Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive559

Printing out old article

Resolved

 – Well, not really, but it isn't exactly an AN/I topic, either. HalfShadow 18:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I print out an article from its history, the pink banner which is visible on screen ("This is an old version of the page, as edited by xxx on xxx etc etc") does not print out (I've tried several pages). I'm sure it used to. Is this a deliberate change? If so, why? I found the printed banner just as useful as the one on screen.

Thanks for any info and help 145.64.134.241 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrator attention. Try WP:VPT instead. Algebraist 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads concern

Hi all. Today I chanced upon a logo for a university in the Philippines, and noticed it was tagged with a GFDL license. I changed it to fair use and added the requisite rationale. However, I noticed the uploader had also added a number of other images to Wikipedia, all tagged with free licenses. [1] I suspect they are all also copyvios: I only looked at a couple others but they don't have sources and some of them appear to be a bit too good for a 17 year old to create. Someone may want to check out his uploads and resolve the issues. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of the images in that gallery are on commons, so you might want to drop a note there too. Deleted one here as a copyvio, tagged the version at commons, and tagged one here as lacking proper permission. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I tagged another logo copyvio over there and left a note on their admin noticeboard to have someone check his other contributions. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism on LGBT parenting article

There has been an issue on the LGBT parenting article with User:Destinero adding plagiarized text. The LGBT parenting talk page details the most recent incident (see section called Plagiarism Again) which led to a shutdown of the article and a 2nd warning being issued to Destinero. You can find information concerning the first warning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive104#User:Destinero_reported_by_User:Tobit2_.28Result:_No_action.29 and both warnings on Destinero's Talk Page under the sections "editing warring on LGBT parenting" and "Please read this discussion and result carefully."

Fast foward to today. Recently, after the last incident calmed down, I attempted to repair the plagiarized text. Nevertheless, today, Destinero added it back, reverting the edit. Here is the diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=308757410&oldid=308209508

The plagiarized phrase in question is, "...documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment," giving us 21 words lifted verbatim from a source. Additionally, the article provides four sources for this statement although it has been lifted from one. The last admin to help out was Virtual Steve. Thank you. Tobit2 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Russavia again

I'd appreciate if an admin either close or make a call on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Russavia. the disruptive editing has continued again today. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's an archived thread, I would expect that the matter is closed/resolved. Please detail what "disruptive editing" by this user continued again. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

doesn't it get automatically archived? appears no action was taken by any admin. Russavia (talk · contribs) has been disrupting plenty of Kosovo related articles and tagging them with a POV tag in retaliation for another user questioning South ossetia articles. despite many users trying to ask him to stop, he continues tagging and adding copy and pasted text to article talk pages. this is a breach of WP:POINT. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I sugges Libstar that you read WP:TALK and stop removing talk page comments placed by others. In other words, get a grip and stop being a monumental WP:DICK. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if what is good for the goose (A&SO) then one can only expect in an NPOV environment that it is good for the gander (Kosovo) too. If A&SO articles have to be full of information on how they are not internationally recognised as sovereign states, and how Georgia still considers it part of its territory, then so too will Kosovo articles. Why shouldn't the Australia-Kosovo relations article contain information in it, that Serbia considers the recognition an illegality and also contain further information on the Serbian POV of this; particularly as others are demanding it on A&SO articles.

I highly doubt that a WP:NPOV response will be forthcoming, which is hardly surprising --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

why is it that a number of editors have raised your disruptive editing on your talk page [2] yet you still continue to disrupt. WP:NPOV refers to content in articles not comments in ANIs. does everyone else see the mounting personal attacks of Russavia? LibStar (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else see your mass removal of other peoples' comments from article talk pages as disruptive and a clear violation of WP:TALK? Please stop. Offliner (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed and agree with Offliner.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

you might want to see Russavia's motivations for this. as per my comment in the original ANI: nominations like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Serbian relations seem to be consistent with WP:POINT. Russavia's motivation seems revenge [3] and disrupting Wikipedia to achieve this is not good. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

English...do you speak it? What part of WP:TALK do you not understand? Oh, and when an editor is removing talk page comments as you have in the way that you have, I have a little bit of a right to be pissed, particularly when you have been told NOT TO REMOVE OTHERS TALK PAGE COMMENTS on no less than 3 occasions, and you have chosen to ignore it. Oh, and the editors were who? You and a Kosovan-nationalist? I'm not surprised that the Kosovan-nationalist would be removing the POV dispute tags from the articles. But removal of talk page comments as you have now done on 3-4 occasions per article is absolutely disruptive, particularly when it is clear that there is a dispute -- does one think that by removing traces of it, the dispute disappears? Not on your f'ing life. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's refrain from profanity/vulgarities in this discussion. Not because I'm offended (I'm not), or that someone might be, but for a very pragmatic reason. Back when I worked in retail, & a customer had a complaint, they effectively lost all persuasiveness the moment the customer started to swear -- & we were allowed to hang up on them. Don't lose a discussion here because you resorted to vulgarity, even if it was lightly veiled. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

useless stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld

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

---

Resolved

 – This is not a place to discuss whether stubs created by Dr. Blofeld are useful or not. And we don't block people for creating stubs. AdjustShift (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

wonderful, and good-buy to you all, Huldra (talk)

For the last couple of years, some of us have tried to clean up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestine_War. Now User:Dr. Blofeld has decied to make our task much harder, by creating tons of useless stubs. I have tries to talk to him, but he just removes my comments on his user.page. Could somebody PLEASE block that guy!! Now!Please! Huldra (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to dispute resolution. This is not the place to discuss disagreements over content (which is what this boils down to). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As a better idea, try talking with the guy first. I noticed that you haven't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See [4]. –xeno^talk 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have said above: he just removed my comments. Huldra (talk)

• Somewhat related: Wikipedia:VPP#Automated creation of stubs, see also the proposal beneath it. –xeno^talk 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I have said on his talk-page: *You have just managed to do what no fanatical pro-Israeli editor has managed in 4 years: made me stop contributing to Wp. Congratulation, you #%//(&$%##$%. You must be proud. Huldra (talk)

It makes cleaning up lots and lots more difficult. I am going to ask for Adf for every single one of these stubs. I just cannot believe that anyone can be allowed to make such massive disruption! I feel I run against a tank, or something... jeeez. Huldra (talk)

Would you like a list of those articles that have not been edited by Blofeld? –xeno^talk 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A case of WP:OWN. He puts an article on the main page, adds a list of red links revealing a lot of missing content and then he starts crying at ANI, what a baby. All of these starter stubs are referenced with your pea soup colored Palestinian infobox ready for expansion. You have no right to order people what or what they should create. If you didn't want the missing articles started then common sense don't red link them or make them appear in the template. We should have articles on these, a starter stub is a step in the right direction. There is only a set amount of articles, you are overreacting. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. if tanks are so offensive, don't mention them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all: I am a *she* (read Huldra....) ...and the "articles" you have created are absolutely useless, as anyone can see. If you had done *any* work at all, with anyone of them, it would have been great! I have always *strongly* welcomed other editors to work with the 1948-villages. But you are, it looks to me, on some silly game of creating as many "articles" as possible(?), with no regard as to the *extra* work you create for others. As I have said above: now we cannot see which needs work, and which does not. Huldra (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a list of articles appearing on that template that do not appear in Blofeld's last 1000 edits. This should help you to sort the ones requiring cleanup from the ones requiring expansion: [5]. And here [6] filters out articles not edited by Huldra in last 1000. –xeno^talk 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. I´m not very tecknical; can this help us with "undoing" the articles? Huldra (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That would require AFD. –xeno^talk 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see; I should template them with {db-a3}? Huldra (talk)

I think these just barely scrape by the A3 criteria. –xeno^talk 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deal with the new articles and move on. Just because something is not to your own liking you ar eillustrating a very selfish outlook on wikipedia Huldra. You don't WP:OWN these articles or set of articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time: I almost jumping up and down with joy each time a new (or old!) editor helps us with the -48-villages, so to be accused of "owning" is strange, to say the least. But I would appriciate "help" that is actually "helpful"..that is: which reduce the work-load for the rest of us...And not the opposite.Huldra (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the source he is using. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Expressing dissatisfaction with your shotgun approach to editing doesn't mean one has ownership issues with articles, why don't we drop the heated rhetoric here. It would also help the situation if you did not treat users who leave messages on your talk page with dismissive contempt all the time, i.e. what a baby and oh do go away , which was a just simple request for you to recosndier some words here. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an expression of contempt towards the belligerent souls that hang out here and think they are in a position to judge and order other editors what to do on a daily basis. You rock ANI! What an awesome place. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic above, why didn't you also create articles for the redlinked districts? Nathan ^T 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with these stubs? Short, but a good start for expansion. For example it allows IP editors to edit and has the article name, infobox, categories etc. in place. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to what the hubbub is all about. These are valid subjects for articles, why someone would leave Wikipedia because they're here just amazes me. If you don't like them, ignore them, there's no way they should be AFD'd, and if they were, you'd need better reasoning than "there are too many of them", or "they're not sourced". AfD is not for cleanup. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Huldra has begun adding specious speedy delete tags on the Palestinian village articles she's upset about. I have removed the tags, as there is no speedy deletion criterion for places. I've also warned her that if she puts PROD tags on them, I'll remove those, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A3 could apply to a place. Whether it does or not in these instances is up for debate. (Probably not as it has some context) –xeno^talk 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It would absolutely not in this instance. There is clearly content and context for the aforementioned places. --Smashville^talk 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an absurd report. We don't block people for creating stubs! Huldra should be warned for making this inappropriate report, and wasting the time of admins. AdjustShift (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted this comment at Huldra's talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P.s. my apologies to the guys above. There "are" decent guys here who don't spend all their time watching the wikidrama unfold on here, I was referring purely to those who seem to relish the drama and then scold editors who are trying to improve the encylopedia and make them feel like a vandal. I've expanded nearly ten of these article already like Arab al-Safa, I have never know anybody to cause so much fuss. This group of articles is manageable. All were started anyway with the appropriate infobox and reference to be expanded. I'm sorry but I'm not sure how I can apologise for doing what I thought was a good thing to help wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, please ignore this report. This is an absurd report; no admin is silly enough to block you for creating stubs!!! You've ameliorated WP for a long time, and please keep on ameliorating WP! AdjustShift (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that adding permastubs by bot-like insertions from some external list of things "improves" the encyclopedia, although it does inflate the count of articles created for those who value such statistics. Edison (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld has also developed multiple other "non-stub" articles. According to our blocking policy, Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. How can blocking someone for creating stubs is going to reduce the likelihood of future problems? Acceptable stubs may not add great value to the encyclopedia, but it is better to have acceptable stubs than nothing. I don't like red links; it is far better to have an acceptable stub than a red link. AdjustShift (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice assumption of good faith, there, Edison. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Resolved

 – blocked 24 hours[7] Ikip (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

... and then unblocked after an apology and commitment to redact the statement, which is now done. –xeno^talk 21:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

was: Cursing

"Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch."

At the bottom by user Dr.Blofeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huldra

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's wholly untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be responding to an off-wiki attack (though I haven't looked at it). I agree it's not acceptable -- somebody should maybe go there and tell folks to cool it down. IronDuke 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd block him for the unbelievably over the top personal attack/harangue, but I don't want the drama, honestly. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Let's refocus this. It's not the use of naughty words. Its the personal attack that is the problem. Using words like bitch or fuck or shit is no problem. Calling someone a bitch IS a problem, and must not be allowed to persist. --Jayron32 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, calling someone a bitch isn't necessarily a problem, and I can show you at least one example of an editor who would agree that she's a bitch. The problem is that in a statement like "Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch" the use of the word "bitch is almost incidental, and certainly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is the "Never come back you stinking nasty little ..." bit. It really wouldn't matter what word ended that sentence, it would still be unnacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say what Jayron said - it's the serious violation of WP:NPA that is the issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Blofeld of this discussion and left him the sternest of possible warnings regarding personal attacks. If he continues, he will be blocked. If he lets it drop, I think we can chalk this up to momentary lapse of reason. But the attacks of this nature will not persist. --Jayron32 21:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out a few other examples of blofeld's incivility in the previous section. This is becoming a rather nasty pattern, and the "I was provoked off-wiki" bit is really no excuse. Tarc (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The off-wiki site referenced above is here: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25817 –xeno^talk 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no personal attack that I see off wiki:

Until yesterday. Blofeld comes along and find he does not like red links, and decides that he will start all the red-linked villages...and turn the whole template into on huuuge green soup. And does just that.[8]

Here is Blofields original response:

I've already notched up well over 500 edits expanding these stubs. Meanwhile you sit around being lazy, weeping in the shadows. Ironically it is me who is now doing all the work, not you. You are very silly people if you think these articles will be left by me. I am working my arse off expanding these, the least you can do is do the decent thing and return and join the party. Take a day or two away if needs be, when you return you'll see you've been wasting your time by leaving. You must enjoy editing these articles, you are losing out if you don't return.[9]

And his later response:

On second thoughts, she can rot in hell. Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch. One thing I hate is people who talk about other people behind their backs because they are too gutless to confront them in person. You go bad mouthing people like me and Slim Virgin and others off behind our backs. Really honorable behaviour. You are a weak person.[10]

Ikip (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch" should result in an immediate two week block without warning. There's no excuse for that behavior, especially if you know better according to the policies. Calling someone such names is a problem. I am proposing a block that is a minimum of two weeks. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So is this a kangaroo court or a lynch mob? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well...I may have jumped the gun then...I didn't see this thread yet and just blocked him for 24 hours. If anyone feels like extending it...feel free. --Smashville^talk 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The 24 hour block is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were an administrator, Dr. Biofeld would be blocked immediately for a very long time. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who sees fault only on one side will hopefully never be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have also warned Nableezy for his inappropriate response to Blofelds attack. Just because someone personally attacks another user does not give everyone else free liscence to personally attack them in return. This entire pattern of behavior needs to cease. --Jayron32 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Attacking back is indeed inexcusable. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• @Ikip, to be fair, she also said Blofeld "has added nothing to the 'public knowledge'" and that he should "clean up his own diarrhoea, eh, poo" [sic]. Though off-wiki, she has linked it from her userpage. (I have no dog in this fight, and find it unfortunate that both contributors who share common ground in that they feel these articles are notable are coming to such violent disagreements) –xeno^talk 21:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would have much preferred Jayron's approach; not everything is solved with a block. I suppose I can resist getting worked up over a 24 hour cooldown block, and hope it actually has its intended effect. A two week block is a silly idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've actually unblocked him after the apology on his talkpage, which appears sincere, so that he may refactor or simply delete the comment. Preventative, not punitive. --Smashville^talk 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Although after noticing that he had posted the same thing twice and in the first one mentions that he was going to "report", quite honestly, I probably would have left it up if I had seen that first, as that makes it appear he doesn't understand what he did. Well...we'll find out soon. --Smashville^talk 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. I would go so far as to say that unblocking them was rash. But what's done is done. We don't need a third turn of the wheel, as it were. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Dr.Blofled was blocked for incivility and unblocked for the pledge to remove the problematic comment, but then why this personal attacks by nableezy (talk · contribs) are not noted on the same ground?

Is it possible for you not to be a complete asshole? Fuck off if your whole purpose here is to antagonize a user who has done incredible work in this area. You keep spouting this bullshit about "the sum of all human knowledge" but your recent additions have added nothing to that goal while chasing off a user who had been working her ass off trying to create an actual reference on the topic.[11]

In addition, this and that show that he would not refrain from such behaviors.--Caspian blue 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just hadn't gotten to that yet. I had blocked Dr. Blofled but then come here to ask about Nableezy when I saw there was already the discussion about him and I got sidetracked. --Smashville^talk 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy was already warned by Nishkid. –xeno^talk 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned several times.--Caspian blue 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At least I can understand why Dr. Blofelds reacted so harshly given the nasty and personal off-wiki attacks and the ANI complaints by her. Not a reason for him to call Huldra whatever, but somewhat understandable, and judging from his talk page he now understands this and apologized. But for Nableezy's attacks I have a hard time seeing the rationale, and there is not even an apology forthcoming, in fact he even confirms his attacks on Dr. Blofeld. Pantherskin (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone has said a few things in anger that upon reflection they will find were better left unsaid. Knowing Nableezy and Huldra well, I'd say that the rationale would be that Nableezy, as someone who has worked with and appreciated Huldra's work, is upset at losing her and doesn't take well to women he respects being called bitches. For Dr. Blofeld, he's upset at not having his efforts appreciated and discussed in less than favourable terms in off-wiki forums. For Huldra, she's upset at having something she was working on reorganized in a way that makes it hard for her to pick where she left out. Anyway, I think its best to just unblock or not block anyone. We need to retain editors, not chase them away. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, this is out of respect?[12]----Caspian blue 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Users don't get punished here for off-wiki comments. You know that, so please, enough with your usual rabble rousing. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, no thanks for your typical appearance to make such personal attacks. Since the matter is related to off-Wiki, I linked it. Besides, it is happening that some ArbCom case uses off-Wiki evidences to punish users, so you're wrong 'again as always.:-)--Caspian blue 23:18, 18 August 2009 (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.

Disrupted AfD for Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

• I've speedy-closed the above AfD on grounds of canvassing, and invited the nominator to start a fresh nomination in a day or so. I invite comments about whether that was appropriate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• As the nominator, my preference would be to keep the AfD open and to note the canvassed comments so that the closing admin can discount them. There is really no need to discard the good-faith comments (both delete and keep) made prior to the canvassing.  Sandstein  20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• AfD's should not be closed early due to canvassing except in incredibly extreme circumstances; and even in those cases, the decision to do so should be left to an administrator. Disruption (excepting a disruptive nomination) is not a valid reason to speedily close a discussion, and therefore is not a valid reason for a non-admin to close the discussion. This should be re-opened, and comments left as a result of canvassing properly tagged. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep. Anything else is pretty much an invitation for disruption. Amalthea 21:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the comments on both sides look sensible, and even the socks turned out to be a pair of panty-hose. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I may live to regret this, but I have undone the close, figuring that if it is done quickly now, the drama will be kept to a minimum. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think that was a mistake, Elen. The outcome of this canvassing-tainted discussion is open to reasonable doubt because of procedural irregularities, so I do not now expect any closure to survive DRV.

  Nevertheless, mistake though that was, the least disruptive course now is to run with it and see what happens.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can say, I think you are making a great deal more fuss about this canvassing than it warrants. This isn't an AfD full of disruptive socks, everyone is making very sound comments on both sides. I've learned stuff about the German ex-nobility, just from the discussion. And, since these are real Wikipedians with independent views (and as several have pointed out, they are entitled to share their view even if they were canvassed), and not a bunch of Sockenpuppen, I think there is a good chance that the outcome of the debate will be accepted by all. Except perhaps yourself, given that you felt compelled to close the AfD rather than report the canvassing here and await a consensus on further action. But then, I don't know what outcome would satisfy you. Incidentally, I note that other than your note, no-one has really said anything much to the canvasser - no threats of blocking etc. Was that something you would be looking for? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, we'll see whether anyone challenges it. (I shall, if the outcome is "delete", since I think it's simple common sense that the outcome should be some variant of "keep"; and I explained my reasoning at the AfD.)

  I agree that I'm taking the canvassing more seriously than most, but then, I do think it matters. AfDs should not be tainted by canvassing lest the conclusion be unsafe.

  I'm quite satisfied that I acted correctly in (a) notifying the nominator and the canvasser, (b) closing the tainted AfD, and then (c) bringing the matter here for discussion. Editors aren't helpless slaves to AN/I; we're told to be bold for a reason. Equally, I think your reversion of my close was in good faith. You made a judgment call in a matter for which there appears to be no policy or guideline, so again WP:BRD applies. So I'll just note that I think the AfD probably should have been left closed and recommend further discussion so we can reach consensus on what to do with canvassing-tainted AfDs at a later date (i.e. when it's about the procedure in general; if we discussed it now, it would be about this AfD).

  I think my note on the canvassing editor's talk page is sufficient and no further sanctions should be imposed in this case. You should assume the canvassing editor was unaware of the policy rather than deliberately being disruptive unless there's evidence to the contrary.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the canvassers - I do think it was done without intent to disrupt and in ignorance of the rules. Indeed, if they had worded it just a little differently it would have been legitimate. As it is, a few people have expressed an opinion that might not other wise have seen the AfD, both as a result of the canvassing and as a result of this ANI filing. I do not in this case see it as 'tainted', but I understand and accept your broader concern. In terms of closing the AfD, I think it could be argued that it did not fall into the category of discussions suitable for non-admin close, but I recognise your good faith, and there may be grounds to have discussion in another place regarding AfD's where canvassing has taken place, and if specific guidelines need to be written.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Szląchski articles from user drafts

• User talk:Dr. Szląchski#Copying material from user drafts
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&contribs=user&target=Dr.+Szląchski&namespace=0

There are ~16 articles which Dr. Szląchski has copy-pasted from userspace drafts. I'm not sure if it's best to do a history merge on all of them, or to go through and ask the original authors first, or what. Frankly I'd like for this to be someone else's problem -- volunteers welcome! :-) Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Don't anyone mess about with it for the next 20-30 minutes. I'm gonna try and fix as many as I can find. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, so far:
  • Rapistrum, Orlando Aloysius Battista, Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680–1800, Pocket set theory, Cryptzone AB (publ), Lie group homomorphism, The Western Brothers, Philosophia Botanica have been history merged. The original 'creators' of the draft pages haven't been sent a message yet, but I'll do that shortly. Should they want these back in userspace I'll simply move them back, but I felt these ones were reasonable to have in article space.
    • I sent messages to editors whose drafts got moved out into mainspace. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Baltic religion has been redirected to Balts. Not sure where the original draft is from or if there was one.
  • Davis Leslie Hawksworth and Janet E. Marsh are of dubious notability and I don't know where the original drafts were. I may send them to AfD.
    • Davis Leslie Hawksworth was a misspelling. David Leslie Hawksworth is probably notable. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janet_E._Marsh started. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • He was importing Taxon Authority listings from Wikispecies; I've explained to him why he shouldn't do that. DS (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Áskell Löve, Enrico Mazzanti, Jean A. C. Chaptal, Consolidated_Electric_Light_Co._v._McKeesport_Light_Co, and SM U-82 are likely notable if the claims on the page are true. I don't know if they were from borrowed drafts or where those drafts are from.
  • Wafer Level Optics should probably be merged into Wafer-level optics (or vice versa, I don't know which is correct), and I don't know if it came from a draft originally.
    • Redirected. The second one should probably be expanded, de-orphaned. Protonk (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • List_of_women_treated_in_George_Ballard_Members_of_British_Ladies should probably be deleted. Not sure yet through what means.
    • Draft author notified. Not sure what to do with the list itself. Protonk (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• That about covers their created articles. Did I miss any? Protonk (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, nice work! I tracked down a few you weren't sure about: Melchoir (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co is from User:Eastlaw/draft
    • Áskell Löve is from species:Áskell Löve
    • Wafer Level Optics was from http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=30459
      • I merged Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co and informed the author. http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=30459 is a dead link for me (w/ no archive), but may be a moot point (I redirected it to an existing article on the same subject). Not sure what to do about Áskell Löve. Protonk (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the trouble and I will not create anymore articles in this fashion. I will now try to make articles the right way. Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal Request for Assistance

Hello, I am aware that the administrator Alison is no longer active on wikipedia. Could someone possibly give me contact information for her? If that is not okay, I would be happy to provide a message to be passed on to her, but I would prefer if that happened through email rather than a public forum. Thank you for your assistance. --Xj754 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the user page of any Wikipedian who has enabled this option (and Alison is one of them) you can find a link on the left side labelled "E-mail this user". It looks like Alison still has hers up; you can click that link to email her. For privacy reasons, we cannot give out the email addresses of any of our editors. (Your email address will be visible to her when you send the message; you will not see her address unless she chooses to reply.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

disruptive user

Resolved

 – Editor had been blocked, and unblock request declined (by me). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es stubbornly continues to breach the consensus reached and continues returning unconstitutional names and symbols to infobox although it was agreed to only have them under a section explaining them. Refers to my edits as vandalism for trying to keep the consensus and marks his edits as minor so as not to see them. [13] [14] Adds ridiculous propaganda such as this [15] and this [16] WP:OR WP:RS. Removes information from lead simply because he does not like it. [17] PRODUCER (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

The page for Latham & Watkins was on my watch list for some reason, maybe having to do with an edit war from last May that was on this page - a war that appears to be resuming. I don't know who's right, if either one - there seems to be a POV-push-pull going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A cursory glance suggests that one editor might be the main problem, pushing a pretty strong POV (compare the current version to a recent one, just a quick read of the lead shows what the problem is). I'll take a look over there, but it might just be a matter of warning one editor away from POV pushing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is one editor that is the problem and a glance at his talk page indicates that he's been blocked for this very behavior previously. What we have is an unresponsive SPA dedicated to turning an article into a bashfest. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and accordingly I've indefinitely blocked User:Lathaminfo (see their talk page for my block message). This is clearly a POV-pushing SPA out to defame a particular law firm (and individual people), as evidenced by this edit, among others. A series of edits to Kilpatrick Stockton back in May were just as problematic but basically went unnoticed. [18][19][20][21]

I think an indef was a pretty obvious call here, but other admins are welcome to review and/or consider any unblock request. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Heal the World Foundation (moving discussion from wrong forum)

Moved from WT:OTRS.···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, forgive me if I don't know how to use this forum yet. I received mail about revising the heal the world foundation page from an administrator who is threatening to ban me if I dont stop changing the erroneous reporting on HTWF.

