Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive596

User:F6Coloratura80 and their WP:DE and WP:BLANKING behavior

This user, who is unregistered, has been editing the article, Celine Dion for quite some time now. At first, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, but after they began revetting long-standing edits, and ignoring other users' requests to explain their edits, I became concerned that they were potentially endangering the article FA status. The user has been ignoring requests to engage in conversations about their edits on the article's talk page, as well as their own page. Despite this, they continue to add information that is either unneccessary or completely false in nature. The edits they create contain nearly all in-line citations, most from the same source, which makes it very difficult to verify. I am worried that their apparent WP:DE is hurting the article's status. Lastly, I am also concerned that this user may be the same exact one that was banned from editing about a month ago. Their actions are very, very similar in nature, and the way they interact with other users, makes me believe that it may be the same person. Nevertheless, I would greatly appreciate if something could be done to help. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be that they are new to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome template to their talk page. If disruption continues, let us know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad uploads by Rock&MetalFan

Resolved

 – 31 hours block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite several warnings (in edit summaries as well), including a final warning, the user won't stop. Any administrator who can step in? Thanks. Nymf _talk/contr. 22:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be completely ignoring cautions and continuing to upload pictures of living people that do not meet WP:NFC. I've given a preliminary 31 hour block, which hopefully will get his attention. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility/racism

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

Closing this. A Nobody is not going to be blocked and nothing else will come of this. ÷seresin 01:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Evening all.

We have here an editor, talking about the Article Rescue Squadron, referring to them as "you people".

We have here, another editor stating that this is "racist".

I don't know what the appropriate admin action is here (or if there is any), so it's all yours.   pablo_hablo. 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an issue for ANI and it doesn't appear to really be an issue for anything. If it keeps up, perhaps it's an issue for WP:WQA, but you don't need to take a bit of testy/insane dialogue all the way to ANI. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your input.   pablo_hablo. 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's a violation of WP:NPA's "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

more lol-inducing. Describing people who don't like the ARSes as "racist"? :p. Ironholds (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's what I thought. I didn't think there were stringent entry requirements.   pablo_hablo. 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been somewhat of a urination contest going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies. I've been fussed at for making an off-hand joke well away from the main area of battle, and I've also told two of the main combatants, User:A Nobody (who apparently has a history of not being to civil) and User talk:Ryan4314 (much more civil) to take their dispute elsewhere. User:A Nobody has been particularly troublesome, and erases any comments on his user page with which he disagrees. I understand he's been the subject of an RFC before. I'm not sure this has risen to the level of an ANI yet, but some wiser heads might want to keep an eye on A Nobody and the AfD discussion, just to make sure things don't get out of hand. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody — Jack Merridew 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I see this in Tropic Thunder?

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

"What do you mean, 'you people'?"

--Father Goose (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh; I'm gonna have to see that movie ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

GiacomoReturned, yet again

Sigh. Archiving the archive comments. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fellows, it's archived! Either remove the archive tags or just stop. Giano, you have what you want now, I do hope you are satisfied, now perhaps you can do your worst to that discussion page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh do hush! For your own sake. GiacomoReturned 15:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

---

OK, I withdraw. As the once productive discussion on the proposed policy page has turned decidedly nasty (I really didn't cause that) I'm totally withdrawing from it. I think it could work, but I guess I just don't have enough time or energy to pursue it, especially when it's has been taken over by some people I have no real respect for and who would prefer it if half the contributors here were to stop editing. Very sad. Oh well, I'll find other areas to work on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I couldn't have done something more for you. Obviously I would have really liked to, but I believe an admin needs to be fair to everyone, an attitude that probably cost me election to ArbCom last year. Maybe I'll go and be arbitrary, cliquish and popular. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aham aren't you the man who does not think it incivil to call another editor a "cocksucker" [1]- when it comes to incivility you people don't know the meaning of the word.  Giano  15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't have baited him now would you Giano? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I frustrate Giano a great deal by not rising to his bait.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wehalt, was overuled and the person concerned was blocked. Always baiting when you people are found to be in the wring isn't it?  Giano  15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another admin had a different view. Notably, I did considerably better in the ArbCom election than that admin, whose present contacts with ArbCom are--regrettable. I'm content. Got miles to go before I sleep, Giano, so I will leave you to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's not your fault. I really tried hard to get some good discussion going on that incivility block page, and it was doing well till Giano showed up. As he's seen fit to camp there, and nobody can do anything about it, then I'm just not going to bother - I'm handing the reigns over to someone else to see if they can sort this out. I have clinical depression, so I'm not going to spend precious energy battling with him. I know a lot people think I'm baiting him, but that's just not the case. I was genuinely horrified at his blocking attack page, so I submitted it to MFD. If some thought the timing iffy, oh well. I did what I thought right. On the incivility block talk page I did make a suggestion that he should just go away from it, as he wasn't contributing anything and I still maintain this. I have to say that I'm just plain amazed that Giano is able to get away with the sheer audacity of calling others "priggish hypocrites", and make sexual jokes at their expense like he did on the talk page of that proposal. Frankly, I'm gobsmacked, and truly saddened by it. I've never met anyone so mean in all my time on Wikipedia, and that is definitely saying something! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

---

• This is achieving nothing. Go take a break, you can go back to arguing later--Jac16888^Talk 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So if Giano changes the talk page, then will an admin do something about it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm de-archiving as I don't feel that this is resolved. I'm extremely concerned that Giano is going to derail the discussion and remove text from the talk page. I would like to know what can be done about this. And what of the edit war that resulted? He violated 3RR, is this not to be enforced? Surely this is disruptive? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I'm sorry for the drama, but Giano has basically decided that as he was insulted by some others that he was going to cause as much upset on Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks as possible. As the discussion on how to start off the proposed text got so completely sidetracked, I moved it to its own thread (there was one suggestion which was to archive to stop the drama which Giano reverted several times). This is now being opposed, and Giano has stated that he is going to move it back after this was done almost 8 hours ago. He has also stated that he's not concerned about removing material due to this move, as he stated that "Whatever, if not restored shortly, I shall do it myself, and it would be a pity if anything were to be accidentally lost.". This is getting pretty disruptive, can I please have a review?

Also, he's currently attempting to bait me on my talk page. I'm not really interested in engaging with him directly, as I've stated a number of times, so I would appreciate someone telling him to desist from my talk page. Especially as he was quite willing to also do the same to me, I would have expected him to undertake the same behaviour he expects in others.

I would appreciate that this time the discussion not be archived until we can get a resolution, because this was done last time and the issues continue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, I think where baiting on talk pages is concerned you are the expert. I am happy to take your page off my watchlist. There - done! However, you are becoming monotonous and dull. You cannot exclude people because they don't happen to agree with you. It is a great pity, but one I fear you will have to learn yo live with. You attempted to force through a policy, based on a deebate largely centred on me (about which no one thought to inform me). Now I share my views with you and that debate, you are unhappy. That realy can't be helped.  Giano  08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about your statement where you said you were prepared to lose material from the talk page? Can you confirm that this is the case? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta-Bu you are becoming over exited. I said it would be a pity [2] I am known to be Wikipedia's worst merger and mover - nothing more. If you or soemone else put my comments back into context it would be far safer, look how carefully you moved them in the first place. You are very clever at things like that - I am not.  Giano  08:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm feeling pretty calm, but thanks for asking. Your comments were not related to the previous discussion, and my move of them into their own thread actually still shows them in their full context. Any reasonable editor will be able to follow your concerns, which have nothing to do with starting off the policy text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, not at all, read the debate, if you are able, you will see your friend, Wehalt, was overuled and the person concerned was blocked. I rather leave baiting to others more expert than me. I merely mention the episode to show the hypocrisy surrounding the blocking for undenialble and true incivility. Now I am truly done here. Good luck in your future Wikipedia career.  Giano  15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you moved comments on a wikipedia debate, without consultation of wisdom. You had no right to do that and were attempting to influence a debate that was not going the way you wanted it to. The page duscussed me at length, in my absence, and now you throw a mega-strop when I arrive and start to corect some of the conclusions drawn by slandering and defaming me. My name occurs 20 odd times before over a two week period before I edit it for the first time. Then when I do, you remove my edits to a corner out of context because they don't fit your view. You should be banned from the discussion for distortion.  Giano  08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. What happened here was that you started talking about something that was entirely irrelevant to the topic thread. Then FatherGoose set archived header and footer on this material, but you reverted it here, here, here and here, all because you want to continue the discussion. Now at least one editor commented and stated how confused they were about the discussion, mainly due to the poor use of indenting and the fact that the new discussion you forked has nothing to do with the original discussion. So to compromise, I moved your totally irrelevant comments into its own thread. I thought this was a pretty fair compromise, given that you were edit warring. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I've tried to tell you this quite a few times now, but I had nothing to do with that conversation you are, justifiably, upset about. I'm not feeling "strops" (now that is an Australian word if ever I've heard one, have you ever visited?), all I'm really interested in is getting topics of conversation back on track again. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be using the incivility block talk page as a forum for your grievances - if you have an issue with the way that someone has treated you, try filing a case at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, as this is a more appropriate avenue for this sort of thing. Certainly it's less disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta Bu you really should disengage, your distortions in order to win your points are now becoming concerning. Anyone reading the dialogue as it was before vandalised by you could see a rationed arguement. You took exception to my metephor and idiom which you could not understand. That is now many people debate.You really have to learn to be a little more broad minded and tolerant. I hope you can acheive this. Now, I'm not coming back here to talk to you further because these threads here of yours are becoming disruptive in themselves. Adieu.  Giano  09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's your right Giacomo, but you are mischaracterizing my actions. As I stated above, I'm not happy about the conversation where you were mentioned without being around, but I can't condone you disrupting the talk page. Evidently I'm not the only one, as Father Goose tried to archive the thread to stop the drama, GoodDay also tried to get an uninvolved admin involved and expressed a desire to collapse your part of the conversation, Doc Quintana has expressed some frustration as it's not easy to follow proceedings and obviously I would like it if you took your grievances elsewhere. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So we have a situation here where at least four editors are not happy with the the thread that Giano forked and a compromise was attempted. However, he is now saying that he's prepared to disrupt the policy discussion by readding the material and continuing his grievances. Why is this not an admin matter? Yes, I know it looks like a squabble, but surely the four editors I've noted above should be at least considered in this whole thing? Giano is the only one who wants to continue the conversation, but surely this is not the place for this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, I think moving peoples comments at all (or archiving discussions, or using 'collapse' boxes etc.) is generally a bad idea - it gives (to me at least) the impression of a sort of unhelpful passive aggression that's just not very useful in actually moving forward and resolving discussions. A valid argument could be made, in my opinion, that it's not very 'civil' either (I get more annoyed by these things than by people saying nasty things about me (shock! it's true! not all see the beauty of this private muse!). On the other hand - I am aware of one groovy way to encourage folk to disengage and chill for a while ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I only use that for folks who have already expressed their opinion but have nothing more to add :-) In this situation, there has been a 3RR violation and a total derailment of several conversations all because one editor has been justifiably upset by the comments of some totally unrelated editors to the thread they were commenting on. I feel that something needs to be done here. Even if Giano is told not to readd the thread, that would be fine by me. But then, technically he should be blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Note that this isn't the best course of action, but I think it shows a clear indication of disruptive behaviour. The function of ANI is for reports of problems with disruption, so archiving without a clear resolution is not helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

nah... blocking's a terrible idea for a whole bunch of reasons, I reckon, and I think you can be confident at this point that you've expressed your thoughts on the matter well - so the best next step is probably to disengage yourself, and allow others to take action (or ignore the whole thing, and drink tea, as admin.s are occassionaly wont to do!) - either ways it'll all come out in the wash... Privatemusings (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)heading offline now, so it really is the end of my correspondance ;-) - good to see both you chaps around here, btw - even if you are getting on each other's tits ;-)

Well, I have to disagree. I really need some reassurance that Giano will not try to restore the thread and disrupt existing threads. That is all I'm looking for here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why because it might have a chance of actually solving this? I just hope if I ever go off the deep end I'll be given 10¹² chances to turn it around too.--Crossmr (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely amazed at how much patience people show to Giano. Even when he disrupts and is completely rude (says things like "priggish hypocrisy", etc.) nothing is done. In fact, if anyone dares to complain or ask for assistance, admins close down the thread? Why?!? We wouldn't let someone like Nothughthomas do this, why should we let Giano? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it a good idea in the middle of a dispute with another user to nominate one of there userpages for deletion? User:Giano/The_spooky_"Curse_of_Giano" Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If he is maintaining an attack page, sure. Why not? If you reported a vandal or a troll who maintained an attack page like this, what would you do about it? I mean, come on - even the people who are currently voting keep are basically saying that Giacomo should be banned for his incivility. Since when did we put up with this sort of mean spirited and hurtful behaviour? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to let such a drama monger continue to have editing privileges here? The sheer volume of controversy over this user should tell anyone all that is really needed to be known. I'm just waiting for some of his supporters and the supporters of other long term drama mongers to make public the WP:CONTRIBFORPOLICYVIOLATION cheat sheet so us plebs can finally keep score.--Crossmr (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats not much of an attack page, its a simple reference to some of the blocks that he feels a bit grieved about, it looks pretty harmless to me. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not the case here. He's basically saying that any admin who has the temerity to oppose him gets blocked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So what is actually going on here? This editor has clearly been a huge drama, and is completely rude in every way. Yes, we all know of his brilliance in terms of architecture, but if he was abducted by aliens tomorrow and were to never return, would Wikipedia survive? Well, yes, it would. So why are people so concerned about upsetting him, when he is clearly not worried about doing this to others? Can anyone explain this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't, and like all great users who show up here on what seems like a weekly basis, I always support showing them the door indefinitely.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically, any time someone reports Giano for civility, it results in a huge, week-long dramafest that never gets anything resolved, but creates a lot of bad faith and (usually) wheel-warring over blocks. Giano has enough friends and enemies that nothing ever gets consensus, so we just keep going round and round. Outside of him doing something bad enough for ArbCom to step in, which he seems smart enough to avoid, there's no way he's going to be blocked. So, at this point, people just shrug and go about their business, rather than step into the mire of drama that will ensue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's fine, but I'm not having him hold Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks to ransom. He'll not be moving that thread. If no admin has the guts to step in to stop it, then I guess I'll need to ensure it doesn't happen myself. I'm not going to have such an important policy proposal derailed by one editor, no matter how brilliant at architectural articles he may be. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the thread with great hope, because I am no friend of Giano's and would not mourn overmuch at his wikideparture. Unhappily, I see nothing blockworthy or otherwise deserving of administrator intervention. Giano tends to crowd the edge, but he wasn't even close this time. Ah well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the violation of 3RR? He's already shown he's willing to get into an edit war, and I fear he will do this to readd the thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is likely any 3RR violation is stale. However, if you want to make an issue of it, go ahead and post the diffs. I am about to leave for the day so won't be dealing with it, but perhaps you can find someone willing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, forget about it. I'm not going to let him return that thread against general consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OH dear, I thought this thread was closed before I went off to spend a morning in the real world, yet I come back not to harmony, but more strange behaviour by TBSDY (his AFDing a humourous user page - just ignore it). Now, would someone please restore my comments back into context as they were before TBSDY removed them. I tried last night, but then realised it was probably beyond my limited merging capabilities, whatever, I am prepared to have a go if no one more capable is prepared to try - please just don't all shout "Giano - you have lost something important" because it won't be deliberate - I assure you.  Giano  14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we've already established that this isn't to be done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• TSBDY, I am not going to tit-for-tat with you here any longer, we shall just see what happens in the next hour or so. I am too busy at present to try it myself as it wil requite all my powers of concentration. Hopefully, some clever person will try it for me. Now please don't reply, you are becoming tedious and I won't either.  Giano  14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't restore that thread to where it was before. You are honestly being disruptive to the policy page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and disruption on Talk:Sarah Palin

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

Scribner has retired from the project following the discussion below and the imposition of a narrow topic ban. jæs (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

We need an uninvolved admin at Talk:Sarah Palin, where Scribner (talk · contribs) has descended (again) into personal attacks and tendentious editing. Disregarding his total failure to assume good faith (towards any editor whose views differ from his own), he has made his current target SB_Johnny (talk · contribs) who was identified by the community as an uninvolved admin assigned to deal with disputes on the article. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal.) Since Johnny is the target of Scribner's abuse, he might be accused of a CoI if he blocks Scribner, so I am asking for another uninvolved editor to take a look and decide if action needs to be taken. FWIW, I have a long history of conflict with Scribner on this specific article (and no others), so take this report with a grain of salt. Horologium (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He's pushed a lot, but not to the point of blockability quite, in my opinion. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, you've got history with this article that's quite embarrassing. (Redacted personal attack.) But, as an administrator and editor you're the worst I've encountered. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, on top of Johnny's failed enforcement of policy regarding personal attacks, there's been retaliation edits on the TN GOP article by Malke. So, in attempting one simple edit on the Palin page, I feel like I've suffer three separate retaliations. Wiki at its worst. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Palin alleged to have violated the law? Keep in mind she doesn't own those books, the publisher does. If she wanted to distribute them to contributors, she probably had to buy them (possibly at wholesale rate). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted an absolutely unnecessary personal attack from the preceding comment. jæs (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment looked like a paraphrasing of what Auntie Em said to Miss Gulch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Auntie Em said: "For twenty-three years I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now... Well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it!" If Mrs. Em were an editor, I'd advise her of the same: attacking another editor is not the way to address your concerns. If Mrs. Em took a nastier route, and was also an editor with a history of poisoning the well, as it were, I'd redact her comment. In either case, I'd suggest Mrs. Em avoid directly interacting with Mrs. Gulch if she couldn't keep her opinion of Mrs. Gulch to herself. jæs (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the Palin article is alleged to have been "scrubbed clean". Where have I heard that before? For the Obama article, that's where. Apparently, wikipedia is infested with both liberals and conservatives. Forsooth! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed! It's just preferable, in fact obligatory, that said liberals and conservatives focus on editing productively -- as opposed to disruptively -- and not attack each other. It's possible, I tell you! jæs (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Psst....Why are you guys talking in small letters? Doc Quintana (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To conserve space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested, I can provide diffs from another edit war he's conducting over at Tennessee Republican Party. I used the talk page to discuss concerns and put POV and Criticism tags. He removed them. He argued. I got a 3rd Opinion. The 3rd Opinion editor found the article had a racist slant. I put the tags back. He removed them. Another editor put them back just now. He removed them again. If he doesn't get his way he puts tags up. If he doesn't like what you say, he takes them down. Diffs upon request. It is impossible to reason with this fellow.Malke2010 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that, after this ends, he doesn't do that again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)He just removed a declined unblock request, and I have just reverted him. I also warned him that such attempts would be met with a loss of the ability to edit the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And he just removed it again. I of course reverted him. Can an admin possibly warn him?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. I referred him to WP:BLANKING which states that declined unblock requests cannot be removed for the duration of the block, and warned him that removing it again will cause him to lose the ability to edit his own talk page until he is unblocked. -- Atama頭 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanction time?

Uninvolved admin here ... I just looked at his block log. Good grief, it's genormous. Could it be time for a topic ban of some kind? Looks like it to me. Blueboy96 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not condoning this user's recent actions, esp the edit warring to remove the unblock decline, but that block log is not exactly what I'd call enormous. There's only 3 blocks that were not overturned well before the duration was up, and those were about 3 years ago. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because it looks like this has been an ongoing problem ever since he arrived here--the first block was back in 2006. Tells me this is a problem that should have been nipped in the bud a lot sooner than now. Blueboy96 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, Scribner had only 32 edits between April 24, 2007, and February 11, 2009, which explains the big gap in his block log. There is no evidence that he has learned from his previous blocks. He has been unblocked because he promised not to do the same behavior on the article in question (different article in each case), but that hasn't stopped him from repeating the same modus operandi on different articles. Also notice that all his recent activity has focused on three hot-button political issues (Sarah Palin, Tennessee Republican Party, and Tea Party movement, in which he is very clearly displaying a pattern of POV pushing behavior. Horologium (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it wasn't as lengthy as I expected it to be, put down the pitchforks. It does appear that his talk page will have to be locked soon though, due to the repeated removals of the block decline notice. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Looking through the block log of this user, I see that they have primarily been blocked for edit warring/personal attacks, and as of the block before last, that time had been extended until a week, then lifted on the promise he wouldn't do it again. Seeing as how he has obviously done it again, what is the next step up? 24 hours is too short for a repeat offender.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article. I was watching over the Sarah Palin article a couple months back, and Scriber was definitely one of the major problems at the article then. Looks like things have not changed much since then, and it has been even longer of a problem than I have thought. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't !vote below (due to my involvement), but I think that's a good idea. Horologium (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indef topic ban

Per what NW said above, and to centralize discussion and for ease of editing,

• Support - Per what NW has outlined above and this user's block log. Broken promises is all they have to give. Maybe this will prevent further disruption from them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse If this user hasn't learned to cool it down in four years on its own, sadly we're gonna have to force him to do so. Blueboy96 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The amount of time an editor uses up in dealing with Scribner on these pages is lost from building the project. Scribner does not respond to working within process. Only one thing he said on the Tenn Republican Party talk page showed any ray of light of understanding when he said he could see my point about an edit. He also said he didn't support my point, but he could understand it. He said all this about ten minutes before he got blocked. The Sarah Palin episode caused so much disruption. He came over to the Tea Party Movement article and slapped tags on it because he disagreed with a comment on the talk page. It feels like a boulder has dropped on an editor's head when he appears on a page. But in the last 24-48 hours he seems to have been especially disruptive. I don't know what is at the root of this. But for now, a topic ban might help him regain some perspective. He's right about the Tenn Republican Party being racists, and it's Tenn, throw a rock you'll hit a klansman. And Sarah Palin isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for disruption, or a soapbox, or a soap opera.Malke2010 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what? That post was full of wrong. Issues fixed Throwaway85 (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban from what topic? If you're going to propose a topic ban, you should state what topic the user is banned from. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NW wrote, "I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article.". You can see this right above this section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That is as may be, but it should be specifically indicated at the point where you make the proposal. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is. I quite clearly state, "as NW said above..."— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't visited Tenn Republican Party or Tea Party movement but the core issue at Sarah Palin is a content dispute (gosh!) between Scribner and several other editors with opposing POVs. It's ruthless and nobody plays nice. I can't be arsed to go through the diffs, but observing developments at SP talk leaves a strong impression that pressure is subtly but regularly applied towards sanitizing the article (plus ca change. . .), and one or two in Scribner's opposition appear to have ownership issues, all of which Scribner resists. The proposed catch-all topic ban serves the interests of SP's WP protectors at the expense of the article itself. Scribner seems clued-up on SP and may have much to offer, but is not afraid to speak his/her mind rather bluntly, is outnumbered by opposing editors, and reacts too strongly for his/her own good to the goading and bullying etc. that SP talk offers would-be contributors who are not members of the Palin club. (Although arguably no stranger to personal attacks him/herself, Scribner has also been on the receiving end of abuse and apparent attempts to run him/her off the article. Few if any hands remain spotlessly clean at SP.) Given that Scribner's problems at SP appear to be largely procedural, solutions that are more constructive and less draconian might be worth considering here. E.g. WP:Mentorship. I'd like to hear what Scribner has to say about that. Writegeist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Involuntary mentorship has a track record of prolonging conflicts and burning out mentors. If this editor has already sought out a mentor proactively that might be another matter? The difference has something to do with "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." The people who succeed through mentorship tend to be the ones who recognize the need for it and seek it out without being compelled. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support an indefinite topic ban. He is evidently growing increasingly unable to work within the guidelines set here, at an article on probation no less. The increasing attacks against anyone who disagrees with him combine with a long history of disruptive editing and a nearly complete inability -- within this topic area -- to work towards consensus. (I've seen one instance in which he was part of a process that resulted in consensus, but it was fraught with disruptive tactics on his part, and he's now taken to using that event as a line of attack against an administrator and editor involved in that process. Hardly heartening.) After a period of time (perhaps a few weeks or months), if he is willing to agree to take the personal attacks and disruptive tactics off the table, then I'd support lifting the topic ban. jæs (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner is back at it on the Sarah Palin page. He's not using the talk page. He's adding to the lead and putting up a POV tag. No consensus, no discussion. If you want to know what Scribner has to say on an indef topic ban, I believe he's spoken.Malke2010 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to mention I don't think any editor is trying to run him off articles. Editors just want him to work within the process which means working for consensus. Right now he seems to think he doesn't need to do that.Malke2010 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose . Some of the points Scribner made hold merit. A few of the editors on the page have been rather uncivil and I think that coupled with the fact that other editors disagreed with him resulted in frustration and shouting back. I don't think it yet merits admin intervention.Chhe (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE If you feel my edits to the Palin article were an attempt to damage the integrity of Wikiapedia as an encyclopedia, I should be banned from the Palin article. There's been no malice on my part, other than to add two simple facts. Don't blame me for standing my ground and defending policy. Look at the vast amount of effort it took to include the simple fact that Palin did not complete her first term as governor. Horologium fought the edit the hardest, claiming it POV. The wholesale POV in the article speaks for itself. Scribner (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple hours ago, I banned Scribner from Sarah Palin-related articles, talk pages, and community discussions[3]. I still think that this discussion should continue to see if the community wishes to expand the scope of the ban. NW (Talk) 04:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Writegeist it's "he" by the way and Chhe, thanks very much for your input. Malke, you appear to have a problem with exaggerating and honestly lying, for lack of a better term, in the case of your claims with the TN GOP article and the Tea Party movement article. I think you suffer from WP:OWN issues with regard to conservative issues. Wikipedia becomes less an encyclopedia by shutting down vigorous debate. One thing I noticed when I returned to Wikipedia is that the best editors I had the pleasure of working with had left. It's obvious why the effort continues to degrade. Scribner (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• A topic ban from 'US politics-related topics' looks, in this case, to be effectively a site ban since Scribner doesn't edit anything else. So inline with NW's above point - is there evidence of this volunteer using the site in a non-tendentious manner outside the Sarah Palin and US Politics topic areas? Because if there is not we should be discussing a ban rather than a topic ban. The reason I point this out is so that we don't end up moving a problem and having to go through this all over again.
  That said I do endorse the topic ban from US politics articles, but with the above caveat--Cailil ^talk 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is proof of me "using the site in a non-tendentious manner" in economics and other BLP's. But, there won't be evidence of me kowtowing to administrators who are either in error of policy or biased in judgment, or both. I've placed my account in indefinite retirement. Scribner (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rama - again

Resolved

 – Sanction enacted: Rama banned from using the di-replaceable fair use tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmvocalist (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I've noticed that despite ongoing discussion about Rama's behaviour and the misuse of the fair use dispute template that he continue to do add this tag to images.

I propose that we enact a ban on him using the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag as he clearly is not able to use if correctly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support this needs to end, post haste. It's gone on long enough and is highly disruptive. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Doing this on the heels of the RFC is not wise, and shows a tendentious will to defy the community on this matter. -- Atama頭 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support He is well aware of the lack of support for his particular interpretation of the NFCC policy. He is well entitled to have his opinion on it, and I appreciate that he has a different opinion, but rather than working to change existing policy from the inside, its clear he wants to enforce his own view on the policy from without, by forcing his view. It started with outright deletions, when it became clear that was causing a problem, he has shifted to tag-bombing such articles. NFCC-tagging and deletions is good work, and much needed, but Rama has breached into a side of the work that has little broad support, and it would be best if he disengaged. I would support his right to continue to argue for changes in the policy in discussion settings, but to act as if the policy supports his view, when it does not appear to, is clearly disruptive and he needs to slow down. --Jayron32 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the comments already given. He is clearly acting against strong consensus in opposition to his interpretation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, he knows that he is not backed-up by the community on this, and doing it after the RFC is ludicrous. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, what you are doing is harassment, intimidation and wikistalking. I will report further such behaviour.

Furthermore, you have given ample proof before that you are incapable of judging whether an image is replaceable or not, going as far as speedily removing a tag for an image claimed as Fair Use for an image for which a better version was available on Commons under a Free licence (of the very same image). We have Free replacement readily available, for instance File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, an obvious crop of File:Mogador-2.jpg. Your attempts at proving the done to be impossible is just ridiculous, but how you persist in doing it after being pointed to particularly egregious consequences of your incompetence is blamable. It is outrageous that people make claims about images being impossible to replace without have first looked it up on Commons. Rama (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's really not. If you want to misuse a template even when you are in the midst of a user RFC on this sort of thing, expect others to start looking into what you are doing around this area. That's all I've done, and I noticed that you have continued to add in the tag, which was promptly removed by an entirely uninvolved editor who told you to take the image to FFD.

If you feel that you need to report me to someone, somewhere then please go ahead. I feel that my actions stand up to scrutiny, and if they don't then I will ensure that I take corrective action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1) You admit that you have been wikistalking

2) You forget to say that the tags that I have added have been vindicated. You are therefore reporting me for a perfectly appropriate use of the template. That constitutes harassment. Rama (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not wikistalking to keep an eye on a user whose edits have in the past proven problematic. From WP:HOUND: Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. –xeno^talk 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Xeno's interpretation above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blaming TB by calling him a stalker is just plain low. You are drawing attention to yourself, of course people are going to watch. This is not admin behavior. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is ridiculous. The point of the image is not that it's 'some guns on a French warship' - it's that particular model, used in the article on that particular model. Unless Rama is aware of a free version showing that model of ship's artillery, the odds are well against there being a free version, given the circumstances and all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that I provide such a file right above, do you ? Rama (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I would support asking Rama to use FFD instead of the speedy queues (as I recommended to him earlier), because it leads to less drama. That said, I note that the actual cases he picks are at least arguable. In the case of the WWII warship guns cited above, yes, there are free US-Gov pictures of the ships in question, showing the guns fairly clearly [4] (though smaller than in that picture, but then again, the picture hardly reveals any non-trivial structural detail of them either, as far as I can make out). BTW, the replacement image shown by Rama at File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, according to Mogador class destroyer, should be "138 mm (5.4 in) Mle 1934 guns" – that's not quite the required model, but not quite so different either; it's actually the successor model currently treated within the same article Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1929. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, the fair use image is of a Fantasque class destroyer, the predecessor of the Mogador. Not sure if there are significant differences between them, but they are not the exact same model. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the two types of guns are currently treated in the same article, although the title ostensibly refers only to one of them, so both qualify as illustrations for that article. And we have free images of ships with the other, earlier type of gun too, albeit small ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see that he used again the speedy tag in that way during the RfC ("Outside view by Xeno" and "Outside view by Tbsdy lives" in his RfC). Since he insists in doing that, we'll (regretfully) have to force him to send instead the images to WP:FFD. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never been requested to stop using this template. There have only been numerous attempts to (1) caracterise my use if the template as abusive, and to (2) cite my continuous use as a proof that I am a "ROUGE ADMIN" of some sort. However, as for (1), my use of the template has been vindicated in numerous occasions, while my detractors have repeatedly illustrated that they label some image "irreplaceable" while we do in fact have replacement readily available; and as for (2), since I have never been formally requested to refrain from using the template because of the process at hand, I fail to see what I am doing wrong.

Your position here amounts to saying that frivolous claims of misbehaviour are binding and sufficient to prevent people from contributing. Rama (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Rama, if you find fair uses that you believe are replaceable, please list them at WP:FFD where other users can double check your work. In cases where you are correct the image will be deleted anyway, and everybody wins. The point of doing this is that the community does not currently have faith in you getting the call right on every occasion and has accordingly asked you several times not to continue acting as you have been doing. If you listen to the community you will in time regain their trust, if you do not listen then it is only a matter of time until you get blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The community has done nothing of the sort. A small group of users have congregated in several instances, such as the present one, to form a so-called "consensus" which is limited in scope and time, informal, and directly contradicts the policy. The statements on which this limited congregation have "achieved consensus" have in numerous instances been reverted by other admins.

Of these limited congregations, some individuals have called on me to stop using templates over some particular incidents in which they were proven wrong. I do not consider that to constitute a request from "the community". The community is not appropriately represented by a handful of its less informed participants congregating outside of any proper process.

In the present state of affairs, I might renounce dealing with frivolous Fair Use claims, either in part or altogether. It must be noted, however, that this is the result of the pressure of a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy on WP:NFC. There is "consensus" enough to circumvent the policy by harassing people who enforce it, but not enough to change the policy. There are numerous quotes to prove that this is not a problem specific to me:

• "I've often wanted to remove that one (...), and I suspect I'd be reverted", SlimVirgin [5]
• "I'll happily endure the machine gunning I'll get for doing it. I don't care." Hammersoft [6]
• "Removed and watchlisted. (ESkog) Be prepared!!!! Damiens.rf " [7]

Wikipedia is supposedly "not a democracy"; in the present state of affairs, it is worse than this, it is the rule of the mob. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is not the community who is asking you to moderate your approach, why has no one stepped forward to endorse your approach? –xeno^talk 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Curious - Rama: if you had found a free replacement, why didn't you actually replace the image before tagging the one you felt was replaceable for deletion? –xeno^talk 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not have to. The image was replaceable whether a Free replacement was or was not available at the time. It is explicitly specified that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." [8]. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here has to do anything. I ask again: if you knew there was a free replacement, why didn't you replace it? –xeno^talk 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I feel Rama's responses are indicative of the problems relating to their editing in these areas; faced with an overwhelming majority pointing out concerns and suggesting alternatives, Rama complains about the motives of one or two of the more vocal opponents of his actions. This is more troubling as they are an admin, whose major role is to enforce consensus - I suggest that they need to be able to recognise it first, and be able to abide by its conclusion. I see neither here.
  I also note xeno's excellent point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that your answer amounts to "screw the policy if a local and temporary group can assemble and overwhelm a single admin attempting to enforce it". Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support as Rama spends much of the time above blaming a WP:CABAL, rather than listening to what the community's telling him. I'd also suggest that further comments down the line of "a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy" be considered as personal attacks and dealt with accordingly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Possible compromise: Rama can keep a subpage of images he feels are replaceable, preferrably, but not necessarily with a pointer to the free-replacement and other individuals who do work in NFCC can watch the page and ultimately place tags if they agree the image is replaceable. This will perhaps help Rama to align his beliefs about replaceability with those of the community. –xeno^talk 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support My one and only encounter with him was quite annoying, and I am not at all surprised that others feel the same way. In view of his continuing behavior, this seems a good solution. Ray^Talk 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. His actions are extreme and seem to be a little POINTy; he must have know, for example, that picking on Holocaust images would be controversial, especially during a user RfC about this very issue. I support Xeno's idea of Rama keeping a subpage of images that he feels should be dealt with, then uninvolved editors can decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. I would hope that an admin would respond to the communities requests to stop, however since the response has been pretty much "I am right an you are wrong" I see little alternative. Fair use is not enforced by the fiat of an admin who is sure they are correct, it is enforced by consensus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Chillum has actually said what I was thinking, so I'm not going to add to that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Procedural request

Could whatever uninvolved administrator that reviews and acts on this thread also close and enact the results of the discussion over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama (which has been open almost 2 months). Any action taken here would probably be the same taken as a result of that RFC, so the closing of this thread should be comensurate with the closing of that RFC. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd opened a proposal to close the RfC/U on the talk but participants wanted more time...? Technically, this sanction proposal only addresses one of the issues raised in the RfC, so there's no need to wait for the results of this to close the RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that while this topic ban is related to the RFC, it is but one aspect of a larger issue. The RFC should continue or end on its own merit as should this motion here(imho). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin who's inclined to close;

1. I'm going to wait for 24 h from the original post here to close
2. If I close, I would note on the RFC but not close it directly; anyone else would be free to do so after the note.

Someone else is free to act sooner if you like. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Waiting 24 hours from the original post is a good idea. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Stifle and his rollback removal

Resolved

 – Rollback bit restored.

This user/admin had alleged that I rollbacked libelous material at Talk:Harvey Dorfman. Since the alleged rollback edit has since completly been deleted, I have no way of actually looking at what I may have done wrong, nor do I have a fair chance to defend myself among the broader community as a whole. I did recieve this message:

A recent rollback of yours restored libellous material to this page (it has now been deleted). This is a really serious issue. To encourage you to slow down when patrolling recent changes, I've removed the rollback right from your account. This is intended to be temporary and I intend to restore it in a few days. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton"

In order to encourage me to slow down (code for teaching me a lesson}, the admin removed my rollback. Seems couter productive to me, especially since I have made thousands of good rollback edits in the past year. This, I think, only helps the vandals in the end, since that means that there will be one less set of eyes on their vandalism.

