 2011). This is the first I've seen facilitated by a third party. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty surprised - especially since it's clearly in progress and no notice was given. Definitely weird. Also, the interested audience for that page has got to be small - but I guess that's what the interwebs are for, right?Matttoothman (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What's even more surprising is how did 24.22.248.28 even know your sandbox article existed? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got me there, Ron. Do user (sub)pages show up in (internal or external) search results?Matttoothman (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

They turn up in external search results by default (unless specifically tagged to be no-index), and internal will turn up anything if you check appropriate name space under an advanced search, even if no-indexed, but by default user space is not searched. Monty₈₄₅ 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

They show up in autocompleted article names in the search box. So if he started in User:Whatever, all of User:Whatever's sandboxes are going to show up there.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was challenged by 131.107.0.73 at Talk:Ranveer Chandra. Matttoothman, do you prefer if he or she is referred to you or WP:Articles for creation? Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ThomasPrp (talk · contribs) recreated the article as a copy of the sandbox draft. I have attributed Matttoothman with a dummy edit (diff), but a history merge would show what actually happened more clearly. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain, I made the dummy edit to take the G12/attribution issue off the table, which I think is a distraction. I don't endorse the page's existence as an article. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the page for deletion per {{db-author}} and {{db-copyvio}}. While the latter has been addressed by Flatscan's attribution, the former remains applicable. Matttoothman (talk · contribs)'s wish not to publish this content about a living person whom he deems not notable at the moment should be respected.

I ask that an admin protect the page from creation to prevent further inappropriate plagiarizing of Matttoothman's work. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have challenged both CSDs. As mentioned above, the dummy edit corrects the copyvio issue. Userspace content is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL just like anything else. This situation is far beyond the scope of G7. If the article is in fact not notable, it should be deleted after an AfD discussion. If the article is notable, it should remain, as no one has the authority to revoke the licensing. Either way, I don't think any issues with the article reflect on Matttoothman (talk · contribs) at this point. Monty₈₄₅ 04:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please reinstate the {{db-author}} template. Matttoothman (talk · contribs) has indicated above that he does not want to be associated with the Ranveer Chandra article because he considers the subject to be non-notable. That a single-purpose account stole Matttoothman's work despite his not wanting to post it is unacceptable. I am reminded of this discussion on GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs)'s talk page, where the sandbox thief was warned for his disruptive behavior.

To leave the article in the mainspace is willful support of academic theft when the writer does not want it published. Cunard (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Links: 1: "moved Ranveer Chandra to User:Matttoothman/sandbox: revert"
2: "Blanked page to prevent foolishness."

Cunard (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The example you point to involved an editor who admitted they did it to bait the original author. That is clearly disruptive. Here, it may be, as its pretty rare to be digging around other people's userspave, but AGF, I don't see any policy that is being violated. Once you submit content to Wikipedia, you have no more say over how it is subsequently used then anyone else (so long as attribution is followed) except in the specific case of G7. While copying out of another person's userspace without permission is rude, I don't see how anyone but ThomasPrp (talk · contribs) has the ability to request the article be deleted under WP:CSD G7. Monty₈₄₅ 05:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone but ThomasPrp (talk · contribs) has the ability to request the article be deleted under WP:CSD G7. – that makes no sense. ThomasPrp did not author the content. Matttoothman, who wrote the content, has repeatedly explained why he doesn't want this in mainspace. Cunard (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

From WP:CSD G7:If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. Here, Matttoothman did not add the content to the page, and so is not eligible to request a CSD G7. I wont object if someone wants to make an WP:IAR deletion of the article, but don't try to cram it into a CSD criteria. Every time someone crams an article that is beyond the scope of a CSD criteria into it, just to expedite deletion, it undermines the speedy deletion process. Monty₈₄₅ 05:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, this interpretation is nonsensical. I've asked Bishonen to take look. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

All edits saved are released under our free license. Anything you save and release may be reused mercilessly. Whether this reuse makes for acceptable content is a separate matter. If you wish to withhold certain academic rights, this may not be the place for you. See Wikipedia:Own#User_pages and Wikipedia:Copyrights. See WP:5P #3 and User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles#Principles #5. Our licensing makes no distinction between the different spaces. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your Jimbo and raise you a WP:NOT, Joe: "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. And please don't tell a perfectly good editor, based on a trifling difference of opinion, that this isn't the place for him/her! Bishonen | talk 14:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

RE: IAR. I am not persuaded that deletion of the material from mainspace and now from userspace history is an improvement to the encyclopedia.

RE: this isn't the place. That was poorly put. My point is that rights over your edits incompatible with out license ("don't reuse without my permission") cannot be withheld. And I should have stopped there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Commenting, on request. Moving a userspace article into mainspace is something that should only be done by the user who is composing the article in his/her userspace (which one may prefer to do for several reasons, for instance concern about getting it deleted by some over-eager admin before it's ready for primetime; or simply because that's how they like to work). The composition method has nothing to do with WP:OWN (that much misused policy); the draft is meant to be edited by others, just not until it's ready for it. Don't move somebody else's work in progress into the limelight with, for example, empty section headers or bad spelling still in there. (I know a dyslexic editor who leaves the spelling till last.) Not to mention, don't move it while it's still carrying an "under construction" tag!

Mattoothman has moved the article back to his userspace and blanked it. Both are proper actions. Checking the history tab (only admins can do this, I'm afraid) it's clear that the content was created by Mattoothman, with only miniscule copyedits by others. It is also clear from the present discussion that he wants it deleted (not just blanked). This is the kind of case that speedy criterion G7 is for.

If I've understood the narrative above, 24.22.248.28 first moved the article from Mattoothman's userspace by putting it on Requested Moves, and is now trying to stop it from being deleted per M's wishes. Both these actions are highly inappropriate. 24.22.248.28, please don't be a sandbox thief again, by proxy or otherwise, and don't try to trip up a user trying to get content he himself created deleted! "Follow common sense" and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules are much more important Wikipedia principles than any crazyquilt of unrelated and undigested bits and pieces of policies and guidelines. See WP:FIVE, subsection "Wikipedia does not have firm rules": "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording." The crazyquilt method is what we call wikilawyering. It's to be avoided. I have deleted the article. @Mattoothman, if you want it and its history back to keep working on it, please let me know and I'll email it to you. P. S., @ Mattoothman's question: no, just blanking it won't prevent the same thing happening in the future. All people have to do is use the last version from the history. Deleting it and salting the earth will prevent it, and that's what I propose to do, per IAR if need be. [Later addition: Except apparently I don't know how to salt, as the title hasn't appeared on Special:ProtectedTitles. Something to do with the redirect? Somebody help..? Bishonen | talk 13:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC). ]

You have salted it—it's in the protection log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Good—thanks, HJ—but isn't it supposed to appear automagically on Special:ProtectedTitles? Bishonen | talk 14:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

@Monty, about your comment on my page: see my response there. Your distinction between the "author" and the "creator" of the page is a serious misunderstanding. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

From a legal perspective, based on the licensing that we all agree to when we edit a page, including userspace drafts, any person has every right to copy the content back into article space. To comply with the licensing, all that was needed was to provide attribution, and while the copier failed to do so, a subsequent edit remedied the situation. Now it is true that we are not bound to allow content to remain on Wikipedia simply because it is legally allowed to be there, and if you want to make a judgment that copying material out of the user space against the original author's wishes is a sufficient justification to delete it, then that is fine. But we should recognize it is not is not within the scope of WP:CSD G7. In almost all cases, G7 is used to uncontroversially delete content that fails other article criteria, and would usually be deleted anyway. G7 is also even more uncontroversial, as in almost all cases the only person who would normally object to an article deletion is the page creator, who must be the one to request the deletion. Here, intervening edits in the form of the copying out of user psace have made it clear that someone else wants the article to remain, asserting ownership of the creative commons material to override the wish of the person (the copier) who created the page and copied the original authors work is totally inconsistent with the purpose of criteria G7. And again, to emphasize, I'm not suggesting we should rigidly abide by the letter of policy and not delete the article, I am only asking that if we are to delete the article, we not pretend that a policy extends to this situation which clearly is not intended to. If the article is to be deleted on the basis of WP:IAR we should not pretend it was an application of WP:CSD G7. I don't think it is WP:wikilawyering to request that we be honest about the reason an action was taken. Monty₈₄₅ 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is wikilawyering to assert that the purpose of G7 is not to honour a good-faith request by an author to have their work deleted. No matter how you look at it, the reason we have G7 is that we accept that authors are allowed to delete content they have provided, as long as the request is in good faith and no other substantial contributions have been made to that content. Argument about in which namespace the work exists – or how it got there – is sophistry, and quite contrary to the spirit of our use of G7. If you think that contributions once made cannot be revoked, then you need to make that argument in support of removing any use of G7, since G7 violates that principle in every case. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