The Jackson estate did not say HTWF has nothing to do with Michael Jackson as reported on this site, but rather that HTWF has nothing to do with the estate currently. This error is causing damage to the charity and I want it removed for good and I don't know how to email him directly. please advise me.

Further, Our charity needs a bit of help from you volunteers as people trying to discredit the charity are going to make changes to the site, to harm them. Please do not let people change the HTWF listing. HTWF will save lives and one media report does not make something fact.

Melissa Johnson and HTWF is connected to Michael Jackson and will prove that in the near future, in the mean time, please help the charity ward off these attacks by people trying to harm them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkid (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

response to the above statement

No one is trying to "discredit the charity", as 'Mjkid' alleges above. The edits to the Heal The World Foundation article say that there is no known connection between Michael Jackson and the current Heal The World Foundation.

That is the truth.

Melissa Johnson has been repeatedly asked to provide any evidence or proof of her purported connection to Michael Jackson during his life. Her members have asked her to provide this. CBS News has asked her for proof that she knew Michael Jackson and had his endorsement. She has consistently failed to provide any evidence of this at all.

She cannot get "credibility" for her foundation by deleting facts from Wikipedia.

'Mjkid' is Melissa Johnson's user name on her own Heal The World Foundation website. That is the user name of the editor who made the above post. That is also the user name Melissa Johnson uses on many other sites, including MJJCommunity.com (see link below). 'Mjkid' is the Wikipedia editor who continues to edit and/or delete the fact that there is no known connection between Melissa Johnson's foundation and Michael Jackson personally.

Look at the Heal The World Foundation article history. The misleading information about Heal The World Foundation being connected to Michael Jackson has historically been provided by editor 'Mjkid'--who is Melissa Johnson, the founder and President of the current HTWF foundation. She is not an unbiased or independent source.

CBS News calls her foundation "fake" because no evidence of her connection to Michael Jackson has ever been produced by her, nor could CBS find any proof of a connection through independent investigation: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5234202.shtml

Many former members of her site are now posting all over the net that they have been banned from her site and all of their posts deleted for asking her for proof of legitimate connection to Jackson: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58378&page=8 (entire thread is interesting) and http://uncivilsociety.org/2009/07/is-michael-jacksons-charity-a.html#comment-292 are two of the most complete sources.

Providing unsourced, misleading, deceitful and possibly false information in a Wikipedia article is not OK. The Heal The World Article now states: "A different organization, with no known relationship to Michael Jackson's foundation, incorporated in the state of California under the same name and applied for new tax exempt status in 2008." This is a fact.

I do not think Melissa Johnson, aka 'Mjkid', can claim a known connection to Michael Jackson, or change the article again, unless she provides independent, verifiable proof of her foundation's connection to Jackson, and correctly cites the source.

I apologize to the forum for taking up space for this topic, in this fashion. 'Mjkid' brought the topic here and, because of intense global interest in Michael Jackson, I addressed it here. I am learning, but am not an experienced editor. Again, apologies.

All41and14all (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source says they are unconnected so that's what we go with (and what I have edited the article to say). --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Stormfront (website)

Resolved

 – Page protected, parties discussing amicably on talk.  Skomorokh  13:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has been rather volatile over the past month, and the participants don't show much indication of abating. Requesting an uninvolved administrator to intercede to discourage further reverting. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

IP 71.253.243.132 repeatdly posting link to miscellaneous script.

Hope this is the right place. IP 71.253.243.132 has been adding a link (See diff) on the Neopets article to http://www.neopets.com/guilds/preview_guild.phtml adding ?guild_bgcolor=[with code that links to an external script]. It does work so I'm not going to link it here. Make sure you turn off JavaScript before you follow it. Should this user be blocked? Should the address be blocked? RP9 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Nemonoman

Nemonoman (talk · contribs) While looking at Parapsychology, I found some surprising claims, and checked them against the sources, and discovered that the sources directly conflicted with the claims being made. Further research discovered a pattern of abuse of sources, and I nominated the article for FAR:

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1

As can be seen, I provided detailed analysis of an entire section, line by line, showing that almost every claim was distorted or actively went against the source. For instance, here's the first bit of the analysis.

Claim

Evidence

"The practice of randomization and associated techniques such as "blind" administration of conditions were principally developed in the conduct of early psychical research, and have since become standard practice in scientific experiments."

Claims about blinding actively contradicted by citation; randomisation claims overstated: The Bulletin of the History of Medicine does not say any such thing. Its discussion of blinding begins in the late 18th century, and, several pages of chronologically-organised examples later discusses that the first use of blinding in psychic research began after 1884. It does say "From this point [after Richet befgan using blinding sometime after 1884], blinding quickly became an essential feature of psychical research, as did Richet's random selection methods (au hasard), which he used as an additional precaution to ensure concealment. 71 When university-sanctioned psychical and parapsychology research centers were opened in the early twentieth century, blind assessment and early forms of randomization were also an integral component of their research protocols." - However, it does not credit this work with any innovation in the protocols, randomisation, or any other blinding technique. The Isis source's main statement on the matter is that Richet's randomisation methods were groundbreaking, but also credits various other fields as well, such as the later work of R. A. Fisher, and Pierce's earlier work with using playing cards to randomise a study on the perception of small differences in weights. Hence, "principally developed" is somewhat of an overstatement.

I and others subsequently removed some parts of the article that had such sourcing issues.

This has caused Nemonoman to launch constant, evidence-free attacks against me, complaining at a variety of fora, and acting as if I provided no reasons for my actions. For instance, from the FAR:

“ In the past week, the editors above have edited Parapsychology with a meat cleaver and sledgehammer. The careful wordings and citations, the neutrality and consensus that successfully brought this article to FA has been successfully eliminated. Gone. The article is now canonical: Parapsychology is bullshit and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or worse.

After a slash and burn of many long months of consensus editing, the fine editors above now note -- very correctly -- that following their POV edits the article is NOW a stinking heap of garbage. And having gotten it to this stinking state, they now want it de-FA'ed.

I am in total agreement with them. This article is no longer FA quality. Not in any way. Thanks guys! --Nemonoman (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. You guys could turn this into a business.

”

and

“ Nor did it contain your many helpful new edits.

As to the info you removed, en masse, with no discussion, god bless you. Apparently you're comfortable that new info, including numerous citations, describing parapsychology in a reasonably positive light may be removed without comment. And that other information describing parapsychology in a skeptical light may be added without comment. Do we detect a pattern?

Some of us editors who regard it as good wiki-business to keep the article neutral were working that new material over. Apparently not fast enough to satisfy you, particularly when you had so much new skeptical material to add.

How much of this FAR is based on the actual quality of the article, and how much is based on a belief that the SUBJECT MATTER does not merit a Featured Article. That's something I'll be thinking about today. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

Having found no support there, he jumped to my talk page, heightening his rhetoric:

“ It would have been a nice courtesy to discuss your plans to FAR, and your reasons, on the talk page, just as it would have been a courtesy to discuss your extensive edits of the article.

In the future, before wiping the blood from your hatchet and heading over to FAR the work done by many editors who toiled for quality and consensus, please make some small note on the articles talk page, and your actions may be better received.

I agree that Parapsychology should be de-FA'ed following your edits. It is now full of (your) POV and no longer FA quality.

This is an interesting strategy. I'll have to remember it. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

Then, when I deleted his comment (somewhat poorly chosen edit summary for removal: "Removed fairly trollish comment" - silence would have been better on my behalf), decided to attack me on Talk:Parapsychology [22]:

“ I expressed my concern about Shoemakersholiday's major deletions and the FAR of this article on his talk page here. He removed those comments as trolling.

Scarcely.

This is the place to discuss big changes and big actions before engaging. To do so shows respect for other editors. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

”

This is, as you can imagine, getting very old, very fast. I suppose I should link Nemonoman to this after closing this edit window, and will do so, but I would appreciate a little help here soon. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ETA: the behaviour continues unabated. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 195 FCs served} 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a case of ownership on the part of Nemonoman, who is slinging around accusations of POV because someone is messing with his article, hoping that something will stick. This is backed up by his absence of reply to Shoemaker's Holiday's points, merely claiming that he should have been consulted first. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

weird stalker

I'm not sure what can be done about this but this guy, an IP with an illustrious trolling career going back to January 2008 (with such informative edits as this and this, suddenly bounced into the discussion on Talk:Nurse Nayirah earlier this month. He has specifically targeted me and while I first was engaging his arguments and even editing the article in response to them, I excused myself from the conversation as he got more and more incoherent and began personally attacking me. In his most recent attack he made reference to events that took place on Wikipedia several years ago, indicating that he has been watching my account for a long time. I normally would not think the earlier vandalism entries were from the same person -- since August 09 he has been editing exclusively on the Nayirah article talk page -- except that a couple of the earlier edits suggest that indeed it is the same person. Since August he has only made two edits outside of the Nayirah talk page -- that was to contact two editors I had disputes with in the very distant past to ask for help on Nurse Nayirah -- including one who has long since been permanently banned for constant violations of Wikipedia policies but who recently returned as a sockpuppet and argued with me on The Spitting Image. It's possible the IP user is TDC, though I doubt it -- the IP address locates to South Africa -- but I find it really strange that he's making reference to disputes that happened years ago in order to personally attack me. Strangely, for all the argument he has produced on the Nurse Nayirah talk page, he hasn't once tried to actually edit the article. csloat (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa

Resolved

 – Almost nothing here that happened since the latest block - and that was over two months ago. Wknight94 ^talk 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I want to draw the attention of the community to the behavior of this editor—please, see this RFC. I obviously do not like to be called "dumb", but it is not what concerns me the most. While I am relatively thick-skinned, other editors may be much more sensitive. Such manner of conducting discussions creates toxic atmosphere in the project and may forces editors to leave Wikipedia.

I have to say that that this RFC is not an isolated incident, and HarryAlffa habitually engages in such behavior. Just two months ago he was blocked (and in fact nearly banned) for a week for insulting others editors, however, apparently learned nothing from his block (see discussion, see also this and this). Below are some diffs from the past:

[23] (Nazi comparison),

[24] (others are incompetent),

[25] (comments of others are bogus),

[26] (shutting your face),

[27] (calling others imbeciles)

and the most recent one [28].

This editors seems absolutely incapable of conducting a civil discussion, without assumptions of bad faith, insults and disruption. WP:Banning policy states If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point .... I want only to say that my patience is exhausted.

So, I propose to ban HarryAlffa from the project. Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified HarryAlffa of this thread. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First problem for me - and it's a biggie - all those links except the last were from before his latest block. You want him banned now for prior bad acts he has already "served time" for? Granted some of the rhetoric in those links and discussions are quite uncivil, but most of what I saw was before the last block. Anything else more recent? Wknight94 ^talk 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to make the same comment. I'm no fan, being one of the editors Harry has implied are stupid or clueless, but that last diff is the only objectionable one I see in his history since his block. It is his behavior when someone disagrees with him that needs to be examined. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

His behavior have not changed much and it is only a matter of time before past incidents are repeated. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believes he simply lives in a strange world of his own, making Wikipedia an even more stressful experience for him than it is for most. Recently I have experienced him as surprisingly relaxed. See his behaviour in his thread at WP:VPP#Artificial Intelligence User Accounts. But overall I am getting the impression that while he is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia, that's not the effect he is having. He is often absent over several months, which is probably why he is not banned yet. But I am not sure how proper it is to have this discussion, especially at ANI, rather than, say, AN, without a concrete recent cause. Hans Adler 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to distinguish where he is serious and where he is just joking. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am exhausted with Ruslik and his "playing dumb" as I quoth in the link he provided. I was seriously considering raising a WikiAlert on HIM for this, but thought I'd give him one more chance.

The discussion actually started here[29], but Ruslik refused to take part.

Is it really believable that he doesn't understand that you cannot use a comparative measure for significance of an alternative article title? How many times would I have had to re-explain this point, beyond the number of times I did already? Can you really believe that he genuinely believes a reference he provided using a "best option" search is insignificant? Can you intelligently call an in-print book an insignificant source? Can you intelligently conclude that a term used by scientists at conferences is not significant?

So how honest is Ruslik?

Calling my deconstruction of a straw man a Nazi comparison[30]?

Describing my polite appeal to reason, "Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and competence"[31] as calling others incompetent?

After someone created a heading "Suggest silence" aimed at me on the talk page, which was incivil in itself, and which Ruslik endorsed (his bold)[32], I asked a question "I thought you were shutting your face?"[33] when the originator chimed in again.

I said a comment was imbecillic[34], of one person, not "others imbeciles", note Ruslik's dishonest plural as well. AND I withdrew the comment - at Ruslik's suggestion.

I did not say comments of others are bogus, I said (in the third week of a debate) "Your claims of fact and your conclusions are equally bogus."[35], again to one person, not numerous.

This is propaganda, on Ruslik's part.

But back to "the most recent one [36]".

Is Ruslik playing dumb, or not? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly marked this as resolved. One barely-problematic edit in the last two months is not worthy of taking up people's time here. Wknight94 ^talk 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. With your last edit you just confirmed what I stated above. Ruslik_Zero 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving Salford Docks to Manchester Docks while content exists on destination page.

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to have the Salford Docks page renamed to Manchester Docks to more accurately reflect the naming used for the area, but as there is content (disambiguation) on the Manchester Docks page, I cannot. Could this be looked into, as I'm not sure of the next move. Roobarb! (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed first on the talk page. — neuro^(talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Requested moves is your best bet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock this URL so I can create a new page

Resolved

 – Page was never protected; Buckheit was given instructions on how to proceed and has managed to create to article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, I am trying to create a wiki page for a well-known tech company in New Jersey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical-Links I don't work for them, but I am associated with them for some communications related projects. I thought it would be cool to create a wiki info stub for the company, but unfortunately the page is blocked. Could you please unblock it? Thanks in advance. buckheit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckheit (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a matter for ANI. Take to Deletion Review. --Smashville^talk 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have given you a nice welcome with a whole load of great links about editing/creating articles on Wikipedia. I don't think the article you noted is blocked, it's merely that you're too new to create an article. I believe that one of the links I gave you is for your sandbox. Feel free to create an article in your own sandbox space, make sure it's referenced with reliable sources, and that the company is indeed notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Or what the Canadian said...sorry, didn't realize 'twas a noob. --Smashville^talk 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's ok ... you admins have so much on your plate, you sometimes forget to check :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

??Since when are newly signed in accounts prohibited from creating articles? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

They aren't, nor were any of the plausible titles for this article ever protected. Buckheit seems to have merely been mistaken. In any case, Critical Links is up now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No edit summaries

Resolved

 – No admin action required. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GAThrawnIGF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thousands of edits since 2007, no edit summaries that I can see. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk to the user. This isn't an issue that admin tools are needed for. lifebaka++ 21:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors are not required to use edit summaries, though they are advised to. I don't think this is an issue for the administrators to look, so I urge them not to look at it. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All collegial editors use edit summaries :-) I have dropped them a friendly note. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

While most (virtually all?) of us prefer that edit summaries be used, there are no policies or guidelines requiring their use. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Loop created for Louise-Marie of Orléans: totall mess

Help. Me and others have created a loop in directs and redirects that makes moving to a correct name impossible. The name should be Louise-Marie of Orléans, as is also stated in the genealogy of the Belgian Royals themselves: http://www.monarchie.be/en/monarchy/genealogy/index.html For further references: The title in the Dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise-Marie_van_Orl%C3%A9ans_%281812-1850%29 The title in the French Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise-Marie_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans As translation: van=d'=of and may be translated

I could only make Louise-Marie de Orléans. Try Louise-Marie of Orléans or even Louise-Marie d'Orléans and you get redirects, and I cannot change of remove those pages. Furthermore there is a wrongQueen Louise-Marie d'Orléans. A very good redirect page Louise-Marie, but here she is only mentioned as Louise-Marie of France (1812-1850), French princess. There is also a redirect Marie-Louise of France that is unnecessary, and can be removed.

For short: it is a mess. And a good administrator is needed to change it to the correct namen/ sort it out/ stop the loop. --Eezie (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Louise-Marie is a disambiguation page, and it's fine (I did correct de Orléans' name there, though). I think I've sorted all of them to point at the right places, but I'm unsure if the proper title should be at "d'Orléans" or "de Orléans"... Let me know if I got it wrong, and I'll fix it presently. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought he said correct name was Louise-Marie of Orléans so that's what I just did. Sorry if I just compounded the problem. Hopefully not. Wknight94 ^talk 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In English, that name would be correct. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's Fault but Mine‎ and talk pages

Resolved

An anonymous user continues to make uncommented changes of both the article and talk page. I have attempted to leave comments, but the editor's IP address keeps changing. The talk page vandalism consists of removing discussions aimed at getting the editor to explain the changes that were made. The page was locked down for a week about a week ago, but when that ban was lifted, the editor went back to hacking the article. The talk page hacking never stopped. This is far beyond the three revert rule as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

King of Hearts has semi-protected both the article & talk page for 1 week. In the future, please use WP:RPP for this type of issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Long term" vandal, short term solution

Today, I saw this edit from 66.84.180.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I recalled seeing similar edits in the past, and it turns out that they showed up on a different IP in mid June and before that in October 2008 on 66.84.180.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 66.84.180.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). None of the IPs have ever been blocked. All have been warned, and nothing came about because the user disappeared shortly afterward, only to appear months later on a different IP address.

As far as I can tell (from the gadget that allows one to search IP ranges), nearly every single edit from the range 66.84.180.0/24 has been from this individual. All have added [[Category:[Decade] animated television series]] to articles that are 99% of the time not cartoons. I have not found any IPs outside of the /24 that match the MO. Blocking this range from editing Wikipedia would probably solve any problems that may arise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours as I noticed the similarity to edits made almost exactly a year previously. I considered that this may be a vacationing vandal, but not so sure - despite a familiar range of articles being targeted - to place a longer block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 66.84.180.192/27 for 3 months. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that cover all of the other deleterious edits from the same individual that is only found in the /24?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Levinstein

Levinstein (talk · contribs · count) There are a couple of other admins keeping an eye on this, but I'd like to get more eyes on this (and I don't personally have the time today to do it). User Levinstein keeps creating pages regarding an alleged / convicted pedophile. Originally he did it in mainspace, and when it was deleted for being a wall o' text attack page, he recreated it in his userspace and usertalk. Those were deleted last night as attack pages, and user has reinstated it on his talk page.

He claims that the article is sourced, and from the searches I've done I can only find the first paragraph of one of the cited stories. Otherwise, its almost a cut and paste from a headline clearing house (which says its GFDL, so they aren't copyvio).

He's also jumped IMO immediately to bad faith land, accusing one of the original deleters Closedmouth of trying to cover up the person's crimes.

Thoughts? I'm going to go inform the editor of this discussion now. Syrthiss (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, bollocks to him. He clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, just to push this stuff. So I've permablocked him. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 12:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• One day your meek manners and lack of decisiveness is going to be your undoing... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My boy, you may take it from me

That of all the afflictions accurs't

With which a man's saddled

And hampered and addled

A diffident nature's the worst. -- Gilbert & Sullivan 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've tracked down two of the sources. One can be found on pages 261–262 of ISBN 9788170247913, and the other here. Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE still applies. The wall-o-text could have been summarized as "This man is a pedophile! And he's still working at [X]! Something must be done! Here's a bunch of 18-year-old newspaper clippings!" --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ripper404

Resolved

Ripper404 (talk · contribs) has been warned several times about BLP violations, and was, in fact, blocked in February for repeated BLP violations. Today I was looking at edits he had made to Mark Wahlberg, an article he's edited in the past, and found a violation again. I warned him on his Talk page that he should stop the practice, since he's been blocked for it before, and This was his reply. I had not planned on taking any further action unless he continued the behavior after my warning, but his reply shows he has no interest in playing nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• 3 day holiday. Black Kite 22:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:TAz69x

This user continues to vandalize the fentanyl article by replacing information with unsupported material, and figures that are absolutely ridiculous. I attempted to inform this user in the article history, as well as this user's talk page to cease with the vandalizing, or else he/she would be reported. No Avail. This user ignores warnings, (I see he/she was already reported earlier for deleting information) and continues to vandalize the page. This user does NOT provide any impeccable references to support his/her claims. Please deal with this accordingly. Thank you. --Mishi4 (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He's making drug information claims citing a specific source that has other numbers in them (the source contains the values he's replacing, not the ones he's replacing them with...). This could be citing the wrong source mistakenly and somewhat stubbornly - or it could be intentional vandalism.

I am not assuming bad faith but I have full protected the article for 24 hrs and asked him to clarify what source he's getting the 0.83 mg and 80 times relative efficiency number from. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon and Arbitration

Resolved

 – The committee has stated they would prefer additional community-imposed restrictions not be enacted as this would simply complicate and confuse matters. –xeno^talk 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Casliber has filed a request for arbitration enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Mythdon (talk · contribs) has been asked many times to refrain from making pointless requests and comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration pages and subpages. Despite this, he has filed the 5th request for clarification on the same case, 2 weeks after he made the 4th request for clarification. This is really becoming a tiresome exercise. Understandably, ArbCom are reluctant to themselves restrict Mythdon from continuing this pattern of interactions with ArbCom. Reluctantly, I find that we're in a position where there is no other option than to propose that a community sanction be imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanction proposals

Discussion

I will be notifying the Arbitration Committee. I think that the Arbitration Committee has to make this decision. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do take note however that Risker and Newyorkbrad are recused. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom notified. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the very reason this discussion is taking place? –túrian^patois 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Also, ArbCom should be notified because it has stated it's lack of being pleased with my requests. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'd already notified ArbCom of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've done so on their talk pages. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the community does have the authority to enact sanctions themselves if there is a strong enough consensus for it, without having to go to ArbCom and making it official. Whether they or the community make the decision, it will make little difference. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the community has no authority to impose this sanction as it is a decision for ArbCom to make. I have this feeling that they will decline to let the community impose it, and have the community leave the discussion to themselves. I wonder what they'll say when they see this. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I made this proposal, only after doing all the research. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't ArbCom have to decide on this? Jimbo Wales founded the committee. Doesn't he retain jurisdiction over it? Would he have to approve of the community making such a decision? Would he take back to ArbCom? Would ArbCom take it back to themselves? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the second thought, it does make sense for ArbCom to have the final say in this, given that we're discussion Mythdon's ability to post requests for amendments/clarifications where they are the ultimate authority. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom requests everyone to try steps short of ArbCom intervention; I'm merely complying with that request. If I did not, there would be no difference between me and Mythdon, who would not with that request Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That is actually to try prior steps in dispute resolution before requesting arbitration cases. It's not applicable here. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was this approach that led to the sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't bar an editor from access to dispute resolution. If the Committee doesn't like what Mythdon is doing on their pages, all they have to do is ignore it. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you can put yourself in the above section to state your opposition. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what's happening here. Merely, Mythdon's access to dispute resolution is being limited until such a time he can use it appropriately. Unless you don't want the Committee to give timely responses, perhaps going back to the old ways of a previous Committee, ignoring it is not an option. It isn't merely the Committee who doesn't like what Mythdon is doing on those pages, as some statements would've indicated already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• considering supporting this, and agree with the proposal in principle. My concerns are the wording of:

(a) Mythdon [...] is hereby prohibited from editing any Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration pages and subpages, broadly construed. This restriction shall expire after 1 month. (emphasis mine)

• I agree that much of this ongoing disruption should be addressed, but I am hesitant to support due to the phrasing which I bolded above. It would likely be more prudent to confine the restriction to only the existing sanctions as far as "topic". — Ched :  ?  06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's ironically the same concern I initially had. But the rationale behind it is that this effectively gives Mythdon an opportunity to at least listen to what ArbCom was saying in the 5th request for clarification - which means that there should be no need for Mythdon to edit the pages himself. Carcharoth's comments may be helpful in this regard. I was also given the impression that the same problem would just move to any available on-wiki pages not covered by the restriction, if you get what I mean. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Mythdon has posted on all the arb's talk pages about this. I think it good the community discuss this issue. The mere fact that someone filed this shows how problematic his behavior has become. Right now the consensus seems to be that is is not a good idea for the community to ban someone from DR pages; that this should be left to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I've already stated here, ArbCom reserves the right to apply any necessary sanction/restriction (topic ban/ban) especially that ignoring excessive and unnecessary requests and questions is not appropriate. The Arbitration Enforcement is enough for now. It is up to Mythdon to understand and assess the consequences of his actions. However, any further question about the nature of these consequences would lead to an automatic ArbCom action in order to put an end to this story. It should be noted that Mythdon should be held responsible as he refused mentorship and still doesn't show any improvement in communicating with others. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I admit that I'm not particularly knowledgeable on "ArbCom" matters, so I guess my question would be: To what degree do the arbs consider WP:INVOLVED to be a consideration here? (either collectively or individually). There certainly have been numerous threads at various talk pages, AN, AN/I in regards to Mythdon/Ryloung, Power Rangers, and the ArbCom sanctions, many of which I tend to just "scroll on by", but I can envision that some of the community may be finding it rather tiresome. I certainly don't want to step on the committee's toes if they are fully willing to handle it. (see SoWhy, mazca, Viridae, and AdjustShift comments above). If however the committe is desirous of community action, then I'm not opposed to a bit of "restrictions" being handed out. — Ched :  ?  11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I personally believe that WP:INVOLVED is quite explicit. I must just add that the criteria of the involvement of an admin differ from a case to another. I believe that the criteria for a case concerning general behavioral guidelines are less stricter than for a case involving complicated issues (POV pushing, etc...).
• I believe that this case can still be handled by ArbCom not because the community is not able to deal with it but it is rather a matter of continuity and avoidance of the establishment of interrelated and confusing or contradictory restrictions in complex ways which would require consequent unnecessary requests for clarifications.
• The main issue here is not merely a question of excessive requests by Mythdon but his inability to correct the mistakes which led to sanctions and restrictions. For this reason, ArbCom may expect further problematic behavior by Mythdon and it would be better if the community avoids any further complication by imposing new restrictions that aren't really necessary. Mythdon is free to request clarifications but there'd be no guarantee about the consequences of such exaggerated behavior. ArbCom has assumed good faith since the start of the case and it still does but for everything in life there are limits. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm content with what's been said. The arbs have read between the lines of this, and in their responses, have addressed a number of questions/concerns posed on this vexing problem. Pending any last questions/concerns that members of the community may desire responses to from the arbs, we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  Likewise. –xeno^talk 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

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.