The real question is, what was restored with my use of rollback, and how was it edited before before I rolled it back? I have no real way of knowing, nor will most anyone else now. I know that admins have the ability to look these things up, so I hope that this will be looked at.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the material should not have been restored; that being said, repeating what it is here defeats the purpose of the original suppression. It contained unsourced accusations of impropriety. –xeno^talk 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a lot to add to this; this admin-only link shows the rollback in question, accompanied by this template warning. I will defer to the consensus here (and hereby authorize any admin who feels that Jojhutton's rollback right should be restored to restore it without reference to me). Stifle (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a completely inappropriate and indefensible restoration by any standard, and hopefully temporary removal of rollback will encourage Jojhutton to look more carefully next time, as no one in their right mind would have restored it and issued a warning if they had. The previous editor had blanked the page by the way. What's more surprising is that the content had been there for six months. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse Stifle's actions. It's rollback is easy and quick, hence the need for additional caution to ensure what is restored isn't material that was, in practice, courtesy blanked. MLauba (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Very difficult to defend myself against invisible evidence. Please look at how the page was blanked, was an edit summery used properly? I have no idea at this point, nor willl 95% of those who see this thraed, who aren't admins.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An edit summary was not used. However, when reverting blanked text, you should always look to see why. Per policy: "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article." The material that was removed was completely unsourced accusations of criminal impropriety. I suspect if you had read it, you would not have restored it. Accidents happen, but when you revert blanking you are responsible for the material that you restore. If you had been under the impression that blanking without edit summary was automatically vandalism, then reconsideration is a good idea. (Adding, from Wikipedia:Vandalism: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself..." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When a one-shot IP zaps a large section of uncontroversial-looking text, that's usually vandalism. It's always good to check it first, though, before reverting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it usually is, but in this case, though, it clearly wasn't. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't see it, I have to take your word for it. :) One thing, though - If you blindly revert, you can see the results of the reversion, so there's really no good excuse for not taking note of what was deleted or restored. You can always fix a mistake by reverting yourself, or if it's not clearly vandalism but needs reverting, by reverting yourself and then reverting again but with an explanation in the edit summary. That may seem tedious, but it makes it less likely you'll end up here with an accusation of rollback abuse. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking at this myself, I agree entirely with what Moonriddengirl's said here. I'm not sure if I'd personally have removed rollback for that one incident, but it was certainly a pretty egregious piece of vandalism to restore, and I guess it's worth learning the lesson. I'd certainly support restoring your rollback in a few days as Stifle initially stated. ~ mazca ^talk 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just use WP:TW instead.--Otterathome (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse temporary removal of rollback. After a quick review of Jojhutton's reverts, I suggest that rollback is reinstated in the near future so that they can continue fighting vandalism. Also suggest that Jojhutton is provided the deleted content privately, to clarify the reason for removal. Otherwise the suspension may seem rather Kafkaesque. decltype (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moonridden Girl also. But I don't think that anyone should be given the deleted content and I am going to email OTRS suggesting that it is oversighted. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why email OTRS? Just email Special:Emailuser/Oversight if you think it qualifies. Make sure to give them diffs to the deleted revisions. –xeno^talk 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I meant oversight, sorry. That's who I emailed. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respect your judgment in this matter. decltype (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support giving back rollback right now, instead of waiting for a few days. Jojhutton isn't a child, he doesn't need Wii privileges taken away for a week to make sure he learns his lesson. Unsubstantiated accusations against a living person are bad. Blanking text without an edit summary is bad. Blindly reverting it without reading what you're restoring is bad. Of the three, blanking text without a summary is least bad, by far. Moonriddengirl, above, nailed it, so any further discussion is unnecessary. I think it's safe to assume Jojhutton knows he made a mistake, and from the number of admins commenting, knows it was a fairly obvious and serious mistake. Let him learn from it.

  So, is this one of those "must have consensus" things, or is it one of those "any admin willing to overturn" things? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us are waiting for Jojhutton to change their line of argument from, "How can I defend myself against edits I can't see" to something including an undertaking to be more careful in the future. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite patronising to remove his rollback to “encourage” him to be more careful. A polite reminder would have been sufficient. Heavy handed and condescending removal of R/B from a consistent vandal fighter for one slip-up. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He may be a wonderful vandal fighter, but I think the comments about this matter at the talk page reflect a clear misunderstanding of practice, here...something beyond one slip-up. He evidently was under the misimpression that any blanking without edit summary could and should be automatically reverted. Hopefully he will know better now (both based on policies above and Wikipedia:Rollback itself: "When using rollback to restore text to a page, ensure that the text restored does not violate Wikipedia policies."), but I would also like to see some indication that he does. We all make mistakes, but there's no harm in waiting for an "Oh, I get it" before restoring the status quo and marking the matter resolved. I'm also a bit concerned about his characterizing an expressly temporary removal of rollback as "being led to slaughter". I hope that he realizes that it is not an attack against him to make sure he is using the tool correctly, and his note that Stifle had "convienently erased" the evidence in first instance seems a bit out of accord with WP:AGF. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I won't restore without such an explicit indication, then; in any case, I see he hasn't edited since your clear summary above. Keep in mind he can't see the deleted content, and the rollback removal came out of the blue; there was no explanation first. I can certainly put myself in his shoes and understand him getting his back up. Permission removal is not a substitute for discussion. In fact, it can be an excellent way to make sure the other person is too offended to listen to what you're saying. This could have been handled better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have been a bit shocked, too. :) That said, I think it's a good thing that Stifle decided to engage him about it. If he had not, Jojhutton might not have realized it was his approach that was the problem rather than this particular set of circumstances. I don't think anybody is a bad guy here. There was just some clarification needed about the way blanking reversions work, and it really should be easy to settle at this point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Stifle already said that he is fine with another admin restoring it without further discussion, however I would also like to see some commitment to be more circumspect in future rollbacks. There is a setting (I believe it is the default?) that shows you the result of the rollback. You should take a quick peek to make sure you've done the right thing! –xeno^talk 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The material that was rolled back was pretty serious, but I take it that this was an accident and not deliberate? I'm sure we've all hit the rollback link wrongly a few times as admins, it seems quite unfortunate that this one happened but it doesn't sound malicious to me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of malice, but of misuse; his talk page and comments above suggests that he has not understood how reverting blanked material works. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Tbsdy lives, plenty of admins occaisionally accidently rollback things they shouldn't, or block the person reporting vandalism instead of the vandal, or make all sorts of other mistakes. We don'r remove their tools, however obtuse their response. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A silly comparison. You're comparing apples to uranium, or apples to the early works of Raymond Carver. One set of tools we give to people who have a heartbeat and can demonstrate that they don't write "poopy" on the wall; the other takes 5000 edits of experience and a hell of a gauntlet to run. Tan | 39 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's silly of me to expect admins to treat non-admins with the same courtesy, understanding and patience with which they treat admins, you are quite right, and it's entirely proper that we extend greater forgiveness to misuse (accidental or not) of tools which have the real potential to cause lasting damage to the encyclopaedia and the community than we do to a one-off mistake that was easily corrected. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue, as I can pretty much feel the collective wince of all admins when they saw the mistake that was made - a mistake that many of us could have easily made also. That's not the issue - the issue is that the mistake needs to be acknowledged before they get the tool back again. That's all! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Restore the R/B and continue the discussion with him away from here. That would be AGF - and not in glare of a public forum, which would have had the singular benefit of preventing Tan’s typical, wholly unconstructive, sideswiping generalisation of editors that carry out basic counter-vandalism. Leaky Caldron 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• These edits have now been oversighted as they contain potentially libelous, unsourced accusations of serious criminal acts - Alison ^❤ 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Alison. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Unless we're going to remove admin tools for one bad protection/block/deletion, Stifle's action was inappropriate in the extreme. As someone else said, Jojhutton isn't a child, and removal of the rollback bit shouldn't be treated as some kind of friggin' timeout or something. UnitAnode 15:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a misunderstanding that could have been resolved by discussion without the need for administrative action. I believe removing the rollback for what appears to be a first time mistake, that was done in good faith, was a little harsh. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm not sure why this particular situation is generating so much excitement, but Wikipedia:Rollback feature says, emphasis in original, " Misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator." It also says, "An administrator can grant (or revoke) rollback using their own judgment, via the interface at Special:UserRights." I wouldn't have immediately revoked rollback myself, but I don't think there was anything inappropriate in Stifle's action. There was clear misuse of the rollback feature, even if it was well-intended, and there evidently needed to be some clarification that blanking should not be blindly reverted, but reviewed, even without edit summary. This looks like a misunderstanding of the tool's usage, not an accident. Unlike adminship, rollback really is "no big deal" (and anyone who thinks adminship is no big deal has either never experienced the modern RfA or has a very thick skin). At this point, it seems like a simple "message received" is all that's needed for everybody to go on happily about their day. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is a perfect example of why I refuse to have any of these gaudy bits; they're just treated as baubles to be handed out and taken away at the whim of any passing administrator who's having a bad hair day. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Rollback enables you to revert all the entries most recently made by one guy in an article. It's basically just a time-saver, i.e. you don't have to go back to the version just before and then edit it and save it. Just one click and those entries be reverted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Please don't take me for a fool; I know perfectly well what rollback is, and that it's a complete waste of time when compared to Twinkle. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I have sometimes taken you for a malcontent, but not a fool. What I was trying to explain is that rollback is useful, and is worth hanging onto by refraining from misusing it, while losing it is not the end of the world. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

• Unless Jojhutton has a history of misfeasance with regards to use of the rollback feature, the revocation of the right - even temporary - was a heavyhanded solution to a single error. The situation could have been handled in a much simpler and less dramatic fashion by making him aware of the error and encouraging him to be more deliberate with his use of the rollback feature in the future. I would support the immediate restoration of the access. Shereth 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I share the same view as Shereth on this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jojhutton, please be more careful with this incredibly valuable tool. Tan | 39 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to accept that, from time to time, people will make mistakes. The material certainly should not have been restored, and certainly we can and should bring it to someone's attention when they re-introduce such a problem, but absent some history of malicious or careless misuse of a tool, immediately removing it with no warning seems excessive. One over-hasty response probably won't fix an over-hasty revert, but hopefully everyone's got that figured out by now. For the record, I emailed Jojhutton a (very truncated) summary of the revision's contents. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I am grateful to get the rollback tool back, I feel that I have one more thing to say.

In the past few days I have recieved several personal e-mails from various admins on this site. Although the text of each e-mail was different, the idea of them all was the same. They all seemed to think that I should just admit that I made a mistake and apologize. One of the e-mails, although cordial in its wording, was threatening in its nature. Demanding that I admit I was wrong or else I may have difficulty in the future.

I have only one thing to say to those out there who want me to admit that I made a mistake. How can I acknowledge that I did anything wrong, when I can't even see it? This is not like most mistakes that some may make on wikipedia, where a user is shown a thread, and they can look at it, and see where they went wrong. No this is much different. This is more like someone telling me I did something wrong, then when I ask what I did, I'm told that they can't tell me, but trust us you were wrong. I wouldn't expect anyone in the world to admit to anything like this, especially in this manner, on or off wikipedia. I know that wikipedia isn't a court of law, but I am still a human being with the same feelings and emotions as anyone else.

Others have argued that I just reverted the page without looking at it. That I somehow blindly rolled back a page, just because I misunderstand how rollback works. This too is false, but it is impossible for me to defend against these particular accusations, since again, I can't see the thread.

I no longer feel that I can fairly justify what happened, so I have decided to take a different road and practice a form of Passive resistance.

This is why I have decided to silence myself for a full week. Mostly out of the content of many of the e-mails that I recieved, (which was like a punch in the stomach), and secondly out of the fact that many want me to admit to doing something wrong, that I can't even verify happened.

I am not doing this to be bitter. I am not bitter, although many may see this as so. Actually I feel really good about myself right now, but I am doing it to show how wrong it is to silence users who are somehow guilty, even when the evidence can't be seen.

I hope to be back in a week. I may come back with a vengence, or I may go out with a whimper. Either way, it is clear that I am not wanted at this time, so thanks for those who supported me, and see you all in a week.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You are taking this WAY too seriously. Enjoy your little crusade. Tan | 39 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:76.102.12.35

Resolved

 – per WP:F*CKYOU Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This IP has been busy tagging articles for speedy deletion but absolutely refuses to notify the original authors, despite being politely asked to do so numerous times.

Quote: "Yes. I have no desire to become a mentor/tutor/personal WP guide. Been there, done that, waaaay over it." [9]

Also revert vandalism without placing warnings (hardly ever). This is very uncooperative. One reply to a complaint was "well, though shit." Messages are deleted from the talkapge with "cleaning out the detrius".

This a) seems to imply that a former user has resorted to being an IP and more importantly that WP:BITE (which isn't policy, but consensus) is completely ignored.

(notified)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

76.102.12.35 does not strike me as an adherent of WP:Etiquette. The impression he gives is that he is very BITE-y. Jarkeld (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This user also has started tagging articles for AfD, listing them on the AfD page, but won't actually start the specific AfD pages - he leaves that for other editors to complete. Not the first time he's done this, either. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IP editors can't create new pages, and therefore can't create the AFD pages. Woogee (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we know that, and so does s/he. But other people aren't this user's footsoldiers. Of course, the IP doesn't deem it necessary to dignify said footsoldiers' concerns with a comment here. Par for course... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The MO sounds vaguely familiar, as does the speech. Sound like anyone recently blocked? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry guys, while it is suggested that you notify the original author when CSD tagging, it is not policy. If they don't want to do it, and they've been advised that it would be nice if they did, then that's all there is to do about it. Nor do they have to respond to this thread if they don't want to. I don't see anything actionable here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Beeblebrox. I generally find it counterproductive to respond to those who think I should do what they want as opposed to what is actually required. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please ban me?

Resolved

 – User is getting the help they need, thanks to some clever javascript. –xeno^talk 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please ban me for 2 months? I need to get off Wikipedia, but it has become some sort of an addiction :( I'd appreciate a quick response, thank you. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCKME, we can't do this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Admins don't block people on request. Try Wikibreak Enforcer. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:52, 9 Feb 2010 (UTC)

"typically". You could if you wanted. And if enough of us started doing it, the guideline would of course be rewritten to better describe (rather than prescribe) our actions. –xeno^talk 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, then. I can't really think of a reason to be against it yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:01, 10 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I remember a similiar request a year or so back, I said no but another admin went ahead and did it for two weeks as they requested. A week later they requested an unblock saying they only meant one week, they were unblocked and it was pointed out that this is why we don't typically block on request. They didn't take it very well, thought they were being attacked, overreacted and now they're blocked indef, including a few sockpuppets.--Jac16888^Talk 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it's basically because of the administrative overheard. To be clear, I'm not going to do it - but I've seen admins who have in the past and no one really batted an eyelash. –xeno^talk 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaa, crap. I'll try that, thanx. --JokerXtreme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

I never thought much of that part of WP:BLOCKING, and as it says "typically", I usually do it on request (see users talk page). However, in this case, it seems that merely logging out has solved the problem. Tan | 39 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks like they setup the wikibreak enforcer as suggested by Equazcion (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to interject here, the blocking tool is intended to prevent disruption to the project, not one's psyche. Using it to the latter effect just muddles things. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if an unblock request is reasonable and done in good faith it may be approved. Why should a reasonable, good faith block request be declined?> RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a simple way to avoid the scenario mentioned above where they try to back out of it later. Just give them the hardest possible block, no talk page+no email access=no unblock request. Done that way, I don't see any harm in it, although nobody would be required to fulfill such a request either. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow is deliberately baiting me

Resolved

 – HalfShadow warned and acknowledged. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Outright insults, [10], refactoring my comments [11][12], more snark [13].

Do something about this. I will tell you now, I will categorically not listen to 'just ignore it'--if I did the same things, I'd get blocked. You're admins, deal with the problem. → ROUX ₪ 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you stop reverting his posts while your at this?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because at no point did I attack him. The reverse is not true. Once again, Coldplay: I'm sure you contribute to articles, but your contributions elsewhere are largely marked by being wholly ill-informed about the issue. Please stop. → ROUX ₪ 04:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• And again[14] when I dropped the required AN/I notice on his talkpage. → ROUX ₪ 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look. I don't want anymore trouble but the truth is, I've been watching this issue for a while now. Ever since (and even before) Malleus got blocked (again) I've been paying attention. I look down on those who drive away one of our best content creators on this whole site.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your fucking pardon? Malleus shows up to do nothing but attack and harass me (and then, indeed, does it again with zero repercussions apart from a wholly-ignorable warning), and I'm the one who drove him off? You have less than no clue of what you're talking about there, kid. → ROUX ₪ 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Roux, you seem stressed...you might want to step back and take a 30 minute break or something. Just get away from the stress for a while, and you will feel better I'm sure. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, and I realise this may be a novel concept, how about you address the actual problem here? → ROUX ₪ 04:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin...but just step back and let them handle it...you're getting to stressed with this to keep control much longer it seems. Just go watch a thirty minute comedy on tv or something, and relax...you will feel better! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh so [I] have less than no clue of what [I'm] talking about there, kid? Give me a break. Your starting to act like a fool. Edit waring does'nt help your case either.[15].--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job, Coldplay. Insulting me just like the person you inexplicably believe I drove away? Good job. Now, could we please return to the actual issue at hand, which is HalfShadow's unacceptable behaviour? → ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the subject of an AN/I complaint today about as superficial as this one, honestly. You're both baiting each other...WP:DICK accusations and templating and such. Either develop some thicker skin or disengage, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a template. If it's fine for newbies who we should be nicer to, it's fine for regulars. And that is hardly the point.. I have in fact not attacked or baited HalfShadow. The reverse is not true, so yet again I must say: familiarise yourself with the situation before commenting on it. → ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the subject of an AN/I complaint today about as superficial as this one, honestly. You're both baiting each other...WP:DICK accusations and templating and such. Either develop some thicker skin or disengage, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

/facepalm Roux, you've only been back to editing, what, a couple of weeks and you've been to ANI how many times...? Just sayin' ... maybe there are people and venues you should avoid as if your life depended on it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

By which you nicely show your ignorance of the situation and inability to read diffs. I had said nothing to HalfShadow. Not word one. Nothing. Nada. Zero. He showed up and started attacking and baiting me. Yet again, familiarise yourself with the situation before commenting on it.→ ROUX ₪ 04:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Connotation and tone (literature), Roux. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Don't need to read diffs. The point is, maybe you should avoid contentious areas like WQA or ANI and stick to something a bit less stressful. Seriously. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Contentious areas have nothing to do with this. People attacking me out of nowhere (and yes you do need to read the diffs, that's the whole point of providing them) is the problem. Do us all a favour and address the actual problem for a change. I know, that's not in the Admin Handbook, but try breaking the mold. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Roux, what problem do you wish addressed? Shadow made a light hearted comment after a post where you yourself said you were an idiot. Why is your sarcasm at WQA OK but someone else's take on it is not OK? Then you go to their talk page and issue a warning about a so-called personal attack and they don't take it seriously. You could have posted again about how uncivil it is to change idiot-edits because the idiots furrow their brows in a vain attempt to understand what happened [copyvio]. Instead you come back with a DTTR. What behaviour do you wish addressed here? Franamax (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because making a comment about oneself is one thing. Someone showing up to dig in a bit further--someone who has left insults on my talkpage prior to this incident--is a very different animal. Far from 'not taking it seriously', he continued with insults, and indeed completely rewrote what I had written. Or has the policy against rewriting comments made by others changed recently? → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents due to numerous past observations here, per WP:POINT... if the complainant continues to behave per such manner, it is possible that he/she might end up being the one getting BLOCKED instead. Also, the complainant might wanna read up on WP:Gray Area first before carrying on with his/her hounding, as HS has chosen to disengage from an escalating situation and you should take the hint. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hounding? What? He showed up in a thread in which he was previously wholly uninvolved solely to hound and harass me. What part of that is difficult to comprehend? → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(Both of which he appears to lack one way or the other) This is going nowhere. Roux obviously has a grivence (I'll give him that) but he's going about it the wrong way. Ever tried actually asking them to stop? Instead of creating several ANI threads?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did. But, y'know, you know all about this situation, so you should know that. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and your such a saint who's been wronged and now your out to get revenge, right? Like I told you before, two wrongs do not make a right.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous here, but [16] is way way inappropriate. Halfshadow had better refrain from that in the future. RxS (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And HalfShadow, whatever your beef with Roux is, stop now. Your only causeing disruption. Move on.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

James dalton bell returns as IP sock

Please see here, thanks, and please block this obvious sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed him, he's editing Jim Bell again and seems to be skirting right on the edge of WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm certain it's him alright. IP blocked for a week. —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one, 71.36.122.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), making same edits, using same edit summaries.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The edits themselves seem fairly minor. I should note that there are {{fact}} statements in there... these should be removed until a source can be found, per BLP guidelines. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Second IP also blocked. Both clearly related, in the same Qwest subnet even. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On second look, scratch that. They both have the same Qwest hop #11 [17] [18] gateway, though. —DoRD (?) (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And another: 97.120.244.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Woogee (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

unblock review User talk:Bibleopedia

Is it just me or is this user being jerked around a bit? I don't see any username violation in their original unblock request, unless we are to believe that "Bible Crusader" means they are officially on God's own payroll and are here to promote the Bible... Their only edit outside of their talk page was to create a user page that did in fact promote a website. They were blocked for that. Fine, I can get behind that, but then they get a block notice saying their username is the only reason for the block, and now apparently any other name they might choose is not good enough because the first name promoted a website. Beeblebrox (talk)

I think I was justified in declining "Bible Crusader", not because they're on God's payroll but because (to me at least) it just screams out they're here to push an agenda--Jac16888^Talk 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is really kinda weird. There are names that are way worse. This could easily lead to anyone w/ the name Mohammed, Jose, or Maria being disallowed... Go thru the names we have. "Headbomb" (terrorist?)... "Tide rolls" (pro Tsunami?)... "Hell in a Bucket" (Satanist?)...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jac, they really haven't even been given a chance to edit beyond his one page. Just give him a second chance, as there is no harm in trying. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit out of line there. Crusaders do, however, annoy me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not stopping him. I didn't block him and I haven't declined his following unblock requests. I saw him requesting an unblock with a name I felt was inappropriate so I declined the request. Change his name to his latest request and unblock him--Jac16888^Talk 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I've unblocked them and told them to choose either of their last two requested names as their new name. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mardi Gras

As it's now the season this article and Mardi Gras in the United States have been getting quit a few ip vandals lately. Anyone willing to semi for a week or so to stop the IPs from having fun? We've been getting a few good Ip additions, but about 90 % have been vandalism and they are increasing by the day right now.. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been an edit to that page in like eight hours, and only two edits yesterday total. If the level of vandalism increases, consider reporting to WP:RFPP, but I'm going to have to decline for now. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You noticed I also linked Mardi Gras where 2 vandal edits were made 20 or 30 minutes ago which I just reverted before posting here the first time? Or that every hr or 2 all day we had a vandal or 2 show up? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected Mardi Gras for 1 week after verifying an elevated level of IP vandalism over the last couple of days. I note that similar protection was applied last year. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, load off my mind. Back to work on article. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the preemptive protections. This is turning into a common modus around here, and there was no consensus for doing it in the first place, let alone doing it all the time. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There may not be a concensus written up as policy, but there a valid reason for occasionally doing it, keeps those of us who would rather be doing something productive(aka adding to article space), from having to revert IP vandals constantly on short term targets like a holiday party in NOLA.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also an entirely separate board specifically set up to handle these types of requests. In the future WP:RPP is the right place. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally, yes, but repeatedly, no. The discussion about protecting every single Super Bowl player was an excessive reaction, and it leads to the precedent of possibly preemptively protecting every article concerning the upcoming Olympics and all of the participating individuals. Woogee (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actions such as this are entirely inappropriate when there is no ongoing vandalism, nor any vandalism at all in the five days prior to the protection. The reason for the protection is false, as well. Woogee (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I must've missed that discussion, I have no opinion on it. But after repeatedly reverting vandals for the last few days, with an ever increasing frequency, I felt it was appropriate to ask in this situation. Also, next time I will ask at WP:RPP, sorry, didn't realize there was a special place for this. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players. There was never a consensus to violate the protection policy, but it was implemented anyway. Woogee (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Probable IP sock puppetry, I'm involved in the article

This one's a bit complicated. I've been involved with Reargun (talk · contribs) in edits on David a while back, and Khirbet Qeiyafa more recently over an inscribed piece of pottery and an excavation and their implications for the historicity of the Bible. This is a live issue in real life and a disputed/contentious one, and I hope and think I've been trying to keep the articles NPOV and not coming out for one view or another. Reargun (in my opinion I emphasise) seems to have been edting to put emphasis on one pov (and also has some problems with English which hasn't helped his edits, so I've reverted or edited some for that reason also). A little while ago Reargun said on his talk page that he had a storker {sic) and was going to 'lose' me. He started editing Khirbet Qeiyafa with an obvious sock, BerelZ (talk · contribs). [19] I tagged the sock and told him [20] that if he wanted to use an alternate account he could but needed to tag it with an alternate account tag. Then similar edits were made by 216.209.86.141 (talk · contribs) and I took the sock acccount and the IP to SPI, where the Checkuser confirmed the sock account but declined to comment on the IP.

I blocked the sock account indefinitely and told Reargun, as you can see on the diff above, "OK, I've blocked your sockpuppet indefinitely after it was CU confirmed. Please don't create any more. And please don't edit logged out. I'm not blocking you -- I'm assuming good faith, see WP:AGF. Please don't prove me wrong.". What I didn't do is note my actions on the SPI case, and a clerk blocked Reargun for 2 weeks and then unblocked after seeing my note (I was duly chastised for not having placed my actions on the SPI case, and apologised).

Next came more edits by the IP, and at that point I asked the Checkuser about the situtation, and was told "Just because I refused to say whether an IP was related to a user does not mean that you are forbidden to take action if you think it is necessary." At that point I blocked the IP (this was last night). This morning when I woke up {my first night with over 5 hours of sleep for several days) I decided I was too involved and unblocked the IP. I then found that another IP was making the same edits, 99.246.2.8 (talk · contribs). A WHOIS shows that both of these IPs are from the Israeli Embassy in Ottawa.

Can anyone advise or help me deal with what I still think is IP sock puppetry? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a bit borderline. I think it was probably a good idea for you to reverse the block, in terms of being "involved" and all. Logged-out editing is normally not regarded as illegitimate in and of itself, as long as it's not done to circumvent WP:SOCK (i.e. simultaneous editing both with the IP and an account with deceptive purposes, or using logged out editing to deliberately prevent proper scrutiny). Technically, I see one edit by the second IP done while the first was blocked, which would be block evasion, but then again, since that block was lifted as somewhat questionable shortly later, I personally would be a bit reluctant to sanction them for that. In any case, I've semi-protected the article for a while, to encourage them to return to their proper account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ozguroot canvassing again

Ozguroot (talk · contribs) has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users to a very charged discussion (Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport). The users contacted all have commented on one of the two pages previously, and all in opposition. None of the editors who had supported the compromise were contacted. It only takes a brief search for the names of editors canvassed on Talk:Passport to see how methodically they were picked for their views. Considering the fact that this discussion was previously only held between three users, this has the potential to completely undermine days' worth of discussion, perhaps even destroy the extremely precarious compromise reached. Ozguroot has previously canvassed two users to the discussion, in a foreign language, and was subsequently repeatedly pointed to WP:CANVASS (read from my "03:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)" edit to Talk:Passport) - there is simply no excuse, and I feel a warning is insufficient in light of the irreparable damage done to 160kb of discussion held on Talk:Passport over the last few weeks.

It has been raised on ANI before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#Passport-related_edit_war) that Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet due to the similarity between his editing patterns and those of another sock-master, as well as his strange out-of-the-blue editing history. The possibility was never properly investigated.

Diffs: 16 Jan 09 canvassing:

1. Kerem Ozcan (translation: Google)
2. Kaygtr (translation: Google)

Today's canvassing:

1. Vmenkov
2. Jake Wartenberg
3. Valenciano
4. Rave92
5. Qwerta369
6. Tomi566
7. El Otro
8. Pryde 01
9. Gaston28
10. Philip200291
11. Tetromino
12. Bonus bon
13. Glenfarclas
14. Sky Harbor

And one in a foreign language, also from today:

1. Ajdamania2 (translation: Google)

One of the users above (Pryde 01) even launched a very scathing personal attack on the talk pages of me and another user and was subsequently given an only-warning by an administrator.

It pains me to report Ozguroot right after he had posted his very possibly first rational reply, and I would like to note that this is not an attempt to kill discussion, there is another very committed editor (Avala) with which my discussion on the subject matter continues, but I feel as though I've been wasting my effort only to be toppled by simple brute-force numeric supremacy. My Mediation Request has not yet been taken up by a mediator, and I am not sure what to do. Considering the fact every oppose has been notified, would it be prudent for me to canvass all the support votes, in an effort to return balance to the façade of discussion being held at Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport? Action against Ozguroot, as well as advice on how to proceed with the discussion, would be much appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They are the editors of the articles in subject. User:Happenstance could actually do that, instead of me, to notify them and let them know about the change or his "decide", before making over 250 deletions. But he did NOT never tell anyone. They don't know what is happening. Additionally, i am afraid that "Ozguroot has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users."' is totally a lie. When was the first time? I don't remember. I just asked for the opinions of two editors. - If you call this "canvassing FIFTEEN partisan users". Also please have a look at United_States_passport, Ukrainian_passport, its not only about a single editor, none of the articles editors accept your own "decide/consensus". But you ignore their opinions, you insist, insist, insist and delete, delete, delete. They were keeping undoing your changes as well. Is this a consensus, is this a solution? Let's be [serious]. As we see, you deleted the sections of over 250 Wikipedia articles, and you did NOT want NOBODY to get notified before doing so. That's not normal, in my humble opinion. Your reason was: (rm visa-free bloc per consensus on Talk:Passport). But there was NOT such a consensus at all. See Talk:Passport, too many OPPOSE editors there. Which consensus? Shortly, I just asked for their opinions on the matter. It pains me to hear "Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet" only because i asked for the editors opinions, so they could help on that matter, - as we were never reaching a consensus- . Why not to discuss all together, instead of an edit war? Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK here is my view - Happenstance, Ozguroot did what you were supposed to do. This is not canvassing, but notifying regular editors, something that you failed to do and caused all the mess on the Passport talk page. He also did it in neutral manner, something that you also probably wouldn't be able to do.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to be being called a "partisan user," as Happenstance calls me above. My handful of edits on this issue do not display one iota of partisanship, and I take this remark as uncivil and a failure to assume good faith. My attempt to smooth it over with Happenstance was not successful; his response was, it's not pejorative, I'm just saying that you're devoted or biased toward one side. That's not at all true, in any sense, and I feel it's appropriate to make my objection here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than notifying me you still had problems with my clarification, you chose to come here without even dropping a line on my talk. And then you say I violated WP:AGF. I have explained my definition of partisan, and I have stated that it was not intended to be pejorative. We clearly have differing definitions of the term. Mine comes straight from the WP:CANVASS policy. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The total apathy and lack of administrator response to what is a repeated and rather serious violation of a significant behavioural guideline is quite worrying, and could very easily completely undermine weeks' worth of discussion. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've only just hopped onto ANI to read this. Now I can't say whether these are partisan editors, and in fact I don't think that's helpful, but I would have thought that a better way forward would be to file an article RFC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought a Mediation Request would be great, I did not anticipate every opposition-voter to mysteriously materialise and the Request to be summarily ignored by all and sundry. If you review Talk:Passport, you'll see what I had to put up with during this debate, and to not receive one iota of community support against editors who are clearly, repeatedly, and proudly breaking the rules to make their point is extremely disheartening. As the lone editor clinging to policy and precedent, and as the only one making any sort of effort to discuss, I challenge anyone who has read the entirety of the debate at Talk:Passport to tell me Avala and Ozguroot acted appropriately, and that I didn't. So, what am I after at this point? In brief, Ozguroot needs a warning block for canvassing a second time after repeated warnings and explanations of the canvassing policy; and the debate needs a mediator. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A warning block for canvassing? Read the answers again then. Additionally, following your logic, you should also get such a warning because you did exactly the same thing. Even worse. I just wrote them "share your opinion with us". Letting the editors know about a possible future change is not forbidden in Wikipedia, is it? I don't think so. Especially when the editors are in edit wars, when they always undoing your completely persistent section-deletions, and when you don't find any solution/consensus. I really don't understand why you are so angry because i wrote messages to the editors explaining the situation and asked for their opinions. I did not write as "partisan" as your text, though. See what did you write?;

And here is the "Canvassing" from User talk:Happenstance:

1. Hans_Adler
2. TreasuryTag
3. Spartaz
4. Funandtrvl
5. Blue-Haired_Lawyer
6. ArmadniGeneral

They all are the users who have expressed a positive viewpoint, from your "side". Also, do you always call the users "a suspected sockpuppet" who don't agree with you here? Discuss, but fairly, please. Your problem is not to solve the matter, your problem is, obviously, a good ban to me, that's all what you need, you try every single possible thing for that, lies, cheatings, false, fake and incorrect claims, ONLY because i did not agree your unfair section deletions on more than 250 articles, i did not agree that just like the rest other 15 editors.

Also see:

1. "Partisan message"

--Ozguroot (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See my talk for the background to that. And look at the dates of those messages. Upon being urged to by RashersTierney, I dropped notes on the talks of the uncontacted remainder of those who voted in the discussion, which in light of Ozguroot's previous canvassing happened to all represent a certain side. RashersTirney said, on my talk: "To redress the balance of the very obvious canvassing based on the perceived bias of editors, I think that all who have so far expressed any view on resolving the 'visa-free blocks' should be made aware of the continuing 'debate'" and I happen to agree. I asked whether this is appropriate here, in my first post, and received no reply, I assumed it was OK. I am amazed Ozguroot, of all people is attempting to spin this as a negative. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adilette

Just looking for a little advice on this article. I stumbled across it a while back when it was created. The language was very poor and notability was an issue. I have suggested it be merged with Adidas, or the article improved, but several IP's, all originating in Madrid, Spain keep removing the templates with minimal edits to the actual page. My suggestions were added to the Talk Page only to be removed by one of these IP's. I think their grasp of English is not exactly great, the article is poorly written, and is only really notable enough to be mentioned in a sub-section of Adidas, especially considering the only people (or is it just one person...??) editing it are not really up to the standards expected. I don't know enough about the actual subject to edit it myself - I have no interest in a type of Adidas sandals to write an article on them(!), but yeah - leave to edit with templates (I'll keep replacing them and issue warnings if removed) or merge with Adidas? _Will^dow (Talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor (admins have no special remit over article content) I'd say the current sources don't support any of the content, much of which is puffery or unintelligible. The article looks to be a direct copy of the Spanish Wikipedia's version - possibly even run through an online translator. My personal opinion is that in its current form a merge/redirect would be the kindest option, though even that will need decent sources to be found.

Speaking as an admin, I suspect that the author may be this chap, who from the username might have a WP:COI. However, I think the real problem is their lack of facility with the English language; we can't assume they've understood the warnings and advice well enough to realise what the concerns are. This is itself a WP:COMPETENCE issue, so depending on how things develop admin action may need to be taken. Ideally a Spanish-speaking editor (anyone?) is needed to help explain WP:OWN, WP:RS and WP:V; if proper sources can be found (shouldn't be too hard given the brand) and someone is willing to tidy the article up, the problem would disappear. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Now Afd'd it. PROD removed by Spanish IP - probably a sockpuppet of the creator Uder:Adilette1972. Any comments on AfD here. Mentioned perhaps a sentence or two should be in the Adidas page. Thanks, _Will^dow (Talk) 12:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cool three

I'm fine with people venting in some way and he certainly has a right to do so I think, but I'm not sure if the farewell message on his user page is appropriate. ANI regulars are "power-hungry teenagers without the social skills to survive in the real world", hell is "other Wikipedians", and his detractors are "scum". I'm not going to remove it, but like I said, it doesn't seem appropriate.--Atlan (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen worse. Any idea what his specific complaint was about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

His RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unwise, but no more than that. His RfA was not going well, and I gave a long explanation of why I felt the community would not support him and so he should withdraw. I didn't word it well, as he felt I was commenting negatively on his mainspace contributions - he has, under his previous account, written several FAs. I have left an apology on his talkpage. If someone close to him whose judgement he trusts blanked the page so fewer people could see it, that might be acceptable, but if anyone else did I think it might just make matters worse. SilkTork *^YES! 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Yeh, I probably would have said no also, if I voted in RfA's. I recommend leaving it be for awhile and see if he decides to come back and edit. If not, it could be cleared after a decent interval. Very few are likely to see it anyway who don't already know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, who cares. Tan | 39 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I sure don't, but maybe editors mentioned there care. I just brought it out here for attention. Yeah, leaving it for now seems best.--Atlan (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads like the typical screed I've seen since my BBS days: "You didn't make me a moderatorgive me an admin bit! That means you're all power-hungry bastards! You'll be sorry I left!" As long as he's not making personal attacks, I'd say leave it so people can see they were right to vote no in his RfA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket: copyright problems

I was doing my daily rounds at WP:SCV when I came across Robert B. McGinnis "by" Racepacket (talk · contribs). The article is a close paraphrase from [21], with two paragraphs almost copied verbatim (the ones beginning with "McGinnis's 1965 book" and "He founded"). Having a look at his talk page reveals a history of similar copyright problems spanning more than two years.

