Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive612

Possible legal threat?

I just noticed an edit summary by 69.154.210.160 that implies that someone will be arrested if they keep posting something. [1] The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the IP has been blocked... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 06:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obviously the anon is question thinks people will be arrested for "corruption and misconduct" like "Governor Blagojevich" for posting sock template. Not a legal threat, but definitely disruptive. Recommend the anon be blocked for 24 (longer if their block log requires it) and laughed at for the silliest threat possibly in awhile. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

...like Blagojevich, "and for the same reason". Yes, we've had several wikipedians who tried to sell Senate appointments. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That comment seems to be more out of rage than anything, but is clearly against NPA at the least. Might be a legal threat, but seems more like inflammatory personal attacking, in my opinion. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boba Phat (2nd nomination), several editors who should seriously know better (Milowent (talk · contribs) and MuZemike (talk · contribs) being the biggest offenders) have been calling the nominator, Biohazard388 (talk · contribs) a sockpuppet and automatically assuming bad faith from the moment the nomination began. Their only bases is that the AfD was Biohazard388's first edit. They have also accused two other SPAs, Rogueslade (talk · contribs) and Mandoman89 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets or meetpuppet without any evidence. This of course has erupted in a war of words between all the involved editors, and despite a warning to Milowent about assuming good faith and not biting the newbies, has shown any indication he will do so.[2] MuZemike has also indicated that he will not assume good faith either.[3] A sockpuppet case was opened and closed clear all three of the SPAs of the sockpuppetry charges[4] and there has been no evidence that any meetpuppetry is taking place. Now with the SPI closed, Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs), who filed the SPI case,[5] is calling for the AfD to be closed as no consensus even though the discussion has only been going on for two days.[6]

On the other end, I've warned Rogueslade about making personal attacks,[7] which he has since apologized for.[8]

What is needed is an admin to come in and start laying down the law about assumptions of bad faith accusations others of sock/meet puppetry without any evidence and to lay off the personal attacks on other editors. I've already attempted to move some of the comments about other editors to the AfD's talk page earlier, but things are still out of hand. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Even though I know I may be biased, as I am one of the "victims" of these users and this unusual suspect behavior, I must concur with Farix. I am a member on several other wikis, and in one case, an administrator. This is my first time attempting the "Big leagues" of Wikipedia.org, and I have been VERY surprised at the seeming amount of conspiracy-jockying that MuZemike and Milowent have brought to the table. They seem to assume Bad Faith, and have not slowed down since the beginning. Milowent has recently started to contribute to the discussion on the aforementioned AfD. This behavior has cause the discussion on the AfD in question to become somewhat diluted. Much of the discussion (contributed by these users) has seemed to be in attempt to draw attention away from the articles AfD, or at least to hinder the discussion. If possible, it would be nice to see an Admin clean up the AfD so that discussion can continue smoothly and on track.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, when the sockpuppet case WAS opened, the users seemingly protected the page, which did not allow the accused parties to add their defensive arguments and comments. This may be the norm, but not as far as I know. This seems to point to more Bad Faith. It might be nothing, but thought I'd add the idea for consideration.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Come on people. Yes I was suspicious (and am still though without evidence, but I shall hold my personal opinions henceforth), but you are making a mountain out of a molehill. However, I pledge to cease and desist the use of any insinuations humorous or otherwise any further in that AfD. Boba Phat will have to fend for himself. Biohazard388 et al, I apologize for any offense I have caused, I suggest you do not became a regular editor on Encyclopedia Dramatica or whatever its called.--Milowent (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Accusing a nominator and several persons in an AFD of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, even after they have been conclusively demonstrated to be innocent of these charges, is poisoning the well. Nor did it even cross my mind that you were attempting to merely be "humorous." I think your initial suspicions were well-founded, certainly, but don't poison an AfD with these accusations, and know to drop them once they've been shown to be unfounded. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see how they have been conclusively proven innocent, they just haven't been proven guilty. Though I stand by all my edits, I have also apologized to Bioh. and I seem to think we can all move on now.--Milowent (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Milowent, I graciously accept your apologize. Please make sure to note that I had mentioned your coming around in a previous post here in this section. I agree that things seem to be going more smoothly since the Sockpuppet case ended. However, I must also agree that Admin intervention to clean up the AfD would be a good idea. I agree with both Farix and Ginsengbomb that the discussion has been harmed by several users. The discussion has suffered so far, due in part to users continuing discussion where it maybe shouldn't have been. An official cleanup from the staff would be a much appreciated effort, as far as I'm concerned. I'm completely on the side of being fair to the article's creator and the community at large. I'd like to see the discussion cleaned up and focused so that a clear consensus can be reached.Biohazard388 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In their defense Bio, we did suspect something weird when you came and immediately nominated something for deletion. Although it is an odd first edit, there has been a sockpuppeter who has done exactly that. If you had mentioned that you are an admin on another Wikipedia, I'm sure we would have supported you. The page was protected because there was an attack by another user there and no one removed it because they didn't want to risk another attack. Personally, I was rooting for more socks to be bagged, and the checkuser actually changed the sockmaster of some of them to another user. All is well now and I'm sorry if we ever hurt you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Biohazard388 did not say he was an admin on another "Wikipedia", but on another "wiki", a generic term for any site which uses wiki software. If he's an admin on another Wikipedia, I'd suggest he should say what it is, because it's certainly not under this name, which is active only on en.wikipedia. [9]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Kevin, I completely understand where you are coming from. I realize the situation seemed fishy at the time, and probably would have taken similar action. However, the discussion should have been kept consolidated at the Sockpuppet case's page, instead of overflowing into the AfD page. It also should have ended when the case was closed. Instead, it continued most thoroughly. As an example,MuZemike posted this post-sockpuppet case on the AfD discussion page: "Speedy keep – This is a clear bad-faith nomination by User:Biohazard388. If this isn't sock puppetry by those involved in the SPI, then this is clear meatpuppetry orchestrated by someone on the outside who is recruiting someone to propose deletion on Star Wars-related material on the behalf of Dalejenkins. –MuZemike {timestamp removed to prevent confusion}" This comment can be found on the aforementioned AfD. This is why I feel an admin should clear the page up a bit and try and make sure that the conspiracy theories end so discussion can continue unhindered. I don't have any harsh feelings towards anyone. I just want to make sure that the policies are followed and that we can have a concise discussion in the appropriate section.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – The SPI page was protected due to persistent vandalism by socks of GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) who was recently causing massive SPI disruption. I have nothing else to say about this matter other than that I still reserve my suspicions as stated; nobody learns how to set up an AFD flawlessly upon their very first edits. –MuZemike 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reasoning behind the SPI lock makes sense. Concerning the AFD suspicions, I'd like to make it a point to say again, that I am a member of other Wikimedia projects and am fluent in Wiki coding. I also am able to venture forth on the site and find articles such as Articles for Deletion which makes the process quite easy to understand. Wikipedia editing is not just for the advanced and experienced users. It is also there for the daring one's that take it upon themselves to begin working on the site and are willing to read a "how to" article. Don't assume every "newbie" is a "noob". That is why we have rules such as Assume Good Faith.Biohazard388 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right. There's AGF, and then there's not not making AGF into a suicide pact. That being said, I'm not infallible, and perhaps I have erred and was a bit biased since I thought I was so convinced since there were socks of this user up to two weeks ago who were still trying to nominate Star Wars-related stuff for deletion. Perhaps you came on at the wrong place at the wrong time, but that couldn't be helped. I'll just drop this right here and carry on. –MuZemike 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment: Thank you for your understanding, MuZemike. Would you be "for" having an admin come in and clean up the AfD so that we can proceed in discussing it thoroughly?Biohazard388 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Go ahead and have said admin hack away. I consider myself recused from the remainder of the deletion discussio here. –MuZemike 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment above stricken as there's a little more background, now. –MuZemike 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see that both editors have now appologize. However, I think it is imperative that they strike all sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry accusations as well as bad faith assumptions from their AfD comments. —Farix (t | c) 02:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be very good, especially since people are making more accusations based on those prior comments, and this bad faith toward the nominator seems to be influencing the deletion discussion, as they are suggesting that the article be kept solely because they don't trust the nominator, not on the merits of the article itself. -- Atama頭 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the SPI page was protected. I know MuZemike said it was because of vandalism by GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs), but if you click that user's contribs you'll see it last edited January 4, 2010. Why is mike still concerned about vandalism?? The page was protected April 25, 2010, with no sign of vandalism in the history. I would hope that the protection wasn't to stifle the accused's ability to defend itself, but unless there's more to the story, that's how it looks. I guess I didn't look closely:there's vandalism of an odd sort (copying back archives). II | (t - c) 05:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Biting, Assumption of Bad Faith and othe assorted nonsense at ANI

This thread is nonsense. there were clear reasons that allowed for a sockpuppetry case. There are three great reasons to file a sock puppet case, One the names and MO matched Dale Jenkins. Two neither of these accounts have done anything other then vote delete, [[10]] [[11]]. Yes in the end a couple weren't socks of Dale Jenkins. That leaves meat-puppetry or truly uninvolved editors that created a account just to vote delete in an afd. I would ask how many votes in the last ten actually allude to sockpuppetry concerns? 90 percent of all delete opinions have been issues with the sourcing or lack thereof of notability. Either way none of this required a report at ANI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• As one of the editors in question, I feel that there was indeed ample reason for this thread in the ANI. Yes, there was ample evidence for an investigation into sockpuppetry. I don't contend that, but after the case was closed and decided that none of us have anything to do with this Dale Jenkins character, individuals continued to attack us. Perhaps you missed the comments that were deleted, but they continued to make every effort to have the AfD pulled, not because of evidence supporting the article, but by making direct attacks on the original nominator and a couple others, myself included. I can't speak for the others, but I have in fact made several prior edits as an anonymous user. Unless you possess the capability to track edits by IP address, you'll have to take my word on that. It was only when I saw the article in question, and chose to support the decision to delete it, that I felt it prudent to create a user account. I don't know if it is possible to vote in an AfD anonymously, but even if it is, I don't believe it would carry as much weight as from a registered user. My having a new user name, and indeed the nominator and any others having new user names, was no reason for the other editors, a specific two or three, to continually attack us and make repeated Bad Faith accusations after we were proven to have nothing to do with Dale Jenkins or one another. Rogueslade (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the editing pattern it makes perfect sense. Like I said you weren't proved to be his sosck, that leaves two other choices Meatpuppet or uninvolved, either way this thread is a monstrous waste of community time and effort. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying you condone their continual slanderous comments? The only waste of time was the numerous accusations of bad faith and continued comments on meatpuppetry. If they were so concerned, it should have been brought up to an admin, not reiterated over and over again in the AfD discussion.Rogueslade (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if you look they only spoke their suspicions. I am the one who actually filed a sockpuppet case and as I said the sockpuppet investigation only conclusively proves you aren't Dale Jenkins. I am actaully glad the turn that afd is taking though, i thought that article should've been deleted a while ago Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pizzashoe

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

This user is already blocked, but they are exhibiting sock-like behavior. I realize SPI is over here, but as I have no one to link this too, I was hoping someone here might recognize any patterns.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't ring any bells for me, sorry. You could check the page history of the articles which they edited and see if any blocked users jump out as related. TNXMan 14:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoax article

Resolved

Katrine Tendido has had a speedy tag on it for several hours. The talk page is copy and pasted by the creator from a different article. This article has been deleted two times previously as a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you not wait patiently like 170 other people? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page because it's a blatant misrepresentation of those comments, which were posted t Talk:Miley Cyrus. I'd rather leave the article itself to another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Additionally, the creator has been blocked, and the userpage which formed the original source of this article has been deleted. —Soap— 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Page deleted as an obvious hoax, each "cast billing" was proved by the article on the program to be bogus, the photograph was of Miley Cyrus. User who created the article had the same content on their userpage, which I have deleted as promotional material, and account indef blocked as a clear violation of WP:U (spam/promotional + disruptive). SGGH ^ping! 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Salting might be in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruption, edit warring and 3RR on my talk page.

no admin action needed, user already apologized and explained their error. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR has been edit warring over messages that I had receved from another editor on my talk page. To make things worste, I had already told several times to direktor not to post on my talk page (I supose that also means, not to delete edits...). Here are some usefull diffs: 1) The deleting by direktors of posts on my talk page: [12]. 2) As seen, he broke the WP:3-RR there. 3) This is far from being the first time he edits on my talk page knowing that I asked him not to, here: [13] (the edit itself, see last comment), or [14], here you can see it in context. 4) One exemple of his clear acknolledge of that fact (knowing that I don´t want him posting on my talk page) is found here [15] where you can see him saying that he didn´t noticed me about a ANI report he donne on me, because, in his words: "the user instructed me not to address him". So, he doesn´t warn me on ANI report because of it, but edit wars with another user when he feels to? I had already done a report on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but an advice I had receved was to take the report here. The excuse direktor has been using is that he touth that the user posting on my talk page was a sock, but it isn´t. Direktor has been using this "he is sock!" excuse in several ocasions and for reverting edits on several articles. I am reporting him for doing it on my talk page, where he has been edit warring and where he brole the WP:3-RR while knowing that I had deniyed him access to my talk page. He obviously had many other ways to react there, he chouse the worste. He has also been very disruptive on the Flag of Yugoslavia article where he has been editing the article against all other users (6 in total) even ignoring the recomendations from the project itself (Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, other comparable cases and where he also made racial and other attacks on oposing editors. I just want to see how many rightfull reports on him are going to be ignored (if...) here. Hoping that will not be the case, I send best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC) His mens rea depends on who he believes the user to be a sock of? A banned user? Though I agree editing anothers talk is very bad form. SGGH ping! 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I think you guys need to move on to WP:ARBCOM, these constant threads at ANI are ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) It´s up to you to end this, but calling rightfull reports "ridiculous" is contraproductive... FkpCascais (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Here we go again... People were just starting to miss you I think, User:FkpCascais. Two things old FkpCascais accidentally forgot to mention: 1. Here's the post I removed: "i met the same problem as you with the same user:DIREKTOR, but on another side of his influenced area of wikipedia. His making the wikipedia project dangerously drifting away on the articles regarding his political position. Look to set a dialogue on his discussion page. I'm with you." 2. I know I violated WP:3RR, but I did so under the assumption that the account was a sockpuppet (3RR does not apply to reverting socks, I think). And with the history of those articles, I really think my mistake may be considered an understandable error. I emphasize: every single account that restored sock edits & pushed the changes Theirrulez pushed on those articles turned out to be a sockpuppet. No exceptions. And there have been many, many sockpuppets as any involved admin will know. They are blocked by the bushel-full as DUCKS, User:Butler.banana just got banned yesterday. I understand my actions were rash, but they were in good faith, and removal of (confirmed) sock posts on those articles is practically a daily chore (I ought to hire a secretary). Anyway I had already admitted my error, restored posts and have apologized profusely, explained my actions [16]. What interests me is the motivation behind FkpCascais eager exploitation of an honest mistake... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Agreed, this is a non-issue and no admin action is called for. I think it would be best if you two avoided each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts

Page: Balhae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kim Gu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Jang In-hwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Yoon Bong-Gil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Koreans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing up to the 3RR limit at the Goguryeo article.

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]

He has a long history of reverting objective edits unfavorable to his nationalist views. Editing wikipedia required neutral point of view, for example, different nationalist views. A domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts to some Chinese-Korean and Japanese-Korean dispute pages over a few years they become biased. During past two months, User:Historiographer, User:Kuebie, User:KoreanSentry and some less used accounts often appear in the same editing wars reverting other views. There may be sock puppetry in it. Revision on those edits and reverts and contributions from other nationalists would restore their neutrality.Sammyy85 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a content dispute, so that means you have both broken WP:3RR, each party has reverted the article 4-5 times... SGGH ^ping! 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have left a 3RR reminder on both accounts, however it is clear that Kuebie has a history of edit warring and the changes he has made to the above article are fringey and weighted POV. I've also notified the other party. SGGH ^ping! 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've simply reverted the 115.42.156.50 IP's (comical) initial edit. The sort of catalyst of the whole edit-warring. Clearly an SPA, although it's odd Sammyy85 is keen to favor the IP's version. The Goguryeo article is extensively sourced and cited, with dozens of editors participating on its content since 2005. Sammyy85 claims that the Chinese scholar is not named in the source, and because of that it somehow makes it unreliable (the name IS given, hence the reason why I reverted his deceptive edit). Interestingly enough, Sammyy85 has used this exact report on the edit-warring noticeboard (result was stale). Which leads me to believe he's trying to silence me or have me blocked through various channels, instead of admitting to his obvious deceptive editing. And no Sam, wikipedia should not be home to some nationalist chest-thumping contest. One of the reasons why wikipedia advocates the use of credible sources, to circumvent any nationalist slant. Akkies (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is because Kuebie, Historiographer and myself are using same old account where as these Chinese and Japanese trolls are using multiple accounts to edits popular Korean articles under their POV. Sammyy85 is not providing reputable sources for his edits therefore his another troll.--Korsentry 04:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review

They've agreed to change their username. Let's leave it at that and AGF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) was reported at WP:UAA yesterday. Let me state that I do find the idea of using a timestamp as a username somewhat annoying. On the other hand, I do not see how it could possibly violate our username policy to such an extent that it warranted an indefinite block. As a matter of fact the relevant policy section is quite clear that confusing usernames are discouraged but are not blockable. I said all this both at UAA and the user's talk page, only to find a bit later that my decision not to block had been overturned. This user was not vandalizing, trolling, or engaging in other disruptive behavior, and in fact remained perfectly calm and civil in the face of nearly hysterical threats from another user to change their name or be blocked. The third, oft-overlooked option of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names was apparently not even considered by those who had a problem with this name. The user has made their case to on their talk page. I think wider input is needed to review how this block is supposed to be helping prevent damage to Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As I see it you followed policy: confusing but not blockable. Perhaps a signature tweak is/was a better option for this user. Unfortunatly this incident may have permanently chased this editor away. Jarkeld (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Not yet apparently. They have posted a civil, well written response to this block on their talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I made the block after a discussion on UAA in which several editors and administrators opined that they find the username disruptive. There is currently a discussion on the editor's talk page, though I'd like to ask the peanut gallery to back off from there. I stand by my decision to block, but I will abide by any consensus that emerges here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As I opposed HJ's recent RfA, he'd be an obvious target if this was a contentious block. But really, it shouldn't be. Perhaps I'm missing it, but Beeblebrox states that it's "quite clear" that confusing usernames are not blockable; I don't see that at all in WP:UNCONF. In fact, this part - "admins should use their discretion and common sense" - is most appropriate here. This user's name is going to cause confusion and disruption in every discussion in which they participate. If this user cannot immediately see why this username is highly disruptive and agree to change it, then they are not here to help build an encyclopedia but to otherwise prove some sort of point or further a personal agenda. Good block. Tan | 39 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Pettiness that plays so rough. Peanut gallery (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tan here. Not only is the username confusing, but the user's unwillingness to change it is disturbing. Aditya Ex Machina 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As Tan 39 said above, this timestamp as a username is highly confusing and disruptive. Per WP:U; Good Block. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I understand what Tan is saying, but I'm with Beeblebrox in principle. I think it's a damn stupid name (and I fail to understand why the user totally refuses to even consider changing it, only changing his/her sig) but I don't think it's against policy per se. The user taking the piss, and refuses to discuss it sensibly is disrupive however, and for that reason I now agree with the indef block. If the user refuses to discuss it on their talk page in sensible manner, perhaps the access to their user talk page should be stopped as well. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I too concur with the indef block, not if it had been performed outright, but after a very understanding discussion following on from a UNC template where the user seemed to never get it - I find it difficult to WP:AGF with that lack comprehension. SGGH ping! 19:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Part of that may be because no one seems to have told him there is a difference between changing your signature and changing your username. I don't care what the username policy is - if you have a problem with his name, ask him to change it before you block him, and tell him how to do it. Prodego talk 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I did this just as you were posting :) As for asking him before you block, they did ask him, several times, it just isn't on the talk page anymore. It is in the history. SGGH ping! 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC) He responded to that positively and by trying to fix it. And he got blocked anyway. Then 80 zillion people went to his talk page telling him to fix this problem, which he repeatedly tries to fix. But he misunderstands. Instead of assuming he didn't know what he was doing, he gets blocked and gets fun messages accusing him of trolling, telling him he is being insensible, etc. Where has he ever made a statement indicating he refuses to fix something? Prodego talk 20:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC) A reminder that Wikipedia policies are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive. I'm not sure a circumstance such as this has come up before, so one would not expect the username policy to deal with it specifically. I disagree with the contention that the name was not disruptive, as it would clearly cause continuing problems wherever it appeared. Having the editor change it was the right call. Whether the block was good or not depends on whether the editor was attempting to make the change in good faith or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Good block, he was causing confusion. If he really wants to continue to edit constructively as he was, he can just create another account and move on.--SKATER Speak. 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Well, he has a disruptive username and he hasn't sorted it out yet. I wonder who he is? Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Was about to say the same thing before being edit-conflicted umpteen times. I'd like to know how that person ended up choosing that specific username, assuming he/she has had absolutely no Wikipedia-knowledge whatsoever. –MuZemike 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I would suspect he has copied it from an edit summary or page history because he or she thought it inventive, which it is, though also impractical. SGGH ping! 20:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with this block. The username is unnecessarily confusing and therefore disruptive. Usernames are a means for others to identify you, not a venue for self-expression or for making a funny point. The editor should remain blocked until he changes both his username and his signature to a non-confusing string of characters.  Sandstein  20:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I admit I certainly do find it a very odd choice, but I question the need to block for it. I would again mention that for "confusing" or other problematic usernames that are not so blatantly disruptive as to warrant an immediate block, we have a dedicated forum specifically for dealing with them. He was asked to change it, and indicated he didn't want to. So the next step, since asking them didn't work, is to throw them out until they change it because it is harming Wikipedia so badly that we would be better off if we didn't see it and get "confused"? I can't get behind that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Crat note

Ok, I renamed him to something new that seems appropriate. Lesson to take away from this is that sometimes if a user seems to be acting in good faith, we should extend it to them and try to AGF. I'm known as being very tough on username enforcement, but many times we need to remember that new users aren't as experienced as us and as long as they aren't breaking stuff (spam, etc), we should try to play nice. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to continue a resolved thread, but I want to stick up for the users involved because they did try to be nice, over about two dozen posts (some only in the history now) it wasn't a case of talk, confuse, block. SGGH ^ping! 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As this issue is not specifically covered under the username policy, I've raised it at WT:U. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to automatic downloads

In my role as a user, I clicked on a reference in the article Comparison of iPod managers, and was stunned when a program immediately began downloading to my Mac. I immediately deleted the reference, along with another reference that also contained an automatic download, and searched the page history to find out who had inserted the links.

The first link was inserted by Ceyockey. [21] I have notified Ceyockey of this discussion. The second link was inserted by IP address 92.104.196.163. [22] I tried to notify 92.104.196.163 that I was discussing him/her/it, but there's no talk page for that address.

I'm a fairly infrequent Wikipedia editor, so am not sure whether this incident is worthy of reporting, or whether this noticeboard is the place to report the incident if so. If I've made any errors, please pardon me.

Languorous Lass (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it looks like whoever added the links linked directly to the software's download page. That's obviously not ideal, and you did the right thing by removing the links. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

Thanks! I was amazed when I realized that the earlier of the two links has been there since September 2008, and that people have been updating the software version numbers and dates on both links since then.

Surely there must be a Wikipedia policy against automatic downloads, but I couldn't find one anywhere on the site -- the topic didn't seem to fit under vandalism, unless the program is malware, and it didn't seem to be that. Lankvei, can you -- or can anyone else -- direct me to the right policy? Languorous Lass (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL may have something. I did notify the IP in the end, whether it is still active or not I didn't check. SGGH ^ping! 00:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL discusses such stuff. Yeah, just remove the link and put a comment in the edit summary and maybe the article talk page. I wouldn't bother notifying the editor who put the link there of the removal since if they still care about it they can check what happened on the article page. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bullying and user bias

filing user has been blocked per WP:DUCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Something odd is going on here. I made some pretty simple edits to an article (Yesterday Was a Lie). I changed the tense to past (it said April 2010 was in the future), replaced a dead link with citation needed, replaced another citation needed tag with a accurate citation, and added a couple reviews of the DVD release which seemed appropriate. I also removed one or two weasel word sentences, because the information in them was the opposite of the information in the respective citations. An editor named User:Beyond My Ken reverted every thing I did with no explanation. I tired to ask him why and his response was to open a sock investigation into me and not tell me. He didn't answer my question about what was actually wrong with my edits, because there is no answer. This editor states that people (and me) are "downplaying" negative reviews. But actually it looks like he is trying to downplay positive reviews by casting them as "negative." If you look at the article history you can see that he keeps inserting things into the Variety review that are not actually in the citation, and that he has removed a link to Rotten Tomatoes which shows that the Variety review was counted as "positive." He also keeps introducing invalid citations to supposed negative reviews (a dead link and a link to an unrelated article in a different newspaper!). So it seems this person has some type of bone to pick and is pretty preoccupied with introducing fake information about reviews into the article. I think an admin needs to investigate this person to see if they have some type of bias regarding this subject. I think he got caught with his pants down trying to include wrong information in the article and now he's trying to change the subject.Vulcanism (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC) In fact, I am correct. According to his talk page, User:Beyond My Ken has a previous username of User:Ed Fitzgerald. His biographical information is here. This matches this and this. I do not think someone affiliated with this film production should be permitted to edit the article.Vulcanism (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Moved to WP:COIN Vulcanism (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Please see [23] and [24], especially [25] 2nd item. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Mr. ken, none of that explains why you 1. added false citations to support "negative" reviews in which the citations do not link to anything about the film, 2. erased part of the Variety quote to make it look like the review attacked the film's story, 3. erased a link to Rotten Tomatoes re: the Variety review being positive, or 4. insist on referring to the April 6 DVD release as in the future. Again, it looks like you are trying to deflect attention away from content issues and false information that you are putting in the article. Vulcanism (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC) User:Vulcanism is, without any doubt now, the latest sock of User:Sorrywrongnumber. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC) User:Beyond My Ken is, without any doubt now, desperately trying to evade having to explain why he has introduced fake citations and altered quotes into the article. Vulcanism (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I don't know whose sock drawer that Vulcanism belongs in, but it is undoubtedly a sock account. The editing history makes that quite clear. I will be blocking presently. --Jayron32 04:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fansite nonsense and offsite drama spilling onto the project

Some time last year, I was contacted by an acquaintance who goes by the handle "Shougo B'stard" online concerning the fact that the English Wikipedia article Dengeki Sentai Changeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) extensively copied information from his personal fan site on the series. I checked the article, and removed and rewrote most of it while devolving into heated discussion, mostly because the information was copied and his website was not being used as a source. I tried to work on removing the copyright violations, and the discussion ended.

Yesterday, Delaluz (talk · contribs) added a link to Shougo's fansite to the article, and it was reverted by one of the external link bots and myself. I advised him that the link was not allowed, and he retorted by saying that other fansites were used. I rectified this by removing as many other fansites as I could, while asking a friend to add links to official sites where he could. Delaluz began this discussion on my talk page where I attempted to clarify both Wikipedia's and the topic area's editors' decision on fansites, but then he merely began a discussion on the article talk page where he begins to accuse me of having some sort of personal vendetta against Shougo by not allowing the fansite in the external links section. While investigating the content more, I realized that almost all of it is lifted from Shougo's site and I remove all of the copy-pasted and paraphrased information and introduce new content translated from other language projects. This has only appeared to make Delaluz only more irate that the fansite is not being linked because he claims that Shougo is some sort of "recognized authority" (pulling a criterion from WP:EL).

Ohnoitsjamie provided a third opinion (Delaluz went to WP:3O), but this has not seemed to quell the issue. The page is not high traffic, and it appears that for four years, most of the content was lifted directly from the fansite. This needs a wider audience because it's not getting one from its normal traffic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Move fixing

Can an admin please fix List of film production companies. A editor moved it some three to four times and it is all borked up. It was moved from its original name to List of Film Distribution Companies, then to List of Hollywood and Independent Film Distribution Companies then to List of Theatrical Film Distributors then to List of Theatrical Film Companies. Then they

None of the new names are correct and it really needs to be moved back, but because of all the moving and a bot corrected the first double redirect already, it can't be done by a regular editor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Would an admin also add indefinite move protection to List of film production companies (currently located at List of Theatrical Film Distributors) to prevent further disruption? Cunard (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved back, redirects deleted, and move protected for one week. Tim Song (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone might want to inform the editor that his numerous messages asking for help now link to two red links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The same editor, Misterix (talk · contribs), is apparently very confused. He keeps recreating the talk pages of the various deleted renames asking that they be undeleted. Myself and another editor have attempted to explain to him what he did wrong and why those efforts are not the correct method of dealing with his idea, but instead he did a copy paste move of List of film production companies to List of theatrical film distributors, then blanked the former leaving a note to Tim Song asking that it be deleted[26]. I've left him another note asking him to stop and trying to explain what he is doing wrong, but thus far he is leaving people messages but not really being responsive to others. Need some admin help in cleaning up the various talk pages for non-existent article's he's made, and the copy/paste move. He is aware of this thread as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Does removal of user comments need to be justified?

Has been discussed sufficiently, both here and elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Does removal of user comments from an article talk page need to be justified? Per WP:TPO it seems to me it does. Even if it's blatant abuse - I think it's common sense that you have to explain the reason in the edit comment for the edit in which the user's comment is removed. No? Is citing WP:NOTAFORUM sufficient justification for removing a user's comment? I agree that WP:NOTAFORUM discourages such comments, but it says nothing about removing comments that do not comply. Nor does WP:TPO. The issue that prompted all this was a comment that arguably violated WP:BLP. That's a much more serious violation and does of course warrant removal, but in this case the comment was removed four times in a row. , and each time only NOTAFORUM was cited as justification. Is that acceptable? The impression I get from reading WP:TPO is that removing user comments should not be taken lightly, and yet here we have people removing comments whose removal might have been justified, but they only cited WP:NOTAFORUM. My question is not whether removal of this particular comment was justified, but whether it was justified when citing only WP:NOTAFORUM. Discussion: Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard#WP:NOTAFORUM_does_not_trump_WP:TPO. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC) My opinion is "Yes", as already stated. The post was NOT directed to an improvement of the article. WP:TPO is quite clear that "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" includes "Removing prohibited material such as libel". Maybe the wrong reason was given for removal, but saying that someone currently facing trial for rape will rape again is about as prejudicial as I can imagine. WP:BLP is even more clear. Whatever the reasons given for removal, no way should that comment have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia, on any page whatever, and this editor has already been advised of this. The fact that weaker reasons for removal were given when stronger ones could have prevailed (and eventually did) is irrelevant in this case. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I concur with the removal of this comment and with what User:Ianmacm said - I would have removed that comment on sight, it is completely inappropriate. This is a no-brainer for me, the user who made the comment should be spoken to. Perhaps WP:NOTAFORUM was not enough policy to quote, but the subsequent policies quoted in subsequent removals are justification enough. I suspect the admins who removed it saw it as an equal no-brainer. SGGH ping! 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC) In answer to your overall question, yes it must be justified, proportionate and accountable, but as I said this case was an obvious one for me. SGGH ping! 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I was just going to say you did not answer my question. Thank you for answering it. It was obvious for you and others, but it was not for me, not initially at least. That's why clear and proper justification needs to be stated, even when it appears obvious, especially when the comment is being removed and restored multiple times, as was the case here. That's my only point, and I don't understand why it's so difficult to get anyone to concede this point. It's not like agreeing with my point means you think the comment should not have been removed! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC) The removal is fine, talk pages are for article development. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC) "My question is not whether removal of this particular comment was justified..." "The removal is fine, ..." ... Sigh. Are you saying that removal of any comment that is not about article development is fine? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, because that is what WP:NOTAFORUM says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I saw nothing at WP:NOTAFORUM even addressing the removal of others' comments, much less sanctioning it. Because of that, I added a reference to WP:TPO where the issue is addressed. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Not every comment that is not about article development needs to be removed, and there are plenty of talk page comments that don't relate to article development that should stay, but that's why IAR exists. Every comment that is not about article development is subject to potential removal, and "because I felt like it" is enough of a reason to remove an irrelevant comment.--CastAStone//(talk) 22:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC) WP is not a bureaucracy so yes, we let lots of non-development stuff (such as editor banter) slide and nobody cares. It keeps the atmosphere friendlier, which is always a good thing. The idea is to use sound judgment and don't get into edit wars. NOTAFORUM gets invoked when someone starts using the talk page for tendentious debate, which is exactly what that particular interchange was. Even if the removal was dubious, per WP:BRD don't keep reverting. Discuss the issue instead, preferably on the user talk page of the person you're having the disagreement with, rather than on the article talk page. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Good heavens- of course BLP was an underriding concern and the main reason I removed the comment: just because I didn't say so is no reason to restore the obviously unsuitable comment. Pure wonkery. –xenotalk 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Meh. Do you mean "underlying" or "overriding", not that it really makes any difference? This topic has now been raised in three forums all to the same general effect and if nobody is going to bring anything new to the party, I suggest we move on. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, both actually. Sorry for making up words. –xenotalk 23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Xeno, I didn't restore the comment simply because you didn't say BLP was an underlying reason -- I restored the comment because I had no idea that was the underlying reason. In retrospect, yeah, it's obvious, but at the time all I saw was WP:NOTAFORUM as the stated justification, which was in and of itself not sufficient justification, and is my only point here: Comments of others should not be removed simply because they do not comply with WP:NOTAFORUM. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Sure it is, and this is codified at WP:TPG. –xenotalk 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry. I don't see where Comments of others should be removed simply because they do not comply with WP:NOTAFORUM. is codified at WP:TPG. Can you point it out please? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Removal of one's comments is very close to censorship, and as such should be used only in extreme situations. Usually, when a comment should be removed, it also should be oversighted. If the comment would not be oversighted, it probably should be left in place (which, however, does not preclude warning or sanctioning a user who made it if it is a personal attack, a legal threat, and so on). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Piotr... finally!!! someone who understands my point! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Sorry, I disagree completely, because there is also an issue of relevance to building an encyclopedia, to which WP:NOTAFORUM is mainly directed. Irrelevant comments that amount to libel tend to be deleted per WP:BLP, but not necessarily oversighted because that function is generally reserved for personal details. The middle course is Admin deletion of libellous comments to remove from public view, and thus protect the WMF from legal action. But oversight is only for really tendentious stuff and not "X blows goats"-style vandalism. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Piotrus is being silly, comparing that reversion to censorship. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Most of the time stuff like that inserted into articles is just reverted, not even deleted, much less oversighted. Calling for oversight of all crap removed from talkpages (or retention of all crap on talk pages that doesn't meet the standard of requiring oversight) doesn't make any sense. It's fine to revert disruptive stuff from talkpages that doesn't have a plausible encyclopedic purpose. It's a good and healthy thing that there are many internet forums were people can freely debate politics, and those seeking such forums can easily find them. None of them happen to be Wikipedia. If the stuff has to be left on the talkpage once it's there, then for NOTFORUM to mean anything at all, the only way to enforce NOTFORUM is to block the user. Does Piotrus think that blocking users is further from censorship than reverting inappropriate comments? That's just absurd. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC) "If the stuff has to be left on the talkpage once it's there, then for NOTFORUM to mean anything at all, the only way to enforce NOTFORUM is to block the user." First, we have to distinguish if we're talking about a BLP violation or something similarly serious, or just plain NOTFORUM banter. If the former (which it was in this case) then I suspect we have near-consensus support immediate removal, but only if it is so noted (which it was not in this case). In the case of pure NOTFORUM banter I think a simply comment with a link to NOTFORUM should more than suffice. If the banter continues then further steps can be taken, including, ultimately, comment removal and user blocking. But those are extreme measures which should not be resorted to initially, which appeared to be the case here since removal was justified purely by lack of compliance with NOTAFORUM. This is not an isolated case. Note the issue cited in the next section. I think we need to have more clarity on this issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Again, removal of forumy content is allowed per TPG, there is no need to explicitly refer to BLP if that is also an issue; of course it might help for future cases where someone edit wars to restore it as in this case. –xenotalk 00:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) FYI, there's a similar discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, originated by the same user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that. In retrospect, I probably should have linked to the original discussion on the other talk pages, rather than starting independent discussions there. But I'll suggest everyone move to this discussion at this point. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Point them to the guideline talk page. General discussion isn't for ANI and this incident is resolved, the removal being endorsed by numerous parties. –xenotalk 00:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC) The removal incident was never the issue in this ANI as I stated clearly when I opened it. The issue was always and remains whether merely referencing WP:NOTAFORUM is sufficient explanation for removing others' comments. Hardly anyone has even addressed this question here, and of those who have the consensus seems to be more "no" than "yes". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I was actually going to suggest the opposite, moving it to the talk page most relevant to save clogging ANI up too much with what may become a policy discussion. SGGH ping! 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I've been getting suggestions for both, hence I have started the multiple discussions, including this one. Very confusing. Sorry. Anyway, if everyone agrees to continue only at WT:TPG#Removing_others.27_comments_that_violate_WP:NOTAFORUM, that's fine with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Look, the real problem here was not misinterpretation of NOTFORUM by one side or the other. It was edit warring. The multiple reversions were just wrong. After the second or so revert there should have been discussion. Rodhullandemu could even have protected the talkpage for 5 or 10 minutes and posted a message asking everyone to cool it. As for the comment removal itself, it's almost always been sufficient to decide such things with common sense. I noticed that most of the users removing the comment were experienced while those putting it back were relative newbies. Newbies, please understand, there are lots of dynamics and customs around here that are not written down in policy documents. It takes a while to get used to them; until you've been active for a while, if someone tells you "you're doing it wrong", can you give some credence to the idea that they might know what they're doing? If you have questions, engage them in discussion. Don't get in a revert war. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC) The anon IP addresses the "newbies"? How presumptuous. I'm not an admin, but not a newbie either. Removing others' comments without appropriate justification is not the way things are normally done here. The edit war was a problem, but not the real problem. The real problem was that hose removing the comment were simply repeating and re-repeating their "justification", which was an irrelevant reference to WP:NOTAFORUM. The comment history speaks for itself. delete 1: rm, WP:NOTAFORUM restore 1: its a talk page for us to discuss the article delete 2: rv. per WP:NOTAFORUM; you are correct that the talk page is for discussing the article, but that is not what your comment is doing. restore 2: It is true that such comments are inappropriate and possibly disruptive, but deleting such comments is even more disruptive. Just leave a friendly comment/reminder about WP:NOTAFORUM. delete 3: Sorry, no. This really doesn't belong on the talk page because it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. It has to go. restore 3: Sorry. Please review WP:TPO. Removing comments of others is serious, but allowed in some cases. "Violation" of WP:NOTAFORUM is not one of those cases. delete 4: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article" (quote from WP:NOTAFORUM) restore 4: (WP:NOTAFORUM does not address much less sanction your behavior: removal of others' comments; see WP:TPO for that. delete 5: Reverted good faith edits by Born2cycle; Removed as obvious and gross breach of WP:BLP. Kindly stop this disruption. Note that the first time anything other than WP:NOTAFORUM was mentioned as a justification in the delete comments was in the 5th and final delete. The quote in delete 4 is from WP:NOTAFORUM. It's like no one on the delete side was paying attention to the discussion until the final delete 5, when, finally, the real legitimate justification to delete was mentioned: WP:BLP. The whole point of this ANI is to verify whether, regardless of how justifiable a given comment removal may be for unstated reasons, merely referring to WP:NOTAFORUM is sufficient basis to remove a user's comment. I say it isn't, and such removals should not be tolerated; so if that's the only justification provided for removing an others' comment, the delete should be immediately reverted. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC) NOTAFORUM is sufficient. If you had questions you should have just asked them, not edit warred. BLP was brought in to put a stop to the nonsense more decisively, though it failed to do so. If you look at the edit counts of the other restorers, most are newbies. If they're not newbies, they have even less excuse. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Among the few who are actually addressing the question here, experienced editors are saying merely referencing NOTAFORUM is not sufficient basis to warrant removing others' comments. There are excellent reasons that experienced editors have prohibited removing others' comments at WP:TPO, except in the specific exceptions listed. In case you didn't notice, strict application of WP:BLP is a relatively new thing at Wikipedia; about the last year or so, and it is not yet reflected in all the policies. At least it's reflected in WP:TPO now (you're welcome). From now on hopefully at least everyone involved here will know to reference WP:TPO rather than the irrelevant NOTAFORUM when justifying the removal of others' comments. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I agree that more discussion would have been helpful in promoting understanding for those confused, and have already said as much. The removers erred in assuming the point to be obvious (which to most commenters of this thread, it was) rather than realizing that some participants needed more explanation. I don't understand why you think off-purpose talkpage rants are something precious that need to be kept on display for all to see. They are still in the page history if someone wants to research them. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC) When those doing something with no or irrelevant explanation, confusion should be expected. I don't understand how you could be paying attention and yet think I "think off-purpose talk page rants are something precious that need to be kept on display for all to see". I've said nothing of the sort, and it's the kind of thing that WP:TPO clearly allows removal of. Have you read it? Have you been reading what I've been saying? Have you read my opening remarks in this section? Where do you get this idea? I'm really curious, because if that's the impression you're getting, there's no telling what else you might be inexplicably confused about. My only point centers on the indisputable fact that WP:NOTAFORUM says nothing about, and has nothing to do with, justifying the removal of others' comments. Deletions of others' comments based entirely on referencing NOTAFORUM should not be tolerated. Editors should treat other editors with more respect than that, even if one is just ranting. That's not to say that the rant should not be deleted, but that proper justification be provided when the rant is removed, and simply citing WP:NOTAFORUM does not even begin to cut it. Not even close. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC) NOTAFORUM was sufficient in the initial removal's edit summary to signify what the problem was, even though it didn't go into further analysis. WP is not a bureaucracy and it was reasonable to expect most editors to understand the issue right away. Once it was clear that some users didn't understand, then more explanation would have been apropos. WP:NOTAFORUM now says "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines" which I hope satisfies you, but even before, it's never been the case that every commonsense action anyone does has to be spelled out ahead of time in some policy document. It's enough to connect the action by reference to a relevant principle, then deal with the WP:BRD cycle if it occurs. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC) The list at WP:TPO is not meant to be inclusive, it clearly is headed "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:". Perhaps this should be added as an example, but removal on the grounds of NOTAFORUM is not forbidden, it just wasn't included as an example. It is now I see, although the list of examples is still being treated as though it was more than that. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