Plagiarism on LGBT parenting article

There has been an issue on the LGBT parenting article with User:Destinero adding plagiarized text. The LGBT parenting talk page details the most recent incident (see section called Plagiarism Again) which led to a shutdown of the article and a 2nd warning being issued to Destinero. You can find information concerning the first warning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive104#User:Destinero_reported_by_User:Tobit2_.28Result:_No_action.29 and both warnings on Destinero's Talk Page under the sections "editing warring on LGBT parenting" and "Please read this discussion and result carefully."

Fast foward to today. Recently, after the last incident calmed down, I attempted to repair the plagiarized text. Nevertheless, today, Destinero added it back, reverting the edit. Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=308757410&oldid=308209508

The plagiarized phrase in question is, "...documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment," giving us 21 words lifted verbatim from a source. Additionally, the article provides four sources for this statement although it has been lifted from one. The last admin to help out was Virtual Steve. Thank you.Tobit2 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why are you posting this again? HalfShadow 00:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there was no response previously. The policy guide on plagiarism indicates incidents should be posted here when editors refuse to comply with the policy.Tobit2 (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Note I am in the process of trying to work this matter out again - seeing if Destinero is willing at all to talk the matter through with other editors. I will post here again in the next day or two once we establish their position.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Anontalk spam again

Anontalk spam is back again, and it appears it's filter has been disabled too. Figured I give others a heads up about it. Momo san ^Gespräch 02:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter #7 should be keeping track of it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it set to disallow?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin User:RockMFR conflict of interest in block of User:Koalorka

Several days ago, Admin RockMFR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on Aug 15th [39] with a claim that Koalorka had vandalized the article Emu War. I reviewed and determined that this appeared to be a content dispute, not vandalism, and that RockMFR had an apparent conflict of interest due to content dispute, which makes the block a violation of blocking policy, in using blocking to win a content dispute.

The content dispute was basically edit warring over inclusion of a reference to the Emus (an animal) having won the war, which appears to be a valid external source if somewhat tongue in cheek (the whole incident is bizarre, to say the least). RockMFR believed it was invalid and that reinserting it was inappropriate; several other editors disagreed.

Sequence of relevant events:

• Aug 10 - RockMFR establishes his preferred version of article (and threatens to block anyone disagreeing) [40]
• Aug 15, 11:31 - User:Lt.Specht reinserts w/source - [41]
• Aug 15, 13:19 - RockMFR removes again [42]
• Aug 15, 14:48 - Koalorka reverts RockMFR with edit summary (Undid revision 308180598 by RockMFR (talk)That's a valid source. Please stop being so prejudiced against the Emus. It's specist.) [43]
• Aug 15, 15:32 - RockMFR reverts Koalorka w/o edit summary [44]
• Aug 15, 15:34 - RockMFR blocks Koalorka [45] and leaves message on his talk page [46]
• Aug 15, 18:45 - Koalorka objects on his talk page [47]
• Aug 15, 18:50 - Koalorka questions RockMFR's qualifications on his talk page [48]
• Aug 17, 20:27 - I noticed and leave message for RockMFR asking him to unblock, as he had conflict of interest in content dispute [49]
• Aug 18, 03:56 - RockMFR refuses, claiming again that it was "pure vandalism" [50]
• Aug 18, 12:26 - I notify RockMFR that I disagree and will be filing ANI [51]

I could just review and unblock myself, however I have both supported and argued against Koalorka in prior ANI incidents where he was abusive and where he was both baited and abusive, so I would rather put this up for further review. I believe I'm reasonably unbiased related to him but I'd rather get others' input than act unilaterally myself.

Koalorka does have an extensive block log for abusing other editors - but this does not appear to have included any abusive behavior, merely content dispute.

I believe that the content in question is questionable - a good faith editor could conclude it was not entirely appropriate, especially in an infobox - but clearly not vandalism. It appears to be the sort of content where an article talk page discussion is normal and necessary rather than an administrator simply wading in and threatening, and then issuing, blocks.

I would like further admin input on 2 specific points:

1. Was the content vandalism, or legitimately a content dispute?
2. Was the block an involved block by a content dispute involved administrator, which should be reversed?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be appropriate now to mock either the article itself for existing, OR the participants for this rediculous edit war, or can we just call the whole thing WP:LAME? Are we really having an edit war over whether or not the Emus defeated the Humans in what was basically a pest control effort with a good PR campaign? I mean, seriously now... --Jayron32 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a historical event, with sources... I think i'ts pretty bizarre, but c'est la vie.

    The block is the issue at hand, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly bad block. Koalorka's on pretty shaky ground with that insertion, I think, but blocking without warning or attempt at discussion is not on. Steve Smith (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• There's a source, and there's an edit summary with reasoning behind it. Right or wrong, it's not vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you read the edit history of the article more thoroughly. It's part of a pattern of ongoing silly vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• While it's possible to cleverly craft a somewhat lighthearted article about something, for too long people have been turning this into a joke article. The main culprit was the now-removed {{Infobox Military Conflict}} infobox on an article about a wildlife management issue. It attracted clever edits like "Casualties: Dignity" and "Winner: Emus". To call this simply a content dispute, with "sourced" edits, is a pretty superficial way of looking at it. While this is a slightly grey area, on the boundary between vandalism and excessive light-heartedness, I think RockMFR honestly believed it to be vandalism, and that is not an unreasonable opinion. I would not say that his previous removals of joke edits (which appears to be the only edits he's made to the article) mean he has a conflict of interest.

  While a week block seems an overreaction, I note Koalorka has something of a history, which might explain it. Perhaps unblock, noting the greyness of the area, but with a warning not to re-add the infobox back, and a request that RockMFR not use his admin tools on the article anymore, out of a concern over the appearance of involvement? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I think Floquenbeam has hit the nail on the head with this issue. The deal is, treating this like a military conflict is the central problem; and if the article were rewritten to remove all appearances of trying to treat it as a real militarty conflict, and instead took the actual proper point of view of treating this as a wildlife managament issue, it would solve all of these problems. The infobox itself is what lends to the rediculousness. At minimum, it has to go. I agree it is likely a bad block, given the blocking admins prior involvement, but a better course of action is to start an RFC where the light-of-day will expose the problems and get them fixed by uninvolved editors. --Jayron32 21:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • An RFC? maybe I've missed it..but I haven't seen an RFC yet that has actually accomplished anything. They're not binding and often just fade into obscurity.--Crossmr (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks all for the input. I'm going to unblock and warn (Koalorka and on the article talk page) not to re-add the infobox, and request that if those advocating the infobox want to dispute that, that the proper mechanism is an article RFC rather than any further edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Joke edits are vandalism, especially when they are done repeatedly. There is no gray area here. Seriously, these editors (Koalorka and Lt.Specht) and are saying I am anti-emu. They are clearly not trying to make constructive edits or engaging in constructive discussion. Koalorka has a long block history, and has engaged in making these joke edits over a long period of time, hence the week block. If any admin believes that Koalorka's edits are constructive, they are free to unblock him, of course. — RockMFR 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Looks like I, or my other half, should take a look at this one... Rodhullandemu 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've also been involved with this article, and agree that Koalorka and Lt.Specht's edits are little better than vandalism. Koalorka has also harassed me on my talk page over reverting this nonsense, claiming that "You cannot simply threaten to block people because you don't agree with the outcome of this vicious conflict" [52] (I made no such 'threat' - they seem to be refering to RockMFR's warning against this kind of behaviour) and "Why do you continue denying the Emus their history? This is prejudiced revisionism at its worst." [53]. Clearly such posts aren't from an editor interested in developing a good quality article. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • As Admin User:RockMFR did have a conflict of interest he should not have blocked User:Koalorka, this is a clear breach of the correct usage of his admin tools. He should have pointed the problem out to an uninvolved Admin. The block should be reversed and if an =uninvolved Admin feels it is nessecesary to reblock then that is up to them, I would also admonish RockMFR for misuse of the tools. Also one week is excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Allowable, but not the most brilliant block. Reverting hoax edits does not cause an administrator to be involved in a content dipute. There is no bona fide content dispute. When people are having too much fun with a joke, it is appropriate to tell them to knock it off. The block made matters worse, I think, rather than better. Block should be reserved for more severe wikicrimes. Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman.--John (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• WHile I agree with Jehochman; the "tell them to knock if off" method appears to have been tried here, to no avail, as the silliness continued with Koalorka continuing with such silliness as insisting on "Emu rights" and other such rediculousness. It was clear that Koalorka was intending to continue this patent nonsense ad infinitum. If he HAD let it drop, then a block may have not been necessary. --Jayron32 02:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the "block" in principle, but also agree with the concerns of WP:INVOLVED. RockMFR would have likely been better served by bringing the matter here, rather than block themselves due to COI concerns, but I don't think there's anything actionable at this time. I trust GWH on the unblock, and hope that he will continue to monitor the situation. I'd personally have no objections to a passing editor marking this as resolved. — Ched :  ?  06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no "involvement" here. Nor any "conflict of interest" as claimed above. If you actually go through the edit history of the article you'll see that RockMFR has made no edits to it in its entire history other than reverting joke edits such as these, made by several editors, both with and without accounts. Reverting silly vandalism is not a conflict of interest. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if George has forgotten as Koalorka is as yet still blocked. What is the outcome of this discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that George started this ANI post, isn't a significant 'conflict of interest' for him to declare it closed in his favour only two hours after the report was made and then go on to over-turn this block? Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• In addition to my above comment, I also think that this block is fine. Reverting vandalism isn't a content dispute, so there is no 'conflict of interest'. Koalorka has a history of being blocked and was warned for their behaviour, so everything seems above board to me. The initial summary of the events is also unfair to RockMFR - this vandalism had been going on for weeks and I was also involved in reverting it and semi-protecting the article to prevent IPs attacking it, so this wasn't an isolated incident or RockMFR protecting 'his preferred version of article' as the initial report wrongly states. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm finding myself agreeing with NickD here; the whole article was a joke and non-notable, and Rock was clearly right to block Koalorka for his repeated edits to the article. I also think that GWH's initial report was misleading, and his unblocking of Koalorka without consensus; but it would seem that little will be done about him as per usual. Skinny87 (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• If I were to try to re-write this article, framing it as a serious wildlife mgmt effort with a goofy PR twist, would anyone have kittens about it? I'm more than willing to do the rewrite with a change in tone, but not if the end result is "BAD Gladys! (slap slap)".GJC 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm. I'm amazed that this problem hasn't cropped on other articles like War on poverty (losing side: poor people) or War on drugs (winners: Mexican drug cartels). Hopefully, this isn't because Aussies have a better sense of humor than we US folks. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• This block is one of the worst I have seen in my time here, this admin was wrong to do it and it is wrong to continue it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Um... since when is a blog a valid source? Some guy (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's worse than that. As already noted, the purported "source" cited the Provocateur-silly-vandalized version of this article as its source in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Bad unblock, Georgewilliamherbert.

  There was very clearly no "involvement" here, and no content dispute, either. Some people wanted to insert silliness into an article and both RockMFR and Nick-D were amongst the many reverting their vandalism. I draw your attention to edit summaries such as the one for this edit that attempts to misrepresent WP:HUMOUR as an article content guideline, and "Be a little light hearted, humor can be placed in articles.", which very clearly show the silly vandalism intentions here. Indeed, I draw your attention to this silly vandalism, by the aptly-named User:Provocateur that provoked all of this silly vandalism in the first place, and that was cited as a source by the web-log entry that was later claimed to be a source for the article.

  Full marks to the editors without accounts who helped to combat this silly vandalism, alongside RockMFR and Nick-D, over the past eight months with edits such as this, this, and this; and to Alansohn for this edit. Applause also to the people who have, since this article's profile has been raised, edited it sensibly and expanded it. No marks to the people who thought that this eight-month edit history was anything other than some people mucking around, and two administrators, one editor with an account, and three editors without accounts, tirelessly reverting their vandalism, and using both the protection and blocking tools to combat persistence on the parts of the vandals. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Up front: I have a past history of disagreements with Koalorka, and I noticed the Emu War problem because I was watching his talk page. Beyond that, I didn't get involved in anything involving Koalorka directly, but I rewrote most of the article to make it factually accurate and un-silly. I would like to endorse what Uncle G and Nick D are saying, it seems to me that multiple editors were clearly disrupting the article to be funny and I can't believe anyone is taking their edits or their outrageous claims of pro-Australian biased revisionism seriously. As mentioned, they were using as a "source" a blog that referenced the article, which is circular sourcing. Much of the info in the article was blatently inaccurate and that's why I rewrote it.

Quotes from Koalorka after being unblocked: "The topic was so silly I could not resist." [54] . "Well, I am dismayed that the Emus are being denied their legacy, their valiant struggle will NEVER be forgotten. Wikipedia proves her systetmic bias yet again. I will disengage now." [55] Some guy (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments Uncle G, and for taking the time to look at the article's edit history. This misleading ANI report and the resulting unblocking is a serious case of administrator misconduct. George has basically used ANI to provide him with a fig leaf to cover wheel warring. I note also that George didn't notify other involved editors (such as myself) that this report had been made or post a notification on the article's talk page until after he declared that a consensus existed to overturn the block. Speaking as an administrator myself, this is exactly the kind of behavior that brings admins into disrepute. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue was the block. We don't normally provide links to ANI discussions about user blocks on the relevant article talk page, though I see why it was of interest. There would have been nothing wrong with such a link - but as it's not customary, I didn't think of it. I see the point. Perhaps it should be customary in the future.

Waiting 2 hrs after posting on ANI, and longer after notifying the blocking admin, is entirely reasonable and normal. Calling this wheel warring is silly - there was no re-do of the original admin action, the administrator was consulted the day before the ANI report with a request to reconsider (or clarify), and I waited a normal time for ANI discussion before calling a rough working consensus.

Regarding the new issue that the source which was cited in the humor edits is apparently a blog, I missed that (the wordpress URL is a tipoff, but I spaced on that) - I clicked through to see that it existed and said what it said, but didn't notice that it was a blog or that it sourced back to the Wikipedia article. I was looking for valid URL and content described accurately, found it, and moved on. Had anyone (blocking admin, anyone else on article talk page, anyone in edit summaries on article) explicitly listed that it was an invalid source because it was a blog and referenced Wikipedia rather than independent sources, I would probably have chosen a different approach to start with. That's what talk pages and edit summaries are for - explain the reasons for something, so that uninvolved editors and administrators can understand the issues properly.

Yes, I can now see issues that I wasn't aware of - but you're essentially blaming me for being confused in what amounted to a sterile revert war on the article. Other editors and administrators aren't psychic. We go by what's on the log and in front of us. If you fail to explain yourself - when you edit, when you take administrative actions, when asked to clarify or reverse those actions - you have nobody to blame but yourself when independent uninvolved administrators miss issues or misinterpret actions.

My actions here have been described as intentionally misleading by the same set of you who failed to document your initial actions on the article. This is excessively ironic. I assumed good faith of everyone involved - please do so yourselves, look back at the record, and try and provide a bit more information in the future so that uninvolved parties can understand it better. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing that it's other editors fault that you didn't do your homework on this. I gave reasons for reverting this vandalism in my edit summaries for the cases where I didn't just use the rollback function - in this reversion of nonsense added by Koalorka I specifically noted that the claim that the 'casualties' included "Australian dignity" was uncited (this was also clearly ridiculous). There was also a lengthy and ongoing discussion about the state of the article on its talk page at the time you decided to jump in which User:Commander Zulu had noted that the article's sources were blogs and a single newspaper story ([56]) (this discussion started after Koalorka was blocked, but should have been consulted before posting at ANI). Moreover, there's no need to start discussions of why vandalism is a bad idea on article talk pages - the standard response in clear cut cases like this is to warn the vandals, which RockMFR ([57]) and I ([58]) did and impose a block if they continue their behavior. Your statement that you had no way to know that vandalism was the issue is wrong - RockMFR told you that it was why he imposed this block ([59]) when you accused him of violating the blocking policy and threatened him with possible desysopping ([60]). As I said on your talk page, you have acted rashly on this matter. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the edits from before there was a block adequately explained the source issue or justified the claim of vandalism, to uninvolved editors. I did review the article talk page prior to contacting RockMFR initially - I stand by my claim that the discussion there was not clear enough to those not already closely involved. Admins and editors have a responsibility to make things clear enough that uninvolved admins and editors can review and understand the situation with normal responsible due diligence. Many editors and admins up further in thread agreed with my concerns. Many disagree with the ongoing characterization of the edits as vandalism, or clear cut.

The response from the set of you is going beyond admins and editors legitimately trying to protect an article into WP:OWN violations, with a healthy measure of WP:AGF failure thrown in. Again - you owe the rest of the community enough communications to explain issues, when you do things, and when you're initially challenged by uninvolved concerned parties. Responses here were opaque until after I unblocked, at which point people seem to have taken this as an affront and decided to counterattack rather than trying to AGF and discuss communications failures which happened earlier. Edit summaries, block summaries, source challenges are all things where documenting your work matters. Waiting until an uninvolved admin comes along, spots an apparent problem, asks the blocking admin, asks for second opinions, and then unblocks is not good documentation practice. I should have seen the details laid out on first examination, in the revert edit summaries (none), article talk page (not specific regarding the particular edits), warnings on Koalorka's talk page (none), block note (opaque without detail), block message on user talk (opaque without detail), response to blocked users objection (none), or response to my uninvolved admins' query (opaque without detail).

We have all now wasted several hundred times more time than it would have taken you all to write down and document the issues, warn properly, and block with enough detail to justify it had he continued. There were a number of opportunities after it started, where catching up with the descriptions would have headed off any further issues or misinterpretation. It's disrespectful to the admin community at large if you document so badly that an uninvolved admin ends up doing something like this - lack of initial diligence and lack of following process more closely (clear warnings) equals huge time waste.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These are absurd and overly defensive arguments. The vandalising editors knew perfectly well what they were doing and I don't think anybody felt the need to waste time explaining it to Koalorka, as he clearly did not care (and again was resorting to arguments of COI pro-Australian revisionism). I haven't been involved in the page for very long, but I certainly did not expect an unblock to come out of left field with no warning, so I wouldn't have thought "documenting" anything was necessary, but then again it was so patently obvious that several editors were engaging in disruptive behavior to be funny that I would never have anticipated the need to explain it to anyone.

Apparently a lot of the people who responded here (including you) didn't take the scant seconds to review the "source" and determine it was not a good one. You did succeed in so heavily misrepresenting the situation that other editors mistakenly believed Koalorka had good intentions of improving the article.

Removing/blocking blatantly vandalism-for-humor edits is not article ownership, and AGF clearly does not apply to people who are vandalizing a page to be funny any more than it doesn't apply to people reverting vandalism. OWNership? Really? Then how did I come out of nowhere and rewrite the entire article? You shouldn't be making accusations about miscommunication when you didn't post a notice at the article about the ANI until after it was "concluded". You expected people to make special provisions for you when they didn't know you were involved? Some guy (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

None of your edits were before the block, or were problematic, as far as I could tell or am aware. I'm sorry if it appears I'm objecting to conduct of everyone who's editing there - that's not my intention. My objections are limited to the warnings and discussion on Koalorka's (and to some extent Lt.Specht's) contributions, and Koalorka's block, which you were not involved in.

Serious efforts to improve the originally rather silly article have been made since this all started, and all those who have contributed, particularly including you, deserve credit for that.

I only mentioned you below because TSC did. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your complaining about a lack of 'documentation' doesn't stack up. The level of warnings, etc, is about standard for the reversion of straight vandalism, especially in articles where this has been going on for weeks. Moreover, if you felt that there weren't enough details it was your responsibility to politely ask the blocking admin to explain the reason for the block after first carefully examining the diffs and sources. Instead, your initial message to RockMFR was to accuse them of being in breach of the blocking policy, threaten them with possible desysopping and demand that they revert the block immediately: [61]. When he responded to say that the reason for the block was vandalism you told them that you "strongly disagree with that" and took it here [62]. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• i suggest a deeper look into GWH's history to see if there is a pattern of admin misconduct. his attempting bullying of User: Some guy, or his 30 day block of me for 'baiting' a notorious abuser might be a start. the common thread between User: Some guy and me being blocked? We both were involved in disputes with WP:Guns members. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You are a WP:GUNS member, TSC: Wikipedia:GUNS#Participants. You edit firearms articles more often than I have over the last year at least... (as does Some Guy, who is not a project member but should be). Membership in a project or interest in a topic is completely irrelevant to abusive behavior or not. I have warned both Nukes4Tots and Koalorka over abusive behavior over the last few months and not disagreed with others' characterization of incivility, personal attacks and harrassment when it happened. The only common pattern here seems to be that WP:GUNS members seem to get along poorly in general, which is attracting a lot of admin attention (making me think I should consider withdrawing from the project; it would do well to learn from WP:MILHIST). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Please do not bring this argument here or involve me in it. Some guy (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Retaliatory edit warring at Carly Fiorina

Resolved

 – Blocked for 3RR --Smashville^talk 13:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(I've brought up the most recent flare up here at wp:an3, but I'm hoping more eyes can prevent situations like this in the future...)

For the last couple of years, I have had the article for Carly Fiorina on my watchlist. I've always found it intriguing how, every few months, someone comes along who thinks the article needs to be much more negative. Sometimes the content is reliably sourced, and if so, it stays. More often than not, it isn't.

Today, though, an even more interesting editor stopped by, with a position I wasn't familiar with: either I concede that his poorly sourced content can stay or he'll remove all other "supportive" content.

The article is a biography of a living person, and obviously has some additional "needs" as such. The subject of the article is in the news today, which I presume is why User:Rvcx stopped by.

In any event, the issue appears too complicated to be properly addressed at wp:an3, and wp:blp/n tends to not have enough eyes on it to handle the traffic it receives (unfortunately).

wp:blp is clear that it is necessary to revert to keep controversial, poorly sourced material clear from the article. However, User:Rvcx has gone through and removed any "supportive" content, and reverted (and is continuing to revert) to keep that content out of the article. This is clearly quite ridiculous, the article has been stable with most of its content for years, and the fact that it reached that point through the consensus of some very vocal editors only makes User:Rvcx's wholesale deletion of the content quite untenable.

I've begged and pleaded for more people to keep the article on their watchlist, but I haven't been very persuasive apparently. Please, please take a look if you have a second! And if you can just add it to your watchlist, I'd really appreciate it! user:J aka justen (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for 3RR. That last edit was just...pointy beyond pointy. --Smashville^talk 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jdisson

Resolved

 – Blocked indef.