• Mary Margaret Whipple deleted twice as copyvio. I haven't checked the third creation.
• Sylvester Willard - [22] copied from [23]. The article remains a derivative work. (May be pd as the source sources something pd, but can't really tell.) Sent to WP:CP.
• Marguerite Ross Barnett, see [24]. Essentially, [25] from [26]
• Jacksonville Developmental Center, see [27]. Was sent to WP:CP and revised.
• William T. Miller see Talk:William T. Miller

At the very least, please revoke his autoreviewer permission. I've also requested a CCI (not opening it directly, would like feedback). MER-C 05:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. That article is a very close paraphrasing, any user who would do that shouldn't carry the autoreviewer flag. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) None of the McGinnis article is verbatim from any source, and the facts from the different sources are arranged in a meaningful order. Marguerite Ross Barnett was based on a public domain resume that was distributed with a conference. I have reviewed the history of the Mary Margaret Whipple article and am not aware of it being "deleted twice as copyvio," because it is still there. I took a one semester course in copyright law, passed the US Patent and Trademark Office admission to practice exam, and am familiar with what constitutes infringement. Again, the facts vs literary express distinction can be tricky and subjective. Based on this, I have identified and tagged a number of copyright violations, including [28] [29] [30] Racepacket (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC):

• Sorry, but no - a quick check of the McGinnis article after your last edit against the apparent source shows two paragraphs that are substantially identical in each. Other paragraphs can be similarly traced to the other two sources. There does appear to be a significant problem. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Mary Margaret Whipple was deleted twice as a copyvio. You created it first here: "01:43, 26 September 2007 . . Racepacket (talk | contribs | block) (812 bytes) (start article)" Corensearchbot tagged it, you removed the copyright flag, and it was deleted by User:Butseriouslyfolks at 04:47, 26 September 2007. The next day, you created the article a second time: "21:50, 27 September 2007 . . Racepacket (talk | contribs | block) (986 bytes) (stated article)". It was deleted by the same admin as a reposted copyvio the following day. The current version dates to later that same day. I have been evaluating some of your recent contributions. I have reverted your edits to Worcester State College; see Talk:Worcester State College for an example of copied text. I have found additional issues (not yet cleaned) in the article Salem State College (content you added here duplicates text at [31], [32] & [33])). Given that and the history above, there does seem to be need for further review at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. You may not have intentionally violated copyright, but your handling of previously published texts in these articles has not accorded with copyright policy and non-free content guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• The CCI is open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket. I will notify the appropriate projects in case they are interested in assisting with evaluation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is a somewhat minor point, but Racepacket, what is with the "edit conflict" note on your initial post here? My post and your reply were hours and hours apart from one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suspect it was with my response - Racepacket left a message, I responded, then Racepacket expanded on the message. My guess was that the ec was due to the expansion. - Bilby (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User CRAustralia

Resolved

 – CRAustralia (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for edit warring

I am not sure this is the best place to report this, but there are several issues involved, and I can't see anywhere better.

User:CRAustralia has been involved in an edit wars on Talk:Simon Overland and Racism in Australia. Apart from the issue of edit warring there is a BLP issue, and also the material which CRAustralia has been repeatedly adding to these two pages is a copyright violation. The same text was previously repeatedly added to Simon Overland by an anonymous editor with various IP addresses in the range 71.135.*.* until the article was semiprotected on 30 January 2010. CRAustralia first started editing later the same day. CRAustralia is a single purpose account which is concerned only with this issue.

CRAustralia has been advised and warned numerous times about edit warring, NPOV, and copyright violation. Warnings have been given by Bilby, Ginsengbomb, HarlandQPitt, and myself. CRAustralia has removed the warnings from the user talk page.

Since this involves several issues (edit warring, BLP, NPOV, and copyright) I thought it could not be covered fully by a forum for any one of these, and AN/I was the one place I could think of which seemed general enough to deal with all aspects of this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User Lion211989, continuing vandalism of my talk page

Resolved

 – Blocks all around! TNXMan 20:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to give User Lion211989 the benefit of the doubt but he/she insists on vandalizing my talk page. Just look at my talk page[34] for any evidence what-so-ever. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this matter being taken seriously? Or am I not being patient? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Mcjakeqcool would you? I only ask because of your email address. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no eMail adress. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely something suspicious going on. I've blocked two accounts messing around on Jack's talk page, but I find it odd that 90% of a "new" editor's posts are on ANI. TNXMan 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at Simple Wikipedia, where Mcjakeqcool uses that same email address. I think we have some quacking going on here. Good find, DC. -- Atama頭 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and not to mention here, the email address is given. I had suspicions about this account from the first time I saw it at ANI, and it's interesting to note that they generally comment at sockpuppet discussions on this page. I think this editor has basically outed themselves, so I'm blocking per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

please block sock (NEEDED QUICK REACTION)

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by a checkuser. Pcap ping 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crackajack_Mac (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs), and is performing disruptive edits at Kosovo-related articles, which are under probation. He has removed the sock tag without comment[35], so please just indef-block him and tag. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to Eric Naval. He if anything is the new mask of a well known sole user on Wikipedia who spreads Serb propaganda called Tadija who is also FKPCascaris. I am a new user who has been observing stuff a few weeks. Crackajack Mac (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanx Enric Naval. I´ll know from now on that it is here that this sockpoppetry issues are solved. Just a remark, this user has been disruptive in a number of Serbian (Serbia itself, not Kosovo) articles, so it goes beyond. FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk to User:MuZemike, and former Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) blocking admins, he is WP:DE vandal. --Tadija (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

New mask? Enric Naval has been here 5 1/2 years, "new mask" is ridiculous. Woogee (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I reverted his talk page access as well for abusing it. -- Atama頭 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to undo The Price is Right mistaken moves

Resolved

Could an admin please undo the recent moves of User:Bgds involving The Price is Right, which along with its sister pages presently reside at the inaccurate The Price Is Correct et al. ? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP Addresses

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL. 02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR as Lord of wikipedia?

Resolved

 – Not the right location for this discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to show you the problems caused by User:DIREKTOR. I started to improve the page about Prime Minister of Yugoslavia. The User called for sources about my edits, and I gave them in talk page and page. He unilaterally disliked them, cancelled them by the page, imposing his self-created version. Not to create an edit-war, I let his version and I inserted tags (citation needed) about his edits, but he cancelled them too (evidently declaring himself the sole Lord of the page) and called for a protection of the page. I noticed him some objective errors in his versions (as the date when Tito took office as Yugoslav PM), but he restored even those erroneous data. More, he called for a general protection of all pages he want to affirm his lordship on [36]. I think he so vandalized wikipedia and denied the possibility of a free contribution to the encyclopedia. Thanks for your help.--79.54.164.85 (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it looks to me more like you are being disruptive and Direktor is attempting to clean up your work. He reverted your unilateral changes, suggested you bring issues up on the talk page before making such changes, and requested protected status after you inappropriately flagged a well written article as needing review for POV issues (this after your own edits included things like calling an election "rigged"). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider quite pacific that elections in Eastern bloc were rigged, but however I gave him a source [John R. Lampe "Yugoslavia as history: twice there was a country" Cambridge University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-52177-401-2]. I gave the source about his error about the period of Tito's premiership start March 7, 1945. I gave the source about the king's bannage [37]. I gave the source about the link between Presidency and Premiership (the 1953 Constitution, but our friend answered speaking about the 1946 constitution - has he problems to understand or he want not to understand?). ALL these improvements and sources were deleted. If is this not a vandalism.....--79.54.164.85 (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All I did was ask the IP User to present his sources and discuss them, since I wrote-up the text in that article based on high-quality university publications, while his refs are private websites. The IP decided to alter the text without discussion and then try to keep his/her edits in by revert-warring. I must admit I also have suspicions about the POV of the IP User, who is promoting very unusual (unsourced) and inflammatory wording (apparently Yugoslavia was formed by "Serbia annexing Croatia"). Based on past experiences, it seems suspiciously like another nationalist IP.

(P.S. This is not the place to discuss this, but it should be noted that the only publication presented by the IP User is a source I introduced. I read the book, Lampe talks about the elections on pp. 230-231, he does not state that they were "rigged". In fact he states that "the elections themselves were fairly conducted by secret ballot". I believe it is necessary to point out that this particular source was probably misrepresented deliberately.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I regret, but your vandalic intentions are evident. You claim to use good university sources, but I think it is impossible that a university source could make so relevant errors as the day when Tito started its premiership (March 7, 1945, not November 1944 as you claim). And I think quite strange your "university source" does not speak about the abolition of 1920 Constitution by the king on January 6, 1929 (an information you deleted without any reason) or about the union between Presidency and Premiership under the 1953 Constitution (an information you deleted without any reason).
And about the birth of Yugoslavia I repeat, even if this fact causes you (not justified) problems, that Serbia annexed not only Croatia, but even Montenegro. You evidently do not know the difference in international law between a union which creates new institutions (as happened in America in 1787, when a new Government was created and it was different from the governments of the 13 colonies) and an annexation (where the successor state maintains the Government of one of its predecessors). And about the 1945, even if I think everybody know the unfree character of election in Eastern Bloc, that an election where the opposition had retired for protest and the result is 87% for the Government, it can be difficultly depicted as democratic. But well, if a User has a five-point red star in its userpage, all is possible.... --79.54.164.85 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not the place for a content discussion. (Please read up on what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia before wantonly accusing other editors.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:RYoung122

Resolved

 – I read the "implied legal threat", and did not see it as such. He stated that your arguments wouldn't stand in a court of law, not that he was going to take you to a court of law. As this is obviously a content/behavior dispute, please take this to appropriate venues (WP:WQA and follow the steps found at WP:DR). This is not the place you are seeking. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In essence, this is a content dispute which has escalated into edit-warring, incivility and a veiled legal threat.

RYoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor who concentrates on articles about centenarians and supercentenarians. It would seem that, pursuant to consensus achieved at WP:DATEPOLL, the vast majority of WP editors disagree with the linking of dates or years except in very exceptional circumstances, yet this de facto guardian of centenarians insists on linking years of birth. He principally argues that "year links appropriate for 'oldest persons'", and has refused to accept arguments from other editors (including Carcharoth) that there may be a better way of achieving the context which he believes year links may provide without linking to subjects not germane to the subject. Seeing that he had undone delinking and had been engaged in slow edit warring in relinking of years of birth across a number of articles, and for blindly reverting, twice, edits which contained other valid formatting changes, I issued a warning on 27 January.

He replied arguing somehow that the links were not technically 'reverts', that my warning was thus invalid. In the meantime, a discussion has been taking place at Talk:Jiroemon Kimura and WT:Linking]. Since my first warning, he has responded to messages on his talk page in a rather defensive and somewhat uncivil manner, accusing his respondents of 'bullying', 'conflict of interest', 'canvassing' and 'cabal'. He then found, instead of a clearly labelled 'birth year' of 1897, an instance of the year 1897 and linked it arguing that policy didn't apply because it wasn't a birth-year link.

Following a final warning on his talk page not to engage in slow edit warring, he accused me of conflict of interest on my talk page. He also responded by implying legal action. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RYoung122's actions in this sorry mess have been deplorable. He edited against community consensus; he deleted guidelines because they didn't suit him (that's right RYoung122: why delete parts of the guideline if you really believed you were editing within them?); he reverted bot edits (bots that he knew full-well were sanctioned, and would only run if they arose from community consensus); he warred over those edits; he accused people of canvassing, but did exactly the same thing; he shouted at people via his edits; he accused editors of cabal-like activity; etc. Outside scrutiny of this atrocious episode is required—please.  HWV258.  03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks by User:Wiggalama

Resolved

 – Wiggalama (talk · contribs) blocked 2 weeks (repeat offense) for edit warring on Skepticism. Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

by Wiggalama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Skepticism, Talk:Skepticism, etc..

I'm copying this from Sandstein's talk page because he's apparently busy elsewhere.

A relative newbie insists on deleting properly sourced material over the objections of other editors because he believes it isn't "true". I have explained our verifiability policy and the need to discuss INSTEAD of edit warring, but he has deleted yet again. The discussion is here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skepticism#False_claims

The editor's edit history (note the edit summaries):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wiggalama

Their talk page history (they have a habit of deleting and ignoring warnings):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiggalama&action=history

The history of the Skepticism article (note IP edits supporting Wiggalama's deletions):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skepticism&action=history

I don't want to be accused (like last time) of edit warring by restoring the improperly deleted material. I don't want to get blocked and I feel paralyzed and unable to defend Wikipedia against policy violators. What to do? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiggalama is continuing to delete properly sourced content over the objections of other editors, and is now insulting other editors. Please do something. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

More insults and yet another deletion. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is NOT a content issue, but one of edit warring and personal attacks. The content issue could be discussed if it weren't for the continual edit warring being carried on at the same time, and the personal attacks. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In spite of being advised, the user continues to label everything as a minor edit. There doesn't seem to be a collaborative bone in their body. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's too bad, but in spite of previous blocks and repeated warnings, they don't seem to think this project is important enough to behave civilly and follow policy. Let's hope they learn from this. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Is it possible that there's a connection between User:Wiggalama and indef blocked Macheetah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Both favor editing Mauricio Rua and Lyoto Machida [38], and Wiggalama's account was created 18 days after Macheetah was blocked. Wiggalama's very first edit was to Talk:Lyoto Machida [39], in which they jumped right into the discussion without any newby hesitation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Blocked for "a fortnight"? How quaint. But not unreasonable; it's unlikely the topic is going to change much during that interval, and two weeks reading up on the alphabet soup couldn't hurt the editor. PhGustaf (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess it doesn't matter now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, it does matter. Block evasion should lead to an indef block for the Wiggalama sock account. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way -> Toddst1 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Distruptive editing by User:Stemonitis

Resolved

 – via the Plaxico effect. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Administrator User:Stemonitis is doing long term (at least since 2007(!)) Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive". He is adding for very long time a space (non-breaking space) before ref tag in very large number of articles. Although discussed his "proposal" 3 years ago, it was not implemented into guideline. This is exact example of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. He inhibit standardization of articles. Standardization and proper way of such editing is described in Wikipedia:Footnotes. He did not stopped this behavior although he was informed about it at User talk:Stemonitis#Citing references and at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#User:Stemonitis and space in front of ref tag. Administrators "are expected to observe a high standard of conduct". His restive behavior is against the guidelines and spirit of wikipedia. I appeal to other wikipedians to solve this situation in effective way in the same way as vandalism is solved. --Snek01 (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is nowhere near needing admin action. As people at the Content noticeboard said, discuss it there but you're escalating this beyond proportion. And, I might add, going to WP:PLAXICO yourself if you push too hard. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the third place I've seen this. Snek01, you might get better results if you confine yourself to the one page and tone down some of your remarks. This is not a major issue and Stemonitis is doing no long term damage to Wikipedia. And in now way does this involve any use of his administrative powers so stop bringing that up. something lame from CBW 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is major issue. Stemonitis is continuing this every day including this day. All infomation I have written above is correct. When administrator does not accept policies and rules guidelines, then is is very alarming and it could devastate moral of wikipedians. When s single user is blocked for three reverts, then administrator Stemonitis can not be blocked for thousands of intentionally made errors? --Snek01 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he ask Jimbo Wales to comment on this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate which "policy or rule" he is not "accepting". Tan | 39 14:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. For details see Content noticeboard. --Snek01 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The first and third are behavioral guidelines, the second is a style guideline. I'd like to point out that there is no "policy or rule" being violated. Tan | 39 14:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrected to "guidelines" and these guidelines are violated. "Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point," is included in fundamental principles called Wikipedia:Five pillars. --Snek01 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing about this that's a WP:POINT violation. User:Stemonitis is making what appears to be good-faith changes, which you happen to disagree with. Seriously, you need to go back to discussion with him, rather than seeking to punish him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Elize du Toit

Please see File:Elize du Toit at the BAFTA's.jpg The picture came from Flikr and states (and Consequently so too does the wiki article) that it was taken at the 62nd Baftas. I was suspicious because I recognised her "costume" from Material Girl - Episode 1. The "additional information" attached to the file shows the picture was taken in April 2009, not at the Baftas in Feb 2009. I do not know how best to stop this misinformation being promulgated. Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Says it was uploaded in April, not taken. Original Flikr also says it was from BAFTAS. Is there evidence it wasn't???? Gerardw (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the metadata (under the assumption it was not changed by hand) says that the picture was taken 26 April 2009. Of course, metadata is trivial to change, and some software overwrites it inappropriately, but assuming it was done correctly, the picture was indeed taken in April. However, there's not much that can be done here because this picture is on Commons. Perhaps you want to raise the discussion there? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Full picture, the second female is Beth Cordingly who also featured in the programme in that dress. For circumstantial evidence look at the scabby underpass & the casually dressed people they are with - hardly a Red carpet affair!. Finally anyone in England will attest that short sleeves & sunshine are more likely late April than early February.Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But a quick Google image search for "elize du toit bafta" will quickly bring up a bunch of pictures of both ladies in those exact outfits on the red carpet... MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And also, if you look at another picture from the same photographer's Flickr set, [40], you'll see a wider view of the same group with BAFTA mask logos there. MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Right. I guess they have reversed the Bafta footage into the TV programme. c/w the April date I added 2 plus 2 and got five. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons - epic backlog

I know that it already has a backlog tag and this may not be news to some of you but the nowcommons categories Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons have 18.000+ images cumulative its got to a point it needs admin attention.I tx you in advance and apologize if this is not the correct forum for this.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly this much, because Multichill recently ran his bot to tag all that. Actually doing the work of cleaning it up will take quite some time though. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The last time this happened, an admin used a bot or script to indiscriminately delete them all which is not the proper procedure (I still think that wasn't rectified?) - so please nobody go and do that again. –xeno^talk 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been working through this steadily, but it's not just a job for one man I'm afraid. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have taken care of a few, but it really is a daunting job ... — Kralizec! (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McQueen

Resolved

Semi'd for a week

Recently died, loads of IP vandalism [41]. A case for page protection? Rapido (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be looking for WP:RFPP. Tan | 39 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sleeper, or something else?

I just came across a vandal edit on a page I watch. The user is a redlinked name, but therefore a registered user. Checking the contribs, I see that said edit was this user's first edit. This is not such a big deal, because a lot of people mess about and then get serious. However, going into the log, the account was created in 2008, and therefore has never been used until now. Is this a sleeper, or just some random foolishness? MSJapan (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just random foolishness I think. :P We shouldn't care about it too much as it is just one edit he/she made. Minimac94 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a sleeper, he's doing it wrong. Just deal with it in the usual way. –xeno^talk 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cgersten

Cgersten (talk · contribs · logs) has been editing Bill Clinton and Presidency of Bill Clinton. It seems really important to him to add certain things about Clinton which several other people regard as breaching NPOV or UNDUE. On the good side, the user has at least been using the talk page; on the bad side, edits which talk about censorship always give me the willies, and many reverts were made in the last days, though none after I warned them for edit-warring. Maybe I am being unduly cautious by raising this here, but I thought it would be good to have more uninvolved admin eyes on the situation. If enforcement was needed in the future I regard myself as too involved to do it, having made one revert on the article. Thanks for taking a look. --John (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Autofellatio

Resolved

 – WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. Consensus has determined that the photo stays.

-- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just received a warning on my talk page, to by remove [the image] in the article Autofellatio, an image that can be very "grotesque" to many people and of sexually explicit content, which can mistakenly be seen by minors, therefore: is it necessary to add such images to articles related to sexual content?. Ccrazymann (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessary, but entirely appropriate in the article space. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary, charting the article with such photos, therefore, propose to withdraw this photo from the article, you think?¿, opinions please. Ccrazymann (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a million times. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED and leave the image alone. Gah. → ROUX ₪ 18:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And you were looking at this article for what purpose? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? Quit trying to throw gas on every goddamn fire, Fred. Tan | 39 18:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? My response was to have suggested that had he been looking to see what autofellatio meant, then the image would have explained it rather more rapidly than reading the article. No fires, no petrol, just an assumption of bad faith on your part. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Roux said, you should also read Talk:Autofellatio. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'd never frame it and hang the photo on my bedroom wall, I don't think the image should be removed; however, I might suggest protecting the page and image as both are bound to be vandalised in the near future as a result of this discussion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it an editor? I think he's been enhanced because I don't beleive it's possible.  Giano  18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is possible with the right combination of endowment and flexibility. A... umm... friend has seen it done with his own eyes. → ROUX ₪ 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! That must be handy.  Giano  18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No hands necessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently in his younger days Ron Jeremy was quite adept at it.... or so I have been told. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that an observation drawn from experience, Giano ;) Rockpocket 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, not.  Giano  18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it reminds me of a Greek picture I have representing the god Pan, although the latter is better-endowed. I still have it, but my husband forced me to remove it from our bedroom wall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly do you buy your art collection?  Giano  18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, where I used to work at Naval Air Station Sigonella. It was my job to sell the pictures and fend off the complaints from offended customers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was he depicted playing his own flute? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It appears as if you've seen the picture. I believe (as I used to inform the customers) that the god was an ancient fertility symbol.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Did the picture say what the tune was?  Giano  19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably 'I Wanna Fuck', though I can't see how that could be played on a flute. HalfShadow 19:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This one time... at band camp... 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Harlan wilkerson

Harlan wilkerson seems to be an "educated troll", namely a person with a lot of knowledge and access to academic sources, but he use them in the wrong way in order to promote his political views through en-wp.

1. Nearly all his contributions are related to article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [42]
2. He has been engaged in several edit wars, usually because he could not accept his edits being rejected or modified by other users. For example: in the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: [43] [44] [45] [46] in the article: State of Palestine: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] in this case it was also a clear violation of a community decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State of Palestine.
3. When the article State of Palestine was reinitiated, he quickly rephrased the article making it very POVized [53]
4. Here [54] and in several other occasions he tried to push the opinion of Francis A. Boyle, even though he knew it is a problematic source in this context, because Boyle, as written in his biographical details "serves as counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine." and "From 1991-92, Professor Boyle served as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations." [55]
5. The bottom of this version of his talk page [56] shows he has been involved in quite a few conflicts due to his edits, and his insistence on reverting other editors' modifications. He deleted these posts from his talk page and did not place them in any archive as usually done in such cases.
6. He removed this edit (of mine) [57] on the pretext that it is POVized.

It seems that Harlan wilkerson is not here to improve en-wp, but rather to promote his political views. I can bring more evidences to that, but I think it is enough for the time being. I suggest that he be banned from editing articles related in any way to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His political motives are also revealed in his userpage's subpages, such as this User talk:Harlan wilkerson/Israel-Palestine ArticlesIt is a shame because with his vast knowledge and access to sources, he could have been a great contributor, and yet currently he does much more damage than good. DrorK (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Harlan wilkerson is not here to improve en-wp, but rather to promote his political views. Pot, meet kettle. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be some less than NPOV edits here, but nothing that bad that requires admin intervention. The editor making this report has just come back from a 3RR block on those articles. Suggest closing this as a content issue for now. See Talk:Proposals for a Palestinian state#Merge. Pcap ping 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Francis Boyle source in question is published in the European Journal of International Law, a peer-reviewed journal published by Oxford University Press. The source Drork relied on for his edit did not support the content of his edit. Drork refuses to acknowledge that his personal views on these issues are not relevant and that in an argument between him and a peer-reviewed article from a prestigious journal he will lose, at least on Wikipedia. nableezy - 00:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where was this discussed on Talk:Palestine by either side? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DrorK, please stop disrupting Wikipedia with this nonsense. Harlan is an almost unique asset, an editor with extensive knowledge of the legal issues of the I-P conflict who, without exception, provides high quality, reliable sources to support his information. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I supposed to take it as a friendly criticism or as a personal attack? DrorK (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not an attack and this is not a battlefield. It is a) a request to stop disrupting Wikipedia and b) a request to stop posting nonsense here and elsewhere. If you could also stop making unhelpful, non-neutral edits with misleading edit summaries in articles like the Golan Heights it would be quite handy too. Some of your edits may be fine or at least worthy of discussion but can you at least read the discretionary sanctions and make a bit more of an effort to comply with them. It's not that difficult and they are mandatory. You're heavy handed partisan approach and battlefield mentality is causing trouble and you won't be able to get the changes you want made to articles that way. You're wasting your time. Other wiki editors are not enemies in an information/narrative war. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but for me this qualifies as a personal attack, which is a serious violation of Wikipedia etiquette. Much more serious than 3R rule or other procedures. I opened this discussion in order to discuss a very problematic conduct of a certain users, and I've brought plenty of evidences for that. If you don't have anything useful to contribute to this discussion except personal attacks against me, kindly keep silent. DrorK (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. So Sean.hoyland's above advice is a "personal attack", while your describing editors you disagree with as a group of three "Palestinian freedom fighters", trying to "hijack" this page is just collaborative banter? Please Drork. I'm getting very tired of your personal attacks, your battle attitude and your forum-shopping where you try to impugn the reputations of editors who disagree with you, simply because they do. Get over yourself. Tiamut^talk 13:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, what about this edit? [58] Are you worried about making Wikipedia a better source of information or about "liberating Palestine" through WP? DrorK (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh). You just posted the same diff at the other forum where you are shopping for someone to say, "Yes, you are right Drork! My, we must do something about these troublesome terror types." As I said to you there, that diff is one example of the type of commentary I should be refraining from making. Not because of what it might reveal about my motivations, but because of how it assumes bad faith of my interlocutors. My baser instincts got the better of me, and I'll hopefully avoid from repeating such things in the future. In the meantime, I suggest you stop forum-shopping, stop battling me and others who disagree with you, and if you can't, then you should probably stay far away from articles to do with Palestine for some time. People who can reflect upon their errors, admit when they are wrong, and strive to do better are always welcome here. Those who continually cast the same stones, insist that they are always right, and refuse to be kind when faced good faith disagreement, aren't likely to last long. Tiamut^talk 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, playing the innocent doesn't become you. Now, you are not the subject here. Our problem here is Harlan. As you can see he made a lot of impression on people, because he can cite sources. And yet that doesn't make him a good contributor. He uses his knowledge in order to introduce sophisticated propaganda. Anyone who is willing to confront him for this propaganda is likely to get hurt, because he has you and other people to defend him. In your battle anything goes - reverting, slandering, violating community decisions. Harlan have invented a new rule according to which only secondary sources count. When he is offered a secondary source that refutes his claim he reverts on the pretext that it is "a personal view". He knows he can get away with it, because he has you and Nableezy to back him. I will have to face the "tribunal" for 3R, because I dared to confront Harlan. He is safe because he has you. DrorK (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is another edit by Harlan from today [59]. In this case he removed well-sourced information, and his motives are quite clear. DrorK (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page. There's nothing that administrators here can, or should, do with a content dispute. -- Atama頭 17:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the information I supplied. This is not an argument about content, but rather about a user's misconduct. I believe the admins do have a duty regarding such cases. I hate to think Harlan is immuned. DrorK (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Three admins so far have disagreed. I read the info you supplied, and there has been no evidence of misconduct worthy of blocks. I see a bit of "soapboxing", but you haven't been any better. If you think that other editors are steering an article in the wrong direction, the best way to get outside help is dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:NitehawkRec

There's a new user, Nitehawkrec, who apparently is making an article on their user page. It may be spam, it might not be, but WP:BITE applies here, at least for now.

I've reverted a few times with user:76.102.12.35, who's trying to find different csds to remove it, something he's been brought to AN/I to about before. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged probably hundreds of user pages as spam, every one of which has been deleted or blanked by admins or the page creator. Obviously it's not considered to be out of line if so many admins support such use of spam tags. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

G2, the current reasoning on there, doesn't even apply to user space per CSD, but to respond to your comment: more than likely because the users were new and felt intimidated and the admins thought the user didn't care. If the newbie moved that content from article space to user space, i'd certaintly agree that it's spam, but that's not the case here unless i'm missing something. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So you claim to know what motivates admins and new users? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This shows my point, this anon just engaged in WP:NPA on me, imagine the negative consequences on those "hundreds of users" on their view of the encyclopedia, particularly if they were new. Action needs to be taken here. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Asking you to clarify your statement is a personal attack? Interesting...

If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, new pages by new editors should never be tagged for deletion because it might intimidate them. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see about where you are asking for a clarification on my statement, but rather making an incivil comment. Please try to keep on the topic of the user page itself instead of engaging in ad homimem personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, Doc, this IP doesn't give a shit what other people think, admins overwhelmingly support his/her stance. Move on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the consensus among other admins, i'll be glad to accept it, if not support it. Don't blame me though if that user, and others like them, decide to leave the encyclopedia due to actions like these. I'll check in later to see if this truly is the admin's consensus on this issue.Doc Quintana (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To the IP: Here's your shortcut, so you won't have to repeat yourself all the time: WP:F*CKYOU. You're welcome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Seb, your repeated attacks on this IP user are beyond incivil. Please refrain. Woogee (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And the page has been deleted as spam, thus validating the use of spam tags on user pages (again). 76.102.12.35 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc, this is an account called "NitehawkRec" working on a very promotional article about the "Nitehawk Recreation Area". Wikipedia is not an advertisement vehicle, and people who come to Wikipedia using it as such are not welcome. I've blocked the editor per WP:ORGNAME, and for being a spam-only account. -- Atama頭 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Atama, it's likely, but not definite. I don't disagree with you, i'm just saying we should have given them a day or two to see if they could make the article NPOV/RS/etc. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Coffeepot101

Resolved: Blocked by User:Tanthalas39 -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please check out this user. All of their contribs are questionable at best. [60], [61]. Thank you. - Josette (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• An obvious troll looking to stir-up shite between The New Ikip and Pablo X. Jack Merridew 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you forgot the word "and improved" :), I like the word "adolescent" better...but I can understand your feelings.

Re: coffeepot101. He has not had a single constructive edit since he has gotten here, and based on his familiarity with wikipedia he is obviously an alternate account of someone, probably an indefinitely banned user. His one article was a complete hoax, which pablo put up for deletion after he asked for some help at WP:Article Rescue Squadron. He then userfied the article, which I put up for deletion. He then wrote on his user page:

"I had a dream where okip and pablo x were fighting each other with barbed knives.[62] Thay cut each other guts out!!!"

I warned him to remove this nicely, and he did not immediately.

I think the editor is probably a high school student. he has skills, he just is misusing them. I think he should be blocked for a week, then we will monitor his behavior and block him for good if he starts up again. Okip (formerly Ikip) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks tan. Okip (formerly Ikip) 18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish more indef-blocked users would grace their talkpage with a hilarious farewell poem, as he just has. ~ mazca ^talk 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User Toyota Motor Corp USA

User:Toyota Motor Corp USA, Special:Contributions/Toyota_Motor_Corp_USA User is posing as an official Toyota representative and continues to add this spam link. toyotarecallforum.org/ Astrakerie (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the user. Good call. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Karen4life talk page is personal attack

User talk:Karen4life consists just of a personal attack with perhaps enough to identify someone IRL, and is the user's only contribution apart from a test edit--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass change to formatting style

For the past 24 hours I have been constantly finding myself readding quotation marks to the formatting of ref names on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because Racepacket (talk · contribs) appears to have an off-site copy of the article text that he has removed all of these from. He has told me that he prefers to not use them because they are not entirely necessary unless the name parameter uses spaces, punctuation, or non-ASCII characters.

I do not think that this requires removing every single instance as he has done in the following diffs which include misleading edit summaries: [63], [64], [65], [66].

I have brought this up to Racepacket on his talk page as seen here where I also ask him to stop removing the carriage return between the infobox and the lead paragraph ([67], [68], [69], [70]): User talk:Racepacket#Carriage return. He does not seem to care, or he has not been answering me at all because he keeps making these edits long after I began the discussion on his talk page.

Racepacket has begun accusing me of stalling improvements to the page because he has it set in his mind that there is an all important deadline (he assumes there is one because of a pending GA review), and has accused me of doing harm to the page because of a single mistake (where he corrects a + to an = and then says I harmed the page because I undid the edit because it was one where he removed all the quotation marks) and that I am keeping him up by asking him to add two more keystrokes when he adds content.

I know he is improving the page. I know it is good that he wants it to be considered a good article and probably eventually a featured article. I just do not think it is appropriate that he reformats the entire article just because he does not want to add two instances of " whenever he adds a reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the time that I was writing this, he did it again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Counterview: As indicated in a prior ANI, User:Ryulong is doing everything possible to see that the article University of Miami fails its GA review. We have a limited period of time to respond to the review while it is on hold. In response to the review, I split off University of Miami School of Business Administration, and three times Ryulong merged it back. After repeated requests, he finally left the article in place and started an AfD, where the vote is going toward keeping the article. Second, the review asked that we expand the Research section, and User:Ryulong has been actively moving (to other articles) or deleting content which I have added to that section. (See, Talk:University of Miami#Research) Third, the review asked that we find sources independent of UM to meet WP:V They suggest that at least half of the sources be to something not on the UM website. User:Ryulong has been finding excuses to move the non-UM sources to other articles and where several sources can support a remaining sentence, he insists on using the one from the UM website. What prompted his current complaint is that I do not use unnecessary quote marks around the name parameter value in <ref> tags. He goes backs and adds them. He has also changed the = symbol to the + symbol in cite templates which cause values to not be displayed. Because I don't have time to go through each citation repeatedly to check for such nonsense, I have asked him to stop. He then harrasses me with endless discussion over the quote mark issue which has absolutely nothing to do with how the article will be displayed on the page. He goes so far as to reformat my responses to him on my own talk page, causing more interruptions to my work.

Here is someone who has not made substantive additions to the article for months, wasting time in our efforts to address the review in a limited time period. An administrator's intervention is needed to stop User:Ryulong from wasting valuable time by doing everything possible to prevent the article from passing its GA review. Racepacket (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, here you come accusing me of bad faith and bringing up things that are so minor and not intentional just to make me look bad. I am not seeking to prevent University of Miami from being promoted to good article status. I merged and then listed a page for WP:AFD that I did not think was notable for inclusion. I moved references that had nothing to do with the article to an article they were related to. I did not mean to change any = to any + in any edit; it was an unintentional change from an undo I performed on your edits regarding the reason I brought up this thread. All I have been doing to your talk page is change * to : because no one uses * in responses to people. If anything, your mass removal of the quotation marks is not recommended.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

<ref name="fn"> versus <ref name=fn>. Lamest edit war ever. Hesperian 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware. I have asked him to not remove them, as well as a single line break, but based on an off-site copy he is keeping and the fact that he replaces the text of the article wholesale whenever he adds a new edit, I believe that this is an issue to be brought up here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

pls guys clam down on the talk page ...you will notice noone has answered..this can only mean people are looking deep into what is going on..so guys pls lets turn down the YELLING .. just give admin time to look things over ..both should not edit the article until we come up with a solution to your problem, since you guys cant solve it yourselves... Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Buzzzsherman you have no idea what you are talking about so if you would not mind, do not get involved with disputes if you do not know of a proper way to solve them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Buzz is completely correct. Back off and let people investigate. → ROUX ₪ 07:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confused because he copied over other people's comments in the process of adding his comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• (EC)I agree with Roux. How can I get back to looking for sources? It is 2:30 a.m. and this ANI is an incredible waste of everyone's time, as is the petty harrassment over the quote marks and whether I am allowed to format the comments which I leave on my own talk page with a bullet. Racepacket (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [This comment was added immediately after Roux's but ran into 4 different edit conflict] When I tried to add it where I first submitted it, [{User:Ryulong]] is trying to start another edit war over the order in which our comments appear below Roux's. diff

For the quotation marks there is this: Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles. I am not going to bother with the bullet marks or anything similar.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. Nobody cares (or, at least, nobody should care) about minor coding details that make absolutely no difference in the formatted article. If it affects the GA review then something is seriously wrong with the GA process. Both of you, stop arguing, stop worrying about how each other's refs are coded, stop asking for admins to interced in your petty disputes, and get back to doing something constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it is lame, but I have asked him to stop changing the coding style entirely but he just ignores me and has been accusing me of preventing the article from being promoted. Certainly the fact that the quotation marks are or are not there should not affect his ability to edit the page. He should not change them in every edit nor should he replace the text of the article wholesale with a version he has copied off of site because he does not want to use the quotation marks or a single line break at the lead of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Ryulong is misquoting Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles which address converting articles from {{ref}} to <ref>. The principle applies however as common sense, which Ryulong is ignoring. I am the one doing the research and adding the references, and User:Ryulong is the one who goes back and tries to confusing things by editing the footnotes which I create by adding quotes and even a + where I placed a =. This is a lot of work -- the GA Review has asked us to add a publisher parameter to each footnote and to find alternatives to the UM website references. If he does not want to help make the article meet WP:V standards, then he should stand back and let others get the required work done. Racepacket (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a difference? And would you stop bringing up that stupid + to = thing? It was not intentional as I have been telling you for the past 2 hours. And I am not trying to sabotage a Good Article Promotion. Stop accusing me of things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that you have wasted the last two hours of my life with this quote mark nonsense and this ANI speaks mountains as to your intentions. It is now 3:11 a.m. and I have not been able to spend any substantial time since midnight finding new sources. Please stop this behavior. Racepacket (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of keeping you awake and intending to cause the GAR to fail. I've removed the fucking quotation marks at this point because it's obvious you are going to keep using your .txt copy of the page's text. I'm just tired of you thinking I'm your foe in this matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interim resolution except for Daedalus969

I am please to announce that the only two users involved in this dispute myself and Ryulong have agreed to proceed without quote marks for now. Once that was established, I uploaded two more references (again without the quote marks) only to discover that after Ryulong and I have reached our agreement, User:Daedalus969 who has had no prior role in this matter has reverted the article to a state that used quote marks. He then reverted my change and added one of them back into the article with quote marks. He has also started a parallel proceeding at AN3 It is difficult to see how his edits were made in good faith. As best I can determine, they don't have a visible impact on the article (unless he accidentally picked up one of Ryulong's stray + symbols.) I have left messages on his talk page to no avail. Racepacket (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not agree to anything. I just know that you are going to constantly refer to your offline copy that you've removed all of the quotation marks from because you can't trust the online copy because of this +/= issue that you keep referring to. There are no such items in the text now. Just copy that and deal with the lack or existance of quotation marks. Maybe you shouldn't modify articles by using an oldid of an article's content and just add references to sections as you go through them like normal editors instead of making the formatting of the article your preferred version every single fucking time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I misunderstood you. I thought that we had agreed to proceed without quotes for now. By the way, I don't use any javascript editors, which is perhaps why I am locked out on these edit conficlts. However, I don't see how the invisible differences between the two files can constitute edit warring. And I don't see how Daedalus' action is consistent with WP:POINT - sure he managed to make invisible changes to the document and he certainly managed to confuse me and steal another hour and a half from my life. I have to be at work in 3 and a half hours, and we have many more footnotes to process. This entire invisible quote stunt is unforgiveable and will go down as one of the sillier episodes in Wikipedia lore. Racepacket (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it doesn't matter whether there are quotation marks in references or not. It makes no difference whatsoever. Why do you guys even care? --Conti|✉ 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the quotation marks don't affect the article at all. I was worried about more sneaking in changes of = to +, which prompted me to work from a trusted copy. Which prompted Daedalus to start an invisible, artificial self-proclaimed "edit war" regarding changes nobody including me could see or be aware of. This is a clear case of WP:OWNership and need for attention distracting us from the task of addressing the problems noted by the GA review. A series of experienced editors with no connection to the University of Miami have pointed out WP:BOOSTER and WP:V problems with UM articles, and people need to roll up their sleeves and address them. Racepacket (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In diff Daedalus deletes two footnotes. In the next edit, he only adds just one back in. And then Ryulong comes along and deletes the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. Racepacket (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - the reason why I care is that each time Ryulong goes through and edits the article (perhaps just adding invisibile, optional quotation marks or perhaps changing a = to a +) I have to go through all of his changes to check his work and that is very time consuming when we are under a deadline. That is why I started using a copy of the article so that I could keep on going with the business of adding the requested footnotes. But I am willing to stop working from the second copy if Ryulong stops playing these distracting games. Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you either stop using the second copy, or otherwise make sure you're not reverting any intermediate edits when you save your changes. It's a wiki. Other people will be editing the page besides you. Jafeluv (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have been careful, but there are so many "invisible" changes in Ryulong's edits that it is hard to spot his = to + change, or Daedalus969 dropping one of the two footnotes. Whatever changes they are trying (or not trying) to make is camoflaged by the sea of quotation marks. Take a look at these diffs:

Daedalus' diffs

• no visible effect
• removed 2 footnotes
• added back the just one footnote without the unnecessary/optional quote marks

Ryulong's diffs

• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• note the change from = to + in the template parameter Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the =/+ thing. It was not intentional other than the revert that I performed to the rest of the page to deal with your overwriting with the off-site copy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed interaction and topic ban pending outcome of mediation

Look, we've tried all this several times. You've both been told to not use ANI as a place to hash out your conflicts. You have both been told to seek mediation and dispute resolution. Neither of you has done so. You want admins to take control of the situation? I'm an admin, and I am proposing the following solution:

1. Racepacket and Ryulong are placed under a mutual interaction ban, with the sole exception that both are to participate in a mediation by filing a case at WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB to deal with these problems. Neither editor is to comment about the other, nor interact with the other, for the duration of the ban.
2. Both Racepacket and Ryulong are topic banned from editing the University of Miami article. Neither editor may make any further edits to that article at all. Furthermore, both are banned from seeking out articles the other has substantially edited for the purpose of antagonizing the other editor.
3. These restrictions are to be lifted upon satisfactory completion of mediation.