All-time Long Island Rough Riders roster

Unsourced list of names with no reliable source. The creator of the article is not only reverting my prod blp tag in violation of the rules for unsourced blps, he's also repeatedly restoring a fair use image for which there is no rationale for us in that page. Woogee (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "I am working on the article right now, and if you'll just hold your horses all your concerns will be addressed" don't you understand? --JonBroxton (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Don't remove the prod tag until you provide a reliable source" do you not understand? Woogee (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The link provided is a reliable source as it links to the league's official archive of historical statistical data. More sources will be added shortly, if you leave me alone and let me get on with working on the article, instead of dragging me into pointless arguments like this. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It links to a main page of the league's website, but not to any page which proves that any of those names were ever on that team. And you still haven't addressed the illegal use of the fair use image. Woogee (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Woogee, let the man complete the page. Jumping the gun and nom'ing it for deletion as soon as it is made is kinda biting. Relax. If it doesn't meet WP:N it will be deleted, if it does, then it will remain. Deleting conversations, bringing things to ANI, and just starting conversations everywhere is, as JonBroxton said, preventing him from getting his work done. Relax. It gets done, it gets done. Give the dude an hour. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nom it for deletion, I listed it for prod, which gives several days to provide reliable sources. What's the point of the PROD BLP tag if not to use it to make sure that BLPs are sourced properly? Woogee (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A PROD tag can be removed by anyone, anytime. I made it very clear to JonBroxton on his talk page that he doesn't get a ton of time. He needs to get his work done tonight. I also told him that if he feels the page isn't mainspace worthy yet, it can always be moved back. Relax, Rome wasn't built in a day. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see, I have now added five additional source references, and altered the licensing of the image. I would have done this earlier but, well, you know... --JonBroxton (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The BLP PROD never should have been applied to this article. It is for unsourced biographies. It is not for articles or lists that mention living people. It is not for pages with inadequate referencing. Maurreen (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about clarifying the scope of BLP Prods here. Maurreen (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@Neutral Homer, what you say is true regarding generic PROD tags. The BLP PROD tag can be removed only upon the insertion of a WP:RS to support at least one statement made about the person in the article, per Wikipedia:STICKY#Objecting. Not that I'm saying that the BLP PROD tag belonged on the article, I'm just being overly fastidious... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Surely there could have been some good faith shown to an editor with 35,000 edits and a large number of well sourced articles created. Articles don't have to be perfect the moment they are published, and if they aren't, part of being a collaborative project means you could just as easily pitch in and help get something up to scratch rather than wasting time bringing things here. Camw (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• I have removed Woogee's rollback rights, which have been misused [27], [28], and this happened two weeks after being blocked for edit-warring (with rollback). The BLP PROD can only be used on articles which are biographies of living people, so not for list of people. As Camw mentions, WP:AGF. Cenarium (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies to anything "...anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, images, and categories." then the PROD tag must as well. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 19:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The BLP PROD process was created to deal with unsourced biographies of living people, the consensus which led to its adoption was that it would be used on unsourced biographies of living people and the policy reflects it. There is no question on this; and any extension of its scope would require community consensus. Cenarium (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Question: Woogee's user page says:

I am not a new user. In fact, I am a former admin who felt it would be best if I left Wikipedia for a while. I am back to try to start over again. I don't feel the need to reveal my past Username, though I might be willing to provide it if people email me, but don't consider this an obligation on my part. I'm going to start over as a basic user, and let's see how things go.

NOTE: I was not blocked or banned, I left voluntarily, several years ago.

I noticed this statement a while ago, when Woogee first began to participate on the noticeboards, but did not consider it pertinent at the time to dig further into it. Considering, however, the sum total of the editor's behavior since re-appearing, is it now legitimate to ask what Woogee's previous identity was and why they gave up the admin bit - i.e. was it voluntary or "under a cloud"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently BLP does not matter any more. Thanks for letting me know. Woogee (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that Woogee has left the room. I'm just wondering, in general, a couple of things: (1) How would erroneously listing someone on a soccer team roster count as a "BLP violation"? It's not like the article says "List of known perverts" or something. (2) How can an article be built without the sources already being known? I've often seen this argument: "I'll add sources later." How can you be posting unsourced information? Would it kill the author to include the sources while adding the information? I'm not arguing for overzealous deletion. I'm just curious how it's possible to build an article with sources apparently to be looked up later? "Putting the cart before the horse"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't a case of "I'll add the sources later" being days later... Woogee tagged my article literally 90 seconds after I published it, while I was in the process of adding the additional sources, checking disambig links, and doing my post-publish cleanup. If he had waited 30 minutes, even 15 minutes, there would have been nothing for him to complain about and all this unpleasantness could have been avoided. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Woogee left with a FU to one editor [29] and a whining FU to everybody [30][31][32] and that prompts me to ask again: who is this person who claims to be an ex-admin and under what circumstance did he lose or drop the bit and leave Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? If Woogee truly left, then there shouldn't be a problem. If they return in the future, under that account or another, then it would be worth investigating. I admit to some personal curiosity but I think that everyone's time would be better spent on something more productive. -- Atama頭 17:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's sensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User violates BLP on talk page

DD2K (talk · contribs) is reinserting a comment that refers disparagingly to Joseph Farah, and a journalist for the Greeley Gazette in violation of BLP. He then posts a legal threat warning on my page for bringing the BLP violation to his attention, which he removes as "bullshit". --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I see neither legal threat nor BLP violation. (At least not in these diffs...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How in the heck is that a WP:BLP violation? Being a birther is considered a fringe conspiracy theorist. The comment is tame, to say the least. There are factual errors in it(read birther theories), and it relates to the topic on the page. This is just ridiculous. Also, the user is abusing the tools and reverting my edits. Am I really missing something here or what? DD2K (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The content in the talk page is irrelevant unless it's a personal attack or vandalism. Biographies of a Living Person violations are not included. Sorry. --A3RO (mailbox)

True. Let's just trout'em both. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore each other for the time being. Thanks for being stellar editors! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake was the legal warning. It was in jest because I thought the BLP warning was absurd. I can't believe it was serious. Still, the use of rollback by Saturn is a violation. Anyway, sorry for this. DD2K (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Re A3RO: not sure about the present case (haven't reviewed it); but your statement that the BLP policy does not apply to talkpages is shockingly inaccurate. –xeno^talk 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Hang on a minute here. First, the remark about this Farah guy could be interpreted as a BLP violation, as it suggests he's not in his right mind. As BLP violations go, though, it's pretty lame. Second, the "legal threat" was a good-faith but mistaken interpretation. Third, and most importantly, the statement that BLP violations are allowed on talk pages is flat-out, dead wrong. BLP violations are not allowed anywhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What Bugs said. Yes, BLP applies on talk pages. Yes, that was a pretty mild BLP issue, but still not helpful to building an encyclopedia, and probably violated NOTFORUM as well. No, there's no legal threat. If we can all just act civil and professional, the issue goes away, no? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I knew that BLP violations are not permitted anywhere, articles, talk pages or anywhere else on Wikipedia. But for those not familiar with American football, a receiver has to have "both feet in bounds" for it to be a good catch. Using the phrase of not have both feet in bounds just means it's incorrect, no good, out of bounds, wrong. DD2K (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That's true, but even knowing that, I took it as a euphemism along the lines of "the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor", and the like. Thanks for the explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was it said that BLP vios are allowed? When I said it was not included I meant that there was never one in the first place provided in the diffs. Some people like to beat dead horses. --A3RO (mailbox) 01:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"The content in the talk page is irrelevant unless it's a personal attack or vandalism. Biographies of a Living Person violations are not included." Two or three of us, at least, read that as implying BLP vios are OK on the talk page. And it still looks like that's what you're saying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:AmyFuller

Can someone please block this disruptive editor? All they do is change "mother" to "woman" on Christianity and abortion, claiming consensus while they have zero edits to the talk page. Seems like a sock of User:CarolineWH to me, who made exactly the same edits to Christianity and abortion a few months back, but I won't bother with a checkuser request for this.--Atlan (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

12 hour for edit warring and vandalism. The SOCK possibility may be confirmed with a WP:DUCK test but I'm a tad busy packing! :) SGGH ^ping! 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also CharlieC24 (talk · contribs · logs) per this edit. SGGH ^ping! 08:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blocked per WP:DUCK (I saw it at WP:SPI before realizing there was a note here). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spotfixer - I had the time, please stop by if you can. - Schrandit (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I jumped in to state the obvious duckiness, but am not familiar with Spotfixer. SGGH ^ping! 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And I just looked at the SPI archive - quite a rap sheet. SGGH ^ping! 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User GalaicoWarrior, "Founder of the Gallaic Revival Movement."

GalaicoWarrior (talk · contribs), also editing as 74.47.100.65 (talk · contribs) -- see [33] - is running through articles mentioning Iberia and replacing Iberia with Gallaecia [34], etc. Some of his edit summaries have been reverted as OR, nonsense, etc. but he clearly sees himself as on a mission. I'll inform him of this discussion now but I'm off to bed soon, so if others can keep an eye on him, advise him, etc. it would be useful. He's new so hopefully he can be persuaded to moderate his revivalism. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He is also adding references to the entirely unattested (not to say fictitious) "Gallaic language": [35], [36], [37]. +Angr 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And using his IP address to edit/revert/replace stuff he's edited with his account. What do we do about this? Shall I warn him to stop and block if he continues? Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My rather cursory look at this makes me think he should be blocked as a hoax-only account, though I'll have to dig a little more before blocking myself. Blueboy96 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The langauge is certainly not true, and the attribution of everything Iberian to the Roman province seems a little too much. SGGH ^ping! 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

After doing some more digging, I've indefblocked him. Virtually his entire history is dedicated to promoting this nonexistent language. The level of hoaxing is such that to my mind, we can't allow him to edit. Blueboy96 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANEW backlog

The 3rr board is now 12 hours backlogged. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Now 17 hours backlogged. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reversion to POV-full version of Ahmad Raza Khan (religious intellectual)

A number of editors have worked to make Ahmad Raza Khan a more neutral and objective article, but other editors have over the last few months repeatedly reverted the article to a different version which is full of honorifics, derogatory descriptions of other religious groups as "deviant sects", verbose anecdotes to prove how awesome the subject is, tons of unsourced statements, lists of people with no notability given, etc. I've tried several times to revert the article to a more neutral version from 2009, and have worked to improve that version even further, but a major POV editor, Thelonerex keeps reverting it back with little to no explanation, and won't answer my clearly-written points on Discussion as to why his version is inappropriate, only saying that the version he favors is "neutralized" and that my reversion to a NPOV version is "unjustified" without giving any real arguments.

Here's the diff for the version I support, and the version he supports; I argue the version he supports is just not NPOV. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User making disruptive legal threats

A disruptive user, Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner (who apparently is Craig Cobb) has been posting legal threats on other users' talk pages. For example, see [this diff], which includes the quote

I do understand how you people do not desire any mentions whatsoever of the tenured Prof Macdonald on my page, and that hateful, controlling "choke point" fact against NawlinWiki and Wikipedia will be in any future litigation in event of my assassination by ARA as well.

This is a deeply paranoid, deluded man who believes he will be targeted by an imminent assassination and is threatening to have Wikipedia sued. He is also threatening to "expose" various Wikipedia editors by making Podblanc videos. I believe speedy intervention of some sort is necessary. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for the legal threat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Went to block, but was beaten to it. Fairly textbook application of WP:NLT really. The account could possibly have been blocked per WP:REALNAME, as well, at least until we confirmed whether it was the real Craig Cobb. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

That would have been a nonsensical use of a username block. It would say "Please change your username before you resume making legal threats". NLT was the correct reason to block. rspεεr (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive template breakage

Resolved

 – minor mistake, followed by an (understandable) panic-mode reaction. No issue. Amalthea 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

MC10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sometime today, near the morning UTC, MC10 (talk · contribs) decided to replace all instances of {{subst}} with <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>.

This broke hundreds of the user warning templates.

I, along with a few admins, mainly Tim Song, managed to clean up this mess... At least to my knowledge. I may have missed a couple. To this end, I request, along with the below, to test every twinkle enabled user warning message on Example (talk · contribs)'s user talk page.

What do I want this thread to do? I would personally like an edit filter to prevent the above from ever happening again, or a note to never replace {{subst}} with what was noted above. If anything, I would like an admin to at least warn MC10 to not do this again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has been notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a bit overeager. From the few I checked, only {{Welcome-anon}} was actually broken, since the use of safesubst broke the substitution check here and always displayed the error message. The changes to {{Uw-create1}} and all others I spot-checked were perfectly good, and a clear improvement.
I for one am happy that MC10 went through the uw- templates and made that change, I've made the same change to a couple dozen templates myself last week. So no, we need not prevent usage of safesubst, and not really need to test all messages since the warning templates will all have survived the change unless other mistakes were made, and as far as I can tell only the one welcome template was touched.
Amalthea 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what does safesubst actually do? SGGH ^ping! 10:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Safesubst works the same as subst during substitution, but is simply ignored during transclusion. Previously, many templates (e.g. almost all user warning templates) that were supposed to be transcludable and (cleanly) substitutable had to be called with an additional parameter like {{subst:Foo|subst=subst:}} to get rid of parser function cruft. With safesubst, that parameter can be omitted, and it just works. See WT:WikiProject Template#Safesubst or meta:Help:Safesubst for more.
That doesn't mean that all previous uses of subst should now be replaced with safesubst, or that all templates should now be built to allow both. But for most meta templates and talk page templates it's very useful.
Amalthea 11:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Didn't we just go through this the other day? (The moral of the story is to propose or announce your intention to make mass changes before carrying them out) –xeno^talk 13:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure that would have helped here: The intended change of the uw-* templates had merit and would have gotten support, and they were executed without issue. They simply coincided with the same change to one welcome template where it broke some special coding. It wasn't a "mass breakage", only a subsequent mass rollback of all changes guilty by association.
    It never hurts to discuss stuff, and one could have expected it in this case since MC10 was a burnt child, having made similar changes to that range of templates which actually broke functionality one year ago (contribs, talk). Nonetheless, I wouldn't have in this case – or rather, I haven't, as I said I've made a couple dozen of those changes myself. Amalthea 15:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• I just applied the same change that {{welcome}} used. {{Welcome-anon}} was the only template broken, and that was by mistake; anyways, all of the uw- templates worked and were not broken. By this discussion, a bot request had already been filed for the change to be made. The rollback was unnecessary as only one template broke. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, well, it even was discussed then. To sum up, it was a minor mistake, followed by an (understandable) panic-mode reaction. Once the bot gets full approval it can restore those changes.
    I consider this resolved. Amalthea 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I panicked. When I tried to use {{Welcome-anon}}, the template didn't work both time I tried to sub it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was in the middle of the same panic, and had not yet finished testing the changed templates in the sandbox when you guys reverted all of the modifications. Having an approved bot do this sort of work would help to avoid these situations in the future. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Or even just link to a discussion on the matter - even a lightly trafficked one like in this case. –xeno^talk 19:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a wise old BAG saying. :) And Anomie's trial edits did just that, of course. Amalthea 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, don't worry about it. As I said, with you thinking the mess would get bigger the longer the changes stayed unreverted the reaction was understandable. Just run it by ANI first, next time. Amalthea 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I am fine with anything that happened. Sorry about the confusion with the {{welcome-anon}} template. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy and 1RR

I originally posted this on Abecedare's talk page in response to an accusation of edit warring made against another editor, but he seems to be on a wikibreak so I've brought it here. Radiopathy (talk · contribs) is under a 1RR restriction, and coming off a week-long block for socking. One if his first mainspace edits upon returning from the block was to change infobox information [38], then when his change was reverted he reverted back to his preferred version [39]. He then went on to accuse the other editor of edit warring on Abecedare's page [40].

As background, Radiopathy has been blocked multiple times for edit warring on this sort of thing. He's under an indefinite 1RR, and was recently caught socking to evade his restrictions and block log Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy/Archive. Radiopathy has long edit warred over whether or not to include the full name of the country in the infobox, he claims the MOS doesn't apply to the infobox, other editors (including myself) disagree and Radiopathy feels he's right and there's no need to discuss. He's had three week-long blocks in the last six months.

When I posted this on Abecedare's page, Radiopathy's first response was to blank my edit [41], then to accuse me of edit warring [42] without any kind of DIFFs or proof. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy notified here [43] I've moved this to ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is he on 0RR or 1RR? If he's on 1RR, he's only made 1 revert, no? –xeno^talk 20:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As per the ANI discussions (as can be seen from his block log), he's on indefinite 1RR. My understanding of 1RR is that an editor on 1RR is entitled to make changes, but if someone else reverts that change, re-reversion is not allowed. ("If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them.") He made the disputed edit above, then reverted to the edit again when another editor corrected him. If that's not a violation, then I apologize, and will close this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm... That sounds more like a 0RR to me (see also a relevant discussion from the talk page of that essay). I personally wouldn't feel comfortable sanctioning an editor based on an essay. Where is the actual original restriction noted? –xeno^talk 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I've changed the title of this section based on Xeno's comments. Dayewalker (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note I've changed the essay to reflect a more common-sense understanding of 1RR. That being said if "1RR" is being handed down as an official sanction, it really ought be codified in a guideline rather than left to be explained in an essay. –xeno^talk 20:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to be offline for quite a while, hopefully someone else has the official 1RR notice for Radiopathy from one of his ANI threads. If I'm incorrect here, I apologize. However while the specifics of 1RR are debatable, I feel certain this user was well aware of what they were doing based on their history of blocks for violating 1RR, their quickness to accuse other editors of edit warring, and their deletion of my first comments to Abecedare. If consensus is there's no violation, feel free to close this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but I'll have to leave it to someone more familiar with the history here to comment on that. –xeno^talk 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the indef 1rr restriction notice.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing officially listed at WP:ER, but the 1RR notice on Radiopathy's talk page references WP:1RR. That does allow for one revert per day, which is what I usually restrict myself to voluntarily at any article. Xeno's recent change to the essay does reflect my interpretation of the restriction, and the way I've seen most others interpret it as well; it literally allows one revert per editor per article per day. The intent of such a restriction is to allow one revert to demonstrate clearly that the edit that was made was objected to. If the revert is uncontested, then it stays in place, no harm done. If the revert is undone, then discussion should take place rather than further reverts escalating into an edit war. I'm not one of Radiopathy's defenders, certainly, but I don't see that the restriction has been breached here. Furthermore, despite what may seem like aggressiveness in giving warnings to editors about edit wars, that is certainly in the spirit of 1RR to try to move the content dispute away from article space and into talkspace.

On the other hand, I don't see any justification for blanking out the message at Abecedare's talk page, which seems in violation of WP:TPO. -- Atama頭 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• The blanking was a mistake, and I am the one who undid it.
• I only reverted once at George Harrison, then left the message on Abecedare's talk page about Daedalus969 edit warring, and relented. If you check the edit histories of George Harrison and The Beatles, you'll see that this has come up many times before; Daedalus969 was told in an edit summary months ago that what he was doing was edit warring. This is an ongoing issue which has little to do with MoS, and in this particular instance is not an actual 1RR violation. Radiopathy •talk• 23:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So 1RR actually means you're allowed to insert disputed material twice? Once originally inserted, then reinserted? If that's the case, then this case is obviously not valid and can be closed. If 3RR means you can edit that material in the same way three times (counting the original entry) before crossing the line, 1RR would seem to mean you can edit the material once, then you should discuss. I guess I'm confusing an edit (even a reversion of previously removed material) with a revert. Dayewalker (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1RR applies to actually reverting material. Inserting material into an article for the first time, even if it is disputed, is not a reversion. Re-inserting it after it has been removed is. From what I can see of this case, the user has only reverted once and, so, is within their 1RR restriction. Silverseren^C 23:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The material usually isn't "disputed" until someone protests its inclusion, so the first insertion of disputed material wouldn't be until the reinsertion from the original editor. 3RR does not mean you can edit the material in the same way three times before crossing the "bright line", 3RR means three reverts. To give an example, let's say User A adds info to an article and User B reverts that change. The edit log might look like this:

• User A introduces info.
• User B undoes the edit. (1st revert)
• User A reinserts the info. (1st revert)
• User B deletes the info. (2nd revert)
• User A undoes the deletion. (2nd revert)
• User B replaces the info with something different (3rd revert - at 3RR)
• User A rewords the information to match their original edit. (3rd revert - at 3RR)
• User B undoes the previous edit from User A. (4th revert - 3RR broken)
• User A deletes the information that User B introduced. (4th revert - 3RR broken)

The 3RR rule states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." It defines a revert as "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". Just swap out the word "three" with the word "one", and you have the 1RR restriction. Sometimes editors are restricted to 1RR in a longer time period, 1 week is a common duration seen at WP:ER, but Radiopathy seems restricted to one per day from what I can see. -- Atama頭 23:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Radiopathy, as said above, has actually been edit warring about this material for some time. If one were to say that the first reversion is the first time the war started, they would be wrong, as it really started quite awhile ago. Here are the most recent of his reverts:

• 02:22, May 3, 2010 UTC
• 14:42, May 2, 2010 UTC

So, as you can see, his two most recent reversions take place within a 24 hour period, violating his restriction of one revert per 24 hours. I need to stress that editing content while reverting does not make the edit any less of a revert, that would fall under gaming the system, and thus does not fly.

Neither of those two are of course the first time the change was initially made, which if was the case, it would make the one at May 2nd the first. However, as said, the first change regarding such an edit happened months ago. In light of that, he has been edit warring over this change for months, and has been blocked several times before his 1rr restriction to that end.

Here, for instance, is a reverison he made a few weeks earlier, with his sockpuppet:

• 14:03, April 17, 2010

There are of course many other reversions. I can easily find and post them if required.. however, I don't think that's needed.

Radiopathy clearly violated his 1rr restriction, as the two reverts took place during a 24 hour period. I personally think per the above, this is an open and shut case.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus's post, of course, assumes that I'm the one who's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; however, his persistence in making provocative non-consensus edits clearly points to him being the edit warrior - and worse. It's very telling that he has not made any changes to any Britain-related articles that I have not also edited. Radiopathy •talk• 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm busy in real life, maybe you have noticed I've made few to no edits in the last hour except to this thread. Also, you speak of consensus for your edits. Care to point out where you gained such a consensus?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And really, it isn't telling of anything when I've been editing that article before you even started.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, do not put words in my mouth. I never said you were disrupting wikipedia to make a point, I said you were edit warring in clear violation of your 1rr restriction.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, my edits are not to provoke, they are per the manual of style, which quite clearly does -not- exclude info boxes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection not working?

Resolved

 – User:Eagles247 did not know deleted edits played a factor in edit count for autoconfirmed status. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I had my userpage indefinitely semi-protected due to vandalism from IPs, and today Weakamus (talk · contribs) vandalized it. This user had 8 edits prior to the vandalism and created his account in August 2008. How was this user able to edit my userpage even though they weren't autoconfirmed? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

They had four deleted edits that probably pushed the total past the threshold. Resolute 22:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't realize deleted edits count towards that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring, canvassing, vote-stacking, and BLP/Defamation by Annoynmous

Annoynmous (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) has been editing up to the 3RR limit at the Steven Emerson article. He solicits others to revert edits at that page, especially when he is away from his computer or at his 3RR limit. He insists on putting into the article non-RS contentious "facts" regarding Emerson, a living person. As background, Emerson brought a multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the author of those "facts" (though years later Emerson dropped it).

Efforts to dissuade Annoy from this conduct, through talk page discussion, at an edit warring report, at a wikiquette complaint, and at the RS/N have not been successful.

As this involves a combination of edit warring, vote-stacking, canvassing, and BLP/Defamation issues, and prior complaints at the respective noticeboards have not altered Annoy's conduct, I'm bringing the matter here. Annoy has been blocked 8 times in the past, primarily for edit warring.

Initial edit warring complaint

His edit-warring was first raised at WP:AN/EW 4 days ago: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]

[but see admin's view below as to one of these not counting as a revert]

Diff of edit warring warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Initial vote-stacking/campaigning complaint

Annoy engaged in contemporaneous canvassing. His messages were clearly not neutral, and were obvious attempts to influence a discussion. Poster-children of what is described at wp:canvass as improper Votestacking and Campaigning:

• To I/P Collaboration WProject: "I'm engaged with [Epeefleche] on the two articles mentioned above, but this is a crisis that can't be solved by one editor. I need help from like minded souls ... I don't feel like engaging in another nasty edit war. ... I'm sounding the alarm that people need to aware of Epeefleche's edits."
• "would appeciate if while I get some shut eye you could keep an eye on this article and make sure no one reverts my edits while I'm away from my computer."
• "If you know any like minded editors who feel like I do I would ask that you please notify them."
• "If he reverts my edits again will you please try and restore them."
• "Epeefleche ... has reported me on the edit war noticeboard .... if you could please speak on my behalf"
• "I would appreciate it if you could alert anybody you feel may share the same concerns as you and I"

Results of edit warring and wikiquette complaints

Tarizabjotu declined the edit warring complaint 3 days ago, writing: "I don't see how a block will help matters here. There was no "canvassing". Annoynmous complained to someone, perhaps someone they trust (people do that all the time in content disputes), and it is up to him to ignore the complaint. Not going to block over that. The fourth revert is not a valid revert because it was consecutive with the third. They're both considered one revert. No block here."

Nsaum also raised a wikiquette complaint, which has not led to conclusive action: [51]

More recent edit warring

Annoy continued edit warring up to the 3RR limit again today:

1. First revert: [52]
2. Second revert: [53]
3. Third revert: [54]

Diff of additional edit warring warning: [55]

Diffs of additional attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56], [57], [58]

More recent canvassing

• "Epeefleche has once again reverted the version you and I agreed to. I'm at 3rr and can no longer edit. Just wanted to let you know."

John Z followed his receipt of that note in short order by reverting, but only in slight part: [59]

BLP/Defamation

Part of what is being edit-warred over is a BLP/defamation issue. Annoy insists on inputting highly critical contentious "facts" sourced to a non-RS article. The "facts" relate to both what a living person has supposedly done and said, and what others supposedly said about Emerson. WP:GRAPEVINE instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced." But when I have tried to follow the guideline, Annoy has been insistent on putting the contentious material back in the BLP. Discussion is taking place here, but Annoy still refuses to agree that the material should be deleted from the BLP.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How many battlegrounds do you need? It seems you should let the RS noticeboard, which had an post only 40 minutes ago, do its work. I do not think that this dispute should be ranging over multiple fora (forums?). At this point, anyone who wants to be is thoroughly aware of the dispute.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for that NB to be pointed here. As this involves various issues, it makes sense for it to be addressed in one place.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there more issues involved than when the RS discussion (which just had another interesting and thoughtful post) started? Personally, and subject to anything that Annoy might have to say, I am inclined to suggest a strong warning to Annoy not to post things that can be interpreted as encouraging others help out when you are at 3RR (which is not an entitlement) and let the RS discussion run its course, as it seems to be productive. But gee whiz, this has been at 3RR, WQ, RS, and now here, hope I didn't miss any. Shopping isn't nice either.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not being clear. The most recent edit warring and canvassing/vote-stacking are new events, not previously reported. The prior edit warring and canvassing is mentioned as related background, as they bear on the pattern here. The BLP/defamation issues at the same article are of course related, but at this point it seemed unproductive to spread the new complaints out over two other fora as independent complaints, and most efficient to have a central place for resolution.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again epeefleche is being misleading. First off he omits the fact that the first example he gives above was declined by the noticeboard. He once again falsely claims that one of the edits was a revert when it wasn't. It was an attempt to properly format a picture.

Contrary to his assertion I have repeatedly given my reasons for my edits on the talk page. John Z agreed with my version of the article and I simply informed him that epeefleche had once again violated the consensus. He has repeatedly refused to engage in constructive discussion and instead just engages in mad reverts in order to get the version of the article he wants. I have never defamed epeefleche and he knows it. The strongest I've gotten is to compare him to jayjg, which I apologized for, and I once referred to his editing habits as a "crusade".

I wish that instead of complaining to every noticeboard, ARB committe board he can that epeefleche would actually engage on the talk page and make the case for his edits, but he refuses to do so. Instead he looks for every way he can to get me banned so I will go away and he can get the version of the article he wants. annoynmous 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but you shouldn't even look like you are trying to solicit 3RR backup. An admin can conclude "edit warring" from that, even where there's not actual 3RR breaches. Personally, I think the noticeboards are dealing appropriate with this matter and that there is nothing to be done here. Go work it out at RS and on talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Annoy: 1) I omitted no such fact. I in fact quoted what Tarizabjotu wrote. 2) The talk pages, which I provide diffs for above, speak for themselves, and reflect tireless efforts on my part to engage in constructive discussion, without success.

@Wehwalt: With all due respect (and apologies; I should have said "hello again" at the outset), the most recent edit warring/vote-stacking/campaigning has not been raised elsewhere. As this ball of wax is all connected, and the RS/N doesn't connect the dots, this would appear to be the best central place.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again to you. I was actually hoping other admins would also weigh in, also remembering our recent run-in, but we seem to be short on personnel tonight. Maybe everyone's down in the bar?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're right here with me, and sadly I can't get any of the bleary-eyed lot to turn to their blackberries. (just joking). No worries -- this can wait for them to sober up.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you didn't omit anything, that's why you listed 4 reverts above without claifying that one wasn't a revert.

Once again I haven't votestacked or canvassed. John Z has contributed to the article and talk page and agreed with my edits and all I did was inform him of that. Why is epeefleche not called out for vitestacking for alerting several different editors to his discussion on the RS noticebaord? annoynmous 01:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

1) To provide greater clarity, in addition to the above admin's statement, I've now added an italicized parenthetical at mention of the revertreverts above, to bring the reader's attention to the admin's view there as well. 2) As to your vote-stacking and canvassing, the diffs speak for themselves. 3) As to my alerting you and other editors to our RS/N discussion, the "alerts" were certainly neutral. Furthermore, I not only alerted you as an involved editor, but also those who had commented at the previous RS/N discussions on whether FAIR is an RS, as was quite clear in those alerts, as to John Z here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again epeefleche is being delibertely deceptive. It's the 1st revert that is falsely indentified, not the 4th. I don't know whether he changed the order from the original page or not, but the fact matter is that the admin declined the block because they agreed the edit was not a revert.

Fine, if you can alert people so can I. John Z has contributed to the article and talk page and I left a neutral message on his talk page on how you went against the consensus. annoynmous 02:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that when epeefleche originally posted this on the noticeboard he listed 5 reverts. The problem was that 4 of the edits he listed weren't made by me. It wasn't until stellarkid pointed this out to him that he admitted he made a mistake and changed it. annoynmous 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You know Epeefleche is quite rich in complaining about canvassing and votestacking. Here is a message he left on Jimbo wales page:

Defamation?
Hi Jimbo. I know this is a hot button for you. An editor is inserting highly critical and contentious material into a BLP, from a non-RS (I believe) article.

The subject of the BLP has already brought a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the article author over his alleged defamation of the subject in his writing. He dropped the suit after a number of years. But now an editor is insisting on putting contentious language from an article by the author into the BLP. I think per various guidelines it should be deleted immediately. The editor edit-wars with me whenever I seek to delete it (or another, well-intentioned editor puts it back in with a "citation needed" notation).

I raised the issue at BLPN, but so far without effect. The matter is discussed here. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC) "

To my knowledge Jimbo was never involved in this dispute until now. This seems to me like the definition of canvassing, sending a message to a random editor not connected to the dispute who just happens to be the owner of wikipedia. How is that fair? annoynmous 03:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, there's no way in hell that Jimbo can be considered to be a "random editor". Whether one believes that he should be or not, it is clear that Jimbo is the holder of significant power and authority on Wikipedia, and bringing disputes to him in the hope that he will intervene is not in any way unusual. It probably shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is, and to pretend that going to Wales is "canvassing" is ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So people aren't allowed to canvass with the exception of Jimbo? Is that in the guidelines somewhere? I gotta say this whole dispute, like most disputes on wikipedia, has left me in a depressed state. I'm regretting getting involved at all. annoynmous 04:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, going to Jimbo is not "canvassing", because the intent is not to get an editor involved in the dispute as it stands, but to short-circuit the dispute entirely by going to the top. I have no idea if that's in any rule, but it's an accurate description of the system as it functions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo would be the correct essay to refer to. You are correct, contacting Jimbo is trying to short-circuit the discussion and is largely frowned upon. There are only specific instances where it is appropriate to contact Jimbo, usually in terms of something that he would actually be involved in. Silverseren^C 05:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• As the essay that Silverseren directs us to says: "Furthermore, when Jimbo does respond he rarely takes sides, unless it is a completely egregious and unescapably important issue that must be responded to."

Which I gather it is. Given Jimbo's comments on his talk page and at the RS/N discussion, and his deletion of offending material at the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and you then interpreted those comments to give you permission to delete FAIR from wikipedia altogether which he never gave you permission to do. Also I must say it's extremely hypocritical to complain about my supposed canvassing when you left a message on the talk page of an editor who had nothing to do with the dispute. Was the case really so dire that only Jimbo could solve it? annoynmous 08:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that Jimbo actually did a revert on the article with an edit summary: [60] Stellarkid (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• @Annoy: Your statement as to me deleting FAIR from Wikipedia altogether is incorrect. As I've discussed at the RS/N.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after epeefleche contacted him. annoynmous 05:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What isn't really clear to me is why this issue is having an effect on article content. BLP works on a 'do no harm' basis and the policy compliance of the material from Sugg's article hasn't been established. Perhaps it will be shown to be policy compliant at some point or there will be alternative sources but in the meantime surely BLP requires that the material be excluded from the article. This seems like a no brainer to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Sean.hoyland, BLP's mantra of "do no harm" and "when in doubt" apply here, and it should be excluded from the article until (and if) sources surface that are policy compliant. Furthermore as the editor who filed the Wikietiquette report[61], I think a lot of hard feelings and "drama" could have been avoided had something been done there. It is NEVER proper to use a Wikiproject talk page to "warn" other editors about someone, or air their "dirty laundry"; and the fact that the discussion there continued despite a number of other editors joining in saying it was an improper forum, only helped to fan the flames and cause this dispute to spread to multiple locations. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How was the inclusion of Suggs article causing harm. It was stated as his opinion, nothing more. Recently epeefleceh interpreted the RS noticeboard talkpage as a liscense to remove FAIR from every article on wikipedia. annoynmous 07:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Help needed; Annoy reverting deletion at the Emerson article. I'm at a complete loss. Now, despite Jimbo's very clear statement at the RS/N, Annoy has reverted deletions of mention of Sugg in the Emerson article. We really need an admin to step up to the plate here and address this; I can't seem to get through to Annoy, and apparently now neither can Jimbo.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is complete bunk. Jimbo never gave epeefleche permission to remove Sugg altogether. All he said is that the parts that don't have any cititation should be removed. Epeefleche inferred a lot more from Jimbo's statement than he should have. He thought it gave him permission to remove FAIR from over 30 articles. Several editors on RS board have said that epeefleche was wrong in this conclusion. annoynmous 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• My above comment relates to Annoy's revert at the Emerson article. That was in direct contravention to Jimbo's comment. Commenting on whether we should use FAIR/Sugg at the Emerson article, Jimbo said: "Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything - so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself...Jimbo Wales"--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Have to second Epeefleche here. This gets frustrating. I don't want to appear overly critical but it seems like a hardened case of "I can't hear you". Can we get an admin here to help? Stellarkid (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm amused that Stellarkid is trying to represent himself as a disinterested party when he's been epeefleches partner in a lot of the antics on this page. An I must say it's also rich to talk about frustration, because I'm a mountain of it at this point. All I did was lightly tweak an article I thought was biased and epeefleche and stellarkid acted like I'd committed some crime against nature. annoynmous 00:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I do not take it as the conclusion of the RSN discussion that the FAIR source cannot be used. Although it was initially used inappropriately to source a great number of controversial factual statements, for every one of which better sources have now been substituted , it can still be used to give the opinion of the author. Removing it from this article is unnecessary, and legal proceedings being taken elsewhere are irrelevant--even if it is eventually held that Sugg libeled the subject, that very fact will be relevant. Removing it from other articles is POINTYy. It has been challenged at RSN several times in different contexts, and always upheld as a usable source for opinion, ebven in BLPs. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've now reflected Jimbo's comment 4 paragraphs above, w/regard to whether we should use the FAIR/Sugg article. His opinion that we should not, under the circumstances, is clear.