One last response from me and I'm done. The matter has certainly been resolved to my satisfaction; as of this moment I'm not connected with any shoddy page (my only criterion for the original complaint). Of course I'm aware that this isn't really about me as an individual, but I wanted to emphasize that I am satisfied with the resolution - thanks to all who (swiftly!) helped. I've also enjoyed this discussion; it's a weird issue that I've never come across and I've enjoyed reading the comments of more experienced users hashing out policy together. Good example of the collaborative spirit that should characterize WP.Matttoothman (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied. The subject looks to be notable. Why do you think he is not. Who is the IP? Do you object to an editor taking your assembled references and starting a new article? Why is the mainspace title salted? I think the G7 challenge was fair, and it should then have gone to AfD, but it looks to me now that nothing was deleted. I really don't like the IAR deletion by a solicited admin, and am thinking this might belong at DRV, except that I may be too confused as to what is actually going on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: your comments to the page mover. I do agree that your page shouldn't have been moved on the basis of a single-edit-IP request without inviting you to comment. Reverting that page move was reasaonable, as clearly further discussion was needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your questions, which seem to be addressed to me (?). I'm shy about BLP, and one could argue overly so, but if you feel that you could stand behind the article in the face of WP:CREATIVE (I don't) or WP:ACADEMIC (I might), please go ahead (or encourage others to do so). I don't have any claim to the assembled sources, as mentioned above, and of course would not object to someone using them to create a new article- Matttoothman (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that Matttoothman's wish to remove his draft from main space should be respected, pending discussion by 24.22.248.28, ThomasPrp, or anyone who wants to work on the article. I'm sure that something could be worked out, like rewriting from sources as mentioned above. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Leandrod (again)

Leandrod (talk · contribs) was the subject of an ANI mere days ago regarding the edits he makes to articles, and namely, how often they are undone as unconstructive. Among his favorites are:

• messing with citations and citation templates
• deleting page numbers used in citations so he can combine them into a single reference and replacing with the exceedingly ugly {{Rp}} template whose documentation warns against its use
• removing numbers from dates and page numbers (turning 1985-1987 into 1985-87, and p. 22-28 into p. 22-8)
• Various other changes that adjust the article's style for no good reason (like changing from one type of hyphen to another)

Often these changes are only partially implemented, so we are left with an article written in one style for part, and another for the rest. Requests and warnings on the talk page go unanswered. The user does not communicate at all, and does not respond to community concerns. Unfortunately, I see no other choice than to block this user in order to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. N419BH 21:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would add that a significant number of his changes are contrary to WP:MOS and related pages. In most cases he continues with such changes even after the WP:MOS issues are pointed out on his talk page. There are over a hundred sections on his talk page, nearly all of them complaints, and he has responded to very few of them. In a few cases he has responded ~"revert if you want, but the way I did it is typographically correct" and goes on to make more changes of the same sort. In some cases he does desist in making one particular type of typographical change, only to shift to another after complaints, and then returns to the first type later. The damage to each individual page he edits is, admittedly, slight, but this user has made over 20,000 edits to over 7,000 separate pages, and from periodic checks on his edit history I believe they are nearly all changes of this nature. Despite the "slight damage per page" aspect this unfortunately shows an extremely persistent unwillingness to work with the community (or even to read and understand WP:MOS - I'd think that should be an obvious first step if you're going to work in this area of the encyclopedia). A block seems extreme, especially as he is clearly well-intentioned, but it may be the only way to really get him to engage in discussion on these issues. Jeh (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm having a deja-vu feeling. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The behavior is continuing even after this ANI thread was created, and despite two template warnings on the user's talk page. N419BH 03:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Leandrod:

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

The previous ANI that was opened on September 3 is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive718#User:Leandrod. The editor was duly notified but did not reply to the ANI complaint. His talk page shows that others have made many attempts to reason with him. A short block may be needed to get his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also linked to the previous ANI thread in my original post. By the way Leandrod was notified of this thread as well. His response were two dozen more edits, many of them against MOS. N419BH 04:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

More changes to page numbers made since this ANI post was begun. User has not engaged in any discussion of any kind. N419BH 04:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor will not listen to feedback or consider changing his habits, so he is blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No response yet. What will happen if he just resumes editing after 48 hours? Jeh (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I expect we will not get one. If he resumes the problematic edits after the block expires I will be raising the issue with the blocking admin directly, while making another report on this thread. In such a situation I would expect the sanction to be of greater duration. N419BH 07:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

B-Machine

B-Machine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ...and again this user is removing other user's talk page comments (Talk:African American, Revision as of 09:37, 9 September 2011). The earlier WP:ANI originally listed at 17:20, 7 September 2011 was archived 09:36, 9 September 2011 with no response from an administrator.

These are recent incidents, mostly occurring within the last 18 days. How long will this behavior be allowed to continue before it's addressed? Sottolacqua (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, in this edit one could argue that they removed a comment that didn't pertain to any discussion about the article. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Color me surprised that no action was taken. Why was it archived with no comment by an administrator? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure on that myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI threads are archived by a bot if there are no comments for 24 hours. That's why. VanIsaac_WS 01:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no action taken because the OP was showing us a pattern of behaviour that was sporadic, but yes included actions within an 18 day period. The OP was advised very early to take it to WP:RFC/U, and the thread was basically over then. There was nothing immediately disruptive that required a block to protect the project. Could we have done a "look, you're blocked until you start communicating nicely" block? Maybe, but it would have been wholly punitive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Sambokim again

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) his latest self-promoting IP sock needs blocked again 211.173.137.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and maybe a 1 month semi on Samuel H. Kim and Ric Jackman. Ric being the new foreign player on the team he's now the latest target for his promotion.--Crossmr (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio reinstantiating

More silliness from User:Wikinger sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user restored blatant copyvios. I provide examples of copyvios removed both by Vanisaac and JOHNDOE: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Arabic_numerals&action=historysubmit&diff=449214957&oldid=449203639 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_metric_system&diff=prev&oldid=449320597 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Units_of_measurement_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=449320512 http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=French_Republican_Calendar&diff=prev&oldid=449320466 Just in case, if he will abuse me somehow, please undo any of his abusive, revengeful actions. JOHNDOE (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC) You are required to notify editors whom you wish to discuss here: I have done so for you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't call them blatent copy violations as the question over whether this is considered 2D or 3D artwork was never actually completed. Also, as per this discussion, permission has been obtained and is awaiting OTRS approval. The image can simply be tagged "pending OTRS" and restored to the articles. If necessary, it can be moved to enwp before being tagged "pending OTRS", I'm not sure on common's policy concerning that. It's also a bit assuming bad faith to suggest that someone might abuse your user page when it hasn't happened yet.--v/r - TP 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I mean potential abuses based on his administrative conduct. For example, he uses obscene "wanking" here, while earlier he was blocked for noncivility. I request interaction (both direct and indirect) ban to be placed upon him, just in case, so he will not be able to block me in revenge for editing inside his revir. He is even proud of his admin abuse. I wonder how many innocent users were blocked by him, among crowd of vandals, simply because he ate them before they could defend themselves. Because I do not want fell prey to him, I request that someone will constantly shield me from him. JOHNDOE (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Continue with the personal attacks, JOHNDOE, and it won't just be FPaS you need to worry about blocks from. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC) OK. I ask only for editing comfort without worrying of being blocked for being here and editing here alone. I wonder, why you attributed to me personal attacks, while I only provided diffs, without any vulgar insults, except citing? I really thought that personal attack is at least middle finger word. Finally, please tell me what I should avoid here to stay here for long, even unto becoming admin here - I see that you use weird associations between unwanted behavior and its naming, so we are not understanding ourselves. JOHNDOE (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I recently had a run-in with this admin over image upload issues, and I think I should voice that I was concerned my account was going to being blocked out of anger, even after the apparent conflict had been resolved [179]. So, there is some weight to what JOHNDOE is saying. The admin has shown a tendency to get frustrated quickly with others, frequently assuming bad faith and has stretched WP:CIV to very thin limits.[180] [181] [182] [183]. I mean no disrespect to this admin nor do I wish to be labeled as disruptive, I am just concerned that this is not the conduct one would expect from a Wikipedia administrator. It certainly wasn't when I was one, as yes I was DS'd for being a bad admin, as recently people have been very quick to point out. [184] [185] -OberRanks (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: User:JOHNDOE is another obvious sock of User:Wikinger and has been blocked. About the image, yes, it is proabably problematic. I proposed it for deletion on Commons myself. However, the matter is currently not settled and there is a chance we may be able to keep it, so it is currently not necessary to remove it. And even if it were, Wikinger is banned, so he is not welcome to either make these removals or open threads about them here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a tag that will show an image with a delete discussion that will automatically update to a new image if the original image is deleted? I'm just wondering. VanIsaac_WS 02:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You could always use {{#ifexist:(image 1)|(image 1)|(image 2)}}, which would display (image 1) if it exists, and (image 2) if it doesn't. Using a parser in article text might discourage some people from editing, though, as they look a lot more imposing than they are. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've stopped SporkBot