Jdisson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I think we may be wasting our time on this one.  Skomorokh  11:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Aye. 3 months to think about his last block, and comes back and starts the same thing. No, I think not. Black Kite 11:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Aviation fellow 101

Resolved

This user is on a one sentence article creation spree. He has been warned or approached by a few people letting him know that he needs to expand but thus far only ignoring our requests. We need someone who can get through to him either through talking (which isn't working now) or a 24 hour block.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User notified.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User indefblocked by Wknight94, user log. Momo san ^Gespräch 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...if only for the breakneck speed! If someone wants to counsel him a bit and he agrees to discuss, anyone is free to unblock. Wknight94 ^talk 13:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can, I'll talk with the editor and see if he's willing to change his article-creation habits and be unblocked. Thus far he has yet to respond to any talk page messages, though. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 13:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. Now that we have stopped the river. The message might make it through now, Good luck!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He sent me an e-mail, FWIW, asking to be unblocked because he has a lot of airport info. Hopefully he'll figure out where his talk page is soon. Wknight94 ^talk 13:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see they've all been speedied. I'd disagree, because they have context, and the coordinate info is meaningful content. It's possible that they're not notable, but it would seem like airports with ICAO designations would be notable by default. Thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not convincedm although I take your point about the coordinates being context. I think they exist all right, but would they be notable......? Not convinced Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We couldn't get him to explain any of it, that was our problem.2 people tried to talk to him and no replies.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

TAG is a great source of basic info on airports. Luepo, for instance, is not an AOE (airport of entry, ie it's not cleared for passenger travel or freight), has only one runway, is in private hands, and has less than the minimum facilities required for the lowest grade of commercial airport. The only thing it seems to have going for it is that the runway is tarmac, not dirt.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I fail to see how this situation is different from the previous ones we had at this noticeboard. Y'know, those about a user creating countless one-sentence stubs. [63][64] In those cases, nothing happened, in this case, the user got blocked. I'm confused. --Conti|✉ 14:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you failed to properly research the situation. Here, we have an editor whose first edits were creating stubs, and made no attempts (except that email referenced above) to communicate about them. The other two editors you linked to have been around for years, have long track records of positive contributions, and discussed their edits with people who were concerned. 68.231.16.173 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say because a German politician stub is more likely to be a notable personage because of being a politician, whereas an airport location and 'So and so is an airport' isn't necessarily notable. Syrthiss (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Creating stub articles isn't a problem. Saying "So and So is an Airport" is when contacted for verification hoow or if the business was notable all requsts were ignored. This block isn't punitive just preventing any damage to the project. Also it would be lifted as stated above when he decides to have discussion with us.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If people decide that the stubs were okay, feel free to restore. I simply blocked to get his attention and, sure enough, he sent me an e-mail saying he didn't know where his talk page was, etc. He finally dropped a note there and hopefully some dialogue will ensue. Anyone can unblock if the situation looks better, and anyone can restore the articles if they seem salvageable. Wknight94 ^talk 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for an ublock now that he is having a dialogue with us. he was acting in Good faith according to his message he's just an airport enthusiast. We left a few links and that should help out!Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, already done. Wknight94 ^talk 14:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How about starting some notability and stub discussion at WT:AV perhaps? Let our new friend know where that discussion is happening so he can get on board quickly. Wknight94 ^talk 14:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. [[65]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Persisting addition of copyrighted material to Spyros Vassiliou

Ezteban100 (talk · contribs) is currently ignoring all warnings against copy / pasting materials from this source to Wikipedia, in direct violation of WP:C. MLauba (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ezteban100 hasn't re-added the material (or made any other edit) since the final warning was issues about 45 mins ago. As such, there is nothing actionable (yet), IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect, the warning was placed by me at 13:38 UTC, the user has since then made 11 consecutive edits after the warning. MLauba (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I slapped a CV template on the article and left a personal message on the contributor's talk page. I hope that will put the brakes on and open a discussion. If than not, than a block will be forthcoming. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Underground

There's an edit war going on here with multiple issues. Not sure what the best action is, but it likely needs admin attention. There's edit warring in process between Heresmyname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Heresyourname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both accounts have only contributed to this page. So we have spa's with similar user names EW'ing against each other.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing a link to "A website devoted to mocking the members of the democratic underground where they are referred to as primitives". It fails WP:EL as it is not relevant to the subject of the article and intended mainly to promote a website. Heresyourname (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On content I think you're correct. I likely wouldn't have brought it here if you didn't create a user name nearly identical to the other party. It at least gives the appearance that there's something unusual going on here.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandal

User:71.8.199.1 has been vandalizing highway pages and has been blocked repeatedly. While he has been blocked he has continued to other wikis: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#User_talk:71.8.199.1 Just thought I would crosspost here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Historicist, Israel-Palestinian / BLP vios

historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned to Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to edit war a new WP:BLP vio to accuse Khalidi of publishing seven times a "bogus quotation", a claim not in the reliable sources. The history of this editor's efforts on Khalidi's page (and indirectly, Obama) and the Israel-Palestine conflict more generally articles spans quite a few AN/I reports, a couple blocks, and likely some other things of which I'm not aware. In the latest issue he's recreated a deleted article he had earlier created on the subject,[66] edit warred the article name,[67] and edit warred Khalidi's BLP to WP:3RR.[68][69][70] (the first edit re-introduced material recently rejected). He's gotten my warning[71] and chosen to continue edit warring. You'll also note from the diffs that this editor, who has repeatedly accused me of bad faith in the past, is now accusing me of censorship and whitewashing. I won't propose a remedy but we need some help here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the editor has also been adding[72] the "bogus quote" content to other BLPs and adding[73][74][75][76] and edit warring to add[77][78] a WP:COAT-ish list of "see also" links to a number of BLP and other articles, which all have in common that they are incidents of claimed media bias against Israel. And now adding POV tags to the bio articles.[79][80] Some other editors and I have reverted most of these as a content matter, but this does seem to be part of a wide-reaching attempt to promote this issue. Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Adding information on a notable and well-documented falsehood to the page of the scholar who created the falsehood is hardly coatracking. User:Wikidemom has a trackrecord of removing well-sourced information on the grounds that I don't like it and bullying editors who he disagrees with by running to post on this noticeboard. It is not constructive behavior.Historicist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Historicist (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for edit-warring; this appears to be a fairly uncomplicated breach of 3RR. This is a repeat offense for this user on Rashid Khalidi, and I will therefore notify this editor of the discretionary sanctions in effect on Israeli-Palestinian articles. I think this user is skirting a serious WP:BLP violation, absent reliable sources charging Khalidi with "creating a falsehood" (as opposed to citing a published quote which later proved to be false). That may be an issue more productively explored at the BLP noticeboard. I have declined the speedy-deletion request at False Moshe Ya'alon quotation, for reasons I've detailed on the associated talk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And indef blocked for socking while blocked. nableezy - 16:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect speedy delete

Resolved

 – Nothing for an admin to do here, see WP:DRV, WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I truly hate to come here, because many users abuse this page to fight the Arab-Israeli wars by other means. However, the attempt by User:Nableezy to speedy delete a well-csourced article on a notable incident False Moshe Ya'alon quotation is against the rules.Historicist (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alleged_Ya'alon_quotation and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. nableezy - 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy declined by MastCell. This is a content dispute, doesn't belong at ANI. –xeno^talk 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hrm, a shame, as the substance of the current version apears to be little different than the redirected by consensus version. Off to AfD #2, then? Tarc (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  It contains a reliable source specifically about the quotation itself that discusses the effects its (apparent misquoting?) had. –xeno^talk 20:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, it really is like watching a bunch of three-year olds argue, isn't it? HalfShadow 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, nothing for an admin to do here. Pls gauge consensus at WP:DRV or WP:AFD. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A reminder that all of these articles are under WP:ARBPIA. In terms of productive editing, all are welcome over at WP:IPCOLL.--Cerejota (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange new account

Holmesj90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made only one edit, some antisemitic complaint on Historicist's talk page. Probably a throwaway account but still, not here to edit the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Long-term vandal - User:Steviemcmanaman

Not blatant enough for WP:AIV, and probably not immediate enough, so I'm bringing it here. As his talk page indicates, this editor has a long history of added unsourced claims and rumors about "romantic relationships" (and occasionally other things) to articles on celebrities, mostly low-grade celebs. So far as I can tell, after reviewing his edit history for the current year, none of his edits have been legitimate -- some proven false, some deleted as unsourced, an unhealthy number just hanging around, but not one has ever proved verifiable. Occasionally the vandalism is clear [81] (event that didn't happened inserted to make it appear that a source existed), but it's usually subtle enough to elude identification as vandalism, just coming across as bad editing. Nobody's editing can be 100% bad (or maybe 99%, because he occasionally deletes other rumors to make his own fit better) unless they're really trying hard. A block as a vandalism-only account appears to be in order. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Intentionally inserting unsourced information in BLPs can be considered vandalism. If no admin reviewing this decides to block him, you can leave a final warning after his next edit and then report to AIV if he continues. He has certainly received enough prior warnings to justify a final warning, I suggest this template as an appropriate one (adding unreferenced defamatory info to a biography of a living person). Note that this editor hasn't had an edit for almost 2 weeks, and no edits since the last warning. -- Atama頭 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why would discussing NPOV on a discussion page[82] be ever considered Vandalism? Although I'm directly responding to a discussion in which the Editor argues AGAINST the inclusion of a link to the ENTIRE report at the center of the persons notability - there exists a group of three editors who work together and focus their efforts on these types of articles that seem to exist as political pawns. One author has enshrined a portrait of Obama center mass on his talk page and proudly boasts of his dedication to the Democratic Party[83], another carries a number of bumper stickers on his home page[84]:

This user knows that FOX News is not Fair or Balanced. This user watches MSNBC. This user is a liberal and doesn't understand why Americans have demonised the word. This user wants to TAX THE RICH to provide health care, education and welfare for everyone. This user supports immigration and the right to travel freely upon the planet we share. This user supports the legalization of all drugs for adults. This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms. This user is sick and tired of Religion trying to hijack the government and wants stronger separation of church and state. This user voted for hope and change, not country first.

All edit primarily in articles like Acorn[85], et al, and are present on most of the political battlegrounds fighting for the left.

Any discussion or edit in the Susan Roesgen article at all seems to be responded to like Al Gore before the Supreme Court with everyone wearing an Elect Bush button on their robe - in reverse.99.144.250.128 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page comment you made seems almost like a personal attack to me. They are not allowed, but civil discussion is. Try to be kind to people, even if they seem like idiots. Also, we can't judge people here by their political views, but neither should people let them affect their judgment when editing. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IP99, that was some good general advice from Kotiwalo; the tone of your comments could probably have been less confrontational. However, reviewing admins should note that IP99 does seem to have a legitimate point: this deletion of talkpage discussion by User:Gamaliel, and the accompanying Edit Summary are mistaken, misleading, and somewhat offensive (to the other participants). With no comment on the deeper issue, it seems appropriate to give both editors a brief chat and links to appropriate policy on behaviour. Doc Tropics 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is your comment on the deeper issue, Doc Tropics. Gamaliel's action was not as rash as it would first seem, as there is a history of disruptive editing and trolling involved by the IP editor. Please see the edit histories and talk pages of this same IP editor under User:99.135.169.168, User:99.141.246.39 and perhaps other non-static IPs. The IP editor has been warned on numerous occasions for incivility, disruptive editing and personal attacks, and has been blocked multiple times for same. Comments such as these have escalated the level of response required with this IP editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My first edit was attacked [86]. I was then attacked as a "TeaBagger" without reference.[87]. That attitude continued:

99.141.246.39 I want you to cry me a river, build a bridge and get the fuck over it. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert, Belittle And Ignore are the Wiki cycles practiced by the three entrenched editors. Even as I requested a modicum of decorum and civility.[88] There is an enormous frustration to be found in getting Tag-Teamed[89] by what resembles nothing so much as blatant bias.99.144.250.128 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That comment was made by an anonymous IP user, and is not civil. About the reverts - I find it very unlikely that a group of people would conspire here to carry on POV-edits, because that would require a common plan, and a common plan would require communication, and in Wikipedia it's hard to communicate secretly. It is very likely that they are working individually and according to the policies and guidelines. If there is controversy about which should be added to the article, instead of edit warring by adding the content only to have it reverted several times, leave a message to the article's talk page where the other editors will have to explain the reasons for the edits. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was inappropriate for me to remove a personal attack on another editor. I also issued talk page warnings to the IP editor and the other editors when appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings

Resolved

 – No immediate administrator intervention needed; matter now at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Jay_Jennings.  Skomorokh  23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I did not create the article, I was a part of the AFD discussion. There were four keeps and one delete which were discussed on the AFD page. The closing admin did took no regard whatsoever to what myself and others had discussed on the page, rather they just deleted the page for what would seem a policy problem. I looked further into policies and as I first thought, the AFD process is supposed be taken from the consensus of a discussion; in which case this admin did not.keystoneridin! (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The proper venue for this question would be WP:Deletion review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

or my talk page since this editor hasn't discussed this with me and I am already awaiting further details of sources to consider voiding the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• You should never have closed the article in the first place. There were four keeps to one delete. What have I done for you to consider me a bad faith editor?keystoneridin! (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Whatever the merits of this article (I haven't looked at it), there is absolutely no problem closing an AfD with more Keeps than Deletes as "Delete" (and indeed vice-versa), if the Delete votes provide a stronger argument for their point of view. Indeed, an admin that merely closed every AfD based on headcount would probably end up at DRV on a regular basis. Black Kite 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not quite agree on that. I would say you should close with the minority if the majority opinions are not based on policy at all, or omit discussing a key superseding issue such as copyvio. There will sometimes be two plausible arguments from different interpretations of policy, and I do not think the admin has the right to judge in that case which is the better of the 2. If he really does think one the better, he should join the discussion and say so, and let someone else close. Our RfA questionings are sufficient to show whether we understand the basics, but not the nuances. Certainly not the disputed nuances. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, I was really trying to sum it up briefly for an editor who appeared to believe that AfD was merely a vote. Black Kite 19:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly old editor, but I've read old deletion discussions and around the time that "Votes for Deletion" became "Articles for Deletion", the standard seemed to be to count "votes" and if the result was close you would decide based on the value of arguments. It seems like the opposite is true these days, in that you first determine if those arguing for keep and arguing for delete both have policy-based, applicable arguments, and if so you might decide on strength of numbers. Of course if both sides have a decent argument and there's no overwhelming majority either way the AfD is either relisted if there doesn't seem to be enough participation, or closed as "no consensus" which defaults to keeping the article. That's how I've always seen the AfD process, I could be mistaken. -- Atama頭 20:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator who identifies strongly as eventualist, I see nothing wrong with the closure here; Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the arguments made in favour of the retention of the article were poor to say the least.  Skomorokh  23:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP, User:Intelligentsium

Resolved

 – We've only got limited patience. Blocked. Socks cropping up now. Now maybe it's resolved...

User:Intelligentsium This user frequently nominates articles for speedy deletion without any sort of consensus and does not assume good faith while working with other editors. I propose this user be blocked of their unwanted attitude. This user has also vandalized userpages. They violate WP:BLP all the time. --Mjp2515 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not generally needed for CSD nominations. It would be wise to read up on the speedy deletion policy, if you haven't already. And, it would be helpful if you provided diffs of the edits in question. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All I see are articles that you continue to recreate, at least one of which Intelligentsium nominated for WP:CSD#A7 and was then correctly deleted. Where am I going wrong, here? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I object to this unfounded accusation. The phrase "This user frequently nominates articles for speedy deletion without any sort of consensus..." indicates Mjp2515 does not understand Wikipedia policy - speedy deletion is there to bypass consensus. The statement "...does not assume good faith while working with other editors." is also untrue. My contributions speak for themselves in this respect. And when have I ever vandalized a userpage (Excluding my own)? Intelligentsium 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you created an article (twice), the total content of which was "Jai (Born August 4, 1993) who performs under the stage name"MR. MJP" commonly refered to as "MJP," is an Australian rapper from Wollongong, New South Wales". You "sourced" it with a ref that claimed to be from the Illiwara Mercury, but was actually that person's MySpace page. Unsurprisingly, it got deleted via WP:CSD#A7. And I've just deleted it again. If you're going to create an article about this person and it not be speedy deleted, it needs to establish the significance or importance of the person, preferably with reliable sources (i.e. not their own MySpace). Black Kite 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. He's tried creating it seven times. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: By "This user has also vandalized userpages.", Mjp2515 may refer to my posting of an autobiography warning on his user talk page. It was an honest mistake, and when he clarified on my talk page, I obliged him in removing the warning. Intelligentsium 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mjp2515, please stop recreating that article, whether under the same name, or a different one. I have tagged it for CSD A7, and if you recreate it again, I will warn you only once. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have userfied it for him and left him a note. If it appears again though... Black Kite 02:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the users recent contributions. You will see what they have done. The behavior is filthy and mud-blood. The wizarding community does not accept reliability of your ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjp2515 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--Mjp2515 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that, now read the note I left on your talkpage, please, and decide if you're going to stick to the rules or not. Black Kite 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BK, you're too nice. The only reason I haven't blocked him already is because of your first note on his talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He has again created the article... Until It Sleeps ^alternate 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And Jauerback's blocked him indef. Definitely resolved now! Black Kite 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He is now block-evading. User_talk:Mjp.09 has recreated Mjp. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 12:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've filed an SPI report here. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 12:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe not.......Mjp2515 created Mjp and it was speedied a few weeks ago, but User:Mjp.09 appeared and recreated it about three hours ago. Do I detect a sockenpuppe.....?Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mjp.09 indef blocked by Luk. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I checked on the deleted article, and WP:SALTed it - any future socks will not be able to recreate it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Serpentdove slithers back

Resolved

 – User in question has been indef blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking, new sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

MoralScientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is an obvious sock of the indef'd User:Serpentdove. I turned it in to WP:AIV. Someone might want to do a hard block or whatever it takes to keep him from creating more user ID's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair that user page is a classic, I heart it. It seems a shame to blank it. Nice catch though. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A new sock showed up, check out Linkcheck (talk · contribs).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also indef-blocked. Rd232 ^talk 11:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2 Bad blocks

Resolved

 – Calling this one resolved now. See Moving Forward if further action is required. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Right deep breath basically it all kicked off on O Fenian's talk page. Nja247 kept posting warnings, O Fenian kept removing which he is entitled to do, Toddst1 gives O Fenian a final warning for removing comments with a summary of "Revert. Harassment" and claims that O Fenian is making false accusations of harassment. Maybe O Fenian does feel harassed, O Fenian then calls Nja247 a power abuser, and Toddst1 blocks him for two weeks. He then adds back his warning that had been removed which he's not supposed to do and removes O Fenians comments, they are then added back by O Fenain and he removes the warning, Toddst1 disables O Fenian talk page editing. Domer48 then interjects and says that the block of O Fenian was bad, Toddst1 threatens Domer, Domer48 moves the conversation to O Fenian talk page to try and keep it in one place, Toddst1 blocks him for a month without warning. Nja247 then muddys the water on Domer's talk page with his past history which has no real relevance on whether a one month block is correct for what has happened which is, Domer questioning the actions of an admin, who responds by blocking Domer, Toddst1 reblocks Domer with talk page editing disabled. These two blocks are wrong. BigDunc 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that any interested admin check the actions in detail instead of relying on BigDunc's summary. It's mostly accurate, but there are nuances it misses. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuances? So lets get it straight this is what it boils down too

• The initial two week block on O Fenian is way too excessive.
• The block on Domer 48 for questioning an admin's actions by the admin he was questioning was bang out of order, when he was trying to keep discussion in one place.
• The one month block on Domer is way too excessive.
• The re-blocking without talk page editing was done way too quickly. BigDunc 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to know the full story here, but I do not like people re-posting warnings on people's pages. It's kind of - well - harassing. You want someone to read a message - if they remove it - esp. in anger - it means they read it. Case closed. If this really went down the way it sounds - someone re-adding a warning over and over and over, then an admin blocking the recipient for removing it over and over and over because they call it - well - harassment - then the blocked guy's friend saying, "hey, what the hell did you block him for?!!", then the same admin blocking him as well ---- then I don't like it. Sounds like a bad cop drama. Admins are supposed to put fires out, not spray them with gasoline. Wknight94 ^talk 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, that's not what happened. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Let me clarify a couple of things here:

• I blocked OFenian for This comment after multiple warnings. 2 weeks is not excessive for an editor's 4th block. I stand by the block. The talk page editing was disabled after this edit restored the uncivil comments. I'm glad to stand by that.
• I blocked Domer for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which was placing my comments which were directed to him/her on someone else's talk page with my signature. It is the editor's 10th block. I considered bringing it here to discuss banning the problematic user. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• You should have brought it here, blocking Domer only confirms to him that you are acting abusively. He claims you're abusive, and 20 minutes later you block him. An uninvolved party should have been asked to deal with this. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no abuse or bad cop drama here folks. Actually take time to read what happened and the extensive block logs please. There was no involvement in the typical sense of the word by Todd, and policy was being violated by those who are well aware of policy as they've been blocked for it multiple times. Good blocks and the actions are supported, and if they wish to appeal they can do so via email to ArbCom per policy guidelines. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! The same justification as the recently retired DrKieran gave for blocking me! The "block record". Which is itself made up of a whole series of bad blocks! Now we have two Admins citing "block record" as reason for dishing out draconian blocks. Something needs to be done about this. I still have the last block on my "record" even though the Admin resigned because of it. Harrassing someone on their talkpage and then blocking them for removing the harrassment is just completely outrageous (whether by one Admin or two tag-team Admons) and frankly I don't think either Admin here have given any good reason why they should not have their powers removed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read through Domer's posts (not Fenian's yet) and I disagree. The only objection Todd has raised is posting his message on O Fenian's page. It was an over-reaction to block for that. It wasn't unattributed, Domer wasn't posing as Todd and I think a block (especially such a ludicrously long one) was unjustified. Then you go and decide to poke Domer on his talk page while blocked. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Poke, you mean leave completely relevant comments for reviewing admins? Nja²⁴⁷ 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, Todd, are you saying that quoting another user is now blockable? I wholeheartedly agree with O Fenian's block...but blocking someone for quoting you? Come on man...that's beyond lame. --Smashville^talk 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not indicated that I was being quoted. It was repurposing of my words out of context. Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly a quote: "This is harassment now on my talk page..." and it's right smack in the middle of a comment of his...plus, how is it out of context when it was a standalone comment by you? Then...once he's blocked, a message is posted to his page which he removes (and he is well within his rights to remove)...and he had his talkpage access removed? Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive...what action exactly was this preventing? --Smashville^talk 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (many times) I'm not as worried about the block for "stick your warning" as I am by the history prior to "stick your warning". Why did he get a warning in the first place? Why did he get a half-dozen warnings?! The warnings were for removing warnings it seems. And for calling the mass-warnings harassment, which is exactly what they become when reinstated a half dozen times. Hence my last sentence about putting out fires instead of spraying gasoline. And the long block log for O Fenian seems to be three short blocks for edit warring, not harassment and such. I don't like it. Wknight94 ^talk 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well unsure of what warnings you're talking about (and which user), but I never re-added anything to the user's talk page just for the sake of doing so -- all three notices were unique and polite and addressed different issues raised by the editor himself on the article's talk page. That's not harassment. I urge you to check each of the three removed edits and you will see each was completely unique and not re-added out of spite, etc. I don't work that way, I wanted to accommodate the user and sort it. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You filed a sock report on Domer not long before this all kicked off of course he will feel harrased, Domer has had 3 or 4 sock reports against him all proved his innocence and I would wager money that this one will too. BigDunc 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent unblock of O Fenian are there ant admins looking at IMO the worse block of Domer? BigDunc 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nja247 continues to poke Domer here BigDunc 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Noting relevant issues for reviewing admins is not poking. The user has a history of making ridiculous claims of admin abuse and it's something that needs reviewed. I suppose whilst it's already here it should be looked at. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the issue was posting Todd's comment rather than accusing him of abuse, it's not relevant and continuing to post is unambiguous trolling. Nev1 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the available evidence neither block was warranted. (That may be a fault with the evidence, not the blocks.) For example Nja's justification of Domer's block refers to a single comment by Domer [90] citing a remark by an editor made elsewhere, relevant to that discussion. Other diffs cited by Nja are to his/her own comments, not to Domer's. At present the "gasoline" remark above seems apposite. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian unblocked without complete consensus

[91] - comments? Nja²⁴⁷ 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

His comments on the blocking admin's page say he's coming here next, so let's wait. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me. This dispute stems from the Provisional Irish Republican Army article, which Nja247 initially protected for two weeks. However since protecting it this editor has involved themselves in the underlying dispute, then indefinitely protected the page subsequent to this. I made a protected edit request, which Nja247 personally disputed, despite my request being based on the fact that the book cited does not source the sentence that is in the article. No other editor was disputing whether the edit should be made or not at the time I made my request, or prior to Nja247 disputing whether the edit should be made, so he was involving himself in the dispute then subsequently indefinitely protected the page. There are also other comments made in support or objecting to a particular version, which can be seen on the talk page. This editor has very much involved themself in the dispute, yet still protected the page. They were aware they were involved in the dispute, as when a related page needed protecting a request was made here rather than protecting it themself, yet the indefinite protection occurred after this!