As far as deletions of FAIR at other Wikipedia articles is concerned, as I said at the RS/N, the only two situations where it can't be used as a general matter are: 1) as an RS for fact; and 2) where it introduces contentious material to a BLP. If it is pure opinion, generally that is fine. For example, where FAIR says: "We didn't like his book." But where it is both opinion and one of the above, it is not, for reasons I imagine are obvious. So, it's not OK to reflect FAIR saying "Our opinion is that Person X's racism is bad," or "Our opinion is that the fact that Y did such-and-such is bad" -- in the absence of RS support for the fact that Person X is racist, or the fact that Y did such-and-such. The wp policies supporting such deletions are discussed in further detail at the RS/N.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well who gave you personal permission to determine that in each of those instances that those articles were doing such things. That's a matter to take up on the talk pages of each individual article.

Also Jimbo's words were in the context of Emersons lawsuit. I pointed out that his reasoning was wrong in this sense because the lawsuit was dropped. It should also be said that when Jimbo personally edited the article he didn't remove Sugg. You would think that if he was so sure Sugg wasn't a RS that he would have done that. annoynmous 09:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Inasmuch as the initial RS/N regarding use of the FAIR/Sugg article in the Emerson article appears to now have been addressed, I've sought to close that discussion. And opened up a separate RS/N discussion regarding Annoy's reverts of my deletions of FAIR contentious BLP edits and statements of fact.here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)]

Possilbe globally currupted infobox

Resolved

 – Vandalized template reverted and protected —DoRD (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to rid an article of an alt text on the photo but cannot see where the vandal has added it.

The problem appears on the rivington pike article if the image in the infobox is resized to thumb.

It looks like a kid has added some text to appear in the infobox but I cannot see where or how, please help I am at a loss as how to correct it.

"Rovington (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)"

The problem was in the template {{least}}, which ought to be permanently protected as a high-visibility template. It's fixed now, but any pages that transclude it might need to be purged - a symptom of the breakage will be visibly enormous images. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done So protected. --Jayron32 01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm also seeing a weird layout issue. See the "Wreck" section (section 11) of USS Saratoga (CV-3), where the placement of the "edit" button is messed up in the Firefox I'm using. I wonder if that could be related. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That isn't being caused by vandalism, but by the formatting issue described here. I'll have a whack at that article a bit later and see if I can fix it. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I didn't know about that fixup instruction. I tried to fix it by adding {{clr}} tags but then saw this discussion so thought I'd ask. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A big thanks to you both for your help, glad to see its resolved and so quick, thanks again "Rovington (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)"

Scarlett Johansson tag

There are complainants tagging the Scarlett Johansson article that are not willing to make actionable suggestions to the editor (not me, I reviewed it a for GA Sweeps 9 months ago). Instead they insist on putting the {{peacock}} tag on the article and a WP:SOCK is now throwing around WP:MPOV claims. I have stated on the talk page why this is a very bad time to be defacing the article with pejorative tags. Ms. Johansson's page is highly visible with a regular audience of 8-10K viewers per day and a ramp up in her audience is visible (http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Scarlett_Johansson ) as the publicity for Iron Man 2, which opens on Friday, impacts her viewership. There is now a tag team of editors unwilling to make any actionable suggestions but who insist on tagging the article. I am not sure if reverting a WP:SOCK could get me a WP:3RR violation, so I am here. I have requested either a list of actionable changes so that the willing and able editor can respond either through WP:PR or an individual WP:GAR or a clear statement at a community WP:GAR to gather collective feedback. Instead, the page was just retagged at a time when her viewership is about to bound upwards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud Tony's honesty in admitting that high readership of a page is a reason not to have a tag. Some editors are less than honest and dream up of wikilawyering reasons. The more honesty we have in Wikipedia, the better. A barnstar for you, Tony. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I went to remove the tag, but I see it's gone already. I'll help to keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. I see sentences in the article that could stand some rewording, but nothing that can't be addressed through the regular editing process and/or talkpage discussion. I don't think the problems rise to the level of needing the prominent "peacock" tag at the top of the article, and given that this is a prominent BLP page, I am concerned that new readers might incorrectly think the allegation of "peacocking" is directed at the article subject herself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that a high ranking Wikipedia user and a lawyer would have such fears. If one has those fears, just make a new version of a tag or an alternate tag! Some people hate tags because they think it looks "ugly". Tags encourage people to improve articles. It gets ordinary readers to edit and improve, otherwise edits are often just made by the "vandal fighters". Wikipedia is not a idol to be worshipped and not edited. Wikipedia should be like a daily driver type car. Use it, edit it, improve it. Not a museum piece that is untouched. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

NYBrad, My point exactly. Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a WP:BLP dimension to maintenance tagging? SGGH ^ping! 07:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are not supposed to just be slapped on in a "drive-by" fashion- if somebody feels it's justified, they should give a clear rationale for it on the talk page with examples of things they think are problematic. Also, the article is a GA and tagging it implies that it doesn't meet the GA criteria so if the issue is that serious, it should be taken to a GAR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

current tag

a possible, alternative tag (not a replacement tag) to be added to Wikipedia's repetoire of tags (not necessarily to Scarlet's article)

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just don't understand the idea that tags shouldn't be added to "good" articles because they might loose their GA or FAC rating - as if the tag draws attention to a flaw that the users who wrote the article want to hide from GAR or FAR (but of course I don't actually think that.) Rather get it fixed when a tag flags it up than let it go unnoticed, and to be honest most GAs or FAs never, ever need them. In terms of BLP, I think that's silly. Tags say things like "the article is..." or "this article has been nominated". To stretch it to the person or topics a bit too tenuous for 99% of readers IMO. In the time it takes to discuss this, the issue has probably gone from the article. I agree, however, that "drive by tagging" as User:HJ Mitchell delightfully put it, is a bit unhelpful (though we've all done it.) SGGH ^ping! 16:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I never have, and I very likely never will, for several reasons, not least of which is that they're generally unhelpful and disfiguring. The proper course of action is always to raise any issues on the talk page and, if the article is a GA or an FA, to initiate a review at the appropriate place if the concerns are not addressed. Best of all, of course, is just to fix the article. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That is entirely dependent on one's workflow. Drive-by tagging and then fixing articles on the next pass works fine for me and I would assume that it works fine for others. The amount of abuse that editors who work like this receive is well beyond the minor level of annoyance experienced by Wikipedia's tagophobes. {{peacock}} (which can be very subjective) is a tricky one; most cleanup tags are self-evident and do not require discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

71.163.232.225 using discussion page as a forum for unrelated arguments

The user 71.163.232.225 has been repeatedly using the discussion page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases to discuss sex abuse and complain about the Catholic church. He has also been making disruptive changes to the article itself, much to the anger of other editors. It appears that he has even been removing large chunks from the discussion page and he was abusing the editor joo. He has created multiple sections on the discussion page exclusively for the purpose of arguing about sex abuse rather than discussing the article itself. Various other editors had been asking him to stop on the talk page itself.

I myself went to his talk page, User_talk:71.163.232.225, to repeatedly warn him about using discussion pages for chatting about the topic, but instead of stopping his argumentative and confrontational behaviour on the discussion page, he merely removed the contents of his talk page in an attempt to hide the warnings. He then came to my talk page and, in a confrontational tone, told me to stay away from his. User:Hyperdeath then joined him. In fact, it seems that User:Hyperdeath is quite a supporter of the IP editor.

From comments by User:LAz17 and User:Salvio_giuliano on his talk page, it seems that this IP editor has also been causing trouble in the article House of Crijević.

Here are some of the diffs for the page Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359622104&oldid=359599043

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359424236&oldid=359415091

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=359340080&oldid=359230182

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358759122&oldid=358757979

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358551816&oldid=358551353

...and here, he removed a huge chunk of text from the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACatholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=358520829&oldid=358454735 (Huey45 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Concerning House of Cerva/House of Crijević, the user tends to prefer edit warring, instead of discussing. But, to his defence, lately almost everyone seems to be edit warring on those two articles, as shown by the respective revision histories: House of Crijević and House of Cerva. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

At least 4 editors (including me) on the Catholic sex abuse cases have written on the discussion that this guy ought to be banned from editing. 1) He kept inserting his own PoV instead of referencing reliable sources, 2) He deletes relevant materials, 3) He uses the Discussion page as a soapbox to attack the Catholic Church with irrelevant material, 4) He even deletes an entire section in the discussion page. joo (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The late Lynn Redgrave and her ex?

The actress Lynn Redgrave died today.

Lynn Redgrave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anticipating the article might get some attention, I took a look. It contained the image File:LynnRedgrave.jpg, which I viewed as a probable copyright violation as a scan of a move poster released under a cc-own claim. I deleted it as such.

I then went to have words with the uploader: JohnClarknew (talk · contribs). I noticed that he claims to be John Clark (actor/director) the ex-husband of the late actress. If he is, then the image may well be his own work (although not certainly). If he isn't, then there's a problem with the claims on his userpage. I've asked him to contact OTRS wrt his identity.

Posting here for review as the article is likely to get a fair amount of attention today.--Scott Mac 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I wouldn't be surprised if he won't respond for a while, though.--Chaser (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to short-circuit the OTRS, but I can vouch for JohnClarknew being who he says he is. We've corresponded regarding Wikipedia content.   Will Beback  talk  18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudonymous accounts (no offence) "vouching" isn't really an equivalent.--Scott Mac 18:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I've met the man in person, some time ago, and when he started this account I wrote to him. There's no question that he is who he says he is, though you're welcome to pursue the matter as you see fit. I don't know what OTRS can do to further establish his identity.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean, since we don't know your identity, you vouching for someone else's doesn't take us anywhere much. Certainly not anywhere enough to legitimise a copyright claim.--Scott Mac 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How would OTRS, a process managed by a bunch of other people behind pseudonymous accounts, make any difference then. At some point, you're going to have to trust somebody. I fail to see how OTRS would provide more trust than would someone that personally knows the person in question. Will Beback is a longtime user in good standing, we have no reason to believe he is lying about his relationship with John Clark, what could happen at OTRS which would somehow be better? --Jayron32 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS works because the individual who is verifying can e-mail from an named account - and that email is then logged on the system. Any of the OTRS ops can check it at any time in the future. That is the proper process for image copyright permissons (see WP:PERMISSIONS). We don't, and never have, worked on the basis of AGF with such things.--Scott Mac 20:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He specifically said he was verifying his identity and not the copyright status of the image. It seems we are not getting at the same thing here. Of course OTRS should be used to keep track of official copyright claims. However, I think we can trust Will Beback for positively identifying the owner of the account. In my mind the copyright issue is completely unrelated to Will's (or my) statement. Sorry about the mixup. --Jayron32 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS accounts are not pseudonymous. They are in the volunteers' real names and I believe that volunteers are all identified to the Foundation (I certainly am). If you want to dispute OTRS as a source of authentication of intellectual property ownership then you're going to have to completely change parts of the image licensing workflow. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that the rights to a movie poster are held by the film studio though, not the director. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe we can ask him if he has any personal photos he can share.   Will Beback  talk  18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this really an appropriate time to be bothering the man over what is, after all, a pretty minor concern at best? Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This man has a conflict of interest and should stick to editing non-Redgrave articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Looks like he's edited his own biography. No-no! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is discouraged, not forbidden. The edits I saw were minor only. It's also extremely bad form to badger people around the time of a bereavement, I am sure if Will is already in contact then he will be able to discuss the issue of a photograph with the necessary sensitivity. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin on animal rights

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

Seems to be a consensus here that there's nothing actionable here from an admin's point of view. If you disagree on sourcing/wording/etc, take it to WP:DRR and sort it out rather than sniping at each other on ANI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

SlimVirgin is at it again, with her reverting changes wholesale on the article, condescendingly ignoring argument to the contrary on talk, and baiting her opponent (me in this case) into violating protocol. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some diffs here. Jtrainor (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This one appears to be the only one. I had thought there were more. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) It seems to me, Stevertigo, that you are the one ignoring the arguments being made. She reverted your changes only once, with a very explanatory edit summary. She has then made responses on the talk page to the section you made. Her argument makes complete sense and this shouldn't have been brought to ANI. Silverseren^C 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the links that she gave (here and here) show that you have had this type of disruptive editing going on for a while. Silverseren^C 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who has dealt with SV before knows her modality is revert and run. I filed this perhaps prematurely, but that's due in part to my prior experience in dealing with her. In fact my three point-by-point arguments remain substantive, while the writing she defends is in fact just weasel terminology, not as she suggests, belonging to the domain of animal rights as a legal concept. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've been frustrated before with Slim for this reason. However in this case it looks like she's right. See my comments at the article talk -- and if the OP agrees this was premature, this can be marked as resolved for now. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess you somehow missed the big orange box about notifying the subject of any discussion here...? —DoRD (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He did notify her, just not on her talk page -- on the article talk page instead, where they were talking. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it might have been easier to notice if they would use an edit summary on a more regular basis. :\ —DoRD (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, DoRD. Stevertigo has a history going back several years of adding his own opinions to articles, and in particular to leads. Anyone wanting examples can read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009, and it's only the tip of the iceberg. I will give just one example, but it's very typical: here at Perfect crime. He's been asked many times to use reliable sources, but acts as though being asked for a source is some kind of personal attack. Given that AR can be contentious, and that it's a concept that's been developed by academics, we need high-quality sources when describing what it means, preferably academic sources. That's all that's being asked of him.

And running to AN/I with a complaint because he was reverted once with an explanation on talk is the kind of thing he's often been asked to stop doing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September 2009 and Talk:Perfect crime. At the latter I dealt away with a nagging current of inconsequentalism. The ANI ran on for weeks, with editors digging back as far as 2003 for dirt, and it still went nowhere. I got the last word in there as well.

But enough about me. All we ask SlimVirgin is that you discuss things first, honestly, before making reverts to articles. Thanks, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you make unsourced additions to articles, particularly well-developed articles about a contentious issue, you must expect to be reverted. Then it can go to talk for discussion, but you still need to provide a source. What you can't do is revert again, still provide no source, then complain on AN/I that you're being treated unfairly. All that does is waste time. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, aka. "expect to be reverted," is now reverting sourced edits to the lede (diff). -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, a link to a blog column by Dave Munger supporting a word usage and a link to an activist org don't belong in a lead section. You're an intelligent person, Steve, but for some reason, you're still editing like its June 2002. You must admit, things have changed a bit. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing something if an argument is made for it. We do however see concepts such as personhood mentioned in the lede, and that's the term I was focused on. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you "got the last word in there as well" ? Apart from the sheer, smug arrogance of such a statement, that is a rather interesting interpretation of an AN/I that resulted in you being blocked for 2 weeks. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterise that block as an outcome. The point of the ANI was to investigate my overall edit patterns, and went on for most of a week before I was blocked improperly by a partisan. Arbcom gives admins such leeway apparently. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the block was an outcome of your continued disruptive editing habits; just because you did not accept it does not mean it didn't happen. Anyways, is there anything more to do here requiring admin intervention? Seems more like a straight-up editing dispute that should be discussed over there. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. The block wasn't an outcome of the ANI, nor was it related to any so-called "disruption." It was just an administrative patch that assuaged several partisans and fell below the radar of Arbcom review. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem requiring administrator action. I'm sure any content issues can be discussed on the talk page, as both of the users involved are long-term editors and I'm sure they are capable of working out a solution. Everyking (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A wider pattern might establish more reason for admin review / action, but nothing presented so far does. We know histories; this is not sufficient reason (so far) to intervene. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 4 May 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:HalfShadow requesting unblock

Resolved

 – Unblocked by Tnxman307

• HalfShadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Link to block discussion: [62]

HalfShadow is requesting to be unblocked. He's been blocked for 2 weeks at this point over the insertion of an inappropriate picture into a BLP, and to comments made regarding that insertion. He has admitted that the picture and the comments were "stupid" and ill-timed. I am putting this at ANI, since the initial block discussion happened here. I am inclined to think that an unblock is in order, given that blocks are not supposed to be punitive. I don't think we need to demand an apology or allocution or anything like that here; all we need to ask ourselves is "is the behavior that led to the block likely to continue if we unblock." Since I feel confident that it will not, I think an unblock is appropriate. What thinks everyone else? --Jayron32 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock - they've realized the error of their ways and apologized for their ill-advised comment - the original block for that would've expired by now. –xeno^talk 15:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, why not. Tan | 39 15:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Lots of reasons why not. If we unblock we don't do it lightly.--Scott Mac 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Strongly oppose unblock for at least another fortnight three weeks. Anyone who "contributes" this or this (that second one is particularly vile) needs more than two weeks' one week's break in my opinion. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  Well, DiaF is really just an internet meme/acronym. I doubt that he was literally wishing that other editors be consumed in a ball of flame. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  Obviously—I also doubt he was literally planning to assault any admin who wasn't "a country's distance apart" from him. However, such comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  People get angry; it's human nature. It wasn't worth an indefinite block the first time, it isn't worth one now. Leaving him blocked is not preventative in any sense of the word. -- tariqabjotu 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  I think that it's preventative of the boring amount of disruption and trouble that will ensue from letting someone capable of saying that sort of crap back into the community. (Note that I never suggested an indef-block, if you read what I wrote, I think a minimum of one month.) ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the original blocking admin. He was blocked one week ago (not two) for highly inappropriate trolling wrt a BLP. He also got a fairly checkered blocklog too. I blocked him for a week, but that was extended to indef by others, largely due to the fact that he continued to deny serious wrongdoing. No, blocks are not punative and we don't demand apologies, but we do demand that users understand what they've done wrong and are able to reflect on the behaviour to avoid. I can support an unblock here. However, there are two conditions a) the user is banned from editing or commenting on Don Murphy in any shape or form. b) the user understands that they are on general probation - any further problems, and in particular BLP related problems will result in the situation being reviewed. Wikipedia is not a game. Writing about living people demands the utmost maturity.--Scott Mac 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am cautiously okay with this. HalfShadow, please take the time to check or ask someone if you are not absolutely positive on the copyright status of an image. Linking to a source on the talkpage and living with no image on the article while it is discussed would not be a bad idea. You do good work here, and I would hate to see you in another fiasco like this. Staying away from contentious BLPs for a little while might also not be a bad idea, especially that one. Best of luck and happy editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think an unblock is perfectly fine. Remember that the original offending action only garnered a one-week block. Frankly, from reading the progress of what happened (without providing input during the last discussion), I thought the blocks were heavy-handed and excessive the first time around. The fact that he apologized at all is surprising; I don't think him doing so was a pre-requisite for an unblock. -- tariqabjotu 16:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock 2/0 and Tariqajotu make good enough points for me. SGGH ^ping! 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Tariqabjotu. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked HalfShadow per the discussion here. Questions, comments, or review is certainly welcome. TNXMan 17:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock - As long as HalfShadow acknowledges that the behavior was wrong, and understands what led to the block, and won't repeat it in the future, then I see no reason to continue the block. -- Atama頭 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• I also do not support an unblock for this editor after only a week. Block history does not show any change in behavior. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no particular view on the unblock. However, given the user was blocked indefinitely - and has remained blocked for 8 days - and that there's clearly some discussion required here, I consider Tnxman307's unblock only two hours after this discussion opened to have been highly improper. There was certainly no rush to unblock, and leaving time for people to look at the history, consider the block log, and discuss for at least a few hours, if not 12-24, would have been proper. This is a very poor admin call indeed.--Scott Mac 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I must say, that was my reaction too. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 21:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does seem premature, he has been blocked ten times now, four times this year. So he must be aware that he is on a short leash? and I am sure that editors supporting his unblock at this time will keep an eye on him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it was "a poor admin call" will depend on what happens next. Unlike you I don't have the benefit of a crystal ball. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, yeah, no; gonna have to call you out on that one. I've been blocked four times. Ever. And one of them was only for 15 minutes. A nice swing, but you've sliced and gone into the forest. You may have to mulligan HalfShadow 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think coming here with that tone is really counter-productive. Better to try to reassure us that you've learned the lessons.--Scott Mac 21:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well so is misrepresenting my block log, but hey... HalfShadow 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well excuse me, here is your block log, it is very messy and I only counted the blocks and not the unblocks and it has a continuing theme. Whatever you want to link to, there are clear issues that you are not showing to have learnt anything from. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)::

I'd also call it ironic, seeing as you have seven blocks. Glass houses and all that. HalfShadow 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have been blocked but I have over eight months editing and over twenty thousand edits since my last block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is, you have more blocks than me, so until this physically changes, please leave the air of superiority in your other pants; at best it's hypocritical. HalfShadow 16:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see 5 distinct legitimate blocks on record for HalfShadow including the most recent (February 2009, March 2009, November 2009, February 2010, April 2010), and the February 2010 block was only for 15 minutes. What's relevant is that HalfShadow has caused trouble in the past, which nobody seems to dispute, but there is a consensus at this time that there's no need for a current block unless evidence of new disruption is brought forth. -- Atama頭 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that editors supporting this unblock will keep a close eye on the editor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The unblock is ok - the indef block was considered a bit extreme to many when it was made, and there was agreement at the time that it would be reviewed in a week, which it was. I think there was too much drama around the blocks in the first place. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock; I'm not sure it was justified in the first place, and certainly if the user has pledged not to repeat the conduct there is no basis for continuing it. Everyking (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Moutray2010 - disruptions to the community

Clearly User:Moutray2010 is using Wikipedia as a genealogy site. All of his new page edits have been on pages that are now deleted or are up for AFD (see User:timneu22/moutray). His edits to existing pages have almost all been reverted. This user is certainly a nuisance to the community, and his 72-hour block may not be sufficient. Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has currently been [blocked], about 3 hours ago. I and several other experienced editors and admins have left some advice and are trying to work with this user. At this point, there's not much else to do. I declined his recent unblock request, but so far I am not sure there is anything left to do. He's been blocked for 72 hours, and there is some preliminary attempts at mentoring going on. Lets let this one get worked out for now. --Jayron32 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware (and mentioned) his 72-hour ban, but honestly I don't think he's going to come back and start editing other topics. Mentoring, sadly, seems like a lost cause here. — Timneu22 · talk 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As yet, no one seems to have tried to work with him to help him assimilate into Wikipedia culture. Like many others, he just appears to be a noob who doesn't know how things work, and there is little evidence that anyone has tried to set him straight. You may very well be right, but until the block expires, and/or until he has outright rejected attempts at mentoring, what else should we do? --Jayron32 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He's been pretty aggressive with his insults and has shown no desire to learn or any insight into the idea that some of the problems might be his behavior. I think several people would have been willing to work with him if he'd shown the slightest desire to cooperate. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite ban from Wikipedia. I received a user-email from Moutray2010:

you are ridiculous and pathetic .
i will just keep reposting , as your biased attitude is apparent .
your opinion means nothing to me .

This user has now stated that his goal is to disrupt and continue reposting this nonsense. Why would we let someone like that make edits? — Timneu22 · talk 09:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Even in light of the recent email, I am still willing to chalk it up to "pissed off after the block and just venting." The current 72 hour block is still active, and before enacting any other blocks or bans, I still think we need to wait for some further, definative on-wiki disruption. A pissed-off email from a blocked user is hardly an unusual development in a case like this. --Jayron32 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I hope it all works out well! — Timneu22 · talk 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll be spotted as soon as he resumes. If you get more email, or anyone else does, let us know here. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 188.225.180.251 vandalizing after several warnings

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks by User:Vianello. –xeno^talk 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP 188.225.180.251 has been continuously vandalizing the Rawabi article with extreme POV edits (ie: blanking any references to Israel, delinking Israeli towns so as not to "advertise" them, etc.). He has received multiple warnings on his talk page. He recently moved to a new article, State of Palestine, to continue his battle. When I left him a message on his talk page, he called me "biased zionist trash" in his edit summary. His contributions can be seen here. Can someone please do something about this? It doesn't appear that he is willing to collaborate or take any regard for Wikipedia's guidelines, which he has been made aware of. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you are my only hope. HalfShadow 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

main article protection?

I attempted to edit the main article but it appears it has been locked since April. Is this truly the encycloaedia "anyone" can edit? 69.211.10.208 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It should not have been - I've fixed that for you. Sorry! Prodego ^talk 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It must be protecteD -> WP:NOPRO "Pages which are already indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism are generally left protected while on the Main Page". Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The operative word here is 'generally' as in 'most of the time'; it's not a rule. HalfShadow 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Following which the IP improved the article, for which we thank him/her. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

 – Sorted. –xeno^talk 18:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a pretty nice backlog on WP:AIV. I know y'all are having fun making drama and yelling at people, but if a couple admins could stop blocking one another and maybe work on some vandals, that would be great. ALI ^{nom nom} 18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please block

Resolved

 – by Paul Erik. Jarkeld (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Hi. The same user has vandalized Bird on the main page today. He's already received a "last warning" from Cluebot (and might already be blocked). Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Paul Erik took care of this. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for future information, WP:AIV might get a faster response. NW (Talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Faster than 2 minutes? :P --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmed shahi

Moved from WP:AN

Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs) is accusing me of "spreading racism" ([63]), only because I have removed a very doublful source he is using: "Afghanpedia", a project of the website Sabawoon.com, a Pashto language newspaper with well-known affinities toward Pashtun nationalism and even the Taliban-movement. It does not mention its authors, contradicts leading scholarly encyclopedias, and promotes without any doubt Pashtun nationalist propaganda, for example the claim that "Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan", or that the Western forces that are fighting the Taliban and al-Kaida are "enemies of Afghans" and "insult Pashtuns" (see for example here or here). By no means is that website a reliable source. And because I have removed that source and instead used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam, he is calling me a "racist". At the same time, User:Ahmad shahi is deleting well-referenced information and scholarly sources (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, etc. - see here). I had already reported him to an admin (User:Dbachmann; see respective discussion), but nothing happened. He is rejecting scholarly references, he does not know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, he is extremely offensive and insults others (see above), and he has a clear ethnocentric agenda. As one can see in this comment ("... I don't understand what kind of an Afghan are you to be hating your own nation so much, removing Afghan history templates from articles that are part of Afghanistan's history. You hate anything and everything that is from Afghanistan, prepared by Afghans, or has the name Afghan in it ..."), he thinks that Wikipedia is some kind of a platform where everybody has to defend national interests. Tajik (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• The only comment I will make here is that I have fully protected Afghanistan while the edit warring is taking place (I've protected it for 1 month). I do not know the subject, so I have protected the article as it stood when I saw the RFPP request. I also suggested that Ahmed shahi (who created the RFPP request) report his problems with Tajik at AN - I have no thoughts on which editor is in the wrong here (if Tajik had made the report at RFPP, I would have referred him here) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  Correction: Tajik placed the request at RFPP, but Ahmed shahi placed a comment there, which I responded to. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am using well-known scholarly references, most of all Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) and Encyclopaedia Iranica (EIr). EIr has free access, EI is available at universities and can be checked by others who are also studying oriental studies or Iranistics ate a university. User:Ahmed shahi, on the other hand, neither has access to the encyclopedia (hence I assume he is not at a university and has limited to no qualification in this field), is actively removing scholarly sources, googles irrelevant books from the 19th century to "source" his claims, and uses very doubtful websites (www.sabawoon.com) which - by no means - can be considered reliable sources. He is aggressive, insults others, and has a very specific ethnocentric agenda. Even when confronted with quotes from notable scholars, such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Louis Dupree, Georg Morgenstierne, etc, he either refuses to accept the facts or he falsifies the quotes in the article. That is very disturbing. Besides that, he invents expressions that are unknown to scholars, such as "last Afghan Empire", which is his own WP:OR and only supported by his unrealiable "Afghanpedia". It does not appear in any reliable encyclopedia or scholarly publication. Leaving that aside, the main reason why I reported him was his insult against me. Calling me "racist" only because I have removed his unrealiable and doubtful sources is clearly against Wikipedia rules. Tajik (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Would this be better at the Reliable sources noticeboard? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik appears to have a long history of getting in trouble.[64] He just talks about race and ethnicity which is what most prejudice people do, and often he criticizes people of other ethnic groups. He proudly claims being from Afghanistan on his user page but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its people and its history. His edits which appear to be all about race indicate that he is an extreme Persian-ethnocentric POV pusher. Over and over he claims that Iranian and Islamic sources are champions while any other sources are garbage and should be removed or tossed out of the articles. I believe he is very disruptive and should be blocked because he is not doing any good to Wikipedia. He secretly invites other Persian-ethnocentric editors (User:Inuit18, User:Ariana310, and User:Alefbe) to help him with edit-war so that he doesn't violate his one revert per page per week.[65].Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And, nothing from the Encyclopaedia of Islam that he cites in articles can be verified.Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

a) I reported User:Ahmed shahi, because he called me "racist". That is clearly against the rules of Wikipedia.

b) Everything in the Encyclopaedia of Islam can be checked. Anyone who is registered at a university or is working at a university has access to it. Ahmed shahi can't do it, because he is not working at a university, because he is not registered at a university, because he has no clue of history. To keep it short: he does not even have the slightest qualification or the most basic requirement to write an encyclopedic article about Afghanistan. Wikipedia is not supposed to favor the POV of unqualified people over those of real experts. I am quoting real experts, while Ahmed shahi is deleting academic quotes and instead promoted nonsense based on unrealible websites.

c) The Encyclopaedia of Islam is not an "Islamic source", as this user claims, but is an English language encyclopedia especially designed for academic studies in the West. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a major project of the Columbia University. Again, his comments only prove that he neither has any knowledge of scientific historical research, nor does he have any knowledge of what sources to be used.

d) Except for doubtful and unreliable websites, Ahmed shahi is not able to present one single scholarly and academic source to support his views. That's because he is a POV pusher who is acting against the consensus among REAL experts.

Tajik (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone a "racist", Tajik (the big trouble maker [66]) keeps removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan, meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro of Afghanistan without explaining why. Maybe he thinks Afghanistan should be land of the Tajiks and not the Afghans. Tajik proudly claims on his user page that he is from Afghanistan but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its history and its people. So I just reverted his vandalism.

Afghanistan is only one territory, and he writes "The territories now comprising Afghanistan". That proves that Tajik doesn't know what he's talking about. The information I used as a reference for the "last Afghan Empire" from Afghanpedia is backed by 100s of other sources, including Encyclopedia Iranica and all other sources that he praises.[67] He falsely changes "last Afghan Empire" to "first Afghan Empire". I ask him right now to show us any (even one single source) that says the Durrani Empire was the "first Afghan Empire" as being asserted by Tajik in the article. I know for a fact he cannot come up with any because there is no source that would say such a lie. There were Afghan kingdoms in the past, known as Lodi dynasty, Suri dynasty, and even the Khilji dynasty were treated as an Afghan kingdom. Another was the Afghan Hotaki dynasty just before the Durrani Afghan kingdom.

The information from Encyclopaedia of Islam cannot be verified so he uses this as a source to back up his POVs in articles. If anyone tries to question it then too bad there is no way to verify it. -Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'd have to agree with Tajik on this. Judging from the language, ignorance of the emphasis of verifiability, lack of civility, and deliberate avoidance of Wikipedia's RS policy, it only goes to show that Ahmed Shahi's reliability as an editor is seriously in doubt. And to call certain editors names and spreading baseless accusations against them because they are against his unilateral edits also run afoul on NPA. Encyclopaedia of Islam's data 'cannot be verified'? Look who's talking. Seriously, you'll need much better arguments to prove your case, and the way it's looking, you refuse to admit you were wrong. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how my name came up in this issue and why User:Ahmed shahi is accusing me of assisting User:Tajik in pushing - what he calls as - the ethnocentric POVs. I have tried to be neutral in the dispute between User:Tajik and User:Ahmed shahi. If I have reverted User:Ahmed shahi's edits which were un-sourced, or used unreliable sources, or conflicted scholarly sources such as Encylcopaedia Britannica and Encylcopaedia of Islam, I have also reverted some of User:Tajik's edits which seemed not totally accurate. So User:Ahmed shahi's accusation of me "assisting" User:Tajik is baseless. The fact that we (me and User:Tajik) refer to scholarly and reliable sources, and we end up reaching to an agreement without any long disputes, does not prove User:Ahmed shahi's contrary accusation.

In this current dispute, I would have to agree that User:Ahmed shahi uses unreliable and unscholarly sources to put forward his points such as "www.sabawoon.com" or other nonacademic websites. When he is provided with a reliable source, he calls it Original Research and ignores its validity. He seems not to have fully read the Wikipedia:No original research and has a false definition of what an Original Research is. Ariana (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that Ahmed shahi is using sources that don't meet our criteria, eg sabawoon.com and even worse its afghanpedia. What's odd is that he claims that there are many other sources - so why not use a reliable one? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Eaglestorm. You support Tajik for saying things like this in the edit summaries that do nothing but provoke ethnic Pashtuns? Not only that, Tajik has called me Pashtun-ethnocentric or Pashtun ultra-nationalist, and etc, many times in the last few of days, and he continues to call me this after I had told him, I'm not ethnocentric and I don't like being called this

Tajik said he "used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam" [68], a source which he claims to have with him. I want him or anyone else to post the quote from the Encyclopedia of Islam here so we can see if he is telling the truth or lying to us. It should say exactly as this '"The political history of Afghanistan begins in the 18th century with the rise of Pashtun tribes (known as Afghans in Persian), when in 1709 the Hotaki dynasty established its rule in Kandahar and, more specifically, when Ahmad Shah Durrani created the Durrani Empire in 1747 - the first Afghan Empire and the forerunner of modern Afghanistan." I assure you these lines (which were written by User:Tajik the other day) are no where found in the Encyclopedia of Islam.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Dougweller. I have no idea what you and Ariana310 are arguing about. I never claimed Sabawoon.com to be a reliable source. I said the information found about the "last Afghan Empire" in that site is accurate, it's the same as what you find else where in other source. My argument is that there were a number of Afghan kingdoms or empires in the past, such as the Lodi dynasty (1451-1526), the Suri dynasty (1540–1556), the Hotaki dynasty (1709–1738) and others, so how can you write in the article that the Durrani (1747-1826) was the "first Afghan Empire" (this is User:Tajik's POV) You guys don't have a clue about Afghanistan's history and you leave comments telling others who is right and who is wrong. I find this very funny.Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to post the same quotes until you accept them?!

• "... The year 1160/1747 marks the definitive appearance of an Afghan political entity independent of both the Safavid and Mughal empires. ..." - D. Balland (2010). "AFGHANISTAN x. Political History". Encyclopaedia Iranica, online ed., Columbia University.
• "... The country now known as Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghān race became assured: previously various districts bore distinct appellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghāns ”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Introduction". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... The territories now known as Afghānistān were occupied by Iranian tribes during the Aryan migrations in the second and first millenia B.C., incorporated in the Achaemenid empire by Cyrus, and after the conquests of Alexander (...) disputed between the Greco-Bactrians and the Parthians (...) In the first century B.C. th ere was a fresh influx of Iranian tribesmen under the leadership of the Kushān tribe of the Yueh-Chi. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Pre-Islamic history". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV
• "... The territories that form modern Afghānistān belonged in the first thousand years of Islamic history to different provinces, and although these neighbouring provinces, often shared common vicissitudes, they did not at any time form a separate entity. Nor did the Afghāns form a state of their own until the days of Mīr Ways, and more especially Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī. ..." - M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Mongol period to the rise of the Afghan national state". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV

Tajik (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik has failed to show "the first Afghan Empire" being mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Islam. All of the information that Tajik is quoting is available in 100s of books at google books search, or at other online encyclopedias such as Britannica, as well as at US government sites, which we can verify ourselves by a few mouse clicks, and, I have no problem with it. Everybody knows that the modern state of Afghanistan was formed in 1747 by Ahmad Shah Durrani.

However, I disagree with where User:Tajik wrote in the Afghanistan introduction that the Durrani was the "first Afghan Empire", that is Tajik's POV only. He wants us to forget about the Afghan Lodi dynasty, Afghan Suri dynasty, Afghan Hotaki dynasty and also Turko-Afghan Khilji dynasty. These were powerful Afghan kingdoms that ruled Delhi Sultanate of India and the Persian Empire.

User: Tajik edits the Afghanistan articles with controversy, like someone is trying to alter, forge, and corrupt it, defame the nation, it's people and culture, and so on. He removes the Afghanistan history template from the Ghurid Dynasty and leaves a bizaare comment in the edit summary "a) Afghanistan did not exist at that time and b) the Ghurids are not exclusive property of Afghanistan c) the political and cultural effect on India was much greater", even when he knows perfectly well that the kingdom was centered or based inside today's Afghanistan. This is what I'm complaining about User: Tajik.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is that here it doesn't matter if the material at Sabawon.com is accurate or not, Sabawon.com can't be used as a source. If it's accurate, find a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS. You need to understand how we work -- we require reliable and verifible sources, and we expect sometimes that these will be in conflict and accept that - in other words, 'truth' isn't our goal, and although I know little about Afghanistan I and others know quite a bit about what we look for in sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you're a little confused, and I know you're unfamiliar with Afghanistan's history. Again, the Sabawoon site is not the issue here. As for me, I'm an expert on the history of Afghanistan.Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"As for me, I'm an expert on the history of Afghanistan" - I'm afraid that is irrelevant unless you can cite your contributions with footnotes or references to reliable third party sources. That is how Wikipedia works, it isn't about what you know but what you can cite. SGGH ^ping! 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment was only directed to Dougweller, not to others.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this is a community discussion, so any comments can be replied to by anyone. As SGGH says, whether you are an expert or not is irrelevant. The question isn't whether you have expert knowledge - it is whether you can cite correctly according to WP:CITE. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Ahmed shahi: the following sentence is totally clear:

• "... The territories that form modern Afghānistān belonged in the first thousand years of Islamic history to different provinces, and although these neighbouring provinces, often shared common vicissitudes, they did not at any time form a separate entity. Nor did the Afghāns form a state of their own until the days of Mīr Ways, and more especially Aḥmad Shāh Durrānī. ..." (M. Longworth Dames, G. Morgenstierne, and R. Ghirshman (1999). "AFGHĀNISTĀN - Mongol period to the rise of the Afghan national state". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV)

The Durrani Empire - also know as the "Afghan Empire" - was the first empire that was defined as "Afghan" (which is just the Persian word for Pashtuns). It was founded by Afghans, it was backed by Afghans, and its identity was Afghan. No other empire before fulfilled these requirements: the dynasty of Sher Shah Suri was not Afghan in identity, was not Afghan in language, and was not backed by Afghans. The same goes to the Lodi dynasty that, like all the previous Sultanates of Delhi, was based on a strong Turkic military and a Persian-Islamic cultural and administrative core. The Durrani Empire was totally different: it was based on a national movement within the Pashtun tribes that had started during the short-lived reign of the Hotaki. The first king of the dynasty, Ahmad Shah, was directly elected by tribal members. And the natioanl identity of the dynasty (and empire) was "Afghan": Afghans ruled, Afghans administered, Afghans from various tribes were sent as governors to conquered regions, Afghans were relocated to Non-Afghan regions (i.e. Balkh, Herat, etc.), and Afghans enjoyed the favor of the king. The Afghan national state (see quote above) begins with the Hotaki and Durranis. The Durrani Empire was the first Afghan Empire. There was no "Afghan Empire" before it, and strictly speaking, there was no "Afghan Empire" after it. Maybe the word "Empire" is a misnomer. Tajik (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik, you said that you "used word-to-word quotes from the reliable Encyclopaedia of Islam" [69] so where is the mention of "the first Afghan Empire"? As I said previosuly, this is just your POV and using the unverifiable source to back it up.