Seeking comments from other uninvolved editors and admins... Support? Opposition? --Jayron32 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole issue is ridiculous. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What? Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater? That is ridiculous. All that should come out of this is that Racepacket should not be using his offsite copy to overwrite everything on the UM article. I've kindly requested that he use the quotation marks and leave a single line break. All that has come out of this is that Racepacket has been constantly accusing me of trying to make the GA nomination fail. All that I have been telling him is that he should not be repeatedly sending this thing to GA review, and having taken it on his shoulders to force the article to become a good article. I am fine with the fact he is making the page better. I have just been asking him to add a few more key strokes when he writes, and adding them back once he's done overwriting the article without those keystrokes. There wouldn't be an edit war if he did not keep an offline copy that he overwrote everything with and there certainly wouldn't be a need to ban either of us from the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out I tried a dispute resolution tactic. Nothing came of it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, the situation here is that this is a WP:LAME dispute, which has zero to do with content, and 100% to do with the personality conflict of the two combatants. The solution proposed is because admins aren't here to decide who is right. Frankly, the exact locus of this specific dispute, which is over the use of quotemarks in the ref name= tag is the most pointless edit war, maybe ever. It doesn't matter who is right, but given that you two have a several months long history, and neither side appears to want to back down, the only solution seems to be to end the problem by ending the problem. The U of M article will have someone else who is interested in it; I am unconcerned if the two of you no longer get to edit it. Indeed, given the absolute mess this dispute is causing, I am rather sure the article would be better off if it is not edited by either of you while you two are disputing. I recommend bilateral mediation, since an RFC is really about one user tattling on another, which is why it isn't helping solve the problem. When and if you two can figure out how to coexist and not generate these conflicts, THEN you can both go back to editing the article. But it is clear this conflict has nothing to do with this specific article, and everything to do with the conflict between the two of you. So, if the two of you can agree to mediation, work it out in MEDCAB or MEDCOM, and reach a mutually agreeable resolution to your conflicts, the article can be edited harmoniously. At this point, there is no reason to let the article continue to be edited by either of you, since neither of you is really trying to edit the article, you're both just trying to one-up the other. Lets solve the conflict FIRST, then we can get to the article LATER. That's my justification for proposing the above sanctions. It's no use claiming the "I'm more right so I shouldn't be sanctioned here" from either side; since as far as I can see neither side in the conflict can claim any moral high ground. So lets quit it with that, end the conflict, and worry about the article later. Mkay? --Jayron32 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution to Racepacket such that he simply stops utilizing his off-site copy and edits the article as everyone else does. This would end the issue of his massive and unilateral reformatting of the article and the WP:LAME edit war that he and I have been involved with. However, he has not appeared to respond to this suggestion. If he manages to pay attention for five seconds and see my comment here and respond in a clear and coherent matter, I would be glad to have this stop. I'm not seeking any moral high ground. I'm just seeking that he see someone else's opinion instead of thinking he is the one who is the end-all be-all for the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. This isn't about these edits. You and Racepacket have been disputing for a long time. The conflict between you two is the problem; it has nothing at all to do with this batch of edits. If it was this one batch of edits, then we could solve it by facing that. Its about the fact that neither of you wishes to back down against the other over any issue. This is the merely today's one thing; if we did decide somehow that one of your versions of the article was favored, we'd just be back here tomorrow on a different problem or a different article. The problem is the conflict, not the article, so we need to end the conflict. Seek mediation so you can work together harmoniously, or stop working together. That's the only two solutions I see... --Jayron32 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't know what the fuck will resolve it. I just have been finding things that need fixing (the reference formatting), things that would be better suited to other articles (like this block of only references), or things that are trivial or poorly referenced and I feel should be removed ([71]) in his edits and he starts accusing me of sabotaging the GA review.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the interaction ban and topic ban. Judging from WP:Requests for comment/Racepacket it's unlikely that calm will be restored any time soon at the University of Miami article. This dispute can't be allowed to continue on the admin noticeboards without action being taken. I'd withdraw my support if Ryulong and Racepacket would suddenly agree to work together harmoniously on the GA nomination, but that's not going to happen. The October, 2009 RFCU on Racepacket (opened by Ryulong) shows that the underlying dispute has been going on for many months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Ryulong said, "Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater?" but shouldn't we have sensitivity for WP:COI and the need for objectivity necessary to avoid further WP:BOOSTER problems. We have a number of experienced users noting WP:V and WP:BOOSTER problems with the UM article, and these concerns need to be addressed. I have asked Ryulong and others to join me in this work, but so far I seem to be the only one working on finding reliable sources for the UM article. I don't OWN the UM article and want multiple other people working to improve it. In a prior dispute (involving the Miami Hurricanes football article), I suggested repeatedly that we use mediation, but Ryulong rejected the proposal. I am not sure what dispute there is to mediate -- the current goals are not being disputed: Wikipedia expects articles to meet WP:V; Wikipedia aspires to have all articles meet Good Article criteria; Wikipedia does not want copy and paste from the UM website. Somebody in authority will say whether quotes are mandatory or optional in <ref> tags -- from what I read it's currently optional. We need to get on with these goals. 3) I thought that Ryulong and I had worked the quotation marks issue out until Daedalus969 started his WP:POINT edits. I am willing to continue working on the UM article to meet the matters raised in the GA review. Racepacket (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Aside from the ridiculous quotation marks business, are you saying that Ryulong has been POV pushing? out of interest, why are you removing the quotation marks? It's not normal practice, even if it doesn't cause an issue. Hopefully we'll never move to a strict XML format that requires the quotation marks, else we're going to have to put them back in again. Would it hurt you to use quotation marks? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain - I am a bit involved, therefore I will not comment support or oppose.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban and topic ban. (1 & 2) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So you do not support the lifting of the ban at any point? That would seem counterintuitive to the mediation seeking.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I would've only supported 3 if it's the community who comes back here and decides that the condition has been satisfied; I am not comfortable leaving that in the hands of either the parties, mediators, or any other committees. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I have been following this drama from afar for a bit and, while I tend to think one editor is a bit more "in the right" than the other in general, there to me at this point seems no possible amicable solution. This particular conflict -- that it even exists -- is strongly suggestive of that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Second proposed interaction ban

Neither Racepacket nor Ryulong may remove or add quotation marks on existing references on ANY article. This whole issue is over the lamest edit war I've ever seen, and this proposal would a. stop this stupidity, and b. allow them both to edit any article they want to, aside from this restriction. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (proposer) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mutual end

Per the discussion that was taking place at WP:AN3#User:Racepacket reported by User:Daedalus969 (Result: No action) and User talk:EdJohnston#3RR/Racepacket, and I hope with Tbsdy lives's comments above, I would believe that this is done with. Unless anyone else thinks otherwise and still believes that a ban is necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not convinced that the underlying issues have/are been/being addressed in the long term. But I am very open to being convinced. I'd like to hear others views on this matter; and also, would letting you both edit together unsupervised (or without a mediator) be a good idea, given the history? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what the underlying issues are at this point. Racepacket has been adding content to/removing content from University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have it in my Watchlist and I see what he has done. I come in and perform grammatical fixes or as I state in my comments to Jayron32 that I move it to other pages or remove it due to triviality I perceived from the content. The "dispute" results from his stubbornness (which I attempted to bring up in the RFC) and my reaction to it. His goal for the article to be of a better quality is admirable. However he can't take "no" for an answer unless a consensus tells him he should stop. I know the quotation mark thing is incredibly lame, but he was ignoring me on his talk and accusing me of wrong doing. Again, at this point the issue seems to have ended and I don't see how preventing anyone from editing a single page is going to resolve matters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So can this mess be marked as closed?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Depends. If either one of you edit University of Miami from now, can I block you for a week? Meanwhile, support any interaction and topic ban for both parties. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Racepacket's contributions to University of Miami are currently being investigated for various copyright reasons, as well as several hundred other pages. I think it's done and no topic or interaction bans need to be enacted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Input requested

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mooretwin re proposed unblock. Ty 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this, the blocked editor has asked me to place his appeal on ANI. I find his position quite compelling, and see this is an example of rule-wonkery superseding the basic fact we are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia. Rockpocket 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The following was emailed to me by Mooretwin (talk · contribs):

1. When I was put on probation, for 90 days on 11/11/09 (i.e. expiring on 9/2/10), I was told clearly that "partial" reverts, i.e. where I don't simply revert another editor's action, but modify it in some way, would not count as a revert for the purpose of the 1-edit-per-week restriction. I was told "if you see an edit that you don't like on an article, try changing it to a compromise version" and "If you change the text to something different than it was before, that would not be a revert, it would be "attempting to find a compromise". This advice was given by the admin (User:Elonka) who put me on probation.

2. The revert I made which was deemed as breaking the probation, was not a straight revert. It was a change to the text and the addition of a reference to support the text, in response to a comment by User:Gnevin on the Talk page, noting that the previous reference didn't back up the text.

3. This particular edit formed part of an iterative process of editing and discussing between myself and Gnevin, which eventually achieved consensus. This can be seen from reading the Talk page and perusing the edit history of the article. I suggest that this is a perfect example of exactly how editing is supposed to happen on Wikipedia.

4. Gnevin has stated that he did not have an issue with my edit and that he did not consider it to be a revert.

My first contention, therefore, is that it is unreasonable to consider this edit as a breach of probation, based on the information provided to me about the terms of probation. I do not therefore consider that any sanction is necessary or appropriate. My second contention is that, without prejudice to the first, the sanction imposed against me was completely disproportionate.

6. In relation to the second contention, my first point is that it takes considerable discipline to abide by one-revert-per-week - it is easy not to realise, when one is editing an article with - as in this case - five days between edits, that one risks breaking the restriction. Nonetheless, I managed to abide by the probation for 86 of the 90 days. Surely it would not be unreasonable to exercise some discretion in recognition of my compliance with the probation for almost the whole 90 days, combined with the nature of the actual edit itself as discussed above.

7. My second point is that - even if the edit in question is technically regarded as a "revert", it is surely clear that it was, in fact, a constructive edit - as agreed by the editor with whom I was allegedly "edit-warring", and it is therefore perverse to impose such a harsh punishment on somebody participating in the recommended dialogue and editing process and which had a positive outcome.

8. My third and final point is that, in the interests of justice and credibility, there ought to be a responsibility on admins imposing sanctions to at least endeavour to be consistent in the severity of sanctions they impose for similar cases. The editor (User:Domer48) who was put on probation at the same time as me for the same "offence", also violated the probation - with a clear "revert" (not a partial one), and his sanction was merely a 1-week block. I, on the other hand, for a lesser offence (given the partial revert and the advice I was given in relation to partial reverts) was given a 3-month block and an indefinite extension of probation. And if past conduct is relevant, Domer48's block record is worse than mine, so this cannot be a reason for differentiating. This inconsistency and draconian punishment is unjustifiable.

9. Regarding the indefinite probation, I suggest that it would be humanly impossible to comply with this. The probability of inadvertently reverting twice-in-a-week at some point during an indefinite period would surely be close to 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooretwin (talk • contribs) (posted by Rockpocket (talk · contribs) on his behalf)

User:Barentsz and Noel McCullagh

User:Barentsz is the primary author of Noel McCullagh. Unfortunately, he also claims to be Noel McCullagh. And now he's edit-warring on his own article. I have warned his on his talk page to discuss any revisions to this article on the talk page prior to making the edits, but would appreciate an extra set (or three) of eyes on this one. Thanks, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He's using an IP address to make edits now - see the article itself and the talk page 62.40.61.121 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Solar Dynamics Observatory

The article is on the front page today (the news section) and I just had to fix its infobox. Please check these things before putting articles there because it makes wikipedia look amateurish.  Dr. Loosmark  23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, that was vandalism or editing tests done right before your edit [72]. Thanks for repairing it, though. I have warned the very new user about it. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have missed it was vandalized. IMO it wouldn't be a bad idea to protect the articles while they are on the front page because they are a big fat target for vandals.  Dr. Loosmark  00:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point, but articles linked from the main page are rarely protected. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:School911

User:School911 is claiming to be 8 years old, has already posted some (vague) personal information, and claims to be to be about to post pictures of him/herself. Regardless of whether they are a minor, or a troll claiming to be one, this is probably not a good thing. -- The Anome (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Indefinitely blocked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls COI edits.

On the very important 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls article, a new section "Possible driver error cause" was added.

The only source giving serious credence to this theory in this current case is Ward's magazine, a trade publication for auto dealerships with an arguably serious COI. The other more neutral sources in the section are no more than re-tellings of the 20-plus year old case of the Audi sudden accelerations and none of them speculate that "driver error" is the cause in the current Toyota case. Not only outside of Ward's that no reliable source has seriously speculated on this theory - but even Toyota doesn't make this claim (as every source indicates, they feel it is a gas pedal issue). While the theory might warrant a mention, User:Astrakerie, a newly registered SPA, insists on keeping the entire section and above the more reliably sourced "Possible electronic throttle control system cause" [73][74][75]. In one revert, the user's edit summary is "returning to orignal alphabetized order"[76]. This user, besides their logic being flawed, is having ownership issues. As the user has reverted me 3 times (breaking WP:3RR by the way), I can't revert again. Can somebody please take a look at this?--Oakshade (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

COI only applies to editors, it doesn't cover sources. It should be perfectly fine to cite a source from a trade magazine, of course noting that the allegations are from a single source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just it. The theory (and article section) relies entirely on a single source with a very arguably COI.--Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, so as its a trade mag then it seems to me that it should be included as appropriate in the article. I don't see what the issue is. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue is the section should be minor (if an entire section at all) and certainly not on top of the "Possible electronic throttle control system cause" which is heavily sourced by non-COI sources.--Oakshade (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I don't see how this is an admin matter. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I just gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times giving credence to the driver-error theory as a legal expert on sudden acceleration litigation. There will surely be other RS on the subject shortly if there isn't already. In the meantime, find an RS that says that Ward's magazine has a biased viewpoint on the subject, and then you can add that to the article--otherwise it's just your own original research. In any event, this is a content dispute, and doesn't belong on ANI. As for 3RR, give a polite notice to the newbie. THF (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. Interesting on your interview with the LAT. It being such a legally sensitive article is why I brought it here. --Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It took 15 minutes for a non-admin on the Administrators' noticeboard to revert my edit [77] on a page he had never edited before. Astrakerie (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As that was THF's right. Please respect consensus and avoid WP:OWN and WP:3RR.--Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What Oakshade wants is the "reliably sourced" section he created [78] attributing the sudden acceleration to the electronic throttle control system placed ahead of the section attributing it to driver error. Odd that he'd claim I'm the one with ownership issues after changing the order another editor established and I reestablished to favor his only major addition to the article. Oh and his other noteworthy addition [79] is inaccurate, the NHTSA never reopened the six Toyota sudden acceleration investigations they had closed. They are "not again" investigating the same cases rather are investigating existing ones they never reached conclusions for. The claim I am somehow "insists(ing) on keeping the entire section" is false. I never added the driver error section or somehow restored it. I did nothing more than return it to its original location.

And the reasons he changed the order three times:

• "Only one source, an auto dealer publication which has a COI, is seriously suggesting "driver error" in THIS case, not the 2 decade old Audi case."
• "Only an auto dealer trade magazine with a COI is advocating this POV in THIS case, not the 20+ year old Audi case."
• "Very few references are related to the current issue (most are a 2 decade old case) and the primary one, Ward's Auto, is a trade publication for dealers."

Firstly, not just Ward's Auto is suggesting driver error is the case but also Car and Driver [80] and Motor Trend http://blogs.motortrend.com/6620540/recalls/wild-out-of-control-toyotas-baloney/index.html which are both sourced in the article. Both magazines are the largest published automotive magazines in the United States. [81] Secondly Ward's Auto just like AutoNews.com is an automotive journal, the claim that it somehow represents auto dealers is unsubstantiated.

Either way Oakshade seems to think he alone determines what the "only source(s) giving serious credence to this theory" are when clearly there are other sources. He thinks he alone determines what constitutes a COI. And is misrepresenting Toyota's position, "but even Toyota doesn't make this claim (as every source indicates, they feel it is a gas pedal issue)." Because Toyota doesn't officially blame their customers doesn't mean they equate to them blaming electromagnetic interference. Toyota has published information to the contrary and insists that electromagnetic interference is not to blame. None of their recalls address electromagnetic interference issues. Astrakerie (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny how Oakshade tags me with a 3RR when he never once bothered to communicate with me directly. Astrakerie (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A 3RR tag was placed on your talk page because you reverted three times and a respected editor above suggested leaving a 3RR message. (You're quite well Wiki-versed for a brand new user... Just saying.) As the administrators above have indicated, this is a content issue and I won't engage on this subject on this board unless new developments require it. --Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:TungstenCarbide XIII

I have indefinitely blocked TungstenCarbide XIII, as they are showing clear evidence they have or are editing under another account. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a checkuser request. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think we can safely assume it's a TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs) reincarnation (just like all the others). Steve Smith (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thats some nice detective work there Steve. You'll make Sergeant for this--Jac16888^Talk 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• LOL! I had no idea :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That must be why Steve's an arbitrator and not an SPI clerk :-) –MuZemike 04:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam

Please see User talk:Humilityisfine about spam additions. Another warning by someone else may be in order, plus some more reverts of the spam. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned and left a message. I'll notify the user he is mentioned here as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Socks doing stuff

Resolved

 – socks have been blocked Equazcion ^(talk) 03:05, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Just created:

• Mister Salvatore (talk · contribs)
• Gran Paradiso (talk · contribs)
• The Reichsführer (talk · contribs)

Already blocked:

• Autistic Little Child (talk · contribs)
• Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs)

Could someone look into these three most recent accounts and block them please? I'd go through SPI, but that takes a long time. This is more the short-term mischief type of thing. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:53, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

User talk:The Reichsführer‎ has started making threats regarding Simple English Wikipedia, abusing the unblock and help requested templates. Check his talk page history, and please block his use of his talk page. Someone. Please. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:59, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Why has the username been oversighted in all contributions of The Reichsführer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see the history of User talk:The Reichsführer‎), which appears to make it impossible to list his contributions, and why is his block log empty?  Sandstein  08:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a global account lock by a steward[82]. As I understand it non-admins and AIV helperbots won't even be able to see that the account is blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Counterproductive sockpuppetry charges: Time to re-examine these witch hunts

User Jayron32 recently filed yet another one of these sockpuppet applications that some Wikipedians tend to file from time to time at the sockpuppet-handling board. Are we yet tired of this? I currently edit at Squidoo as NYPress scholar, at Citizendium under a real name, and maintain several Wikipedia articles. The continued surveillance of obscure articles, such as "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" or "Oath Keepers", for the potential appearance of a sockpuppet has been a remarkably harmful cancer on the encyclopedia. There are those who write articles and there are those who lock others out. Sometimes users do need to be locked out, but mostly it's the kind of thing going on with the "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" article where a witch hunt-mentality persists to the detriment of the article when no controversial edits are in fact being made. It's time to make more liberal use of the WP:IAR policy that Larry Sanger once proposed. I see far too much power in the hands of people well-versed in policy and far too little power in the hands of those who do the bulk of the writing around here. Uncover a few more of my accounts and you will see what I mean. I'm all over the encyclopedia making edits, trying to stay as far away from those who see the encyclopedia solely through the lens of policy. Will some level-headed individual please stand up and change the balance of power? The Audacious Mr. Ox (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well considering that you are a subject of this SPI, I can see why you would say that. Unfortunately no, we aren't getting tired of SPIs because they help legitimiZe the site. You are also advocating for people that you aren't really a part of as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you know all of this when you've only been here ten days is also suspicious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is blocked for sockpuppetry. A better example of WP:PLAXICO I have not seen. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PLAXICO seems to have been deleted. Probably a good thing, since it was basically a massive BLP violation. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How so? Are you saying he didn't actually shoot himself in the leg? Regardless, an even better metaphor is Haman (Bible). Ain't no BLP there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit surprised too, but it was probably a good decision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted today, in fact! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to use PLAXICO, is there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than not ridiculing a living person on an ongoing and regular basis, no. –xeno^talk 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if WP:PLAXICO should be recreated as an essay that explains why the names of living persons shouldn't be used in a pejorative manner. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. -- Atama頭 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this not be a rather self-defeating argument? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be a bit superfluous to note at this point, but I've done some checkusering at the SPI linked above. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cpofpakistan (Communist Party of Pakistan)

Cpofpakistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which purports to belong to the Communist Party of Pakistan, had been using their user page User:Cpofpakistan to advertise their political campaigns and upcoming party events. That page was speedily deleted and the account blocked for violating the username policy. However, blocks don't prevent an account from editing its own talk page, and now the user is posting their political advertisements to User talk:Cpofpakistan. Either the account needs to be blocked from editing its own user talk page, or else the user talk page needs to be deleted/blanked and protected. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been blanked; we'll give him one more chance to go away and then disable own talk page editing if it shows up again. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Er... Cpofpakistan? That's an indefinite block for sure. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the account is already blocked for violating the username policy, which prohibits usernames implying that the account is associated with or controlled by a particular group or organization. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misread what you wrote. If it's not protected already, if they post ads then we should protect the talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could an uninvolved administrator please take some time and look thoroughly into this issue here?

This editor Zencv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has repeatedly added controversial material into the BLP article of Ayaan Hirsi Ali without providing any reliable verifiable sources. The controversial & contentious material is a link to the Islamophobia article within the 'See also' section of the BLP article, which implies that the subject of the BLP article is islamophobic, a person who hates, fears or dreads Islam.

Wikipedia's rules state:

• ...unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately.
• Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed.
• Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research.

This unsourced material should be removed from the article. I have already been unrightly accused of edit warring, simply because I reverted the unsourced addition, and therefore I am bringing the matter to AiN and BLPN, so that others will get the chance to have their say on this issue.

I am not a content contributor to the BLP article in question. My main objective for this article is to fight off vandalism on that page and to revert the usual unsourced additions. Zencv is known for his anti-Ayaan Hirsi Ali position, he is a major content contributor to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, and has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on the Fitna Film article. Zencv's first edit on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article is from 23 February 2008, and in that edit he placed the "Islamophobia" link for the first time into the article. This unsourced addition was unchallenged, and remained there till September 2008. The controversial link was changed by User:Tomixdf on 16 September 2008, who wrote in his edit summary: Changed biased link to "Islamophobia" to the "criticism of islam/islamism".

Checking through the history of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article will reveal that Zencv has been a regular source of disruption on that article. When Zencv re-added the Islamophobia link to the article on 4 February 2010, I reverted his edit, stating WP:NPOV. He then reverted my revert. After this revert, I stopped editing and to avoid edit-war I brought the issue to both RfP and AiV. The issue was brought to RfP because Zencv is a content contributor to the said article, and has been involved in several mini-edit wars on the same article in the past. The issue was brought to AiV because Wikipedia rule states that ...adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism; although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive. Reinserting the unsourced controversial personal opinion (the Islamophobia link) into the BLP article is disruptive editing and thus vandalism. I thus waited for an hour without editing the article to allow the admins to take over the issue. When they finally replied, administrator Fastily declined my request on AiV, stating that "User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report once the user has been warned sufficiently". I asked Fastily on his talk page to explain what he meant by this, asking if this is edit war, he then replied: "You are never violating the three revert rule if you're reverting vandalism". Only after this go-ahead from the admin, after this green light, I proceeded to revert the revert of Zencv on 5 February 01:05 am (UTC).

Recap:

• 4 February 2010, 23:27 (UTC), User:Zencv added a controversial link into the 'See also' section of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article.
• 4 February 2010, 23:47 (UTC), I reverted the edit, citing WP:NPOV
• 4 February 2010, 23:51 (UTC) Zencv reverted my revert.
• 4 February 2010, 23:58 (UTC), issue reported to AiV
• 5 February 2010, 00:00 (UTC), request for page protection
• 5 February 2010, 00:56 (UTC), Administrator Fastily replied on AiV. On his talk page he gave me the go-ahead to revert the disruptive edits.
• 5 February 2010, 01:05 (UTC) I reverted the revert of Zencv
• 5 Februar 2010, 01:22 (UTC), Administrator Explicit replied on RfP, accusing me of edit war.
• 10 February 22:43 (UTC), Zencv reinserted the controversial link into the article, claiming "per talk page" in his edit summary.

On the article's talk page, a discussion was started by Zenvc after Admin Explicit issued out edit-war warnings. Incidentally, this discussion, trying to get consensus, is what Zencv ought to have done in the first place, before adding the contentious material. Approximately 4 (four) editors have participated in that discussion. Zencv and User:Strausszek wrote in favour of adding the Islamophobic link, User:ChildofMidnight and myself were against the addition. User:ChildofMidnight suggested including the word Islamophobia "in the article than as an external link". Both Childofmidnight and I requested for reliable sources for the link. Consensus was not reached, and the requested reliable evidence for Ayaan Hirsi Ali being islamophoc has not been provided, yet Zencv went ahead to reinsert the contentious link into the BLP article.

It appears as if Zencv has concluded within himself that he has the right to continue to add this unsourced and contentious material into the article, thus continuing his disruptive editing on that BLP article.

Summary:

The inclusion of the Islamophobia link strongly suggests that the subject of the BLP hates Islam, fears Islam and dreads Islam (according to Wikipedia's definition of Islamophobia). Without citing reliable and verifiable sources, such a controversial statement should not be included into this article. If there are reliable verifiable source that prove this, then the link should be included and noone will challenge the inclusion. Since the added material is unsourced, it must be removed.

Lastly, this issue leads to these questions: if editors are permitted to add controversial and contentious links into the 'See also' section of BLP articles, without providing reliable and verifiable sources, then how would Wikipedia admins react, if, for instance, an internal link to the LGBT article is being placed in the 'See also' or 'External Links' section of BLP articles of contemperary well known persons (e.g. celebrities, politicians, religious persons like Paul Crouch)? How would wikipedia administrators react if someone, without providing any reliable sources, placed a link to the Pederasty article into the 'See also' section of the Michael Jackson article? Amsaim (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - this is a clear violation of BLP guidelines. I will warn the editor who is adding it, and I have removed it from the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the above. "See also" entries that attach negative connotations to living people generally ought to be removed. An alternative would be to require a sourced descriptive explanation that makes it clear who is making the association (i.e. "Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim prejudice, of which Hirsii Ali has been accused by left-wing critics").  Skomorokh  14:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MJ/Pederasty analogy is logically invalid as hanging out with children was not MJ's main job. He was an entertainer and Paedophilia allegation was just one of the many episodes in his controversial life - so having Pederasty under See Also would obviously be in bad taste. Hirsi Ali on the other hand made a career out of criticizing Islam - she became a politician, author , everything she is known for because of her widespread criticism of Islam and Muslims(which another user pointed out with examples in the talkpage disussion). So having Islamophobia in the link is no violation of BLP. As for the concensus, only four people(including me) took part in discussion - 2 agreed completely, one sounded vague and another opposed. I would urge admins to reconsider the opinion taking both of these points into consideration Zencv ^Whisper 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the second case you give as an example, that should be in the main article, and sourced. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would note this issue has been raised in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and here. Please don't do that. If it's necessary to raise an issue in multiple boards, choose one as the place for primary discussion and just link to it. I have removed your post to WP:BLP/N and linked here instead. However you should only do this when there's a significant wikipedia wide issue which requires far ranging attention not for a single dispute like this anyway. It'll also usually be okay if you've received insufficient feedback and waited a resonable period of time (probably several days at least). On to the actual issue, I agree that the best way to handle this would be to integrate the Islamophobia into the article, as we did with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive71#Ian Plimer in Heaven and Earth (book) for example. On the more general issue, I would caution against calling Zencv's edits vandalism. It comes across as a content dispute to me. However as it was likely he/she was violationing BLP, this is a far more serious thing then vandalism anyway (and reverting BLP violations also provides an exemption against 3RR). Fastily has a point that you are normally expected to warn people they are violating policy and may be blocked, admins are generally fairly reluctant to block without any warnings. However Zencv has posted WP:DTTR on his page in response to a few warnings so I think this can be taken as a sign further warnings are not necessary. Bear in mind that in normal circumstances, if there's two people arguing and one person arguing the other, it's unwise to consider the matter closed or go around edit warring to get your POV in the article. Seek wide feedback quickly. P.S. Since external links were raised even though this doesn't concern external links, we already have a section at WP:BLP#External links dealing with that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. When this issue first came into light, it was a content dispute between the initial users, Amsaim (talk · contribs) and Zencv (talk · contribs). By reading the article—specifically the Islam section—I'm assuming Zencv came to the conclusion that Islamophobia is a term that relates (directly or indirectly) to the subject and seemed fit (if this is not the case, my apologies). Amsaim reported Zencv to WP:AIV, despite the fact that the venue is for vandalism only, stating "I'm not in any mood to engage in any Edit War". Rightfully, Fastily did not block Zencv. Amsaim went on to request page protection for the article, in which he stated "editor boasting of being "a regular" has introduced a link to Islamophobia on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article, thus implying that the subject of the BLP is Islamophobic. in order to avoid edit war, pls protect the page from such vandalism." Amsaim contradicted himself in both venues, as he implied that Zencv was vandalizing while calling the whole thing an edit war. Clearly, this was not blatant vandalism, but a dispute between two users. This being the case, I declined the protection request and warned both Amsaim and Zencv. Amsaim doesn't take the message lightly, as one can see here. All that being said, they did engage in discussion on the article's talk page. There was no consensus to include the link in the 'see also' section, but Zencv persists in adding it and has been warned about it. At this point, a block for Zencv seems justified should he continue to insert the link to the 'see also' section despite my warning and the lack of consensus for its inclusion. — ξ^xplicit 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What seem to have lost here in the noise created by User:Amsaim is that in the discussion in the talkpage, I made it clear here that adding Islamophobia under the section is not necessarily calling her an Islamophobe, but rather as a balance to the existing links under the section which already contain Criticism of Islam. As I made it clear in the discussion, Criticism of Islam and Islamophobia often(though not always) overlap. As we have links to 3 prominent critics of Islam and a link to Criticism of Islam itself, it could have made sense to have a link to Islamophobia, and hence in no way would be a violation of BLP. Has anyone else thought from this angle? Zencv ^Whisper 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the argument, but the argument is flawed. As there is necessarily no discussion in a see also section, or references, then on articles about individuals you can't add pejorative terms such as Islamophobe. Islamophobia, as a term, is used to describe someone who has an unreasonable fear or prejudice against Islam, but it can also be used in such a way to call someone a bigot. The See also section in a Wikipedia article is a way of making a definitive statement on a person, term or concept; it says that "This is an article that definitively relates to this article". By adding Islamophobia to this section of the article, we aren't saying that some people say that Ali is an Islamophobe, it is saying that Wikipedia takes the position that Ali is an Islamophobe. That cannot be, so we can't add it to the section as this is a BLP issue as well as an NPOV issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Criticism of Islam is not the same as Islamophobia, and to insist that they're the same would only squelch freedom of expression and would be contrary to WP's mission. 24.23.197.43 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I second that as well. Tomixdf (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Richard Daft

Resolved

 – I dealt with this when I found it at AN.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This person is still active on the site despite being banned only last month. He is using two accounts, User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge. His edit patterns and his talk page comments [83] [84], especially where he is in discussion with User:Sarastro1 who has "rumbled" him [85] [86], leave no doubt whatsoever that he is the same person who was previously User:Richard Daft, User:Fieldgoalunit and User:HughGal. He is here for confrontation purposes only, being what the internet terms a WP:TROLL. Would you please ban the two active accounts immediately. --JamesJJames (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also discovered User:ASMF which is again the same person [87], although this account seems to be not in use any more. --JamesJJames (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please attend to this asap, please. It had been archived by the bot. User:FirstComrade and User:BrownEdge are definitely block evasions. See Sarastro1's talk edits. --86.134.60.7 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.58.146 (talk)

• Nope, neither this or AN is WP:SPI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Gibnews, frequenter of the Gibraltar article, often uses gibnews.net as a source in his arguments. I have said that this (privately owned, non-peer reviewed) website is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. In response, he has now twice made legal threats towards me. 1 2 Even though they were made on behalf of others, and even though I'm neither worried by them nor believe he really means it, I would appreciate some assistance, as my reading of WP:NPLT suggests it constitutes unacceptable harassment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, especially the second one. I have indefinitely blocked this user per WP:LEGAL. Tan | 39 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request ensues with "I didn't do anything, it was a setup", admin eyes requested - Tan | 39 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this was a legal threat, but further, [88] fairly explicitly fails WP:RS. We cannot operate under any theory that such links have a "right" to remain on Wikipedia free of molestation, and so we cannot allow such filibustering even if it does not rise to the level of explicit legal threats. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out for the record that after the first threat, I replied saying that I would post here if he did it again. [89] He then proceeded to repeat the threat. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I declined the unblock: first threat is quite clearly "post using your real name so that you can be sued" and the second is an attempt to quash discussion via the threat of legal action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• As someone with probably a reputation for thinking WP:LEGAL is severely overused on ANI, I agree that this is a perfect example of what it was meant for. Support block, support continuing block until the threat is very clearly recognized and retracted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The user's unblock request (viz. "I have not made any legal threat." and "I was not the party who would be involved") makes it clear that s/he is not threatening legal action. The comments in question were more a case of "Be careful, for those type of comments could land you in trouble [with others]" rather than "I will sue you if you continue". RedCoat10 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, their unblock is phrased quite differently than the two items (especially the first one) that led to the block. If they were to be so kind as to actually retract the originals, they might have a reduction of said block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm really, really, really disheartened by all of this. I've been trying to help with the situation at the Gibraltar article, and related articles, and acted as mediator for a particular dispute and have given advice to various editors involved in the area. Just today one editor involved has left Wikipedia due to stress over editing the articles, and the other editor who generally takes that "side" is blocked. I have to agree, however, that the block is entirely appropriate; those legal threats are as unambiguous as it gets and since Gibnews is unwilling to retract them the block should stand. -- Atama頭 21:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that the name looks like a username violation, since it tends to identify the user with the website he's trying to use as a source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes, but after editing Wikipedia for over 4 years and making 5,000 edits it's not something that an admin is liable to block someone for. -- Atama頭 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this can all be resolved by a ban on this editor from using gibnews.net, as this is a clear conflict of interest and an unreliable source. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Waiting to see how he responds to my latest post on his talk page. Tan | 39 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall numerious similiarly named accounts being used at that article-in-question a few years ago. Could this be the same editor? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Gibraltarian blocked indefinitely on 16 December 2005, after initial block on 12 December 2005 [90]. User:Gibnews created on 7 December 2005 [91], picking up exactly where Gibraltarian left off at Disputed status of Gibraltar. The style and language of talk page posts are remarkably similar [92]. Make your own mind up... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's time to band a sock. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a sock please someone block it, or else file SPI? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of SPI is that if the IPs don't match it gets rejected. Anyone who has heard of the term "proxy server" knows how easy it is to get round that (and Gibnews himself has said he is a web programmer/site maintainer). Last year, I was arguing with Gibnews over an edit when a brand new user surfaced, again employing similar language to Gibnews, to make a revert that would have taken Gibnews over the 3RR rule, I filed a report. [93] But it came back negative on the basis of the IP. So there is only circumstantial evidence, such as that I list above. Oh, and other stuff like this: Gibraltarian uses gibnet.com as references [94]. That in itself is fairly similar to Gibnews using gibnews.net, but it gets more mysterious, because Gibnews himself tells us he is the registrant of gibnet.com on his user page [95]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just for checkuser, not all SPIs use checkuser. Many of them are done based on behavior alone. Actually, this one could easily be done as a WP:DUCK. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - Gibnews is a sockpuppet, has a COI username and is a disruptive editor who now makes legal threats? Wow... I suggest that nobody unblock. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NO, Gibraltarian was a retard, an abusive editor with a very distinctive style. Gibnews is nothing like him. As regards Gibnews' username, he has his own domain name, Gibnews.com from memory and its commonly used on a number of Gibraltar related websites. What Red Hat has conveniently forgotten to mention is that he and Gibnews have a long and acrimonius history; they wind each other up. I don't disagree that legal threats are a basis to block Gibnews he shouldn't have done that but this is simply a more politically adroit editor using AN/I to settle old scores and it was less than 24 hrs after about the only other editor aware of the history ie me quit. He knows that Gibnews is not Gibraltarian, there have been several SPI checks and all failed. Block the both of them. Justin talk 10:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record everyone, I have no issue if Gibnews retracts his legal threats and rejoins the editing fold. I mentioned the sock matters because someone else raised it and the editing history is rather fishy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record after you repeated sock puppet accusations you 'KNOW are false, rather than explaining others have had simillar expressed similar suspicions, have investigated them previously and they are known to be false. You might also mention you never apologised for making groundless allegations either. Justin talk 10:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, definitely need to black list gibnews.net. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we definitely don't its simply an online resource for Gibraltar related documents and its very useful in that respect. Banning an innocent 3rd party website because of one editor's vendetta is ridiculous by even wikipedia drama standards. Justin talk 12:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

I propose that Gibnews be banned from using gibnews.net on Wikipedia.