While some no doubt will view this next comment as a personal attack and probably reblock me I consider this relevant to the current chain of events. I find Nja247 smug, condescending and patronising. Due to this and his abusive actions as an administrator I wish to have nothing to do with him, and I am sick and tired of him posting on my talk page and I now consider it harassment, so if anyone can tell him to just leave me alone, and ideally leave the dispute over the article to someone else? To try and drum into him how I viewed his non-stop posting on my talk page I reverted it with a summary of "Revert. Harassment" in the hope he would then leave me alone. And that edit summary is worthy of a final warning is it? I do not think so, and neither do other people. So I removed it, admittedly with some colourful language, but nothing that in my opinion merited a two week block. O Fenian (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You use colourful language alot. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's bed time for me, however regarding the harassment by me today, see my comment here. As for the article dispute, just look over at the article's talk page and this users' consistent disregard for policy and aversion to any form of dispute resolution will become clear. Two other admins (Thatcher and TheDJ) and an experienced editor (Durova) have told him how to go about it (ie get consensus and seek mediation), but he doesn't listen. I've never edited the article, have remained completely neutral, and have only tried to encourage resolution per policy, and only become 'involved' due to a WP:AN3 report. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nja247 by arguing against an edit by someone involved in a dispute (except for policy based reason, such as OR, unsourced etc) you are involving yourself in the dispute, regardless of whether you have edited the article or not. BigDunc 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is policy based, protection policy based. We do not edit the article to allow the party in dispute to put the article in their preferred state. They've been told this by me, two others admins and an experienced editor. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection policy specifically allows for reversion to a stable version if a contentious version has been protected, and as the addition is misleading and more importantly wrong and unsourced then it certainly is contentious. It's your, I'm not changing it attitude that has prolonged and inflamed the current dispute. BigDunc 12:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. A quick look would have addressed that because we would have noticed that this issue involved this sentence here. Which was added by this POV edit warring IP, now know to be Cromwellian Conquest per this sock report a title supported in my opinion by both their edit warring [92] [93] [94] [95] edit summaries, talk page commentspersonal attacks and their sectarian rants in addition to their previous edit warring all being the same edit, [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]. The problems had been pointed out [107] and discussion welcomed, with more detailed rationales also put forward [108] [109]. It was proposed and supported that the incorrect and misleading text be removed pending discussion [110] having outlined the problems above but this was repeatedly rejected by you. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked O Fenian

I regret to say that I considered the block to be profoundly unsound, so much so that I actioned an unblock before commenting either at the blocking admin's page or here. I am happy to place my reasons here, for review and revision (although, per WP:WHEEL, I would insist that there is consensus to either reblock for the violations or to reverse my actions as inappropriate - or both). My reasoning is;

• O Fenian is permitted to remove other peoples comments from his talkpage. Removing comments is an indication that they have been read.
• Persistently posting upon the same subject, and specifically the same aspect of the same subject, in short order - and when previous posts have been removed - is extremely poor practice, which may provoke an unfortunate response from the reader even where this is not the intention.
• The final warning issued by Toddst1 was therefore inappropriate - it is not the remit of an admin to determine any editors state of mind, and expecially to that contrary to to that expressed by the editor. If O Fenian was feeling harassed, or said he was, then per WP:AGF it should be assumed he was. In that O Fenian was providing a rationale which indicated his personal feelings for permissible removal of talkpage comments I cannot see how that it should be regarded as a personal attack. At most a level3 warning for incivility would suffice, but I would have regarded a personally worded level2 type to have been preferable.
• The block was inappropriately actioned, since the only edit by O Fenian subsequent to the warning

was to remove it, with colourful language directed at Toddst1. No further edits of those noted in the warning happened, except the above. However, Toddst1 blocked either on the basis of the one edit summary as noted in the warning or upon the reaction by O Fenian to the warning. Both rationales are wrong, since either there is no further transgression or it was directed at the admin who then blocked - and there is an acknowledged allowance to "letting of steam" immediately after a warning, etc., and an understanding that admins do not react to comments made by themselves. I have been looking at the PIRA/RFC edits by all concerned, and do not see anything that required more than a "pull it back a few notches" comments either there or on editor talkpages. I simply do not see that O Fenian did more than react less than perfectly at some ill considered postings on his talkpage, that the warning received was therefore excessive and the subsequent sanction was improper both in rationale and the person performing it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could you now look at the block of Domer which came about when he questioned the bad block of O Fenian. BigDunc 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding bullet two, you obviously jumped the drama gun and didn't read my comments. I won't repeat myself, so read this. As for discuss things with you first to avoid wheel warring, isn't that exactly what you did? Anyhow goodnight and get the facts straight mate first please in the future. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • isn't that exactly what you did? — Actually, no, it isn't. It's a disputed policy in practice, and people often make the argument that administrators should not unilaterally undo another administrator's actions that are the subject of on-going discussion without participating in that discussion beforehand, but the current formulation of the wheel warring policy is along the lines of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You block; another administrator undoes the block to restore the status quo ante; then you both discuss. It is exactly that that has occurred here in this case. Uncle G (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @LHvU: Agreed. Pretty much 100%. I will acknowledge Nja's comment above that the same warning was not re-posted over and over, but as LHvU points out, there should be a common-sense limit to how many times one is contacted and/or chastised in a short time on their talk page by the same person for the same subject. Regardless, the block of O Fenian was not good and the unblock is good. I haven't even gotten to the other block yet... Wknight94 ^talk 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you read the edits concerned carefully. What you will find is that far from this being Nja247 "chastising" O Fenian "for the same subject" the two editors were having a conversation, with one side of the conversation being Nja247 writing on User talk:O Fenian and the other side being O Fenian writing on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. This is a classic example of the disjointed conversations that happen on wikis. For your edification, here is the conversation made less disjoint:
    • 2009-08-19T16:54:03 O Fenian: "I find the summary above to be incorrect, and request that it be amended before anyone replies to this. […]"
    • 2009-08-19T17:05:46 Nja247: "I've put the user's comments in its own subsection, thus it's seen as their opinion. You should revise your comments to demonstrate your views on the situation, etc. See WP:RFC if needed. Cheers"
    • 2009-08-19T18:08:18 O Fenian:"This addition is just as misleading as the summary I have just complained about. […]"
    • 2009-08-19T18:13:39 Nja247:"The opinion given by Lot49a is just that. It's not a 'summary' as you put it. It's their opinion and if it's misleading that's really too bad. You're able to give your opinion of the situation as well. […]"
    • 2009-08-19T18:21:44 O Fenian:"If the "administrator" who abusively indefinitely protects this page is going to be allowed to present an inaccurate summary then blame it on someone else this is a waste of time."
    • 2009-08-19T18:25:14 Nja247:"If you wish to file a complaint against me then please see WP:ADMINABUSE. I've reworded everything as neutrally as possible and broke the sections up to accommodate your whinging. […]"
  • As you can see, this is not a repeated series of warnings. This is a conversation, with one participant addressing xyr interlocutor in the third person and on a different talk page. Nja247's contribution to that conversation started to go downhill at 2009-08-19T18:25:14, but that doesn't make it any less of a conversation. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• (ec)@Nja An editor is feeling harrassed by you (rightly or wrongly) yet you continue to add comments on to their page not very wise is it? BigDunc 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • O Fenian's "harrassment" edit post-dates the conversation that Nja247 and O Fenian had. There was no indication during that conversation, by O Fenian, that xe considered having it to be harrassment. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Firstly, I would comment that I had not realised it was a discussion - I did not pick up the thread although I had read all the comments. However, Wknight94 did not say "warnings" but rather the term "contacted and/or chastised" and referenced it being made in a short period. Notwithstanding that it was interaction, part of that interaction was O Fenian removing the content from the his talkpage. I am at a loss why firstly Nja247 was responding to article talkpage comments at the other editors talkpage, and secondly why they persisted in doing so upon earlier posts being removed. Had Nja247 reposted the comments at the article talkpage then there would have both been visible continuity, plus O Fenian would not have been able to remove the content. I have seen much that has puzzled me today, and I would be grateful if the parties could make things clearer to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Pottery Barn rule applies here. It was pretty clearly a conversation when I read it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted on their talk page for the simple fact that's where it belonged. The disruption and sidetracking on dispute resolution did not belong on the article's talk page. Me telling them how to complain about me was more appropriate on their talk page. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On their talk page over and over and over... He clearly didn't want you there as his reverts indicated. In case it wasn't clear enough, he cleared it up with this edit summary. The response was Toddst1 Twinkle-warning him for a personal attack - which seems odd to me. O Fenian lashed out at the ridiculous warning and then he was immediately blocked - for harassment?! And for two weeks no less! With the explanations above, I'm willing to put aside the issue of the repeated comments by Nja247 despite the repeated removals, and just focus on the last few actions. Since when is using the word "harassment" in a two word edit summary a "personal attack"? The "personal attack" warning seems ridiculous to me and the block was far too quick and too long. Then the talk page removal was too quick too. And then blocking Domer for similar outrage at the situation? For a month?! Ugh, the whole thing stinks. Wknight94 ^talk 11:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Domer48 also unblocked

Upon the basis that an involved admin actioned the sanction, Toddst1 was being questioned over their block of O Fenian I have also reverted the above block. Since I have already concluded that the initial block was improper I realise that my actions are not as neutral as I might wish them to be, but I am unable to reasonably undo one without being constrained to undo the other. I would, however, not consider it a violation of WP:WHEEL if another admin unilaterally reversed my unblock - although I would request that they place their rationale here for consideration and confirmation as I have. I will expand on what I see as a poor rationale for the block (and surprising poor one for the unblock decline, too) if asked, but would prefer other people to review the situation and come to their own conclusions and consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with unblock. Would suggest to Domer48, however, that with a block record that long, stepping away from the keyboard might be a good alternative to lashing out at people, whatever the provocation might be. Black Kite 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All I can say at the minute is thank you for that, if I say any more it will be too much. I’ll cool off first. I think this was bang out of order, but hey compared to this? Black Kite if I just just point out that this block is on my record now. The last one was for asking a question etc etc. But thanks for the advice. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: the last one was not for "asking a question". Move to strike. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

<redacted - I misunderstood> LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For asking a question, that's your Diff on the block. No more posts for the night, cooling off period. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles." As I've said from day 1, that was the rationale for the block. Just because you said other things in that diff doesn't mean I used them to make my decision.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For anyone not familiar with the history here, see GWH's detailed review of everyone's actions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And for a detailed responce! Notice also the next sentence, which was left out above "Please provide a link?" You never did and never have. What was said about your actions in that?

"The block by SarekOfVulcan was problematic in duration, lack of warning, and conflict of interest, but not fundamentally flawed." "SarekOfVulcan bent admin policy here" "Archiving the talk page discussion was not a policy violation but was probably a mistake." "The second block on Domer48 bent Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks." "The third block, restricting talk page editing, established that SarekOfVulcan is by now sufficiently involved and using questionable judgement that the voluntary admin powers restriction agreement Sarek announced above (not to use them against Domer48 again) is strongly recommended going forwards..."

Who was the first here to respond to this report? Who was canvassed by the Admin at the root of the problem? Who just happened to showed up on an article they never edited before after I had walked away from a dispute? On my detailed responce above, who was the first in to comment on it? The third Admin to be canvassed by the Admin at the root of this. It appears that certain Admin's seem to show up a lot around me, and have to mention them again in my responce. The block was over turned, and the report was rejected, but I really must be a bad fellow! --Domer48_'fenian' 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

One takeaway

Please, please, please if we can learn one thing from this: Admins should read and understand WP:UP#CMT. It's a bit of policy that is sound and well intentioned, but we still have too many people operating without understanding it. If someone removes a warning on their page, DONT replace it. No comment yet on the rest of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 August 2009

I have read this discussion with growing disbelief. I believe there is clear evidence of abuse by both Admins involved. How much more of this must certain editors have to take? We need to clean out the stables here; I suggest both Nja247 and Toddst1 resign as Admins, or we should institute proceedings into their actions. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

as for dealing with the admins involved, resigning is way too drastic. Every active admin makes mistakes. All that can be expected is to acknowledge them, and try to avoid them in the future. That's what we should want to see. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Per DGG. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite. There's no need at all to raise the temperature by suggesting the admins did anything but act in good faith based on the situation as they saw it. Rd232 ^talk 08:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant a little more than that. I would expect some sort of acknowledgment from the administrator that that they were doing was not correct, and that they intend to watch themselves more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) .

Nope. I still see it differently as do the admins who actually fully researched this convoluted situation. I think some of the drive-by reviews and commentary of this situation are pathetic. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Were are the comments of the "admins who actually fully researched this convoluted situation"? All off wiki were they? Like you here with your private response, or your mate here with more of wiki back biting and bitching? Your comments like your Block are whats pathetic!--Domer48_'fenian' 13:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Note that the latest vexatious report for a checkuser on Domer has been closed. How many times is that? Could we now block him because of his checkuser record as well as his block record? Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Protonk: Again Protonk, it's been well established and accepted above that there was a conversation taking place, and I had not reposted any warnings. Each comment was unique and addressed a different concern raised by the editor. At no time had they said it was harassing until the final one when they did say that and I ceased. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Sarah: Well if you've read the report and the clerk endorsement of that report you would have noted it was based on evidence that was available and was a possibility. I don't file frivolous SPI reports. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You described him as "the likely sockmaster" on another Admins page! Despite five earlier clearances by checkuser. And I sense no hint of reflection on the even-handedness of your actions. Though in the calmer light of the morning calling for you to resign was probably a bit severe - an apology (to the victims) might suffice; though I can't speak for them. Sarah777 (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, there was no evidence available, and therefore there was no possibility of the report being based on evidence. As you rightly point out, the accusation was made prior to the report and I rightly considered it harassment. What was the evidence? If this is not provided, it was just a fishing trip. Your post also highlights the fact that there was private corrispondence about me, which is also uncalled for. The only reason I can suggest is that having canvassed other Admin's [111] [112] offering accusations, and only being partially successful, they adopted a different approch. Having made these accusations about me, I note they did not get the same warning I got, even when I mentioned it. All I got was this another accusation, which I removed, for which I was blocked.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, the clerk made an honest mistake which I accept, therefore there is no clerk endorsement of that report. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

OK, so we seem to be reaching some consensus (possibly)

• both blocks undone and left undone
• Admins reminded of Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings

If there are other issues or longer-term issues with the (un)blocked users, they should be addressed separately or elsewhere. If there is any serious suggestion (preferably by uninvolved editors!) that these incidents may have involved abuses by admins rather than mistakes (or perhaps mistakes so bad they require further examination, as opposed to run-of-the-mill "people make mistakes" mistakes), that should be addressed separately or elsewhere. So perhaps we can draw this incident to a close? Rd232 ^talk 14:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all concerned, it’s appreciated. One question though, is it possible to have the block removed from my log. Some have used it as an issue? I did ask the Blocking Admin, they declined with bad grace. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer I usually hear to that question is a simple "no". I think it would take involvement by developers and I don't know of any case where it ever actually happened. All the more reason admins need to be careful with their blocks. Wknight94 ^talk 15:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important though, it's happened often enough? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd urge some truly uninvolved admins to take a look at the toxic discussion on Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army which led to this incident. There is incivility and a lack of AGF from all sides. Given that The Troubles is under general sanction, I feel like some attention should be given to calming the situation down. Lot 49a^talk 16:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a subject pacific case, bad blocks. The blocks were lifted! Were moving forward, and I’ve yet another bad block on my log. So how do I get it off? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You note the unblocks in the block log when necessary... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The blocking admin only noted 10 blocks in their block summary. One Admin R.Friend blocked me and because of a number of bad blocks mine included lost their tools. Unlike you, I don't see the other admin's look at the merits of each case. You lucky enough do. Is it a tech issue not being able to remove them? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales' block log. Even he doesn't remove blocks from his log; it's simply not done.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Rd232 above, I'm willing to move on and thank once again the Admin's and Editors here.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the original admin followed the WikiClique tradition: If somebody is part of the ruling clique of Wikipedia, or on good terms with them, then they are free to remove any comments and warnings they dislike from their talk page, and it's harassment against them if somebody keeps re-posting them; however, if somebody is "on the outs" with the ruling clique, then the reverse is true: if they remove a ruling clique member's comments/warnings, they are the one harassing the cliqueista. WP:SAUCE. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't helpful. You make baseless allegations that can only have been calculated to increase division. --TS 12:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for intruding on your turf; I should have realized that making baseless allegations to increase division is your job. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army

The situation really could benefit from more eyes. A recent mediation request didn't open so they're running a content RfC. The content issue is probably resolvable; it needs assistance. Durova³⁰⁶ 15:03, 21 August 2009 (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.

Death threat by User:C-157 Challenger

Resolved

 – Indefblocked. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandal only account, now stepping up to threatening to kill those who warned and reported him. Bringing here just to quicken the obvious block. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Mentifisto. Frmatt (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Now the user can't send emails to other users, and can't edit his talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This might get ugly @ WQA

This has bad written all over it. Some additional eyes with tools might be wise. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... interesting. Looks like it might not be something to bring the "young-uns" to. I'm wondering if both parties should be notified of this ANI thread as well. I haven't looked at the content dispute end of it, but I'll agree that the links indicate that the dialog certainly needs to be toned down. — Ched :  ?  17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Fabartus

Up to their old tricks again [113][114]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a note. If he keeps it up, report back. John Reaves 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't work [115]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't even find an incident that would have set this user off. It appears that after being offwiki for a month, Fabartus just showed up at your talk page. Is this a correct view of the situation, or am I missing things? Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he was editing anonymously at George I of Great Britain. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I concur. Syrthiss (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for incivility per his last edit summary. John Reaves 17:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Serpentdove

Resolved

 – user indef blocked. watch out for possible socks. Rd232 ^talk 20:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Serpentdove (talk · contribs)

I am posting here to ask for an admin to review the edits of this user. They frequently engage in personal attacks and direct vitriol against other editors, despite being spoken to politely and civilly. They have also made frequent comments about libel and other editors being "libelers", and accuse them of harrasment. I've asked them to calm down and respect our policy, but my edits were simply removed. See this thread and the those below for some evidence of problematic behaviour: User_talk:Serpentdove#Proposed Deletion of Meco's Narcissism. Further diffs can be presented if required, but this seems enough for some educational action to be taken. Verbal chat 08:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can unequivocally second Verbal's statements. This user has been met with polite and helpful comments from experienced editors but is somehow of the mindset that any comment is an evil attack on freedom and truth and responds with ranting and vitriol. I was myself apprehensive about filing for a review of their behaviour since it is so obviously disturbed and over-the-top, but now that Verbal has decided to do so I present my perspectives to assist in the evaluation of this. __meco (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I even initially questioned a speedy-tag by meco, replacing it by POV-check+wikify-tags. there was every attempt on my side to assume good faith and trying to give the author of mentioned article a chance to tweak it and remove the POV-tone. these actions were met with the same hostility. After a while, I gave up and re-instated meco's judgement (>"speedy").

I gave the author 2x uw-attack which s/he subsequently removed from his/her talkpage. rationale for uw-attack warnings based on these remarks:

Edit comment: "removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb"'

On my talkpage: "libeler" [116]

On article's talkpage: "Noteworthiness is not by consensus you wannabe geniuses and word-misdefiners (...) you're whining your unnoteworthy jealous opinions" Seb az86556 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(Actually, I had originally PROD'ed the article, but as the situation now stands I don't care whether the PROD is reinstated or the speedy tag remains. __meco (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

(Just saw that. Yes, my bad, wasn't sure which one it was Seb az86556 (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

I am posting here to respond to Verbal's subversive hypocrisy and taking me out of context in order to make me look like an unfriendly hypocritical fundamentalist Christian. He posts welcome notices when he disagreed with my edits AFTER I stated I was a Christian and long after my numerous edits which weren't noticeably related to religious matters till AFTER I started editing the Christianity page I find his magically religious-edit timed "welcomes" to be a form of harassment and which annoys me, and which is in violation of Federal Internal Laws concerning Internet harassment. I am also bringing to notice user meco's edit warring via user Seb az86556 and possibly user RadioFan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Users meco and Seb az86556 are engaged in an apparent subversive edit war against me because I am a Christian and Verbal is aiding them with this complaint. Notice:

• 08:41, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (5,238 bytes) (author not allowed to remove tag per policy) (undo)
• 08:17, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,894 bytes) (fine, have it your way) (undo)
• 08:15, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) m (4,879 bytes) (you're being a pest) (undo)
• 08:14, 20 August 2009 Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) (4,897 bytes) (Undid revision 309029142 by Serpentdove (talk)no, do not mss w/ me, this is a goodfaith attempt)
• 08:12, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,867 bytes) (removed stupid claims, how can it be not neutral if I've fought to show he's "noteworthy"? dumb)
• 08:05, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,719 bytes) (→The Public's Acceptance of LaViolette's Theories: made explanation more understandable)
• 08:02, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,697 bytes) (removed the absurd false contesting that Paul is not noteworthy)
• 07:58, 20 August 2009 Serpentdove (talk | contribs) (4,998 bytes) (added clear evidence that Paul LaViolette is more than noteworthy)
• 14:32, 19 August 2009 Meco (talk | contribs) (4,172 bytes) (Proposed deletion. We require some better publicity (i.e. in reliable sources than what this article is now supported with.)

Notice "meco" says "We"? Sock puppetry anyone? I showed noteworthiness of Paul and was allowed to remove the non-noteworthy template and no one contested my arguments on his talk page, yet then seb pops up to re-add another speedy deletion template and refuses to make any explanations as to why.

Notice my profile states that I am a Christian? I have been to the page of a repeat page vandal whom meco and others ignore and merely repeatedly warn. Yet when I, a Christian make comments no worse than one's like Sebs' "don't mss with me" and "fine, have it your way" I'm reported? They users are clearly biased and engaged in committing a hate crime against me using subversive means. As you know, bullying can be subtle, as can harassment. That I "punch" back when bullied should not be the issue, but the subversive harassment. These people are feigning deep offense to make their case and to misdirect you from the issue of their edit warring and not bothering to discuss what they are so concerned about. One must wonder why it was only AFTER I stated that I was a Christian that I was given Verbal's LATE welcomes and TWICE. Verbal's evidence is weak and petty and his lack of showing anything but a pathetic reference shows his lack of genuine concern for the truth and genuine morality. I hope you can see through the pretense of hypocrisy of this bully "We" gang.Serpentdove (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just joined the two threads together. The above is typical of this users interactions. Note to Serpent Dove, I'm not a US citizen. Also, I'm glad meco and I agree on something :) Verbal chat 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait. You're going on about sockpuppetry and conspiracy simply because of the use of the editorial we? It seems to me that meco was simply referring to the policies of Wikipedia that require establishment of notability using reliable sources ("we" meaning Wikipedians in general). I don't know (and I don't care) what other conflicts you have with meco (or anyone else, for that matter), but you're making a mountain out of a molehill by taking offense at a harmless pronoun. --clpo13_(talk) 10:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I used the "we" meaning the Wikipedia community. I could have clarified this to Serpentdove at some point since this has become a recurring complaint, however, the sheer uncivility of the user's posts has made me decide simply to let the user crash and burn at their own behest. __meco (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbals confused state of mind

In what place did I say a single thing about you not being a US citizen? Clearly your logic is in question with random statements like that that have nothing to do with my oh so horrible mind-destroying politeness Mr. Concerned Verbal. If you are seriously this mentally weak, get out of Wikipedia and go back to your crib. And wow, you're happy that you agree with meco about something? Verbal, you're deliberately being annoying, that is harassment let alone Internet harassment. Grow up and get the chip off your shoulder. Stop trying to force everyone to love and appreciate whatever it is you do. Read Wikipedia's rules again and stop arbitrarily applying them whenever it suits your feelings. And STOP TAKING ME OUT OF CONTEXT. Don't libel me again.Serpentdove (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to strike the personal attacks. You might want to strike the potential legal threat about "libel" above ... seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

SD now appears to be disrupting the Edit warring noticeboard, and further evidence of problems diff (secure). Note that meco and I have nearly always disagreed in the past, that my religious POV is unlikely to be a factor here, and that I immediately apologised for reposting the welcome material, but did point out several useful links to policies. And it's Dr Concerned Verbal :). The US remark was about SDs reference to US laws. I initially thought this user was just going about things the wrong way and needed some pointers, but that hasn't helped I'm afraid. Verbal chat 09:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Would removing everything from Paul LaViolette article that doesn't comply with WP:V (which is just about everything as far as I can tell) help reduce the drama in the meantime pending it's almost inevitable deletion ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Editorial comment, etc.