You're trying to confuse the situation. The "state" of Afghanistan doesn't have to be ruled or run by ethnic Afghans, in this case Pashtuns, in order to be called "Afghanistan" or the "Afghan Empire". Large parts of Afghanistan were made up of Punjabi people (of Punjab region), Baloch people (of Balochistan), Sindhi people (of Sindh), and Persian people (of north-eastern Iran). The ruling dynasty was Pashtun Sadozais.

The Lodi dynasty, Suri dynasty, Hotaki dynasty, including the Khilji dynasty were all "Afghan kingdoms" or "Afghan empires" in the same way, depending on how one looks at it. They had a territory that was governed by them, it doesn't matter who the inhabitants of their territory were because we're dealing only with kingdoms or empires. In modern times we use "administrations" like the Karzai administration, the Obama administration, and so on.

Therefore, your are wrong by saying that the Durrani dynasty was the "first Afghan Empire", and you failed to provide a source which mentions that. Since you don't trust Sabawoon or Afghanpedia's article on the "last Afghan Empire" how about Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the "last Afghan Empire"? Is Britannica also unreliable source? You can avoid all this nonsense by just saying that the Durrani Empire became today's state of Afghanistan. This is the best way to describe Afghanistan, but you like to make things controversial and that creates edit-wars. And, you should stop removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro because that is very important for readers to know.

TO admininstrators, User:Tajik shouldn't be trusted because he lies and purposly misquotes information. He stated all the way at the top that "Sabawoon.com is a Pashto language newspaper with well-known affinities toward Pashtun nationalism and even the Taliban-movement. It does not mention its authors, contradicts leading scholarly encyclopedias, and promotes without any doubt Pashtun nationalist propaganda, for example the claim that "Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan"." Well, all this is User:Tajik's lies because at least he should've said Sabawoon.com is in both English and Pashto language, and, he wants to make all Pashtun people as Taliban supporters. The site actually states "More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Pashto" but Tajik purposly misinterpreted this. There is a big difference between someone who can speak Pashto language and someone who is ethnic Pashtun. Just a reminder that Pashto is one of the official language of Afghanistan and why would that line surprise anyone? Tajik has done this in other discussions and is continuing to trick your minds here with his words. He messeged User:Inuit18, Ariana310, and User:Alefbe lying to them that I was accusing them of POV pushing in here, in this discussion, [70], [71], [72] but if you scroll up no where did I call them that. This is probably why he has so many blocks [73] but he still continues to misbehave and disrupt the project, manupilating the situation, and etc.Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Claiming the Lodis, Suris or the Turkish Khaljis as "Afghan Empires" (= Pashtuns) is your own POV and is not supported by ANY - I repeat: ANY - serious source. And why doesn't it surprise me that you are once again misquoting a source in order to present it as "authentic". Your unreliable "Afghanpedia" which you consider superior to standard academic works actually says:

• "... More than sixty five percent of the population speaks Pashto, the language of the Pashtoons, while the rest of the population speaks Dari,{the language of the Tajiks, Hazaras, Chahar Aimaks, and Kizilbash peoples and other Indo-European languages, spoken by smaller groups, include Western Dardic (Nuristani or Kafiri)}, Baluchi, and a number of Indic and Pamiri languages spoken principally in isolated valleys in the northeast, Turkic languages, a subfamily of the Altaic languages, are spoken by the Uzbek and Turkmen peoples, the most recent settlers, who are related to peoples from the steppes of Central Asia. ..."

This unreliable website claims that Pashto is the dominant language of the country, spoken by 65%, and that the rest of the population is devided among Persian, Turkic, and speakers or other languages. That is totally POV and Pashtun nationalism at its worst. And that is exactly why you are so much relying on that laughable website: because it supports your Pashtun nationalistic nonsense. And the Durrani Empire was the FIRST Afghan Empire, not the "last one" (keeping in mind that Afghans did not have any empires at all except for a short period when Ahmad Shah Durrani greatly expanded his kingdom). See:

• Victoria Schofield, Afghan frontier: feuding and fighting in Central Asia, Tauris I B, 1st ed., 2003. ISBN 1860648959, p. 34: "... [Ahmad Shah] Durrani died at the age of fifty in 1773, leaving his favourite son, Timur Shah, to rule the first Afghan empire ..."
• Nancy Hatch Dupree, in AARP (art and archaeology research papers), vol. 7-12, 1975, p. 15: "... With the establishment of the first Afghan Empire by Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747 ..."

It should not be forgotten that you have insulted another user only because that user (me) removed your unrealiable sources. Tajik (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

From your arguments I see that you have very limited knowledge about the Afghan history, and, I didn’t consider Afghanpedia as superior so you are falsely accusing me. You are some what attacking Pashtuns on a wider scale. You're placing Persian propaganda in Afghanistan related articles ([74]) and targeting Pashtun editors, often you call me and others a Pashtun-ethnocentric, which literally means a "racist Pashtun". What's strange is that I haven't told anyone my ethnicity or my nationality. I have told you nicely that I'm not ethnocentric and I don't like being called this but you continue to insult or attack me. You stated to your other Tajik friend "Ahmed shahi is a waste of time..." Why do you feel insulted when I inform administrators about you?

The Durrani dynasty was not the first Afghan Empire, it became the last Afghan Empire according to Encyclopædia Britannica (last Afghan Empire) from which the modern state of Afghanistan was born. If you click on the contributors in Britannica you'll see that among all those professors, Nancy Hatch Dupree is also listed there. Some book writers may mistakenly think it was the first because perhaps they're not aware of the Afghan rulers of India during the Delhi Sultanate.

You did a quick name (first Afghan Empire) search in google book site and presented to us a mention of “first Afghan empire” in the long writings of a 2003 book about "Central Asia". The book writer (Victoria Schofield) is only dealing with Central Asian kingdoms, and perhaps she is unaware of the "first Afghan Empire" of South Asia. Most westerners don’t know anything about the powerful Afghan rulers from India. There is even a book named "The first Afghan empire in India", 1451-1526 A. D, by Awadh Bihari Pandey (1956). Click on the articles of Lodi, Suri, Hotaki and Khilji to see that they were Afghans. You brought book references in this discussion but in the Talk:Ghurid Dynasty discussions you have been preaching that references from books are second class.

Your comment about Afghanpedia’s languages information is irrelevant, and no where in Wikipedia did I use that information. I want to remind you anyway that Pashto is the official language of Afghanistan and it makes perfect sense that 65% of the total population speaks it. Not only Pashtuns speak Pashto but also Baloch, Nuristanis, and many Tajiks, Hazaras, Aimaks, and others are very fluent in Pashto even that it’s not their mother language.

I joined Wikipedia to learn and share my knowledge. I didn't come to spread ethnocentrism or political propaganda as what you're doing. All your edits are with ethnocentric POVs, in which you are promoting Tajik-Persian history and culture while defaming Pashtun-Afghan culture and history. You proudly claim on your page to be from Afghanistan but your views are very anti-Afghanistan, I find that very strange.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed I think your first sentences of your last post sums up all the problems you have been having. Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to share your knowledge here that is called OR. At Wikipedia we are here to share knowledge that has already been published in other wiki-reliable sources if you can not find it in a wiki-acceptable source you can not use it no matter now correct and truthfull it is. Yes sometimes it put articles on non-english topice at a servere disadvantage but they are the rule we must live by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. annonymous user, what I meant by "I joined Wikipedia to learn and share my knowledge" is that I use Wikipedia to learn about subjects and in return I contribute information to Wikipedia according to its rules and guidlines. If you look at my edit history, I have used the most reliable sources. If someone questions my edits or any of the sources that I cite, I'll explain everything. For example, editor Tajik has questioned my citing of this and then I presented this from the Encyclopædia Britannica as a back-up and support. Sorry no W:OR here and using another Wikipedia article as a source is not allowed.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User: Melonbarmonster2 refuses WP:BURDEN

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

This is a content dispute/edit war between the two of you. This discussion does not belong here. If you want to open up comment about his conduct, start an RFC. Do not unclose this discussion again. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Melonbarmonster2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Miura Gorō

Melonbarmonster2 continuously add an hoax refusing to provide an inline citation with page numbers and direct quotes.

• The development of this incident can be found at Talk:Miura Gorō#Inline citation issues.
  1. Melonbarmonster2 added a description without providing an inline citation.[75] (A reference was provided.)
  2. I reverted it with an edit summary requesting to provide an inline citation with page numbers and direct quotes per WP:BURDEN.[76]
  3. Melonbarmonster2 reverted it.[77] The discussion began.
  4. Melonbarmonster2 persistently refuses to provide an inline citation with page numbers and direct quotes despite the user edited saying "More material from Chung's book".[78]
  5. I reverted Melonbarmonster2's edit because I realized the user has no intension to provide the requested materials.[79] Then Melonbarmonster2 reverted again.[80]

• In this case I didn't revert repeatedly, 3RR doesn't apply fortunately. If I had reverted immediately, this would have become edit warring judging from the user's block histories described below.

• Melonbarmonster2 began harassing me by stalking my past edits provoking edit warring.Tanabata, Kisaeng.

• Melonbarmonster2 repeatedly add back the un-sourced content to Tanabata.

  1st, 2nd, 3rd. This content was newly added[81] by Zookitty8 (talk · contribs) at 2:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC) and I removed[82] immediatly after the edit.

  (In this case Melonbarmonster2 managed to find the source later.)

• Requested punishment action to Melonbarmonster2.
  • Blocked from editing for an indefinite appropriate period.
  • Reversion of Melonbarmonster2's edits including the harrassment edits.
  • Article ban to Miura Gorō.
  • Prohibition of stalking and harrassment to my edit.

• References
  • Melonbarmonster2 and former account Melonbarmonster's numerous block histories prove the user's editing habit.
    • Melonbarmonster (block log) 6 times.
    • Melonbarmonster2 (block log) 2 times.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Have notified user. I seriously doubt an indefinite block will be considered but we will look and see what we have. SGGH ^ping! 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that blocks are not used as punishment. —DoRD (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster's Response

I have had to repost my response here because Phoenix7777 has vandalized my original response with his own interjections and tried to continue his arguing with me here instead of addressing the admins. He altered my signed comment[83] When I attempted to separate my signed comment from Phoenix7777's writing, Phoenix7777 engaged in reverting even in on this notice board.[84]. Please find my revised response below. I have taken off my signature from my original response which has been since altered by Phoenix.

• Please take a look at my edit which Phoenix has been reverting. The validity of my edit and citation speaks for itself and I do not understand how anyone can claim my edit is a "hoax" without violating WP:GF. [85].
• The issue here is not WP:BURDEN. The reason why Phoenix is insisting on deleting my edit is because it is not an inline citation[86]. ALL the citations of the article were not inline citations[87]. By Phoenix's logic ALL the citations of the article should be blanked upon challenge because they are not inline citations. It is my understanding that general citations are allowed when the source supports a significant amount of material in the article. It is also my understanding that even imperfect citations do not warrant blanking and outright deletions. Phoenix did not even attempt to discuss his objections as required by WP:STATUSQUO but started blanking my edits outright.[88] I had to open up the discussion in the talk page which is when he brought up his WP:BURDEN complaint for the first time.[89]
• In spite of Phoenix's bad faith reversions, far from refusing or ignoring Phoenix7777 I tried to address his concerns
  • I tried to divert Phoenix's revert warring by agreeing with him and making a constructive suggestion that the ALL citations of the article should be transitioned to inline citations and asked that he help me in that task. [90] Phoenix ignored my request and continued his inexplicable reverting.
• Either Phoenix has a basic misunderstanding of citations rules or I have a misunderstanding of the rules. It is my understanding that editors should assume good faith and that even imperfect citations and edits should not be unilaterally deleted and blanked. Rather than reverting other editors' good faith edits, we should engage in discussion in the talk page and/or assist in repairing the citations. There are also request for citation tags and issue banners we can add to the article to point out citations issues of articles. Phoenix has forgone all attempts at such constructive editing and has engaged in disruptive blanking. He has also done this in other articles:
  • [91]
  • [92]
  • [93]
  • [94]
  • Phoenix has even engaged in altering my signed edits and then reverting even in this noticeboard.[95]
• Requested action to Phoenix7777:
  • Blocked from editing for an appropriate period for disruptive blanking of other editors' good faith work and disruptive behavior in this noticeboard.
  • Article ban to Miura Gorō.

Thank you. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please take a look at my edit which Phoenix has been reverting. I have no idea how anyone can claim my edit is a "hoax" in WP:GF. [96]

  If you don't like to be accused of a hoax, why are you refusing to provide page numbers and direct quotes? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

• The issue here is not WP:BURDEN. As you can see in the talk page, the reason why Phoenix is insisting on deleting my edit is because it is not an inline citation. ALL the citations of the article were not and are not inline citations. By Phoenix's logic ALL the citations of the article should be blanked upon challenge because they are not inline citations. It is my understanding that even imperfect citations do not warrant blanking and outright deleting. Phoenix did not even open a discussion in the talk page but started blanking my edits outright.[97] I had to open up the discussion in talk page which is when he brought up his WP:BURDEN complaint for the first time.[98]

  I first reverted your edit with an edit summary "Please provide an inline citation with "page numbers" and "direct quotes" per WP:BURDEN".[99] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• In spite of Phoenix's bad faith reversions, far from refusing or ignoring Phoenix7777 I tried to address his concerns
  • I tried to divert Phoenix's revert warring by agreeing with him and making a constructive suggestion that the ALL citations of the article should be transitioned to inline citations and asked that he help me in that task. [100] Phoenix ignored my request and continued his inexplicable reverting.

    I cannot accept your excuse only for an evasion of WP:BURDEN. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Either Phoenix has a basic misunderstanding of citations rules or I have a misunderstanding of the rules. It is my understanding that editors should assume good faith and that even imperfect citations and edits should not be unilaterally deleted and blanked. Rather than reverting other editors' good faith edits, we should engage in discussion in the talk page and/or assist in repairing the citations. There are also request for citation tags and issue banners we can add to the article to point out citations issues of articles. Phoenix has foregone any attempt at such constructive editing and has engaged in disruptive blanking. He has also done this in other articles:
  • [101]

    Already reverted Melonbarmonster2's edit by other editor.[102] And Melonbarmonster2 began edit warring there too.[103] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • [104]

    This is an edit by a user banned for sockpuppet immediately after this edit.[105] See my edit summary "Removed a file added by a blocked user. Per WP:BAN". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • [106]

    This is already resolved by the editor acknowledging the removal.Talk:Kōdō#kōdō or kodo ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • [107]

    This is also resolved at talk page.Talk:Tofu#Info about rice tofu...... ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Requested action to Phoenix7777:
  • Blocked from editing for an appropriate period for disruptive blanking of other editors' good faith work.
  • Article ban to Miura Gorō.

Please stop disrupting my edit.[108] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be alerted to Phoenix7777's talk page[109], [110] for numerous complaints about Phoenix's reverts and blanking of text from articles.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the closing comment. This is not a content dispute, but the user's conduct issue. Melonbarmonster2 added a book as reference and refused to provide a relevant page numbers and direct quotes and repeatedly add back without providing the requested materials. Moreover Melonbarmonster2 began to repeatedly add back the un-sourced content. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 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:Gabi Hernandez

I am asking the community again, to review the edits of User:Gabi Hernandez. After being warned numerous times, she promises never to edit again here [111], then applies for administrator status here [112], after which she returns to not following image and sourcing guidelines, uploading a character image to identify an actor here [113], when warned here [114] about doing so, and reverting an unsourced edit revert here [115]. This is the third time I have had to ask the community to intervene, and it is becoming quite tiresome to see someone violate policy over and over and over again. It is clear that she wants to treat this as a fan site, and has absolutely no intention of following our rules. We have tried over and over to give her advice here [116] and here [117], but she refuses to heed it. A believe a short time block is order, or an indefinite one to get her to a wikia project. Thanks again for your time. Rm994 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, something needs doing here. She was about to get sorted out a few weeks ago:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#User Gabi Hernandez

and dodged that by going to ground for a bit. User is simply not listening to anyone and is intent on a lot of inappropriate editing.

• [[Wikipedia:Editors for Wikia]] needs writing.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If using character images is against the rules, then why is it used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Reid that is clearly an image of Alice, not Frances. --Gabriela Hernandez 01:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs)

Just because no one caught it, does not mean it is correct. I took care of it. I see you still do not sign your name correctly, when advised twice on how to do it. Rm994 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry. I only followed that article, and thought that it was the correct format, since Frances passed away in February. I thought the same would apply to Helen Wagner, because she also passed away. And I thought I was signing correctly, I hit the sign button. Gabi Hernandez (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Character image also used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jason-cook.jpg in the article for actor Jason Cook.Gabi Hernandez talk--Gabriela Hernandez 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, how do you add actor/actress images. Do you just not add them at all, because they are all non-free? I need to know these things. Gabi Hernandez talk--Gabriela Hernandez 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Read image use guidelines. TAnthony has linked them to your page on several occasions. Perhaps you could contact him with any questions. You should comment to individual users now, as this is a forum for the community to review your recent edits. As friendly advice, might I suggest wikia to you? It seems to be more inline with what you like to do. No one there will warn you of violations, and you don't have to source. Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the adminship request some kind of joke? If not, there is a WP:COMPETENCE problem going on. Gabi, you don't have to be an admin to edit soap opera articles, and normally users have to be pretty experienced before they can become admins. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Days of our Lives has its own wiki: http://days6510.wikia.com/wiki/DAYS_OF_OUR_LIVES_Wiki 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked GH's account for a week. The most egregious problem to me is fair use images of characters to illustrate articles about actors. After so many explanations, the assumption of good faith has worn thin. I'm not sure what to do here and will await other input before shortening or lengthening the block.--Chaser (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a point at which it's simply no longer possible to AGF, and I think we've reached it here. Either the user simply can't understand our rules (despite having it patiently explained to them on a number of occasions), or they're just taking us for a spin. Either way, it's a net positive for the project to not have them around anymore, at least until they can demonstrate an understanding of our policies on fair use images. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

I don't think she is actually "trying" to cause trouble. I just think the policies may be a little overwhelming. I've been editing for 3 years, and I still don't know anywhere near enough! I do agree that the assumption of good faith is wearing thin, and if she doesn't learn from her mistakes, we should point her to a place with less rules. Thank you all. Rm994 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipéire

Resolved

Can someone please take note of the following IP: User:83.41.0.86. He is currently engaged in an edit war with me on Andy Murray, and is clearly the same user who has been contributing the same edit for the past two weeks. No other user is making this edit and the key giveaway is his summary citing a so-called "concensus" that I contend does not exist. There was a discussion on the talk page but no concensus, big difference. One of the IPs was blocked by User:SirFozzie, and dismissed as another sockpuppet of the ever ban-evading User:Wikipéire. Now right or wrong about the named editor, there is no question that the IP is the same user as the one forever removing the constituent nations and replacing them with United Kingdom. I highly recommend a protection level be introduced to the article so as to lock out IPs and non-established users. The user in question clearly knows no other form of communication. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been followed through by User:SirFozzie; please remove the label at the top and follow up if I'm mistaken. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Turian mentorship

Is anything productive being accomplished here any longer? No. ArbCom will likely have their own motions out soon enough, if a case is not filed first. So get a cup of tea, relax, and let tensions dissipate. The world isn't going to end because of what you may or may not perceive to be bad blocks. If you still have issues with any of the parties after a day or two, there are appropriate areas to resolve that. NW (Talk) 02:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked Turian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 48 hrs for a rather nasty blowup on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. He's had 4 blocks now in 3 weeks and seems to be escalating further into disruptive behavior after 9 months and 5,500 edits of largely good editing. If a calm uninvolved admin could talk to Turian about mentorship, it might help avoid further ongoing problems... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) It doesn't seem like any of the editors there were being particularly civil (plenty of "fuck off" etc. almost immediately) but I'm sure there is a prior history to explain their reactions to each other. SGGH ping! 23:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I think the civility of the discussion was unfortunate on all sides; but it was Malleus' page and the others involved (besides Turian) were defending Malleus; Turian went there and kept pushing comments after being asked not to, told not to, told by Malleus to stop posting there, etc. Turian's previous 3 blocks in the last 3 weeks were the history I was aware of; multiple admins had talked to him about civility and NPA, and that he was not a good candidate to be warning other people about stuff. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I'd like to say after I looked at the situation I'd say Turian should be un-blocked.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC) He appears to have been given as much crap in the recent talk page thread as he gave out, but I would rather hear from those other parties before considering unblocking, and given the sudden downhill spiral of behaviour I would not advocate unblocking until the user has had time to a) calm down and b) entered into a discussion on his talk page (prior to unblocked) to see if any headway can be made regarding his behaviour. A quick check of his previous shows two quick blocks a month or so ago where he immediately resumed from one, causing another. We have all the time in the world (relatively speaking) to give the user some time to breath and remember that Wikipedia is not all that important. SGGH ping! 23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I just spotted all this and had a read through, it seems like Turian will never actually learn, I doubt mentorship will help, I'm thinking his block should be extended! Jeni (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC) At least block User:Malleus Fatuorum for this to. He is equally responsible.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I've asked the other two users to pop down and explain what history has prompted them to behave in such a way in that thread. Want to hear their sides too. SGGH ping! 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I will be popping in on this to.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Excellent. While you're at it, think about a) changing your signature to something shorter, and b) figuring out the ":" formatting process. Tan | 39 23:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Don't insult me.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Completely uninvolved person here. I just read through everything and it seems to me that things just escalated out of control, though I can certainly understand Turian getting angry because of Malleus' comments over at John's talk page. If I was friends with someone, I would also start a discussion with the person. It seems to me that Turian was actually being rather civil in the beginning and then Malleus' increasing uncivil comments, along with other users coming along and being patently uncivil as well, escalated the matter into what it is now. I think all users, Turian, Malleus, and all others involved, need to cool down and perhaps even go have a cup of tea. Everyone should just back off, stop commenting on each other's talk pages, and leave it alone. SilverserenC 23:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with Silver seren. I don't know that any of the editors involved here were more guilty than the others. It seems there was plenty of incivility to go around. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah so a block to Mellaneus or Turian un-blocked is the solution.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) What's up with all of this "This for that" stuf? Let him ask for an unblock and leave it at that.--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Further comment After closer inspection of the section on Malleus' talk page, it seems to me that multiple users have formed a faction that seem to be about supporting Malleus regardless of what he says or does. Some of those users that I consider to be a part of that faction have already commented in this ANI discussion. SilverserenC 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC) And my formal reply is "Why do you care?" That was directed at me. There is no cabal out to get him nor is there any hard feelings toward him on my part.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid Turian's incivility now more than warrants a substantial block. He seems to think everybody except he has as responsibility to be civil and respectful. He, on the other hand, posts inflammatory and insulting comments whenever he gets the chance. This isn't the only wiki on which he has this behavior. 89.168.73.243 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Everyone and he has a responsibility to be civil. We are discussing whether there was a breakdown in civility involving other editors, and whether they should be dealt with as well. Thank you, and please consider opening an account.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I thought this was a discusion about Turian's mentorship. Strange how the goalposts keep moving. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I intend to block Tanthalas39 for his edits - [118] [119] [120] [121] - as well. Raise any objections now. Prodego talk 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I see, and the edits on Malleus' talk page in between those edits do not warrant a block? Please explain.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Turian is already blocked, and I am reluctant to block someone for comments they make when they are harassed on their own talk page. Prodego talk 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC) This ANI is about Turian. Might I suggest that discussions regarding other editors be moved to a different section? There is no reason to unblock Turian at this time. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) The section header does not limit the discussion, Rpeh. Otherwise a guilty party could come here, start a discussion about a less culpable editor and derail the discussion (at least for a time) when attention turned to his acts.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC) No, but it would be sensible to restrict discussion to one particular subject until the conflict is resolved rather than spinning off several other related discussions - which is what has now happened. This discussion should be about Georgewilliamherbert's original question: does anybody want to mentor Turian? --rpeh •T•C•E• 01:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (←) I think that Turian should be unblocked and all users involved that were uncivil, including Turian, should be warned about their behavior. Multiple users were inflammatory here. SilverserenC 00:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Who are they then?--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [edit conflict] I've blocked Tanthalas39. Prodego talk 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC) And I just unblocked myself because you just violated [[WP::POINT]]. Start the wheel warring. Tan | 39 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC) For transparency, I just blocked Prodego while violating WP:POINT myself. We wouldn't want me to be the only one with a sullied block log now, would we? I'm heading to the gym, and look forward to the war zone when I return. Tan | 39 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Um...wow. Off to Arbcom we go then? SilverserenC 00:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC) That might be one of the more hypocritical blocks I've seen in a while. Resolute 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC) It seems that a lot of people say that Turian should be un-blocked and this be dropped.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 00:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Well, we can't drop the wheel warring ... but I would agree on Turian, esp if he's willing to tone it down.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)No, it seems like one person wants that, you. Now we have 4 admins that He wants to be desyoped, two wheel waring admins, one indef one, and about 10 other editors who may be blocked or warned as well. This is just begining.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Coren of ArbCom indicated on Tan's talk page that he is aware of the wheel warring, so we don't need to make a referral. WS, you write about war. Now you're in one!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm a bit confused about what you just said. But, as i've stated before, I do believe that Turian should be unblocked. He was not the only uncivil participant here and certainly not the worst. He should not be the only one that is blocked (though I think no one should be at all). The other alternative would be to have both participants in this blocked (Turian and Malleus). SilverserenC 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'd say un-block Turian with a warning and warn every other editor that was involved in the argument directly it just seems as the best idea. Also it seems that some admins in particular are blocking him.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC) For the last flipping time, that's not going to happen. No one other than yourself wants that to happen. And enough of the "warnings" too.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Uh...*raises hand* I do? SilverserenC 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I don't. And neither does Wehwalt, Malleus or Tan.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Malleus is involved, so he clearly doesn't count. Tan appears to not be in a neutral POV at the moment, so he's out as well. Wehwalt said "Well, we can't drop the wheel warring ... but I would agree on Turian, esp if he's willing to tone it down.", so he agrees with me. SilverserenC 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC) but he;s not toneing it down. Look at his last edit for crying out lound. WE're all involved in some degree or another. So you'r last comment is baseless.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Just a little side note, I'm not big on the acceptance of the whole talk page harassment complaint in general. Telling someone to shut up, even if you word it nicer than that, is basically asking them to continue. In my mind, telling someone to get off your talk page is just a way of attaining a "the other guy is the one who's wrong" verdict, when the other party inevitably responds, even though both parties are probably trout-worthy in perpetuating the dispute. "Harassment" can usually be stopped by ceasing to respond yourself, or by archiving the discussion. See WP:JDI which illustrates this nicely. Equazcion (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm just saying I think that's the best solution. But what do you think should happen, huh?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) We waltz on over to Arbcom and do a formal case in which Malleus is indef, Tan is de-sysoped and banned for 6 months, Yours truely gets blocked, Ceranthor is de-sysoped and the guy who stated it gets away scot free. Either that or we continue this here.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Well, ArbCom is aware of Tan's matter, Coren, an arb, blocked Tan and asked him to submit a statement to the ArbCom mailing list. Don't know if they will consider anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC) If Arbcom would rule then that way, then that means that all of you guys are in the wrong. You're making it seem as if Arbcom would make the wrong decision in this matter and I sincerely doubt that. SilverserenC 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC) They may if you all campaign like politicians. Something's not right. This should have not gone as far as it did. Prodego whould have been blocked/de-sysoped for abuse of his tools as well. I'm feeling like we were given the short end of the stick.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yes Curtis23 Curtis23 Curtis23, we get what your opinion is. Repeating the same thing over and over borders on being disruptive. Resolute 01:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) We've had at least 20 people comment on this thread alone. (Not to mention talk pages) If this does'nt deserve an Arbcom case then nothing does.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) If 20 people commenting on an ANI thread means an ArbCom case is deserved, we'd need a lot more ArbCom members. Equazcion (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC) It has more to do with the fact that multiple users and admins are involved. I do believe that an Arbcom case may be necessary. SilverserenC 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Emergency desysop → Try to discuss/flame over there, please (though that's like begging 25K barrels of oil not to hit the U.S. Gulf Coast). –MuZemike 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Further all this - timeline and context. Malleus said "Never post here again" on his talk page, to Turian I warned Turian on his talk page I noted the warning to Turian on Malleus' talk page and left a mild warning / request for everyone else to tone it down too Turian reverted my warning on his talk page Turian left me a not-nice note on my talk page Turian went to Malleus' talk page and immediately after the "Never post here again" posted further material, the content of which was unacceptable beyond posting on another users' talk page after being told not to, which explicitly violates WP:HARASS I blocked Any of Turian's posting on Malleus' talk page immediately after being told by Malleus never to do that, Turians's posting there after I told him not to, Turian's last comments' contents after the prior warnings, or Turian's overall actions to bait another user on their user talk page, constitute block justification by themselves when combined with the prior block series and prior warnings over incidents with other users. The three together mandated action. Turian's state of mind is further indicated by the comments, unblock requests, and edit comments immediately after the block - he was not feeling very reasonable, and he showed it. I would like to emphasize that I think Turian would benefit from having a mentor, as he thought the sequence of events and his behavior was perfectly OK, and it clearly was not, regardless of what others did. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Reiterating my WP:JDI comment above, "never post here again" is an invitation to "please post here again so that i can show everyone how you posted here after i told you not to". This happens alot and I'm saddened to see respected admins taken in by it. Someone who wants comments to cease on their talk page have the means to make it happen effectively, and commanding the offending party is almost never effective, at all; and the more heated the conflict, the less effective it becomes. Malleus knew this. Please try not to delude yourselves into thinking otherwise. Equazcion (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Understatement on my part. Compare this with the thread above and below. You'll see what I mean.....--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Civil resolution - now there's a novel idea! Is this not been blown out of proportion completely? I've seen several good suggestions which have been overlooked. I have no administrator authority nor am i involved but it seems to me that so many people are involved that a resolution to the situation seems impossible now without length Arbcom. So here's a novel idea how about all involved parties in the original dispute be placed under mentorship and the following restrictions: 0RR. No reverting of another editor's changes, even if it appears to be vandalism. This applies to any change that restores older material, even if the "undo" button isn't used without approval of mentor(s). No editing of the articles which the user was involved in previously i.e. the article(s) under dispute. No removal or modification of content from any page outside of mainspace (stripped of jargon, that means you can delete material from articles, but not from talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, policy pages, or templates). Would this not be a sensible move? Anyone disobeying the restrictions placed upon them for 90 days could be banned without warning for an extended period e.g. 60 days Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Depends, am I a member of the dispute? Is Tan? Is Prodego? is Silver? This will not work there is a fine line of involved and later involved now. I fear a case looming....--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose Hmm, this seems very restricted doesn't seem like a good idea.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose While this was blown out of proportion, the fact is, it now too big of an issue for ER's to really work. No one would agree to them.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Well do we have a better idea? if you take it to Arbcome i fear that good admins will be blocked too. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, we drag it out here. And Arbcom is not full of idiots. They'll make the right desision if we leave it to them and not try to lobby like politicians. I want to go there becasue Prodego abused his tools to block Tan for litteraly no reason. Belive it or not but there is a right and wrong in this issue. Several wrongs have taken place and they will not be fixed thorugh this. And who would these ER be placed on exactly? Please name the people.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Arbcom seems to be a good solution to this ongoing war.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose This discussion isn't even about an actual article, but various users actions. Since this has expanded beyond just the initial incident and involves a variety of people, I really do think an Arbcom case is warranted. SilverserenC 01:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yah a lot of people are involved Me, Silver, Shadows, Turian, Tan, Malleus, and more. Arbcom is the best idea.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I would have suggested restrictions for User:Turian, User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Tanthalas39 although maybe my suggested restrictions were too harsh but with mentorship it could have worked. I would have recommended that all involved admins be warned about their conduct and told if such incidents happen in the future they would be demoted from admin to ordinary editors and/or blocked for a while. but then maybe as you've suggested arbcom is might be required to address: Several ordinary users had an issue which was not resolved here. Admins became involved and got wrapped up in sanctioning each other. Admins have misused admin tools.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) New solution - Begin an Arbcom case Speaks for itself. Would involve Tan, Prodego, Malleus, Turian, GWH, and any other person who's commented on this whole thread.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Have you started it on Arbcom yet?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 01:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) No, I'ts much too late for me to begin that. Just support it if you want and an admin will being it.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Agree, but i really shouldnt be involved in this. I was merely trying to help resolve the situation. If you wish to go to Arbcom that's fine but it isn't really anything to do with me. My actions here are not under question. I tried mediating but it failed. don't shoot the messenger ... Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) You are correct, you came in here at the very end and aren't really involved at all. You may still make a comment at the case though when it has opened, if you feel like it. But you aren't required to. SilverserenC 02:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry it couldnt be resolved otherwise. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Support It's rather necessary at this point with the number of disagreements that have been created in this discussion. SilverserenC 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Support Definitely needed. The disagreements and number of people in this warrant and ARBCOM case.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Prodego's abusive tool use Prodego's block needs to be undone. There was absolutely no consensus for it and it is awfully pointy and disruptive. Of the four edits he cited only one was even borderline uncivil, and it came in response to a series of aggressive and abusive posts on an editor's talkpage after being told to cease and desist. Are there any sensible admins who can exercise soem restraint and cease adding to the problem like John and Prodego are doing? I'm not sure GeorgeWilliamHerbert's block was particularly useful either, but at least it can be justified. Electroshoxcure (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I want him de-sysoped. We need an Arbcom case.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Tan reverted the block himself, which caused him to then be blocked by Coren, an Arbitration Committee member. It will not be undone now until after the, likely, ensuing Arbcom case, pending their decision at its conclusion. SilverserenC 02:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Ok I don't think a de-sysop is a good idea yet but something must be done definitely--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC). Lie. Tan was blocked for no reason at all. He then blocked Prodego in response to his abuse of the tools. It may have not been in the best of faith but Prodego did indeed abuse the tools.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Obviously unblocking himself wasn't appropriate, but abusive blocks like this one that sully block logs are very problematic. So at least now there's parity. Perhaps Prodego and other admins will use more care in the future. We can only hope. They're here to help resolve disputes not to add fuel to the fire and push buttons willy nilly. Electroshoxcure (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Sticking this in here for the record: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Log of blocks, bans. and restrictions. Risker (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 unblock

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – In case it gets lost down at the bottom, I've unblocked Tan. I'm unlikely to revisit this unproductive thread on my own, so if you say something to me here, please ping my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC) As the thread up above is closed, I figured I'd start a new one. I'd like to get a consensus to unblock Tanthlas39 with immediate effect to time served. I didn't like the way the thread was heading, certainly not the attitude that Tanthalas39 was expressing, but I don't see how this block is helpful at this point in time. He's desysopped now, I think it's in everyone's interests to unblock Tan and allow him to contribute to any discussions regarding his desysopping. I don't really have an opinion of the original block - but I think an unblock now would be the best thing to do. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC) That sounds entirely reasonable to me. IMO abuse of admin privileges should not normally lead to anything worse than loss of admin privileges, and this doesn't look like the kind of egregious case that asks for more than that. Hans Adler 10:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC) May as well unblock. Originally a warning would have been adequate, and the desysop has taken care of the use of admin tools by Tan, so at this point I think there is no reason to stop Tan from editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) A completely ridiculous and altogether avoidable situation. While Tanthalas39 did not respond to the provocation wisely, his was not the first error in the sequence (nor, unfortunately, was it the last). Can everyone be properly smacked and can we move on as painlessly as possible from this unnecessary drama? Support unblock (and support rebitting). jæs (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unblock and do something about Prodego who is now running free and smelling of roses. Jeni (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unblock. To keep Tan blocked is entirely punative and not preventative of anything. Pedro :  Chat  11:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Keep blocked for the time being, Tan has a history of provocative behaviour (to say the least), and he said th Coren that he was fully aware of the consequences of his behaviour, so it looks like a "suicide by Arbcom" to me. He can email Arbcom, and post on his talk page, just like any other blocked editor. DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unblock but I'm not sure who's going to have the gonads to do it. The most recent block was enacted by a member ArbComm - unfortunately wrongly and out of process, and I still like my 'nads enough that I don't want to see them in today's soup. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unblock Tan and Turian. Tan's comments were the worst of the bunch, so if he gets unblocked so should Turian, IMO. All the arguments above for unblocking Tan apply to all parties involved. Equazcion (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm expressing no opinion on the various blocks (I try to stay blissfully ignorant of blocking policy for sanity's sake, although I notice that ANI continues to be dominated by childish discussion), but all of this started with User:John, who has a history of provoking other editors with uncivil statements.[122] A discussion of what unfolded here is incomplete without looking at its origins, and addressing the problems of admin behavior at their source. When uncivil admins provoke other editors, the outcome is inevitable, and good editors are drug into the ensuing mess. As to the closed thread regarding mentorship of User:Turian, mentorship of editors with a disruptive history rarely produces the desired outcome, and those editors should be shown the door quickly, to avoid dragging down productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I very much agree with the first part of what you say; I have no opinion on whether mentoring would be effective in this case or not. The whole unhappy incident was started by User:John's habitual rudeness in a discussion over tagging Scarlett JohnsonScarlett Johansson. Turian became involved in a misguided and overly aggressive defence of John's behaviour over several pages, and began to lash out and all and sundry; the rest is history. It's absurd to focus on just one episode in that saga and ignore the factors that precipitated its unfolding. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I have never edited Scarlett Johnson in my life. --John (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC) This may be what they mean by provoking others, with an edit summary of "missed the bus", as I think you are sharp enough to figure out that Malleus was mixing up his tartlets and meant to say Scarlett Johansson. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I did realise that. Is it provoking others to ask for a correction? Some diffs and a notification that my conduct was being discussed would have been nice too. The "missed the bus" summary refers to Malleus's comment here. What exactly was MF's locus in commenting aggressively on my talk page like this? If you are looking for a "root cause" of this matter, this editor's conduct may bear more inspection than mine. All I did was improve an article. --John (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Given that Coren asked Tan to contact the ArbCom mailing list, I'm presuming that the block has been done under ArbCom authority, and I really think that it's a bad idea to go around unblocking or otherwise poking admin tools at the whole sorry mess. With that said, a block seems a bit over-dramatic, although a case could be made for desysopping. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC). I don't think we exceed our authority by becoming involved in this. Usually arbcom handle wheelwar-type issues, but there's no reason to say that the community can't. I'm not fond of the perception that an emergency arbcom motion trumps a reasoned consensus of the community. AGK 12:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Recommend unblocking Tan. A single token block for disruption is less important than a discussion relating to a user's administrator tools. Also noting that Prodego has been blocked for disruption, so there are no need for the calls for his head on a stick. AGK 12:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) As far as I can tell, User:Prodego is not blocked. While I think his actions here were quite poorly considered, I do think we have already issued too many silly blocks for one escapade. Yet another coud well lead to a very unhappy cabal, err, camel. jæs (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Prodego was blocked... by Thantalas, right after unblocking himself from Prodego's block. Another admin unblocked Prodego 3 minutes later. Prodego's block log --Enric Naval (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Comment Agree with unblock. Coren, as an individual member of ArbCom has no particular special powers in this area, and so we can review a block as usual. Seems no point in keeping him blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I can't see how Tan's comments can be seen as anything less than clear personal attacks and harassment. Tan, completely unprovoked went to another user's talk page and left the comment (to a third party) "are you fucking kidding me? You're going to be all high and mighty, threatening to "visit ANI", while chastising the user about... being civil? Get the fuck over yourself." He made several other comments to the same effect - [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]. These aren't instances of snapping when harassed, Tan deliberately went out of his way to harass and attack another user. Prodego talk 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) However much I believe vulgar language ought to be (and can easily be) avoided, the word fuck does not inherently make any old statement a personal attack. Calling someone a fool may be a (very mild) personal attack; saying they are acting foolishly almost certainly is not. Expressing incredulity is not a personal attack. Falling back to sarcasm is not a personal attack. Even expressing outrage is not a personal attack. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? jæs (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC) On the contrary, this isn't about the use of profanity, although this helps make things a bit more obvious. (The bolding of 'fuck' wasn't my own - it was in the original message). Tan attacked another user completely unprovoked, and made several disparaging remarks towards another user in a discussion he was not involved with. This is part of a larger pattern of such behavior by Tan. I don't have a problem with Tan being unblocked in order to comment on his desysop - but I strongly stand by the interpretation of those comments as blatant personal attacks. I asked for objections before blocking both on and off wiki before making the block, and there were none. As for the goatse image, it seems I was right that it should be deleted. Prodego talk 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Are you open to recall? Jafeluv (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC) By RfAR. Prodego talk 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) and you inflamed the situation by blocking an admin with no consensus. I would say the most disruptive one in the bunch was you.--Crossmr (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC) There is nothing different about administrators, its just a set of tools for maintaining the site. There should be no special treatment. Prodego talk 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Coren specifically reduced the indef block back to the "original block" after the desysop, so I no longer consider it an Arbcom block. Since consensus above seems relatively clear, I'm going to unblock now, not as a judgment on whether the block was good or not, but because the real damage has already been done, and we might as well try to save the bits and pieces we can. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) IMO, Prodego is developing a bit of a cavalier shoot first and ask questions later attitude towards carrying out administrative actions, be it summarily deleting images without discussion or blocking other administrators for cussing. Things that simply offend one's sensibilities are not grounds for using admin tools. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I think Tan was developing an approach that was not compatible with his position, and instead of being receptive to the feedback he was given (on more than one occasion) to address his approach, he chose to continue along the same path and took it too far. He knew what the consequences would be, but took the gamble anyway. Given that Tan had repeatedly dismissed the feedback and had no intention of changing his approach, the inevitable could only be put off for so long. I hardly see the usefulness in dragging this out further with excuses or justifications or attempts to reassign blame or anything else that would be punitive (including keeping him blocked). Accordingly, I endorse Floquenbeam's action of unblocking him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Endorse already-enacted unblock, with no further comment on wrongdoings by any other editor, admin or not, in this whole mess. There's plenty of blame to go around, and as far as I am concerned, no one involved in the initial series of incidents, up to and including the various blocks, didn't get splattered with the shit that hit this fan. No one is blameless here, and as such, we should all just walk away, and do nothing further with this. Everyone should let it drop, and get back to finding a pointless bit of drama to get involved with editing articles. --Jayron32 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Comment Administrator food-fights may be entertaining, but they demean the position and wikipedia itself. You guys really need to take these kinds of issues offline. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Another concern that maybe should be addressed is what could be called "admin burnout". The two guys in this thread, I have considered both to be good admins. Does wikipedia have or need some process for dealing with this "burnout" syndrome? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Unless bringing on more admins is the solution, which I don't think the community at large is for. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not therapy. –MuZemike 16:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Responding to the more admins solution) Even if there were more admins, there'd still need to be a willingness AND ability on the part of the burnt out admins to "let go", "drop the stick", "move away and take a deep breath", or whatever expression fits the particular circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) An editor can respond to burnout by walking away for a while. There were a lot of poor decisions made here, but Tan was no martyr. The tit-for-tat block he made himself was enough to justify losing the bit, imo, regardless of the actions of anyone else. Resolute 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed. Furthermore, "good editors burn out sometimes" is still used far too frequently around here to excuse any bad behaviour by established / well-liked editors for periods way in excess of that permitted for the hoi polloi. This goes doubly when said editors have the mop when it really should be the inverse. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Burnout? Don’t make me laugh. Nobody forces anyone to edit here and as for at least one of the individuals involved, the liberal use of spiteful insults in an attempt to humiliate editors who dare to reproach him about his attitude is a long-standing trait, not one suddenly brought on by wiki-stress. Just because you consider someone to “be a good admin.” (i.e. you like them and you follow them about) doesn’t mean that they are suffering from burnout because once again they have allowed their arrogance to get the better of them. Leaky Caldron 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Turian

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.