I thought I should mention this as User:Plasticspork is offline. I've shut it down after I was told it was blanking single malt articles. On a temperance rampage? I thought I should mention it somewhere as people might be puzzled to see all the empty articles. I presume there isn't a good reason for this I've missed? Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted all the blanking before I saw this thread. I can't see any reason why those articles should be blanked, so I'm going to assume I did the right thing. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems a good move to me. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I can not write a proper comment anymore because of user SAMOFI

Dear Admins, I had an argument before with User:Samofi. I created a page about Principality of Hungary and I tried to improve another article (Hungarian Invasions of Europe) and I usually work with Hungarian related topics from the first time. After that when I created and contributed on those new pages, I felt that his only aim is to ruin my work. I know I should not have used offensive tone when I was upset because of him. I apologized about my tone (in Talk page of Principality of Hungary). I was inexperienced about the proper Wiki rules before. Now I know, I always have to be calm during a discussion. However, I can not write a normal comment anymore, because (as you will see) he ruins my comments and continuously abuses me. I think the Wikipedia is not about to mess with each others job, but about mutual teamwork for a better result.
Please check:

• Talk:Principality_of_Hungary#Requested_move
• Talk:Principality_of_Hungary#Why_to_delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of HungaryFakirbakir (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear admins, I agree that I reacted too fast with the nomination for a deletion. But that artcicle was a crap - lot of unsourced matherial, lot of original research.. I try to improve it with the adding of notices and with the discussion at talk page. Its just a report from the frustrated user who calls other users nationalists (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Hungary&diff=447867205&oldid=447866979). This usser is canvassing together with user Koertefa about this artcile: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hungary&oldid=448937048#Principality_of_Hungary. As you can see at the talkpage, he is not able to say arguments so than cries here. --Samofi (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Samofi could also could fall under WP:CANVASS, check his talk page, but this argument is about his disruptive edits.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I apologized about my tone. [186]Fakirbakir (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any links to any specific edits where User:Samofi engages in vandalism of your comments? As far as I can see, these pages contain a simmering conflict in the form of Afd and Move requests, but none of the comments seem to contain malicious content. VanIsaac_WS 11:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I can not read my own comments properly, because he made remarks in my sentences, broke my edits with his comments.

Here: [187]

Here: [188]

Here: [189]

And about his tone, Is it "Good faith"? :

Cited:" you can edit Hungarian Wikipedia and use Hungarian sources insted of your disruptions and original researches at English Wikipedia"

"Manipulation with the Hungarian term fejedelem"

" you again lie and cite not properly "

"Do you diagree because you are a Magyar patriot (as you wrote) or because of any reliable reason"Fakirbakir (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So he hasn't actually changed any of the content, he's just not followed standard indentation convention. Samofi, do you think you could work on making sure that all of your comments are on their own lines, and properly indented by placing at least one more colon at the start of your comments than what you are responding to? I think that would address the major problems, especially if you would put all of your comments after the previous writer's signature.

As to his tone, yeah, it could probably use some polish, but I have seen much more heated arguments. Accusations of lying, however, are not helpful or productive, and I personally expect better in future from Samofi. The question about being a Magyar patriot is a legitimate one regarding your impartiality in regards to these issues, though. VanIsaac_WS 13:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Giving answers in text from someone else is a complete NONO and close to vandalism. Fakirbakir is right with that. But it is easy enough to change the layout quickly to make clear that someone is answering and it is a case of good manners from Samofi to that care of that.... Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

@Samofi - This is clearly manipulation of another editors comments. I'll assume you meant no harm by it, but in the future please quote the material you wish to comment on instead of changing other users comments.--v/r - TP 12:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

About "good manners", User Samofi questioned the reliability of academic sources. It is not "good faith".Fakirbakir (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard isn't really about solving good manners. You might try WP:WQA. I really dont see the need for admin action here.--v/r - TP 13:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Samofi was already blocked indefinitely and was unblocked after the lobbying of the now banned user:Iaaasi [190] user:Iaaasi went so far as to claim responsibility for some of the socks formerly blocked as belonging to Samofi. Though Iaaasi did not disclose those previously, he claimed responsibility so as to achieve Samofi's unblock. So this unblock came under very suspicious circumstances and after three different administrators all declined to unblock [191]. Further at the time of unblock there was a vague warning to Samofi "You will advised that there will be many eyes on your future edits". So with respect to these previous events and recent developments, I would support formalizing that in the form of some type of editing parole, editing restriction, monitoring or whatever the community decides. Because as this thread shows there is a returning problem concerning Samofi's editing, despite a previous quite stern warning (if an indefinite block can be considered that). Hobartimus (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I had only one sockpuppet - the csaba babba. i never used this 2.. dear hobartimus assume a good fight, you removed my sources when I was a newcomer, you never helped me, you made a investigations against me together with baxter. you were against me when I started to edit. and this your comment confirmed your hate agains me. --Samofi (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have followed closely these two contributors recently and have noticed the following: Both editors have pretty much the same amount of experience in wikipedia, however the behavior is different. A little history: Samofi was indeffed in 2010 for his disruptive behavior and then readmitted, because he recognized his errors, whereas Fakirbakir has a clean record.

In my opinion Samofi is following a battleground mentality in wikipedia. I saw him edit warring in Martina Hingis, because he couldn't accept any source that her father was of Hungarian descent (in fact I got to know both editors because I contribute often in WP:RSN). Although many contributors there said that a lot of sources supported the Hungarian descent of her father, see here Samofi disputed each one of them and did not accept consensus, forcing an admin to close the whole issue by semiprotecting and taking away the right to anyone to say anything about Carol Hingis descent (See admin's edit). Now Samofi's manipulation of Fakirbakir's comments, reported above, is frustrating, but there is more. Samofi ran to send to deletion Fakirbakir's article Principality of Hungary on September 5th, and, after that, seeing that the AfD might have a keep outcome, he opened a request for a move from Principality of Hungary to Hungarian Tribal Union on September 7 without seeing the outcome of the AfD and without retiring the nomination.

Furthermore both Fakirbakir and Samofi canvassed for their causes and when I warned them both (see this and this), the reaction was completely different: While Fakirbakir became aware of the fact that canvassing is an undesirable practice, he promptly deleted, while Samofi didn't. Samofi never AGFd Fakirbakir and actually filed an SPI here.

Please notice that, at least recently, all Samofi does is to diminish the importance of the Hungarian population of Slovakia: He didn't get any clue from the admin intervention on Martina Hingis, but continued in the last week to make edits such as this, where the outcome is just to use a redirect, and to make the word "Slovakia" appear before the word "Hungarian".

If each single behavior might not require admin intervention, the whole behavior shows a battleground mentality. Samofi's wikistalking of Fakirbakir is also noticeable: the change of comments is really annoying, because each comment has to have a signature at the end, and, when a comment is altered, no one will understand anything easily when things will be forgotten, because Samofi's comment is before Fakirbakir's signature.