For a guy who claims to be Christian, this Serpentdove doesn't act much like one. I have to assume the "I heart God" kinds of editorial comments on his user page are intended only to generate controversy and disruption. Looks like it's working, so far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it matters, he apparently evaded his block by using an IP address 75.172.195.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to make a minor correction.[117] Go figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 5:5. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently when God was handing out "meek", this snakebird was out to lunch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And did you notice his comment "God you guys are stupid and arbitrary. God you are humorless." Christians don't talk like that. That's a violation of the Ten Commandments. Onward Christian Troll-diers! Trolly, Trolly, Trolly, Lord God Almighty! Trolly Rollers! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, "Christian" can be an expression of intent (wanting to be like Jesus), and many demonstrate inconsistent and imperfect execution of that intent. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The boy gets a cigar, for the understatement of the week. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Extend the block

Take a look at his latest edit [118]. Again accuses Verbal of libel, of having a criminal mind, excusing rape, etc. Pretty vicious. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Socking and continuing to abuse other editors. I seldom agree with Baseball Bugs, but this guy looks like the leading light of Trolls for Jesus. Second the call for a longer block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. :)

"Trolls for Jesus". Perfect. I think it's clear he's not here to help build an encyclopedia and he should be chilled permanently. P.S. I removed my challenging comments from his talk page, since he was ignoring them anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here. Having been following this since the initial edits, and in light of the user page and talk comments, I'm inclined to think that this is nothing more than a trolling account. Every action seems to be performed in order to incite further argument. --Cpl Syx (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to take away his right to edit his talk page. Oh, and don't forget to (short-term) block the IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any good in extending the block for a definite duration. The talk page definitely needs to be locked down for a few hours. If there continue to be problems, simply block indefinitely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I'd already blocked him indef. I think a quick read of the talkpage will convince anyone that the editor is not here for any useful purpose. No objection to anyone reversing the block length if they really think there's any point, though. Black Kite 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to tell that 75.172.195.7 is not serpent dove (I checked due to the concerns of socking). -- Luk ^talk 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you could confirm that, but I blocked it short-term anyway. Since that was its only edit, it's hardly likely to cause any collateral damage. Black Kite 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard to figure why that IP would come out of nowhere and make a cosmetic correction to an obscure item in an administrative page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I found the diff from Doug to be very funny, although I find it embarrassing when other (ahem) 'Christians' behave in this manner. He certainly blasphemes a lot (I'll avoid a slur against some denominations here)! I support the longer block, aware of the possibility of socking - though it should be easy to spot unless he behaves, but then there's no problem. I don't know why I got him so worked up, as I was uninvolved apart from filing this report. I agree that this was probably never a genuine account, and was probably here intending to make trouble like his. Shame, although amusing. Verbal chat 13:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still cracking up over "Trolls for Jesus". Quite possibly the best thing I've read on WP this year. --Smashville^talk 14:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A gem indeed from the user Elen of the Roads. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst

Yesterday i reverted a big rewritting of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article by user User:Kurfürst because in my opinion the edits worsened the article and i explained that on the talk page. As a reaction user Kurfürst accused me of bad faith and went to insult me in worst possible fashion on some talk page. [119]. Since Kurfust has a long history of incivil behavior I think a block would be in order. Loosmark (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have informed Kurfürst of this discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This editor was behaving disruptively in the article, reverting every addition I made during the day, arguing that it was 'POV pushing'. He has several similiar issues in other articles with other editors, and had several content disputes with myself in other articles. [I suggest you take a look at these revert of his in another article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bombing_of_Wieluń&diff=308685026&oldid=308684798]. Generally it involved him reverting every change I have made without any proper explanation made.

No editor supported his revert, and an admin eventually reverted him, and supported my edits. Please also [take a look at the article's talk page]. He was asked on the talk page to provide his specific concerns with the edits by admin Trevor MacInnis and myself on the talk page; instead, when finding no support, he came here filing a 'report'. This should give a fairly good idea on the good faith or bad faith involved in this matter.

It seemed to me from the start to be bad-faith disruptive editing with the only intent to stirr up trouble. Loosmark had never edited or showed any interest in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article before, and it would appear he was following my contributions and trying to provocate me

We are currently in the process of trying to bring the article to a Featured article; for this reason, instead of engaging a revert war with him, I choosed to bring it to the attention of other editors working on this article to decide wheter they find my contributions supportable, or came to the same conclusion as I did, that it was simple trolling. Given the confrontative history of this editor, and the current circumstances, it while perhaps not appropriate to describe his actions as trolling, I would say it was still accurate. This editor was simply looking for a fight, to bait me into an edit war so he could file an ANI report then, and to solve his content disputes in this way in other articles. Kurfürst (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't acting as an administrator with my edits above, just and editor interested in the article, and any comments I made should not be construed as a warning or administrative decision. As such I'll try to remain out of this. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

reply to Kurfust: I don't know why Kurfürst decided to write the long rant above. The Bombing of Wieluń article has nothing to do with my complain (even if also on that talk page he acted like a jerk telling blatant lies like that me or/and Jacurek are banned from AE topics(???), or giving the impression that editor Hohum in general "opposed my edits" something that got promptly refuted twice [120], [121]). Anyway returning to the topic of the complain I planned to explain my concerns on Messerschmitt Bf 109 in more detail but i have a life outside wiki and still didn't have the time to do so. The only reason i wrote this complain is because i noticed his insult and i think it is totally totally unacceptable for sb to write stuff like "the troll raised his ugly head" for another editor. Loosmark (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'even if also on that talk page he acted like a jerk telling blatant lies'. Its good to know you have such concerns for matters of civility, and that while you don't have time to discuss your mass reverting of others building an article, you still find time to file ANI reports on them..

Also your contributions list Special:Contributions/Loosmark show you spent your whole day reporting me and reverting some other, most of your previous day reverting me and filing an ANI report on yet another editor, and the day before that you were reverting some other editor at 2:24 AM etc... no wonder you find little time while being so busy reverting and reporting others, to actually discuss and contribute to articles...! Kurfürst (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about again? This is the only report i made in more than a month. You should really stop making up stuff... Loosmark (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, both of you avoided edit-warring by sticking with one revert and taking things to talk pages, which is great. On the other hand, you've both been very uncivil once things were taken to talk pages. Kurfürst, calling Loosmark a "troll" and saying that they are "initiating an edit war" and questioning their motives aren't productive ways to respond. If you disagree with the changes made, then discuss your difference of opinion and make your case as to why your edits were necessary; don't attack the editor. Loosmark, calling Kurfürst a jerk and a liar puts you just as much in the wrong. I suggest that both of you either focus on a compromise regarding a different opinion on the content, or just simply avoid each other if possible. I don't think there's anything requiring administrator action. -- Atama頭 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Atama but what you say is completely ludicrous. I have not even mentioned the Bombing of Wieluń article he brought that topic up and yes he lied there that Jacurek is banned from editing articles about Eastern Europe, he falsely tried to give the impression that the editor Hohum is against my edits where in fact he was more against his edits and he also lied here above where he said i started several complains against editors in the past days which is nothing but a blatant lie. All those are facts and he does even try to dispute them. He on the other hand went to write in a talk page that "i'm a troll and that i raised my ugly head". But now according to you I am "as much in the wrong" as him. Really, i'm out of words. Loosmark (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Atama, great suggestions but it is very hard to compromise with user Kurfürst. This is at least my experience while working with him on some articles in the past. I will not go into details here unless he attacks me (I totally expect that knowing him) but I just wanted to let you know that he is more problematic that you think. To his credit I would like to say that he indeed is getting better in terms of not reverting endlessly as he did before but that could be because he was blocked for doing that recently. However introduction of controversial material by him, with weak or dubious sources and verbal manipulation or plain lies (as Loosmark pointed out) remain so far unchanged.--Jacurek (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, if you can't accept that it's inappropriate to call someone a jerk then I don't know what else to say. And it is rather extreme to call someone a liar, even when they write something you think or even know is incorrect. There can be any number of reasons for someone to write something that is incorrect; a misunderstanding, a different point of view, etc. To call someone a liar is to declare unambiguously that they had malicious intent in their actions, and it is very uncivil to do so. I stand by what I said 100%, that your words on this noticeboard are equally as uncivil as those of Kurfürst in the original diff you provided. I don't think the best way to ask for action to be taken against someone's incivility is to act the same way. -- Atama頭 22:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Atama, you are absolutely right. I think that Loosmark is just loosing it while dealing with Kurfürst because I never so him using such a language before, but again, you are right, it was highly inappropriate calling him a liar even if one is sure that his verbal manipulation was not accidental.--Jacurek (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok Atama, now you only need to explain how do you think that the lies he told are "misunderstandings", "different point of view" etc etc etc. different point of view what? that I've complained against other editors, that Jacurek is banned from editing Easter European articles? how can there be different point of view on that? it's either true or it is not. And besides if he would have really made those errors in good faith due to some mysterious "misunderstanding" he would have apologied afterwards which of course he didn't even dream of. Loosmark (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, saying something that's untrue isn't automatically a lie. If Kurfürst was proven wrong and didn't apologize afterward that could either be because they were embarrassed to admit that they were wrong, or disagreed but decided to no longer pursue it, or any other number of reasons. All I'm saying, for your own benefit, if you want to pursue accusations of incivility you should try to be as civil as possible in the process, just some advice. I do see that you've redacted some earlier language, which is a good thing. And it certainly seems true to me that Kurfürst has been uncivil. -- Atama頭 23:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that..agree, uncivil editors always "loose" at the end.--Jacurek (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)"Also your contributions list Special:Contributions/Loosmark show you spent your whole day reporting me and reverting some other, most of your previous day reverting me and filing an ANI report on yet another editor, and the day before that you were reverting some other editor at 2:24 AM etc... no wonder you find little time while being so busy reverting and reporting others, to actually discuss and contribute to articles...!"

I think the "ANI report" Kurfürst is referring to here is the 3RR post made. It's the administrators' noticeboard, but not the incidents section. Again, I think some of these false statements are just a misunderstanding. Others might be deliberate falsehoods, but without evidence of ill-intent it's just mudslinging. Mud is being slung from both sides in fact. -- Atama頭 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Loosmark#Notification and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice: Placed on notice Skäpperöd, Loosmark, Elysander, and Jacurek.

Even without checking the long 'edit' history of Loosmark and Jacurek editors (they generally act and aid each other, reverting edits with a stereotypically repeated reasoning of 'no consensus', 'controversial', 'pov pushing' in each case, but never going into any specifics on the talk pages, and had dozens of similiar cases already) it should be clear by now that their editing behaviour in this case has very little to do with the content in the Messerschmitt 109 article

I am afraid that assuming good faith about it would be borderlining extreme naiivity at this point. Its a simple case of stalking, attempting to start an edit war, and when this doesn't work out, shopping the ANI as a last resort. Its not so rare around here. Anyway, it has been a major waste of time just to respond to it - it doesn't even worth it. Kurfürst (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst, I can now see why you had stated that the editors shouldn't be editing Eastern Europe articles. The way I read that sanction is that the editors who have been given notice can then be blocked or banned if they misbehave on such pages. Loosmark, I can't imagine that you were unaware that you were mentioned in an Arbcom sanction, and while I don't know if you've violated the sanction, that definitely shows that Kurfürst's statement wasn't a lie. In any case, I feel like this is peeling apart like an onion whose layers get worse and worse the deeper they go. My only intention was to warn about incivility but this is getting into really murky waters now and I think I'll bow out and let an actual administrator step in, if any is willing. I retract what I said before about none of this requiring administror action. With possible Arbcom enforcement needed on one side, and an editor with a repeated block history on the other, I'm going to let more capable hands take over. Good luck to all involved, and if at all possible please keep cool from now on. -- Atama頭 00:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Atama, i thought that you are an admin... To answer briefly yes I made a comment on some 3RR report that doesn't mean that "i filled an ANI report on yet another editor" as Kurfust falsely claimed. Also your conclusion that "that definitely shows that Kurfürst's statement wasn't a lie" is absurd, no Arbcom sanction banned me or Jacurek from editing Eastern European topics. If somebody is spreading such completely untrue rumors around he's simply defaming me. But anyway i didn't even complain about those falsities the topic of this complain is Kurfust writting about me that i'm a "troll who raised his ugly head". Loosmark (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Gingerly stepping back in... No, I'm not an administrator. Just a regular editor who gave an opinion, and who thought he saw a simple dispute. As I said, you're slinging mud without reason. Kurfürst confused 3RR with AN/I, that's not the same as a lie. Kurfürst also interpreted your warning about Arbcom as a topic ban, which isn't true but in fact you're a step away, so that was a misinterpretation, not a lie. Your insistence that these are lies when you have evidence suggesting that they have some basis (if misread) are a continued incivility. My last piece of advice to you, just as an editor, is to stay away from those articles. If you get in trouble there you can be blocked for up to a year in length. If you stay away from those articles you avoid both the danger of such a sanction, and at the same time you can avoid Kurfürst who is clearly pushing your buttons to get you in trouble. Just walk away from there, I see that you've done some fine work, keep that up and stay away from those articles and that editor. It's not worth it. Thank you. -- Atama頭 05:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly if you are not administrator you should not comment on this one. Your defense of Kurfust is starting to be bizarre. Kurfust confused 3RR with AN/I? Erm how do you know? And that's completely not the point, I've not filled any report. Claiming that he honestly thought i filled a report because i made a short comment in a thread is a bit beyond believable. And how do you know that "Kurfürst also interpreted your warning about Arbcom as a topic ban"? That's seems to be an Alice in wonderland theory, had he really believed that we are editing a page from which we are banned he'd would have gone to report us long ago. Not to mention he's continuously making these "misinterpretations" just look this thread alone, he claimed that i filled this report "to solve my content dispute when i found no support for my edits", that I've "spent my whole day reporting him", that this is "a simple case of stalking" etc. Then you say that I'm slinging mud without reason. I simply don't believe he's continuously making these misinterpretations in good faith. But anyway just to make it clear once again 1) I've not reported Kurfust for any of his "misinterpretations", i only commented on that when he brought the topic here by claiming i misbehaved on another page when in fact it was him that did so 2) if anybody thinks that I've misbehaved in any way anywhere they are of course free to fill a report against me. Loosmark (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer #2: yes, you misbehaved - you actually told an editor where and when he can't edit. ANI attempts to be the voice of the community, and that involves non-admins. Stating that "if you are an administrator you should not comment" is contrary to the community effort that is Wikipedia. Now, strike one ... should I start going through everything else now, because where there's smoke, there's often fire. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've not told an editor "where and when he can't edit", what i meant is he should not comment on the Arbcom's decision especially since he doesn't seem to understand it. His comment that Kurfust interpreted the Arbcom decision (which was basically a stricter code of conduct on Eastern European articles for everybody editing those articles) as a topic ban doesn't make any sense, going by that logic Kurfust should also have interpreted himself as being topic-banned. Loosmark (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If one is going to give Kurfurst the benefit of the doubt - namely, that he was merely "misunderstanding" rather then intentionally lying and making stuff up, then the same courtesy should be extended to Loosmark's comment that someone shouldn't have commented - i.e. one should familiarize themselves with the situation before offering an opinion. But more generally, while we should assume good faith in others, the relevant policy on AGF actually states This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. - given the nature of previous interactions between Kurfurst and Loosmark, which can be easily understood by looking at each editor's block log in turn, I think a certain amount of frutstration on Loosmark's part is also understandable (though yes, he could've kept a cooler head before responding to Kurstfurst incivil provocations).radek (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark we still have not seen any of your specific concerns that 'forced you' to mas revert all of my contribution, or 'POV pushing' as you call it to the Messerschmitt 109 article. Ever since you owe us a detailed, specific explanation.

You have very long history of reverting other editors without giving aduquate reasoning for it, and refusing to discuss your reverts on the talk page. Your latest reverts follow the same pattern. You only made it worse by coming here and tried ANI shopping, and then engaged in gross uncivility even here, as you did before, in many cases. The evidence that your whole behavior was bad faith is numerous and convincing. Your reverts and your use of the ANI were in bad faith, so do not play the offended when someone calls it what it is.

Note to admins unaware of the connection between the three editors commenting here: it is to be considered that Radek, Jacurek and Loosmark regularly cooperate in reverting other editors in articles, and/or during their misuse of the ANI board. See their previous edit history on the Admin board, and this newly created mediation[122]. Where one of them is involved, all the others appear suddenly, to support each other. Indeed this sort of disruptive behaviour is going on for quite a long time, and IMHO would warrent an through Arbcom inspection of the matter. Kurfürst (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, this is becoming completely ridiculous, i'm not a part in the Paneriai mediation process, i've never discussed the topic of that mediation with either of them. The claim that i was engaged in "gross incivility in many cases" is of course blatantly false, Jacurek Radek and me have not misused the ANI board (surely some Admin would have noticed that had that been true and there would be evidence to support such an accusation) etc etc etc. Now i guess i've to asume that Kurfürst's latests claims are yet again "missunderstings". Loosmark (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:74.77.87.69

User:74.77.87.69 has been in continual violation of WP:TPNO, using a talk page as a forum. Specifically, on Talk:Discography of Now That's What I Call Music!, the user has continually posted speculative and unsubstantiated track listings for the next album in the U.S. series since early this year (starting in February 2009). These postings are the only entries this user has ever done (see Special:Contributions/74.77.87.69. I have reverted the additions and placed warnings on the user's talk page (see User talk:74.77.87.69), finally getting to the point of escalation where notification is necessary, as the warnings have gone unheeded. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for a month, as the IP is obviously static. Maybe we'll generate some discussion on their talk page. Tan | 39 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why my name should be associated with plagiarism

Resolved

As was done in Talk:Minimed Paradigm. Have asked user:Sme3 to remove implication of plagiarism. Have asked that the comment of plagiarism be removed but denied by User talk:Jac16888. There is no reason whatsoever why my name and "plagiarism" should be associated in this talk page. It gives readers the wrong impression. I consider it a personal attack. My reputation is now and in the future associated with plagiarism when there is no truth in the implication. It is a personal attack. It is smearing my reputation. Stop this type of smear tactic. I worked hard on that article, and the thanks i get from Wikipedia is to allow my name to be associated with plagiarism. There is no reason, it serves no purpose, to assiciate my name with plagiarism. Despite the explanation and admission of failure from both these users, plagiarism remains in the up-front history of the article. Why? It is incorrect. It's my reputation. There's no reason for it. Just because one user says he made a mistake doesn't clear up the continued fact of implication. It's like going on media saying that person A is a thief, be out there for weeks, then the statement is retracted. Well too late, person A reputation has already been questioned. Except that here in Wikipedia you have the opportunity to delete the original statement that person A is a thief. Please delete association of my name with plagiarism in Talk:Minimed Paradigm. Henry Delforn (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the contents of the page with a WikiProject template. Fair enough? –xeno^talk 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

is there a need to grant ovesight in this (oversight?) situation? plagiarism is a little bit insulting, and it's possible for this to be taken out of context elsewhere and have both an in-wiki and a real world implications that could hurt the user in question. User:Smith Jones 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is better, thank you. I was going to add here (prior to your action) that the original statement in question is a clear and admitted violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and, hence, reason for removal. Removal, although the history still contains the violation and plagiarism implication. Henry Delforn (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about the history, I could selectively delete it barring objections from Sme3, but I don't think it is a big issue. –xeno^talk 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to oversight this. If we set a precedent that any insult, perceived or real, can be oversighted... bad news. Tan | 39 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true in cases of accusations of plagiarism, Tanthalas. It rather places one foot in NLT territory, and for people in some professions it can have very negative real-world consequences (as Smith Jones has noted). I don't know the merits of this particular case, but I recommend that consideration of oversighting in this sort of case not be dismissed out of hand, but examined on its own merits instead. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Did you research the situation? There was never any mention of legal action, and it was simply a matter of Mr. Delforn feeling slighted. If other editor's comments could have "real world" implications, then I would recommend a) not using your real name in your username, and b) not editing on Wikipedia. Are we going to oversight all instances of copyright violations? No. Silly to even bring this up, I think. Tan | 39 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I pointed out that I wasn't referring to this specific case at all, but rather was suggesting that such requests not be summarily rejected out of hand in all cases when an editor makes a serious request. It seems odd that something we wouldn't let stand in a BLP is okay when it is an editor who is the object of a false accusation. At least let them attempt to make a convincing case. If they are unsuccessful, so be it, but what does it cost to hear them out? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing to read comments like, "...recommend a) not using your real name in your username, and b) not editing on Wikipedia". Equally amazing to read is, "There was never any mention of legal action". What are you pushing here? Where is reason judgment? But that is not the point. More to the point is that it is wrong to write that, "it was simply a matter of Mr. Delforn feeling slighted". The fact is that as a consequence of the implication, which continues to be accessible and possibly even be revertible, there has already been concrete, measurable damage that is well documented. I hold Wikipedia and User:Sme3 responsible. My request is to have the page deleted, including history, so that further damage is avoided. This is a simple action. This issue, which will not end with me, need not escalate further than this level of administration. Henry Delforn (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

← This is a red herring. I appreciate Smith Jones' suggestion but oversight is out of the question. I've deleted the revisions as they are unnecessary for further development of the article. There were only 2 conversants, and the matter is resolved to mutual satisfaction. This is no big deal. Thank you for your contributions, HD. –xeno^talk 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried responding earlier, but it looks like it never took. Must've been an edit conflict that I didn't see. Anyway, this all seems to go back to a discussion a month ago. When Mr. Delforn was beginning to write the article, I thought it looked like copied material, so I left a friendly note on his talk page, and also a note on the [Talk:Minimed Paradigm] page. On the talk page, I suggested to other users that we hold off on deleting copied material until he was done with the article. (I also suggested on the user's talk page that he put the underconstruction template on the article until he was done with it). When I got a note today that Mr. Delforn was concerned about accusations of plagiarism, I promptly posted a follow-up to the talk-page, closing-the-loop so to speak, saying that the issues had been resolved (I didn't think it was within Wikipedia policy to blank an article talk page). I also left a note on his and my talk page to the same effect. He has obviously spent a lot of time on this article, and is quite intelligent (as seen from his other work) and I don't want to defame him or discredit his work. In fairness, I will say that I tagged some of the images on that article recently, questioning its fair-use, but I don't think that's what we're discussing here (when I have time, I'll take some of my own photos to replace them). In short, I have no problem with Xeno blanking the talk page - I believe I've acted in good faith in this situation, while following Wikipedia processes. I apologize if I've done any harm to Mr. Delforn or his reputation, and if there's anything for me to do (or avoid doing) on here, I'd be happy to do (or not do) it. -Sme3 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither party is at fault here, and both were acting in good faith. Happy editing, –xeno^talk 00:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User: 209.2.48.131

User has been adding the same material into Human rights in the United States article. The IP has twice now switched when one approaches 3RR and used 5 different IPs to insert the exact same material. They have been reverted by multiple editors. I'd take this to WP:SPI, but it seems pretty straightforward, though there may be a class or something. Other IPs:

209.2.48.244

128.122.20.222

128.122.20.235

209.2.49.230

Soxwon (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, the material was reverted by a sixth IP right as this report was filed: 209.2.50.214. After notifying one user and seeing it was a NYU IP, I'm wondering if someone's doing a class project... Soxwon (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that this is straightforward: leave the disputed segment in the article. It is impossible to argue that the natural born requirement for president is irrelevant to the issue of equality, the article chapter under which it is placed; it states only facts, and there are many other issues in the article that may be legally sound under US law but are considered topics relevant to a discussion of discrimination, such as opposition to same-sex marriage. Political rights based on place of birth is as relevant to this article as if the law was discriminating based on skin color. Further, with the fuss over the 'birther' issue it is of current relevance. It should clearly stay in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.50.214 (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected --Jayron32 04:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaxby again, now possible sockpuppetry

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#User:Zaxby (previous evidence of sockpuppetry is listed there) which was allowed to be archived due to a lack of further response within 24 hours. There seems to be fairly conclusive evidence, based on the articles edited by Zaxby, the insertion of the name "Ryan O'Hara" into articles and the creation of imagined personas on user pages, as well as a general editing attitude of lying and making subtle but somewhat unnoticable changes to statistics for athletes, to believe that this user is another account of User:Thechroniclesofratman. There are at least four accounts for this user confirmed as sockpuppets since 2007, and possibly more (See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thechroniclesofratman) that this is simply the latest in a long line of puppets. It seemed incorrect to me for nothing to be done about this and to simply let the previous discussion be archived so quickly.

Zaxby's behaviour in the previous AN/I report was blockable enough but was reversed after it was found that he did not have a recent final warning. However I believe his behaviour mixed with the fact that it is likely that he is a sockpuppet who previously vandalised and block evaded on multiple accounts makes it enough that something needs to be done. His efforts to "be a good editor" since the filing of the previous AN/I report are questionable at best, consisting mostly of warning others of vandalism, mostly overzealously or incorrectly, and making a few equally questionable statistics changes. The vandalism warnings are equally disturbing since one of Thechroniclesofratboy's potential socks was previously blocked for pretending to be an Admin while accusing other users of vandalism. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, as a reason for bringing this here once again, that CheckUser might be a bit useless in this matter because, if Zaxby's edits about O'Hara are to be believed, he's moved since his last sockpuppet account and therefore would likely have a different IP, evidenced by the completely different range when he edited previously without logging in. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by there being a lack of response here...? If I've made a mistake, it'd be helpful to know. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is to take this to WP:SPI. Black Kite 10:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the sockpuppetry aspect, but I concur with 359's description of Zaxby's editing; consists of (a) welcomes to new users, but without any kind of actual welcoming information. Friendly, I suppose, but not too useful. (b) article space edits are 100% reverts, 1/3 correct, 1/3 borderline but needlessly aggressive, and 1/3 just plain wrong. (c) rather aggressive warnings to the people he's reverted. If he's been given a final warninf before, I think an admin should review and decide if blocking is appropriate, with or without sockpuppetry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Since attention was originally drawn to his account here and here, Zaxby has gone on a tear of leaving odd welcome messages, reverting users' edits, and being very bitey (often citing nonexistent WP policies), apparently trying to appear as a constructive editor. He's not succeeding. Deor (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm doing a good job keeping vandalism at a premium low and let's keep it that way shall we fellows?(Zaxby (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

You yourself have vandalised articles in the past few months, lied to other users in an attempt to get your edits to stick, and created hoaxes on articles. Plus, if you are a sockpuppet, you're evading multiple blocks against you. These are not opinions, these are facts. You are the last person who should be reprimanding others for vandalism or reverting minor edits for lack of sources. You are not even remotely doing a good job, and you should not be allowed to continue in my opinion. You have numerous accusations against you that you have blatantly ignored and failed to address. Why you are still able to edit at this point is beyond me. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I provided an old source that stated Schumacher was the test driver, but of course my mistake was using an outdated source from 2008. No, I created a sandbox, for which you have as well. I'm ignoring you if that is what you are asking.(Zaxby (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

My god you haven't even remotely read any of the discussions about your edits or even acknowledged any of the problems with your behaviour and edits... ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I read them and then I delete them.(Zaxby (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Could someone please help me here?