If this is based on the claim that I am banned user:Gibraltarian then lets stop here as that is not the case and the editor making the suggestion knows the claim is false. What are the reasons for this proposal?

Can I suggest that the editors supporting the ban take a moment to actually look at what they want to censor and ask themselves why a Gibraltarian news website presenting news about Gibraltar should be banned from being mentioned in Wikipedia?

Yes, It seems to have incensed an editor that I cited a document from it on the talk:Gibraltar page - a joint statement by the Government of Gibraltar and the Governor which destroyed his arguments. Is this a case of shoot the messenger? --Gibnews (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there are some genuine concerns about whether Gibnews.net can be considered a reliable source. The arguments are on WP:RS/N#gibnews.net. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk

I started that discussion so the comments below predate it, and are largely based on the assumption I'm another editor. I'm surprised at the enthusiasm to ban something with so little research about it or even an explanation of why at the beginning of this section. --Gibnews (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support better idea than a username block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support as this fellow has become pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The user is indef blocked, and is in fact a sock of an earlier user(or maybe it was later) who is also indef blocked. They refuse to retract their clear legal threats, so it seems that that(those) block(s) is(are) going to stay, so this entire thing is rather moot.

Also take note that gibnews does not have a wikipedia page. I ask all of you participating here, why not consider the blacklist?

However, if they are unblocked, then sure, I

• Support - Per the above, but only if they are unblocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support technically, but I agree with Daedalus that the gibnews.net domain ought to be blacklisted, which will resolve the issue of it being used here better than all the blockifications in the world. :-) Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting of site; that's the only way to keep this from reoccuring. :) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting the site. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support I doubt the user will ever be unblocked, so we can consider it a defacto community ban. AniMate 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

c.c

So, you support a ban, a topic ban, or a blacklist addition?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the blacklist. Since I stated the community ban was defacto, I assumed you would get that I was supporting the blacklist. Next time I'll spell it out for you. AniMate 07:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting gibnews.net, if that's what this discussion is about. If allowing links there leads to this kind of behavior, we should avoid future iterations of the same behavior by not allowing links there. By the nature of the site, it doesn't appear there's anything lost by not linking there. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting gibnews.net. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Gibnews is not Gibraltarian, that accusation was already made and investigated and Gibnews was cleared. Red Hat is actually aware of this, so making the accusation yet again smacks of sticking the knife in while an editor can't defend themself. Red Hat and Gibnews have a long and acrimonius history, this is Red Hat working the system to pay back old scores.

Secondly Gibnews.net is simply a repository of documents released into the public domain, reproducing them verbatim, it is a reliable source. It links documents related to Gibraltar and is a useful online resources for documents that would only be available in paper form. Blacklisting it, means that a lot of PD Gibraltar related documents online are lost, since there is no other source. Thats what Red Hat's objective is here.

Thirdly as regards username Gibnews is commonly used on several Gibraltar related websites, Gibnews already had it for his own domain name. But Red Hat is also aware of this.

Now if you're blocking Gibnews for legal threats, Red Hat should also be blocked for a) winding him up and b) knowingly bringing false information to AN/I. In fact you could block half a dozen editors on Gibraltar related topios just to get rid of the utterly poisonous atmosphere there.

This is why I've quit wikipedia, I've had enough of it. Even when I've quit I'm being dragged back because what is happening on that article is simply poisonous. Please just ban the lot and you can include me in that if you like. Justin talk 09:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, stay away at least 24 hours from wikipedia if you intend to keep telling us that you've quit it. You could read this in the meantime. When this user complains about the poisonous atmosphere, he forgets to mention that his own personal attacks had a lot to do with it. No kidding, attacks such as these [96] [97] [98]. 10:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.38.21 (talk)

Above is banned user PalestineRemembered, who I apparently upset but over something so minor I don't recall. In case you hadn't noticed I said include me in the blocks, I didn't claim my behavious was above reproach. Justin talk 10:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I say: stay! Even if you don't remove the farewell, keep contributing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Gibnews has now commented on this website [99], still obviously does not understand our policies and obviously will not voluntarily stop using it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional Block Proposal

Close tendentious proposal, not gonna happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Block Red Hat of Pat Ferrick for using AN/I to settle old scores and deliberately making a knowingly false sock puppet accusation. He has already made that accusation and an SPI investigation cleared Gibnews. Now please will everyone just leave me alone. Justin talk 09:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC) That won't solve anything, particularly when the sockpuppet accusation came after the fact that Gibnews explicitly said "If you want to defame the reliability and reputation of gibnews.net in reproducing it 'as is' can I ask that you do so in another place under your real name so that you can be sued for libel" (emphasis mine). This is not an issue of two users fighting one another. It is an issue of how one user is using his own website as a source for the edits he performs on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC) No its not Gibnews' site, that has been alleged and disproved before. Justin talk 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Proposal

Legal threat withdrawn and I note the complaining editor forgot to mention that when he piled onto the attempt to block a useful site. Diff [100]. Justin talk 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I support this. The editor has retracted any legal threats. Of course, he still doesn't understand why Gibnews is not a reliable source (or Justin, apparently, but that's neither here nor there), but with the blacklist proposal flying above, I don't think this will be a problem anymore regardless of whether or not he agrees. Since it's my block, does anyone have a glaring issue why I shouldn't unblock? Tan | 39 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If the legal threat is withdrawn then the block should be lifted. The other issues are peripheral. –xeno^talk 14:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support, if the blacklist is implemented. It will be the only way to get it through to him, and besides, if it's just quoting other sources I'm sure we can go to the horse's mouth instead of this middleman website. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you guys, on a completley unrelated subject would anyone be able to tell me why Wikibreak Enforcer doesn't appear to work for me? Justin talk 15:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have javascript enabled? Have you bypassed your cache? –xeno^talk 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I still say that Gibnews should be banned from using gibnews.net as a source. He should be able to ask on talk pages, but not use the link himself on the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's peripheral to the NLT block, and appears to be fairly well-supported in the above. –xeno^talk 15:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked Gibnews, and encouraged him/her to participate in the site blacklist proposal above. Tan | 39 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, the above is a proposal to ban Gibnews from using the site, but not someone else. I would suggest this be taken up at WP:RS/N. –xeno^talk 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes - I got sidetracked a bit with that line of thinking. I suppose it changes nothing; I would still encourage gibnews to participate in the discussion, but personally, I think the site should be completely blacklisted. Tan | 39 17:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note about gibnews.net

I don't know what the exact relationship is between gibnews and the site of the same name (Justin claims it was established there is none - I don't know how that was established or when) but (1) Gibnews had a hand in setting it up (by his own admission) even if its content is not coming from his own mouth (2) the site's lawyers are the same lawyers Gibnews refers to on another site which is definitely his (gibnet.com - see About Us, where we are assured "his lawyers are bigger than our lawyers") (3) the language used on the two sites is remarkably similar. (4) he chose a user name that was the same as the domain name. There is a definite connection between Gibnews and gibnews.net. (5) the site seems wiki-like in nature, if anyone can submit information, and there is no vetting or scrutiny of the content (the owners absolve themselves of responsibility) so it is not reliable anyway. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I would encourage any editors in this thread to actually take a look at the site in question and see for themselves.

NO it is not a 'wiki' thats a blatent lie.

YES There is vetting on who can contribute and its controlled by usernames and passwords and restricted to legitimate organisations.

YES There is scrutiny of content, and content providers are told that in the TOS. But the contributors are REPUTABLE ORGANISATIONS. Anything libelous would be removed to comply with Gibraltar law which is very different to that in the US. So far I am informed nothing has been removed.

The site provides an archive with permalinks of press releases in Gibraltar, 'as-is' without alteration. Some of the material is not available anywhere else, and even where it is, the links are guaranteed permanent.

The rationale for 'banning' references to it is not clear, Yes I wrote the code behind it. No I do not write the content referenced in wikipedia. RH seemed to take particular exception to my referencing in a talk page a press release from the Governor of Gibraltar's office, which made the Governor's role clear. Why ?

I've created around a hundred websites, some of them are referenced in Wikipedia. But there is a separation between creating templates and scripts and the content of Gibnews.net In Gibraltar its seen as a reliable trusted source of information. Why is it feared here?

wikipedia is about openness and not suppressing things some people dislike for being true. --Gibnews (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A Comment

This is a verbose commemt, probably in the tl;dr category and probably one that doesn't go down too well at AN/I because it seems clear to me that I don't have the political skills needed here. Please do take the time to read it.

The block on Gibnews using Gibnews.net seems to be based on the erroneous assumption promoted by Red Hat that its his personal website. It isn't, though he has disclosed he worked for the owners doing some coding some time ago. The supporting comments seem to be a typical example of the way that editors can sometimes pile onto a a proposal sometimes and it really should not be enacted. There is an essay on that phenomenon but I'm buggered if I can find it. Its also separate from unblocking for the legal threats.

As a matter of disclosure, I said some things in the heat of the moment a few days ago that I regret and apologise publicly and unreservedly for. If the community thinks I should be blocked or banned for them, then fine I have no problem with that. I broke the rule and I'll take my punishment. I fully expect someone will be along soon to propose that anyway. I don't regret or apologise for commenting on the agenda of the editor concerned. I don't think I'm wrong about that and if the community wishes to block me for it, then fine because I don't really don't wish to be part of a community that allows itself to be manipulated to support his agenda.

I don't apologise for calling for Red Hat to be blocked, he has very skilfully fed the feeding frenzy prompted by Gibnews' stupid legal threat. Seems he has also achieved a long term agenda of his for having that site blacklisted, I can provide diffs if necessary. A while ago I made the decision to make my peace with him as given the good work he has done on British Empire I thought I had misunderstood him and his motives. Now I'm not too sure I was right about that. I really would appreciate someone looking at that and I really would appreciate someone taking the time to look at Talk:Gibraltar and doing something about the poisonous atmosphere there.

I am sincere in my desire to quit, call me a Diva if you like. I really don't think I have what it takes to edit in my areas of interest and thats why I'm quitting and only why. But on my way out if I can draw attention to what has been going on you can call if my swan song. Thank you to anyone with the integrity to listen and take action, I recognise that I just don't have what it takes. Justin talk 16:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a verbose comment indeed. And a strange one as well, provided that out of 16 lines, only 3 are devoted to the issue at stake (Gibnews and Gibnews.net). The remaining 80% of it, however, is focused at:

• Not-really-apologising for calling another editor "fascist fuckwit" and the like, as you imply by immediately stating that you "don't regret or apologise for commenting on the agenda of the editor concerned".
• Not apologising for calling for The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick to be blocked either, even thought he has done nothing but reporting here a particularly blatant violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Of course, you know that the ensuing block and ulterior revision (rejecting to lift the block) have been undertaken by two uninvolved admins.
• Reiterate your "sincere" (yet unfulfilled) desire to quit. 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think anyone should block you, especially as you have now apologised. Far out... if I'd been blocked for some of my outbursts... :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A further comment

I see allegations of sockpuppetry.

1. I have only ever had ONE account on Wikipedia. I started as an IP editor and registered an account at the time that the forces of darkness were trying to get ALL Gibraltar IP addresses banned from editing Wikipedia. Even my private static IP which nobody else had access to and was never used by the banned user:gibraltarian. We sorted it out.

2. I am not that user and do not know his identity, but he is alive and well and makes occasional forays into wikipedia which I revert.

3. There is a further allegation of sockpuppetry made by RH on my user page Here I have no idea who user:gutterbrothers was, presumably someone who disliked RH.

I note comments that RH has nothing against me

That is not my perception as he has repeatedly had a go at me, mainly on talk Gibraltar and has attempted to wind me up repeatedly, and even has a section on his userpage complaining that people in Gibraltar claim to know more about the place than him.

As I got banned he is out in full force to try and get a permanent ban, with arguments that are demonstrably short on truth. I have tried to minimise the interaction, but made a serious error. However, that does not justify calling for a permanent ban simple because he wants to re-write the Gibraltar pages his way, and supress websites that provide useful information in an un-biased manner. --Gibnews (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RS Noticeboard

Gibnews has posted at the RS Noticeboard [101]. Although I am already firmly of the view that this site does not even come close to meeting WP's Reliable Source requirements, I have posted a series of objective questions there which I think would need answering, and which I hope Gibnews treats with the respect they deserve. I encourage anyone who reads this to post their views too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alien Quadrilogy

Hi. Someone keeps restoring the Alien Quadrilogy article despite the fact that it was merged into Alien (franchise) in a deletion debate. Can someone revert this and protect the page for a bit maybe? 96.52.12.116 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect per the AfD. An admin will need to decide it if should be protected though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that there's rampant edit warring requiring a protect, but protecting the redirect seems like a fine idea, as I doubt the Alien Quadrilogy dvd set will ever warrant its own article.--Atlan (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Semied for a week, even if it's low key, there's no reason to let this turn into a full scale revert war and then come back here in two days to find we're now in a full blown drama. MLauba (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially seeing as there's no such word; the proper term is tetralogy. Quadrilogy is something I'd see coming from a eleven year old... HalfShadow 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right HalfShadow. Put the blame for this word on some marketing wonk (probably 11 in terms of intellect if not actual age) at 20th C. Fox who put the term on their DVD box set of the four films. MarnetteD | Talk 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Probable single-purpose harassment accounts

I'd appreciate a second set of eyes on two accounts, Daltonslaw and Catzoo, two SPAs which exist solely to harass me. At first it appeared related to User:24dot, who reappeared at the same time as Daltonslaw, based on the links to this AN/I archive. However, the pattern of behaviour is also similar to that of now-blocked User:Carljung, himself a CU-confirmed sock of banned vanity spammer Akraj. I'll probably file a checkuser, but thought I'd check here first. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. They were both blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Minimac94 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If this persists, user harassment filters have been created in the past and I already see a pattern that could be used. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Minimac94 and Future Perfect, thanks for checking this out; it is always helpful to get an uninvolved opinion. Shirik, I appreciate the offer; it is interesting that the filter can be that specific. Realistically, this sort of behaviour is just a nuisance, unlike the more abusive attacks from banned users like Serafin. As such, I don't feel that a filter is needed specifically for the harassment described above unless it would benefit a large number of editors (rather than just me). It is probably easier to weed out these socks here before they do real damage elsewhere. Thanks again, though. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New user uploading copyrighted images

Okay, we have a new user, Hvalfisken (talk · contribs), acting completely in good faith, who is spending their editing time adding information for Recell artificial skin. They are uploading a lot of copyrighted images, and they are stating they are being used with permission, but copyright is still retained by the company. In addition they did create an article for ReCell Autologous Spray-On Skin that I ended up deleting for the copyright violations after the article was tagged but the issues weren't addressed. Now the reason I'm bringing this up, is I don't know enough about the copyright, and the user seems non-responsive to commuication (though there hasn't been that much of it admittedly.) However they're now uploading a load of images again and I'm not sure what to do with them. Can anyone give advice or have a look at how they're going about this? I don't have much time at the moment, and am heading off for a while. As I say it's good faith, but they do appear to be promoting the company and using copyrighted materials a lot. I will quite freely admit I'm probably not dealing with this very well, so feedback is appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ReCell Autologous Spray-On Skin has been re-created and I have tagged it for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Snek01

This user has a large issue with a minor point of style, see [102]. He reported the subject of his complaint (and myself) for edit warring (also make a sock accusation) [103], which was declined, and he was told to stop his reverts. He has also made a complaint further up this page [104]. He continues to engage in edit warring, and misuse of edit summaries, despite being asked to stop [105]. Attempts to communicate have resulted in a vandalism notice on my user page. Can stronger action be taken as his actions are clearly disruptive? Thedarxide (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to seek for editor assistance because all three participants have broken 3 revert rule already http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norway_lobster&action=history . Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting full protection on Norway Lobster at the moment, as it seems like there's a dispute going on around here. If there are any more articles that we have to get concerned about tell me. Thanks. Minimac94 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I may bow to wisdom of those more experienced than I, doesn't the 3 revert rule not apply to vandalism, which Snek's edits now count as? I've followed the discussions - entertaining as they are - and I'm pretty sure Snek was asked to refrain from any more reversions until discussion and a resolution had been found. But hey - what do I know? a_man_alone (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective as an outside, un-involved editor, this essentially looks like a content dispute over the interpretation of the MOS when it comes to formatting references. In the past two days,

• Thedarxide (talk · contribs) - reverted the article five times, including use of TW in the dispute to label his opponent's edits as "vandalism"
• Snek01 (talk · contribs) - changed the article back to his or her preferred version six (or seven, depending on how you count) times
• Stemonitis (talk · contribs) - changed the article back three times

While I see that a request at WP:ANEW was declined yesterday [106], since the two primary parties have only escalated the conflict today, it looks to me like they both need blocked for edit warring. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the fact that I have "escalated" the conflict - Snek01 has been spoken to nicely, then told by an admin that his actions are to stop. Based on the fact that he has been told this, I have been reverting his changes. I believe the vandalism tag is justified Thedarxide (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Snek01 and Thedarxide both have 48 hours to think about the stupidity of a lame edit war. I also locked the article for 24 hours to prevent other proponants in the rever warring from benefiting from the forced absence of the other two participants. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That may help calm things temporarily. There's still the question of whether placing nbsp's before all ref tags is appropriate, and they'll still have to deal with that once the blocks expire. I personally don't think that's a content dispute. If an editor is going to try to do this across all articles he edits, he should be plainly told whether or not that's appropriate, otherwise this will end up back here at ANI. My personal thought is that it's not appropriate. I've never seen it in a guideline, policy, or in practice. Refs generally follow text directly with no spaces. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:55, 11 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been handled badly and should have been resolved long before it came to this point. Snek01 is correct. The formatting changes made by Stemonitis go directly against MOS. WP:MOS#Punctuation and inline citations clearly states

Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space

Stemonitis should revert his edits, which run across many articles (as an aside, this is not a "minor" point of style). Snek01 is a valuable content editor, prolific and professional, even though English is not his native language. I hope you do not take this too badly Snek01. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, our style guidelines are contradictory. What is implicitly forbidden in one place is explicitly allowed elsewhere. WP:FN states that "Some editors prefer the in-house style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it." During the oddly extensive discussions on this matter recently, several editors have defended the method I use, and almost all have agreed that consistency is more important than quibbles over punctuation, and not worth warring over. This really is a minor point of style, and any consensus over it is far from unanimous. As far as I recall, in all my time here, only one editor has felt so strangely strongly about it as to risk getting himself blocked. I am more than happy to discuss the issue in a calm and reasonable arena, and I will of course alter my style if there should be a strong consensus formed over it. (Similarly, if I thought there already was a strong consensus, I wouldn't have been doing it before.) However, the issue has indeed been handled badly, and discussion was made more or less impossible. I will add that I don't think it adds to the project if we all spend time legislating over such tiny things; Wikipedia already has a reputation in some quarters for needless bureaucracy. A more pragmatic solution is to (explicitly?) allow various reasonable systems to be used (just as we allow different methods of referencing (footnotes, shortened footnotes, parenthetical references) and different forms of the language (WP:ENGVAR). I can see the appeal of rigid standardisation, but I rank it pretty low on the list of what's important. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The salient point is that MOS does not support you. I doubt this is the place to discuss this matter further. But WP:FN states something different, partially because, as a review of the edit history shows, you yourself were implicated in enforcing those changes. You must have known that those changes were not supported by MOS, yet you did not risk presenting your viewpoint to MOS in order to resolve the contradiction and confusion you had introduced.

You are also using a language style which belittles and pre-empts other views, implying, for example, that people with views other than your own are rigid and lacking in pragmatism. To mirror one of your sentences, but with a shift in target: "As far as I recall, in all my time here, only one editor has felt so strangely strongly about using his alternative style as to push an unwitting editor to the point where he was blocked."

You say, in the amended guideline you helped promote, that the style used by Nature was acceptable. But the style used by Nature does not place square brackets around the citation numbers. Nor does it sanction the ungainly spaces you, to use your term, "rigidly" insisted on introducing. So I suggest that if you wish to continue imposing your particular preference on other editors, then, even though you rank this matter as "low on the list of what's important", you put the energy into gaining support on MOS. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat disturbed by this statement you also made: "During the oddly extensive discussions on this matter recently, several editors have defended the method I use, and almost all have agreed that consistency is more important than quibbles over punctuation, and not worth warring over." I have just examined those discussions, and my impression was that, pretty much without exception, the other editors clearly disagreed with your method of citations. Also, throughout the discussion, you are th one that keeps reiterating what a "quibble" this is. A quibble that has caused a lot of unnecessary grief. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will, if I may, counter some of the specific points raised here. Firstly, it was my understanding (both then and now) that WP:FN, as a style guideline, formed part of the Manual of Style. I therefore didn't push for the wording to be adopted elsewhere, because as far as I understood, WP:FN was the place for it to be, with other guidelines referencing WP:FN. I may have misunderstood that, and I'm happy to be corrected. Secondly, the implication in your analogy is that I caused Snek01 to be blocked. I did not. I have refrained from excessive reversion in favour of discussion; sadly, Snek01 and Thedarxide did not. It is a shame that either had to be blocked, but it was their own actions which caused it. Finally, I am not the only one who thinks this is a minor point. Here are a few examples, which are not intended to read as either endorsement or criticism of any referencing style, but only concern the scale of the issue (I have excluded comments by myself, Snek01 and Thedarxide): "Admittedly though, it is a bit of a waste of people's time discussing this when we could be adding content instead. Smartse (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "restricting users from using certain styles because others subjectively don't like them is a pointless exercise. Ucucha 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "this continued effort serves little purpose Drmies (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "I prefer no space, but who actually cares? You're making a mountain out of a molehill. It's a minor issue, nothing more. Reach Out to the Truth 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "we take a very WP:ENGVAR-type approach to minimize edit warring over these unimportant (=non-content) changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" ; "This is not a major issue CBW 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)". Either it isn't a major issue, or the view that it isn't a major issue is reasonable and is held by at least a significant minority of editors here, and cannot simply be dismissed. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I brought up the discrepancy between the two MOS pages, noted above by Stemonitis, at WT:MOS#Contradiction regarding inline citations. Ucucha 14:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course editors nod at your your constant repetition in the discussion threads that this a trivial issue. It is also the main theme of your response above. You say there "I don't think it adds to the project if we all spend time legislating over such tiny things; Wikipedia already has a reputation in some quarters for needless bureaucracy... I can see the appeal of rigid standardisation, but I rank it pretty low on the list of what's important." Nobody want to be seen as obsessing over tiny things and rigidly promoting needless bureaucracy. Naturally people distance themselves from such a prospect, and agree with you, because of the way you have framed it. But this is a smokescreen to pre-empt debate. If you really thought the issue was so trivial, you would not have spent so many hours elaborately reformatting articles. Recently I formatted the references entered by a new editor on sea louse. You came along shortly after, and needlessly reformated them in your own style. These conversions are time consuming, and that you go out of your way to make them suggests that, far from considering the matter to be trivial, you are actually on something of a crusade. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tko96

Tko96 (talk · contribs)

SPA abusing wikipedia for hosting pseudo gang stuff. No encyclopedic edits whatsoever. Before February 4, they put up a lengthy userpage at their master account User:Tko96 and copied it to two sock accounts, i.e. User:Musculion and User:66truekillerobituaries99, and to the article Muscolion in mainspace. They took a break after the socks were blocked and the article was deleted.

Today, they are back re-creating Musculion (speedied already) and copied the same stuff to User:Tko96/Tko96, also to the userpage of his blocked sock User:Musculion, and also to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tko96.

I request that

• the content be deleted, userpage or not, as wikipedia is not a host for that stuff,
• the account be blocked indef, as they had their chance and there is no indication whatsoever that the user registered themselves to work on an encyclopedia
• and "Musculion" and "truekillerobituaries" be added to some filter.

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Tko96 as advertising-only. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – backlog snaked Equazcion ^(talk) 20:10, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

There is a backlog of over an hour on AIV. Could an admin or two address that backlog, please? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Death threat

Hi, I've just blocked Stragewarior (talk · contribs) for some rather threatening behaviour. But should we tip the police off about this? ϢereSpielChequers 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To me it just looks like standard vandalism. Nothing that requires a phone call to London about, but I would watch for further edits. If it happens again, then make a call. Others could disagree me on this one, but I see nothing here but vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That one seems fairly par for the course. I'd say this one[107] was more concerning "We have some demands either fulfill them or ready for a war", but from his other posts, sounds more like a poor command of English language rather than a legitimate threat of a war. Looking some more, though, I see this person, while editing an IP, does appear to be issuing a death threat to the article subject[108], including claiming the future date of death is "true"[109] and I guess that is what is being noted above? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think this was what he was intending to refer to... Tabercil (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. it's the two in combination that made me think we might want to treat this as a bit more than just vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, we'd better watch our step; 'Stragewarior' might type the shit out of someone if we're not careful. Dollars to donuts it's some thirteen year old suffering from an influx of stupid. HalfShadow 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • 2012? Well, at least the assassin is giving us plenty of advance notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but the world's supposed to end then anyway. Sort of a non-starter, really. HalfShadow 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
      • That's in December, though. On the other hand, if the world's going to end in December, why go to the time and trouble of committing murders? Just let mother nature take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User continued to threaten in an unblock request [110] so I reblocked without talkpage access. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful that this is some 12 year old. This is part of the continuing edit war on these articles. Woogee (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuous disruption on Catholic-related articles

• 71.145.132.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Related ANI discussion thread: Holy war (sort of)
• Example diff

The user of this IP address (and many other IP addresses besides this one) continues, despite repeated pleas and prior blocks, to continue to traverse various Wikipedia articles removing the word "Roman" where it appears before Catholic. In some instances, this has been perfectly fine; however, in many instances these removals are contrary to what reliable sources are saying. One particular example is in the article on Rachel Maddow. A Newsweek article explains that Maddow "was brought up as a strict Roman Catholic." This is reflected in the article, and is cited appropriately. Many Catholics use "Roman" to distinguish between their species of Catholicism and others (see 487,000 Google News hits), but in recent times this has been evidently frowned upon by the Vatican. It is for this reason that the anonymous user seems to be "crusading" against the "Roman Catholic" term. Numerous editors have tried to engage this individual to explain how we use reliable sources and verifiability to determine article content, but all such attempts have been fruitless.

Despite the difficulties of a rangeblock (the range is quite large, according to the previous discussion), I think that it has become appropriate to act in some way beyond the short-term blocks that have been tried in the past (example). I urge administrators to consider more draconian measures to prevent this disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the recent conduct over the Rachel Maddow article, I think further short term blocks could be justified. I'd prefer to find a sympathetic mentor to adopt the user, however if that isn't possible, then I guess longer blocks and/or range blocks could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might find mentoring difficult given the fact that the individual keeps changing IP. A good start would be to encourage them to create an account. An analysis of the IPs in question reveals a single-purpose agenda, so any mentor would have their work cut out for them. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO)

A dynamic IP 187.132.XXX.XX had been disruptively editing a section of the Oaxaca article that dealt with protests by the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca. That article was semi-protected on 10-02-03 and the disruptive editing has stopped. However, since it can no longer disruptively edit that article, it has now moved on to the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca article itself, making the same, unexplained, disruptive edits that violate WP:TERRORIST,WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Attempts to talk with "it" have been unsuccessful, as it seems happy to keep reverting. I posted a request for page protection over ten hours ago, but no one there seems interested in dealing with it, meanwhile the IP keeps reverting and inserting disruptive information. nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

IP does need a bit of a time-out for edit warring, I'd agree. This is the same problem we used to have at Hezbollah and Hamas. If this group is a designated terrorist organization, try to steer the conversation in that direction, to describe neutrally who considers it a terrorist or and why. The "...is a terrorist" kinda stuff is completely unacceptable. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since its a dynamic IP, it would be easier to just semi protect the article, but its been sitting over at RPP for over 10 hours and no one there seems interested in doing anything. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tnxman307 just semiprotected it; I was on my way to do so, he beat me to it. Hopefully that ends the problem, though watchlisting both articles in case they sockpuppet accounts past the autoconfirmed boundary and start up again seems wise. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:GiacomoReturned

• I don't often mess with things like this, but even I can see that the claimed "attack" is so mild as to be ignorable and further discussion will only cause problems. TNXMan 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

---

In relation to the aritcle Blenheim Palace, GiacomoReturned has been making numerous personal attacks, particularly on the talk page (Examples: [111] [112]). I am not looking to get involved in any further conflict regarding the article and am now limiting myself to a support function to avoid such, but the user's uncivil attacks do not stop. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. "I suggest you see an optician" is not a personal insult. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, isn't "questioning someone's eyesight" listed as a sufficient basis for an indef in the new Civilty Blocks proposal? ;-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if people stop baiting him by being idiots. How else should he respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to complain about a user on the noticeboard there's something else we are supposed to do.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Labattblueboy. 1- Have the common decency and courtesy to notify Giano (GiacomoReturned) of this thread per the instructions at the top of the page. 2- Use diffs that don't mean we have to scroll down the whole page (like this [113] if it helps. 3-, what admin action are you after? Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've notified him in the most accurate manner. -- 32.175.156.35 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"There are some whiners butt-hurt about comments you made."[114] Gee, that's a great way of dealing with a complaint about incivility.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am honestly not trying to cause any further trouble. I am, very humbly, seeking help or suggestions because the current process is none too fun. I am fully prepared to accept and acknowledge some of my actions were poorly thoughtout. I was just looking for some help. I was not seeking or even suggesting a punishment mechanism, I was looking for some aid in conflict resolution. I'm sorry for having disturbed you, please consider the matter closed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that, no matter what Giano does, nobody here will do anything about it. He's protected. Woogee (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User creates a new account and tells us its password

CoolMatt18 writes here that he's creating a new account, Funny110, for the banned user ScienceGolfFanatic to use, and writes the password to that account on that page. Funny110 does exist and has edited today. His edits were to User talk:FuckSeasickness, who has been blocked, but only for his username. I think all four of these accounts should be looked at, perhaps by a checkuser, to see if any of them is ScienceGolfFanatic or some other user who knows him. I haven't attempted to log in to the Funny110 account; I imagine whoever is using it, whether it's SGF or just someone else who saw the page, probably was smart enough to change the password. —Soap— 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All blocked now, along with some more. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini yoga - User:Fatehji

Fatehji (talk · contribs) This page got my attention some days ago as the result of an edit war between Fatehji and another user which resulted in page protection. I've since taken a closer look at the article and discovered that Fatehji has turned the page into a blatant WP:COATRACK for Yogi Bhajan and his 3HO movement. After I deleted the COATRACK section, Fatehji has been repeatedly restoring it[115][116][117] based on the transparently POV and, I believe, demonstrably false assertion that Kundalini yoga and Yogi Bhajan's teachings are synonymous, when in fact there are countless writers and teachers on the topic (see Google books search results). Fatehji has also been editing the Kundalini syndrome article, trying to minimize the seriousness of the phenomenon[118] (presumably because Yogi Bhajan has said kundalini yoga is perfectly safe), falsely claiming the article relies upon only one reference[119] and even arguing for its deletion.[120][121] (To refute this position, one need only do a search for the term on Google books).

In normal circumstances, I will try to work with other editors to establish NPOV, but in this case I cannot persuade myself there is a realistic chance of doing so. Unfortunately, spiritual topics tend to attract adherents of one or another spiritual group who attempt to use such articles as promotional vehicles for their own particular group, and in my experience there is little hope of dissuading such editors from their disruptive activities except through bans or blocks. I am therefore proposing that Fatehji be topic banned from all kundalini-related articles, with the possible exception of those pertaining to his particular group (namely Yogi Bhajan, 3HO and Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan). Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with the topic ban, as it appears that there is some considerable bias as regards the promoting and demoting of differing disciplines. As for an allowance on those topics relating solely to their interests, I am assuming Gatoclass has not detected any WP:OWNership issues and agree also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to be unduly harsh. My primary concern is to stop the COATRACKing, which is the immediate problem, and I think likely to be an ongoing one unless something is done to prevent it. My comment was not intended as an endorsement of his editing on the Yogi Bhajan pages, I just think that as he's only been editing for three weeks he is entitled to be given some time to adjust. If he's still causing problems down the track, that can always be looked at later. Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support the topic ban also. Since he created his account on 18 January, Fatehji has managed to receive warnings from two different admins, and his contributions include frequent reverts. The single most worrisome thing is his minimization of Kundalini syndrome, which has plenty of references. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• I concur as well, a topic ban would be a good first step, the diffs are quite worrying. If Fatehji is unable to comply, we should proceed immediately to escalating blocks. GlassCobra 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From the start let me say in my defense, despite these claims, I have ALWAYS been open to changing the wording, edits, and I have been open and fair to adjustments and changes as long as there have been valid references from neutral 3rd party opinions. If I have done something wrong, I am always willing to change it. Everything I need to say is in the Talk page for this article if read carefully [[122]], but due to the slant in this claim I have to defend myself here. In fact, my counter-claim is that Gatoclass and user Atmapuri on this page have been advancing far too much of a bias against and new referenced material relating to Yogi Bhajan with complete deletions at every posting with little or no effort to reach consensus [Resolve the Dispute]. As you can see in the Talk pages [[123]], changes have been made, and I am always open and inviting to those who are neutral and who have done homework on the subject. I have repeatedly asked for clarification and references from these users without receiving any: Namely Gatoclass and Atmapuri, who themselves were exhibiting warring tendencies and have leveled threats [Warning]. [Resolve this Dispute].

Additionally, This entire claim is both pedantic and aggressive. I have shown my positive support of 3rd party views on numerous occasions [[124]]. There's a lot of assumption going on in this Incident claim: Gatoclass is using the language "I believe" and "presumably" pretty liberally in his agenda to service his POV. Gatoclass claims that in "normal cases" he would would try to make concurrent and 3rd party observations your primary avenue of pursuance in resolving disputes yet he did not make any effort in this direction even after I requested such and offered my openness to NPOV resolution. What he claims as "in this case I cannot persuade myself" means simply... you did not want to listen, nor did he want to follow policy (i.e. my quote: "Please ask for a 3rd party resolution ... before you request for a dispute resolution."[[125]]). He has skipped over NPOV in his bias against me and your not observing the policy of Wikipedia to take these steps first.

So, therefore because you are leveling more claims, I have to defend myself and the information (again). First of all, 3HO is not a "movement" initially as you claim - with the implication that somehow it is an agency with an ulterior agenda (this wording choice is typically indicative of your POV bias). It is a simply the support community for teachers of Kundalini Yoga and the organization that supports the teaching of Kundalini Yoga and yogic events. If anything that it is "moving" or promoting, it is positive change and health forward into the consciousness of people who need it.

Also, I will refute that your search on Kundalini Yoga books is a red herring because you did not do a search for "Kundalini AND yoga" (quotes needed). Kundalini itself is a ubiquitous and non-scientific source of spiritual energy and of course yoga widely covered, so of course a search of this will return many books..! What you should be referencing - instead of diverting - is the content of the books, not the 'number' of books a search calls up. All this I have covered in the talkback pages [[126]] and [[127]].

As I have stated over and over, I'm open to referenced additions and changes and would love for this article to be a world class and accurate representation of this beautiful form of yoga. However, certain users have not been helpful, while others have been very insightful and neutral (Bhuto, [Resolve the Dispute], Debsandeep [This article is a mess], TransporterMan [See 3rd Party Opinion], Cactustalk [Refutation of Coatrack Claim]

Lastly, I again refute your claim and show - as I have numerous times, and as it has been supported by Neutral 3rd party observations - that the Kundalini syndrome page is riddled with inaccuracies, non-scientific and uncited claims [References provided are false], and has nothing to do directly with Kundalini yoga, except by confluence of name. It is a culture-bound syndrome, with no professional validation, and linking it to yoga is like linking 'tennis' with 'tennis elbow', 'bruising' or 'ankle injuries' (as one neutral observer said [[128]]). There's nothing 'disturbing" about correcting false and misleading information. rather, harmful, negative information of non-relevance should be appropriately removed and not disseminated without professional validation.