I am inexperienced in these noticeboards, but I believe that, given Samofi's history, there are grounds for a block. He is being disruptive again, just as in 2010. A stern final warning might work as well. Divide et Impera (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, Samofi should never have been unblocked in the first place, and now that his behaviour is continuing as it was previously, he should be reblocked indefinitely and his user page protected to prevent any attempt at appealing. Colofac (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted that edit since it doesn't add anything that has already been said about the subject. I've read through the material here and find that Samofi's refactoring of Fakirbakir's comments makes it very difficult to follow a thread, in effect it's having the opposite effect of WP:REFACTOR and actually violates WP:TPO. I'd propose a topic ban on Samofi on editing Hungarian topics broadly construed unless an indef is agreed upon. --Blackmane (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the change of the content of fakirbakirs coment. it was the citations of the books and I wanted to add a opossiture there and it was faster to write there directly. I wrote to edit summary "answer to the sources about the Principality of Hungary"(http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Hungary&diff=449072553&oldid=449063660). it was not in the bad faith, next time I will not do that. about peter huncik, i have found a source: http://levice.sme.sk/c/5954909/sahy-v-stredoeuropskom-romane-petera-huncika.html wich says, that he is a Slovak. He is a Slovak psychiatrist and member of Hungarian minority in Slovakia. He was born in Slovakia works in the Slovak Republic, for the Slovak citizens (for the Slovak cizitens of Slovak, Hungarian, German... ethnicity and so on). In the article in Martina Hingis was from the 2008 that she is Czech/Hungarian. In the top of the article. I have noticed it, I have found a reliable sources that her father was Slovak and all thing about her descent was removed. Slovaks are proud about her and I found reliable sources, that her father is Slovak. I made it in the good faith. and i accepted this state on the article of martina hingis. about principality.. the name of the article is created. Hungarian principality means different than Principality of Hungary, it was principality after 970. Article is mostly about the time from 895 to 1000. So the time between the 895 - 970(2) dont belongs here and it was the Hungarian tribal union. Until the 906 it was a Great Moravia when Hungarians came. So they came 895, nomadic people, running against the pechenegs, living in the teritory of Great Moravia for a 11 years and they had a principality? :) In the whole article is a lot of unlogical things and the name of article is bad translation of the Hungarian principality. Name Hungary is younger. Official name of the kingdom untill the 19th century was Hungaria. In the era of romantic nationalism in 19th century they started to call all empire Magyarorszagh - Land of Hungarians - Hungary. Gaspar Heltai (its written in Hungarian) wrote about a few lands in the Hungarian kingdom:

Magyar krónika: Vol. 1 Gáspár Heltai 1789, - str. 12 : Noha a’ régi várofok el-pufztúltanak Magyar Orfzágban, de azért fzámtalan fok Várofok , Mező- Várofok , Várok , fajuk, és eröfségek vagynak Magyar Orfzágban, Tót Orfzágban , Slovák Orfzágban, Horvát Orfzágban, Rátz Orfzágban, … --Samofi (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot the delete my canvassing from the page, its already deleted. I was busy today. --Samofi (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In my good faith, your opinion is a inequity against me. fakirbakir still has not delete his canvassing: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hungary&oldid=448937048#Principality_of_Hungary Koertefa joined him. Its ambivalent gaze to us. He told that Iam nationalist and still not delete it: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary and he also makes edit warring on the Slovak related articles and removing content calling it legends: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Great_Moravia&diff=446830720&oldid=446222119

I have no words..Iam disillusioned about you guys.. --Samofi (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have believed this 'good faith' stuff from user Samofi If he had removed his improper texts from my comments at talk page of Principality of Hungary. But, of course, he did not.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC

I deleted my canvass yesterday as user Divide et Impera recommended. Why does he state untrue things?Fakirbakir (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay Fakirbakir, sorry for it, I had opened a older version of that page. I explained why I added my comments to your sources and I told about it in the edit summary. But okay, I will repair it. --Samofi (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am also disturbed by the activities of user Samofi. As Divide et Impera pointed out, he has a battleground mentality and his contributions to Wikipedia are mostly limited to nationalistic edits, e.g., [192] [193] [194] [195] [196]. The problem is not only with his questionable contributions, but also with his editing style. He doesn't really understand the rules of Wikipedia, for example, he gave urls of Google searches as sources [197][198], he edited messages of another user [199], called another user a liar [200] and not assumed good faith [201]. I indicated some of these issues to him [202] [203], but instead of learning from his mistakes, he made a personal attack against me [204], initiated a sockpuppet investigation against me, then called me a "meatpuppet" and accused me of "vandalism" [205]. Recently, he has initiated another sockpuppet investigation against me [206]. I think that he sees me as an "enemy". Therefore, his presence on Wikipedia means a lot of disturbance and I also think that there are grounds for a block. Koertefa (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Iam permanently called a nationalist because I add the Slovak nationality if its referenced? I added a references about the Jedliks Father, about Martina Huingis, Peter Huncik. Iam permanently abused from the side of Nmate and Hobartimus. They never discussed with me but made a investigations and delete of my content. This situation is more than a year. All my sources are deleteing: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=449286020&oldid=449277500

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Slovak_principality&action=history

So to all my sources is paying a no attention? My sources from the Slovak related articles are removing and my comments about Hungarian related articles are ignored.

Article about Slovaks in Hungary was deleted after the activity of Hungarian editors: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Dpmuk/Slovaks_in_Hungary_discussion

Really good future for me in Wikipedia. Where is the equality? --Samofi (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, Samofi is a highly disruptive user: none of his English sentences is correct grammatically, keeps edit warring, one of his primary interest appears to be changing the nationality of a lot of famous person who have articles about on Wikipedia from Hungarian into Slovak, block shopping, and keeps making bold edits on the most contentious articles, which make it difficult to be taken him seriously.--Nmate (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nmate, its only your opinion. My English is no reason for my block (as you are trying to enforce). All changes of the nationality were based on the sources - Martina Hingis, father of Anian Jedlik, Petzval, Huncik, Bugar - last two are Slovak citizens of Hungarian ethnicity. Bugar is Slovak politic, coz he is in the Slovak parliament and his citizenship is Slovak. He is the leader of the Hungarian/Slovak party Most-Híd (Bridge - bridge between Slovaks and Hungarians.) (for example see this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_T%C5%91k%C3%A9s) Hungarian politician is politician in Hungary and in Hungarian parliament. Say me more about my edit warring please. "keeps making bold edits on the most contentious articles" - i use talkpage and reliable sources, so say me what are you talking about please. I have an idea - Slovak and Hungarian historiography has a different view on the period from 800 to present. So it should be place in the each of article for a Slovak point of view and for a Hungarian point of view. It will more constructive than a throwing logs under our feet. If sources are written by expert why not. What are you doing for Wikipedia? Look to your edits: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nmate Which sources have you added to the articles? When have you assumed a good faith? I agree that Iam crude often and I react faster than thinking but I have a negative emotions from you and hobartimus. you are trying from the begin of my editing to prohibit my editing at wikipedia. you could help me, we could discuss when I was a newcomer - do not bite a newcomers. now you are trying to prohibit my editing again, all time I have a problems with you two. Now I think the Fakirbakir felt the same like me when he wrotes this Incident to this noticeboard.. Iam sorry that I was like a Hobartimus and Nmate to you(Fakirbakir) and I hope that I will not finish as a frustrated user with complexes like this 2 guys.. --Samofi (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As for assuming good faith[207]:

• Why "Assume Good Faith" is the stupidest Wikipedia policy of them all... except in the way that it's actually written.