Collapsing: original editor summarized below

Hello. (btw, advance warning: I'm bad at being brief. If you just want to know what I want, skip to the end. Long story short, I simply want to be able to delete messages that are intended for me) I tried very hard to avoid having to do this (largely because I realize that admins aren't any more fond of dealing with petty bickering and nonsense than anyone else is). However, I feel as though I'm being subjected to harrassment. This all began with the Lindsay Lohan article. As everyone who watches too many media-related shows and 'soft news' knows, she has, for the lack of a better word, a girlfriend. There was some discussion on whether or not that meant she should be classified as a "LGBT Actor". As it turns out, the BLP policy page for categories indicates that, unless she publicly self-identifies as such, she should not. So, the topic's come up now and then. Even though most people are familiar with the basic concepts of BLP, I don't think most people actually go to the extra effort of reading it, so they end up making entirely understandable mistakes. After a notice on the BLP noticeboard, it was, naturally, removed. Additionally, a notice was embedded in the change, so that future editors would know not to re-add it. This included a direct reference to a quote that sometimes makes editors think the category is valid. This should have been the end of it. However, inexplicably, within hours, it was re-added, without addressing consensus or BLP on the talk page, and apparently ignoring the message that instructed not to re-add it. Thankfully, this was reverted even faster than it was re-added. The system works again. That should have been the end of it, because the BLP policy page is incredibly specific on the issue. It wasn't until after that revert that the person who tried to re-add it against BLP and consensus decided to actually discuss it on the article's talk page. However, his own arguments seemed to defeat his position. The BLP page (which was already referenced) is very clear about stating that you can't add it unless they publicly self-identify. The only thing Ms. Lohan has definitively stated on the subject of her possible bisexuality was that she doesn't want to "classify" herself. In spite of that, the editor in question said that it should be added anyways because "Plenty of queer eople eschew labels for personal and/or political reasons." (In case I'm putting this in the wrong context or something, feel free to refer to the diff I provided). Though I can sympathize with that position, it still entirely ignores the BLP policy, which had already been very clearly addressed. As such, I very promptly corrected him (or her. I don't actually know). Go ahead and read that last diff. Do you spot my crime? I didn't. And so, when I was issued with a warning. A warning? For what? Apparently, I'd made personal attacks. However, I looked back at the last thing I'd said, and there were no attacks there. (maaaybe a very minor 'good faith' issue, but certainly not an attack) Frankly, when someone warns me about personal attacks, and doesn't even bother to include a diff, or an explanation, I find it hard to take that very seriously. I mean, I knew I hadn't done anything wrong anyways, but when they don't even bother trying to prove it? That's just silly. :) My response may not have been all sunshine and farts, but I feel it was reasonable considering the situation (remember the timeline here: Category removed because it violated policy. This editor puts it back in against both policy and consensus. It gets re-removed. His arguments then entirely ignore the policy. I correct him. He then vaguely accuses me of a personal attack, without explanation). Since I have a dynamic IP address (both because of the ISP, and because I edit from different locations), I then removed the notice. After all, I read it. So I'm allowed to remove it. He then restored the warning, and upped the ante. You see, by not assuming that I had, in fact, launched a vicious personal attack, I was committing another personal attack. Really? REALLY? oi. To me, this was absurd. He did, however, finally tell me what I'd done wrong. I'd made the mistake of suggesting that he was ignoring BLP when it wasn't convenient. I'm not sure which part irked him. He was ignoring BLP. And I can't imagine a more positive reason to do so, so that aspect is hardly an attack, either. (again, check the diffs for more details. I'm verbose enough as it is) He did, incidentally, still reply to my comment in the article talk page. His argument might even be moving, if it weren't for the fact that, in it, he admitted that she hasn't explicitly labelled herself as bisexual (not surprising, she, again, she directly stated that she does not want to "classify" herself). So, again, the argument ignores the BLP policy. Is the policy perfect? Probably not. It certainly seems odd at first to suggest that a woman with a girlfriend can't be categorized as a lesbian or bisexual. But the proper way to go about changing things is to address the policy, not ignore it. Like I said, I have dynamic IPs. It isn't a result of TOR, or some anonymizer, or any attempts to pretend to be anyone else. As such, by the time I get messages left for me, I may be on another IP. Similarly, someone else may get those messages left for me. You can follow the contributions of Whatever404, 209.90.134.60, 139.57.101.134, and 209.90.135.121 to follow the sloppy mess that followed, as well as the talk pages of such. It is not my intention to portray myself in an unfairly positive light, but since I already tend to say too much, I'll summarize the gist of what followed: Whatever404 started putting warnings on any IP addresses I used to reply (other than the last), including upping the warning level again. He's also taken to including links between them so that it'll be more clear that we're all the same person. (which is peculiar. I've made no attempts to hide myself) Since all of these messages are addressed to the same person (ie. me), I've removed them after reading them. Obviously, there's no reason to leave those messages for other people who get the IP addresses next. Even though the messages were intended for me, and he knows that those IP addresses are no longer me, he still insisted on repeatedly restoring them for the next person. To me, this is inexcusable. It's harrassment. If I still had those addresses, I'd be entitled to remove them. Since he's included links joining them together (that is, links in one referring to the other), he knows that they're me. I can think of no valid reason in leaving questionable warnings for other people. (Again, don't forget that the original reasoning for the "warnings" in the first place was my suggesting that he was ignoring BLP policy, which he all but admitted in his next comment in the article talk page anyways) I tried to let it go. When he removed my messages on his talk page without addressing my points, I decided to let him get the last word, in spite of his unfortunate edit summary. I'm fine with letting someone get the last word if it lets me get back to more important things. However, a full 45 minutes after removing my message, he decided to resume adding warnings too any and all IPs (even though he continued to assert that I couldn't treat those messages as being to me). I eventually outright told him that he needs to stop this. (by now, one could argue that I was stretching civility pretty far, but I'd had it by then!) He then started removing my messages to him on-sight, with no acknowledgement, and instead opted for arguing in edit summaries. That can't possibly resolve anything. Just take a look at his contributions (if you didn't above). How many edits have been devoted solely to "warnings" and restoring messages to me, with the rationale that I'm not allowed control over messages addressed to me? All I want is those talk pages blanked so the next people don't get exposed to this absurd nonsense. And, ideally, fully-protected so that he can't (again) leave me messages on numerous pages. I'm not asking for him to be warned about the BLP violation. I'm not asking him to be blocked for edit-warring. I just want these pages to be blank for the next person. (Incidentally, I really am sorry for how long this is. I realize I need to be more concise. I'm working on it, even if you can't tell) (Additional to the incidentally, if I've put this in the wrong place, please tell me so I can take it where it belongs. My request involves a page protection, a request for edits, and I suppose etiquette, so I didn't really know where to put it) 209.90.134.60 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) tl;dr. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a freakin' essay! A megillah! Can you state, in 25 words or less, what the issue is? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would even give him the ol' 140 characters, Twitter way to discribe what the issue is. Quick, simple, to the point. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize this does not address all the issues you mention, but have you considered creating an account? It would at least solve those dynamic-IP related issues. 2help (message me) 04:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I really do need to learn to write things shorter.

K... bulletpoints?

• Got into a content dispute with someone. I thought it was important to violate BLP; they thought common sense was more important.
• I suggested they were ignoring BLP (which I don't think can be disputed after the reply to that).
• He "warned" me for "personal attacks", without explaining.
• I treated the "warning" like nonsense, since I hadn't done anything wrong, and he didn't even explain.
• He raised the warning level for not first assuming he was right before he even explained.
• Because of my ISP and changing locations, I've had a few IP addresses.
• He added warnings to at least two of them, and linked from one to the other (acknowledging that we're all the same person), but then insisted that I can't treat them as messages to me.
• He's repeatedly insisted that, even though he can warn all addresses like they're the same person, I can't treat the messages as being to me.
• (ignoring that the "warnings" are absurd) If they're not all the same person, then he can't treat them collectively. If they are, then I should be able to remove them. Either way, there's no justification for keeping them.
• All I want to do is have those talk pages blanked so "the next person" to get one of those addresses isn't pestered by nonsense.

I hope that's better. Sorry for the essay. 209.90.134.60 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor about whom the IP(s) is concerned, and the IP, currently, is at 209.90.134.60 (this is the IP formerly known as 139.57.101.134, née 209.90.135.121). The initial, arguably molehillesque issue upon which this editor seems focused is Lindsay Lohan's sexual orientation and related wiki categorization. Another editor called the topic "not really encyclopedic"; I feel the same. Please note that I was not the person who first added the cat', this time around; that was User:ExpressingYourself, using HotCat. When I saw it had been removed, I did reflexively revert to re-add it, once, without realizing it was a contentious issue: I recognize now that I should have bothered to read before reverting. When someone else reverted me, I recognized the cat's presence was disputed, and did not make a second edit; I commented, twice, at Talk.

Meanwhile, this IP's tone has grown increasingly inflammatory, with little input from others. Their initial response at Talk was hostile, and they responded to my concern about NPA by calling it "utter nonsense". After another NPA reminder about refraining from those types of comments, they immediately used the term "nonsense", and "silliness". They have also made edits with no content, for the sole purpose of chiding me with the edit summaries. Perhaps their most troublesome behavior is that they have gone on multiple argumentative tirades, rife with attacks and incivility, which they did, ironically enough, in response to those simple NPA warnings.

Most recently, this editor is on a campaign to expunge other IP's Talk pages of warnings left for those IPs, despite the fact that (my understanding is that) IPs are only permitted to remove warnings from their own Talk pages, not the Talk pages of other IPs. When I restored the inappropriately-removed warnings, the IP editor accused me of vandalism, then apparently penned the above AN/I essay. When another editor stepped in to revert the blanking, the IP re-reverted, "just once", in two different places, then blanked that user's warning at their current IP. The user's stated goal seems to be to establish a recognized identity without registering an account, in order to obtain permission to blank other IP talk pages of warnings. This editor's behavior strikes me as inappropriate for the circumstances.

Yet this same editor is perfectly calm and civil when dealing with people in positions of power (administrators). The obvious conclusions aside, it would be nice if a few others would keep an eye on this person's behavior. Likewise, if I've made any mistakes here, please let me know, though I think you'll be hard-pressed to find evidence of instigation on my part: I've tried to observe the local customs to the best of my ability. Thanks for reading this. Whatever404 (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You undid my edit without realising the issue was contentious? As the saying goes, I'll believe ya, thousands wouldn't... Rd232 ^talk 11:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I feel compelled to point out three things:

1. You both acknowledge that all three IPs are, indeed, me and then choose to behave as though they're separate people. (First, they're the same person, but then, when it comes to removing messages addressed to that single person, you repeatedly refer to my actions as editing the talk pages of "other IPs".) Again, which is it?
2. Do you not see the humour in criticizing me for being polite with others? Has it not occurred to you that, if I'm calm and polite with everyone but you, maybe there is a reason for this?
3. Pretending for a moment that there has been something wrong with my conduct since your false warnings, that wouldn't be ironic at all. You're basically saying, "Wow! I make false accusations about someone's attitude, and then they cop an attitude! Ironic!" That's no more "ironic" than rain on one's wedding day.

Incidentally, it really isn't your place to condemn my interactions with 2help. If he thinks I acted inappropriately, he can say so. If he has a problem with how I handled his edits, he can say so. Additionally, you should try to assume good faith. I don't know if he's an admin or not. I didn't bother checking his userpage. My first interaction with him was before I even saw that he'd commented in here. So there's no need to imply anything here. 209.90.134.60 (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. I misspoke. I failed to follow that link. Apparently, it linked to a different example of me being calm and polite fromo what I'd expected. Of course, everything else I said still applies. That page isn't even specifically for administrators. It's simply for people concerned with BLP. (But, like I said, the rest applies. Silly to criticize me for being polite. And inappropriate to imply that I'm sucking up or something) 209.90.134.60 (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: of the various links above, I'll highlight this one which whatever404 provided, with his interpretation: "The user's stated goal seems to be to establish a recognized identity without registering an account, in order to obtain permission to blank other IP talk pages of warnings." Hm - that's not what I read there (it says the IP used to have an account but decided to leave and only contribute occasionally, anonymously). Basically, users have the right to contribute anonymously, and this contributor does so at different locations which involves multiple IPs. WP:UP#CMT still applies, and it says "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages." Messages are addressed to people, not IPs - IPs are just handles to get at the people. If the message has been read by the person it's addressed to, it can be removed. Rd232 ^talk 11:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions: complainer #1 registers a WP account and uses it, complainer #2 gets over it, and everybody gets a life. Let's forget that this happened and start working on a cure for cancer or something. Nobody here has a serious gripe. Brain Rodeo (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put, Wiki is a big site and you are able to remove any messages on your talk page when you like.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; this is stupid. Whatever404 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very beginning of the "essay", the anon states their intention to remove messages left at other IP talk pages. People are certainly entitled to edit anonymously, but they're not entitled to demand that we take their word for it that they are who they say they are, or that any given edit was intended for them. The mechanism for establishing identity is to register an account. I think that it is unreasonable for an editor to use multiple IPs as a way to avoid accountability for their attacks; if this editor has been using an account, the record would more readily demonstrate that they've been engaged in inappropriate behavior. Whatever404 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that there were no 'attacks' in the first place, you don't have the option of suggesting that you shouldn't take my word that I'm the same person. You identify me as being the same person. Are you saying that people can't take your word for it?

Additionally, your accusation that I'm using multiple IPs "to avoid accountability" is false, and you know it. I've always asserted that I'm the same person. That is an outright false accusation, and one that you know to be false. Frankly, you should be chastised for making such a baseless and patently false allegation (though I still just want this stupid affair over).

I think Rd232 summed it up best: The messages are left for me. You acknowledge that it's me. So I removed messages for me. In any event, I'm on this IP again, so there is no longer any possible doubt that I'm still me.

So, my advice is to drop it (though I'd still like page protection if the false warnings are re-added). 139.57.101.134 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, kids, everybody take a chill pill and drop the whole stupid argument. I mean it, it's a pointless argument over nothing. Move on. Even my five year old has more perspective than you! Brain Rodeo (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I feel foolish for having let myself get sucked into this. I have struck out my comments accordingly; I'm done. Whatever404 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested formatting template

A discussion is underway at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about whether or not the editnotice for AN/I should be modified or removed. Please comment there not here. I know this isn't an 'incident' but it directly involves readers of this page. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Underage Editor insisting on posting personal info.

Despite several warnings User talk:Móhammad Ârdy insists on posting person information despite warnings to not do so by Admin and myself. As an uundeerage user something should be done to protect them if y\they won't do it themselves. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He's 16 ... not generally considered "underage" from my understanding. That information would belong on his userpage, and not his talkpage. CSD'ing it was mere provocation. Calling it social networking was ridiculous barring additional evidence of using Wikipedia as one. Give him a welcome template with the rules, give him some pointers on how to make his USER page nice with userboxes and everything, and how to reserve his talkpage for discussions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've told him twice that it isn't a great idea to post personal information, but I can only assume he has read the warnings and decided to continue anyway, which is his choice. Bringing to ANI was unnecessary. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:69.209.113.108

Just as in this earlier ANI report, we've got an IP editor (69.209.113.108 (talk · contribs)) removing mentions of awards from the lede of articles without ensuring that the awards are mentioned in the body of the article. As in the first case, editors have attempted to discuss the situation with the IP on their talk page, to no apparent response. Both IPs are from the same ISP and location. Can someone get their attention? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not a clear cut case, unfortunately. I checked a few of their most recent edits (they stopped around 02:00, so nothing pressing ATM) and 3/4 had the information on the award included elsewhere. I fixed the one case where it wasn't...but someone has to go into probably each case and check for the award. That, or mass revert and make sure the IP understands what is needed if they reinstate. Syrthiss (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur that this user is problematic. User is taking WP:PEA as gospel, and removing words without any attempt to rephrase or to make sure the sense of the article is kept. Not sure that it rises to the level of blockability, but this user accused me of WP:OWN just because I disagreed and reverted. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've raised it to that level, warning the user that because it is damaging to the articles to remove that information and not place it elsewhere and because they aren't even attempting to communicate, further activity will lead to a block until they can address the issue. I'm fine with the info not being in the article intros, but it really needs to be elsewhere in the article. One's edits really shouldn't cause extra work for other editors. Syrthiss (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have wanted to assume good faith, but the user's editing history is looking remarkably like a crusade, and the user seems to be thumbing his/her nose at feedback. Edits like this one (which is one of several that repeated edits made earlier by that other anon IP) not only removed information about awards from the lead sentence and lead section, but from the entire article. I was not aware of the problem with the earlier IP user; this is clearly the same person, which makes it seem more likely that this is intentionally disruptive behavior. Syrthiss' warning was appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) This revert (of my edit that restored the information that the IP had removed earlier, but with wording changes to address the concern the IP had stated) is one that gives me the impression of a crusade. --Orlady (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think their intent is disruption. I think their intent is to improve the articles, but their implementation is spotty. Its not even really their fault, since I would think that the articles that mention awards in the intro sentence *should* have the award info further down. Nonetheless, without addressing that it is a problem and continuing the behavior once we've let them know there is a concern is not helpful. Syrthiss (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this editor's changes early on and dropped a note at WikiProject: Actors and Filmmakers [123]. I see other also have posted concerns. This editor should be blocked and most of the edits reverted. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this activity and left a note about this on August 14. The WP:ACTOR to-do list is specific in what it wants: "Remove lead sentence mention of "______ Award-winning" and/or "______ Award-nominated". This can and should be included in lead sections, but not in lead sentences. Please change leads to include mention of major awards, but do so in context. There is far too much work involved in having to backtrack over this user's edits to undo damage when all mention of awards may be deleted from articles, which has happened on at least a couple articles at which I looked. The editor is clearly aware of the issue, since he/she has stopped referring to the to-do list in edit summaries. Regardless, in at least 3 cases I saw, any mention of awards in the lead have been removed and that is unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. They are doing the same thing again despite numerous requests not too. I'm not sure this needs a roll-backing but it's quite disruptive to remove information we want in the lede based on their misreading a project to-do list. They seem unwilling to stop or understand the problem. -- Banjeboi 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have retitled this thread to a more descriptive one, since the current title did not let anyone know who or what the problem was. I have also notified the user in question that the discussion is going on, and left a stern warning to stop edit warring accross such a wide spectrum of articles. Given that this warning was just given, lets wait a little while and see if they continue or desist. If they DO continue with the behavior, a block may be in order. --Jayron32 20:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rvcx at Carly Fiorina, again

User:Rvcx began edit warring three days ago to alter the Carly Fiorina article to, as he puts it, increase criticism of her and remove supportive content. He was repeatedly reinserted material long determined to violate wp:blp. Fresh off his 48h block for edit warring at the article, he's at it again, up to his fourth revert now, and once again he is mixing in material he knows to be contested per wp:blp, with not a single post to the article's talk page. Not sure what to do at this point, but I've also brought this up at wp:an3. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He is now canvassing: [124], [125], [126]. (He acknowledges here that he believes each of those three users share his viewpoint.) Geez. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)That's not canvassing. All those editors were already involved int he discussion, and since he paraphrased their collective opinion to summarize his own arguments, he notified them, in case he's missed some subtext. Further, the material in question is widely supported by reliable sources, and should be included, since it's not a BLP violation either. ThuranX (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Selectively choosing three past editors who he recognized as agreeing with his viewpoint is the definition of canvassing. He didn't notify other editors who, for example, disagreed with the inclusion of the content. You should see the article talk page for further discussion of why the Condé Nast piece does not satisfy wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not canvassing. It's three editors whose opinions he is representing in his comment, and who he has notified of this to assure he's properly representing them. Were these three random editors who he felt would side with him, and those three had not commented on the article before, that would be canvassing. What he did is categorically not. ThuranX (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if user:J would stop throwing around content arguments that he has not proffered in the content dispute on the noticeboards. I could not find any other editor who shared his opinion; I included the names of all editors I found who had participated in the discussion. Hand-waving that there is an army of editors supporting him are not borne out by the facts. Rvcx (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you missed the discussion that culminated in the article being locked for a month due to the Condé Nast piece and the "persistent" and "continuing" resulting "BLP problems"? user:J aka justen (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 You should always notify a user when you start an admin thread about them - I've taken the liberty of doing so. This looks more like a content dispute that wouldn't even be accepted at WP:3RR yet (only 2 reverts) - but perhaps WP:CNOTICE would give it a look. Seriously - "helped to coordinate" vs. "led"? The concept does have an air of familiarity to it, but still not something earth-shattering. AN/I may be the wrong venue for this ... at least at the present time, but we'll see what others have to say. — Ched :  ?  16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's his eighth revert, over two days of editing, separated only by a 48h block, to a long controversial wp:blp. I brought it to wp:an/i because I think it's beginning to look like he's just going to continue edit warring indefinitely, and I think it's important that others help address the issues. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And you are edit warring just as much. I really recommend, again, you both knock it off. I've already offered, on the article talk, to report you both for edit warring. I've also offered an unsolicited WP:3O on the problem; my comments are on the talk page. ThuranX (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Reckless. The extent to which you spent a minute or two reviewing a long-controversial wp:blp and decided to start throwing around accusations of edit warring is very disappointing. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note: I reverted the "canvassing" warning on the Rvcx talk page: per ThuranX, I don't see it as canvassing, rather an attempt at collaboration. You folks need to talk this out on the article talk page. justen, the criticism section is gone now, and I'm just not seeing an BLP violation. I'm all for a favorable review on this lady, (although I don't edit political articles on WP), but too much puffery is just a POV as the other way around. Sometimes you have to "give a little" in order to "get a little". I'm just not seeing anything actionable here. (yet) — Ched :  ?  16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue specifically with the Condé Nast piece is hashed out on the talk page, but in summary: the publication was shutting down, it needed to fill a bunch of pages, so put together a bunch of interesting photos of former chief executive officers, including Carly Fiorina. The entire extent of the Condé Nast "piece" was a photo caption, with no reasoning, no author, no explained basis (except the drop in shareholder value). The "listing" is, further, not notable, it received no coverage in any other publication. This isn't Fortune or Forbes, where their lists are clearly notable and receive third-party coverage. The Condé Nast piece is the epitome of poorly sourced, and User:Rvcx was aware of that concern and choose to readd it. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the clear back-and-forth problems, I have Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. I invite any other admin to go through and remove any blatant WP:BLP violations that may have inadvertantly been left in as I protected m:The Wrong Version. However, this sort of back-and-forth has got to stop. Work out a consenus version at the talk page. --Jayron32 16:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite protection, User:J continues to aggressively avoid working productively, instead dismissing a WP:3O with a personal attack, and refusing to redact it. Perhaps a block is in order, since this will surely escalate. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, not really. I don't think that registers very high on the NPA meter, I doubt a block is needed for that... --Jayron32 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert of reading emotions from text but I understood from that that he supports the third opinion and dislikes keeping arguing for months about a matter that could be solved quickly by a third opinion. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, not at all. You need to read it again. He dismissed the entire Third Opinion, calling me ignorant of the problems and too lazy to read them. It was a direct personal attack, even if Jayron32 is willing to ignore it, I'm not. ThuranX (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I struck out my comment. The later messages he posted confirmed his dismissal of your (in my opinion) good third opinion. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If both parities can agree on a consensus verision of the article at the talk page, the protection can be lifted at any time. All I would need to see as an admin is Rcvx and J and other editors involved to all agree on a consensus version of the article. --Jayron32 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would absolutely be willing to work with anyone on improving the article. I have just posted a small revision to the lede in which I tried to balance my concerns with User:Rvcx. Nobody has (as of yet) replied to that, but my hope is we can go from there. We'll see how it goes, although I think my concerns with the article could be resolved in a few days if we can all "sit down at the [talk page] table," as it were. I'll cross my fingers... user:J aka justen (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

He has now repeated his attacks, demonstrating an incredible showing of bad faith and insults here. I repeat my request for a block, since he now regards my entire involvement as an 'issue' to be settled by my entire removal before trying to win his edit war. ThuranX (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(threading out of sequence) I really do not view "[your] entire involvement as an 'issue' to be settled by [your] entire removal." You've been here a long time, you've made plenty of great, constructive edits. My view was that your initial post there was not constructive and just fanned the flames, but my comment was on your post, not you as a person. I would welcome, and would even consider begging, for you to work with User:Rvcx, me, and others on the talk page to improve the article. (My initial response to you on this here was lost in an edit conflict, but this was the gist of it.) user:J aka justen (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to back off this. There is no personal attack there. Being critical of the behavior of other editors is not in itself a personal attack. He found your comments to be unhelpful in solving the problems noted at the talk page, and said nothing more strident then that. Nothing he said about your recent blocks is inaccurate or in itself a personal attack either. He did not impugn your character or call you dirty names or anything else. Back off and let it drop already. --Jayron32 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuous rude and uncivil behaviour from User:Vintagekits and User:Dahamsta

Hi there. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) seems to have a problem with myself and other members of WP:FOOTY, who he has accused of being anti-Irish, pro-British, and in a Cabal (what he has termed "the British bias of the FOOTY Cabal members", purely because he disagrees with some of our opinions on various AfD's. Examples of his recent behaviour includes:

• "Is it fuck! you both !vote to keep a player in an English semi professional league who was less notable and had weaker references then this Irish player this week. Its a fuckin load of bollocks and ye both as biased as fuck"
• "Really! ya reckon? jesus, you are a smart cookie arnt ya!"