Talk page access was removed so he can return when he's unblocked. Show's over. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

He has requested un-block multiple times and they were all rejected despite that multiple users INCLUDING the person that he supposedly insulted that caused this block. I myself did not make the decision to bring this to ANI although Turian wanted it to (but he couldn't himself because he is blocked). He wanted the communtity to help him get the administartaors to see he is unfairly blocked which even (as I said before) the "insulted" says so. There also is a conversation on his talk page here where if you want to see his defence you must go there. Thank you.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very least it seems illogical to unblock Tanthalas39 and not Turian. Tan was much more over the line, I think, so I'd say either unblock both or none. Although, Tan is de-opped for the moment and Turian's block isn't exactly for very long (only 48 hours), so maybe it all balances out :\ Equazcion ^(talk) 00:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved admin, taking his behavior into account, I don't find the block unjustified. I don't subscribe to the notion that "Well they didn't get blocked" a valid justification or excuse for their behavior that initiated the block. Q ^{T C} 00:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OverlordQ on that account. However, the block on Tan was very disputed; Tan must have been pissed and unblocked himself, resulting in desysoping. We don't unblock one person because another person is unblocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Two notes -

One, a largely different set of admins are dealing with the incidents with Tan and so forth. I'm not going to touch that side of the incident with a 10-foot pole at the moment. Nor are the incidents really symmetrical. Inconsistency in response due to different responders is perhaps regretful but is reality here on Wikipedia.

Two, I would like to (again) suggest that we find Turian a mentor, with or without unblocking before the 48 hrs are up.

With that, I leave the situation for uninvolved admin review, unless someone has a question of me.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While a short block was definitely in order, I think 48 hours was going too far. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert that Turian might benefit from mentoring but I would agree that he should be unblocked at this time. --rpeh •T•C•E• 00:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A good point is that the "accuser" doesn't agree with the block so why block? Also, Turian says he'll take a mentor if he gets justice if you look at the 2nd of his 5 unblock requests.--Curtis23's Usalions 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think we should unblock now. The purpose has been served. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• I think Turian should be unblocked. The block has gone far beyond it's purpose now. Also (though I usually tend to agree with Coren's actions on things), I think desysopping Tan in this case was very pointy and uncalled for, especially given how overwhelmingly pointy Prodego's block of him was. A stern warning would have been sufficient. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't notice that Tan had turned around and blocked Prodego after unblocking himself. Due to this one extra bit of information, I agree with the desysopping as that was stepping beyond acceptable actions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not to take this thread off track, but what point was I trying to make? My block was a NPA block, based on diffs I've provided both before and after making it. Prodego ^talk 01:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• If it was an NPA block, then everyone involved in that whole mess should have been blocked. There was more than enough incivility on the part of many people there, yet only one person was blocked, apparently only because he was incensed by the inequality of the block applied to Turian (when the others participating in that "discussion" were all flinging epithets back and forth, but only Turian was blocked). Blocking Tan served no purpose. He should have just been warned. All your block (and Coren's desysop) has done is to push him away from the site. He's an excellent contributor with an excellent track record (even if he does wax passionate on occasion). This was not handled at all well, from the very beginning. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your block was also baseless and not in line with any sort of consensus. You made that block without any prior attmept to settle the matter in less...um destructive means. You made a grad total of two, count them 2 edits to that thread prior to blocking Tan on the grounds of NPA. Furthermore, you likely spent a total of 5-10 minutes researching the situation before makeing the block. And when Wehwalt, an amdin like yourself objectied, you blew it off and blocked him anyway. Even though you said that you'd listen to people's objections.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss why that is not at all true on my talk page if you would like, but here is not a particularly good place. Prodego ^talk 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well. That seems just. However perhaps you'd like to reply at the Arcbom noticeboard. I still belive that you abused the tools.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What did or did not happen to Tan is irrelevant to the conversation, as is what the "insulted" party has to say. Blocks are to prevent behavior that is outside of guidelines. It's true, alas, that different people interpret these guidelines differently, but to say "it's OK, I don't feel insulted" excuses the behavior is really not the point. We establish community standards, not individual standards. It's an online medium; if people are engaging in behaviors that don't translate well to an online medium...perhaps the consequences serve to reinforce that point. As an offline analogy, there are certainly things we would discuss with co-workers but not family, friends but not acquaintances; siblings but not parents...the examples could continue. So, again - what the consequence was for any other involved party, and the it's OK with me opinion of a theoretically aggrieved party really aren't important. If the block was correct at the time it was issued...it's probably OK until it's expired in its natural course of events. Having said all that: I didn't follow the drama (I am - at least in my own mind - famously anti-drama) and have no comment whatsoever on whether the original block was warranted. I just think that the decision on whether or not it was warranted has nothing to do with Tan.  Frank  |  talk  01:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Total agreement - this topic is about an unblocking of User:Turian and anything else should be discussed somewhere else. I have already stated that I believe he should be unblocked, although a requirement should be that he be assigned/accept a mentor. --rpeh •T•C•E• 01:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Based off of his current unblock request, I'd oppose unblocking him. He clearly has not learned anything.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The key word in AGF is assume. Assumption becomes unnecessary in the face of the user's actions. Resolute 01:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think I normally agree with Prodego (I know his name is familar... hopefully for the good!) I must disagree that this block was justified in light of the comments that the person "insulted" even disagrees with the block. Blocks for uncivil remarks towards another user should be put into context and not into a bubble as many admins have the habit of doing and saying "you NEVER make that comment no matter the circumstance". Example- someone called me a "dirty Jew" in high school, I punched him and bloodied his nose, I did not even so much as get detention. Sometimes circumstances push good people to do "bad" things. If an editor who is insulted wants to make a case for a block on the insulter then that should be on their responsibility, not a passing admin taking it upon themselves to do something. Admins arent policemen walking around looking for purse snatchers and jay walkers to arrest. This is a case of a "civil crime" (pun intended on uncivil/civil) and perhaps we need to treat it like that, this isnt a crime against the state where the victim has no discretion in the process.Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Turian definitely needs to learn when to calm down, and needs to understand why he has been blocked, which is why I support the Mentoring suggestion. I also think the block was too harsh. Too many opinions in this discussion are black and white and, as usual, the answer lies somewhere in the gray. An unblock with mentoring seems appropriate. Of course, as the clock ticks forward and the auto-unblocking grows ever closer, the whole point of this discussion becomes diluted. --rpeh •T•C•E• 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The community thinks otherwise. Please read WP:CIVIL. Civility is not situation-dependent. It is, as I said above, subject to interpretation by "passing admins", but that's unavoidable in a volunteer-project. That isn't the same as "situation-dependent", however. If the high-school slur you refer to above were issued around here, it would almost universally be an immediately-blockable offense. If your response where brought into question, that would be a separate issue. And that's the point here.  Frank  |  talk  02:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Frank, you and I have different and opposing philosophies on the role of policies in Wikipedia and the role of janitors. That I would be happy to discuss with you any place you want in a debating format, I believe it would be fun. I personally dont agree with you, but I can acknowledge you have an equally valid interpretation as I do. I would however have to say the Community has always taken the same position as I have on policy talk pages regarding "rules" and "policemen". Civility is situation dependent unless you are someone who believes policies are "laws" and must be enforced by the letter. The assumption is faulty because Wikipedia has IAR and specifically in many many many places (including Jimbo himself) says they are not laws and common sense applies.Camelbinky (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding IAR, I invite you to read WP:IAR and understand what it's really about...and then, as a side trip, check out Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse. Regarding common sense, I invite you to read User:FisherQueen's response to Turian's unblock request here and describe how unblocking at this point, in the face of those diffs, would constitute common sense.  Frank  |  talk  02:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave plenty of his edits here that indicated his general attitude. And yes, I declined his sixth unblock request. I refuse to engage with him any further so if someone out there thinks unblocking him will actually produce something over not letting him edit will gain, it should be interesting. If he wants a mentor, I see no serious indication of it from his talk page (short of "If I get to choose my mentor, I'll consider it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If somebody else would have posted so many unblock requests as turian did, and responded to the message left at his talk page with the edit summaries as he did, that user would have been blocked for much longer period, and honestly I do not believe it will be such a great lost for the project, if turian's block is extended. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits, I would note that Turian's block was for 48 hours and is approximately 19 hours away from expiring on its own. Shadowjams (talk) 03:39, 5 May 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.

Baseless personal attacks by an editor on an article talk page

Collapsing for everyone's benefit. Closing message from Jayron: I am ending this. There is just rediculous bickering between two editors, no admin is going to do anything here. If they have, they would have by now. It's an endless stream of "No I'm not" followed by "Yes you are", which I am ending now. The proper venue for this complaint is WP:WQA, please start a thread there. --Jayron32 03:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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. I am ending this. There is just rediculous bickering between two editors, no admin is going to do anything here. If they have, they would have by now. It's an endless stream of "No I'm not" followed by "Yes you are", which I am ending now. The proper venue for this complaint is WP:WQA, please start a thread there. --Jayron32 03:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) User:Huldra posted this, insinuating that I have previously been banned and created a new account to circumvent this supposed ban. If she wants to submit a SPI against me, she can go ahead. Attacks like this (especially on an article talk page) are completely inappropriate. I requested that she strike out or remove the comment, and warned her that if she doesn't, I would be seeking action here. She refused, and responded on my talk page with a biting comment here. She notes that a SPI was filed against me in the past. It found that I had no relation to any of the accounts in question. She herself tried to get me implicated in that SPI, and I suspect she holds a grudge that she was proven wrong. In any case, her comments on this article talk page are inappropriate and I would like to know what can be done to correct the issue. Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I see nothing wrong with Huldra's comments. Sarcastic, yes. Personal attacks, not even close. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I beg to differ. I kindly suggest that you review the policy at WP:NPA. What is considered a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Breein1007 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) My evidence of sarcasm is from this edit where he says "I assume you want to delete those pictures from that category, too, then? Just for consistency?"...that is biting sarcasm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Sure, definitely biting sarcasm... but that comment has nothing to do with the issue so I don't really see the point. The issue is her accusations of my being a banned user circumventing the ban with a new account. I need to know what can be done to fix that issue. Breein1007 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC) If you are (and I am NOT saying you are) a blocked user, that will be found out in the SPI requested. If you aren't, that will also be found out. It ain't fun, but these things have a process. I have had to go through them before (found out I wasn't a sock) and you move on. Just do some work on Wiki and forget about it for now. No use beating a horse over something you have no current control over. The SPI is under the control of admins and checkusers (also admins) and they will hash that out and get back to your on their findings. You literally will be the first to know. So, relax, ignore the sarcasm and move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) You don't get it. There is no SPI requested. There are only baseless accusations which I want removed. Breein1007 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Ahem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, closed in November 2009. As I said above, I was found to be unrelated to the accounts in question. Therefore, Huldra has no right to be accusing me of sockpuppetry on talk pages today. Breein1007 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC) ...and Huldra just mentioned this report as well. For someone who is brand new, you are certainly getting ALOT of SPIs against you. Also, to answer a related question, No, an admin will not delete this SPIs, they are archived and permanent. Ya gotta live with 'em. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, I'm not going to respond to your comments anymore. I'm waiting for an admin to help me, and you aren't an admin. All you are doing here is confusing the issue over and over again. I did not ask for the SPI to be deleted. I asked for Huldra's personal attack to be deleted. That is why I am here. Good luck to you. Breein1007 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC) To get a comment deleted you need to contact an oversight at WP:RFO. Also, as I see no need to admin assistance in this (you have been given instructions above) I am closing this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Please do not archive this again. I am waiting for input from an uninvolved admin. The issue has not been resolved. Breein1007 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC) ...and you have been given specific instructions on where to go to get that uninvolved admin. I will say one more time, you need to contact an oversight at WP:RFO. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Request for oversight is not used for personal attacks. I am not requesting for the history to be cleared. I just want the comment deleted. Really, I stated above that I'm not going to respond to you anymore but you are making it difficult. Can you please just give up on this and move on to something else? You really aren't helping the situation at all. You're making comments that either confuse the issue or don't relate to it at all. I just want input from an uninvolved admin, and that means you can't help me. Breein1007 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC) No, I think you are the one confused. Dude, if you want something removed and it is on your talk page, you can remove it. If it is on someone else's talk page, you are just SOL. Show me the comment and I will remove it. Also, I may not be an admin, but I have experience in handling things like this. Non-admins help out on the admin boards 24 hours a day, everyday. So, if you have a problem and come to ANI or AN, you will probably see some non-admins floating about and probably be helped by one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC) The link to the comment on the article talk page was provided in my very first comment in this report. I will ask you one final time: please detach yourself from this case. You are not helping at all. Breein1007 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Stand by... - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I have kindly asked Huldra to strike the snarky parts of her comment as you find them unnecessary and rude. If this was not the comment in question, please let me know and I will change the link in the statement to her. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I think Huldra was out of line, but it's not as if she said your edits "reek of nationalistic POV". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Firstly; I would like to state that I have personally never thought that Breein1007 was a sock of the "old" editor mentioned in this SPI. (I did not file that SPI: just noted that at a very heated discussion in the I/P area, a couple of brand new accounts appeared, who seemed to be abundantly familiar with wikipedia-policies.) Secondly, Breein1007 himself (herself?) has not always been forthright about possible previous accounts: see User_talk:Breein1007#Previous_accounts. Breein stated on 20 Nov. that "I'm not a new editor", (The Breein1007 account was registred 8 days earlier), then said that Breein1007 was his first account, as "you don't need an account to edit"([130]). Hmm, right then. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC) ..and by this link it seems Breein1007 was cleared of the charges (as least in this case) of sockpuppetry. So I have to ask you Breein1007, what exactly is it you want the admins here to do? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) As I have said multiple times, I want an uninvolved admin to look at this case and determine what should be done. I won't want those personal attacks to remain in place to taint my reputation. Breein1007 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Breein1007, don't you think that it's a bit, well, hypocritical of you to bring this case against Huldra? After all, your behaviour towards her hasn't always been very appropriate. And are you sure that it was you she was referring to when she mentioned the creation of new accounts?     ←   ZScarpia   00:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I'm sure. Her comments on my talk page and here make that pretty clear. Breein1007 (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC) FYI: [131]. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC) FYI: "As far as I can see, Breein1007 is not operating any sockpuppets. If he was, I would tell you. --Deskana (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)" Breein1007 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Just to note that Breein1007 has removed the resolved template from the page after being told where to go to have something removed from his/her page (and possibly history of that page). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Courtesy Break What exactly did you mean by this comment, made back in your SPI case? Tarc (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) No comment. And that SPI has nothing to do with the issue at hand, so I'd appreciate if you'd stay on topic. Thanks. Breein1007 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Actually I think you should explain that as it could be taken that you are those users. I am slowly leaning toward DUCK in this situation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I don't care what you're leaning toward. I opened this AN/I about a personal attack. If you want to open an SPI about me, go for it. Now please, for the 4th time, stop interfering with this issue. You aren't bringing it any closer to a resolution. Can an admin please just deal with the personal attack and end this ridiculousness? Breein1007 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I think you should read this comment from above. Just relax Dude, hyper ain't gonna help. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I read it. You asked her to strike her comment. Three hours after I already asked her to strike it and she refused. Why should I relax? She made a personal attack against me accusing me of being a banned user and now you are joining her and suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet. You aren't helping. I need an admin. How can I make this more clear for you? Breein1007 (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Smoke Signals. No really, Dude, it is obvious there isn't an admin available right now. They do have lives ya know. So you get me. I am asking you to relax. Rome wasn't built in a day and even if I was to find another page to work on, you would still be sitting around until an admin showed up. Sometimes admins don't come by to sections and they get buried, had that happen a couple times myself. Relax, let Huldra get back online and see the message and go from there. I won't (and I don't think any admin will) remove a statement from a person's talk page unless it is blantantly attacking someone (like cuss words and threats), this isn't one of those. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC) This is as blatant of a personal attack as anything. I quoted the related policy from WP:NPA. So far, only one admin has commented on this matter and he stated that Huldra was out of line. Why he didn't do anything to solve the problem, I can't tell you. He is welcome to comment if he would like, as I suspect he will be reading this comment quite shortly. In any case, we are talking about a personal attack on an article talk page, not on a user talk page. And I am not asking you to delete it. I am asking an admin to delete it. Breein1007 (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe because the admin found no problem with it enough to address it. It isn't a personal attack, it is snarky sarcasm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Well, at this point the sock suggestions do not appear to be too off the mark, especially considering your flippant "no comment" response above. Politicians with something to hide say "no comment". We should expect better from editors here. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Well, at this point your comments have nothing to do with this issue. As I said, if you want to file a SPI about me, knock yourself out. This is not the correct place to be making your accusations. This is a thread about another user making a personal attack against me on an article talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Let me make something clear, anything valid can be brought up in an ANI discussion. You don't get to decide which way it goes. You open yourself and your actions up to scrutiny when you start an ANI thread. You, me, Tarc, anyone. Your edits, actions and everything gets looked at. So, yeah, sockpuppetry would put eyes on you immediately and saying "No Comment" really puts eyes on you and makes you a DUCK real quick, especially in this case. Just answer the question, if you got nothing to hide, problem goes away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I'm done being baited by you. It's not worth it. All this is doing is giving Huldra what she wants. Until an admin or other user comments here, I'm going to hold back my comments. It's clear that you aren't bringing this matter anywhere closer to a resolution. As a matter of fact, so far you have just escalated the issue. Breein1007 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Dude, you have no idea, what I have done in the background. See here. Asked an admin for comment on this. Waiting for a reply. So, don't say someone isn't not "bringing this matter anywhere closer to a resolution" unless you know the facts. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC) edit conflict 2ce* This has been a most amazing case to read. Someone comes in here with a complaint, and a handful of editors come in here and bait and harass him. Time for an uninvolved editor to take a look at the complaint and help out here. Stellarkid (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I'd like to make a comment as an unrelated editor about this matter. Looking on the initial incident, it seems both users are responsible for inappropriate conduct on the talk page. Breein1007 should not be complaining about sarcasm and accusations directed at him/her, because both parties did this. Although these are not cases of personal attack, the issues should be resolved directly. Yes, the related issue of the SPIs should be discussed, but there seems to be a lot of unnecessary deviation from the original matter. A good course for action is to put this matter behind both parties, and reconcile as soon as possible. Deagle_AP (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC) You have failed to recognize that personal attacks are "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." This is exactly what Huldra has done by accusing me of being a banned user on a new account. Breein1007 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 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.

Domination of edits and reverts by a number of Korean accounts, part two

Original post here

He makes pro-Korean edits but often revert objective edits unfavorable to his views, leads to many edit wars. For example, the edits I added according to the Ruijū Kokushi is more valid and neutral than that Korean source. I am certain that he will revert if the source is a Chinese source a Korean scholar agrees the Chinese view. He often reverts without any talk and communicates only to WikiProject Korea in edit wars. He appears do not listen to warning, breaks the 3RR again and again, and performs multiple reversions in content disputes require attention, see User talk:Kuebie. His edit war counterparts Sentinel R, Je suis tres fatigue are reported also. Neutral editing are not deceptive. On wikipedia the edits Goguryeo and Balhae are Korean are POV, since the Chinese do not agree with them. I've notified that before Kuebie's edits the articles were more neutral, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae&oldid=147775561 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo&oldid=148425853. The pages becomes very pro-Korean. KoreanSentry often appear in same edit wars, share same views. There may be some coordination to bypass the 3RR. Also, I don't think other editors are multiple accounts, there have been different instances in those edit wars.Sammyy85 (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is, why did you move this from where it was originally located just to get people looking at it again? You should just reply and see what people say when it pops up on their watchlist. I'm going to revert that move soon as there is no reason that this can't remain in its original location. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the stuff that was already archived because it doesn't need to be in two places at once. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Persistent anon IP hopper

I am experiencing problems with a persistent anon IP hopper, already blocked at least twice for personal attacks and disruptive edits (86.40.105.226 (talk), 86.40.210.11 (talk)). I'm not the only editor who has been the target.

Recent edits on my talk page from this editor are: [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] This editor's latest incarnation is 86.40.202.253 (talk). Hohenloh ⁺ 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently same one that started this discussion. I semi-protected your talk page for a week. You can request re-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Chaser (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

May I offer my opinion? I believe I have been nothing but courteous to this gentleman, indeed, I have proferred my arm in friendship to him, only for it to be struck away, much like a barbarian would kick a dog. But nevertheless, I digress. I refuse to give up. I will persue my ambition to embrace my brother into the fellowship of man, to compel him by the power of human decency to submit to kindness. Indeed, all I have done has been to express my due hope that together we may strike a cord of friendship and togetherness not seen in the annals of human history. If my time on wikipedia is to be a success, I believe I will have to embrace such socially challenged individuals, and must insist on maintaining a good working relationship, in spite of their defects.

Have I really behaved so appallingly? All I ask of this gentleman is to embrace me as a fellow human being, to converse with me, to discuss our differences over article content, but at every turn I have been resorted to accusations of bad faith, something which is I believe contrary to the commandments as established by this august institution.

So again, I beg, please forgive a wayward sinner and try to help him achieve the right track, of kindness, dignity, humanity and reason for all. Thank you. 86.40.207.29 (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am the victim of a terrible conspiracy

As yet, there has been no attempts to find my innonence, only to prove my guilt. I find this to be intolerable and would prefer if all wikipedians, all of those people who may hold contemptible opinions about my motives and actions, would reach inside themselves and find their better angels, and in the interests of humanist compassion, recognise that I only wish good things for this project and hope that together we can move forward, despite this confederacy of dunces arrayed against me. 86.40.207.29 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I to wait in limbo indefinately? 86.40.207.29 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This would tell any reader everything we need to know. Personal attacks--both against the owner of the talk page and the individual who rightfully reverted your attacking edit against the owner (with the last one being one of the most egregious violations of WP: EVERYPOSSIBLERULEORGUIDELINE I have ever seen in an edit summary) would result in an immediate and likely indefinite block, were you a named account. As you are an IP, however, we can take other measures against you.

Would an admin more knowledgeable in rangeblocks please examine the possibility of rangeblocking this IP user? Seriously, the above diff just amazes me. GJC 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest ip blocked, and yea, it's probably time for an admin with rangeblock-fu skills to step in. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me, I was driven to the edge of dispair by the EXTREME lack of courtesy of that user. I've tried and tried and tried to apologise but only get spat on. Won't you give me a second chance? 86.40.99.232 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S- I don't think its terribly productive to troll through my past edits just to defame me. I'm open about my past, and its a great shame to me. I only want to progress, to move forward, to learn from my past mistakes. Will you please have some Good Faith in me! 86.40.99.232 (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for evasion, looking into rangeblock, but I've been told the collateral would be severe.--Tznkai (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah checked myself, really severe. If it gets worse, I'll exchange emails with the ISP.--Tznkai (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement page/ corporate PR editing

• Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

helperbot7 helperbot5 editing logged out?

Resolved

 – botop restarted bot process. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The toolserver IP edited WP:UAA: looks like HBC AIV helperbot7 may be editing logged-out. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It has done this several times, though I believe the original creator retired - there should be an operator somewhere to talk-message. SGGH ^ping! 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Department of Redundancy Department has notified Wimt. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, bot 7 is operated by Wimt (talk · contribs) so I have asked about it on their talkpage. I'm hesitant to block the IP as there seems to be only one other helperbot running at the moment. —DoRD (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

7 actually appears to have been editing the whole time . I may have got the bot number wrong. I'll go sort through the contribs. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should block it. It isn't causing a problem. People at UAA know who it is cause it's happened before. SGGH ^ping! 15:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot 5 last edited at 02:07, 4 May 2010. Bot 7 appears to have been editing uninterrupted, as has bot 3, including during the time of the logged-out edits (which haven't occurred since 10:54, 4 May 2010). The others appear to have been inactive for some time. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, now I'm really confused because the IP is editing simultaneously with 7, so maybe it is 5. —DoRD (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried contacting the botop for 5. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The logged-out edits have resumed. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OttomanJackson and pointy AfD nominations

Resolved

 – Both AFDs are closed, and user has been admonished on talk page.  Frank  |  talk  03:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• OttomanJackson (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolution 9

I happened across the Lucy... AfD yesterday, and puzzled by why such an obviously well-known song was up for deletion. Seems that the nominator is quite a Michael Jackson fan, but has seen some of his attempts at articles for MJ's non-single songs redirected to the respective album article, per WP:NSONG, i.e. Heaven Can Wait (Michael Jackson song), Don't Walk Away (Michael Jackson song) have seen a bit of edit-warring. So it appears now that this user is doing a bit of tit-for-tat and finding non-single Beatles songs to nominate for deletion.

Maybe the MJ songs should be articles, maybe not, but this really isn't the way to go about affecting change IMO. I took the liberty per WP:SK of closing the Lucy... AfD, but now he's got another one going. If this is viewed as disruptive behavior, it may need an admin hand to step in. Tarc (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments, On April 27, 2010, I warned OttomanJackson that if they continued to create non-notable MJ song articles that they would be blocked from editing, and since then they have repeatedly ignored my warning and re-created article's for non-notable MJ song's, even after another editor (User:Pyrrhus16) also told them not to multiple times. This user clearly does not listen to other editors warning's so I think that a temporarily block might help get the message to them not to continue their disruptive edits. Crystal Clear x3 11:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of 24.109.207.40

The IP User:24.109.207.40 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was blocked last November for a year, the fifth in an escalating series of blocks relating to repeated vandalism and sockpuppetry from that account.

Earlier today, I reviewed and declined an unblock request. The requestor said the location from which she edits was, at the time of the previous block, a UPS store that had a public computer, hence the abuse, but that folded and it is now her business, with the computer inaccessible to members of the public. I said that I could not unblock since we had no way to verify that. My comment was solicited after a second unblock request, in which I said that I was open to another admin deciding to unblock on AGF grounds. So, per her request I am posting here for another admin to take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandals are a dime a dozen, reblocks are cheap. This person says they want to contribute; and if s/he's telling the truth, that is golden. Unblocked. –xeno^talk 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's worth unblocking if there's a chance of a getting a good contributor. However note that the IP was previously used by a banned puppet master, so we should keep an eye on it to make sure this isn't a repeat effort. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt. Any problematic behaviour should result in a swift reblock. –xeno^talk 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So right after recidivist sockmaster User:Swamilive was denied an unblocking of their main account because of recent vandalism, this IP asks to be unblocked? And they are familiar with the unblock templates and AN/I? Odd... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose unblocking the IP, given that the IP was involved with Swamilive. AGF is one thing, but this is blatantly obvious.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be similarly blatantly obvious if they resume under Swamilive's m.o. –xeno^talk 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. He was denied an unblock as Swamilive, comes back as an anon and requests the unblock, gets it granted despite the previous denial, and the solution is that we should watch for future disruption? How about you just say "oops, I didn't realise that Swamilive had just been denied an unblock a few weeks ago", and reinstate the block?—Kww(talk) 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Petitioned them for further proof of their identity. –xeno^talk 21:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure if I should be writing on AN/I or if this is normally reserved for admins only, but I figure most of the discussion regarding this issue is going to be occurring here. Anyway, this is Jean Currie (the lady requesting the unblock of this IP). I'm writing from home now and the first thing I did was check here for the discussion. I'm a bit shocked that Swamilive was the one to get the static IP at my office blocked. For what it's worth, at home I use TBayTel as my Internet provider but at work I'm on Shaw Communications. I'm running a simple set-up at home and have no need for a static IP here, so my IP changes a lot between 216.211.x.x and 216.26.x.x. As such, I can't really point to any particular edit I've made that's constructive. My style of editing is to hit the Random Article button and if the article is large enough I run a spellcheck on it and correct any spelling errors. I rarely even pay attantion to the title of the article I'm on. However, as I actually took over this building from Swamilive and this is a static IP we're talking about, I can guarantee that unblocking it will NOT result in anymore vandalism. Again, I know this man personally and there's no way he can use this IP again.
-Jean Currie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.54.209 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some professional email address that you could email me from to verify your identity (to xenowiki at gmail dot com)? As you may have noticed, I was willing to unblock on faith, but others are a little more cautious. And since you're on the same range as Swamilive I'm sure they'll be even more suspect. –xeno^talk 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say we should unblock- it's not difficult to reblock if disruption resumes and if there's a chance of getting a good editor out of it, at best, it's a net positive, at worst, it takes, what, thirty seconds to block and stick a template on the talk page. I'd be a lot more inclined to unblock if this lady can verify her identity though as Xeno suggests. You can use [hjmitchell at ymail dot com] if you wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I noticed that part of what I wrote was deleted by you. If it constituted an attack, I apologize. I was simply trying to state my case and inform that I know who Swamilive is. As for a professional e-mail address, I don't have one set up yet. For personal e-mails I use gmail, but my business is BRAND new. I've been open for only 3 days now and haven't set up e-mail yet. I can send you an e-mail from my personal account if that would help verify who I am. -Jean Currie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.54.209 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It was too much information, but we got rid of it. Kww makes a good suggestion below; there are many benefits to contributing whilst logged in. –xeno^talk 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting)I'm still cautious, but won't have a hissy fit if everyone else feels unblocking is justified. I'd feel much more comfortable if a checkuser would agree to watch over this range, but I'm not sure if the previous reports would be sufficient justification under our privacy policies. Why wouldn't granting one account with IP block exemptions suffice? That way we could at least be certain that a sock-farm isn't being created.—Kww(talk) 23:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest to Jean Currie that he/she simply create another account, elsewhere -- anyone who is sufficiently sophisticated to understand IP ranges is sufficiently sophisticated to find another place to create an account; nobody knows and nobody cares if _good_ edits are being made from a logged in account on an anonblocked IP or range. That's the whole point of anonblocks. We'll surely recognize the bad behavior that characterized Swamilive should the problem arise again. As far as watching over the range, it's easier just to look for the bad behavior in question. (We're talking two /16s here; that's a lot of range.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rédacteur Tibet2

Someone has created a user account named "Rédacteur Tibet2", with the same name as my account Rédacteur Tibet. This name is french, and rather unlikely to happen twice. The most recent contributions of this user has been undid, and therefore look like vandalism. In order to avoid confusion between his/her contributions and mine, I would suggest Rédacteur Tibet2 either to change its name, or its account to be blocked. Many thanks.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

‎* UNC added. Or are you out-socking yourself? :P SGGH ^ping! 12:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who is behind Rédacteur Tibet2, but it is not me, so, I am not out-socking myself. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I was kidding :) user has been indef'd. SGGH ^ping! 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rédacteur Tibet2 is currently listed as a suspected sockpuppet of Polylepsis. SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polylepsis. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about a new user

Brynne_Edelsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I wanted to bring this user's contribs to your attention, she caught mine when she added the same silly "info" to Den (Pharaoh) that had been previously added by anonymous IP vandals. I am reposting this here since I got turned away from AIV, and also because it seems like she may be the wife of one of the article subjects whom she edits, but beyond that I know nothing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User already blocked a couple hours ago. Thanks, GlassCobra 14:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean a couple minutes ago. Ok, no prob then. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Money and death threats

Resolved

 – thing one and thing two both blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ebenezer Daniels is threatening me and asking me for money on my talk page. He is likely to be a sockpuppet of User:Stephen-Lord-Wiki as he made a sock to have convosations about money or User:GEORGIEGIBBONS as they go to the same school. Please list under the appropriate SPI and block him to next year. Joe Shelton (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny how they showed up on your talk page minutes after your account was created....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ebenezer Daniels blocked for trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sarek has a point. A new user with 3 edits who knows all about other socks and whose page gets vandalized? Troll #2. Blocking Joe Shelton now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like quacking to me, matches the same historic time-wasting style of editing as the sockmaster. Unblock request declined, since it doesn't address the reason for the block. --Taelus (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't block with no talk page access. Rectified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Another fan in my club

Resolved

Over the years, I've managed to attract the ire of individuals who don't like my cleaning up thier vandalism on military-related articles, especially those editing from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. For the most part, they get blocked and move on, and I've had yet another one step forward to harass me. Today, the SPA Pops1775 (talk · contribs) started with some name calling on my talk page, and reverted me when I reverted it. I know exactly how this will play out (warnings, more insults, and a block), and I was hoping to draw some administrator attention to it so that it might be resolved more quickly than normal. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, though I don't know what makes you think they're editing from the Navy/Marine Corps Intranet. –xeno^talk 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The "1775" is part of Culture of the United States Marine Corps. Conjecture on my part, but I offer you thanks regardless. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... I see now. Cheers, –xeno^talk 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh... did you see his unblock request? LOL bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea...doesn't he know the difference between a salmon and a trout? Kids today, I tell you. –xeno^talk 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Salmons are bigger. They hurt more. Duh. HalfShadow 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth - one of the users scooped up in the net on this, User:Bunns 1775, emailed unblock-en-l from an address that confirms his real-world identity, and has been unblocked.

Casting the sockpuppets net as wide as "any account with 1775 in it and which ever edits through the Marine Corps web proxy" is undoubtedly unreasonably wide. Being aware of a pattern does not mean that every person matching the pattern is in fact an abuser. It means that abusive users matching the pattern should be responded to appropriately more promptly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Netsnipe should not have blocked as a sockpuppet simply based on the autoblock. If this really had been Pops1775, would he have been so stupid to request an unblock-auto from an autoblock that he trigged? Sheesh. –xeno^talk 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:UltraBibendum

Resolved

 – I'll see if he answers my questions, but for now, this is resolved. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a complex for AIV so I'm bringing it here. UltraBibendum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not a vandalism only account, but appears to be a vandalism mostly account. After leaving a 4im warning on the talk page I went deeper into this users history. We have a mixture of vandalism and personal attacks with some decent edits here ot there. Last september the account was indeffed, but was reduced to a 55 hour block. There have been no further edits since my warning, however I still have concerns.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"vandalism mostly" account is still a "counterproductive mostly" account. What I would suggest is rather than templating them, actually converse with them on talk pages about vandalism, why it isn't allowed, and the fact that they can be blocked if they continue with such edits. Encourage them by pointing out their decent edits and chastise them for their vandalistic edits. Hopefully, they will see what types of contributions are welcome here. Otherwise, they are still a "counterproductive mostly" account and worthy of a decently long block. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing conversations he's had in the past I don't believe I have the tools to reach this editor. If that's the solution I'd ask someone else take the lead.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a start at it by asking him if he knew the difference between a vandalistic edit and a constructive edit, and asking him to provide me an example of both. If he responds with a personal attack, I think we can go with blocking, but it may just be a matter of him needing to learn what wikipedia is and what wikipedia isn't and needing to read over WP:Vandalism carefully. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Being 100% honest, I'd be much more comfortable if his response was a condition of an unblock, as opposed to leaving this account free to let this pass without answer, and return to vandalising when we've both moved on to other things. Not my call of course and best of luck to you.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the tools to do the blocking in the first place, so that's up to someone else. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know. That was an attempt politely ask that someone who does have the tools still look at this and not assume the situation is resolved.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag I just added should help. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Occasional legit edits are not a get out of jail free card for someone who's mostly here to goof around. Ks0stm, if you want to spend time with this guy, feel free of course, but were I you I'd find something with a higher chance of success. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Erik Möller

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.