Synopsis: You can't force editors to assume something they know not to be true. Nor should you. If try to do so you won't suceed, all you're doing is creating another weapon in the arsenal of conflict warriors to fight with as they just end up accusing each other of "not assuming good faith". In a tragi-comic kind of way, often some editors indignantly demand that somebody assume good faith towards them while at the same time they're quite busy blatantly, obviously and hypocritically shopping for a block against the very person they demand this off. But the policy as she's actually written recognizes this - too bad few people ever bother to actually read it. You most definitely SHOULD assume good faith in regard to new editors or those you have not interacted with much before. How about this?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fakirbakir
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#Fakirbakir_-_personal_attack.2C_disruptive_editing.2C_not_assuming_a_good_fight

--Nmate (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

edits of fakirbakir (claimant) - he made a worse edits as were ascribed to me

Editors said a lot of things about my edits, but look at this, fakirbakirs edits broken all what the other editors told about me:

• 1. he is sad coz i entitled him as Magyar patriot - he entitled me a Slovak nationalist who hates Hungarian firstly
• 2. i stopped with canvassing but he is canvassing again: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Borsoka#Principality_of_Nitra and here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Francia#About_the_vassal_states - manipulations and agitations
• 3. editors told that i vandalize a Hungarian related pages (and dont know about any vandalism from the my side) and he cant work at Wikipedia. So see his recent edits about the Slovak related articles. Changed the year without the source and discussion: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=prev&oldid=449419628 and the sourced therm was marked as dubious: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=prev&oldid=449413629 and he is screaming in the discussion: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Nitra&diff=449413784&oldid=434969260 and user invited by a agitation was involved in this talk: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Nitra&diff=449555251&oldid=449546258 but I personaly agree with Boroska. --Samofi (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

and he still continue with the disruptive editing of Slovak articles: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=449558887&oldid=449558480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

fakirbakir is like a wasp. he changes my edits shortly after I made them. the sourced term was deleted and rewrite with his terms: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&diff=449561092&oldid=449553197 --Samofi (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admins,

• 1 I had some questions from a professional about Principality of Nitra. I did not ask him to help. User_talk:Borsoka#Principality of Nitra
• 2 Principality of Nitra has a lots of theory, its factual accuracy is more than scandalous (theories without primary sources)
• 3 I did not delete his "sourced term" you can check it easily at page of Principality of Hungary.

However what do you think it is normal what he is doing here? His personal attacks against me are incorrect. You can check my editing. It is untrue what he states above.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the full conversation about Principality of Nitra,Talk:Principality_of_Nitra#Independent state?????? He manipulates my comments (he cited my first sentence when I started to create my comment)Fakirbakir (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check this conversation he manipulated a link before as well. He stated I did not delete my supposed canvassing. Of course he used an old link to demonstrate his point of view

• Cited: "fakirbakir still has not delete his canvassing: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hungary&oldid=448937048#Principality_of_Hungary Koertefa joined him. Its ambivalent gaze to us. He told that Iam nationalist and still not delete it: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary"
  

He states untrue things. It is awful. I can not discuss with him because he is unable to make a proper conversation.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"assume a good fight"?

(Non-administrator comment) Just to clarify:

• if there is no "th" sound in the language you usually speak and you substitute a "t" sound for it,
• if you sound out "faith", letter by letter, with phonetic values used in most languages that use the latin alphabet,

then you get you get /fait/, pronounced like the word "fight" in English. And might mistakenly use it as a homophone. My apologies all round if I'm pointing out the obvious. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it could also sound like "assume good fate" if you pronounce the TH like a T, which means "the end justifies the means", or "all's well that ends well" :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedes Article

Resolved

 – OP to take issue to another forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a user named Maunus who keeps editing the Swedes article based on his own point of view. He basically keeps adding Finns (the Finnish people) as a related ETHNIC group to the Swedes. This is not fact. They are unrelated ethnically. The Swedes are a Germanic peoples who speak a Germanic language and are genetically related to other Germanic peoples, while the Finns are a Finno-Uralic peoples who speak a Uralic language and are completely unrelated to the Germanic peoples. Can an Admin please do something about this? TheGoodSon 19:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a content dispute - unless you are suggesting that Maunus is breaking any Wikipedia rules, this doesn't need to be discussed here. And secondly, I think you need to grasp that there is more to ethnicity than language or genetics (though the suggestion that Swedes and Finns are entirely unrelated genetically is somewhat implausible). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you've discussed this issue on the article Talk page (a good thing). Why don't you take the content dispute to WP:DRN? There are also other things you could do to resolve a content dispute, like WP:RFC. At this juncture, in my non-admin view, this doesn't really call for administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - could an uninvolved admin close this as off-topic for this noticeboard please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The truth is all Europeans are related to each other in one way or another, but there are groups that are just more ethnically related to each other than to other Europeans. Culturally, linguistically, and genetically - the Swedes are most closely related to the Danes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch, and Icelandic people. They are all "Germanic peoples". Swedes and Finns speak languages that are totally unrelated and genetically are more distant from the Swedes than other Germanic peoples. Culturally, Sweden shares much more in common with Norway, Denmark, Germany, and Iceland than it does with Finland. It's just fact. But I will take this to where Bbb23 suggested. TheGoodSon 20:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban for non-free images for software topics such as Norton Internet Security

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 have a long history of uploading files for software files without running afowl of the rules. Also, most image articles involve simply updating EXISTING images. I have a strong understanding of licensing for software articles. Other users like Borisv222 have uploaded the image using an incorrect license.

I only got a slight confusion about what is considered important with the Doctor Who episodes. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 10:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Since this noticeboard is for matters of general administrator interest, I would suggest moving it to ANI, which is a more watched page - it seems fair that other people get to contribute to the discussion. I would also advise you to provide some actual context to your request - where is the ban discussion? Why were you topic banned? What are the diffs? What assurances can you provide that it won't happen again? Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The archieved topic is http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#Topic_ban. I have always edited software articles. I have uploaded:

• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Nis2010mainscreen.png
• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:NortonInternetSecurity2011.PNG
• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:LiveUpdate.png

and many others.

I will not work/upload Doctor Who episodes and other fair use areas of "gray" or where "significance" is doubted. If in doubt, I will not upload the picture. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I to assume that the screenshots you have provided are designed to act as assurances that you now understand the area? Because you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Nis2010mainscreen.png for example: "Low Resolution?: None". "Replaceable?: Probably copyrighted". One of the images you bring up as an illustration of your work is an image that you had to edit to include the appropriate data because it was actually brought up in the topic ban as an example of you doing things incorrectly. I can't see any assurances that you now understand the issues, and your statement here fails to actually note what you did wrong. "I have always edited software articles" for example, is moot; "I will not work/upload Doctor Who episodes and other fair use areas of "gray" or where "significance" is doubted" ignores some of the primary concerns of those commenting at the topic ban, which involves the software images you've been uploading. At this point I'm not willing to throw out the topic ban, and will remain unwilling until I see actual evidence that you understand the reasons for it and have taken steps to ensure that problems don't happen again - as I requested above, and as you have failed to provide as an aside, you've actually borked up copyright a wee bit by taking "move the discussion to ANI" to mean "please copy and paste my comment, which the software now attributes to you". Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that in the past. I'm not that good at writing the reasoning but I believe the software article are clear cut cases. At the most, I would like to request uploading the Norton screenshots (obiously under fair use). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• You believe the software cases are clear-cut and acceptable. As the last thread made clear, this is not always the case. I'm not getting the impression that you understand the issues any better than you did when you were banned. Ironholds (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Both Norton images pretty clearly fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, so I've removed them. It's fairly clear the user does not understand non-free policy, so their best plan is clearly not to touch the area at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Am I reading his topic ban wrong or was this pretty much a blatant violation? N^oformation ^Talk 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • It was. See my close above. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:ERA

Lonewulf44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Bobr48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
69.251.54.49 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
74.202.252.162 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
24.57.201.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

There is what looks like some kind of coordinated effort to violate WP:ERA at Judas Maccabeus‎ over the last couple of days. The above accounts have been systematically substituting "BC" for "BCE". Blocks and more eyes would be helpful. I'm not sure about protection, though, as the article makes a good honeypot for new disruptive accounts. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a checkuser involving the relation of these accounts to User:Alexandre8 would be a good idea, given that he was blocked for WP:ERA disruption immediately before these accounts appeared.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It'll take a Checkuser to look at the two registered accounts, but the IPs are all from different ISPs and geolocate to different areas. There may be off-wiki coordination going on to WP:TAGTEAM the editing, but I'd say it's doubtful that it's all one person, unless there's proxying going on that I can't spot. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(I am not an admin) 90.201.71.162 also seems to be the same editor as Alexandre8 as per these edit summaries [208] and [209]. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've started an SPI. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pokemonblackds - continued distruption despite block and warnings

Resolved

 – Pokemonblackds has been blocked by Jpgordon — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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

On the advice of an administrator, I would like to draw your attention to this user. Despite a recent block (issued on 6 September 2011) for continued disruptive editing, this user continues to disrupt, most recently nominating the sandbox for indefinite full protection. It is this action that causes me to believe that the user is not here to edit or work constructively. Could an admin take a look at the case? Regards, Colofac (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, but testing things like templates is the primary purpose of the sandbox. Since his block on the 6th, he's done nothing blockable yet, and may indeed be trying to learn how to properly use Wikipedia. Agreeably, he needs to be watched, but nothing worth a block at the moment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