Specifically speaking to the Kundalini syndrome page It was Gatoclass actually who removed the "professional validation" request without any so much of a comment except "out of date" [[129]]. Yet, no professional validation has been made at this time... So how is it "out of date"? The article is out of date on getting the validation, not the request for validation out of date for the article... This shows how you are twisting things around to suit your POV.

My last word is that over and over again I have shown opening to change and update this article(s) in question to make them more neutral and less biased and the goal is ultimately to make them much more like the articles currently on Wikipedia showing other forms of yoga. As it progresses, it will improve, based on verifiable information and in line with the policies of Wikipeida. I have always indicated that being my sole purpose.

I am new to the site, and that may be to my disadvantage against "multi-starred" uses such as Gatoclass but that that doesn't mean he should bull-dozer me and slant his bias against me by leveling an incident request and blockage requests over my fair requests for neutrality and 3rd party resolution dispute. If I am somehow wrong in this defense I apologize, but my intent is true.--Fatehji (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fatehji is still edit warring on the page in question - indeed, he appears to be expanding his COATRACK section. Gatoclass (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the page to a pre-coattrack version with an edit summary requesting that blanket changes not occur until the Talk page discussion is resolved. I agree that Fatehji has done some heavily POV editing -- with a strong bias towards promoting one particular version of Kundalini Yoga and a religious movement. However, they are a new user -- and I hope that they might restrain their enthusiasm and learn our policies on verifiability, sourcing and NPOV. I know of a few successes with other "religious movement" editors (For example, the L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology crowd -- although that also required a lot of topic bans and protected pages). I would like to see if the current discussion has any positive results before enacting a topic ban. — CactusWriter | ^needles 02:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dashbullder

Dashbullder (talk · contribs) has, among other things, added articles of his own creation to Current Events without discussion [130] [131] and added links to one such article to two unrelated pages apparently as a POINTy attempt at pushing Christian PoV. [132] [133]

Also seems to have issues with "getting" copyright [134] after adding a decently long script CAP to an article [135] -- Pakaran 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted a few of this user's edits, including his additions to the Current Events templates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(ANI is a bad bad place) 66.172.228.21 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked exactly how long a quote could be and I'm still waiting for an answer, and if adding articles about current events to the current events area with out a vote is a problem I am sorry I did not know this. --Dashbullder (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no specific answer, but it doesn't matter. The quotation doesn't belong for other reasons that you have already been told about. If you want the quotation to be in the article when others disagree with you, that's what the article talk page is for -- use it. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"There is no specific answer"? if there is no rule then how can I have broken it? --Dashbullder (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He means there's no specific answer regarding acceptable quote length. Quotes are supposed to be used when they serve a specific purpose that paraphrasing wouldn't fulfill. They're not supposed to be "extensive". In this instance, it looks like the significance of the piece could've been adequately summed up using other words. Again, use the article talk page to seek advice on how to handle it. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:15, 12 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Give how touchy some people are about this film I thought it would be best for me not to put words in the speakers mouths. --Dashbullder (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone in agreement then that quoting the film is better than putting works in others mouths? --Dashbullder (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This question belongs on the article's talk page (for the third or fourth time). This is a content issue and can't be decided here. Discuss the issue with the article's other editors at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:13, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

User:Seb az86556

Okay, this has gone too far now. Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) doesn't like that I choose not to get an account. Fine, I'm used to the anti-IP bias around here. But now s/he has been dogging my edits, removing PROD tags without improving the articles just because I've added them,[136][137][138] deleting AFD notices from pages[139][140][141] and deletion logs[142] because s/he doesn't think IPs should be able to nominate for deletion, issuing spurious warnings,[143] creating a essay for me to use,[144][145] telling me to "stay away from where you don't belong,"[146] [147] and finally, removing comments from my talk page with a fuck you edit summary.[148] It's the latter one that I find so disturbing because anybody unfamiliar with their vendetta might mistake it for something I endorse. At the very least, I'd like to see the essay deleted, have this user restricted from my talk page and stop their pursuit of my edits which just wastes time that could be spend actually dealing with articles. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Seb for 24 hours for the comment deletion and the creation of WP:F*CKYOU and its associated article. I've also speedied it as an attack page. As always, I welcome review by other admins. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I said it on the MFD and I'll say it here. Why hasn't anyone tried communication. You didn't even leave a block notice, much less try to actually resolve anything.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I did post a block notice -- unfortunately, he beat me to it with the unblock request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

10 minutes after you blocked him and 5 minutes after you posted here. The user obviuosly had some issues but I'd think there could have been at least an attemt to talk to him before facerolling the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good block, clearly disruptive user (particularly the deletions of tags and comments). ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't make generalisations a limited amount of information. If you'd encountered Seb before branding you'd realise it's ridiculous it is to casually brand them a "clearly disruptive user"; it's not that simple. That said, in this instance their behaviour is not acceptable. Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated the essay mentioned above for deletion, so I'd like to add my two cents. It was an error on my part not to notify the user that I nominated it for deletion, even though the essay was grossly inappropriate. I also think the block was hasty, even though the editor was a negative influence on Wikipedia from the brief time I was involved with them. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(copied from userpage)
In light of a particular user's (see last point) response to his thread, I would like to post the following:

1. I acknowledge that the creation of the redirect in question was pointy and that I should not have done it.
2. I acknowledge that my interaction with the IP in question was partially inappropriate.
3. I request a mutual indefinite interaction-ban between myself and the IP in question (and any subsequent IPs that seem to be the same person)
4. There remain my grievances concerning the circumstances of this block, because:
   1. I have seen other people engage in mudslinging that was way worse, yet they were almost always given a chance to respond.
   2. The 4im-warning exist for a reason, and numerous reports I have filed were rejected as "not appropriately warned".
5. There remain the grievances I voiced in the (now deleted) essay. It is ironic that precisely the practices I was venting my frustration about were repeated in applying this block.
   (Note for crystal-clear clarification: This point is not about the validity or merit of the block, it is about procedure)
6. I suggest that these grievances will be addressed in the near future.
7. (And last point) User:Cube lurker: You have a new message at User_talk:Seb az86556.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(end of copy)

• The idea of a mutal interaction ban between you and the ip rather founders on the fact that you were the one behaving like a dick. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The other problem with a mutual interaction ban, from both sides, is that an IP isn't identifiable like a registered account. You might find yourself interacting with a wholly different person who has the same or similar IP, or you might end up interacting with this same person under a different IP. Who would know? You can't have a mutual interaction ban with all IPs, that's unfeasible. So I don't think this can work. -- Atama頭 20:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank 76.102.12.35 for their work (I just checked a few of the contribs), and I see no reason why 76.102.12.35 should be asked to not interact with anyone. There were two complaints about 76.102.12.35 in this archive, but in my opinion 76.102.12.35 was vindicated in both cases. While it is important to not WP:BITE newcomers, it is also important to clean up junk and combat spam, and I have not seen any evidence that 76.102.12.35 is unduly bitey, while there is plenty of evidence of useful contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kodrion

User Empathictrust refuses to talk and misuses sources , removes references from Kodrion. diff,talk,among the claims are placing of ancient tribes in different locations.Megistias (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Example found in talk as well, uses a tour guide from 1819 for Greece(?!) to describe events of Roman wars against Illyrians...Megistias (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, comments like "the violence of ignorance of certain users here in Wikipedia" isn't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Empathictrust attempted to comment here but was reverted (not by me). His comment was exorbitantly long, misformated, and focused mainly on the content dispute. I've advised him to comment at the article talk page instead, which he's done. Since it appears he is willing to talk, please continue your discussion with him there, Megistias. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:11, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

See the attempted comment here: [149] Equazcion ^(talk) 00:13, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I had explained to him the situtation in the talk page, with secondary sources and citations, but he doenst seem to understand certain things(geographical impossibilities pointed out in the talk page). The comment he placed now is a continuation of this Talk:Kodrion. Megistias (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • This is what I wrote almost 3 days ago, but my comments were deleted. Maybe as they’re too long, as Equazcion told (though I have seen much longer ones: here's just one of them [150], or maybe unfortunately some censorship here is too strong to let people talk free. I do hope to be the first alternative... I tried to cut it but there are things I wanted to show and tell, so I'm dividing into 2 parts:

"I don’t refuse to talk at all Megisitias, I just am not so experienced and accustomed with the talk feature; I was looking for it at first place when you deleted my edits. Nevertheless thank you for your interest.

With all the respect young man, I believe it's truly shameful of you to accuse me of misusing sources, since it's something that actually you have done in the first place: whereas you can't find any obstruction or deformation on my text relating to the sources I had mentioned. In your references there’s not a single mentioning of the city or the tribe to be ancient Greek, not even one and this is what a deformation and a mismanage of facts is. My first edit, I admit, included the deletion of the “Ancient Greek” (the reference was a complete misguide for the reader since it never mentioned the city as being “Ancient Greek”), your self-made image of the ancient Epirus (that is a deformation as well and nominated for deletion several times, even before I created an account and knew how to edit sth here) and the last part that mentioned the article of being a “stub” since it wasn’t a stub anymore with [[[20 references]]]. Then after you rudely deleted my edit I only added my info and materials without touching any of your references, nor your image, except for the hyperlink “Ancient Greek”...

I doubt that the late accomplished honorable British scholar Nicholas Hammond, who was aware of the old written books of the distinguished ancient authors and who knew Greek language and culture, as well as Greece’s neighbor Albania also from his travels and experience in both these two countries, would fall into such a goof as calling Kodrion a Greek city after the documentations that is left for its origin from the [[[Ancient Greek Scholars]]].

• In Kodrion .... ancient Greek you put as a reference Epirus: the geography, the ancient remains, the history and topography of Epirus and adjacent areas by Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, 1967, page 607 where about Chrysondyon is written that, I cite: “...Chrysondyon and Gertous, probably lay on Scerdilaidas’ route between Lake Lychnidus and Antipatrea, i.e. in the upper valley of Devoli”

I didn’t place any tribe in a different location, I only stated authentic references. I didn’t use a tour guide from 1819 for Greece but I used as a reference “A classical and topographical tour through Greece: during the years 1801, 1805 and 1806, Volume 1 By Edward Dodwell | Rodwell & Martin, 1819, page 16” which, if you’re not acquainted with, is not a tourist guide, but is a normal way of how books referring ethnography and geography were written in those times. And to deny the claims of another editor of Kodrion who stated that my references were totalitarian, I don’t believe England of this time of enlightment was a totalitarian country(!) Anyway this was [[[1 among 14 other references]]] for such a short article and if you care that much as to see all of them without deleting it brutally, you’d understand I haven’t implied anything else than those stated by others cleverer than me centuries before.

....By the way, I sincerely thank you for your interference [[[Ricky81682]]], I really do appreciate you to be here, I don't want to aggravate things or to impose sth not true, I just want to help in accomplishing Wikipedia's real aim: to supply information on sth valuable based on actual facts, proofs and consistent references. Be patient and read all I’m writing and do get involved if you’d like to. But you'd kindly oblige me by not cutting my comment on my changes: (Am trying to provide useful info and trustworthy references, but the violence of ignorance of certain users here in Wikipedia don't want to let me.) Of course comments like this don't help, I'm with you; but what can you do when you see an ancient historic article illustrated with a self made map that deforms the truth and denies an origin for God knows what reason and that has been asked for deletion several times but still pseudo-illustrates history in several articles and misinforms a whole world EpirusEduMap.jpg; what would you do if you provided the article with more informing materials and references (quadruple the reference number) putting there how it can be accessible and other information that actually showed both points of view, nevertheless the previous editor deletes all your edits by leaving HIS point of view and further more writing in the changes' comments: "reverted pov vandal"?...

I have truly studied thoroughly Kodrion’s issue and feel such and pitiful to show the deformation you claim with a reference on sth that doesn’t exist there and nowhere else.

• Read here, this is an undeniable authentic proof that comprises all references and origin of Kodrion or Codrion:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=H2xHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA209&dq=Leake,+Northern+Greece,+vol.+iii.+p.+326,+seq&ei=VVd1S8i4E5ryygSext3NBA&cd=1#v=onepage&q=dassaretae&f=false Dictionary of Greek and Roman geography Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Sir William Smith, Little, Brown & Co., 1865 – Page 755] DASSARETAE, DASSARETII (Strab. VII p.318; Ptol. III 13 § 32; Appian, Illyr. I; Mela, II 3 § 11; Plin. III 23 s. 26), an Illyrian people whose position can be well ascertained, from their having occupied the great valley which contained the lake of Lychnitis.......]

  So, in a secondary source, there are five of the most famous and acclaimed authors of antiquity, all primary sources andall saying that Dassaretae or Dassaretii were Illyrian, as well as Codrion:

• Greek Strabo (63/64 BC – ca. AD 24)
• Romano Greek Claudius Ptolemaeus or Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. 168)
• Romano Greek Appian (c. 95 – c. 165)
• Roman Gaius Plinus Secundus or Pliny the Elder 23 CE – August 25, 79
• Roman Pomponius Mela (? – 45 A.D.)

Three of these worldly famous scholars of antiquity have your own same ethnicity. You unfairly claimed I misused the references but you can click on the link of the original scanned book. Don’t you believe them? You deleted all the references I added, supposedly they didn’t suit your idea, what about all these? We can go to Athens and Rome’s National Libraries and Archives and find them and read them with our own eyes and mind. Empathictrust (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

From the excavations that were conducted in 1960 in the location of this ancient city, at the top of a hill near the town of Gramsh in Albania, tile stamps of the local landlords and manufacturers bearing the Illyrian names of [[[Bato]]], [[[Trito]]] etc were found and there are publications and pictures and material facts to testify everything. Also there was a very nice architectural element still on foot: an old example of barrel vault.

• Whereas the name Kodrion sure it isn’t Greek, but Illyrian and still exists today in its descendant language, Albanian, literally meaning hill. For everything I’m writing there are proofs and references, of course.

About the name Dassaretae and Dassaretii all these authors say it to be a synonym. Maybe their name was the same as the Dassaretii in Dardania that you mentioned before, but let’s not make word game; they’re both Illyrians.

I hope so much that at least you read all this. We are living in the third millennium and it doesn’t honor us to manipulate the history of our ancestors. I provided you references from the time of Jesus Christ, not 1994 books as you did, in a time when, unfortunately, much more than history can be corrupted. I really do hope you’ll understand them and believe their authenticity. They said, I’m just repeating! It such a pitiful phenomenon to see that you are up to misleading through an untrue history a whole world that when writing Dassaretae in Google or looks for an ancient map, the first to appear is Wikipedia and most of the articles linked to this search are copied from Wikipedia as well, that means sth untrue as this tribe being ancient Greek. I have studied Minoan civilization and prepared a serious thing on it and I was and still am amazed by their ingenuous skills and heritage they left to the world. All the world knows the great contribution of ancient Greek culture in human civilization and culture as a whole, but don’t abuse with this and go beyond borders and make Greek sth that is not.

For the knowledge’s sake and humanity’s right for proper culture and information do not delete such an article like that. Otherwise Wikipedia is becoming an information’s KGB on the web, but I don’t want it, you don’t want it Megistias, do you? I had added also advises for visiting it, how to go etc and my last edits only added more info didn’t change anything except for what I mentioned. Rely on our ancestor’s true facts not on manipulations. And I have found citations of primary sources, sources that are the essence of the real ancient history and that are difficult to provide, but apparently they’re in conflict of interest with some propaganda that still today unfortunately exists. I am seeking your consent for what I wrote here, so we can display a proper article for such a place of archaeological and cultural importance. I’m not adding it violently, but also if you’re against the real authenticity and want to throw “ashes on people’s eyes” I am not willing to stay and watch.

  Best Regards

Empathictrust (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by User:Chowbok

Resolved

 – Moved to WQA by OP Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok has launched full-fledged personal attacks, incivility and false accusations against me. He came to the article John Wayne Gacy for the first time on January 14, 2010 and proceeded to change the style of referencing to a lesser known and utilized style without first broaching the change on the article talk page [151] clearly in violation of WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools, which says editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. (Bolding emphasis not added). There was no effort to garner consensus prior to this change and it was reverted and a talk page discussion started, where it was protested. One of Chowbok's responses to the protest was to make accusations of ownership [152]. He later moved over to the Dawn Wells article and returned content that had been taken 3 different times to WP:BLP/N as inappropriate content [153], which I reverted and took immediately to WP:BLP/N#Dawn Wells once again. I posted notice to Rossrs and Pinkadelica about this issue since they had both been involved in discussions about this in the past. Chowbok followed around my edits and posted comments on both user's talk pages [154] [155] and to mine [156]. I replied here that I knew the editors' opinions and knew they had not changed and replied in greater depth here. He was further asked by Rossrs not to leave sarcastic posts on his talk page [157] [158], a sentiment that was echoed by Pinkadelica [159]. He went so far on Talk:Dawn Wells to say "I wonder how seriously to take WP:BLP/N discussions anyhow, when you're doing things like going around calling in favors in an attempt to rig the discussion." Editors also posted protests to his actions on his talk page.

Chowbok returned to the John Wayne Gacy article yesterday and once again implemented wholesale changes to the style of formatting used in violation again of WP:CITE [160] and falsely claimed in an edit summary that "No objections stated on talk page to anchored ref format, starting implementation." Again I reverted it as an undiscussed change without benefit of consensus and posted discussion on the talk page [161]. When I didn't respond fast enough to suit him on the article talk page, Chowbok posted this demand for response to my talk page. After some discussion on the subject, Chowbok withdrew his suggestion and launched a personal attack against me, making false accusations, where he said "Yeah, and basically it'll be impossible to gain consensus because of Wildhartlivie's vast army of meat puppets that she can canvass at a moment's notice. No doubt Pinkedelia and LaVidaLoca will show up should anyone else express even tentative approval for this change, or indeed anything else she doesn't like. Consider the suggestion withdrawn." An editor, Doc9871, clearly stated "I'm no meat-puppet, I can assure you. As for a "vast army of meat puppets"... what, is she Saruman? "You will taste... Man-flesh!!!" ;P". Chowbok responded and ended his comment with the personal comment "Anyway, that's all I'll say about it, I know we're supposed to be commenting on articles, not editors. Wildhartlivie, I'll let you have the last word: commence freak-out and attacks below." At that point, I posted a formal request that Chowbok withdraw his attacks here and also at his talk page here or I would bring his behavior to this board. His response to me was "I don't respond well to threats. I stand behind everything I wrote. Go ahead and report me wherever you like if it'll make you happy. I'm busy editing an encyclopedia." This is absolutely unacceptable commentary and attacks and Chowbok needs to try and understand this is not an acceptable standard for here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved to WP:WQA since this has been posted here without response or attention for nearly 10 hours. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic article title

Andrew Byrne (paedophile) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a new page - is it appropriate?? I'm not sure to be perfectly honest! _Will^dow (Talk) 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinarily inappropriate to classify people, especially an article title, by crime. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedied A7. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on the creator's talk page suggesting how to move forward if he wants to repost it. Starting with reading WP:BLP. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the title is the problem then the page can easily be moved. I don't think the speedy deletion used (CSD A7 is appropriate in this case. I've commented on the article talk page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is this guy. The existing Andrew Byrne is an 19th Century catholic priest. No comment. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfied by request, though I'm not convinced there is an encyclopedia article here (as opposed to a ghastly-true-crimes article). I have pointed the author to WP:BLP, WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E and suggested making it about the case rather than the criminal. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy who created that article says on his user page that he's 16 years old. There's a certain ick factor about that considering what Byrne did and who he targeted. Is it just me? I have no idea what, if anything, should be done about that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ick factor" isn't a reason to do anything. --Carnildo (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

TBSDY's Wikihounding of Giano

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.

---

Tbsdy, I won't repeat that I was delighted to see you back, since, sadly, it obviously doesn't gratify you in the least. :-( That being so, all I have to say is that where Giano is concerned, you seem ignorant of WP:HOUND and devoid of common sense. You post two ANI threads[162] [163] and an Mfd [164][165]), all in two days, all attacking Giano. You go around the site calling him "a nasty piece of work and a corrosive influence on wikipedia".[166] ("I'm sorry if that's considered a personal attack, but it's just true.") It's like you're trying for drama—perhaps trying to get yourself blocked, so you can claim, grotesquely, that everybody except you is "intimidated" by Giano.. ? And then today you intervene at Blenheim Palace, a page that Giano is currently working on.[167] You claim a surprising new interest in the subject, and seem determined to prevent him from working: "I think this is going to be pretty interesting, as I love learning about new things." Please read WP:HOUND, and then please stop obsessing about Giano. Your assurances that all you want is to "disengage" have taken on a hollow sound. Please stop saying you will, and start doing it. No matter how much you resent an editor, you still aren't supposed to hound and harass them. Is this principle new since your wikibreak, or something... ? Give it a rest. A long one. Please. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

The constant defense of Giano is one thing, but do we really have to take a pound of flesh from anyone who attempts to hold him accountable for his actions? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

[Sigh]. Really, this horse is dead.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed in you, Chillum. Tbsdy has been away, and seems to have been doing some forgetting; but you ought to know better than to pile on when people (yes, even people you don't like) are being hounded. As for you, Doc, I expected better than clichés from you. Take a genuine look at tbsdy's horse and you'll see it's immortal. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Please chill out, its not a big deal. Can we just move on? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please. We would have been spared all of this had not Bishonen mistakenthis page for Tbsdy's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is no need for any concerns here. I have everything under control and running very smoothly. Some things are best dealt with - my way. Just carry on with whatever it was you were all doing.  Giano  00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Master133

I'm having problems with Master133 (talk · contribs), who has been dumping links in the articles Jane Beale and Laurie Brett (both are semi-protected) and then logging out and asking on the talk pages that we "fix the link", but then removing the request once it has been signed by a bot (example). I've asked the user several times to stop doing this and to use the account on talk pages but they seem unable. The two pages were originally semi-protected to stop the user (who I don't think had an account at the time) from adding requests to the articles instead of the talk pages, but it became clear that it was the same user when another request was added to the article ([168]). I'm just not sure how to handle it and it's very frustrating. Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon review of Master133's editing history I note both that they are primarily interested in the Laurie Brett (and the character portrayed by her) article, and they have a been a contentious contributor from the start. Since they have not improved their editing manner in the year they have been active I concluded they have no intention to do so - so I have blocked them indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow

Resolved

 – Plaxicos all around! HalfShadow 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The user and administrator HalfShadow made a personal attack by calling another user "stupid" on my talk page (you can still see it). I don't think it was appropriate or mature. So, I think something needs to be done about that user.

YourBrain (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh good. My daily dose of humor. Take it away, gentlemen and ladies. HalfShadow 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

YourBrain, would you care to comment upon whether your underlying ip would geolocate to Texas, USA? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought of something...If I'm an admin because someone thinks I am, does that mean I can ban people? HalfShadow 23:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Bish, I think this deserves a nomination formalize his adminhood. Do you want to do the honors, or should I? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. YourBrain (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am asking whether you would confirm, or deny, or choose not to comment whether you are located in Texas, USA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to your query at my talkpage, I am seeing if you share the same geographical location to the two ip's that chose to comment on the same issues - and draw the remark you have complained of - on your talkpage. In short, I want to know what possibility there is that you and the ip's are the same person and that you are trolling the Admin Boards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User blocked for abusing multiple accounts, along with his sock DepressionHurts (talk · contribs). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked HalfShadow for twelve hours. Disruptive editing. Pointless valueless edits. Any admin may revert without request to me as I'm going to bed soon, but this crap needs to stop. If you add value to WP then IAR applies. If not then, well, .... Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if we're going by the diff you cited someone needs to unblock doubletime. If someone wants to articulate a real block reason then that should be provided promptly.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked per WP:PEDRO-IS-A-SANCTIMONIOUS-TWAT-WHO-NEEDS-T-TAKE-HIS-OWN-ADVICE. My block was , well, wrong. Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sheesh, what're you trying to do; scare me the other half of the way to death? HalfShadow 23:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Cladu1u

Resolved

 – Cladu1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cladu1u (talk · contribs) has a long history of uploading copyrighted images, and of creating tons of unsourced BLP articles. They don't seem to be getting the message, despite huge numbers of warnings on their Talk page. Woogee (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He's continuing to upload copyrighted images and add them to the articles. He isn't responding to my comments on his Talk page. Could somebody block him till his uploads and edits can all be reverted? He's uploading faster than I can clean up after him. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He's been indeffed now. Suggest no unblocking without a ban on uploading images, ban logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and deleted all of the images uploaded today. TNXMan 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a word for this....

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tedder

Zengar Zombolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted a 3RR warning from Tim Vickers with the charming edit summary Autistic trolls are the worst trolls. In his previous incarnation as User:Yzak Jule he was also a charming chap. I'm sure there's a shorter word than "anti-people with learning difficulties" for this behaviour. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: the remark seems to be directed at Steve Baker who does in fact describe himself as on the autism spectrum. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Appears ZZ's been blocked for two weeks. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tedder blocked him before I could put a notice about this discussion - but I think enough other folks had said stuff to him on his talk page --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I extended to indef block, based on their 'retirement' message and edit summary. Fences&Windows 05:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fences...I just noticed this post and was quite P.O.'d at the autistic comments (and I have a form of Autism)...so tired of people bad-mouthing people with Autism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Travisharlem on Mel Gibson

Resolved

 – Statement has been reworded to address BLP concerns, and revert war is hopefully over. Remaining content dispute belongs on the article talk page, so take it there. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:25, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

This editor added content with the edit summary of "drinking problems update" on February 5 that said "On February 2, 2010, Mel Gibson curses at Chicago reporter Dean Richards during an interview. The incident happened after he was questioned about his addiction to alcohol." In fact, the source said "Dean Richards, an entertainment reporter for Chicago's WGN-TV interviewed the actor (promoting his new film Edge of Darkness) via satellite on Wednesday. The exchange turned sour (around the 2:15 mark in the clip) when Richards asked the following: "Do you think the public will perceive you any differently after all that's been in the news about you?" (Gibson, 54, was arrested in 2006 for DUI -- an incident notorious for the actor's anti-semitic tirade.) "That's almost four years ago, dude," Gibson snaps after an uncomfortable silence. "I've done all the necessary mea culpas. Let's move on." Nervous, Richards then wraps up the interview. But before Gibson's satellite feed goes off, the star quips, "bye bye," muttering "a**hole" under his breath." I reverted this for several reasons: 1) He did not "curse" him, he called him an asshole; 2) It was not during an interview, it was afterward and 3) the content addition misrepresents the question asked, which was not about "addiction to alcohol" but a question about public perceptions. All in all, the content addition skewed the report to misrepresent the event entirely and in a way that violates WP:BLP. Travisharlem reverted the removal calling it "Reverting possible vandalism." I again removed it, stating "not vandalism - this is not encyclopedic content - he *curses* at a reporter? So what?" Travisharlem once again returned it, again calling it "Reverting possible vandalism." At that time, I approached the editor here, pointed out that the content was less than notable and encyclopedic and outlined how what he wrote misrepresented the content in the source. He was further warned by another editor that his actions constituted a violation of WP:3RR here. Travisharlem did not reply, although he saw the posts since he removed them from his talk page here. He instead again returned it as "reverting possible vandalism" here. At that time, I again approached this editor here, again explained how his content addition was inappropriate and misrepresented the source and violated WP:BLP and told him that if it was returned, I'd take appropriate steps. Tonight, the editor again returned the content and called it "reverting possible vandalism". It is far beyond time for this reverting to stop and this WP:BLP-violating content to cease being added, since it is not at all what the magazine article says, effectively violates WP:3RR in intent if not time frame (a period of days instead of 24 hours), and it does not appear that Travisharlem is interested in discussing this. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the incident to the article, but I've reworded it to be more accurate. These straight reverts are often not helpful. The incident did occur and is properly sourced, but the wording represented an inaccurate depiction. In such future instances, simply edit the statement to fix the problems you see, rather than reverting entirely. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:44, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You may feel that it's worth mentioning, and I disagree. I think the issue is not how it's mentioned, but that it does not need to be mentioned at all. Just because it happened and just because it's sourced, does not make it "encyclopedic" in content. The mere mention of such a minor event places undue emphasis on it, and in the overall context of Gibson's life and career it's about as trivial as the cup of coffee he was drinking during the interview. His other controversies are mentioned because they've triggered wide discussion and condemnation in the media. This is a minor event where he mutters the word "asshole" under his breath at the end of an interview. This incident is a minor event that has not been widely reported by the media and I don't see why it is of interest here. So it's not just a case of rewriting the information to make the presentation of it fit our policies. If the editor believes it should not be included at all, which is also my belief, that's a completely different issue. Having said that, the editor that keeps incorrectly using the word "vandalism" needs to read our policies on that so that at least he/she knows how to tell the difference between vandalism and a content dispute. Rossrs (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That may be true. I'm making no statement as to whether or not the incident is worth mentioning in the article. However, that should be discussed on the article's talk page. The incident made its way to ANI due to 3RR and "vandalism" summaries, which grew out of the way the original addition was handled. Now that the OP's rationale for bringing the incident here have been taken care of, the issue of whether the incident belongs in the article can be discussed on the talk page. I have no opinion one way or the other on that as of now, and it's not a discussion for ANI anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:04, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• This is a joke, right? This is a bio about Gibson, not a blog. This is such a minor event. WP:RECENTISM? Would it be remembered in 10 years? I doubt it will be remembered in 10 weeks. Or better yet, WP:UNDUE. Placing any weight on this as a significant or notable event in his life or career is ridiculous. If he'd slugged the guy and been charged with something, that would be notable. This is nothing.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone has sound capabilities on their computer to listen to a video. Rossrs stated that one cannot even hear the word "asshole" on the video. If the written story is accurate, it does not say that the question asked was about anti-semiticism, nor does it say it was about "drinking problems". This incident did not seem to me to be notable enough to include a mention, basically giving a relatively minor incident undue weight, and since it was presented in a way that violates WP:BLP, I am not inclined to return the content properly edited. It is merely a bump in the road that does not in any way add to the article or effect Gibson's notability and given that I cannot hear the clip have to wonder why it is included in the section on Alcohol Abuse, if indeed the words or subject of anti-semiticism was brought up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Mel Gibson#Feb 2 "asshole" incident. As far as ANI goes, this incident is resolved, for now. Content questions go on the article talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:25, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this isn't resolved. Actually, the reason why I brought this here was not to debate the content merits at all, but because the original content poster, Travisharlem, has continued to return this content, calling any removal of it vandalism, and returns the same WP:BLP-violating format, regardless that the problems are not addressed. He was approached about this and blew that off. This isn't the first time someone has addressed content reversion while calling it vandalism with him. See his talk page. That is the reason I brought this here, not to debate the merits of undue weight, which I do feel apply here. Travisharlem doesn't seem to care about that or wants to get it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing in the article history that any effort was made at compromise wording before. The paragraph had only been removed completely. Now that the paragraph has been restored with alternate wording, the reverting seems to have stopped for the time being, and a discussion is taking place on the talk page, I think we should see where it goes and hope that it is indeed resolved. I've warned Travisharlem about his use of the term "vandalism". Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume there will be more trouble. The incident can always be returned here if it does flair up again. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:05, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• There shouldn't be "compromise wording". This is an extremely minor incident that doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia biography. AGF isn't a suicide pact. This is a blatant WP:COATRACK and this non-incident is being given undue weight by even being mentioned.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good argument... to make on the article talk page :) Equazcion ^(talk) 05:18, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • I already did. But I think this was marked resolved a bit quick. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • All the aspects of this incident that relate to ANI have been resolved, at least for now. Your remaining complaint is about content, which doesn't belong here, and is the subject of ongoing discussion already at the article talk page. If there's something other than the content issue that you feel hasn't been adequately addressed yet, please say what it is. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:25, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

My remaining complaint is that Travisharlem continues to return the content regardless of explaining to him that removing was not vandalism and was given an explanation of why it was biased. It is about his acknowledgement of both the notice that his contribution did not reflect the source, was worded in a biased manner and he was warned by another editor that his conduct violated 3RR in spirit, if not in time frame. His pattern is not to come back within an hour to revert, so no, he hasn't done this yet. He tends to do this every day or so. This is not about article content, it is about that editor's behavior regarding the content. I didn't bring it here to complain about the addition itself, but about this editor's conduct in regard to it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if he does continue. I'll leave a note on his talk page reminding him that there's a discussion on the talk page now that he should contribute to, if he still feels inclined, rather than revert again. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:56, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

British Dyslexics spam link

OK, so I was browsing through random pages, and I noticed a spam link for British Dyslexics in the Nationalism article. Tried removing it but what puzzles me is that the link doesn't show up on the edit page! Was it an exploit by spammers to inject junk on articles unnoticed? For now I intentionally blanked the affected section, trying to root it out until some of us can come up with solutions. Also, it seems as though that the nofollow protection was also broken due to this, as I observed when I did a Google search on the spamsite. Never mind, it was a template I didn't notice; however, the nofollow protection was still broken due to this. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by sock of User:James dalton bell

See this edit. It tends to ramble, but he's talking about "Jimbo Wales losing Wikipedia to Jim Bell", which sounds like he's planning on suing. Jim Bell's socks continue to edit, no matter how often they get blocked. Woogee (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked by Tnxman307. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As the editor responsible for much of the content of the Jim Bell article let me say, though I have not reviewed them in detail, that the IPs concerns seem on the face of it legitimate and to be welcomed by any conscientious editors. As with many biographies of figures who have not been comprehensively covered in reliable sources, this article is susceptible to "verifiability not truth" problems as it is reliant on the journalistic professionalism of once-off news stories. Thirdly, whether or not the subject of a BLP has a right to respond, they ought to be heard. If one tenth the zeal was shown towards addressing concerns as with purging the project of unpersons, the encyclopaedia and its subjects would be a lot better off.  Skomorokh  21:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The concerns so far by Bell seem more in the line of WP:COI edits to make the article conform to how he sees himself and the world, whats wrong with the govt and their previous prosecution of him, and how he's gonna stop global warning, which seems to not be covered by any news sources so far. He completely misunderstands the meaning of consensus, verifiability, and a few other core principals of Wikipedia, as well as what the definition of sock and meat puppets, civility and WP:AGF. Unfortunately, as he is somewhat of an expert with techno matters, we could have a very determined Ip socker developing. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He's been repeatedly asked to discuss his edits on the article's Talk page, which he explicitly refuses to do. Woogee (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked 97.120.244.0/22 for 3 days for the disruption. –MuZemike 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@Woogee: I've archived the talk sections with a message to other users about feeding the trolls. This person has the obvious mentality of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and thus, it is a lost cause trying to discuss anything with him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I also blocked User:71.36.114.161 for 3 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• He's been given at least a couple of routes to bring accuracy issues to the community's attention, of which block evasion is not one. He has absolutely no excuse whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the appropriate pages to make rangeblock calculations easier, and from what the calculator says, the ranges appear to be 71.36.112.0/20 and 97.120.240.0/20 , both have the potential of blocking 4096 users, for the total of 8192 users. I personally think it's worth it. If there is some damage, it can easily be fixed and determined that any blocked users aren't him. He has a particular style to his writings.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive, address hopping IP

For the past several months an anonymous IP from the 117.x.x.x range has been edit-warring at Life After People: The Series. Life After People is a documentary series that makes predictions about what would happen to the world if all of the people disappeared suddenly. These predictions occur over a 100 million year timeframe and the same periods are often addressed in several episode. To "compensate" for this, a prediction timetable has been included in the article. Over time, this timetable expanded until the it reached a rather unwieldy size (68% of the article).[169] Essentially the timetable became an overly detailed, chronologically sorted plot synopsis of every episode combined into one table. Imagine chronically arranging all of the events from Lost from the 1970s until the present time and you have what has happened at Life After People: The Series. This article and Life After People are the subjects of an open merge proposal which has received no opposition. Looking to the merge, with agreement by another editor, I have split the episodes into a separate article and pruned the prediction timetable, leaving only the more globally notable and significant events, as well as some of the lesser events used to establish a timeline. This has reduced the size of the timetable by 65%. The problem that now exists is that the anonymous IP keeps reverting the table to a former version, expanding it as he/she does,[170] so that it contains absolutely every prediction made over the course of the series in considerably more detail than is necessary, for example "In Vatican City, at St. Peter's Basilica a black cats roam freely without fear of being killed as pests." Any corrections or expansions of the table by other editors are lost in the process.[171] The IP also adds a "Featured countries" section that has no encyclopaedic value. It is simply a flagcruft list of every country that has ever been mentioned in the series.[172] Together the timetable and featured countries list represents over 85% of the article. The IP does not discuss any of the changes made on the talk page and does not use edit summaries. It uses a different address for nearly every edit, even when edits are only minutes apart.[173][174] In 99 edits (as of now), 36 discrete IP addresses have been used in the 117.0.x.x and 117.1.x.x ranges.[175] The IP has not responded to any warnings on his or her talk pages. Temporary page protection has not discouraged this IP from vandalising Life After People: The Series once the protection is removed. The IP has also been active at Life After People, although far fewer edits have been made there. When Life After People: The Series is finally merged to Life After People I have no doubt that the disruptive editing will increase there. Surely, given the number of disruptive edits and the limited IP range used, a range block should be considered at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, the page could just be semi-protected to prevent IPs from editing the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely a possibility but it's really only a stopgap measure. It requires constantly going back to WP:RFPP, having to tolerate the vandalism between the time the IP decides to vandalise again and when the protection is applied, and penalising legitimate IP users while the block is in place. The editor in question uses static IP addresses originating from Vietnam.[176] That the addresses are static and yet he/she has managed to use 36 different addresses in the pool is interesting in itself. It implies that the editor must be a staff member of the ISP. The question to ask here is, what would we do if a registered user vandalised 36 times? They'd certainly be blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I would prefer an edit filter over a range block, as that way we could essentially block this (rather large) range from a single article instead of everything. The filter would be trivial to craft. Right now I don't really have an opinion on the topic of edit filter vs. protection. Both are reasonable solutions, though the edit filter is strapped for conditions lately. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A problem with another user