---

On 27 April, a Fox News article appeared, claiming that Wikimedia Foundation deputy director Erik Möller had made statements supporting paedophilia. The day after, his BLP was locked for a month with the edit summary (Changed protection level of Erik Möller: Excessive vandalism: prevention, due to current coverage in media ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite)), presumably to prevent addition of this material.

Arguably, the Fox News article was quite unfair to Erik, taking his statements out of context. On the other hand, the press being what it is, we know there are many BLP subjects who have received unfair press coverage, and whose BLP articles are not locked for a month when such material appears -- on the contrary, editors generally ensure that such material is represented, following the NPOV rationale.

Now, thinking about this for a moment, double standards (one standard for WMF personnel, one for all other living persons) cannot be an honourable solution here. Either Erik's BLP is unlocked and allowed to feature the unfair -- but "reliably sourced" -- coverage, or we need to seriously rethink our NPOV and BLP policies, and the standing that journalistic sources should have in our BLP writing. I suggest this situation and its various ramifications are worth pondering over. --JN466 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just semi-protected. Perhaps a bit early, but not a bad move under the circumstances.--Chaser (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. That mitigates the situation somewhat; I misread the edit summary. Even so, there is still something to think about here. --JN466 22:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been more and more so-called pre-emptive semiprotection of BLP's, and there was a big discussion of it at WP:PP last month or thereabouts. I'm not crazy about this trend but I think this treatment of Erik's page doesn't seem exceptional in the general context. Some people even want to semi-protect all BLP's. In reality we're probably heading towards flagged revisions. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• It is supremely important here that WP:BLP should be seen to be applied without distinction or preference. My opinion is that unsupported allegations against any living individual should not be added to any article here. Given the public interest, however limited that might be, or become, I agree with at least semi-protection pending further cogent information. Meanwhile, this thread seems to have served its purpose, and does not require Admin intervention. Rodhullandemu 01:52, 1 May 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.

ROBERT TAGGART

ROBERT TAGGART (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked repeatedly for various bits of disruptive editing and is also a sockpuppeteer (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ROBERT TAGGART/Archive). He seems to have stopped using his named account, though the latest block has expired, and instead uses a series of IP addresses from Vodaphone to make his almost daily "contributions" to Wikipedia. A typical example are the latest edits made by 212.183.140.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): a) restoring an old modification to Wythenshawe, which has previously been reverted by several editor; b) partial blanking of talk pages for his other IP addresses; c) choice bits of vandalism to some editor's talk page (usually mine), using his favorite expletive, "dweeb". Regarding item b on the list, I know that users are allowed to blank their talk pages, but in this case he blanks those belonging (technically) to other IPs and he removes shared IP templates, which is against WP:BLANKING. For the record, he has been made aware of this rule here, and lost no time replying thusly.

The various IP addresses have been temporarily blocked as they make themselves known, but playing Whac-A-Mole with this guy is a bit tiresome, so I request assistance from the administrators. Favonian (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked but [137] edited his talkpage, it begs the question, with the rise in dynamic wi fi address and such like it seems wikipedia has no way to deal with disruption from such determined people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What a depressing thought. Springtime is not improving his temper, as shown by this token of gratitude on Mazca's user page, presumably for blocking the earlier IP sock. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to attract his attention as he seems to have forgotten about me. Why not just block his whole region for six months? Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you too had the pleasure of his attention for a while. Maybe we should create a new member of Category:Wikipedia fauna, WikiDweeb. All we need is clever little icon to put on top of our user pages ;) Favonian (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Our "friend" has sent this message to us, though for some reason best known to himself edited by the daily sock. Should we at least oblige him by indef blocking the named account? Seems like he has earned it. As for the IPs, I'm all in favor of Off2riorob's suggestion, but I can imagine that there might be some opposition to it. Any alternative suggestions? Favonian (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts, being generally obnoxious, personal attacks, claims of multiple-use of the account... and not indef'd on the main account. Till now. And with talk page locked (see previous sentence). ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And, lo, did Mr Taggart drop back to 212.183.140.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and resume the attacks. Lovely. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks he craves attention. Thanks for blocking 212.183.140.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well! Favonian (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he has transferred his attention to you. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lest we forget: today's first appearance is 212.183.140.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Suggestions? Favonian (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Already gone. SGGH ^ping! 10:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked a new one: 212.183.140.34 (talk · contribs). Elockid ^(Talk) 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

ANd another: 212.183.140.98 (talk · contribs). Could a checkuser look into the 212.183.140.XXX range to see what sort of rangeblock would be appropriate here. This is getting rediculous. --Jayron32 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a single prefix; he'll run out eventually. HalfShadow 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There was just another 212.183.140.17 (talk · contribs) block this one.--Curtis23's Usalions 23:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

After consulting with checkusers, I have enacted a rangeblock on 212.183.140.0/26 [138]. This would seem to be an adequate range to catch him, but minimize collateral damage. I have enacted it as an anon-only rangeblock, to minimize problems for registerred editors who may edit from that range. --Jayron32 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since his range seems to extend to higher than the .64, I have added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Block&action=success&ip=212.183.140.64%2F26 to catch .64-.128 If he starts editing in a new range, we can try something else. --Jayron32 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Another death threat

Felipemassa123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just left this message ("STOP DELETING THE NON CHAMPIONCHIP RACES OF Jo bonnier of i will kill you. you son of a bitch I've spent a lot of work so please do not remove it") on his userpage User:Felipemassa123 (it's the first edit on that page and I don't know how to show the diff). I had previously asked his alter-ego 217.123.215.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop adding inappropriate content to Joakim Bonnier - he adds non-Formula One data to Formula One results tables. The IP has been blocked before for similar stuff, and it's only now that I realise Felipemassa123 is the same person as the IP. I don't enjoy being told I'm going to be killed, so what's the procedure? Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef, user page deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Very decisive, thanks :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats may be of some interest here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Bon iccal

Resolved

 – User blanked his userpage --œ^™ 06:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems we have a blogger taking up residence on Wikipedia. Absolutely no content contributions, except to place a link to his own userpage in an article. No response to the warning I gave back in February, just continued personal ramblings on his userpage and a blatant disregard of WP:UP#NOT. Any suggestions on how to proceed here? I recommend deleting the page but stopping short of a block. User was notified of this thread. -- œ^™ 22:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:MfD first and foremost. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User keeps adding improperly licensed images

At Tory Burch, Eberlin23 (talk · contribs) keeps re-adding the same images and they keeps getting deleted for licensing reasons. The article was fine with these images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, until Eberlin23 acknowledges the policy and their behavior and agrees to stop. Any administrator may unblock them on evidence that they have done so, without consulting me further... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue is perpetual and tedious. Should image uploading be a special permission like rollback? Users would get it on request once they gave some indication that they knew what they were doing. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper deleting relevant materials despite other editors' objections

Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of Catholic sex abuse cases:
a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly)
b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons
c. proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

See article discussion here and here.

Here are some of the diffs:
1. Removing section on Context (quote by Applewhite) and Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

2. Removing Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

3. Removing Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

4. Removing quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

5. Removing i) comment by Christian Science Monitor on their survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a simple content dispute. Did you think of trying Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism to get outside views? Fences&Windows 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Afraid I don't see this as a simple content dispute because the problem is very one-sided. One party just kept deleting material and refusing to discuss. joo (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he has just removed all the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation". joo (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

See current discussion here joo (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• This person keeps accusing everyone for breaking Wikipedia rules whenever (s)he disagrees with the accused.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that 71.163.232.225 has been nominated by multiple editors to be blocked/banned for his numerous disruptive and soapbox actions. See Incidence Report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#71.163.232.225_using_discussion_page_as_a_forum_for_unrelated_arguments joo (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Joo's assessment. what is happening on the talk page is that some are refusing to discuss and come to an agreement. what happens is either that we edit war with them, or we sit indefinitely on the talk page waiting for them to start discussing with us when they have no intention of doing so in the first place. So ultimately if we try to abide by the rules, their version of the article stays indefinitely, which is obviously not kosher. And please ignore IP 71. If you think Haldraper is bad (I don't really know. Not commenting on your opinion there), then 71 is ten times worse. I am actually a little confuses as to why the IP is as of yet not blocked. I have never seen one person get warned so many times before.Farsight001 (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable, right? Some people just don't want the truth to get out there. joo (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

7. He reverted (removed all the further references that I added), claiming "RV to non-OR/SYN version". Yet why did he put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why does he still leave the OR-section there? joo (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360285649&oldid=360254763

8. John Nagel reverted Haldraper's deletions. Haldraper removed Applewhite's quote and the Context section (again and again) and put an abbreviated version (and without the references) in the Inaccuracies section (although on the talk page, he has written that her quote doesn't concern inaccuracies). He removed Jenkins' quote again. joo (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667

Edit war on Plaid Cymru

User:Kittins floating in the sky yay changed the intro of Plaid Cymru from “Plaid Cymru' (Welsh pronunciation: [ˈplaɪd ˈkəmrɨ] English: The Party of Wales; often referred to simply as Plaid) is a political party in Wales.” to “Plaid Cymru (Welsh pronunciation: [ˈplaɪd ˈkəmrɨ] English: The Party of Wales; often referred to simply as Plaid) is a nationalist political party in Wales. “ yesterday. This was reverted per WP:BRD with a request to “discuss controversial edits on Talk first “. S/he continued to reinstate the WP:POV edit with bad faith edit summaries and added a NPOV tag for the entire article here, here and here. No attempt has been made by this editor to engage on the talk page, despite requests. In addition to edit warring, s/he has caused the Wikipedia article on one of the main political parties in Britain to have a WP:POV intro and NPOV tag on the eve of a UK general election. FYI the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom were as much use as a chocolate teapot. Please do something. Daicaregos (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Do what, exactly? Plaid are perfectly open about being a Welsh nationalist party: "We support progressive, democratic, civic nationalist, regionalist and independence movements across the world and are committed to preserving Wales’ national identity whilst also furthering our representation in Europe," for example. Not quite Meibion Glyndŵr but the political home of most of the Sons. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Great timing, voting starts within the next twelve hours or so.... What JzG said. Is this really an AN/I issue or just a squabble over interpretation over the definition of what is an inherently nationalist party? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

{ec} That would be a content issue wouldn't it? Exactly what: is to insist the editor engage on the talk page. Desist from making bad faith edit summaries. Define exactly what the issues are to warrant a NPOV tag in order that they may be addressed. Basically, to stop being disruptive. Plaid Cymru are a political party. Calling them a nationalist political party at the beginning of the intro is undue weight. Daicaregos (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF. Is Guy suggesting that Plaid Cymru supporters are terrorists? That's outrageous. Daicaregos (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it obvious that Plaid Cymru is a nationalist party. MtD (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Again - that would be a content issue. And in my view gives undue weight. No-one has addressed the disruption, bad faith, failure to engage etc. Daicaregos (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of which version is correct - I agree that this is a content dispute; and KFITSY is showing a disturbing tendency to edit war in content disputes. Aside from this article, there's also Celtic Nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (where he reverted even after a talk page warning) as well as Scottish nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Scottish National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the last one now being full protected due to the edit dispute). It appears that Fishshaw (talk · contribs) is equally as guilty in these. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would second that opinion. It's clearly a content dispute. Work it out at the relevant pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was pretty sure that we didn't approve of editors forcing through their preferred version of an article using the revert button. Final warning issued. AGK 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I created a case at WP:AN3 over an hour before this ANI was opened, due to the same user reverting on Celtic Nationalism even after receiving a 3RR warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• According to Daicaregos I am an "ignorant twat" because I don't accept his interpretation of something. [139]. Someone might want to educate him a little. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Warned. Regardless of whatever the scenario is here, such attitude is not tolerable in discussions, and is not compatible with the goals of the project. --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I had not noticed this thread prior to becoming involved, due to a request made by Daicaregos at the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom but I am attempting to start a discussion at Talk:Plaid Cymru on the main issues involved here. - Galloglass 09:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Threats of outing

Please see the thread I raised at WT:Harassment about an editor who threatened to out someone in an edit summary. Apparently threats are not currently covered at WP:OUTING or specifically mentioned at WP:NPA. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation at Featured Article page

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

Giano has pledged to stop editing the article which led to the problems. No further action is needed here. Deciding between combatting pedants over use of collective adjectives is not one of the enumerated powers of Admins.. --Jayron32 14:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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

---

GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs) account is engaging in obvious WP:POINT violation and disruption at a Featured Article, while that article is currently undergoing the WP:FAR process.

1. 21:47, 5 May 2010, with edit summary of reverted stupidity. get an education. -- removes {{cn}} tags that were placed to identify uncited portions of text and asserted facts, for example, wholly uncited/unreferenced dates of birth/death, etc.
2. 22:10, 5 May 2010, edit summary: Restoring John Vanbrugh to amazing condition before lies and rubbish added by wicked Giano and Bishonen. -- reverts the article backwards to a poor quality version of the page.
3. 22:17, 5 May 2010, edit summary: removing as required all the dreadful uncited material added by Bishonen and Giano -- again.

• Giano most recently had his WP:ROLLBACK tool privileges removed for abuse of the tool to further edit-warring and disruption. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#Misuse_of_ROLLBACK_tool.

---

I have been involved with the page John Vanbrugh in (attempting) to identify areas for improvement, and so would appreciate it if another administrator could review and take action with regard to the recent WP:POINT violation by GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant exactly? Rollback is a pretty bauble that's worth spit in any case. Malleus Fatuorum

The rollback tool was abused by Giano (talk · contribs), at this same article where he is engaging in WP:POINT disruption. -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What about your own disruption, here? Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to twist the focus of this report away from Giano ? -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OUCH. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been said by Cirt and the complainant (Erasersomething) that the lead needs citing - that Vanbrugh was a dramatist and architect. If these facts are in dispute then it is better that they go - obviously they are too hard for all those who feel such things need citing to find. I merely restored the page to a happier day, immediatly before Bishonen and I ruined it for you all. There are less facts for you to find cites for therefore less discrepencies. How happy you should all be. You don't want our work, there is no need for you to have it - pish! it is gone. Giano  22:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, has it been that long since a Giano thread has been on ANI? Great. Prediction: 17 pages of drama, no net result. Have fun folks!--Jayron32 22:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm really unimpressed by any claimed committed editor who cannot distinguish between "less" and "fewer". Rodhullandemu 23:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sbagliando s'impara.  Giano  23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation: [140] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is whether Giano can distinguish between less and fewer relevant? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Learn by mistakes", indeed; a lesson for us all, perhaps. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm minded to block Giano for the first edit summary, which is abusive and not calculated to help us keep editors to help build the project. However, not minded to deal with the shitstorm which would follow, which is the usual way Giano gets away with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here; experienced editors here do do not get a free ride on that basis alone; on a co-operative environment, all are supposedly equal. Verification policy applies equally to all editors, for example. That which we "know" is somewhat worthless here, unless and until it is is reliably sourced. Rodhullandemu 23:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• My instinct is to block them all for not playing nicely. Giano's in-summary insults don't get him any points either. But this really is stupidity. Adding {{fact}} tags to every statement reeks of POINTiness. Will take a look further back before I formulate any firm positions. AGK 00:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The article in question has reliable sources. Please remember it dates from an era when someone wanting to verify content would be expected to read the sources given. I do understand there has been a shift away from general references towards a desire for chapter-and-verse citations, but that is not reason to accuse anyone of breaching the verification policy. As far as the precise issue here goes, WP:CITELEAD asks editors to establish a consensus before requiring citations in the lead. I can understand some editors feeling that Giano was pointy when he made the reversions, but it could be argued that adding {{cn}} tags to the lead (without prior consensus) was a provocation, although clearly unintentional. I'd like to suggest that the time and effort exerted here would be much better spent working on improving the article in question. --RexxS (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• They're playing nice now, and there doesn't seem to be any edit warring going on, so taking no action for now. But leaving a note on the article talk page to inform them all that those who edit war will be placed on the naughty step. AGK 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't dream of edit warring over citation needed tags... The only reason I added them was because of the featured article review, and clearly the biggest issue with the article is the lack of sources, I'm sorry if I was a little over-zealous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I shall not be editing John Vanbrugh again - ever. If people doubt facts that are so very obvious they can be verified in less time than it takes to add a cite tag - then they are not the sort of person with whom I would wish to jointly edit a page. Oh, and to Rodhullandemu (above), I do so appolagise for my dreadful English, I will try hard to emulate him in future.  Giano  06:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Don't. Not allowing less for countable nouns is a relatively recent development, is not universally agreed on, and fewer is actually unidiomatic in some cases. See the article fewer vs. less. It's often not a good idea to follow the usage advice of native speakers of a language, because they tend to be influenced by pedantic prescriptivists who just make things up. Hans Adler 07:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry Hans. I was not using the word, "emulate him", in the conventional sense, I had something quite different in mind:-), but my poor little English vocabulary is too limited.  Giano  08:40, 6 May 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.

Damien21

There is what appears to be a concerted effort to insert unsourced and probably incorrect references to a probably non-notable person, the Malaysian or possibly Dutch DJ Damien Tan, aka Damien21, in the articles Black Hole Recordings, Virgin Records, Ultra Records and Tiësto. A few days ago, the article Damien21 was created by User:Damient21 and speedily deleted per CSD A7. The article (which is still cached by Google [141]), includes claims about Damien Tan being a Knight Bachelor (which there are no sources for whatsoever) and that he bought the company Black Hole Records in April 2010. It also mentions a bunch of awards he has supposedly won or been nominated for - for instance DJMag's Top 100 list where he supposedly was no 20 in 2008, but that is very easily shown to be wrong [142]: he's not in that list at all. The only source for the DJ that I have been able to find is his own Myspace page, not exactly a reliable source, and a blog quoting that same Myspace.

Since before the article Damien21 was speedily deleted and User:Damient21 was blocked for having a promotional username, several IPs have added Tan's name with the title "Sir", and the unsourced info about him buying Black Hole Recordings, to the articles mentioned above: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149]. The edits to Black Hole Records have also included some cnfusing information about the company being founded both in 1997 and in 2010. The IPs involved include 60.53.20.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 60.53.22.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 60.54.15.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 60.53.19.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 124.13.165.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Attempts have been made to communicate on the talk pages of some of the IPs, but none of them has replied or commented other than to re-insert the info without any edit summaries or discussion. (I will notify all the IPs mentioned of this discussion as soon as I've posted this.)

According to Wickethewok (whose judgment I trust rather more than that of the anon nonresponding IPs), Damien21 is not on the roster of Ultra Records so should not be mentioned in that article at all. A Knight Who Says Ni made the same observation about Virgin Records. The information about Tan acquiring Black Hole Recording seems very hard to verify, and the source used for this edit does not mention Damien21 at all. It's also pretty unlikely that a 29-year-old Dutch (or Malaysian?) DJ should have been made a Knight Bachelor without any reliable sources mentioning the fact. (To assume good faith, perhaps it's another knight order whose name was translated into English, but it's still odd that it's so hard to find any sources for it in any language. And even his Myspace page doesn't mention his supposed knighthood.)

Because this isn't obvious, clear-cut vandalism I don't want to go on reverting the info and risking to break 3RR, even though very much looks like an attempt to promote the man with misleading information. Page protection seems like overkill, but since the IPs are not responding to warnings or attempts to talk to them, I'm not sure how to proceed from here. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• IPs notified of discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Damientan21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has joined Wikipedia and created DJ Damien21 which is less promotional but includes all the unverified facts and obviously false claims mentioned above. User has been warned against COI editing. --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well it's pretty obvious now what's going on since DJ Damien21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created shortly after Damien21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was WP:SALTed. I think we are into WP:RBI territory by now. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja's actions on Murder of Meredith Kercher

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) is quite clearly an spa account, with whom I seem unable to have a calm and productive discussion. She apparently always starts assuming that those who do not agree with her are trying to censor her, or they are vandals who want to defame Knox and Sollecito. I would kindly ask you to read her latest edits, especially those here.

Here, by the way, you can see a sample of personal attacks and threats: edit summary, [150], [151], threat?, edit summary, edit summary, [152], threat, [153], edit summary, [154], [155], [156], edit summary, edit summary, [157], [158], [159], [160].

Could you please do something? We had a go at informal mediation, but she called it off, after being the one who had filed the request for it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Salvio. I've tried (unsuccesfully) to explain our policies to the user but their view is quite clearly that "their" information must be included in the article regardless. Their view appears to be that mediation is fine as long as it reaches the same conclusion as them, and when it didn't, they said "fine, mediate with yourself". The article is already a horrible sprawling mess and the main issue is this user, for whom "NPOV" appears to equal "my POV". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment: I had not yet seen this edit... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake - I hadn't seen that either. I'm not suggesting that's an NLT issue, but the language clearly indicates someone who's not here to edit collegially. I think we'd have to be looking at some sort of article restriction here? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio please stop with this harassment by you and your cohorts (including Black Kite) of repeatedly filing complaints and making personal attacks against me. The bullying going on with this article is simply ridiculous. I have repeatedly raised the issue with the bullying on this article and it just gets ignored, unless it is directed at the pro-guilt side of the case. If the insults and bullying are directed at the non-pro-guilt side of the case it gets ignored. This harassment effort is clearly intended to drive me, the sole remaining non-pro-guilt editor, off of the article, along with these efforts to delete much of my work.

As for the issue with the mediator, I felt uncomfortable with his position that all statements by lawyers are untrustworthy and should not be included in the article. I felt that showed a bias against allowing the views of the lawyers into the article, which would interfere with the inclusion of the views of the defense attornies. That is a perfectly legitimate concern of mediator bias. So I decided that I did not want to use him as the mediator, but I was reconsidering that. In the meantime, I have been hit with all kinds of insults and personal attacks just because I said did not want to proceed with him as the mediator. Because the administrators on here have NOT helped at all, and the mediator did not seem unbiased, I have felt that my only recourse is to contact someone higher up at the Wikipedia Foundation. That is not my first choice, but SOMEONE has to help with these BLP and NPOV issues that could result in defamation against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

At the same time there is a focus on deleting my hard work on this article. The pro-guilt editors keep removing, reverting, deleting my work, as the sole remaining person on the other side. The other editor who was on my side apparently gave up on the article today, feeling completely defeated and driven out. I don't have time now to post diffs or further discussion, but can do so tomorrow.

This follows the recent incident where I was called a "cunt" and other foul language was used and nothing was done against that person. Also someone recently posted a false "BREAKING NEWS" report that Amanda Knox, the defendant they keep trying to paint in a bad light, committed suicide. That false report was left as a "breaking news" headline at the top of the article for two hours and no one did anything about it. The information spread to the Newsweek site, as well as Zimbio and other places on the Internet. Nothing was done to the person who posted the false report. Then the other non-pro-guilt person posted a minor joking remark and was blocked for a day. He is so discouraged he probably will not be back. So it is just me left as the sole person raising the issues of BLP and NPOV seeking to have the defense views included, and not just the pro-guilt/prosecution views. But I would say that facing all this deletion of my work as the sole remaining person on the other side of the case is an impossible situation. There needs to be an administrator who will please stop the bullying and one sided-deletions going on with this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite is NOT an impartial observer. He posts WITH the pro-guilt editors against me, so having me blocked or banned would help his cause. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums the problems up well, though not in the way the user probably intended. They admit to pushing a particular POV "non-pro-guilt editor" and sums up anyone who disagrees with them as a "pro-guilt" editor, despite the fact that (as the talkpage and article history shows clearly) that those editors are merely trying to ensure that the article conforms to our policies. Incidentally, I have edited the article precisely once (to fix a factual error), and I am categorised as having a POV. So the question is, in which direction do we go? Dispute resolution is clearly going to be useless here, so we are left with article enforcement or WP:RFC/U. Thoughts? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, you have made your bias clear on the Talk page, including posting a personal attack against me, which I had to ask another administrator to have you remove. You would just love to eliminate the only editor left on the other side. But that is just so unfair and detrimental to Wikipedia to allow harassment against a minority view editor to remove that contrary view from the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying that you were unable to be neutral on this article was hardly a personal attack (especially as it's clearly true, as you're proving here). Nevertheless, far better than "eliminating" an editor here would be for that editor to at least attempt to work collegially with everyone else. However, you are so adamant that everything you put into the article is necessary, correct and needs to stay, and most things that other editors do is wrong, that it is impossible to do so at the moment. The article would improve far quicker with reasonable input from all interested editors. At the moment you are preventing that from happening by attempting to argue against everything that is being suggested, even when it has consensus from many editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't what you said. The administator asked you to remove the language where you said words to the effect: you are so emotional you are incapable of NPOV editing, along with other personal remarks directed at me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That exactly what I said, and here's the diff - "It also appears clear from your emotive language that you aren't capable of taking a neutral viewpoint on this issue". Not a personal attack; I removed it only because it wasn't helpful. There weren't any other "personal remarks". Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To deny there are two camps on this article, and have been for a long while, is ridiculous. There are editors who consistently edit in a manner tending to paint Amanda Knox and Raffaele as guilty of sexual assault and murder and delete anything that does not agree with that view. I have tried to include the minority view that they might be innocent, as they claim, but I am vastly outnumbered. Now, you try to eliminate me entirely. Now, once you succeed in harassing me off the article or getting me banned, the hundreds of hours I have put into this article in research and writing will all be deleted. That is the goal. And that is so unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to be collegial when you are constantly harassed, insulted, attacked, sworn at, and these endless attempts by Salvio and crew to get me banned from the article. Yes, I am upset but how would you like being treated like this, and being all alone as the sole remaining minority editor. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the mediation, to put me up on charges over objecting to mediator bias is utterly ridiculous. The proposed informal mediator (who had no prior experience mediating) made repeated statements that lawyers are untrustworthy, that they do not tell the truth, that they are not truthful even when they express their opinions, so the views and opinions of the lawyers should not be included in the article. This injected a major stumbling block to including the defense side of the story, since the defense view could only come through the lawyers for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I felt that the position taken by the mediator was extreme, since there is no rule at Wikipedia saying that lawyers are so untrustworthy or dishonest that their opinions cannot be included in the article. I felt that this was a bias that would interfere with NPOV, so I did not want to start mediation with him in a few days as scheduled. However, he asked me to reconsider and think it over and I was doing that. These statements by Salvio and Black Kite implying or suggesting that mediation was tried and failed are false. The mediation had not yet started. It was expressly agreed that it would not start till April 30. So, I had to give notice prior to that day if I did not want to go forward. Furthermore, this informal mediator had never done mediation before, so I only provisionally agreed to try him out with the understanding that nothing would officially start till April 30. Given his extreme views on lawyers, and the importance of the views of the defense lawyers in the article, he did not seem the best choice to me as a mediator, but I was reconsidering. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You propose mediation, put it on hold, and then pull out, even though the mediator you balked at suggested a replacement mediator. Not very reasonable. You insist that all your edits stick and none of your wording be edited, in violation of WP:OWN. Not very reasonable. You extensively use non-English primary sources and you insist on including too much information, turning what should be a summary article of the information available in reliable secondary sources into an impenetrable blow-by-blow account. Every comment you leave on talk pages and noticeboards is a wall of text arguing that you are being persecuted and bullied, while providing scant support for this claim. Please stop this pattern. You cannot use Wikipedia to 'right great wrongs' - we are not investigative reporters and Wikipedia has no opinion. Your advocacy for Amanda Knox is appropriate for a blog or website, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. Continuing to disrupt the editing of this article in this manner will end with you being blocked. You can avoid this by altering how you approach editing. Please take the advice I give to any single-purpose editor: edit articles on something totally unrelated for a while, to get a break and to better learn what it is to be a Wikipedian rather than an activist. Fences&Windows 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• [ The main source is not a primary source; see subtopic below: #Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case. -Wikid77 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ]

I have asked for help and you attack me like this, including many false accusations. When have I ever used non-English sources, maybe one or two out of hundreds of sources that I have added? You accuse me of making up the claim that I am being treated badly, without even knowing the facts? You suggest that I refused a substitute mediator unreasonably, when I stated that I was reconsidering the first person? You say that I unreasonably refuse to allow my work to be edited, when many hundreds of my edits have been removed, likely more than any other editor on that article has ever been subjected to. Yet there is no help for me, only blame. Over and over I have asked for help and it is ignored. I guess the only real recourse left is indeed as I thought. I will write to the Wikipedia Foundation about how this is being handled. I will set the whole thing out in detail for them to look at, and maybe then I can get some help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly where reconsidering the first person (Hipocrite), what exactly held you up to do so?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was very busy but trying to watch his edits. I saw that he defended me from a personal attack---the first person on this site ever to do that. I also saw that he wrote that he intended to demonstrate through his handling of issues that he and I really did not have major differences in views and that he in fact agreed with me on many things and we could work together well. So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind. But there has to be help somewhere, someone has to help with this distressing situation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"I saw that he defended me from a personal attack"

Believe it or not but he wasn't the first and won't be the last. That includes even me, like it or not: [161] [162] [163]

"So I wanted to watch, as he expressly suggested, and then make up my mind."

And what changed your mind (since you stated "I was reconsidering the first person.")? What exactly did he say or do after you withdrew from mediation that led you to dismiss your reconsideration?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to misrepresent the situation. I never dismissed my reconsideration. I just got tied up with this utter nonsense on here instead. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I.m.o., Zlykinskyja should take things less seriously. It is well known that Wikipedia is not so reliable when it comes to controversial non-scientific topics. So, spending a lot of much energy to make these types of articles better can be a complete waste of time. Let me give a typical example of this. Consider the case of Barry George. He was convicted for the murder of Jill Dando, but this conviction was later overturned. Now, all the relevant facts of this case that are known today were in the public domain many years ago.

It was a BBC documentary a long time ago that brought to light the facts that proved that the conviction was unsafe. The BBC handed the information they had over to the Criminal Cases Reviews Commisions and Barry was eventually acquitted. Now, if you look back at the editing history of the Barry George article, you see that you always have an article that is very biased toward the prosecution POV, right until the moment a court actually makes a ruling in favor of the defense position, even though those rulings were pure formalities.

Had the editors been better at writing a truly NPOV article, they could have written the article as it is now way back in 2006 when the BBC had made the documentary (except for the fact that Barry would still be in prison, of course). What you see instead is that while the evidence from the BBC documentary is edited in the article at the time, some time later other editors edit in some of the by then completely irrelevant arguments in favor of the prosecution. So, you get a "false neutrality" effect that is hard for any single editor to correct. Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a little soothing comfort. I can use some. I will check out the article you suggest tomorrow. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why has no one pointed Zlykinskyja to the No Legal Threat policy, and blocked her? Woogee (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Zlykinskyja's explanations of the actions are not actually legal threats, but rather issues of policies such as WP:Wikihounding, or keeping the article neutral, per WP:NPOV. The basic intent was to establish some article-specific guidelines, as to how the suspects would be labeled (hint: not as "the 3 killers"), and include the Italian legal status that Knox/Sollecito are not jailed for the verdict (while on appeal still "presumed innocent") but perhaps as flight risks or such. Those would be "rules of procedure" for editing the article, as a more advanced issue than just following the British English spellings. Perhaps an attorney at the Wikimedia Foundation could help establish a policy that allows editors to set warnings, linked to an article tag-box, as to which "hot-button" phrases would be designated from exclusion in an article. I think it would be great to get some direct input, from Wikimedia, as to what wording to follow (or are the policies sufficient). For example, excluding the term "gang rapists" for 3 people not even proven to have met together previously. Such a list of ground rules would be documented, so that other editors, coming to an article, would get a summary of do-and-don't actions that apply. Perhaps this might become a common practice as subpage "/rules" for each affected article "Talk:ArticleX/rules". Please don't think that anyone is intending to sue Wikipedia, but just help to improve the rules about neutral wording. Does that seem clear? -Wikid77 06:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I will refer this matter to the attorneys at the Wikipedia Foundation is not a legal threat? Woogee (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because you can't threaten Wikipedia with Wikipedia's attorneys. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Kind of resembles a legal threat towards some of the editors though. Might not violate the letter of the policy, but sure sounds like it's flirting with it in spirit. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, although if you put it in perspective with this clear legal thread they made here narrows the interpretation.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A legal threat means to threaten to take legal action, such as suing Wikipedia or suing someone. Saying you are going to file a complaint with a higher-up person at Wikipedia or write a letter so that some of the issues can be addressed is not a legal threat. It is not an intention to sue anyone, but to provide notice of the problem to those who have the knowledge and abilty to solve a problem that is not otherwise being correctly addressed. That is all that was intended. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's against policy as well, I believe. If you don't agree with a decision, you try to shift consensus so that your preferred version will prevail. You most definitely do not go shopping for a sympathetic ear. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Micheli Judgment link is secondary source for Kercher case

collapse as off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
29-Apr-2010: The incident above has claimed excessive use of "non-English primary sources". However, this is a reminder that the huge Italian text, used as a reference for the Micheli Judgment, is a secondary source as merely a summary (though huge), at website www.Penale.it, of the Judge Paolo Micheli's court document, for the first trial. Several editors have mistakenly thought it was a primary source, because it is so large and contains many details from the original text. By extensively quoting from that one source, the article text avoids WP:SYNTH issues, because it includes both testimonies and forensic evidence, combined with the judge's conclusions (not WP:OR original research). The reference has been listed, in the article, as: "Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English) Translate.google.com, Italian webpage: Penale.it. Retrieved 2009-12-11. In fact, I think that document provides the only clear explanation of the Kercher murder, concluded at trial: the first suspect, at trial, claimed that he did not stab Kercher, but rather emerged from a bathroom, crossed the house, and scuffled with the knifer. But he claimed that Kercher was near death, so he fled, leaving her bleeding, fully clothed, with the duvet bedspread and pillow on the bed. Forensic evidence (in same report) indicated that his blood palm print and Nike basketball shoe-prints where on that same pillow beneath the undressed body, while his DNA in large amounts was found on the removed bra (Italian: reggiseno) and severed bra strap found near the body. The report noted, in Italian, the suspect's claims versus the evidence: "senza tuttavia spiegare come mai una sua impronta si trovasse proprio sul cuscino sotto il cadavere, quando egli ricordava il cuscino regolarmente sopra il letto,..."  ("without explaining why his footprint is just under the corpse on the pillow, when he remembered the regular pillow on the bed"). The crime was considered to be a stabbing, followed some time later (blood spots had dried), by returning and undressing the body, and moving it onto the bed pillow on the floor (with his blood palm print & shoe-prints there). The shoe package was found at the suspect's residence, and he admitted to wearing those shoes ("Nike Outbreak 2, size 11" - Italian: misura 11 ) during the murder. No other source (in English) has provided that level of detail to explain the pillow and shoes in the murder, which occurred, and was tried in Perugia, Italy. Hence, the use of that source written in Italian. In that gigantic summary document, many sections have been abridged by indicating ellipsis by 2-dot marks "(..)" in many portions of the text. Some of the omitted details are forensic measurements that pinpoint items in a room. The copyright (at bottom) is: © 2006 Copyright Penale.it - SLM - Nyberg Srl 1999-2006 Tutti i diritti riservati (English: All rights reserved) The actual Micheli Judgment "Motivazioni sentenza per Rudy Guede" (the primary source) is not referenced in the article, as one of the many key details not yet included in the text (Note: in Italian titles, typically only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized). Again, the article uses a secondary source (not a primary source) summarizing, on an Italian website, the much larger Micheli Judgment document. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Random section break 1

Could we please concentrate on the issue at hand (namely Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs)'s behaviour)? I think we really need someone to step in: take a look at her edits and her edit summaries. It's not a matter of content, it's a matter of uncollegial demeanour. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all appropriate for one of the feuding editor's, a non-administrator, to remove another editor's comments here as Quantpole did, by placing Wikid's comments in a hat. Wikid was responding to the erroneous claim that I had used non-English sources extensively and inappropriately. Only an administrator should remove or enclose an editor's comments on this Board. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator believes that Wikid77's comments are relevant to the discussion here they are more than welcome to un-hat. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the editing page, Salvio has characterized me in his last edit as a "vandal". That could not be more untrue. I have spent hundreds of hours researching and writing and trying to do a good job, despite being subjected to a great deal of harassment while simply trying to participate as a minority editor. I have been attacked over and over, and my work has been deleted amd reverted over and over, even while I was simply in the act of typing my edits into the article. Literally, my very legitimate edits have been deleted as I was typing them! So, there needs to be a consideration of the actions of Salvio and his cohorts towards me, not just a consideration of my very distressed responses to the abuses that have been going on. To say my responses have not been "congenial", while not looking at how I have been treated, is unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Never written anywhere you're a vandal — which I do not think you are —. I used the only template I knew that would show your talk page and your contribs. It does not mean I think you're a vandal.