He actually filed the report here, knowing full well what the page is for, I am not convinced his actions are for testing. Colofac (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen how many times the Sandbox has been nominated for speedy deletion? Using Twinkle automatically notifies the creator of the page. This is not a new thing. Oh yes, we have something called WP:AGF ... bad users can become good editors. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Rarely. AGF can only apply when users change their ways, as of late, all of this users' contributions are either disruptive or vandalism. AGF is therefore out of the question. Colofac (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

He's also playing good hand/bad hand with his IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I was the admin who advised Colofac to take the matter here; I'd be inclined to block Pokemonblackds per WP:CIR and Jpgordon's revelation only serves to strengthen my opinion.. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good hand/bad hand would be inappropriate and would be grounds. Playing in a sandbox wouldn't be (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the user's access to Twinkle should be temporarily revoked. The actions that resulted in their last block were enabled by Twinkle, and the post-block edits also show a cavalier attitude towards how that tool should be used. The Interior (Talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That was possible in the old days, now Twinkle's part of the basic interface. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I fear my wording has caused confusion, but now that the user is seen to be using sockpuppets not only to evade blocks (which should have resulted in an indefinite block in the first place), he's doing it to game the system. I'll keep my eye on him Colofac (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No need. I blocked him. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed as each other:

• Qwerty1219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Qwerty1214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Spy12190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Appstore (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Newyork1219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pokemonblackds (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 18:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to lift topic ban for non-free images for software topics such as Norton Internet Security

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 have a long history of uploading files for software files without running afowl of the rules. Also, most image articles involve simply updating EXISTING images. I have a strong understanding of licensing for software articles. Other users like Borisv222 have uploaded the image using an incorrect license.

I only got a slight confusion about what is considered important with the Doctor Who episodes. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 10:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Since this noticeboard is for matters of general administrator interest, I would suggest moving it to ANI, which is a more watched page - it seems fair that other people get to contribute to the discussion. I would also advise you to provide some actual context to your request - where is the ban discussion? Why were you topic banned? What are the diffs? What assurances can you provide that it won't happen again? Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The archieved topic is http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#Topic_ban. I have always edited software articles. I have uploaded:

• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Nis2010mainscreen.png
• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:NortonInternetSecurity2011.PNG
• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:LiveUpdate.png

and many others.

I will not work/upload Doctor Who episodes and other fair use areas of "gray" or where "significance" is doubted. If in doubt, I will not upload the picture. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 11:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I to assume that the screenshots you have provided are designed to act as assurances that you now understand the area? Because you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Nis2010mainscreen.png for example: "Low Resolution?: None". "Replaceable?: Probably copyrighted". One of the images you bring up as an illustration of your work is an image that you had to edit to include the appropriate data because it was actually brought up in the topic ban as an example of you doing things incorrectly. I can't see any assurances that you now understand the issues, and your statement here fails to actually note what you did wrong. "I have always edited software articles" for example, is moot; "I will not work/upload Doctor Who episodes and other fair use areas of "gray" or where "significance" is doubted" ignores some of the primary concerns of those commenting at the topic ban, which involves the software images you've been uploading. At this point I'm not willing to throw out the topic ban, and will remain unwilling until I see actual evidence that you understand the reasons for it and have taken steps to ensure that problems don't happen again - as I requested above, and as you have failed to provide as an aside, you've actually borked up copyright a wee bit by taking "move the discussion to ANI" to mean "please copy and paste my comment, which the software now attributes to you". Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that in the past. I'm not that good at writing the reasoning but I believe the software article are clear cut cases. At the most, I would like to request uploading the Norton screenshots (obiously under fair use). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• You believe the software cases are clear-cut and acceptable. As the last thread made clear, this is not always the case. I'm not getting the impression that you understand the issues any better than you did when you were banned. Ironholds (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Both Norton images pretty clearly fail WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, so I've removed them. It's fairly clear the user does not understand non-free policy, so their best plan is clearly not to touch the area at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Am I reading his topic ban wrong or was this pretty much a blatant violation? N^oformation ^Talk 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • It was. See my close above. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:ERA

Lonewulf44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Bobr48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
69.251.54.49 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
74.202.252.162 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
24.57.201.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

There is what looks like some kind of coordinated effort to violate WP:ERA at Judas Maccabeus‎ over the last couple of days. The above accounts have been systematically substituting "BC" for "BCE". Blocks and more eyes would be helpful. I'm not sure about protection, though, as the article makes a good honeypot for new disruptive accounts. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a checkuser involving the relation of these accounts to User:Alexandre8 would be a good idea, given that he was blocked for WP:ERA disruption immediately before these accounts appeared.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It'll take a Checkuser to look at the two registered accounts, but the IPs are all from different ISPs and geolocate to different areas. There may be off-wiki coordination going on to WP:TAGTEAM the editing, but I'd say it's doubtful that it's all one person, unless there's proxying going on that I can't spot. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(I am not an admin) 90.201.71.162 also seems to be the same editor as Alexandre8 as per these edit summaries [210] and [211]. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've started an SPI. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The two accounts are not related to Alexandre8 but are probably related to each other. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pokemonblackds - continued distruption despite block and warnings

Resolved

 – Pokemonblackds has been blocked by Jpgordon — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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

On the advice of an administrator, I would like to draw your attention to this user. Despite a recent block (issued on 6 September 2011) for continued disruptive editing, this user continues to disrupt, most recently nominating the sandbox for indefinite full protection. It is this action that causes me to believe that the user is not here to edit or work constructively. Could an admin take a look at the case? Regards, Colofac (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, but testing things like templates is the primary purpose of the sandbox. Since his block on the 6th, he's done nothing blockable yet, and may indeed be trying to learn how to properly use Wikipedia. Agreeably, he needs to be watched, but nothing worth a block at the moment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

He actually filed the report here, knowing full well what the page is for, I am not convinced his actions are for testing. Colofac (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen how many times the Sandbox has been nominated for speedy deletion? Using Twinkle automatically notifies the creator of the page. This is not a new thing. Oh yes, we have something called WP:AGF ... bad users can become good editors. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Rarely. AGF can only apply when users change their ways, as of late, all of this users' contributions are either disruptive or vandalism. AGF is therefore out of the question. Colofac (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

He's also playing good hand/bad hand with his IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I was the admin who advised Colofac to take the matter here; I'd be inclined to block Pokemonblackds per WP:CIR and Jpgordon's revelation only serves to strengthen my opinion.. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good hand/bad hand would be inappropriate and would be grounds. Playing in a sandbox wouldn't be (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the user's access to Twinkle should be temporarily revoked. The actions that resulted in their last block were enabled by Twinkle, and the post-block edits also show a cavalier attitude towards how that tool should be used. The Interior (Talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That was possible in the old days, now Twinkle's part of the basic interface. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I fear my wording has caused confusion, but now that the user is seen to be using sockpuppets not only to evade blocks (which should have resulted in an indefinite block in the first place), he's doing it to game the system. I'll keep my eye on him Colofac (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No need. I blocked him. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed as each other:

• Qwerty1219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Qwerty1214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Spy12190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Appstore (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Newyork1219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pokemonblackds (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 18:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Release the kraken!

See a long-scale 7-revert edit war at Kraken and the related talk page conversations at Talk:Kraken/Archive 1#Lots of content removed...twice?, User talk:Mgiganteus#Kraken, User talk:Bob the Wikipedian#Kraken, User talk:Thebladesofchaos#Kraken. Conflict between User:Mgiganteus and User:Thebladesofchaos (who changed his alias during the conflict to BladeofOlympus and also has changed his username to User:PurpleHeartEditor. Edit war includes 7 slow (but explicit) reverts over the course of a month and a few days; revisions selected by each user are practically the same each time, with the exception of various minor edits they've accepted. Reverted content comes in at around 5KB each time. I attempted early on to mediate and work with them to resolve the conflict (which ended up merely cluttering the edit history with smaller edits that ended up getting reverted in the war), but at this point I feel it would be a conflict of interest to take sides with either of them. Around Aug 25 I warned[212] them that they had violated WP:3RR.

Today I noticed the war was still going on and brought this to #wikipedia-en-admins (in the hopes of finding someone who hadn't been directly involved yet-- my apologies if that's the wrong way to handle these things). A summary of the IRC discussion follows: Fluffernutter agreed with me that some sort of action is in order here. WilliamH_UK agreed but wasn't sure a block would be very effective here, his reasoning being the slow pace of this edit war; his suggestion was a page protect. Heim indicated the WP:3RR may not have been strong enough to warrant a block and suggested a page protect might be a bit extreme.