Resolved

Thank you again for taking the time to look over a matter i posted here.Buzzzsherman (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A problem with another user ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC) NXWave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)..has vandalized my user page, edited my words on his talkpage to make me look bad and I don't want to get banned for breaking 3RR on his edits. What should I do? The Improver (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Post-edit: How do I make cite notes work, by the way? It's not appearing at the bottom. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Improver (talk • contribs) 05:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved this here because of odd behavior i am seeing -->User contributions i think this guy might have many accounts..he seams to make accounts to spam people!! i am seeing this wrong ??? hes also deleting things he should not be like this ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are. What do you mean by spam? I have had conflicts with The Improver, I'll admit to, but I have not spammed or made multiple accounts.nxWAVE. (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok that is why i brought this here..since you deleted it in the last place..i am not sure what your doing thats y i am asking admin for advice! You have had just over 20 edits and i see this as your pattern so far.. [177] [178] [179] [180].......Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was an attempt to inflame me. I understand it was probably not a good idea, but it was a heat of the moment response. nxWAVE. (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping this would be gone by the time I came back. Darn. Well, anywya, let us not forget that deleting things is not his only wrongdoing. See my comment.The Improver (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that

• NXWave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created January 30, first edit on February 4
• The Improver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created and first edit on February 7

Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Editor not here to do anything constructive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

New vandalism account-User:Byers 27

User:Byers 27 created an account earlier and has done nothing but vandalize talk pages with it. [181], [182], [183], [184], [185] and vandalized one user page: [186]. Unless of course Will Smith is a government agent by night, then I owe him an apology. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed by —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)})

Byers 27 (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into this, I smell JI Hawkins here... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's Hawkins. Contacting filter manager; user is blocked now. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Filter adapted accordingly. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could he have made that easier? He labelled the other editor as a sock of himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't even need to look at that diff. I'm not saying what in the other diffs or in his edit history tipped me off, but I'm dead-certain this is him. I'm still waiting for a CU to run the LAST one I reported three days ago. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous disruptive user

Lately, an anonymous user has been disrupting editing in Moon (film). This user insists in questioning the mention of the translation of a Korean word seen in the film. This information had already been discussed by several editors here and its mention had been agreed on. Now this editor comes up and decides to remove the information (diff here). Following WP:BRD, I revert him and start this discussion. The editor replies, immediately reverting to his own version (diff here), somehow suggesting that the word may not be what it's said to be, first arguing "sarang" might be an acronym. I proceed to expose a screenshot of the word written in Korean alphabet, thus ruling out the acronym theory, but then the editor goes on to fabricate an argument about the film writers probably using the word referring to something else, but failing to explain how a given word in a known language could get another meaning, or what those other meanings could possibly be. The discussion continues, with the editor insisting in keeping his version of the article, reverting two more times (here and here), claiming violation of a consensus of which only him is a part. It should be noted that it's unclear why an editor that apparently has a relatively good knowledge of the rules (as seen in the talk) insists in posting and even edit warring anonymously. It should also be noted that the author has changed his IP, first using 65.41.234.70, and later 71.77.21.198. --uKER (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably be best (or at least easiest) to ask for a semi-protect of the page. HalfShadow 22:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I had thought of it, but wasn't sure if it would be appropriate. Just did it though. Thanks for the advice. --uKER (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone reads the discussion on the talk page, it is evident that no one is being disruptive. I have merely sought consensus to resolve a content dispute. The content dispute does not concern how "sarang" should be translated from Korean. The issue is whether the screenwriters intended for the use of the word "sarang" in a work of fiction refers to the Korean meaning of "love" or numerous other possibilities that can exist in fiction. I simply offered some other potential explanations, for example "sarang" could be an acronym that has nothing to do with "love"; "sarang" could refer to some future scientific project that has nothing to do with "love"; the possibilities could be endless. To arbitrarily decide that "sarang" could only refer to "love" in a work of science fiction simply because that's the way UKER sees it is utterly POV. If the Korean translation is allowed in the plot summary, then there could dozens or hundreds of other potential meanings of the word placed in the plot summary, none of which could actually relate to the film. I have repeatedly asked UKER to provide evidence that the screenwriters intended for "sarang" to refer to "love". UKER has not once responded to this issue, which in my opinion, is the core issue in the content dispute. I have never disputed the translation from the Korean word despite the implication UKER has tried to present here. My dispute is whether the screenwriters intended that meaning in the film, and UKER has completely ignored that issue. UKER has repeatedly used subterfuge to skirt the real issue. He has claimed that it is my responsibility to provide a reliable source that the screenwriters did not intend the Korean meaning of the word, when in fact WP:BURDEN clearly indicates that UKER, who wants to restore the disputed content, must provide sufficient evidence for doing so. He has argued that translation of a word from Korean to English does not require a source or consensus, when that issue is completely irrelevant to the actual dispute: Did the screenwriters intend for "sarang" to refer to "love", not what the Korean translation of the word is. UKER also does not seem to understand the consensus process. It appears to me that UKER thinks that when no consensus exists (as is the case right now because only UKER and I made comments at Talk:Moon (film)#Meaning of sarang?), the default decision should be in his favor.

My opinion is that UKER decided to begin this discussion here for three reasons: First, he realized that he could not provide a source for his interpretation of what the screenwriters intended and sought to stir up some trouble for me. Secondly, I had cautioned him that if he continued to edit war and ignore the consensus process, I might refer the matter here, so he decided to pre-empt me to give the impression that I am being disruptive. And third, I believe he hoped the page would be semi-protected so that he could then edit the article and I could not.
Two more points: First, UKER may be trying to give the impression that I am using multiple IP accounts to engage in some inappropriate behavior. I have never stated or even remotely implied that I am more than one editor, regardless of IP. My IP address changes sometimes beyond my control. Second, UKER's false accusation that I have been disruptive should be pointed out to him. Seeking consensus in a content dispute is not being disruptive; it's the way things are (and should be) done on Wikipedia. Note also that in his request for page protection (and I don't oppose full page protection), UKER gave the reason as "vandalism". Falsely accusing me of disruptive behavior and vandalism is entirely inappropriate. I also would point out that on the article's talk page, UKER has referred to cautions about not edit warring and violating consensus as "childish". That apparently seems to be his opinion of the way Wikipedia works, at least in this case.

I am simply trying to let the consensus process play itself out as it is supposed to according to Wikipedia's policies and procedures. UKER seems to prefer doing things his way rather than waiting for consensus, and to try to silence me he seems to be making false accusations about me, or at least implying such false conclusions about my edits. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

1. You're wrong on the burden. A Korean word is seen in the movie and we're providing a translation. I remind you once again that movie writers don't decide what words mean. As I said, even if the movie writers named the base after a club they liked to go to, the word still means what it means and I don't have to provide a source for that. It is you who has to provide a valid reason for having a problem with it.
2. It was you who disregarded the WP:BRD cycle. You boldly edited the article, I reverted you and started a discussion, but you dedided to have it your way and revert me back again, which was the first violation of the rules to happen in this incident.
3. There's no consensus backing you. As I showed, everyone editing the article was happy with the mention of the Korean translation (the word is written in Korean and Korean is spoken in the movie), until you show up and somehow claim consensus is on your side. Now would you care to show us who comprises that consensus please? --uKER (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

1. You're wrong on the burden. If the screenwriters did not intend for "sarang" to refer to "love", then the Korean translation does not belong in the article, just as the hundreds of other possible meanings in a fictional setting don't need to be discussed. And you wish to restore the information. Read WP:BURDEN (which I've asked you to do several times): "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
2. You also reverted me more than once. Neither of us violated BRD. Do you know what the "D" in BRD means? I have discussed, and discussed, and discussed. Do you think that because you started the discussion that I am automatically guilty of violating BRD? You really seem to have a very unusual interpretation of several policies, including BRD, consensus, and vandalism. I am simply seeking consensus. You're the one refusing to address the fundamental dispute here: Did the screenwriters intend for "sarang" to refer to "love". This is never indicated in the film, and you have repeatedly refused to even address the question, much less provide evidence for it.
3. Nor is there a consensus backing your position. You have no idea what "everyone editing the article" thought of what "sarang" should mean. Just because a hundred other editors of the article didn't remove it doesn't mean they support you. They may have had no opinion whatsoever. And please stop making false statements about me. I have NEVER "claimed consensus" on my side. I have repeatedly said there is no consensus. I even said it immediately prior to your comment above. You apparently do not read my comments, or you don't understand them, or you don't want to understand them (I have no idea which it is).

I also demand an answer from you as to why you think you could accuse me of disruptive behavior and vandalism. How is seeking consensus and discussing on a talk page disruptive behavior and vandalism? And please don't deny it. "Disruptive user" is the heading of this section, and you used "vandalism" in the request for page protection. Please defend these accusations. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone may have finally done UKER's research for him. See Talk:Moon (film)#Huffington Post interview. If the information is cited and worded properly, I will not have any problem with adding the sourced information. But I still insist that someone should address UKER's false accusations of disruptive editing and vandalism. And I say that not just for my benefit; if he treats all contents disputes with false accusations, someone needs to put a stop to it. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

require admin to close AfD

Resolved

 – AfD closed as delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MondayMEDIA has gone over 7 days. without contacting any specific admin, can an admin please close this. thanks LibStar (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Most AfD's run for at least seven days, however, there are times when the number of participants at the end of the standard week long AfD is not adequate to judge consensus; in this case, the editor User:Tim Song extended the time limit to allow more users to chime in. Right now, there appears to be a general consensus to delete the article as failing to meet WP:CORP. I wouldn't expect the article to last much longer. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Benigno Aquino III.

This page was formerly at Noynoy Aquino. Then Abfall-Reiniger moved it to the very badly named Benigno Aquino III. Yes, with the period at the end, since apparently, this can't be moved to Benigno Aquino III. I reverted the move earlier this week, and there was an ongoing discussion at the talk page of the article. Then Abfall-Reiniger moved it back to the very badly named current article title with the period at the end.

I'm asking for an admin to move it back either to Noynoy Aquino or Benigno Aquino III without the period at the end to get rid of the nasty period, then let the discussion run its course before it is permanently moved to any article name that will be decided upon. –Howard the Duck 11:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that already moved back to Noynoy? Or am I dreaming? -- Abfall-Reiniger (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The situation is even more screwed up, it seems. The talk page is at Talk:Benigno Aquino III. with the period at the end. An admin should move it back to Noynoy or Benigno w/o the period at the end, just make it the same with article name. –Howard the Duck 11:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Both the article and the talk page are now back together at Noynoy Aquino and Talk:Noynoy Aquino. The redirects at Benigno Aquino III. and Talk:Benigno Aquino III. have been deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was terrified when I saw that period at the end, and even more so when the article and its talk page didn't have the same title. –Howard the Duck 11:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bounty board template and article ownership

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.

---

Hi, it seems that the bounty board template is being removed for some reason from Talk:Blenheim Palace. Labattblueboy has offered a bounty of $50 to the WMF if the article can become an FA by 11 July 2010. I thought it was standard practice to allow this sort of template? Unitanode keeps removing it, and actually at one point removed the {{ArticleHistory}} template - see this diff. Jeni has reverted the removal, and so have I, but he keeps taking it off.

Is there something I'm missing here? The edit summary is that the templates clutter up the talk page, but that sounds a bit odd to me. I'm not going to revert again, but it does look like there is some vandalism going on here... especially as the ArticleHistory template was removed at one point also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I messaged Unitanode directly, he now says the first template removal was a mistake. However, it seems a bit disruptive and out of order to remove the bounty notice. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh stop. I explained at that talkpage that the "bounty" in this case was POINT-y, cluttered the talkpage, and seemed self-aggrandizing. I also explained that the removal of the FAC template was purely accidental. You should think two, three, or four times before implying that an experienced editor has vandalized, as you clearly did with your "it does look like there's some vandalism going on here" statement. You've been harassing and baiting Giano for days, and now you've turned your sights on me. Why drag this to ANI otherwise? I'm sick of this, and I'd ask someone to please call off Tbdsy. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That does not seem that way to me. The editor is genuinely interested in fixing the article. I don't believe there is anything in Labattblueboy's edit history that shows he is a disruptive editor or that he has ever been prone to self-aggrandizement, nor do I see what way he is disrupting anything to make a point. Could you explain further? Regardless of what you think about my efforts to edit that article, I fail to see what that has to do with the bounty that Labattblueboy posted.

For the record, I have not been baiting Giano. Giano noted on another article that their was an edit war on the article in question, when I looked I didn't see a war but an ongoing discussion. When I started reading the article and the talk page, I became interested in the topic - certainly the politics of the building of the palace was fascinating. This could have something to do with the prose that is being used in the article. Anyway, it interested me and I'm always looking for a challenge so I have posted some comments on the talk page as to some of the issues that I see, and I've expressed my interest in doing some research about the topic so I can improve the article. Maybe I can get it to FA status, who knows? I'd like to try. Anyway, I don't believe I'm baiting Giano at all. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You knew damn well that weighing in against Giano in a discussion would at least be perceived by him as hounding him from page to page. Yet you did it anyway. The fact that you leave yourself plausible deniability makes it worse, in my view, and not better. As I said, someone please call of Tbdsy. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano noted the edit war in a conversation on a totally unrelated talk page in a thread I was actively involved in. He asked for admin input, and I am an admin so I reviewed the article and didn't see anything amiss. However, while I was trying to work out what the issue was, I became interested in the article. I don't believe this is hounding at all - I think this was covered previously on ANI and Giano archived the discussion himself, with a note that he doesn't believe that there is any action that needs taking on this matter.

Anyhow, back to the issue at hand. You have accused another editor - Labattblueboy - of self-aggrandizement and disruptive editing. That's a pretty serious charge - could you explain why you believe this? So far the comments have been directed at me, but I never added that bounty. In fact, when that bounty was added I didn't even know about the article! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have informed Labattblueboy that he is being discussed on this thread. Some fairly serious accusations have just been levelled at him, and I find it extraordinary that they have been made as there is nothing in that editors history that shows he would do any of the things he's been accused of, so I think he has the right to know about what is being said about him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something but why is this here? Couldn't it have been discussed on you guys' talk pages? Equazcion ^(talk) 14:11, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which was exactly my point. Tbdsy runs to ANI at the slightest notion. He's been harassing and baiting first Giano, and now me, for days. I for one am tired as hell of dealing with it. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's also a serious charge - I've not been harassing you. The first time I sent you a talk page message was when you posted a talk page message to me, telling me off about moving a thread on Wikipedia:Incivility blocks, to which I responded. Surely you are not saying that I am harassing you when you messaged me?!? That seems a bit odd; you messaged me, I didn't message you! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh stop with your feigned "that's a serious charge" outrage. I warned you that moving other people's comments on a talkpage was out of line. At which point, you trained your sights on me. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You gave me a warning, and you now think that I'm harassing you because I responded? How is that harassment? Anyway, that's really beside the point. I never added that bounty template, indeed I'd never bumped into Labattblueboy before this time. Neither of us knew about each other's existence, so the bounty is not even related to me.

Your stated reasons for removing the template now are:

1. It "clutters" the talk page. I don't see how that can be, that's a perfectly acceptable template for talk page headers.
2. The editor who added it is self-aggrandizing and was trying to disrupt the article to make a point. I also don't see any evidence that this is the case, certainly the editor's reputation and edit history seems fairly spotless to me. It seems unlikely that this is the reason he added the template.

Given all these things, can you explain further why you believe that either of the reasons you have given are acceptable or reasonable? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Because removing the template is disruptive, and myself and Jeni readded it however Unitanode is constantly removing it. My understanding is that if someone posts a bounty, then a template noting this can be added to the talk page. Is there something I have missed? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to have missed the existence of talk pages. If someone's being disruptive, the first thing you do is talk to them about it. You don't come to ANI first. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:22, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I didn't. The reason you can't see the message on his talk page is because he's blanked it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't notice that. That is a different story. Unitanode, you need to discuss disputed edits somewhere. Maybe this can be continued on Talk:Blenheim_Palace now? Equazcion ^(talk) 14:28, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I blanked it after he dragged me to ANI again. And there is discussion about it happening at the article talkpage. Tbsdy simply drags things here when he's trying to get people who disagree with him in trouble. It has to stop. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. You are correct, there is a discussion on that talk page that I had already initiated. Your first removal of the template was at 11:46AM, however the thread was already there at this time. Your first comment on that thread was after you removed the template twice (here and here). Indeed, when I reverted you my own edit summary reads "There is a discussion thread here about why this is being removed. Perhaps you could comment there?". It is only after I used that summary that you added a note to the thread, with the edit summary "inane bounty".

In other words, you removed the template before you saw the discussion. I know about the discussion on the talk page, because I was the one who initiated it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what there is to discuss though. Why do we need to discuss why a bounty template is added to an article talk page? I don't think the excuse that it "clutters" the talk page really cuts the mustard. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no, it doesn't; but let's not oversimplify. "clutter" wasn't his only stated reason for removing the template. He though the editor who posted it was trying to make a point, too. Without knowing about the history of the situation I can't say if he's right, but it does appear to warrant some discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:35, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Sure, let's discuss this. The editor who added the template is Labattblueboy, who basically got into a discussion with Giano. Giano told him that he wouldn't have any ability to edit the article, so the editor took this as a challenge and added the bounty. So there are two questions to be answered here:

1. How is adding that bounty in any way disrupting the editing of that article?
2. What possible motive could the editor have for giving the WMF money to improve the article. It seems like he was challenged and that challenge was accepted!

That editor has also been accused of self-aggrandizement, however the one doing the self-aggrandizement was Giano who basically baited him with taunts and a somewhat arrogant attitude, which was that the editor would have no way of editing the article. As it so turns out, he was so belittled and intimidated that he has now withdrawn from the article. If you don't believe me, have a good read of the talk page.

So I would appreciate it if someone could answer these things, because I don't think its fair that another editor can make slurs against another editor like this, especially when that editor is none of the things they are being accused of. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Can we take this to the talkpage please? Tbsdy is misusing this forum. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, take it to the article talk page. I'm gonna archive this. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:47, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • This is not resolved. I'm afraid that there is disruptive editing going on here, I would like to know why this is occuring and I would like some assurance from the editor that they will desist from this. It is not appropriate to archive this thread at this point in time. The talk page of that article is also not an appropriate forum to find out why another editor is slurring another editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The only person "disrupting" here is you, Tbsdy, by starting pointless ANI threads when you should be making your case at the talkpage. At some point, you're probably going to get yourself blocked for disruption and harassment. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
        • So let me get this straight. I am allegedly the only person who is being disruptive around this area and article. The bounty was offered by another editor who did not even know of my existence till I started adding comments to the talk page of Blenheim Palace. You have specifically accused them of violating WP:POINT, however you are now saying that I am the only disruptive editor on this article. Which is it please? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• A couple of evenings ago,having had my attention drawn to the page by tag teaming insertion fo an info box - against concencus) I announced I was about to commence a re-write of this page, I began it in mainspace: in the space of a few minutes I was constantly reverted by Labattblueboy (the offerer of this bounty) and then the "inuse tag" I had put on to prevent conflicts was repeatedly removed while I was in mid-edit. The resasons for the reversion given were that I was not following the MOS - a manual I know inside out and back to front. I then decided it would be prudent to follow my usual and undisputed practice or writing in user space. Now, it appears that others who have hitherto shown no interest in the subject too wish to re-write it, and I am challenged as a bet (I have declined) to make it a FA by a certain date - hence the "bounty thing" - I will work at my own pace. As the page has had no major alterations in the last 5 years (when I last wrote it) and one of those wishing to re-write is Ta-Bu-Sh-Da-Yu with who I have recently been in dispute, I consider this sudden interest to be nothing more than trolling - as is this bounty thing. Everyone knows that Ta-Bu has no interest in the subject so I will continue the re-write in user space, away from conflict, where most of my edits have always taken place and paste the new version in, when it is finished in my time!  Giano  15:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not really assuming good faith. I think that it's unreasonable for you to be the sole editor of that article when others also wish to make contributions. I am genuinely interested in this article, and in fact next weekend (for that is the time it will have to be now) I will be doing some research at the library using a number of sources that are listed on that article. You have already expressed an unwillingness to collaborate with me (see Talk:Blenheim Palace#In reply to your kind offer for us to work together and merge our work), in fact I believe that you categorically informed me that if I did work on the article I would be blocked for vandalism, and that you will have no part in my changes and you will overwrite my edits as you see fit. I see this as unreasonable.

With regards to the bounty, I don't see it as unreasonable to offer one. The offer, so far as I'm aware, is still open to any who wish to participate in it. The editor who offered it seemed quite enthusiastic to get the article to FA status, or at least make a good attempt at it. That editor has already provided two sources to the talk page, but due to feeling intimidated by various comments, made primarily by yourself, has now withdrawn from the article and the article talk page. You have been taunting them on their user talk page and on that article talk page. The evidence of taunting them on their talk page after they withdrew from the article is here, and the taunts made on the talk page of the article can be found here (edit summary is "Oh, I think you are far too modest - how can you say "limiting myself to a support function" that sounds like some form of surgical undergarment for a man with a strangulated testicle").

So I don't think it right for you to say that I'm trolling or baiting you, or make the sort of accusations you are making against that other editor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ta-Bu you are enough to try the patience of a saint and have done over the last few days. No one on Wikipedia would seriously expect me to entertain an architectural collaboration with you - Wetman, JC, Dr Kienan and one or two others - possibly I have done several very successful architectural collaborations - 3 of then are FAs - but with you? not in a month of Sundays. You know nothing of the subject, your recent comments show that you don't even understand the fundamentals of the period or style. Your persistant trolling is now getting beyond a joke. Perhaps we should ignore you, but others less intune with the situation may find you plausible - you are not.  Giano  15:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Giano. I have specifically not made any insulting remarks against you, nor have I tried to stop you from editing. I'm unsure why I would try the patience of a saint. However, to address your concerns - as I have stated, I am going to do some research on this article, and I will try to contribute what I can. I make no claims to be an expert, however I do understand that you are making such claims and you are prejudging me as being unable to add to the article in any way. You yourself believe yourself to be an expert, and therefore you feel that it is beneath you to allow any edits on the article by myself.

Unfortunately, this is an argument to authority, with yourself as the authority. It seems to me that you are laying claim to this article as your very own and that you will not allow anyone else to edit it, or at least you will only be allowing a select few to contribute to the article. Certainly you have just now stated that you wish to exclude me from the article. This is against the article ownership policy. I would appreciate it if you would desist from making such claims, and from forbidding myself or anyone else from articles you are involved in. I realise that you edit in your own article space, and in fact I have done this same thing when I wrote about USA PATRIOT Act. However, if someone else edits the main article, then I'm afraid that you will need to work out how to incorporate your changes with their own, whether by discussion or modification of your own article text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You say you have not insulted me: and I should be happy to work with you. You go around the site calling me "a nasty piece of work and a corrosive influence on wikipedia".[187]. You are making a compete idiot of yourself. Ta-Bu I am writing the page, and when I have finished I shall paste it in. what you do then is up to you, but stupid and silly edits will be removed. Sensible one will be allowed to remain. Sorry, you don't like it, but that's the way it is. I am currently working on a large 3D plan of the place and really don't have timne for your stupidity. If you are so interested in the subject why not try Chateau de Versailles - it also needs re-writing, it's the same era, the same style and has far more reference books written on it. Now run along and play with that page.  Giano  15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, and that was out of line and uncalled for. I categorically and unreservedly apologise for this statement. Are you willing to abide by the article ownership policy? Will you allow me to edit the article without fear that you will revert out any contributions either myself or others make to the article without at least an attempt to discuss the changes being made? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy

Would someone please rein Tbsdy in? He's bringing unactionable complaints here, harassing Giano and myself, and looking anywhere he can find for things to add to his "complaint". This has to be stopped. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You have now readded the template, albeit in a hidden box. You have made baseless accusations another editor of violating WP:POINT. You have accused me of baiting and harassing you, when nothing of the sort has occured and in fact you gave me a warning, not the other way around. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tbsdy, you're an administrator. You should be used to people accusing you of things. You shouldn't be insisting such a thing belongs at ANI. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:54, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I was not the one who was primarily being accused of disruption. That other editor is not an administrator. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Both of you, please disengage. Tbsdy, I can understand from your post to Jehochman's talk page why Giano would not want to work with you. Giano, I think you are being a bit unreasonable with your removal of the Bounty Board template, but that is really a minor matter and does not affect anything. Technically, Tbsdy, you have a right to work on the article, but I would highly encourage you to pick another article to work on. There's no deadline for working on content, and there is certainly a wide variety of things to work on. NW (Talk) 15:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely, I apologise for this comment. I hope to work with Giano in the future in a more collegial manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I object to the bounty template, because the person offering the bounty, is the very one who was preventing me from trying to improve the page! Is it fair to advertise for another editor knowing that another editor is already working on the page to raise its standard? It's just trolling - nothing more.  Giano  16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Giano, I don't see any evidence that the editor who offered the bounty was trolling in any way whatsoever. In fact, as you were editing in your own user space on an old revision, I am not sure how they prevented you from working. It would be best to cease making these sort of accusations, as I have noticed that you have made them frequently against those you disagree with. Casting aspersions against their character is not helpful, and is in fact a personal attack, which is also against policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Your constant lying is becoming sickening. Just check the history of the main Blenheim Palace page to see your friend conflicting me, removing in use templates and generally showing how he knew nothing of the MOS and trying to foce an info box - without talk page discussion - now deemed against concencus. Now FGS shut up!  Giano  16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
        • What does FGS stand for? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, it's a huge encyclopaedia, try to find any of the tens of thousands of articles Giano isn't working on and improve them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already stated that I wish to edit this article. I have not caused any disruption, nor have I insulted anyone in the process of editing the article. I have discussed all and any proposed changes before I have made them, and I have made a good faith effort to follow consensus on issues to do with the article. I will be researching the article and will try to improve it. None of these things should be considered a bad thing. Giano has piqued my interest in the article, so that is the article that I would like to try to improve. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, think about it. There are thousands of other architecture articles on the encyclopedia. You know that there will be drama working with Giano. You two could probably get two FAs working independently, on just as interesting topics, in the time that it would take to get this one article to GA working together. NW (Talk) 16:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to put the point too finely, but so far all of my edits and suggestions have been constructive. Is there any specific evidence that I am preventing Giano from working on the article in an appropriate manner, within the site guidelines and policies? Have I ever made any specific insulting or derogatory comments about Giano on that article talk page, or have I ever implied that I will prevent him from incorporating his changes? Furthermore, as the article in Giano's space is evolving, will I have the ability to make comments on structure and stylistic issues on that user space page? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people don't work together well with certain other people. I think this might be true for Giano and yourself. There is no need to work on an article that you know will cause conflict, even if it will cause conflict unreasonably. NW (Talk) 16:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if you found another article to work on. When people work on projects in their user space, it's for a reason. Seraphim♥ 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)First, NEVER change my comments in a talk thread again - even for a simple typo. It is misleading and dishonest. You need to reconsider your approach to changing other's indents too. I made the suggestion because I thought you would be interested in reducing unecessary drama, but clearly you would rather wind Giano up than give him a bit of space. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, though I think you are going a little overboard here. Giano's indents, incidentally, make it look like others are responding to different comments. It also wrecked the bullet form I used, I rather think this a very minor issue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

close this

This thread has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had a long time ago. It's now just a self-fueled drama machine. The template removal that was originally the cause of the report has been dealt with and a compromise reached. If someone wanted to close and archive this, I wouldn't object. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:21, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problems. Go ahead. I do wish that Giano would stop making personal attacks, but I understand he is allowed to. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As are you, for calling someone absurd when they try to help you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't let this go. You accused me of impropriety when I made a very small fix to a rather obvious spelling error you made (it was a typo), and you then lectured me about changing indents to make threads more clear, which is specifically allowed under WP:TPO. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know full well, what I said to you about indentation is basically what TPO says. Restrict the edit to the format fix. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You have accused me of dishonesty, which has also been an allegation Giano has made. This is rude and an unfair disparagement. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As we are already discussing this on your talk page and on my talk page, can we stop with the comments here? DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there is much more to discuss, do you? You accused me of dishonest editing because I corrected an obvious typo in "eucyclopedia", and now you are lecturing me about talk page conventions. Please, rearchive this thread. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Massive new page creation

User "Nameless User" has been creating a lot (at least 200, probably more) articles over the past 24 hours. The vast majority (I don't now of any that aren't) are stubs. They all have some formatting issues (including date linking) and I don't see any indication that this editor is going to expand or elaborate on them. I've tried to communicate with the editor but have receive no response, despite continuing new pages having been created, including right now. I'm unsure how to proceed. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I took at some of the most recent edits and the ones about the Lebanese Premier League could be nominated for deletion per WP:N, also no references and the information looks copied from another source (so possible WP:COPYVIO). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas? Mass AfD? Wait a while? Or prod each one? I'd like a response from the creator but that appears unlikely (or perhaps it's a bot). Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD is probably most productive here. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it humanly possible to create 21 articles in four minutes, as he did between 8:53 12 February and 8:57? It seems to me quite likely we are dealing with an unauthorized bot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They're all cookie cutter articles. Copy and paste works wonders with multiple tabs. MER-C 12:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible. Looking at the edit history, there does seem to be a bit of clumping: 6 articles created at 10:16; 7 articles created at 10:06; etc. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a huge concern though? While they aren't exactly what I'd call great stubs, is this against policy in any way? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the bot-spam on his talk page for creating unreferenced BLPs...currently a serious and heated issue around here...yea, I'd say this is a problem. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The same user created most of the articles linked from Template:The Football League Seasons, Template:Primera División Argentina Seasons, Template:Eredivisie seasons, Template:Primera División Argentina Seasons, same for leagues from Armenia, Albania, Italy, Austria, Belbium, Azebaijan... the list goes on. The only difference is that these later ones have less content - both at their current state and at creation - and are not formatted as well.

This may be because "football-speaking" they are not the most popular countries in the world, but we should be careful of systemic bias before any mass deletion takes place. As for the unreferenced BLPs, User:Rettetast raised that issue on their talk page when they mass produced Japanese international footballer articles back in January and the user fairly promptly added references, so the user least appears responsive to comment.--ClubOranje^T 20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It's relatively easy to produce cookie cutter soccer player articles. I've seen a lot of these. It's also easy to transform the data from an external database in Wikipedia infobox format. I would not be surprised if some script-assistance is used. Unless WP:ATHLETE is changed, which entitles all professional soccer players to an article, we're stuck with all these stubs, which usually have only a large infobox that in itself is somewhat informative. Coverage almost always exists for these guys in the sports press. The issue at hand here seems different though. All these are articles like Meistaradeildin 1966, created from the same source; it would have been wiser to create just one article. It's obvious these are copypasta, no script is needed to produce something like this. I don't know if soccer seasons are considered notable in general, but presumably extended coverage exist in the sports press about an entire season. Pcap ping 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby disruption

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

---

This is not going to happen. Closing it now. Horologium (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The climate change articles are a mess because of scibaby vandalism. Since scibaby is against AGW, I propose that all editors against AGW be blocked until it's proven that they aren't scibaby. Their attacks have resulted in User:William M. Connolley being prevented from stopping the lies being spread. This is too important to let a vandal disrupt. -- 166.135.119.155 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're proposing proving a negative (that someone has to prove they are not Scibaby). I'm also reminded of something about babies and bathwater. TNXMan 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If we weren't talking about baby Hitler. Has any of those characters added anything good to those articles? This is a classic WP:IAR proposal for dealing with a long-term vandal. -- 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We already have a filter that attempts to track down scibaby's edits. Many users (including myself) monitor that filter and report as appropriate. I don't think anything more is necessary, and most certainly we shouldn't block every user that happens to go against AGW just because they had an opinion. That's more than WP:BITE, that's more like WP:TEARHEADOFF. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea on the essay though! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the climate change enforcement page. Nobody cares about the filter, the admins know that scibaby is against AGW so any new editors against AGW is likely scibaby. Who else but a troll like him would doubt the science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.238.143 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The same troll who's calling for the presumption of guilt before innocence and advocating shooting users who may dislike AGW but are not Scibaby first, and NOT asking questions later. My guess is that you have an ulterior motive here, and it doesn't involve dealing with Scibaby. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE should be your concern. I said that the editors can be unblocked if they aren't here vandalizing. It's not eliminating the competition. It's just realizing this isn't a suicide pact. -- 32.175.35.20 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, my friend, you would in effect be driving off good editors who aren't acting like Scibaby because they make one mistake that is interpreted as a Scibaby hallmark. It *is* eliminating the competition and biting the innocent newcomers to boot. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum, I monitor that filter on a regular basis. I'm sure there's others that do as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder though if a checkuser could comment on the possibility of Baby Hitler making edits here.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, if anyone feels like lending a hand at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement or taking a gander at TS's list of recent changes related to articles under climate change probation, it would be greatly appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

are you saying I should post it there? I think you're right, those admins would be much more receptive at stopping the vandalism. -- 32.175.137.149 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have credible evidence that an account is being controlled by Scibaby, please post to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby; skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is one of the hallmarks of that particular sockmaster, but is not in itself reason to bring an accusation. If you have a suggestion for a better way to manage the disruption than the current method of scanning the recent contributions and applying Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore as indicated, that would be very welcome at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Please do keep in mind, though, that that is a public page; if you have any ideas that might be twisted by a sockmaster in the service of disruption, please feel free to email me or one of the people active at the sockpuppet investigations page. You might also want to consider the benefits of creating an account. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that this could be an agent provocateur who is trying to make the mainstream editors look bad by making this absurd proposal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Topic ban if possible

Unresolved

 – Re-opening for more comment Franamax (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If possible ..we have tried to talk to her..but my guess is young and just wont wait or listen -->User:Caro 08 ..Edit Counter ..contributions ..User talk:Caro 08.... Olympic games starting and i would guess hug hit count for the article Canada history.. Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you sum up what exactly the problem is? We're not going to go searching through contribs for you. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:47, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ok she keeps adding lots of photos to the Canada article --> [188] We have asked her to stop many time but she just wont!! see here -->Talk:Canada#Images and User talk:Caro 08...she will not stop see ->Canada page history three of us are about to revert for the third time in 3 hours let alone the past few days...Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have formed an intention to block on this, repeated reinsertion of a group of images against consensus on a high-profile article. Topic ban will be fine too. (Will inform the user directly just now) Franamax (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching her edits, and can't figure out exactly what she's doing now. She's placing and removing large chunks of code. She needs to come here and explain what she's doing and why she isn't listening to anyone, or else yeah, she should probably be blocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:24, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The long diffs where nothing at all seemed to change were confusing, yes. When are those MediaWiki dudes gonna get the software finished? :) Franamax (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Caro 08 has been blocked for 72 hours by User:Canterbury Tail. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:46, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I blocked them for blatant 3RR violation, despite them having been warned and blocked for it before, and reverting on no less than four occasions in the last 24 hours. However saying that, I wonder if this user may just benefit from some talk on discussion pages, in which case feel free to unblock if they seem responsive to talk. Canterbury Tail talk 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a big leap and unblocked the user based on a short comment promising better behaviour. Only time will tell if I was wrong to do so, but usually it doesn't take a whole lot of time to find out... Franamax (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine with me. Lets see how it goes. Canterbury Tail talk 04:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long at all! :) They went back to the same behaviour so I've reinstated the three-day block. Oh well, it was worth a try. Franamax (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And now the user is changing other users comments in an attempt to show that their edits are acceptable. I have a feeling this one may be a lost cause. Canterbury Tail talk 20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of an indef, based on this. Very much not cool. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:59, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking indef now too, ballot-box stuffing [189] [190] doesn't go down well with me. I unblocked (in silly 'ol good faith, like everyone who's tried to help this editor) on the condition that they get approval for their proposed edit. I checked in the morning and they didn't have it, then in the space of my two coffees consensus magically appeared! Looking through article history of Canada, their edits also seem to be removing big chunks of text in random places. The choices would be keep the current 3-day tariff, extend to two weeks for the talk-page vandalism, or indef block. I'm wondering if there's a maturity issue here and reviewing their whole history, skill-and-ability is rather questionable too. Mostly I wouldn't necessarily trust their editing on articles just now, and neither talk pages. Thanks to Jeff3000 for the spot of the talk-page vandalism! Franamax (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned about skill/ability. That's a common annoyance that we don't usually block for, except in the most extreme circumstances. Malice of forethought, though, is another deal entirely. As I said on her tak page, this isn't the kind of thing that a block should simply expire for, even after a relatively long period. She should need to explain herself and provide assurances before she can edit again, hence my indef suggestion. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:51, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yeah for sure, fixing other people's stuff is part of editing. But you've looked at the diff's on Canada, how well did you piece together what's going on? If you go down a long way, there are paragraphs missing. Either they have some weird browser setting that injects whitespace at paragraph breaks that confuses the diff parser or they are very skilled indeed. How can you help someone when you can't even review their diffs? Either way, article damage seems to be happening. Franamax (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside View?