My opinion is that you're a POV-pushing, self-righteous WP:SPA, but not a vandal: you honestly believe you're trying to make the article better. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment. Even the comment of an entirely uninvolved admin inviting her to refactor a comment was seen as biased [164]. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio--you also push your POV that the prosecutor in this case could do no wrong. You allow no negative comments of him or the Italian legal system. You oppose any of my work that shows otherwise. Why is it wrongful POV for me to include doubts about the prosecution's case, but not inappropriate POV for you to oppose any material presenting such doubts? You paint me as a wrongdoer, but you are pushing a POV just as much. There are many questions and doubts about the behavior of the prosecutor presented in the US media. CBS News, 48 Hours TV Program, and others have repeatedly raised the issue that he has relied on a psychic, and has prosecuted over 20 people in the last two years for satanic or Black Mass type activities or efforts to cover that up. He is seriously doubted in the US media. He has been convicted of abuse of office, and has been barred for life from ever holding public office (pending appeal). But my efforts to include the views presented in the US media are opposed. You allow no questioning of his work. You want me silenced. I post as a minority editor, but the information I have tried to include is very much mainstream US media. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, no one should be typing comments in here in out of sequence--a type of refactoring-- and then failing to sign and date the post. That it very unfair because it makes it difficult for me to respond. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on the article can de found here:

My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

and

No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my only POV as far the article is concerned. I've already stated and iterate that, quite frankly, I do not really care whether or not Amanda Knox is guilty: I'll stick with whatever the Appellate Court will decide, since I think that they're in a better position than us to render a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that Zlykinskyja previously edited under a different username. I'm not quite sure why they did not get their old account renamed, but I do not think there is any impropriety going on, but it is relevant to see their full history of editing on this article. Please also note User talk:Zlykinskyja, which is full of bad faith characterisations from both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77. I agree with Salvio above in that the two users absolutely think they are the ones upholding NPOV, and cannot see any problems with their behaviour. I have only been involved in this subject for less than a week (after reviewing some images uploaded by Wikid77 that were up for deletion). It is very clear to me from that short time that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 are treating this subject as a battlefield and respond to disagreement with accusations of non-neutrality. Though both users have edited other articles they have effectively become single purpose accounts regarding this issue. As can be seen from the aborted mediation, this issue is not going to be solved through discussion. I suggest that both Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 be topic banned form this subject. Quantpole (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim Zlykinskyja and Wikid77 have become single-purpose accounts, when Zlykinskyja recently corrected another of the most important crime articles in modern British history, and I have modified templates that have drastically improved over 370,000 articles? You don't even have the slightest clue who you are talking about here. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• If Zlykinskyja = that user, they should definitely not be editing this article, as we've been here with exactly the same issues before ([165]). Their block log appears to show them being blocked for sockpuppetry mainly regarding the article as well (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikid77). Oh, and the userpage that said this. Now that probably tells you a lot.Black Kite (t) (c) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid mentioning their name specifically given what they say on their userpage. I didn't think they were particularly trying to hide the link, given they explain the whole situation on the userpage (without specifically mentioning the other account, but it is obvious that it is the one they are talking about). I don't know the situation regarding any previous blocks so I didn't comment on that. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if it is proper for me to cast a !vote, since I'm not an admin and am an involved editor, but I strongly support Quantpole's proposal to topic ban at least Zlykinskyja... If it is not appropriate of me, please strike out my comment and accept my apology. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, editors with opposing POV on the article do not have a "vote" to ban another editor with opposing views, as is being attempted here. None of this should be going on. This is not fair or legitimate in the least. This is an attempt to utilize the administrative process to get some administrator who does not really know what is going on to do your dirty work for you so that you can silence my minority view on the article. This is an abuse of the process. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's actually an attempt to address a major problem for the article, which is that Zlykinskyja is not prepared to engage with other editors in the consensus process. I think if any administrator cares to look at the article talk page or any of the talk page archives, they will see this repeated pattern of behaviour. Instead of seeking consensus, Zlykinskyja prefers to add material to the article (which she probably genuinely believes improves its neutrality). Those who disagree, must either put up with this or enter into an edit war amid a torrent of accusations of censorship, bias and harrassment. Hence the abysmal state of the article. But I don't know what the solution is. If Zlykinskyja disagrees with this, perhaps she would provide a few diffs showing examples of cases where she has tried to engage in consensus-building, and I shall be pleased to admit I'm wrong. Bluewave (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a gang-up situation by the editors on this article who oppose me and Wikid77 because we hold minority views that differ from theirs. We are vastly outnumbered. Now they propose that we both be banned. It is part of an extremely upsetting pattern of harassment. While I do not agree with the views of these people on the article, I have never engaged in the type of horribly aggressive treatment against them that they have employed against me. These gang-ups have been all one-way, with them coming after me over and over in an attempt to get me banned or blocked to silence my views. This is not "consensus building", this is not "collegial". This is harassment. This is an aggressive attempt to silence minority views on the article. Removing the minority view will result in BLP violations and NPOV violations, since these people who are part of the gang-up all hold the same views on the case. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have called this situation to the attention of administrators over and over and no one will help. I posted on the ANI Board about this, and an administrator responded by typing out a string of laughter and then marking the matter as "Resolved". But no, it wasn't resolved. And the attacks against me just continue.

It is very disturbing that Black Kite very misleadingly posted a link to a complaint against me from 2009 which he suggests indicates that I had been reprimanded on this article before, and therefore I should "definitely not be editing this article." Yet he misleadingly did not link to the final version, which showed the OUTCOME of the complaint. The complaint was marked as closed by BigTimePeace as a "content dispute", not my misconduct:

Archiving. There does not seem to be a need for an administrative action here. The basic call has been for an admin to take a look at the situation and I am in the process of doing that and will soon post a note on the article talk page with some thoughts, but the core issue seems to be a content dispute (the exact nature is unclear) and some ill-advised comments by multiple parties. Further discussion here is not going to be useful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And that is indeed what it is, a "content dispute" but some very aggressive people have tried to make it very personal against me. They just WILL NOT focus on the real issues, the BLP and NPOV issues, and instead make it PERSONAL. It is very, very upsetting. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite also misleadingly links to a deleted version of the old account that I used. I deleted that, but he dug it up and did not note that it had been long ago deleted. As for the sock puppet issue, I explain that in detail on my current user page. It is there for anyone to see who wants to know the truth and not just concoct allegations and mislead people. As set forth in detail on my user page, I once attempted to change my name for legitimate privacy reasons but did not do it properly in that I failed to mark the old account as "Retired". So I was blocked since it looked like I was trying to have two accounts, when really I intended to switch to a new name. In any event, I paid my debt to society with a long block issued BEFORE I was even given the chance to explain what I was trying to do--a simple innocent name change. So I don't see how that is even relevant. I use only one account now and that old account has been officially retired for quite a while and has not been used since. So to bring that up is just to try and throw the kitchen sink at me and get me blocked for something that has no current relevancy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some more recent ANI threads for more insight: [166] and [167].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There you tried very aggressively to get me banned or blocked after you WikiHounded me, including MAKING UP the false allegation that I had engaged in vandalism. There were no findings against me, and it later was established that your claim that I engaged in vandalism was baseless since it was a SOFTWARE problem. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• See also: edit warring I and edit warring II. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the edits concerning THE FALSE BREAKING NEWS REPORT OF THE SUICIDE OF AMANDA KNOX, that matter was so serious and so wrongful, that I will need to prepare a more detailed description of what happened there. But I will just say that posting a notice to correct the false report on Wikipedia of her suicide was justified under the circumstances. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AND MY POV OPPONENTS CONTINUE WITH THEIR UNRELENTING GANG-UP!

Zlykinskyja posted one of a series of messages immediately after my post, so I'm taking it that this was at least partly aimed at me. So just to clear up a few misconceptions:

• I don't think I have ever said that Z should be banned. If I have, please provide a diff.
• I don't think I have ever engaged in "horribly aggressive treatment of Z. If I have, please provide a diff and I will apologise.
• Z says she has not engaged in such conduct against me. Well, what about accusing me of hypocricy,[168], effectively of being a sockpuppet of User:FormerIP,[169], anti-American editing,[170] accusations of POV editing,[171] and cherry picking facts,[172][173]not being fit to edit a particular section because of my POV edits,[174][175][176] "conspiring to obstruct another editor" and getting "meatpuppets to do my dirty work".[177]. To be fair, the worst of these kind of accusations have not been repeated recently.
• Yes there are different views about the case. But there are probably as many views as there are people - not just the two views that Z tries to use to characterize editors. The only way to reconcile these views is through consensus but that is virtually impossible when one very vocal and opinionated person will not engage in the consensus process.

Bluewave (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, you are engaging in deliberate tactics acting in concert with editors on the same side of the case with you, to try and personally attack me and paint this dispute as personal, when you know the REAL issue is that you and I write/edit in diametricaly opposed views on this case. You write/edit consistently in a pro-guilt manner, while I try to add the other side, to create NPOV balance. THAT is the real reason why you want me sanctioned or banned from the article. You want to eliminate your SOLE REMAINING POV opponent (considering that Wikid has indicated that he is too upset to continue on the article). And I find this all very low, and very dirty pool. This conduct in ganging up against an editor with whom you consistently hold opposing views on the CONTENT, and participating in these long sessions of personal attacks, and taking up hours and hours of my time with these attacks, is just a horrible way to treat another person. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My "tactics" were to point out some factual errors in a post which seemed to be trying to portray me as someone who has engaged in horribly aggressive treatment and Zlykinskyja as the blameless victim. I don't like being portrayed in that way, as I do not believe it is true (where are the diffs?). I also do not appreciate being described as writing in a "pro-guilt manner" (where are the diffs?). And I didn't ask for Z to be banned (and never have, as far as I remember), but actually said "I don't know what the solution is". And I still don't. Bluewave (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, it is plainly obvious what you are trying to do and I find this whole thing unbelievably vicious. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And as for Salvio's claim that he is not POV, I dispute that. He has said he does not want any criticisms of the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini or the Italian court that found Amanda Knox guilty. Yet, if the other side of the case, the non-pro-guilt side, is to be included in the article, it has to include information about the problems with the Prosecutor and how he handled the case. So Salvio basically is against including anything that might show how the case against Amanda Knox was defective, if it paints the prosecutor or court in a negative light. He is from Italy and he has made it clear that he is on the article to protect the image of the Italian prosecutor and the Italian court. But that is indeed POV editing on his part.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't even bother to respond to this umpteenth groundless and gratuitous personal attack.

That said, this thread risks becoming disjointed, just like the other one. Can please some uninvolved editors and/or admins step in and discuss how to deal with Zlykinskyja?

At the moment, a proposal was made to topic ban her and I wholeheartedly second it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course Salvio wants me topic banned. According to Salvio, I can't even say anything on my own Talk page that is negative towards the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. He has repeatedly objected to the fact that I said on my Talk page that Mignini's investigation of a break-in was done "stupidly." So this he claims might be "defamation." Meanwhile the US media paints Mignini as a crazy person, and Mignini has been banned from holding public office for wiretapping journalists. But on Wikipedia, NO CRITICISM OF THE CASE/PROSECUTOR ALLOWED, not even on an editor's private Talk page. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies to all pages, including user's talkpages. That distinguish WP from blogs and forums.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop posting out of sequence like you have been doing. Plus, it is ridiculous to say that making a slight criticism of a public figure is defamation or a violation of BLP. Meanwhile, people on here paint the accused as guilty of sexual assault and murder, when no one even know yet that that is true. So it sure seems like different standards are being used. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what CBS news has to say about Salvio's collegue, Giuliano Mignini, the one we can't say anything negative about on Wikipedia, according to Salvio: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20003238-504083.html#addcomm Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You said somethong else: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. And I objected about it only once (twice, if you count the fact I quoted myself here). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious disruptive SPA, indefinite topic ban. Why are we even allowing this to waste time here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, the positions that you have taken repeatedly have made it clear that you don't want certain information coming out in the article that could be damaging to the Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Yet in the views of the mainstream US media, there are VERY serious problems with the conduct of this prosecutor and his handling of the case, and VERY serious problems with this murder conviction of Amanda Knox. I am being obstructed and intimididated from trying to include what the US media is saying about this case and MOST of the people doing this are from Italy, England and other European countries (excluding Magnificient). Once you get me banned as you have been trying so hard to do, the mainstream US media view and the entire defense side of this article will be eliminated. THAT IS YOUR GOAL. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is a waste of my time as well, but I have put a huge amount of time into this article and am being treated very badly. BOTH sides of the story should be looked at, not just tossed off like an old dish rag. No editor deserves treatment like that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing how much time I have put into this, and how over and over I have asked administrators for help, and have never received any, I will simply proceed to do what I should have done long ago, and contact the Wikipedia Main Office for help. Good day. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

• Rather than a complete topic ban, I think a one month restriction on editing the article itself could be applied while they're still being allowed to edit the article's talkpage which would give the editor the opportunity to work on and improve her lack of collaborating skills (which are w/o doubt apparent).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but given this editor's history of uncollegial behaviour, I think we would be facing the usual claims of bad faith and censorship, whenever we were to disagree with her on one of her proposals; quite frankly, I think it would actually make thing worse. My proposal is an indefinite topic ban: let her show that she can work and cooperate with other editors on less controversial issues and then, when the Wikipedia community is satisfied that she has learnt to accept opinions different from her own, this restriction will be lifted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban since they're only interest lays in that area and (I think) the result would be that they stop editing at all till the topic ban is lifted [We can assume that it would sooner or later] and thus there would be no learning experience for them and the same editor would probably resume with the same approach as they did in the past (since December last year, to be precise). I don't think that would help neither the article nor the editor. Any measures taken and remedies applied should be preventative, not punishment, and should be applied to prevent disruption of the project. I think my proposal does take those things into account and has potential to work as intended.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and concur with you up to a point. My fear comes from the fact that this user does not appear to wish to change her behaviour (just take a look at what she's just written about me... ^{She has refactored her comment, so that it's no longer a personal attack 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)}) and that, so, we risk starting flame after flame on the talk page... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If they don't change their behavior a full topic ban can still be imposed if needed.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's give it a try. I change my !vote to match your proposal. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion! Bluewave (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please step in and decide what should we do with Zlykinskyja? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think a ban from the article that originally caused the problem (indefinitely) would be apt. The user is, as said above, a self righteous, antagonistic proponent of THE TRUTH, with some highly combative manners when it comes to editing - however it seems that the primary cause is the content of the original article concerned. Is it not likely that constructive editing in other areas seen as uncontroversial by the user would take place after being banned from the article? If this fails, it only results in blocking for violating the ban, and that would suite the wants of some of the more hard-nosed proposals anyway. SGGH ^ping! 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that I am a proponent of the "truth", but only that both the prosecution AND defense sides of the story should be included in the Article. The essence of the dispute is NPOV, not "truth." The truth cannot yet be known because there has not been a final determination of innocence or guilt of the murder in any court. So, I certainly cannot claim to know the "truth." I only claim that both the guilty views and the innocence views be included in the article, and that the Article not be worded to show guilt when that has not yet been finally determined, and the accused are still presumed innocent. The main people on the article with me (who have the most at stake and are the main complainers) The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have said right above they do NOT want an indefinite topic ban, but are instead seeking a more moderate remedy. They propose that I stop editing the Article for a month, but continue participating in the discussions on the Article Talk page. While I do not agree that I should be sanctioned at all, I agree with the approach of not editing the Article for a short while, as opposed to a total topic ban. This way, there is not a tossing away of all of my research and knowledge on this case, which is extensive.

The Magnificent Clean-Keeper has correctly noted above that: "A complete MoMK topic ban would equal a general ban...." A total permanent ban from the Article would be way too unfair, and would essentially be a total ban from Wikipedia, because I could not continue volunteering here with such a grossly unfair sentence being inflicted on me. I am not a SPA. That is a totally false accusation. I have previously edited extensively on a colonial history article. I have well over 500 edits on this Kercher Murder Article, and previously over 450 edits on a totally unrelated colonial history article. All this means is that I tend to work on one article at a time and can get too obsessed because I am very dedicated about any projects that I work on in real life or on here. But it does not mean that I am a SPA with some sort of conflict of interest in this article or hidden agenda. So for editors who are too dedicated, maybe taking a voluntary break from editing the topic is a good idea. But if I get permanently banned from the murder Article for being a SPA, that would be so unfair and untrue that I would not feel comfortable volunteering here on my other main interest, which is US history topics, and my volunteer efforts here would just be all thrown away. If dedicated editors are just casually tossed away like that on untrue claims of being a SPA, eventually Wikipedia will run out of editors. Being dedicated is not the same thing as being a SPA.

The three main editors editing in opposition to me on the article: The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Bluewave and Salvio have all said that they now do not support an indefinite topic ban, and have voted against it. That should resolve the matter. The other two editors who posted on this thread made only one edit each on the Article just prior to the start of this thread, and their efforts to now totally and permanently topic ban an editor who has been so dedicated as to make over 500 edits on the Article should be without standing. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring this thread, because it was archived before reaching a decision. Can an admin please assess consensus and decide what type of sanction to issue? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that any sanction should be issued or that this thread needed to be restored. This is unnecessary. I have already agreed, as stated above, to take a voluntary break from editing the Article for a month to cool off. Perhaps my compromise was missed in this rather disjointed thread. My compromise is reasonable and is basically consistent with what others have suggested above. This is a two sided dispute. There have been uncollegial comments on both sides of the dispute. To "punish" one side and not the other is unequal and unfair. This is clearly a content dispute that breaks down into the pro-prosecution view vs. the pro-innocence view. The pro-guilty editors disagree with me due to my efforts to include "the other side of the story". This was clearly stated by a recent post by an editor who also called me a "bitch" and has made other harassing remarks due to my efforts to include the "other side of the story." To punish editors who post one side of the story, but impose no sanctions when editors on the other side say such things as--- "bitch", "cunt", use the "F" word, post a false report that Amanda Knox commited suicide, and claim that I should not be allowed to write due to having a different viewpoint---would be grossly unfair. So I have agreed to compromise by taking a one month break from editing the article, but continue on the Talk page, as the others suggested--with the only difference being whether the break is voluntary or involuntary. But I am not willing to accept a one sided punishment, when the uncollegialty on the other side is not being punished or even addressed in any effective manner. The policies should be applied equally to both sides of the dispute. If not, then this matter should go on to some sort of arbitration, appeal or whatever procedure is appropriate for higher review. To me, a simple compromise would be a more efficient use of everyone's time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is particularly distressing when all or most of the people opposing me are men and words like "bitch" and "cunt" are used towards me, and they say nothing about seeking sanctions for the use of such words against a woman editor. The diffs posted with the filing of this complaint show mostly that I complained of being harassed. They show no use of improper language. Yet, such complaints by me were deemed "uncollegial." Then, the vulgar, sexist and demeaning language and personal attacks against me are ignored and not made the subject of any official complaint or sanctions. If "collegialty" is really the issue, then double standards like this should not be employed in imposing sanctions. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you voluntarily accept to refrain from editing the article main page for a month, then I'd guess that no admin action is required... That's what we were asking for. If nobody objects, then I'll no longer un-archive this thread. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In one of the postings above, Z seemed to be suggesting that other people should also refrain from editing the article. I don't believe there has been any debate about misconduct of anyone other than Z, except in her own posts, and then without any evidence. Can we be quite clear that there is no agreement by anyone other than Z to refrain from editing the article. Bluewave (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, that goes without saying. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed to read Bluewave's comment that: "I don't believe there has been any debate about misconduct of anyone other than Z, except in her own posts, and then without any evidence." This suggests that Bluewave is ignoring all of my comments above. First of all, there has been no "misconduct" on my part that in any way exceeds the misconduct on the part of the pro-guilt/pro-prosecution/anti-Konx editors (however they might be appropriately described). Clearly, there has been uncollegialty on BOTH sides of this murder case. To deny that is to deny the obvious. There should be no need for me to post diffs, since what has been going on is self-evident to anyone who has been involved in writing this murder article. I offered to graciously step aside on the main page of the article for a while to relieve tensions, but NOT because I am the sole one to have engaged in alleged misconduct. Furthermore, denying that there has been any discussion on this thread about the conduct of others is a denial of reality. My words and opinions on this thread DO count for something and should not be totally ignored like that. Obviously, it takes two to tango. What I have offered as a peacekeeping measure is to step back a bit on the main article page to relieve tensions, but that does not mean that I am the only one at fault, nor does it mean that others can now have a field-day deleting all my work. I would expect others to act in reciprocal good faith and not engage in wholesale deletions of the sections I wrote while I am taking a sabatical from editing for peacekeeping measures. If others were to seize upon my generous peace offer as an opportunity to now delete all of my work, I would not see that as collegial or fair in the least. There are a lot of sections that can be re-worked, not just the ones that I wrote. So while I do not think it is necessary for others to pledge to stop editing, I would hope that there would not be an effort to take unfair advantage of a generous, good faith peacekeeping offer. Things need to be done in moderation and with respect and hopefully reciprocity for my peacekeeping measure. That is all I am looking for. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, to achieve peace, efforts must come from BOTH sides of this case. Peace will not be achieved if while one side waves the white flag to offer the peace pipe, the other side decides to take that as an opportunity to bring out the big cannons. Peace requires basic fairness. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute: it is a case about the conduct of one editor (Zlykinskyja) and her unwillingness to engage in consensus. I have challenged her (above) to provide evidence that she has ever sought consensus for any of her edits and she has not produced any. She tries to portray a situation where there is a group of editors that are opposed to her; that I am part of this group; and that the group has been rude and uncollegiate. Not only is this untrue—I also find it highly offensive personally. There is no group. I am not part of a group. A group has not been rude to her. Individuals may have behaved rudely or behaved in an uncollegiate way but I don't know if those individuals are even part of this discussion. I don't believe I have been one of those individuals. Again I have challenged Zlykinskyja to provide evidence of bad behaviour on my part and said that I would apologise if such evidence exists. She has produced none. I will not accept being lumped into some imagined group of editors nor be assigned some kind of guilt by association. I have, however, accepted the proposal that Zlykinskyja should voluntarily desist from editing the article, as an alternative to a more punitive sanction. No more, no less. Bluewave (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: My comments above were not directed to you specifically. I think that should be obvious from the fact that I never mentioned your name or addressed my comments in a manner indicating that I was focusing on your conduct specifically. Furthermore, you now claim that the problem is that I have failed to engage in efforts to seek consensus. If that was mentioned before I must have missed it. However, it is obvious that I have actually spent a great deal of time engaged in consensus related discussions. It is so obvious that I should not have to post diffs, which you know I have a hard time figuring out how to do. But I will make an effort to try to post some diffs since you raise the issue and seem to think it is important that I did not post any diffs relating to my participation in consensus discussions. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a diff from just yesterday in which I engaged in consensus discussions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=prev&oldid=360403766 I will try to add more. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree that is a start and is a big improvement on Z's earlier contribution to the same discussion[178], so maybe things will improve! The original complaint by Salvio was "Zlykinskyja is quite clearly an spa account, with whom I seem unable to have a calm and productive discussion. She apparently always starts assuming that those who do not agree with her are trying to censor her, or they are vandals who want to defame Knox and Sollecito." I think my paraphrasing this as "unwillingness to engage in consensus" is not unreasonable, and this was how I described it in my initial contribution to this discussion[179]. Z's post immediately following this[180] talked of ganging-up, harassment, and "horribly aggressive treatment". Because this followed on immediately from my comment, it certainly appears to be directed, at least in part, to me. When I sought to correct Z's accusations (at least with regard to my own conduct)[181], she added a little heading saying "AND MY POV OPPONENTS CONTINUE WITH THEIR UNRELENTING GANG-UP!" at the top of my post. So, all-in-all, I think I have some justification in thinking Z's comments might be directed at me. But, if they're not, I'm delighted to hear it! Anyway, I don't want to prolong this any further so, once again, I support Z's voluntary ceasing from making edits to the article. Bluewave (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Finding diffs is difficult because it seems that they disappear after a while and I was trying to go back a ways. But here is another diff that shows my efforts from months ago to engage in consensus before making an edit. I wanted to add info on false confessions and no one seemed to support that so I did not add it. This is another example of how Bluwave's accusations against me that I refuse to engage in consensus are unfair. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zlykinskyja&diff=prev&oldid=360555583 Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is another old diff. It shows again that I was trying to engage in consensus discussions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zlykinskyja&diff=prev&oldid=360560274 Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't know why Bluewave again raises this issue of me being a SPA account. I have already established that that accusation is totally false. I am simply a very dedicated, conscientious person on all my projects and hobbies, including as an editor here, and have simply gotten "stuck" or overly concerned on a difficult article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed as old part of the discussion, drawing attention away from current discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Discussion of proposed remedies (Note: Comment made prior to the last postings above of The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Salvio) This is just treating a person like trash who has donated hundreds of hours and spent funds researching and contributing to this article and Wikipedia. I have never encountered such a grossly unfair procedure in my life. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Additional comment: I note that topic bans on here are usually done in an organized and formal manner, with voting. There is a type of formality and fairness to the process, with it usually being expressly stated at the outset that there is a proposal for a topic ban. I was deprived of all of that procedural fairness entirely, since this thread did not start out as a topic ban proposal, but just a complaint. There were only two people who seemed to advocate for a topic ban later on. There was no voting or formality to it. It was just a haphazard discussion which seemed to suddenly end up as a topic ban after Salvio said he wanted that, but now I see he has posted above that he changed his mind, and also that another commenter has suggested a more moderate approach. That would seem fairer, given that lack of proper procedure in this thread compared to other threads involving topic bans. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I won't respond to your attacks and else but to one point. There is an overwhelming number of editors that spent not hundreds but thousands of hours on this project and like you, they donated their time and effort and yet, most of them do not complain about their edits being edited or even reversed. Try to think about it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC) You can be as angry as you like. The facts of the matter are that you are a disruptive WP:SPA who will not edit colliegially with other editors, and has previously been blocked for edit-warring disruptively with a sockpuppet account on your pet article. You display a disregard for everyone who disagrees with your POV edits (which is practically everyone editing the article, unsurprisingly) and try to claim that every other editor is biased whereas in reality they are only trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia policy (for example, I had edited the article once, and was immediately accused by you). You are a time sink for every other editor here and are degrading Wikipedia with your edits, both under this username, your previous username, and your sockpuppets. All that remains is for an uninvolved admin to step up to the plate and solve this problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Black Kite: Your latest attack is just another example of the very mean spirited manner in which you have proceeded. The horrible way you have gone after me speaks volumes. You have misrepresented many things and provided false and misleading links. Then you say I'm uncollegial. Enough. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Which part is false? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC) All of it. But there is no point in going over it all again with a person so full of animosity towards me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC) And that's the point, really, isn't it? Every point I made is factual - you can't rebut any of it. I don't have any animosity towards you as a person, only against the way in which you are causing problems in this article. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC) @Z.: What I see (and this is a fact) is that you promised to provide diffs here and in the previous ANI and Wikiquette thread, yet you didn't provide them then and keep making accusation here and still don't back them up (with diffs). Guess there aren't any in your favor and you keep pushing your unfounded accusations with hot air as a backup. Pretty lame arguments, I'd say.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC) As I have explained, I have had a hard time preparing diffs and have only figured out a couple. I suppose I could have practiced, but I never got the hang of it. Plus, it is hard to spend that kind of time when there is a hoard of people on this thread attacking you, all at the same time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Just what I expected: Another lame excuse. Several editors gave you links to help pages for diffs and Wikid, your favorite editor even posted a step by step guide on how to make diffs. That was weeks ago so you had plenty of time to learn this very simple task and keep your promises. Any better excuse on hand?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC) It's like knitting. You need to practice or you don't get the knack for it.Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Now that's at least a funny excuse. Thanks for making me smile :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for trying to help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Black Kite: The explanation for my name change was on my user page for a long time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zlykinskyja Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC) ...and you were blocked for edit warring for the first time with this sock account (like you didn't care).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC) It has been a while, but as I recall the block was for the sock puppet issue, although it was not clarified. The finding in that against me was sock puppet, due to my improper name change without following the requirement of properly marking the original account as "Retired." Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Really? You might want to check your block log: [182]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Well, the finding I recall was that the editor who removed the well sourced text was in the wrong. But since I was perceived as being a sock when I tried to change my name without marking my original account as Retired, I was perceived to be in the greater wrong. But that debt to society was well paid for I would say. Check the detailed explanation on my User page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ZlykinskyjaZlykinskyja (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC) My suggestion to Zlykinskyja would be to consider the fact that Knox is not the only person who is wrongfully convicted by a corrupted justice system. Now, I think you feel that you have reached a stalemate when editing this article. This means that expeding more energy here is wasted energy. What you could do is start new articles on other cases where any reasonable person can see that the jailed person is very likely innocent. I can give you a list of hundreds of such cases. If you slowly start writing articles on these other cases, then that would be a far more productive use of your time. Another important factor here is that the situation the jailed persons are in does not evolve fast; it can takes years for new appeals to be heard. If you only edit the case of a single person then this means that you end up arguing on the basis of the same old facts day after day and that causes persons to get irritated. If you instead edit, say, 30 such articles and if we assume that it takes two years on average before a new development in the legal case occurs per case, then that means a new development on average every 5 weeks. So, you'll quite frequently have someting really new to write about. If your judgement about the person being innocent is correct, then usually the new development will prove you correct and your opponents wrong. Over time that will lead other editors to take your arguments more seriously. Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you Count Iblis. You and The Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Wikid are the very few on here who have treated me with any sort of decency and respect, instead of all this hate being directed at me by editors who hold a different POV of the case. Your kindness is very much appreciated. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I agree, the vast improvements that Zlykinskyja has already made, and can continue to make, to other crime articles on Wikipedia will be a welcome addition. Also, I think much has been learned to help expand articles such as: Stalking, Persecution and Genocide. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks Wikid. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Huh? That was the very first time you said a nice thing about me. How did I deserve that? I'll need some time to process it in my slowly fading brain :D The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I appreciate your proposal for a more moderate remedy. It was your idea, and you got Salvio to go along. That deserves a thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Much appreciated, even so I'm still surprised. Now I can enjoy my very very late night dinner, actually closer to a midnight snack.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Buon appetito (I believe this is Italian for bon appetite.)Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks, although a simple "enjoy your meal" would have done :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Aldred

For simplicity's sake, I'll refer to this user as Mark Aldred, considering he's used that name more than others. I first became aware of his edits to Wikipedia on the Resident Evil Gaiden page. Mark Aldred is obsessed with his theory that Capcom maintains a Resident Evil canon and has removed Gaiden from that canon, and has engaged in nearly incessant edit warring to promote his belief in the article since at least August 2009. After the article came to my attention, I submitted a request for comment on 25 April 2010 and filed an incident report on 30 April [183] which led to the temporary protection of the article. After it expired, I edited it into a version that reflects the consensus reached on its talk page, and Mark Aldred wasted little time in stepping-up his edit warring and personal attacks.

As I've investigated, I've found that Gaiden is just the tip of the iceberg. This user has been responsible for an enormous amount of bad behavior on Wikipedia. Some typical Mark Aldred-isms are...

• Edit wars on many other articles, particularly those of the Resident Evil, Splinter Cell, or other Tom Clancy series. [184]
• Harasses and swears at other users, making multiple personal attacks. Favored insults are "fuck you" and calling the other party British. (?)
• Makes mistakes during his edits and edits multiple times in a row.
• Uses many sockpuppets, for which he's been the subject of two prior investigations and blocked after each one. [185] [186]

• NewsBot01 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - First name of this user I was aware of on Wikipedia. Made Gaiden canon edits and personal attacks on Gaiden's talk page. Blocked for username policy violation.

• MarkAldred45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - NewsBot01 stated on the Resident Evil wiki that he also uses the name "Mark Aldred." Made Gaiden canon edits. Investigated and blocked for "harassment, disruption, and sock puppetry."

• Sknmak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet of Markaldred45. Temporarily blocked for "harassment," later blocked as part of the MarkAldred45 investigation.

• MarkAldred (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - NewsBot01 stated on the Resident Evil wiki that he also uses the name "Mark Aldred." Edited a different Resident Evil article, made personal attacks against Geoff B and Ninjalemming. Blocked as part of the JohnRamirez investigation.

• JohnRamirez (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppeteer account for MarkAldred. Investigated and blocked for "personal attacks, insults, vandalism, edit warring and disruptive editing."

• SyphonFilter1987 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet of JohnRamirez. Edit warred on other Resident Evil articles, made personal attacks against Geoff B and Daymeeee. Blocked as part of the JohnRamirez investigation.

• PrisonBreakguy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet of JohnRamirez. Edit warred on other Resident Evil articles, made personal attacks against Geoff B, Blanchardb, and many other users. Blocked as part of the JohnRamirez investigation.

• DavidCarter1209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet of JohnRamirez and blocked as part of the JohnRamirez investigation.

• 70.127.200.182 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Most recent active IP.

• 70.127.202.77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks against Pilif12p and Lord of the Pit. [187]

• 70.127.200.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles.

• 70.127.203.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks.

• 70.126.139.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks.

• 70.126.138.182 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Splinter Cell edit wars, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the MarkAldred45 investigation. Blocked for repeated abuse.

• 72.186.99.191 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks.

• 72.186.96.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles.

• 97.106.48.128 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation.

• 97.106.43.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation. Blocked for abuse.

• 97.106.45.159 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation.

• 97.106.44.244 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Gaiden canon edits, various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation.

• 97.106.45.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Various destructive edits to other articles, personal attacks. Implicated in the JohnRamirez investigation. Blocked for abuse.

The above IPs all originated from the Tampa, Florida area.

• 95.211.27.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Implicated in the MarkAldred45 investigation, but geolocates elsewhere.

Mark Aldred also engaged in edit warring on the Gaiden page of the Resident Evil wiki, leading to it being reverted and locked. His IP address made a string of "go fuck yourself" edits to the Splinter Cell wiki [188], reverted by its admin. Geoff B has also mentioned that Mark Aldred has made threatening e-mails.

There have probably been worse people in Wikipedia's history, but Mark Aldred is the most psychotic one I've come across. His malicious behavior spans so many categories that I'm not even sure where it should be reported anymore... should I make post to the sockpuppetry investigation board as well, or the 3RR board, or any of the half-dozen other noticeboards he's committed violations of? In any event, the Resident Evil Gaiden page needs to be protected, his IP range needs to be blocked, he should be added to the long-term abuse list, and he should be reported to his ISP. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have rangeblocked 70.127.200.0/22 for 2 weeks; the other IP ranges remain unblocked as none of them have made any significant edits in a good while. If a CheckUser is around, can we see about a possible hardblock on that range? –MuZemike 00:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would open an SPI with CheckUser in order to find more of these sockpuppets. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you're obsessed with me but the feeling is NOT mutual. For the record, I NEVER threatened anybody. I simply told those two admins that they were ugly. Ask them if you don't believe me. You call me psychotic, I call you an pathetic annoying loser for spending an hour tracking my edit history. I'm not psychotic. Psychotic people kill other people, molest children and kill animals. I obviously have never done that. Hell, I love animals.

By the way, what do you mean by consensus? Geoff and Prime Blue said that if the statement had a source, it can stay. There is a source. All this over a freaking sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resident_Evil_Gaiden&diff=360094151&oldid=360086865

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resident_Evil_Gaiden&diff=357657977&oldid=357462849

Fine, lets end this once and for all. Do you admins want the statement to stay or not. Answer this and I'll stop reverting the edits. This is fair. Then again, I probably will be blocked forever. Fine, I have no regrets. Have a great life.--70.126.138.115 (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No deal. 70.126.138.0/23 rangeblocked for a fairly long time. –MuZemike 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Another AIV backlog

Resolved

 – I'm sorry, the administrators are currently on strike until we get a pay raise. Backlog cleared NW (Talk) 02:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What? Double your current pay scale wasn't good enough for you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV has had some vandals sitting there for a little while now with no attention. Admins are given block tools for a reason- please put them to good use. ALI ^{nom nom} 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Pay raise? Anything above the zero we get now would be an improvement. —DoRD (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, admins are given the tools for a reason; that they can be trusted not to abuse them. Use of them, and where, is voluntary. Any other simple facts about Wikipedia you need to know? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one would like to see every administrator on the project taken to disciplinary for gross dereliction of duty. Somebody should also consider suing for a breach of the hallowed contract between Wikipedia's sysops and the site users. RfA is, after all, much, much more than just an informal "sure, I'll help out from time to time"! AGK 13:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the lot of 'em, I say. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

We need some help over there; we have some really intense albeit low-speed edit warring happening, and all the admins watching (like me and Avi) are too involved. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's seriously an article?! All of these "criticism of xxxxx" articles are ridiculous and arent of encyclopedic quality topics. POV forks at the very least and could easily be covered in less detail on relevant real topics. Lets get rid of articles that are simply there for people to voice discrimination or voice their dislike for stupid cultural topics; such as Criticism of Barney & Friends now how is that encyclopedic?!Camelbinky (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But see, Criticism of Barney & Friends just links to the section in the Barney & Friends, which like you said, is what should be the case for all these other topics. Breein1007 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you; the "criticism" articles are basically crap. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh, if there's enough criticism of something (e.g., Scientology) where the criticism would dwarf the article, then WP:SS breakout articles are fine. They should, however, be watched at least as closely, if not moreso, than the main articles. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• These articles are not merged with the parent articles because they are of a considerable length already, not counting the length of the criticism articles. Merging them would create a preponderance of information on criticism within the parent articles. It is for this reason that they are separate. Please refer to WP:SPLIT. Silverseren^C 07:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well trendsetters, rather than turn ANI into AFD, why not head to the place to discuss? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with Silver seren and Jclemens about length issues and splitting, but the fact is such articles as the one we are discussing Criticism of Judaism become so long because people with a bias against Judaism pile on anything/everything they can find just so they can present a "case against" Judaism, it becomes their central reserve for defamation against an entire religion (apparently the title is criticism against the religion, not the ethnic group, which is strange). As I read the article it is more about what other religions disagree with about Judaism, the Catholic Church disagreeing with Jewish practices isnt criticism, its a difference in perspective. The entire article's subsections can be (and are) dealt in other articles in a better manner which is why they all have "see also:" templates on each one.Camelbinky (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist Wikipedia administrators protecting pages of their parties on election day, but not others

I have added the fact that the party Plaid Cymru is a nationalist party to their article, and have faced opposition from people who are plainly party supporters with flags pasted all over their userpages, in one case replacing the actual Wikipedia logo... One of them is actually an admin! ("Deb")

After these people kept ganging up to remove the "offending" word (the parties ARE nationalist, but the word carries negative connotations in the UK - something which is mostly deserved) I gave up and put a NPOV tag on the page to try make clear to people that the article is under party control. This was then removed by them too despite on the template it saying it should be under no circumstances removed without discussion first, and then them congratulating each other saying "Too right!": Talk:Plaid_Cymru#.27Drive-by.27_tagging

Someone apparently neutral to it then made a space so debate could actually happen, Galloglass, who then gets aggressively told "Discuss the issues, is it? What are the issues?" and threatening to remove the tag again Talk:Plaid_Cymru#Nationalist_party.3F

And now the admin I mentioned before as previously involved (Deb) has now jumped in and protected the page on the day of the UK general election to enforce that the word nationalist not be used to describe the party. This seems to be a pretty clear conflict of interest in use of admin powers, with supporters on the page then congratulating each other on "defending" the article again saying "Good move.": Talk:Plaid_Cymru#Nationalist_party.3F

I really can't believe this kind of behaviour is acceptable? --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• What you are essentially saying here is that you are involved in a content dispute, which you consider you are losing, and it's everybody else who's in the wrong. That is a situation we hardly ever see here. If you expect admins here to leap to your defence then you may well be rather disappointed. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• ec)Try reading the comments on the talk page and engaging with the discussion there. The article clearly states the goals of the party and this is simply a question of style that you are blowing out of all proportion, and more importantly you are making comments on the motivation of other editors rather than addressing the content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 13:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the fact that supporters are using their admin powers that is making me bring this up here, not the dispute itself - I don't think it's right that they should be able to abuse their powers in this way to keep to the official party line, on election day no less...