I would have blocked these editors following the first set of two-way reverts after August 25, but have not undergone "admin training" and don't feel comfortable yet with blocking people. Any help is appreciated. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 On hold until further edit warring occurs. The editors seem to have calmed down following the above post and having been made aware of the new publicity of the issue. I'm going to request no one take action yet unless the edit war continues following this point. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It has died down a bit since, so I don't think protecting or blocking would do any good at this point. –MuZemike 07:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

All editors should be required to gaze into the eyes of Medusa, and if they turn to stone then they are guilty of disruption.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Chyawanprash Copyvio and advertising

This page contains copyvio of http://easyayurveda.com/2009/09/08/chyawanprash-one-herbal-medicine-many-health-benefits/ as well as being very much advertising WP:CSD criteria G11. Despite this, the dspeedydelete tags are being removed... by non-admins. 86.179.216.18 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I dunno about speedy deletion, but that article is currently a mass of NPOV. I've tagged it for now, but I don't know anything about the topic so I'm not going to start editing it. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You have been editing Wikipedia for less than twenty minutes, and somehow you know about both CSD and AN/I. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under a different identity? CityOfSilver 00:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was NEVER banned, and have no other current accounts. I edited a long time ago, but do not want to become involved again. You're reverting me based SOLELY on your false accusations.

As a non-administrator, are you even actually allowed to reject CSDs? [Also, having some connection issues, so IP may change] 86.174.15.141 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to WP:CSD, "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." (emphasis mine). That doesn't say anything about the editor being an admin. N419BH 00:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I see the copyvio, but I've nominated the article for speedy deletion under CSD:G11, as read through the article revealed it to be unambiguous advertising requiring a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. N419BH 07:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Could use some uninvolved admin eyes on a discussion

Resolved

 – Wrong place. Respondents are welcome to take it elsewhere although it seems no one wants to bother. Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that User:Cerejota is using this discussion as an opportunity to escalate, not resolve, a dispute. I'm sure there are more pressing matters at hand, but could I ask for a few more eyes to gain a broader perspective? If I'm in the wrong, I'm glad to admit it. I just can't see it that way at present. Please help. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ADMINSHOP much?--Cerejota (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've explained my position above. Asking for uninvolved administrators is certainly within social norms here. You've chosen a forum you regularly participate in, I'm asking for balance. BusterD (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:ADMINSHOP. In the discussion, already another admin weight in, and not in my support. I seriously ask you that if you are really interested in resolving this situation, you close this and move forward with the discussion. Knowing how ANI works, there is no admin action required, and this clearly is just classic forum shopping, which I am willing to ignore if you do the right thing.--Cerejota (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Im not really involved in the core discussion/debate and im not taking a stance in that conflict, but I have noticed that Cerejota is quite aggressive in his tone here on Wikipedia. And at the moment seems unwilling to meet half way and as many other users has recommended to agree to disagree with the other users involved. Which is too bad.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hope you don't mean me. I haven't really joined in, in my opinion, just taking a cursorary glance. I certainly dont mind other admins getting involved. I'm also not against you either, I just gave a vague observation/impression I've had of you. I certainly don't think ill of you and I truly appreciate your efforts in WP:WQA as it's not really an area a lot of folks like to work. I've got family over right now, so I can't provide any admin-related help here. That's why I haven't answered your question, I dont have the time to go through diffs right now.--v/r - TP 21:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even if true, it doesn't justify bringing the WP:WQA discussion here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) if parties are using WP:WQA to further pro-longing a meta-debate it is. In my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• The reason this doesn't belong on AN/I is because there hasn't been an incident requiring an administrator's intervention. Since BabbaQ wants a view from somewhere that isn't WQA, the appropriate place would probably be WP:DRN. Please could someone uninvolved move this there.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks S Marshall but honestly I think discussing this any further is pointless. User Cerejota doesnt want to resolve any issues anyway. I have better things to do then to read more of Cerejotas nonsense messages filled with aggression.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

... and passive-aggression behaviour helps the situation in what way? Both parties need to want to resolve the situation; barbs like the above as "closure" that hold no links to proof or evidence are damaging, and prevent resolution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Passive aggressive? In wikipedia? In ANI? PROVIDE DIFFS!!!1111!!! More to the point, see the moving message in my talk page from BusterD. Methinks a few editors around here need a big dose of AGFdinol Extended Release Caplets, probably even myself...--Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New sock in a closed, unarchived case

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

After a string of 5 accounts (with others in the drawer) edited List of popes, another new account has just reverted. It's fairly straightforward, but I don't want to mess up the bot at SPI by manually reopening the case. For future reference, what would be the best way to approach sockpuppetry in the closed to archived interval?Novangelis (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me And, therefore, I've just indeffed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

IP adding russian category to templates

Not sure what is up with this 95.143.180.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just saw this IP go through and add a Russian Category to a lot of video game templates. Since the category is in russian, it can't serve much purpose here, so someone with rollback might want to go through and undo all those and maybe someone who speaks russian might want to have a chat with them.--Crossmr (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of this IP :) 82.25.188.231 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

They are adding links to the templates on the Russian Wikipedia same as in articles. You have one on your userpage. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah woops. It was late, and I misread what they were doing. I hadn't seen someone add interwiki links on a template before.--Crossmr (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Hitler's religious beliefs

An IP has edit warring on Hitler's religious beliefs. The IP has been making edits of their own opinion and has refused to discuss it. The IP also accused me of making accusations. Administrators, please review this case when you get the opportuinity, thank you. Shakinglord (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

He seems to be discussing things right now on the talk page of the article. It also appears that the IP has only reverted three times today, sono 3RR violation has occurred at this point. Also, I don't see these "accusations" you're talking about there. either way (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The accusation he made was on his edit summary on one of his edits on the article. Also, please note that an editor has made an important point on the talk page. Thank you. Shakinglord (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You said the source was unreliable...that is the accusation he seems to be responding to. Nothing out of line there. What is this "important point" that was made on the talk page? I see many points being raised there...which do you feel is the "important" one? either way (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The important point I find here is AndyTheGrump's policy, in which he stated: And see WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". This states that an editor can be warned or blocked for edit warr even if they have not reverted three times(this is also why I changed the title from "3RR" to "Edit Warring on Hitler's religious beliefs"). The choice of action is wholly the administrator's opinion. Shakinglord (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am an administrator and my opinion is that no block is necessary since he has started discussing. Lets assume good faith.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. If we block him now, he buggers off or thinks we're unreasonable arseholes and has no reason to keep talking. If we don't block, he keeps talking and you might be able to work something out - and he might choose to join, and might be a productive editor. We block when the situation demands it, not when the rules permit it. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible propaganda editing of Battle of Bani Walid

There's an interesting edit to Battle of Bani Walid by 46.12.102.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that smacks of rather poorly constructed pro-Gaddafi disinformation. Just in case this is part of something bigger, it might be worth keeping a close eye on this and similar articles. -- The Anome (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of copyrighted material and harassment

Gisling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting copy and pasted material to Chop suey culled from several different blogs and other sites, as in [213]. Yesterday, I warned the user [214] that reinserting blatant copyright violations would lead to a block; a few hours later, the editor reinserted [215], claiming in the edit summary that "You must provide copyed sources or links before you can arbitariry delete other peoples contribution". Actually, just reading the insertion makes it abundantly clear that it's copied from various sources--each paragraph has a different style, and some are very obviously in a personal tone that no one would purposefully write for WP, like "It’s a wonderful account of Jenny’s journey across 42 states and 23 countries around the world as she uncovers secrets about Chinese food."

Furthermore, while getting ready to file this, I looked at Gisling's contributions, and noted that they have are now following User:Macrakis (who is one of the people who reverted the copyvio) to other articles Gisling never edited before specifically to revert Macrakis, in including this edit which reinserted blatant vandalism that Macakris had removed.