Per a report made here I warned both users, as they have both been involved in an Edit War at Adi_Da. It appears that Tao2911 has tried to "own" the article in an essence. He has since replied on my talk page to maintain his innocence. Can someone please either tell me if I am wrong and he hasn't done anything wrong, or confirm that he is in fact in the wrong and let him know. IMO he is edit warring, and either the article needs to be protected, or both users edit warring need to be blocked. Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If at all possible, it is certainly okay with me if all comments are made on my talk page, to centralize the discussion and a link, once resolved, can be made here. If this isn't okay, I understand, just a suggestion. Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One simply has to look in the "History" to see who owns this article. I offered my comments on your talk page, although I am not sure how "outside" my view is, given that I am an editor of this page. But thought I'd say something anyways.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I greatly disagree with this characterization, and find the tone of this statement untoward. I did not say I 'haven't done anything wrong." I explained the situation from my standpoint. I am not 'wrong' in the matter of reverting David dStarr's edits, because that is not what I have done. I changed some of his edits to more suitable versions, left some of his edits alone, and made edits of my own in passages to address his concerns. I did not once hit the 'undo' button - as he did 5 or 6 times just tonight, and not for the first time, without explanation in talk or addressing my stated concerns in talk or edit tabs. Again, the tone of this reviewer is not wholly reasonable, balanced, or fair.Tao2911 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with Tao2911's account above. I apologize for my part in the edit war, I only did it as a last resort. A week ago I tried to do some NPOV edits to the Adi Da page and was reverted by Tao2911 and accused of vandalism [[191]]. So I didn't edit war with him and spent the week on the talk page. During that time I went over in detail my concerns, and I endured many uncivil remarks and a wall of text from Tao2911 with no resolution. Meanwhile, Tao2911 continues to edit the page making over 130 edits [[192]]. So today I tried to add balance with well sourced material to one paragraph and added 2 inline warnings for POV, and included discussion, which the other editors agreed with [[193]], but still I am reverted again. Out of desperation I undid those reversions. I warned Tao 2911 on his talk page and reported to 3rr. After a week of trying, I have yet to be able to edit at this page. Relevant well sourced POV's are being kept out of the article and I am concerned about the bias that this creates. David Starr 1 (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are both at fault here. For instance, take the following edit - the text "public and group sex, the making of pornographic movies and other intensified sexual practices" (which is referenced) has been changed to "experimentation". That's not neutral, that's a whitewash. However, the text "Drug and alcohol use were often encouraged" has been changed to "Drug and alcohol use were often used", now so long as this is backed by the source that seems like a reasonable change, as is the addition to the reasoning behind the acts by Adi Da.

Certainly Tao2911 is warned not to use an edit summary that reads "reverted changes - edits retaliatory and disputed. Vandalism. See talk." There was absolutely no need for this in the edit summary, and indeed that is a categorical misuse and not conducive to harmonious editing. Don't do that again please, that is not acceptable. I also don't think it's appropriate to remove the {{who}} tag without noting things like who critics are, even if they are in the reference material as this is not neutral. You must note who it was that made the criticism - I'm assuming this is in the sources cited so I would suggest that you mention who they were, or if the source itself is vague then say something like "such and such a source says that there were many critics of Adi Da".

This is definitely a content issue, however, and so I would suggest hashing it out further on the talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. FYI I only removed detail about sexual events because balancing detail about what same source said about spiritual happenings during that time are being removed. [[194]] In my opinion, without the full picture of what the source said, it's a black-wash. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Major(?) mess-up of/in the references in Psychopathy.

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

---

The problem in the Psychopathy article, has persisted all the time since November 2009.

• In the revision dated 2009-11-10 21:50 I can not see any of this problem.
• In the revision dated 2009-11-10 21:54 it seems (on the surface of it) as if a big part of the article body, has been pasted into reference No.77.
• In the revision dated 2009-11-10 22:00 the problem seems (on the surface of it) to have moved to reference No.14.
• In the current revision of Psychopathy#References at least until 2010-02-13 17:00 (UTC) it appears to be in reference No.3.

(It may not have any connection at all, to the problem, but I have also noted that at some time just before the problems started, then someone removed the {{reflist}} and promised to put it back later. The excuse was something like that without the long reflist, for a while, then the editing would be easier.)

I realize that the Psychopathy article might be a nice "Honeypot (computing)" and therefore should only be semi-protected, but still It would have been nice to, in addition, have a fully protected "authorized" version too.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the problems, which were caused by bad "cite pmid" templates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

A topic ban not on the admin noticeboard

on WP:AN Jack Merridew 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I was wondering whether the following topic ban proposal for myself should be conducted here? And if not, where should it be announced so that an appropriate cross section of the community gets to comment? Also, who will be the admins who administer this ban? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good lord, Tb! It's an extremely narrow article/interaction ban, not a "topic" ban. Must you drag every little thing to friggin' ANI?!? Scottaka UnitAnode 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not normally done on article talk pages. You haven't formally notified me, nor have you informed the wider community this is occuring. This seems rather extraordinary - has this ever been done before? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Talk about LAWYERing, the above is it. You were actively editing the page where I proposed it! There was no possible way that you could have not noticed it, so there was no COMMONSENSE reason to drop a notice on your talkpage. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I would still like to know how long the discussion will last, and where you are going to inform others that it is occuring. It seems to me that it's not appropriate on a talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been suggested that the ban discussion be taken to WP:AN. I have a feeling that Tb has at least one good point: That the ban proposal might not be taken seriously or enacted if it's on an article talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:35, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Would someone please close this? It's just more drama mongering, and there's nothing actionable even presented here. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussions on Wikipedia are not time-limited, they go on until a consensus is reached or they grind to a halt. As for which admins would administer a topic-ban, I believe normal practice is that any admin may enforce such a ban DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So this could go on for quite a long while, huh? So what about my other question. It's normal practice to advertise these sort of things where the wider community can comment. I'm happy to go with a decision, but only if there is some form of due process. You'll have to forgive me if I feel that there is a general feeling of lynching in the air. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do due process, never has, please don't blame me for that, it was decided long before I started editing here. DuncanHill (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It'll be advertised at ANI and AN. Is that good enough? If you have other suggestions for advertising locations, please state them. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:43, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, that was what I was just trying to type out when I got an edit conflict. That's what I'm asking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking you, Tb, where else you want the discussion advertised, since this seems to be a concern for you. Let us know where you'd like the discussion advertised. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:45, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I rather think that you are hijacking my question. Has an article ban ever been done on a particular article talk page before? What are the norms for such a thing, or are we starting a precedent? Sorry, I know that all sounds very wikilawyerish, but given that you want to ban me from the article and it was decided that ANI was such a drama pit, it rather seems to me that the proposal was done in such an area as to give those who wish to ban me maximum opportunity to do so. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So the question of where it'll be advertised was disingenuous. You didn't want to discuss that, but wanted to say that the discussion should occur somehwere else. Well then, where would you prefer? Equazcion ^(talk) 19:51, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the proposal, I think conducting article bans on the article's talk page sets a dangerous precedent which would make it far too easy for a group of editors to get rid of anyone they just don't like working with. Conducting a full interaction ban at the article talk level is clearly unacceptable. What's the argument for doing it there instead of here? If the complaints have merit, surely the ban will be as likely to pass somewhere where it will be more likely to attract the opinion of uninvolved editors? -- Vary | (Talk) 19:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I aqree. Any kind of ban, even a very narrowly defined one, should take place at a high-volume location such as AN/I or AN. The potential for misuse of a ban conversation on an article talk page is just too high. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no qualms about moving the discussion elsewhere, as I've already stated at the article talk page. The inherent drama attached to ANI was a concern expressed by other editors, but I would personally say that's a necessary evil. WP:AN has also been suggested. I'm flexible, personally. Let's just come to a decision and get it started. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:53, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

So, how does WP:AN sound to everyone? Equazcion ^(talk) 19:56, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

AN would normally be a better choice, but considering the existance of this thread, that's moot. It should be moved here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, would you like to do the honours? Only it's on AN, as Unitanode has quietly moved it there. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• He started another, similar, forum-shopping thread there. I've moved it there, so there's no further issues to "resolve" here. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Alansohn is now abusing DR and engaging in textbook wikihounding

Alansohn (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in uncivil and unseemly conduct, despite being previously sanctioned in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes. When 2 administrators, Good Olfactory & Postdlf, properly followed dispute resolution and filed this WQA to resolve their concerns, Alansohn was repeatedly unresponsive. At the time, I also commented as an uninvolved editor, and at the request of the filing party, also left my view on Alansohn's talk page [195]. Alansohn made assurances he would tone his remarks, but continued to make serious accusations without serious evidence.[196] He has repeatedly misrepresented my comments and position to others. [197] [198] [199]

Alansohn has also been wikihounding me [200] and filing a retaliatory WQA report regarding that issue that he was not a party to. Rather than avoiding filing an alert "to complain about an editor who responded to and possibly closed your previous WQA alert" as stated at the top of the page, he's done the opposite. This sort of clear-cut abuse of dispute resolution is really beyond the pale.

We're having to tolerate conduct that would otherwise be considered ban-worthy at a WQA level. I'd like to think it's because the community is unaware of it, but it's possible that they are fearful of what will happen to them if they try to address Alansohn's conduct. If we cannot come up with a sanction proposal, then it appears that our dispute resolution system has finally crumbled beyond repair. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be talking about the next stage of DR, rather than "a sanction proposal", which I assume refers to an indefinite block? Stifle (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As laid out in greater detail (and diffs) in the WQA, this is a continuation of the same conduct for which he was previously sanctioned. He has largely shown improvement since those sanctions were imposed, but still has the same issues with incivility, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks, and anyone who tries to point this out to him, however civilly, is in turn themselves made the subject of attacks (as is clearly shown at the WQA and in numerous posts currently on his talk page).

I for one would be extremely reluctant to push for an indefinitely block, given that his problematic behavior is intermittant, not constant, and that he is otherwise a prolific and valuable contributor. But it is a longstanding pattern (I have personally been trying to address it with him for over a year now; see my recent attempt here) and it can be extremely disruptive. It was suggested that a request could be made for the arb committee to just amend the previous sanction? I don't know how that works.

I've been wondering whether a ban from CFD and CFD-related DRV discussions would be a good resolution, given that this conduct presently arises from his inability to deal with content disputes there without making it personal (at least that's the only context I'm aware of). It's only just now spilled over and escalated into another forum with the WQA. So maybe that would contain it. But his previous sanctions were for conduct in entirely different forums and contexts, so maybe it's inevitable that it will occur wherever he chooses to focus his time. Every time he has promised to address this, it's come front-loaded with even more hostile accusations of bad faith, harassment, trolling, and "manufacturing knowingly false disputes."[201],[202] Never with any acknowledgment on his part that those complaining have honest and valid concerns, regardless of whether he agrees with their characterization. So I don't know what the solution is, given that there is a clear lack of basic respect underlying all of this. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, since his editing restrictions ended, Alansohn has engaged in the problematic behavior on his own talkpage, and primarily at CFD and at DRV. But it has also spilled over to other forums, such as here at ANI, and recently at the WQA. Historically, it looks to me like wherever he chooses to engage in discussion, eventually he begins to do so abusively, and CFD and DRV just seem to have been his primary locations of choice over the past months. If he were banned from CFD and DRV, would he just take the abuse elsewhere to other discussion points? I'm not sure, but it might be worth a try. At this stage I agree that it would be preferable to any sort of all-encompassing ban. Would also support an RFC beginning if that is preferred. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

When an editor like Alansohn doesn't respond to feedback from an uninvolved user, but tries very hard to create a dispute with that user, I'm not sure what would be left to resolve voluntarily from other uninvolved opinions. This user, we must remember, has already been unreceptive to a previous RfC/U, and was subsequently sanctioned by ArbCom following that RfC/U. I wanted to give the community the opportunity to deal with the problem through the only effective means in the circumstances, rather than rely too heavily on ArbCom. Frankly, if Alansohn's conduct is the type that the community elevates, particularly given his history, or if the community is unable to enforce policy, then why do policy pages exist as if they are the rules governing Wikipedia? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." I still haven't seen any of those seeking a pound of flesh here flesh out what the incident is that requires administrative intervention. If it's Ncmvocalist's gross incivility problem, we can deal with that more effectively at WP:WQA. Blocks imposed by Postdlf and Good Olfactory while in conflict, in violation of WP:COI policy, don't require administrative action at this point, though future abuse might well justify such action. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Leinad's disruptive edits

Let's start from here. Polish Wikipedia is currently under a strong attack from bloggers because of Polish Wikipedia Admins' trials to censor it. [203] [204] They remove even some content from talk pages.

However they started to censor English wikipedia. [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] As you can see Leinad ever removed content from article Danuta Hubner, similar to Polish wikiepdia admins.

I warned Leinad [211], he removed my warning [212] and warned me instead [213]. It's really a good behaviour for a steward.

I hope you will stop Polish wikipedians from copying their hysteria here. Slijk (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you cite above (e.g. [214] [215]) seem OK to me. If the text says that the files of organization X show information Y about a person, then the source must be an online or published copy of those X files. In this case it seems to be a third party's claim of what's in those files, so the text is incorrect. In theory, you could say "[Third party T] has written that X shows Y ...", if T is a reliable source. In general, we treat a recently-deceased person almost as carefully as a live one, since grieving family members are involved and this could affect the lives of living people. Crum375 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not trust pseudo-bloggers. The information was published only in one of the right-wing newspaper and re-published in website. The Institute of National Remembrance never published the publication which would confirm this information, as well as no scientific study never appeared. On Polish Wikipedia we protected this articel, because this information was a slander (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Semi-protection and protection). Regards, LeinaD (t) 17:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that if the INR's records are published and accessible (as a primary source), it would be important to verify that this information is there. In principle, even a right wing paper is WP:RS, albeit with a clear POV, but for a recent death, a "near-BLP", I would want to see more corroborating independent sources, and ideally INR records for confirmation. Crum375 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leinad, you must be precise. WP:BLP doesn't apply to one of the articles. Slijk (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leinad is right. Information about alleged past in the Służba Bezpieczeństwa is very delicate and requires a strong and reliable sources. Such a source can only be good historical treatise, but not an article in a newspaper. Regards, Wiktoryn (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Witkoryn, please read [216] again. And remember that your not admin here. Slijk (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Slijk, with all due respect, but your agressive wording in this discussion ("Polish Wikipedia admins try to censor it", "Wiktoryn, remember you are not an admin here", "Polish histeria") seems to imply that your goal here is not to resolve the problem accordingly to Wikipedia rules, but to force the way for something which was prevented from happening at the Polish Wikipedia (of which I am also one of admins, to make things clear). Please note there are many Polish public figures (like Andrzej Olechowski or Michał Boni) who did co-operate with the Communist secret police, there are good sources for that, and it is mentioned in their articles. We're not enforcing any censorship aimed at preventing former SB informants from being revealed. However, as you must know being interested in Polish politics and history, such accusations are very often part of political fight in Poland. Also, it is an extremely serious accusation to make. That's why at the plWiki we require good and strong sources for such claims. By those we mean academic publications, not blogs, newspaper articles or even raw documents. Please note these documents are not scholarly papers - they are files from the archives of a secret service of an authoritarian state. You need to have some background knowledge and experience in such research to be able to analyze those documents properly - that's why we keep asking to quote even just one publication of a serious historian which would confirm these claims about Mr Skubiszewski. Powerek38 (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• The blog quoted - Salon24 - is (for the information of non-Poles) one of the most agressive right-wing spots in Polish internet. First of all, the significance and reliability of blogs, as such, is petty and irrelevant, no matter what political wings they represent. Moreover - this blog, can not, by any means, ne dubbed objective - so the quotation above is just a mere manipulation. Greetings. Kicior99 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Powerek, this is the English Wikipedia, not the polish Wikipedia. What is and isn't acceptable there is irrelevant. Furthermore, regardless of the truthfulness of the claim, the claim itself strikes me as worth mentioning. Also, the INR strikes me as a questionable source, since it is state run.

RadManCF (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Libel

Scarlet Robin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is adding links to a libelous site, which contains my personal information, to Wikipedia, and is a sockpuppet of Luna 9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) per WP:DUCK. I've asked an administrator to start a thread at WP:SPI in hopes that we can get an IP (range)block, and I have requested oversight on the libelous content, but this user needs to be blocked ASAP. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than us wade through all the edits of this contributor, can you provide us with a link to a diff? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Scarlet Robin only made three edits total, the one in question being this one. Most of User:Luna 9's edits outside of his/her unblock requests on the usertalk page involved adding a link to the libelous site. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock as an obvious and tedious one. Best way to get everyone looking for libel and personal information? Start a thread about it at ANI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, it made me go look at the site. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock of banned User:Orijentolog causing major disruption on Greco-Persian Wars

An IP editor using IPs in the 93.142 range [217] [218] [219] is causing untold disruption on Greco-Persian Wars and the associated talkpage. The article had to be protected because of his edit-warring and now he is being extremely disruptive, aggressive and hostile on the talkpage. Based on behavioral evidence and past sockpuppet investigations [220], this is almost certainly a sock of User:Orijentolog. I would normally be content with filing an SPI, but the SPI backlog is long and the disruption on Talk:Greco-Persian Wars so severe that urgent action is needed. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As background to Orijentolog, this editor is an Iranian/Persian nationalist distinguishable by the fact he lives in Croatia. When not advancing theories about how Xerxes was not really defeated by the Greeks ordefending the Iranian execution of gay teenagers also goes on about "Zionist propaganda" and posts such gems as [221].--Peter cohen (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. I might semiprotect the talkpage if he persists with new IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you then see what happens with the result? We have started an RfC, because of him. Can you change the result and let the RfC stand for some more time in order to see if there are any more challenges from other users? GK1973 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Change" the result? I don't see any result yet at that RfC, or am I missing something? If I cut away the massive walls of text by the banned sock, I see him and one other Iranian user arguing for one thing, and a group of Greek users plus several independent voices arguing for the other; the weight of opinions both with and without the national teams seems pretty clear. But I don't think I'm the best person to call a consensus decision here. Or were you referring to the article protection? That was apparently meant as a classic "wrong version" protection and should be lifted once the RfC has a clear outcome. But perhaps the protecting admin should be informed the edit-warring was due to a banned user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, did I understand that correctly, the dispute is about a term in the infobox? Did I mention recently that Infoboxes Must Burn In Hell? ;P Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

right...:) GK1973 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists

Conspiracy theorists waste a lot of our time promoting their unorthodox points of view and are far more insidious than simple vandals. If they limited themselves to articles about their favorite conspiracies, they can be of some use. However, they typically don't, and they're typically a pain. I'm looking for suggestions or for dealing with accounts that appear to exist for no other purpose than pushing their peculiar points of view. Like most (or all) of us, I have experienced numerous examples in the past - all of whom have required the resources of several experienced editors to mitigate. While I do have on in mind at the moment User:Praxidikai , I'm looking for recommendations for dealing with this lot as a whole. Rklawton (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He isn't writing on the pages of articles, so he isn't much of a concern. Usually the insertation of this material would be considered disruptive, so I would just tell them to stop being disruptive, and escalate it from there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

{{uw-chat1}} and WP:NOT#CHAT are also applicable. If talk-page discussion veers into ranting about the subject rather than suggested improvements to the article, I tend to roll it back. If we're intelligent Bayesians, it makes sense to keep an editor like this on a short leash and indef-block fairly quickly once they get disruptive, given the low likelihood of positive contribution to the project. THF (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Contamblood

Resolved

Reporting here, in addition to AIV, at administrator's suggestion. 99.153.141.240 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Contamblood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated copyright violations, conflict of interest, ignores warnings.

 Done by User:The Anome for 31 hours with account creation blocked. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

IP Making Massive Changes to Various List Guidelines

174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) appears to be on a crusade to remove most list related pages from the Wikipedia scope and to completely change various guidelines. He has made massive changes to several Wikipedia changes that completely change their meaning without any discussion. I have reverted them, but he comes back and reverts, throws a note on the talk page (usually with a header of "Collectonian reverts") and demands they be discussed while his version stands. I am not the only one who has reverted him in the past, and for now I have restored the community consensus based versions (again), but I feel administration attention should be given to this particular editor due to his seeming campaign of attack with some talk page "discussions" he has also started arguing that all lists should be deleted. This does not seem the sort of attitude that one should have when supposedly trying to "improve" guidelines. The ones he has editted include:

• Wikipedia:When to use tables (changes made; he claims there is "consensus" but all the discussions were started by him and almost exclusively are him and his proposals clearly had no consensus at all - most editors were correcting his wrong claims[222][223][224] - and pretty much all discussion after that one are his))
• Wikipedia:Lists (changes made)
• Wikipedia:Embedded list (changes made)
• Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (changes made; on this one he filed an ER saying I was edit warring for not allowing his random changes to stand[225])

Here is the discussion he started at the same time he messed up all of those pages, stating that we should get rid of all lists[226] (on-going link) and the second he started at WP:NOT[227]. He randomly made a talk page that no one sees noting he is going to change how WTUT, despite its focus being....when to use tables[228], and his post here seems to make it clear he intended "to make changes" not just propose them[229] which would explain why he doesn't care if he has no consensus for them. He has userfied his preferred versions of the pages above at User_talk:174.3.98.236/a and User_talk:174.3.98.236/b. At this point, other than continuing to edit war, I don't know that he's broken any rules specifically, but it all just smacks of single-minded, and inappropriate, attempts to change styles and guidelines against consensus and for no other reason than his own apparent misunderstanding of Wikipedia terminology and editing practices. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 3 hours. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: They've got two subpages containing modified copies of MOS sections. —DoRD (?) (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted both; clearly not good use of space. No point in aiding disruption. GlassCobra 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since his unblock, IP is continuing to forum shop, filing 30s against me without bothering to mention the opposition to his various proposalss adn changes on other pages, and without mentioning the ANI, claiming we are in a "disagreement" over his edits that just needs a third opinion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the IP's changes (to Wikipedia:Embedded list, anyway), and while I understand that IP's behavior raises a lot of red flags (a new IP who seems to know a lot about Wikipedia, extensive edits to a guideline, a post to VPP proposing to get rid of all lists), ultimately I think the changes to that guideline were largely structural, and benevolent if not beneficial. Maybe this is a sockpuppet or something, but lacking evidence for that, I think we pulled the trigger too fast on this one. Less bite, more AGF is called for here.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The changes to the other guidelines look sensible for the most part as well, although there is room for disagreement on some of the points.--Father Goose (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As he made major changes to some of them, I disagree that they were sensible, as the community agreed to those guidelines and this random person who also declared that all lists should be deleted and that tables are not list is in no position to decide to butcher them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of you are assuming bad faith, just saying.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Who are you? Normally people who want to change the MoS have been heavily editing articles for some time, now it's not possible to say who you are when you post under an IP address. I'm not particularly enamoured with lists myself so I have some sympathy for your general position, but really the way you are going about this is totally counter-productive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a notice: none of those guidelines are part of MoS. Also, being anon is not exclusionary to constructive participation.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, I'm not going to let you push me around

• • [230]
    • A copy of [231]. Everything else actually fixed up the table of contents, or was just table markup fix up. Maybe I should not have included the bullets, which I did not war on. Reason being that I misunderstood that these were strictly MoS rules and guideline rules cannot include them (if this was the case).
  • changes made
    • Primarily good faith edits. This was just a change in aesthetics,
    • "There are a number of formats" vs. "There are a several list formats"
      • The meaning has primarily not changed.
    • The only sentence I took out was ". Most "timeline of" list articles do not use this specialized type of timeline syntax. "
      • Which to me could have extended to EVERY point and given an explanatory sentence, and then you would need another sentence to explain that sentence, so etc. etc.

So yes, I believe you are assuming bad faith. And because primarily LOTS of editors take out sentence, AND some others change formatting, ALL WITH OUT CONSENSUS I DO BELIEVE YOU ARE SINGLING ME OUT.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardly, I don't even know who you are. You are, after all, anonymous. I don't see where you have tried to achieve consensus in pushing through your ideas on lists. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So then why is it fair (whatever that means) that I need consensus where others do not?174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

He has now filed false reports at WP:3RR and seems to have decided if he can just get rid of me, he can do his own thing. He then reverted again on one[232] and when an uninvolved editor reverted, the IP called him "another bad-faith editor" and begged someone else to revert so he himself wouldn't pass 3RR.[233] and demanded the editor self revert claiming "I didn't vandalize"[234].-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:James dalton bell revisited

Over the last day or two, a number of edits have been made to Talk:Jim Bell by IP addresses. While they initially presented a claim that certain information in the article was wrong, they never presented a link to verify the claims. Instead, they quickly turned into the kind of talk page posts that lead to James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) getting blocked.

I hate protecting talk pages; however, I'm wondering if temporarily protecting Talk:Jim Bell isn't one solution that should be used to dissuade this user. Alternatively, is it time to just ban this user, so that further outbreaks can be dealt with along the lines that his conduct has been discussed openly in the community and his conduct—and him, as a result—is not welcome at Wikipedia? —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The quickest way would be for a semiprotection of the talkpage, perhaps initially for a couple of weeks. I see the two ip's (I am assuming that the ones starting 71.XXX are the same individual} concerned are the only two this year, so sprotection would not create too much disruption. Another way would be to raise an SPI report, and see if there is a small range of ip's that could be blocked. That might result in the disruption not being transferred to another page, and could be of a longer duration than a sprotect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

71.36.112.0/20 now blocked 2 weeks. 97.120.244.0/22 has now been expanded to 97.120.240.0/20 and blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 02:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP requires reliable source citations. Very easy to understand the policy. The IP's should be informed. Spevw (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. The IPs are clearly the indef'd user listed above. He knows the policy full and well, or at least he should, as he has been informed many times. As said, however, he refuses to listen.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Governors Island again

Last month, I reported User:DeKoning to ANI for repeated POV-pushing on the article about Governors Island. He refused to stop, and was issued with a month-long block. For a while, things were quiet. Then, lo and behold, on February 3 someone going by the username Liskay added a whole section about the "Tolerance Park Foundation" again, this time complete with a swipe at Wikipedia editors claiming that they (we?) are attempting to censor said organization and preventing people from learning the Island's great history, or some such. I removed it as soon as I saw it; over the past few days the same user has readded it five times, only to have it removed each time. After the last removal, I left a note on his talkpage asking him to please bring the issue to the article's talkpage before reposting. Nevertheless, this evening he again readded the material; I've removed it again.

What can/should be done? I'm loath to suggest a full protection of the article. Any way of tracing Liskay's IP and potentially matching it to DeKoning's? (One doesn't like to cast aspersions, but Liskay's only edits have been to the Governors Island article, so I have my suspicions.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Request lengthy semi-protection, at WP:RFPP. That will keep the redlinks and IP's at bay, and if the original offender shows up again, ask that he be blocked for a long stretch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

From time to time wikipedia attracts characters that will obsess over one particular thing in one article. Typically it's improperly referenced or unreferenced or POV-pushing of some kind. It's hard to tell if the editor is sincere or a troll, but either way it's nothing but disruption. And it can literally go on for years. I can think of several such cases, but I won't name them, due to WP:DENY. But each time make the "sentences" longer, and hopefully eventually the bird will fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in waiting around here. Per WP:DUCK it's quite obvious that the person behind User:DeKoning is also Liskay. I've already blocked the latter indefinitely, both as a sock of a currently blocked editor and as a single-purpose, POV pushing account. I'm also about to extend the block on DeKoning to an indefinite length. When the previous one-month block was implemented (which is still active), DeKoning was specifically warned that future problems would probably lead to an indefinite block. I think that's where we are now, though I welcome review of these blocks if anyone is so inclined. If in the future new accounts show up to re-add the material on "Tolerance Park Foundation" and similar topics I think they can be assumed to be reincarnations of DeKoning and indef blocked on sight. This kind of never-ending edit warring to insert unencyclopedic material could not be more inimical to what we are trying to do here, and in my view there's no reason to tolerate it any longer. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If it persists, RFPP would be a reasonable request. I'm thinking 1 month for starters, and then double it each time if it persists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Righty-O, then. I've got it on my watchlist, so the next time something of this nature crops up I'll take it over to RFPP. Thanks for the advice and the help. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it's on my watchlist also, although typically you've beaten me to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that's because I have no life. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RFPP is one route, but honestly if new accounts show up making these same edits just bring it back here and ask for a block while referencing this earlier thread—there's no need to protect the page when we can just block accounts operated by the person behind DeKoning as they crop up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What about an IP ban? I think he's got a stable IP, if memory serves. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what he does, or doesn't do. I'd just as soon not give him any more ideas, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban evasion, most likely

Resolved

I'm an admin, but perhaps this "contributor" should be given a second look. And even if I'm right there's a little more housekeeping to be done. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein has given it the second look (and agreed with me). Thank you, Sandstein! -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User234

User234 (talk · contribs)

There are many things about this account that raise red flags for me. Shows up a year ago and immediately nominates an article for deletion; has few edits outside of csd, prod, or afd noms/votes (a great many of which were rejected); an attempt to prod an article after a failed afd nom: [235]; not a whole lot of civility ([236], [237]); and most recently, canvassing for an AfD vote (see most recent contributions). Seems to focus almost exclusively on Philippine topics -- not that there's anything wrong with that, but maybe somebody knows a sock with behavior that matches this pattern. (The user is familiar with the checkuser process and socks: [238].)

I doubt there's any action we should take here, but I'm just not seeing much good for the project coming out of this account. I felt compelled to raise my misgivings somewhere. Maybe just "one to watch".--Father Goose (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Factsstraight

Would somebody review the contributions of Factsstraight (talk · contribs)? There's something suspicious here, staring with the username itself which is almost the same as FactsStraight (talk · contribs). The former is undoing a lot of the latter's edits. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:FactStraight is actually the one being undone, not user:FactsStraight. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:28, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry 'bout that. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Factsstraight (talk · contribs) is the same as Konstantine_001 (talk · contribs) as well as numerous anon. IPs. Here's a brief rundown at Talk:David Bagration of Mukhrani. (By the way, the article for that talk page is close to or now in violation of WP:3RR). Additionally, yes, going through Factsstraight's history you can see where that editor seems to be targeting any edits that FactStraight has made to articles of interest to Factsstraight. It looks like a personal grudge to me but I've become somewhat involved in the looming edit war and am probably biased. I would like to see some outside folk give their perspective as well as some advice. SQGibbon (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a personal grudge, since he does the same to DWC LR and anyone else who recognizes that he is a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Tfoxworth and reverts his edits. He threatens to revert my every edit indefinitely. He cannot be stopped by range blocks, and admin MuZemike found that he had to resort to article protection, because Tfoxworth generates new IPs and re-vandalizes as soon as one is blocked. Waiting for violations to reach 3RR is pointless, since he expects to be blocked anyway. Now that User:Factsstraight has been banned he's reverting me as 212.78.230.242. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaredkunz30 Making NPOV warning to good faith editor, POV pushing and tendentious editing.

Unresolved

 – Jaredkunz30 has been blocked indefinitely after a WP:SPI investigation along with 3 WP:DUCK sock puppet accounts. But another admin is requesting a checkuser to double check--Cailil ^talk 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaredkunz30 persists in POV-pushing edits on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, using incivility, tendentious argument and has threatened to create sock puppet accounts if blocked. Generally disruptive behaviour. Has issued NPOV warning to User:Ian.thomson.--Charles (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Jaredkunz30 has been informed about this matter. Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to report this incident Charles. I am interested to see how the WP admins respond to a complaint against a new editor. I have learned a lot about the rules of civility since I first started editing a few days ago and I now know of the errors of sock puppets. My record will show that my contributions and behavior have improved as I have been learning the ropes around here. It has been difficult with a few experienced editors who dismiss most of my contributions and issue me unwarranted warnings without any kind of friendly notice. I am confident the WP admins will make the right call with this reported incident. Jaredkunz30 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: There was a WQA discussion earlier in which both involved individuals participated. --Shirik ♥♥ 00:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaredkunz30, you were told repeatedly not to make POV edits and then not to attack editors, and you said you didn't care about the NPOV or civility policies, until you received warnings explaining that would be banned for further misbehavior and when you were reported at Wikiquette alerts. Don't even try to act like you didn't know what you were doing: you were told repeatedly "don't do this" and you kept it up. I hope you know that the admins can go through your history on this site and see that you only feign repentance when you are going to get in trouble. The majority of your edits violate the NPOV policy. I, too, am confident that the admins will make the right call. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As you all can see, apparently there are some who feel strongly about my record as a new editor. I welcome the history of my activities to be reviewed as it will show that while I have made some errors, there have been a number of experienced editors who should have been a little more helpful and forgiving. I have received messages from more friendly editors who are in support of my situation. I know there are a lot of great people on WP, unfortunately I ran into a few difficult people from the get go and initially I did not react very well. I'm looking forward to continuing as a value adding contributor in the WP community. This is an excellent place to be. ThanksJaredkunz30 (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the NPOV comments for a second, statements like these are borderline unacceptable. You really need to avoid personal attacks: focus on the content, not the contributor. You're welcome to disagree with content, but when that extends into issues like religion which are irrelevant (for the most part; not splitting hairs here) to building an encyclopedia, such discussion should be dropped. I'm inclined to ask you to take a step back and breathe for a moment and calmly approach Ian to discuss the issue at hand. I do in fact believe in WP:TEARHEADOFF (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but there's limits, too. Try to consider Ian's views for a second and come to a compromise on your beliefs and his to resolve this problem. --Shirik ♥♥ 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A comparison of the cotributions of Jaredkunz30 and WaltFrost is interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oneida NY as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How so?Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How so? Well, all three editors make the same kinds of POV edits to the same article. They don't overlap in any way, nor do they edit more than one or two other articles. This looks very much like a single editor persisting with their POV edits for a length of time, until they wear out their welcome using that username. Then a month or so later, a new account is made to push the same POV, until that username becomes a little too hot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you making an accusation here? Our IPs are probably on the other side of the world... Conspiracy theorists unite! Too funny.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm making an observation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And that observation seems spot on. Since this user has already threatened to make sock accounts, it is likely they already have. I would suggest you head over to SPI with your concerns. I personally don't think CU would be necessary.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, I suggest you head over there and add anyone else you "suspect" so you can waste people's time with frivolous requests for investigations. My call for conspiracy theorists to unite must have worked! I've been on WP three days and I've had alerts, an ANI and now someone's calling for an SPI! Its like I stepped into a time warp into Stalin's Russia. Guilty until proven innocent. Amusing, on one level. Unbelievable on many others.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance - I was going to let the whole thing go, but your unpleasant remarks tipped the scale. See you on SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if there's a witchhunt after you threaten to cast spells.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a first, I've been called a witch! Blatant personal attack. I've made no such threats. Please do the right thing and strikeout your lies of the deepest darkest hue. Ever heard the song "Instant Karma"? Or "Karma Police"? "Who on earth do you think you are? A superstar? Well right you are. Well we all, shine, on. Like the moon and the stars and the sun. hey hey...alright." I love you like a brother or a sister whatever you are Daedalus. You're quite the comedian. Flame on.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did I call you a witch? I clearly made an analogy. If you can't see that, that's your own problem. I retract nothing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Analogy" eh? More like a sad attempt to be clever and resort to name calling in hopes no one will see the attack for what it really is. Retracted or not, you have revealed something very telling about yourself. Good job.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so full of yourself. I never called you a name. I said don't be surprised if you are accused of sockpuppetry after threatening to sock. Do you know what a witch-hunt is? It's a hunt for a witch. In your case, it is a hunt for a sock. I couldn't really care less about what you think you know about me. I'm not here to defend myself, and indeed, I'm not the one that is under the lamp. You are. We are not as stupid as you think we are, your attempts to distract us is not working. Lastly, from what I can see, you've been edit warring on that article, and have possibly already violated 3rr. See you at WP:AN3! :D — Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha.. name-calling. I've never once called anyone any names... maybe when I was 10, that was the case, but it's not my style to call people names. Instead I just tear apart their argument piece by piece, and let everyone else judge it. I don't really need to do anything else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• SPI addressed. Jaredkunz30 has been blocked indefinitely along with the 3 accounts User:WaltFrost, User:John Freestone and User:Oneida NY, per WP:DUCK. The IP address User:76.22.84.237 has been blocked for 3 months. A fuller explanation is given at WP:SPI--Cailil ^talk 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in a semiprotected page

I disagree with few Neutrality (NPOV) in the "Venezuela" article. Wikipedia guide ask me to add {{POV}} or {{POV-check}}(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute), but the "Venezuela" article is semiprotected and I must be an "established user" to add it.

In this country are a political persecution and lack speech of freedom and you are supporting it with this policy. I explain it: If you request be an "established user" (identifiying the user by multiple logins) to put this article on NPOV review, you attempt against the anonymity right of few people that want will be marked as NPOV dispute in the article, but don't want give their identities to anybody for protection reasons.

I think this is not the unique case only, please change it.

ANYONE SHOULD BE ABLE ANONYMOUSLY TO ASK A "NPOV" DISPUTE!!!

The appropriate place to make this request is in the article's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Calendar edit warring

An examination of edit histories makes it obvious that 156.61.160.1 and 62.31.226.77 are operated by the same person. He/she has reverted the three revert rule at Julian calendar, repeatedly inserting his/her personal interpretation of an ancient text over the objections of other editors. He/she also insists on editing the lead in a way that conflates the civil calendar with religious calendars.

He/she has also made a series of reverts to an outdated version of the page around 20 January and at that time refused to interact on the talk page. See also Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 1#Bissextile Day from January 2008 for previous troublesome edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)