I did read the comments and reply (just before yours before their "responses" ignoring me, see), your admin's response was to ignore me and protect it... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The protection and other actions should be performed only by non-UK uninvolved admins. There is no other way to ensure even-handedness. Tony (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding right? I can't see UK admins being swayed too much by Welsh nationalism, we do have a procedure that selects them. We should trust them to make the right choices. :) SGGH ^ping! 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If everything I read here I take at face value (without double checking the contributions), it probably would have been wiser for the admin to request protection from an uninvolved admin...but again, I haven't dug deep into the context of this situation, I'm just giving a face value interpretation. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Kittins floating in the sky yay has been involved in numerous edit wars in the last couple of days: seeAN3, AN/I,Sinn Féin, Mebyon Kernow, Scottish Nation Party (which had to be page protected from him/her) and his/her talk page. User:Kittins floating in the sky yay has added contentious edits and tags, without engaging on the talk page to discuss the problems resulting in those tags. Page protection at such a sensitive time was an obvious last resort. The bigger question is why has this editor been allowed to continue to edit politically sensitive articles for so long in the run up to a general election. Lets hope we learn a lesson from it for the next election in five years time, because essentially, it's too late for this one. Daicaregos (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a weird content dispute, the main British newspapers and political commentators are all referring to Plaid Cymru as a Welsh nationalist party today, I had no idea there was any objection to that. The Scottish equivalent is called the Scottish National Party its supporters referred to as Scottish nationalists. This is the first I've heard that it's something they object to, maybe they should tell the Times, the Guardian, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone here would want to comment on what they perceive to be a content dispute here, rather than at the article talk page, where it would be appropriate. User:Kittins floating in the sky yay's numerous edits to Scottish Nation Party noting that it is a nationalist party were also reverted (again and again), before the page was protected. It was not reverted because the SNP doesn't have nationalist policies, but because the edit made by User:Kittins floating in the sky yay was inappropriate. The same is true of Plaid Cymru. The sentence following User:Kittins floating in the sky yay's edit adding “nationalist” says “It advocates the establishment of an independent Welsh statewithin the European Union.” Therefore, noting them as a nationalist party is redundant where placed. Further, Welsh nationalism is noted as their ideology in the infobox. These edits are not in the interests of the articles concerned. They have nothing to do with whether or not the parties are nationalist, which they are. Daicaregos (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see it was wrong to place the NPOV tag without starting a discussion alongside it on the articles talkpage and that it was wrong of the admin to protect the page.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Did the admins protect the wrong version? See, by law we have to do that. We're required to figure out which version is the worst, and protect that one. --Jayron32 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly :) Daicaregos (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the problematic content. In future, to get administrator attention faster, please utilise the {{editprotected}} template. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is not the first time I have protected this article because of an ongoing content dispute. I placed a 24-hour protection on the article because of the sensitive timing of the latest edit war - in which I am not involved. The issue on which I commented was not the one under discussion (though I can understand why you may think so). However, any other admin can lift the temporary protection before the result of the UK election is known, if they think it appropriate. Likewise, any article on any other political party can be protected or unprotected on application to any admin, if appropriate. If I noticed a similar dispute going on at any other political party article at this time, I would do the same - it just happens that I don't watch those pages. Deb (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I saw, I think the subject still hasn't reached a consensus, but setting content aside, heated arguments like these should be brought more to the talk page(there was a talk page section, but there were also alot of reversions), there seemed to be too much instability on there, and I think the temporary freeze was a good idea. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible range block

Can an admin look into a possibility of a range block for a dynamic school IP? I ran across 216.56.4.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.56.46.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that both recently came off long term blocks (6 months and 1 year, respectively) and started vandalizing immediately afterwards, sometimes the same articles (eg, Rwandan Genocide). The IPs are clearly related and there's likely more of them out there. There's insufficient activity on any 1 individual IP to report to AIV; after 4 or 5 edits the IP changes. There's been no constructive edits from either of these IPs in years, another long term block is likely appropriate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a fair number of editors (careful, it's a long list, and requires the Javascript-enhanced contributions lookup 0.2 to be enabled) coming in from that /16 range, and a lot of them are vandalism (though a fair number aren't). Perhaps a very long softblock is in order? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Custom signature does not contain internal link

User:Bpell's signature displays as BlueRider12, without the internal link specified by WP:CUSTOMSIG. I first noted this during a WQA and asked the user to address [[189]]. At that time, they indicated they wished to leave Wikipedia [[190]] so it seemed unnecessary to make an issue of it. However, their activity has resumed [[191]] so I'm referring the issue to the community. Gerardw (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing has come up before, i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu. Community consensus is that users abide by WP:SIG. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Warned user. Should be blocked if they continue. –xeno^talk 18:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

This entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI. –MuZemike 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Point of information: 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who initiated several subthreads, was a returning sockpuppet of banned user Jagz (talk · contribs), and has now been indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Timestamp as still active: 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 69.228.170.24 (talk)

Bots add wrong iw

Resolved

At Skåneland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), several humans are reverting several bots adding a wrong interwiki. I have removed the respective interwiki from all other wikipedias and thought that would do, but today another bot added the same iw again. What is the best way to proceed? My guess is that the bots pick up the iw-list of other wikipedias' articles they find in the en.wikipedia's article's iw-list, compare those lists, and add what is "missing" to en.wikipedia. And that while I removed the wrong iw from the other wikipedias, the bots still pick it up because some have flagged revisions and I am not an authorized sighter there, thus the wrong iw will nonetheless stay in place until someone there marks the article sighted, am I right? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Would adding it in <!-- --> nor <nowiki></nowiki> work in the mean time? SGGH ^ping! 14:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I left this in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You could add {{nobots}} for the time being, until the revision(s) get(s) sighted. –xeno^talk 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about that, foolish! SGGH ^ping! 14:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello all,

I made my bot remove the link to the Serbian wikipedia on all other Skåneland pages. On the Serbian page, I removed all links and replaced them with a single link to the English Scania disambiguation page. Unless some manual changes are made, bots shouldn't add anything anymore now. The problems seem to be that the current version of the pywikipedia bot does not recognize the disambiguation template on the Serbian wikipedia, and considers it an article. Thijs! (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was just about to ask how I can prevent the bots on the other pedias from re-adding the iw links I removed, but I see you have taken care of it. It appears that the {{nobot}} tag (good to know btw!) is no longer needed then? Thank you again Skäpperöd (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Only one way to find out =) –xeno^talk 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ok... Skäpperöd (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LinkFA-Bot (User:Guandalug)

Resolved

 – Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I the first to complain or the last to notice? -- LinkFA-Bot (talk · contribs) is massively removing the interwiki featured article-stars ([192][193][194][195]) when the articles clearly are featured on various wikis. (notified) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you certain? This edit suggests LinkFA-Bot's change to Swedish bagpipes, at least, was accurate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This one to Sun Yat-sen seems right. It looks like zh:孫中山 has it as a good article, not FA. But [:hu:Massospondylus]] does seem to still be a FA. Nevertheless, calling it "vandalism" here and onward is totally inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism it ain't. A bot error it might be.... and I will have to look that up. Such things can easily be solved though: Just TELL me about it. I had two requests regarding featured articles (and the markup) after the last run already, and the bot has been taught about those. Most likely, this edit will take care of the zh-classical - Problem (I will of course debug this). But once again: Telling me about a problem will get much better (and faster) results than complaining about vandalism here.

The zh-classical - incident indeed was a bot-error. The Massospondylus - edit was a timing - error (The article had been promoted recently, and the bot - data - cache didn't reflect this change). This is unfortunate, and I apologize for that edit - I can explain it in greater detail of course, but to sum it up, it was the "right thing to do" from the bots point of view. Two other of your "vandalism" reverts even were wrong (and the bot was right about it). 'Good' articles should not be marked with "Link FA" (And there is no 'Link GA' template on enWP), and candidates for a "Featured" star shouldn't be marked either. I reverted your reverts in those cases.

Any other error can be submitted to my talkpage (here or on my deWP talkpage) and will be checked and (where needed) fixed. --Guandalug (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

a) I must've indeed confused GA and FA markers, so my apologies b) I wasn't sure about "vandalism", that's why I didn't give any vandalism-warnings and I brought up here not at AIV. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

User Blueboy96's Block of Onefinalstep

Resolved

 – Consensus is that the block was sound--Atlan (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This incident report is concerned with a block of Onefinalstep on May 1, 2010.

I am reporting this incident to bring attention to the misuse of administrator tools by Blueboy.

On May 1st at 16:35 I added content to the discussion page of the article: Vera Baker.RefRef I added comments concerning whether or not certain information in the news about this person should be added to the article. After no response by other editors I added the information that I found relevant at 16:50 of the same day.RefRef At 16:51 I added a comment to the discussion page that I had done so and made my reasons for editing available for other users.RefRef At 17:22 of the same day MuZemike reverted my edits.Ref At 17:25 the same user added comments to the discussion page of the article that he objected to the source of the material that I added.RefRef At 17:34 I reverted user MuZemike's reversion with the comment that he should join the discussion that I had started on the talk page.Ref Then, at 17:37 NuclearWarfare reverted my reversion citing BLP policy with no discussion under the comments I had made concerning the addition of the material at issue.Ref At 17:45 I reverted User NuclearWarfare's reversion with the comment that he should join the discussion that I had started on the talk page of the article.Ref After this reversion both user MuZemike and NuclearWarfare joined the discussion that was ongoing on the discussion page of the article.Ref At 17:49 user NuclearWarfare reverted my reversion.Ref At this point I stopped editing for fear of being involved in an edit war.Ref I made more contributions to the discussion page after this point but this was the extent of my editing.Ref At 18:15 of the same day user Blueboy96 blocked me for 72 hours for violation of the BLP policy.Ref This occurred 30 minutes after my last edit on the page Vera Baker. User Blueboy96 did not contact me, warn me, or in any way make his intentions or feelings known to me in the thirty minutes between my last edit and his block.Ref He discussed the situation with other editors but failed to notify me of the situation or impending action.Ref

I am writing this incident report because I believe that the block was in the first instance an abuse of Blueboy96's administrative tools. Second that the duration of the block was unnecessary for the reason that the administrator used his tools for. Third that the lack of warnings, discussion, or courtesy by the blocking administrator to myself was a disconcerting action against an honest WP editor.

I wanted to keep this short and will direct any interested admins to my talk page where I will detail why I think action by Blueboy96 violates WP policy on blocking.

ThanksOnefinalstep (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the merits of the block in detail, and I will not at this time (I've learned to remain relatively quiet on this board during my term on the Arbitration Committee, so as not to have prejudged matters that come to arbitration—which is not to say that this one will, or should). But the underlying issue here, which warrants discussion in the context of the BLP policy and which has recognized analogs in other media, is: When is it appropriate to report that something has been said to be true or that so-and-so alleges that X is true, even when there is no agreement that X is in fact true and no reliable source has contended it's true. This is a frequently recurring issue both on Wikipedia and in other media. (See also some hypothetical, but not-that-hypothetical, examples posted at Wikipedia:BLP examples for discussion.) My take is that in general, the mere fact that an unsupported rumor has in fact been rumored or reported is rarely, if ever, the basis for appropriate content in a BLP article, even though there will always be close cases of line-drawing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny you don't mention you had 2 unblock requests denied. You could figure that if Blueboy was in such error as you claim, the block would have been lifted by other administrators. It seems to me you started discussing the National Enquirer source on the talk page, and then went ahead and edited the source into the article before awaiting any kind of resolution of that discussion. After that you edit warred to keep your addition in the article, citing this discussion. The only reply you had there at the time was MuzeMike stating NI is an inappropriate source. You seem to be under the impression that starting a discussion about this on the talk page makes you immune to blocks for BLP violations. You're quite wrong and the block was appropriate in this case. As for the duration, your unblock requests were just about how wrong everyone else was and that will never get you unblocked. You still don't seem to understand what you did wrong so 72 hours certainly wasn't too long a block.--Atlan (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating the relevancy of my edits here. It is perfectly reasonable to deny my edits which MuZemike and NuclearWarfare did. I am simply asking the administrators to review the block which was placed on me. Like I said. I stopped editing after it was apparent that there was going to be an edit war. My talk page, which includes the blocks and unblock requests, speaks for itself. I emailed Blueboy to inform him that I was not interested in editing the article further. My complaint is simply about the block that was issued and its duration. I feel it was unfair given the circumstances.Onefinalstep (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I will note that I still stand by my reversions as-is, as I do not believe National Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid, to be a reliable source not only because of the "supermarket tabloid" part, but also because anyone with money is able to pay them and publish literally anything, which has been done many times in the past, right or wrong. They as well as other tabloids do this without any respect towards fact-checking or accuracy – a key tenet for our verifiability policy.

With that being said, once I made that revert, I gave up – and have not executed – any administrative action taken on the Vera Baker article as I would have been involved at that point. A lot of things were happening at the time, mostly consisting of a blip of gossip that has dissipated within a few hours; I actively watched Google News and other outlets to try and see anything else more reliable than what there was currently about that, and nothing appeared. By the way, that caused me to cast doubts as to the retention of the Vera Baker article. The main part I was concerned with was regarding the unreliability of the National Enquirer and similar tabloids as I do not believe they meet our threshold of verifiability, whether they happen to be right or not. –MuZemike 07:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(Stop edit conflicting me with stupid stuff, for Pete's sake! -Addressed at User:Shadowjams' "AIV is backlogged" thread below this one) Since a lot of things were happening at the time. Edit warring, especially on a biography of a living person involving potentially negative and contentious information, is not the way to improve things. Do I feel the full-protection was in order? Absolutely. Do I fell the block was in order? Depends if Onefinalstep understands why it is so important to get it right when it pertains to living subjects as such false information can ruin people; we're not in the business to perpetuate that. With contentious information about BLPs (which this was), it has to be right, or it should not be in there. –MuZemike 07:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that a block was unnecessary. Onefinalstep was not even claiming that the National Enquirer was correct, simply that they reported it. Whether or not the National Enquirer meets the verifiability threshold is irrelevant in this case. The fact of the matter is that they reported the story, and that's all Onefinalstep said. Genesis274 (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Onefinalstep, it doesn't sound like you're blocked now, so I'm not sure what you're asking for (obviously it's not an unblock). Nobody appears very interested in dwelling on the issue much. Just don't edit that way in the future and everything will be fine. It's pretty hard to examine your complaint carefully because you link to general history pages instead of specific edits. The instructions at wp:DIFF for how to link to edits could use a lot of improvement, but you can ask at the wp:help desk if you're having trouble. Generally it sounds like you're making the kinds of errors new users often make, which in most articles aren't a big deal, but tend to provoke severe reaction (this is what happened to you) when they're done in contentious articles about living people. You might want to edit less controversial articles for a while, til you get more used to things here. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything except a review of the block. I think it was unreasonable and would hope it doesn't happen to anyone else without warning. I will admit my linking skills leave something to be desired. I just wanted to state the facts and then direct anyone interested to my talk page.Onefinalstep (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Onefinalstep has decided to support him or herself with the sock- or meatpuppet account Genesis274, as it is apparent they aren't going to get it from anyone else. Here's Onefinalstep creating Genesis274's user page with information: [196].--Atlan (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

She isn't a sock puppet. She is a friend however. So at the very least you can accuse me of MeatPuppetry. Sorry my friend backed me up.Onefinalstep (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My 2c:

• Onefinalstep, you were clearly wrong on the content issue (a horribly sourced redflag and libelous claim added to a BLP). I could understand that you added the content in good faith in the first instance, however reverting MuZemike and Nuclearwarfare was not kosher (WP:3RR doesn't give one a license to revert 3 times; also see WP:BRD).
• That said, I wouldn't have blocked you for the actions without a prior warning. But Blueboy's actions were arguably justifiable and definitely well intentioned with the goal of protecting a BLP (note that Blueboy had no way of knowing that you wouldn't re-revert, without you explicitly saying so on the talkpage). In any case, while you can question his judgment, I don't see any basis for calling it admin "abuse" (see Hanlon's razor :-) ).
• I think your WP:TLDR unblock requests worked against you, since they attempted to justify your edits and complain about Blueboy's actions. I suspect that if you had simply said in your unblock request: "I understand that my reverts adding disputed information to a BLP were ill-conceived. I won't repeat those or similar edits if unblocked." your request would have been granted.

The above points are not meant to add insult to your "block-injury", but only to provide you feedback, which I hope would be useful if you find yourself in a similar situation in the future. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Abecedare is spot on. However, Onefinalstep's whole point is null and void after they started goofing around with the Genesis274 account if you ask me. I can't take this request seriously like this.--Atlan (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Woah, the Genesis274 stunt was a baaaaaaaad move. Onefinalstep, look, you can't do stuff like that here, and we do notice it when it happens. There's nothing wrong with your publishing whatever you want about Vera Baker or any other topic (free speech is great that way). You just can't do it on wikipedia. You might try blogspot.com instead. That would give you complete control over everything you write. That particular maneuver comes close to calling for a new block. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

good god ... I didn't ask Genesis to comment here. I was talking to her tonight about this incident report and she decided to say something. I realize this sounds like a little brother excuse but please don't disregard the block sequence. I am not at all concerned with the value of my edits or whether I was right or wrong on the Vera Baker page. I just think the block was extremely premature. I was just surprised by the block and wanted others to review the facts.Onefinalstep (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My Comment

• Didn't you already ask for a review of the block by requesting unblock twice? Personally I wouldn't have blocked you without a final warning but the block is well within permissable admin actions given that you were edit warring to insert questionable material into a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the last thing I will add. I am not the only one who has found Blueboy's blocking to be shocking. See, Here, and Here, and Here.Onefinalstep (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you make such a compelling case with those completely unrelated ANI threads, of which 2 were created by socks of blocked users. Let's desysop Blueboy right away.--Atlan (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your unblock requests were denied because they were arguing the primary case and did not address the reason for blocking, which was an apparent failure to understand and accept WP:BLP as it applies to inclusion of allegations of unknown veracity. Your comments above rather seem to indicate that you still don't get this, I hope that is not the case because if it is then you're likely to suffer the same problem again. This has been pointed out to you patiently and civilly above. I suggest you now drop it. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here, so here's my two pence. Onefinalstep introduced questionably-sourced statements into a living person article. He did so recurrently—and moreover, after an administrator reverted him with an edit summary that made clear the implications of those statements with respect to our BLP policy. Blueboy's block was proper: it was clear that Onefinalstep was not heeding the message that was unarguably made known in this edit. Additionally, I am confused as to why Onefinalstep states that he "stopped editing for fear of being involved in an edit war". Where does he think the multiple reverts he exchanged with an administrator fit into the definition of "edit war"?

  My evaluation of this block is that it is a sound one. Misbehaviour on a BLP article is immediately blockable, and for good reason. If Onefinalstep were still blocked, I would be willing to propose an early unblock in the event of an unconditional concession on his part of his liability. But since the block has long since expired, this request is unactionable. AGK 12:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Backlog growing at AIV

Resolved

 – No backlog at the moment, so evidently resolved. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking for an admin to close a merge RfC

Resolved

 – Closed by Olaf Davis. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC, please, and decide whether it's time to close it? It's about whether to merge Avoid neologisms, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Words to avoid into one new page—Words to watch.

The RfC opened on April 15, over three weeks ago, and comments seem to have tailed off now. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second this call. The results are abundantly clear to me. Tony (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Closed as successful. I haven't put the section in an archive box or anything, but if anyone thinks that'd be helpful to make the result more obvious I'm happy to do so. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I boxed it, primarily so that people coming in later don't miss the closure and add to the conversation. Also, it adds an attractive splash of color to the page. ;) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CalendarWatcher

Resolved

 – User warned – nothing more that can be done at this stage, really. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-opened as discussion still under way --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly avoid bringing civility matters to ANI; however, "Go away, you obnoxious little man", just posted on HWV258's talk page by User talk:CalendarWatcher, is over the top. I feel sickened.

Requested remedy: That the offender be asked to apologise to HWV258 and be given a stern warning about the need to comply with WP:CIVILITY. That HWV258 be advised to avoid posting on CalendarWatcher's page for a cooling-off period. I will certainly be giving it a wide berth.

Background:

• CW appears to attract a lot of negative reaction from editors (I see an unsigned spraying on CW's talk page). In particular, there has been the use of a twinkle pre-fabricated edit-summary accusing reverted users of "vandalism". I believe the account has a problem with displays of anger. Recent examples that are hard to miss are this, admittedly to an editor who himself has a record of outbursts, and [197].
• There has been friction about the use and identity of the CW account, raised by several editors last year, including HWV258 and me. I must stress that nothing was proved. Since then, until recently, there has been no activity on the account.
• HWV258, I see, chose to raise certain details concerning the account four days ago, earlier today (and again a few minutes ago). Whatever the wisdom of those posts, I believe they do not deserve the nasty response.
• CW made this comment to me the other day, in response to my own query on his talk page: "And I'd suggest that you take your lack of understanding, lack of reading abilities, unsubstantiated and unwarranted paranoia and use them to go stalk someone else, please." I can take that on the chin, and it's not the subject of this complaint, but I am disappointed in the anger displays. Tony (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see HWV258 taking this remark to ANI (which I think is rather tame anyway). They don't seem all that offended to me, so I wonder what made you come over here to complain in their stead. Unless you can convince me we're dealing with 5-year-olds that can't settle their dispute on their own, I don't think much can be done here.--Atlan (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Obnoxious little man" is tame? I'm sorry, we seem to have a different notion of civility. Have you read WP:CIVIL? Tony (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony's measurement of civility depends on who is posting; his own you poor, deluded fool does not seem ever to have been apologized for. This is a cabal of a half-dozen editors who attempt to silence opposition with abuse and factitious complaints - like this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with "silencing". It has to do with fairness of the processes of WP—something with which I'm sure you are also concerned.  HWV258.  20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fairness of the process? Yes, I am concerned with that, and Wikilawyering by these four accounts (who always seem to involve themselves in the same issues) is contrary to fairness. But as long as the fundamental hypocrisy here is visible to the admins, I'm sure it will be reasonably dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

something seems off here, and HWV258 does seem to raise an interesting point. Has anyone asked Arthur Rubin?--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Something certainly does seem off, and the more one looks into it, the stranger it gets. I added a couple of points that should raise eyebrows and questions (search for 151 and 279 for the new points).  HWV258.  04:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given him a proper warning template (his remark wasn't a big deal, but unacceptable nonetheless). Nothing more that can be done at this stage, really. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TT. Tony (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:MiszaBot II (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

HalfShadow 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care. If an editor is incivil, they need to be warned. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Without condoning CW's post, or making any judgement whatsoever as to the validity of the claims, it is important to note that Tony, HWV and a few other editors have been insinuating that CW is a sockpuppet for quite some time now. This includes recent comments such as:

"OK, Arthur: we know it's you. Please don't get upset, and as an admin you are expected to be a good example of civility." (Tony1)

"Please be honest and let the entire community know what is really going on." (HWV258))

As mentioned to them previously, if they feel their concerns are truly valid, they should pursue the matter through proper channels and allow uninvolved parties to assess the matter. Simply repeating accusations, especially when the other party has denied them, only serves to increase the tension already present in this situation. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed the denial. Could you provide the reference please?  HWV258.  20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For starters, there was this message which CW left on your talk page last October, when you and Tony were making similar accusations. There's also this note on Tony's talk page and this note on Arthur Rubin's talk page, also from that same incident. You, Tony and I also discussed this matter on his talk page last October, and my point now is the same as it was then. If you truly believe there is a problem, you need to follow proper channels rather than merely repeatedly accusing the user in question. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the investigation that was pursued against CW at that time. However, CKatz, if you want to start a different section on this page about the sock allegations last year, you're welcome. The matter of CalendarWatcher's unspeakable rudeness appears to have been resolved for the moment in this section. Tony (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• The message left on my talk page last October was (in entirety) "Who are you? And why should I be paying the slightest attention to your fishing expedition?". That is not a denial. When read carefully, the messages left on Tony1's page are not denials either (in fact one of the messages supports the presence of a sock). I'm not litigious, and am simply giving CalendarWatcher the opportunity to issue a simple "confirm" or "deny" to the community (in the face of mounting evidence).  HWV258.  00:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply giving a chance to confirm or deny? There are historic precedents for such generosity; but this is neither a loyalty hearing nor a revolutionary tribunal. How about taking a chance to mind your own business? Or, if you must, bring formal charges, and take the corresponding risk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tony, the two events are clearly related - as you are well aware. While CW's post was certainly regrettable, it should be obvious to anyone who reads through the comments you, HWV258, and a few of your mates have posted regarding Calendar Watcher and his supposed sockpuppetry that his post might well never have happened if not for your group's persistent badgering. (Let me be clear - while said badgering can explain CW's comment, it does not excuse it.) As I told you earlier today, and six months ago for that matter, it is time for you and the others to stop playing the baiting game and either present any evidence you have at the appropriate Wikipedia forum or let the matter drop. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "belligerent" approach to operating at Wikipedia. I guess it's just how I was brought up, but I prefer raising the issue with the person involved and trying to resolve things before going to the "police". The interesting thing about this is that if someone asks me "Hey, HWV258, are you operating any other accounts concurrently at WP?", I have no hesitation in saying "No; and thanks for your enquiry". Problem solved. However, when this is tried in the case of CalendarWatcher, all that comes back is nastiness and evasion. I wonder why?  HWV258.  05:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more than likely this is an alternate account, the only unanswered question is 'whose?'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a CU run and why not at this point?--Crossmr (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's just how I was brought up, but there's a big difference between the oh-so-friendly-sounding "raising the issue with the person involved" and what is actually going on, which is the repeated insisting that your assertion is correct, no matter what CW says. There's certainly nothing wrong with asking first, but if your questions are a) not getting the answer you feel is correct, and b) provoking the party you're asking, then it is time to move on and try another method. Repeatedly hammering home your beliefs rarely if ever works. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"no matter what CW says"—but that's the rub: CW hasn't said anything (well, nothing pertinent).  HWV258.  06:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• (*sound of sipping on a darn fine espresso*) Wow! I was perusing business higher up on this page and come across something from Tony here. I must say, that I am a bit out of the loop on this date-jihad stuff since I’ve still a few months left on my topic ban. But "Go away, you obnoxious little man"? And an experienced editor gets a “gosh-golly gee; perhaps you didn’t know…”–template?!? What’s with this CalendarWatcher dude? Is he/she made of greased Teflon? The four-letter F-bomb, when it isn’t being used as an intensive, is often employed as the ultimate “I defy you and everything you stand for, turd.” It is intended to be hurtful. Just the same, writing “Go away, you obnoxious little man” was intended to be as hurtful and dismissive as possible, has absolutely no place anywhere on Wikipedia, and whoever this editor is obviously needs a multi-day-length timeout. Is there some sort of different standard here because “it is date-related” (rolling eyeballs) and admin’s expectations of conduct-expected are different for some reason? Over on the terrorism-related stuff, we gotta sip our tea with a little finger politely extended or we get a bullet behind one’s ear. Greg L (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• There's quite an overlap in articles edited by Arthur Rubin and CalendarWatcher, and there's the curious instance of Arthur Rubin referring to himself in an edit summary as a "CalendarWatcher", but if you look at Wikichecker the patterns of editing for time of day, day of the week and over time are not similar at all. If someone wants to lay this to rest, WP:SPI is the place to go. Psst, that means you, HWV258. Fences&Windows 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The Wikichecker results are actually quite similar and neither clearly indicates a timezone (to the limited extent that they do they are different). But I found some instances where one account made two edits in one minute, and the other also made an edit in the same minute. Here is an example from more than a year ago: [198] [199]. (The times 21:27 to 21:29 are most relevant.) Under these circumstances it's clearly not OK to bother the two users with suspicions. CalendarWatcher could still be a sockpuppet, but proving this would require a checkuser. Hans Adler 18:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • "But I found some instances where one account made two edits in one minute"—yes, I guess you'd need some sort of wireless device sitting next to your desktop in order to throw people off the scent; so thank goodness such a technologically fantastical set-up will not be available for decades to come. Back to the real world: AR and CW made edits within two minutes at (the obscure) User_Talk:64.193.88.7, and that doesn't seem unusual? It would be interesting to hear AR's explanation for the edit summary "I guess I should add myself, as a CalendarWatcher"—entered with no space and the same capitalisation as CW's username.  HWV258.  19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • So open a flaming SPI already!!!1!!!1111!! I'm not going to do your dirty work or dig through diffs to find evidence to persuade a checkuser to act. You don't need to be an admin to go to WP:SPI Fences&Windows 17:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Those who are of the opinion that CW is a sock need to either put forth evidence for a formal investigation or drop the matter and move on. At this point, it seems clear that if they continue to press the matter directly with CW, it will serve only to potentially provoke further incidents. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'd also like a bit more in the way of equal treatment here. GregL removes someone else's posts and nobody bats an eye. I remove a warning from CalenderWatcher's page (it didn't need to be there; someone already warned them and Treasury Tag should know better than to use a template) and I get treated like I just raped a nun. I'm beginning to wonder how a good number of you became admins. Was there some sort of raffle or something? HalfShadow 22:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Do be careful about removing posts or templates placed by others on talk pages. GregL should have put that thread in an archive box, but removing irrelevant chat is not exactly the biggest crime on Wikipedia.We become admins by nurturing hundreds of sockpuppet accounts, sucking up to the cabal, offering sexual favours, and making denial of service attacks against Citizendium - or at least that's how I managed it. Fences&Windows 17:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:JzG

Resolved

 – Question asked and question answered. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:JzG is protected, tho I do not know why. Just a moment ago I went there to leave him a message but I could not due to the protection. How can I contact JzG if his talk page is indefinitely protected? And, is this allowed? 75.146.7.110 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave the message here and I will point him to it. –xeno^talk 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's not indefinitely protected; it's protected until 10:47 tomorrow morning. Yes, it is allowed; see here. – iridescent 17:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It says

User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption. User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. Users whose talk page are semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.

I didn't see any recent vandalism in the history. Nor did I see any unprotected talk subpage. What gives? 75.146.7.110 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of this is complicated? It is not indefinitely protected. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 19:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also only semi-protected, the history says because of "trolling", which one would think the OP here would have seen if he had actually looked at the page history. He could use his registered logon right now and leave a message, if it's urgent. And now of course we're curious as to what the message is. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There was repeat harassment up until the 30th when it was protected. A few days is not a long time, so no subpage is necessary. Yes, it is inline with policy. What do you want to communicate to him? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From April 30 until May 7 seems too long to be a "short duration," so the continued protection of the talk page is inappropriate, especially after he resumed editing on May 4. Editors should not have to contact some intermediary to have that person relay messages to an active editor. I would have no objection to indefinite protection of a user page, since if an editor were off-Wiki, statements could be placed there by others purporting to be views of the absent editor, creating a false and harmful impression. Edison (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could politely suggest that to him.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This section constitutes just the 3rd and 4th edits by the IP since December, the previous one being April 1. If it's really urgent, presumably he could use e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon's can't email. –xeno^talk 20:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Register an account? --John (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely it can't be that easy? –xeno^talk 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

IPs have the right to edit Wikipedia (with noted limits) and that includes the right to contact other editors on their talk pages, without being forced to register a user name. Requiring an IP to register so he can contact an editor who has semi-protected his own talk page while actively editing is an unreasonable demand. Edison (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in spirit, but this is simply not the case as it is today: Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely semi-protected talk pages. –xeno^talk 15:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the policy does not square with widespread practice. In which case, the policy loses, since most WP policies are imposed by the community and can be altered either textually or in practice by the will of the community. The IP can seek out an administrator to help.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bluebonnet

Resolved

 – I've copied this to Talk:Bluebonnet; no admin action needed here unless behavioral issues crop up later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a minor edit war going on in this article. One user continues to post what is apparently a personal photo in the gallery. Another, possibly someone that knows the poster, keeps reverting it. What is the rule here? The photo illustrates the Texas tradition of photograpping people sitting in the bluebonnets. Is there any reason a personal photo shouldn't be allowed? In short, who's in the "right" in this edit skirmish? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Has that file even been uploaded? I'm not seeing it. —DoRD (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, after reading the file name again, I'll add that Jeff Pruitt is a professional photog in Arlington, Texas, so the photo will almost certainly be a copyvio. —DoRD (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Photo was recently deleted on Commons. Link removed. I suppose my Admin contract says I'm supposed to sternly warn both parties about edit warring, but I think I'll choose to laugh at them instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My assumption is it's a couple of junior high schoolers bickering. I would still like to know, though - if there is no copyright issue involved, is there any rule against uploading a personal photo? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

all article content needs to be relevant to the subject. It seems from the description that it's rather doubtful it is. There seems to be at least one other irrelevant picture also, the one of a dog. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject is the bluebonnet flower, and the dog is amongst the bluebonnets. Although it does seem to be more about the dog. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As it is the state flower of Texas, and it is longstanding tradition in Texas to photograph one's children surrounded by Bluebonnets, I think that such a photo would be acceptable if the article included some sourced explanation of the tradition. A better photograph, however, would be a photograph of a photographer taking a photo of said children. I agree that the dog is simply fluff, though. —DoRD (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so a photo of a non-notable person who's identified by name is not an issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say that. I was thinking more along the lines of a generic photo of an unnamed photog taking a photo of some random family's children sitting in a typical field of bluebonnets. —DoRD (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The reasons why I have been involved in this "edit war" is pretty much what you have discussed as far as the photo goes. At first it was merely a nuisance. While I agree with Floquenbeam that it was a bit laughable, but I would have appreciated some guidance in the proper procedures before it got to the point that it did. In fact, I had also asked WhisperToMe some guidance, but I erroneously thought that was my only recourse was to put it up for deletion. When I tried to nominate the file, it was simply ignored. You can see this has been a long series of errors, and misjudgments. It was only after I saw the link to this "Debate" that I hope this gets resolved properly. So much for the "Stern warning" and see my overall body of edits as opposed to this minor incident. --Hourick (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It often takes a very, very long time for image deletion requests on Commons to be decided. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Replace article to mainspace

 Done

Could an Admin please replace this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Off2riorob/Graham_Jones_(politician) article I have been saving in my user space, it was deleted at AFD but he seems to have won a seat in the election, making him notable. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Graham Jones (politician) but I suggest you confirm and cite his claims to notability pretty soon :) SGGH ^ping! 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and properly moved from userspace (as opposed to copied and pasted); intro reworked to note his election as MP and source it to the BBC. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It still looks a bit messy. I blanked this and tagged it and it appeared on the mainspace article, it seems to be a redirect with my username still included? I could have cut and copied it myself, last time I did that I got told it was totally wrong. All the edit history is lost. Do I still need this redirect? User_talk:Off2riorob/Graham_Jones_(politician) ?Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is all sorted. Graham Jones (politician) has the correct history attached; User talk:Off2riorob/Graham Jones (politician) has been deleted. is there anything else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you it looks tidy now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Outing in talk page

Can someone please do something against <removed> of attempted WP:OUTING by 77.209.79.11 (talk · contribs) aka JuanR (talk · contribs). I have no intention to say anything about it, nor to notify the user of this entry. Can the string of edits be oversighted please? Thanks in advance. DVdm (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT would be the place to request this, I'm hiding the information because this board is public--SKATER ^Speak. 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP with dynamic address

Recently, for a 9 day period, an IP with a dynamic address in the range 74.12.x.x persistently removed valid content against consensus at List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes.[200][201][202][203][204] Because the IP's address is dynamic, it was impossible to adequately warn the IP on his talk page and he ignored edit summaries explaining the reversion of his removals. The IP actually raised the matter on my talk page but was still generally uncooperative. I provided links to the talk page discussion and sources citing the episode's name as the title he kept deleting but, despite this, the IP kept removing the information, even when the name was accompanied by a warning not to.[205] I requested temporary protection, which kept the page stable for a few days.

While the page was protected the IP continued to "discuss" the matter on my talk page, several times asking when the page would be unprotected. When he eventually realised the page was unprotected again he began vandalising the page, first by re-adding a copyvio despite the warning comment,[206] and then by restoration of the copyvio and vandalism[207] that had recently been reverted by another editor.[208] After that he vandalised my talk page.[209][210]

List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes has now been protected again but I was wondering if a rangeblock or some other action might be appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is right place but..

There is a serious IP vandal who keeps inserting "I like pie" or something regarding pies. I've seen it numerous times and I was wondering if there is anything we can do. Thanks, Tommy2010 23:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can warn them four times and then send them to AIV if they continue. As vandalism goes "I like pie" is rather innocuous, and is fairly common- I'd say I see it several times a week, every week. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, I too see it quite frequently. Perhaps Cluebot could add this to its already formidable repertoire? Rodhullandemu 23:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's an IP hopper on many IPs and usernames though. Tommy2010 23:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cluebot deals with IP's also, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My usual approach is that if a user or IP vandalizes once, I make note of it, but do nothing, as it might have been a test. If he does it again, I warn them. If they ignore the warning and keep doing it, I go to AIV with it immediately and let the admin decide if it's worth 4 warnings. Someone who is obviously vandalism-only doesn't require 4 warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just one person, Tommy2010; it's a children's crusade. Deor (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Depending on the nature of the IP, I might reject a report where the IP hasn't received the full course of warnings. If it's dynamic, I'm almost certainly going to reject, but static IPs, especially schools, are more likely to get a block. (Named accounts are another story.) But to get to the original question: Unless there's something to tie all the "pie" vandal IPs together, I'd be hesitant to call it one person. Without evidence to the contrary, I'd tend to think it's a bunch of random schoolkids or other people with nothing better to do. —DoRD (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, there are a lot worse vandalisms they could be doing. Now, if they start writing "I like $\pi$", we'll know we're dealing with a different breed of vandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why go through the bureaucracy? If they are here to vandalize, just block them. NW (Talk) 00:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wish I could :( Tommy2010 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Clarification: What I really mean is, for example, if an IP received a level-1 and -2 warning a couple of days ago, and a level-3 or -4 just now, I'm unlikely to block unless the vandalism is severe or if it's obvious that it's the same person. On the other hand, I frequently see IPs being reported for "vandalism past final warning" that got their final warning days, weeks, or months ago, or a report of an IP with a single level-4im warning for something as innocuous as "poop" (or "I like pie") vandalism. But it all really boils down to using one's judgment in each case. —DoRD (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

...Which is why "final warnings" to IP vandals are a waste of energy. If they persist, turn them in. If they stop, then recess was probably over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fully with User:Nuclear Warfare here. The prime objective is to protect this encyclopedia from damage; occasionally, some innocent editors may be blocked because of the the sins of others. That is the whole point to blocking IP addresses, and particularly school IP addresses. I regard these addresses as having collective responsibility, and although if vandalism isn't recent I will warn before blocking. However, it is my experience that the levels of warnings are unsuited to that type of vandal; a single edit can dispel good faith, and therefore warnings may start at a somewhat higher level, and more so if the contribs history shows a concerted campaign. In short, the message needs to made quite clear that we are not patsies for people who take adantage of our good faith. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I used to do that but I got in trouble. Tommy2010 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you should continue to do it. We have an ongoing problem with vandalism, that we have to live with, without any particular reason for doing so. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% behind Rod here. If you get an idiot like that who keeps going after a warning and and admin refuses to block at AIV, bring 'em to my talk page. You can always use a 4im "first and final" warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

School IPs? No, I have no qualms about dropping the hammer there. But HJ, I couldn't disagree more about 4im warnings. —DoRD (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do Rod. Thanks for your help. Tommy2010 01:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

@DoRD : It depends; there's obviously a difference between a concerted campaign of WP:BLP violations or vandalism and a user who just happens to use the same IP address as previous vandals; an examination of the contribs should make that clear; however, if a school IP is repeatedly vandalising, a suitable warning notice should make them read their Talk page, and perhaps understand that they are on thin ice. This doesn't necessarily mean a final warning straight off, unless the contribs indicate such, but such editors should be put on notice that we are not going to tolerate continued vandalism. Rodhullandemu 02:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked on Cluebot's talk page if the bot can be made to revert this phrase. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a genuinely recurring problem (I haven't seen it, but I don't specialize in anti-vandalism work), I suppose a request could be made for an addition to the abuse filter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Edit filter? Both Cluebot and Edit filter would work well for this type of thing... for Cluebot drop a line to User talk:Coren User talk:Cobi.Shadowjams (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're on this subject by the way.... there's a much more pernicious vandalism problem that I see a lot of and is much more destructive than adding obviously irrelevant sentences, and that is the subtle date/number change vandalism. Math articles tend to be left alone, surprisingly, but dates (usually birthdates, but also things like sports and TV airtime dates) are a prime target. For instance, I just got done tracking down a dynamic IP that's entire contribution history amounts to changing dates on cartoon articles. It went on for at least a weeks without anyone noticing, even though a few other editors had undone those edits but not issued any warnings.

This is a harder problem to fix too because some of these edits could be legitimate, and editors often assume they are. It is also nearly impossible to fashion a rule to flag it in edit filter due to some of its programing constraints. One idea is to alert projects (especially TV projects) that this is a common problem and that warnings help editors know when it's a single edit and when it's part of a pattern. I'm curious if I'm the only one who's noticed this. Shadowjams (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

See [211] for another example. Numeric changes only, but obviously pure vandalism. Thundermaker (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)