At this point, I am concerned that the user will continue trying to add copyright violations to Wikipedia, and as such must be blocked to prevent disruption; I'm somewhat involved on Chop suey so can't block myself. Xe also need to be strongly informed note to engage in some sort of cross-article attack on other editors; since my copyvio warning went unheeded, maybe someone else can get through. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've given them a warning on their talk page that any more of this will not be tolerated. -- The Anome (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Funny, a chop suey fight. It has undertones of Blazing Saddles. This editor has been warring on Chop suey since 2005--perhaps a topic ban is in order. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Naive move of Yoshimar Yotún

The article Yoshimar Yotún has been moved in not-the-best way from Yosimar Yotún. Unfortunatley, a number of changes have been made since then so it may require a careful look before merging the histories of the articles... or something.... Yaris678 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it seems the move when the other way. And since there was only a single edit to the article at Yosimar (and that being a redirect), this was not difficult. Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User banned from dispute resolution/noticeboards?

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

According to the user (User:Barts1a) on IRC he was banned from all noticeboards per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Alleged_inappropriate_use_of_rollback on December 2010. I do not believe this is wise as user cannot even report blatant vandalism. Furthermore I seriously doubt the ANI discussion has the level of consensus needed for such a restriction. Dispute resolution seemingly wasn't even attempted.

I am not bothering to notify him as him posting something here (as we expect users to be able to do on any ANI case) would get him blocked.

-- とある白い猫 ^chi? 01:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that a ban from noticeboards might be a bit much, and it's actually going to be counterproductive in the long run. Consider: if you take away a person's ability to call the police, then they have to resort to using their own weapons to resolve police-level matters. Same thing goes here. If you take away someone's ability to report to a noticeboard, you're forcing them to try to take matters into their own hands, which might involve resorting to edit wars and maybe even socking. Not saying that this particular user is or has resorted to those measures...just saying that that's the kind of behavior that a ban from noticeboards might encourage in any given situation. Therefore, I'd highly suggest either reducing, removing, or refactoring the ban—especially since all that happened over half a year ago. Perhaps maybe only restrict him from altering or removing comments/reports made by anyone other than himself when it comes to noticeboards? --slakr^\ talk / 01:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Before we go about unbanning him, he imposed the restrictions on himself because everyone else on the project was trying to get him sitebanned. If Barts1a can show he has learned something about site policies and guidelines, then his self-suggested ban can be lifted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)According to that thread, the noticeboard restriction was barts1a's own idea, which he freely agreed to. Consensus doesn't get much stronger than "the restricted person suggested we restrict him." However, barts1a has now requested a lifting of his sanctions, so that remains for the community to debate. I myself am agnostic on the issue, pending evidence from barts1a that shows that he has progressed beyond his past, troublesome behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is just the thing, he can't. No one should be banned from noticeboards. Also I find it rather silly to ask someone to prove that they are not making disruptive edits as the evidence in that case is the absence of evidence. If this user is as bad as claimed, arbcom is the direction people should prefer. 4-5 people do not make up for an indef consensus. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 02:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this view: if the community considers him good enough to edit wikipedia, but not good enough to participate in noticeboards, that is the community's prerogative, provided there is strong reason. I have no idea if the reasons were valid, but this sanction is not a bad one in theory: the community can decide the pros outweigh the cons. --Cerejota (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly he can offer evidence. He has access to his talk page, which I for one am watching for just such evidence to be offered. If he'd like, someone can probably even transclude a section of his talk page here. And no, we don't ask users in general to show they're not being disruptive. But when an editor has a history of disruption, I don't think it's out of place to ask them to show us how they've grown past that behavior before we turn them loose again. A couple of diffs showing us "here's what I used to do, that was wrong. Here's where I do the right thing this time around!" isn't too much to ask. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they were self-imposed, and lifting/altering the other restrictions should be a discussion for another day. For example, he's also got restrictions on: using huggle, controversial articles, and keeping to the 1RR). All of those make sense as responses to various arbitrary problematic behaviors; however, I think that no matter what user we're talking about, a blanket self-ban from even reporting to noticeboards isn't something that we should be enforcing—for any period of time—because of the same reasons I've stated above. In my opinion, no amount of evidence should be required to lift this one particular ban, because it's literally impossible for him to provide it when he can't make legitimate reports to noticeboards in an attempt to re-establish a clean track record. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 02:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do not want to see more disruption on the wiki. I have no problems with all those other restrictions you mentioned. If someone disrupts a noticeboard, they can be blocked for a finite amount of time, the time could lengthen on repeated offenses. If a person is disrupting noticeboards with malicious intent, why would we want to have him edit the rest of the site? Noticeboards are where problems stemming from users are solved. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 02:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've let Barts1a know he is welcome to participate in this particular thread. It doesn't make any sense to prevent him from participating in a discussion that affects him so directly. Until we see what results, the topic ban remains in place except for this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  Sounds fair to me. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 02:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Floquenbeam. At least now I can respond to allegations that may be raised in this thread directly. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 03:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  As Barts1a's mentor, I think he'll certainly be okay at WP:AIV and WP:UAA. There were certain issues regarding his posts here at ANI, namely a lot of threads he started, including the one that nearly got him sitebanned, were WP:BOOMERANGs. With that said, his ability to admit mistakes, and thence voluntarily accept editing restrictions and mentorship, are very positive signs. Overall Barts1a has been very receptive to comments/criticism from me. I think it's worth giving him the chance to show he's learned his lesson. N419BH 07:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, barts1a's part in the discussion here does not fill me with confidence that he's entirely clear on the proper way to go about working with other users here. He comes across as bitey, short-tempered, and threatening, and I'd be mildly worried that if he regained AIV posting rights, he'd flood it (but again, I'm willing to be shown - and would love to see! - evidence to the contrary) with unactionable reports. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You know what, I was under the assumption this person was capable of progress. Clearly, I was wrong. I think we are done here personally. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 00:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As was I. The summary he included is part of the reason why I reverted it, though mainly it was removing others comments and removing a AN/I section entirely. (Note that I don't have a problem with the bot archiving it, as it is coded and approved to do that) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 00:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

...Well that was quick. N419BH 00:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Go ahead and block me. I don't see you ever giving me another chance after how you acted towards me when I tried to report a disruptive user who would otherwise have been blocked for at least 24 hours by now. I am certain the ONLY reason he wasn't blocked is because I got involved. Had I not got involved he would not have escaped punishment for his actions as he has done now. Congragulations, you have driven away an editor who only wanted to improve the encyclopedia in favor of an editor who is clearly not here to help and repeatedly ignores multiple final warnings on their talkpage and continues disrupting the encyclopedia beyond the level that I have seen ANYONE disrupt to without being blocked (Yes, this includes me!). You may as well save me the agony and block me now so I can have confirmation that the rules are being selectively enforced and that vandals are getting out of jail free. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

{{3O}} - Requesting an unbiased and un-involved person take a look at ADKIc3mAnX's contribs and determine if they should have been blocked by now. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 05:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously pushing your luck here. This thread is not about whether that person should have been blocked, it's about whether you should be unbanned from admin boards. The answer to that looks like a no, so there's no reason for this thread to continue onto another topic. N^oformation ^Talk 08:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi; I came here in response to the request for a third opinion. This isn't what 3O is normally used for, but I can offer one more opinion, at least. ;-)

• In principle, if somebody causes ongoing problems at noticeboards then a ban from noticeboards may be one of the tools used to address that problem. Preventing the reporting of legitimate problems in future is a worry, but due to the nature of wikipedia, genuine problems created by a third party are likely to be noticed by somebody else who would report it to the relevant noticeboard.
• I'm not going to comment on the specifics of whether another account should be banned here and now since that seems to be simultaneously pointy, forum-shopping, misuse of 3O, and probably something else too.
• A third opinion can't override a bigger community discussion, as Barts1a should surely be aware. Just this once I'll pretend that this was simply a slightly unusual 3O request rather than a continuation of an earlier pattern of misusing wikipedia processes which seems to be mentioned earlier in this section.

bobrayner (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've detranscluded the third opinion template, as it was misused and already got a response. lifebaka++ 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, barts1a, we weren't biased against you on IRC. Really, we honestly weren't. If you think we don't take you seriously, then you must have thought wrong. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 17:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If you were taking me seriously then why did you NOT block the edit warrior who went well past 3RR despite multiple warnings on their talkpage? (Including 2 FINAL WARNINGS in September alone!) I was always told 3RR was as close to a rule as Wikipedia has!Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 07:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• There's precedent. Anybody remember when we had an admin that was banned from ANI? Ah, the wild old days. Actually, I'm not sure he isn't still banned from ANI. Bishonen | talk 05:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC).

Closing discussion - no consensus to unban N^oformation ^Talk 09:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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