When I asked him to adhere to WP:CIVIL, the reply I got was:

• "Shut yer mout an dont talk shite ta me! Keep yer opinions of wats civil an wat nat ta yerself, ya hear!"

When I asked why he couldn't speak in a respectful manner, his reply was:

• What did I tell ya the first time? Lets put it this way - when I come across people acting like dickheads I tend to mirror that action! simples."

I would also like to bring Dahamsta (talk · contribs) to your attention, who seems to have a problem with "the nasty little spackers running this attack on Irish football."

Other uncivil and aggressive comments by both Vintagekits and Dahamsta can be found at a number of AfDs, such as Niall Walsh, where were are told to "FUCK WP:ATHLETE" and were called "idiots" and "muppets", or at Jason Molloy, where Dahamsta suggested we should "Give Jimbo the boot instead" (referring to the nominator, Jimbo online (talk · contribs)). At a deletion review for an AfD that went against him, Vintagekits called Number 57 (talk · contribs) an "absolute disgrace." At the Scott Doe deletion review, he accused active members of WP:FOOTY - "Bettia, GiantSnowman, Jimbo online, Angelo.romano, Dweller, ClubOranje and Number 57 - to a much lesser extent ChrisTheDude, Dweller, Jmorrison230582" - of being members of a Cabal and engaging in meatpuppetry, and he later ranted on the closing admin's talkpage.

These are just some of many examples. I am running out of patience with Vintagekits, and hope this can be resolved quickly and amicably. Many thanks, GiantSnowman 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe its due to frustration because a number of biased editors are !voting in block in order to enforce an Anglocentric POV. It's been proven time and time again. You are meat puppets.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As for "ranting on the closing admins talkpage" - wasnt the AfD that I was "ranting" about overturned because the closing admin was biased! Also please note that ONLY people that !voted to endorse the AfD were those that are part of the biased British FOOTY cabal - strange that aint it!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits has been blocked countless times for disruption, incivility, etc, etc, and if I remember correctly is currently under editing restrictions. It is starting to look very much like a total ban from Wikipedia is the only way to solve the problem. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've noticed a few threads on him/her. Vintagekits ... you definitely need to tone it down a notch. — Ched :  ?  18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Looie the way to deal with an editor that has written a recent Featured Article but says the odds "fuck" is to permaban them! good one. I wont be posting here again you are deluded!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UT

I consider the behaviour of those managing the continued attack on Irish football and footballers not just rude and uncivil, but ignorant, racist, and ultimately just plain stupid. I'll continue to address these idiots with the disdain they deserve. I won't be returning to this page to discuss it again. Dahamsta (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The above editor has been repeatedly uncivil towards myself and others. Please read Talk:James O'Shea, for example. He refuses to assume good faith and is uncivil at practically every turn. If it was an isolated incident I would post on the user's talk page, but in this user's case it would be a waste of time. In fact this probably is as well. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that VK is unable to respond even here without insults, I suggest this get moved to AN/I for the community ban discussion that has been inevitable for quite some time now. → ROUX ₪ 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Vintagekits. Moving this to AN/I for more eyeballs. Nathan ^T 20:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll sit back and enjoy this one sided panto - lets hear from all you Little Englanders.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for insulting me again. Little Englander indeed! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I feel I ought to point out that Vintagekits is not just a raving nutter. Although the idea of a cabal of football mad meat puppets is probably beyond the pale, his argument that the closing editor in the Scott Doe deletion review cited above acted...shall we say not wisely...was upheld by everyone including the closing editor. Which is not to excuse the keyboard Tourette's, but to show that there is some cause or prompting behind it, rather than simply randomness.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)(who is an Englander, but would prefer not to discuss her lack of littleness)

• @Vintagekits, deluded eh? Pretty nice. I never said you should be banned. I tried to offer some constructive advice: Dial down the rhetoric, and you respond with that. It's not the occasional "damn", "hell", "shit" or "fuck" that I care about here. In fact, I'd don't recall ever even supporting any motion to block or ban you. What I will say is that "any editor who wants to edit here, should treat their fellow editors with respect." You wrote a FA huh? That's good - but it's NOT a "get out of jail free" card - or at least it shouldn't be. Now upon my interactions with you here, and looking at your block log, I can see why there have been so many AN threads with your name attached to them. To put it bluntly: If you can't play nice with all the other kids on the playground, then you won't be welcome on the playground. Get it in gear. I get the fact that you care about content, that's great - but don't post when you've lost your composure. Wait until you can respond with a calm intelligent post that won't continually stir the pot. — Ched :  ?  21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Calling other editors deluded Is very simply a personal attack. No WP:CIV rubbish - it's a straght forward attack on another editor. I have asked Vintagekits to remove it. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Now Blocked - 12 Hours

Per this I have blocked for 12 hours. Personal attacks are not tolerated. Ignoring requests to remoive them are met with a block of the account to prevent repetition. Comments welcome. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't say "I didn't see it coming". Good block. Given the responses he's left to the block, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up having to do it again down the road. I don't know what it's going to take to get him to adjust to acceptable behavior, but I hope he gets on board pretty soon, before the train leaves the station. — Ched :  ?  22:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Just to point out that technically he didn't ignore it. He removed your message from his talkpage, which he is allowed to do (see enormous thread above re block for removing warnings from talkpage, which was later overturned as in error). I think ignoring your request might have required....at least 10 more minutes, to show that he really was ignoring you. Just saying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The personal attacks don't stop. He is now calling Pedro incompetent, not to mention the rest of the incivil message. This user isn't showing they care about their current block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

@EotR - I would assume with an edit summary of "meh!" would indicate he won't change his ways.  GARDEN  22:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Garden - indeed the discussion above does not really apply here - it was not a "warning" - it was a request. The edit summary said it all. As a further note does another admin care to review the comments on his talk at the moment - the editor appears less than happy with Wikipedia.... Pedro :  Chat  22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just a heads up to other admins. Though I endorse pedro's block, please be very careful about extending it due to post block venting. that does little good. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Understood, to be honest - that thought did briefly cross my mind, but quickly remembered the "post block venting" things. Given his statement about "retiring", perhaps it would even be redundant. Guess we'll see where this is tomorrow morning (for me). — Ched :  ?  22:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ugh. Looks like the advice went unheeded. Protonk (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Struck after seeing timestamp below. Daedelus probably blocked VK while I was writing this. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. See below. I thought you were already. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus can block on Wikipedia - he covers his own eyes and chants "I can't see you lalalalala" ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Extend to indef

Given the continued incivlity, I don't see this user changing after the block expires.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

True, it is very likely that the editor will - once the block expires - continue to write great articles and get angry and swear a lot and upset people. For the former reason I oppose an indef block and for the latter I agree with the current sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please reverse that. Indeffing someone for post block venting is a great way to lose a contributor without real cause. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, forgive me. I read "extend" as "extended" Sorry. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't feel an indef is a good idea at this time. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Pedro, LHvU, and Protonk. Let's not try to rush things through too fast. Everyone deserves some leeway at times. — Ched :  ?  22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Genuinely people. Are you blocking this great article writer for calling someone deluded? I've heard so much more offensive language on here that's not even been remarked upon. Jack forbes (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If only that was the only insult, eh? As great a contributor as Vintagekits apparently is, his own attitude in this very thread signals to me that he's headed straight for a community ban. Probably not today, probably not tomorrow, but unless he cools it, a lot sooner than he would like. Resolute 22:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Article writing isn't a license to spit vitriol. Also, other stuff exists. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)}xlots:He can contribute, and he's not always rude to everyone he comes across, so would oppose indef, although no opposition to current sanction, even though what he actually said was along the lines of "if you think I'm sticking around, you're deluded", which is not the same as saying "you're deluded". --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst noting the lack of the second person plural in the english language, he clearly wrote "you are deluded". In addition his post block commentary hardly lends himself to an unblock. Trust me, I don't work with WP:CIV. I work with WP:NPA and that was a direct personal attack - NPA is a policy that WP:IAR does not trump. Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You can call me deluded all day long and I would still object to you being blocked for it. I've heard far worse language on wiki that's not even been commented on. Jack forbes (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue semantics - particularly as I am aware there are plenty more where that came from. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who first posted the recent examples of Vintagekits incivility and rudeness against myself and other WP:FOOTY members, I would like it to go on record that I oppose an indefinite ban - for now. As he said, he is a good editor (apart from the insults, of course), and we should give him chance to calm down and reflect on the situation. Should such rude behaviour continue, however, then I would ask admins to reconsider. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it appears to be a moot point at this time. Hopefully, a brief pause will allow VK a return free from drama. Perhaps there could be some improvements made to the WP:ATHLETE section and/or WP:BIO in general that could resolve some of the items often argued. (as mentioned below by Risker and others). I don't like to see the project lose quality editors either, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. — Ched :  ?  12:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch

So...now that the issue of rudeness has been amply expounded upon, is anyone looking at the footy articles or the footy wikiprojects that initiated the behaviour? There's been plenty of good evidence over the years that problem areas go poorly addressed when people focus on user incivility instead of the underlying reason for the incivility. That's not to say that incivility should be ignored, but that solving the incivility problem doesn't fix the more difficult to assess but genuine problems that often lead to users becoming so frustrated they behave incivilly. Risker (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking over some of the relevant AfDs (of which this argument seems to sum up the debate quite well), there appears to be an open question as to whether the FAI League of Ireland is fully professional or not, and therefore whether players in it meet WP:ATHLETE. The question, I suppose, is that regardless of the disputed professional status of the league and it's teams, is playing in a nation's top-level league enough to pass the general notability criteria? Again, that seems to be disputed. It might be worthwhile to post an RFC over such a question, and to update WP:ATHLETE to reflect any consensus that forms. Problem is, I don't hold a lot of hope that such a question could be debated without the liberal dose of nationalistic indignity being displayed in these AfD debates. Resolute 23:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While some of the problem appears to be a deep seated loathing of the English (possibly coupled with the celebrated Irish temper) on VK's part, some of it does appear to reside in the actual editors and processes and articles and edits and so forth, not all of which by any means originate with VK.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. There seems to be (from an admitedly fairly cursory skim) an issue here. There is no question that this needs to be addressed - the English and the Americans have too long held a disproportionate sway over WP:N in my opinion. But I'm not sure an ANI thread is the right place to discuss this, as it really does not require the admin toolset to resolve. Pedro :  Chat  23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see the share of the contributions done on the English wikipedia by Americans and British editors compared to other nationalities. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It might, but we shouldn't care. As long as it's good, verifiable, information then as far as I'm concerned it could have been written by the martians. The contribution - not the contributor - is key. Pedro :  Chat  23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet you said the English and Americans have for too long held disproportionate sway over WP:N, i thought the contributor didnt matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I did. There is no conflict. The English and Americans have held too much sway but all quality contribution is good. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges sir. Any good information = okay. Any biased information = not okay. Editors nationality = not relevant. Pedro :  Chat  00:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In an ideal world that would be true, but it also seems reasonable to expect there will be a systemic bias towards the ideas and ideals that are held by the greatest concentrations of editors. I couldnt say whether that is be relevant in this case. I am aware that there is a very well developed consensus guideline over what levels are notable in English football and which are not, and there may or may not be an issue here with trying to shoehorn the Irish league into that matrix. It's not a problem isolated to English/Irish football either. There doesn't even seem to be any consensus on what level of professionalism makes a professional, as there have been many contentious debates over the notability of Minor League Baseball players and lower level professional hockey players. On the surface, this argument is simply another aspect of the same debate, but is magnified greatly by the nationalistic undertones, whether they be real or imagined. Resolute 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Players who play in the League of Ireland are clearly 'notable' to people in Ireland and most likely not to people elsewhere. The wikipedia policy seems to be that players have to play in a fully professional league to be 'notable'. Assuming that this means a league entirely consisting of clubs who play onlyplay full-time professional players, a criterion like that is hugely skewed against smaller countries which are less likely to have a league's worth of fully professional clubs. Are professional players in the fourth or fifth tier in England better known there than League of Ireland players are in Ireland? I would doubt it. My view would be that, at minimum, players who have played in the top tier in any country should be worthy of a page and I see no reason why that couldn't be extended to the second tier (or at least to players who have played a significant number of games at the second tier). As an aside, comments such as 'the celebrated Irish temper' are less than helpful and only serve to confirm feelings of English bias. SchumiUCD (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss the pros and cons of WP:ATHLETE, but as a quick point, would you therefore consider top-level players from San Marino, Monserrat, American Samoa etc. as notable enough for an article? GiantSnowman 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Glasswallmack and User:Kevin von always

User:Glasswallmack and User:Kevin von always are either the same person, or else working in tandem. Glasswallmack's only edit so far is an apparent hoax article, whereas Kevin von always has edited Glasswallmack's User page, has added "information" to Galsswallmack's hoaxish article, and is apparently copying and pasting random Internet pages into his User page and into random articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevin von always also vandalized Rik_Mayall by adding trivial opinionated paragraphs and breaking the infobox template.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru: continued harassment and edit warring/baiting

Resolved

 – QuackGuru blocked for one month. Shell ^babelfish 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus of dispute, or action in dispute

Ongoing harassment by QuackGuru and ongoing accusations of sockpuppetry

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

• QuackGuru

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

If I go to a talk page and see multiple archives with no search, I will add the template Template:search archives so that the editors on that talk page can easily search the archives. QuackGuru has reverted my addition of the search box on the Larry Sanger talk page [127], and posts that I am a sockpuppet [128]

This is not the first time QuackGuru has done this. QuackGuru has a pattern of going up to the 3RR limit even for minor inconsequential edits if he doesn't like the editor (like me). Example: QuackGuru went up to the 3RR limit reverting a search archives template [129] [130] [131] that I went to add to the Stephen Barrett article. The reason? "unnecessary, archives are mostly nonsense".

Quackguru has also plastered IPs with sockpuppet templates saying that I was the suspected sockpuppet of these IPs, and never said anything to me, or filed a report. I didn't notice it for a while. Then I took them off after this: [132] - even after everyone told Quackguru that if he was going to make these accusations all the time, to file an SPI, he didn't - for the reason that "it was stale".

Recently, after continual accusations of being a sockpuppet on the chiropractic article by both BullRangifer and QuackGuru - an article where I had the grand total of 3 edits - I got sick of it, and I asked to have a checkuser run. QuackGuru added the old IPs - the same IPs that he would never submit an SPI on before because "they were stale" - in with the new IPs in his sockpuppet charges. QuackGuru again put the "suspected sockpuppet of stmrlbs" templates on these old IPs. I asked if this was proper procedure here [133]. Shell told me it wasn't and that QuackGuru had been warned before, and she would warn him again. The sockpuppet investigation / chiropractic was run with the present IPs, past IPs submitted by BullRangifer and QuackGuru against me and I was cleared of all charges. Levine2112 was also cleared of any connection to the IPs that were not stale.

QuackGuru again placed a tag on Levine's user page after Levine2112 was cleared of the sockpuppet charges. This was removed, and QuackGuru was "warned" again [134].

This is ongoing harassment using sockpuppets and trying to start edit warring. I thought QG would stop after WP:SPI/Chiropractic.. but I guess that was just foolish optimism on my part. Quackguru just ignores warnings and keeps it going. This is not a "new user" error. Quackguru has been blocked before many times, and knows exactly what he is doing. --stmrlbs|talk 03:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Remarks by closing editor

• Given the very recent and explicit warnings against continuing this behavior coupled with the very recent sanction for edit warring, disruption and attacking other editors, I've blocked QuackGuru. Since this is one in a long string of escalating blocks, I've set the time for a month. Shell ^babelfish 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good block. Reviewing QuackGuru's history here, I find myself curious as to why he retains any editing privileges at all. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • He's been an excellent contributor, but even that is really wearing thin. Shell ^babelfish 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block given long history of problems and the refusal to change his behavior. While the loss of his content contributions may be missed, the loss of all of the other good faith editors he drives away from the project by his behavior more than counters any content he adds. --Jayron32 05:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rakraj

Resolved

 – user blocked indef by Jclemens t'shael the sock^{Talk to my master} 04:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rakraj has been adding a series of articles that are verbatim sections from the accounting textbook hosted here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411079/UNIT-I-MBA. He has created at least a half dozen articles in the last 15 mins, and gone through a full series of talk-page warnings, without showing signs of letting up. -- Æk (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Jclemens (talk · contribs). t'shael the sock^{Talk to my master} 04:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Embarassing edit warring on Ronald Ryan

The latest addition to the Lamest edit wars page. It's been going on for a while now and is getting way out of hand. I've reported the two users, Escapeeyes (talk · contribs · count) and Purrum (talk · contribs · count) before to the edit warring noticeboard but nothing came of it. Looks like they're just going to continue with their back and forth unless someone steps in and does something. Note Escapeeeyes has recent sockpuppet history. -- œ^™ 04:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

this article strikes me in being in need of some urgent attention with respect to NPOV and encyclopedic tone. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. As always, this protection was likely made to the wrong version so another admin should make sure that I have not inadvertantly protected the article with blatant WP:BLP-violations in it. However, the edit war has got to stop. The participants should use the talk page to discuss proposed changes. If both sides can agree to a consensus version, and agree to stop edit warring, then the protection could be lifted early. --Jayron32 05:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the guy's dead, so there's no BLP issues. And the arguing going on the talk page is just as bad, these guys are never going to reach any sort of consensus. -- œ^™ 05:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, at least for the next month, such silliness will be kept out of the article... --Jayron32 05:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent incivility by User:Small Victory

We have a problem of persistent incivility by User:Small Victory. Civility issues are typically handled by WP:WQA, and a thread is posted there. However the persistence of this user's incivility may warrant an administrative assessment, as the incivility has become disruptive. A non exhaustive sample of some of the users uncivil comments is below.

Extended content

There is a developing situation with an editor. He has increasingly insulting people both on the page history summaries, talk pages and other wikipedia pages. Examples (bolded by PB666): diff You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest' diff Stop your lies and distortions diff You're the problem, not me. diff Have you completely lost your mind? diff Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it. diff Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations. diff And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic. edit summary Removed Pdeitiker's ridiculous, incomplete and improperly sourced table. [Note: the table was actually removed even though it had references Small Victory has converted Absolute sample frequencies to percentages without disclosing the source of the numbers, once this was found out the material was promptly removed - the problem was that he scrambled the references in his citation such that they were difficult to follow] edit summary Do you not understand what a combined sample is? edit summary Pdeitiker, don't revert to Muntuwandi's version after coming out against it on the Talk Page diff either you're mistaken about being "a person of reasonable intelligence" or you're just not trying. Because the charts are explained very clearly and even color-coded to make reading them easier. WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break }} diff You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex. diff Are you kidding me? It's clear that you still don't understand my analogy, even though I've explained it and corrected your misapprehension several times. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? LEARN HOW TO READ! And then you wonder why I talk down to you. [135] I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. diff You're quite delusional. That article was deleted because it was a WP:CFORK. And your POV-pushing, original research, 3RR violations and sock puppets had more to do with it than anything I ever did. In fact, the article was problem-free until you (and Andrew Lancaster) came along and started tampering with it. Let's remember that you're the one who's been blocked for repeated rule violations. My record is clean. So if anything, the deletion was a referendum on your approach. Take the hint. PB666 yap 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) I can see you have trouble following simple logic. ... Small Victory This issue was already debated here when another obvious Afrocentrist tried to pull the same garbage that you're pulling now. He lost. Please refer to discussions 6, 7 and 8. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Having been totally exposed and defeated, now he's just reinserting his OR and POV without even giving an explanation or trying to make his case on the Talk Page. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The debate about content is over. You've been proven wrong, and consensus has been reached. In fact, it was over three years ago when Yom tried to pull the same thing and was also defeated by consensus. (Notice that your pal Llywrch intervened there, but backed down when I explained everything and he saw that I was right.) The situation we have now is a "crazy Afrocentrist" (by your own admission) trying repeatedly to reinsert OR and POV into the article, and in doing so continually violating the 3RR. This has to stop. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Are you delusional? After we arrive at consensus that you're guilty of OR and POV pushing, and we cease to indulge your nonsense as a result, your twisted Afrocentric mind interprets that as consent for you to reinsert your biased edits? Get real.The only "silence" here is yours, and it's deafening. You need to produce a source that uses E-V13 and E-M81 as evidence of Sub-Saharan African admixture. If you can't do that (and it's obvious by now that you can't), then you need to back off and stop vandalizing this article. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Let's be very clear: Your OR and POV will never be included in this article. Ever. Not as long as we have something to say about it. And if not us, then someone else will come along to stop you. Because you're in the wrong. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC) You've got a lot of nerve accusing others of OR given your track record. It's not a question of what the Auton study says, it's what it shows (or rather, doesn't show). Do you know what an admixture analysis is? Have you heard of the STRUCTURE program? I suggest you familiarize yourself with these things before making outrageous and idiotic accusations. Start with the Pritchard and Rosenberg papers referenced in this article......Small Victory (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I am discussing the content, but it's impossible to get anywhere with someone who's so clueless about science, and population genetics in particular, and more interested in advancing an Afrocentric agenda than learning anything. A graph is not "shaky ground". . . . . . And the graphs show that clearly. Get it? ---- Small Victory (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC) .... that yield different results (do you understand anything about how science works?). In fact, here's a study .....Small Victory (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Wapondaponda (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[section refactored by PB666]

I don't think any Wikipedian, who is acting in good faith deserves to be at the receiving end of such vitriol. This is all one way traffic, AFAIK, nobody has ever said anything mean to Small Victory. The isolated personal attack can be brushed aside. Some content disputes get heated and people say things, that they ordinarily wouldn't say. But Wikipedians shouldn't have to be at the receiving end of such abuse for months on end. I believe this user has met the criteria stated at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#How_disruptive_editors_evade_detection. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just notified User:Small Victory of this thread. Wknight94 ^talk 14:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand how this will accomplish anything that the WQA and talkpage warnings to Small Victory wouldn't. He has been warned, and if he does not stop, he will be blocked. Those two should be enough, or else nothing will be. There is no immediate administrative assistance needed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed ... and the OP was also asked not to use the {{Quotation}} format ... that entry alone on WQA was huge! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was huge, that is because SV has been uncivil on several occasions. Even on WQA SV in a half hearted admission of his incivility, refers to me as a "unrepentant Afrocentrist". This after he was given a warning. He is fully aware, that I resent being referred to by any ...ist. Furthermore, these warnings have been taking place for a while, and SV has ignored them. Andrew Lancaster posted a complaint User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion, over a month ago, starting on the 4th of July, [136], expressing concerns about SV's incivility. This seems to have been ignored, as he has persisted. Many other users have expressed concern as well. SV's incivility is so disruptive, so much that it has made it very difficult to collaborate with anybody. We are not editing on wikipedia, to be persistently insulted, denigrated and humiliated as has been the case. The touchy-feely WQA approach is an option, but Andrew and others have already tried such approach ,as I have mentioned above, and it didn't work. Administrative action should also be another option. SV would immediately understand Wikipedia's core policy of civility. I don't think it is fair, at least 10 of these personal attacks have been directed at me, and I have never said anything mean to him. It is not fair to give him a slap on the wrist and say forget about it, everything will be fine. That would be encouraging this type of behavior. What if all of us were to be uncivil, all order would break down. SV doesn't have exclusive rights to be rude. This is why administrative action would be very effective. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was huge because you insist on posting using quotation tags, instead of just diffs. Someone cleaned up the mess on WQA, and I note someone has just top'n'tailed it here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree adding some formating does increase Kbs. If there was an easier way to communicate with editors who are unfamiliar with a specific incident, we would use it. Diffs are great, but they have their problems too. They are harder to read and sometimes there is an excess of text, so quotations help to zoom in on what is necessary. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The section above was refactored using mostly Wilkins version.PB666 ^yap 16:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the formatting of complaints. If an editor does not follow the conventions, the material can be quietly rearranged & it should not be the subject of adverse comment. (In fact the current trend to require formalism in making complaints is disturbing: I consider it intimidating to less experienced users--in fact, the current way some of the admin boards are arranged, I would be hard put to figure it out myself, and I've been an admin 2 years now. This board in particular is in a sense a board for problems that don't fit anywhere else, and I am willing to discuss them however they are presented). We're here to deal with problems. In my opinion the consistent use of ad hominem language amounting to the level of insult by SV is a problem that does require attention. Whether he is right on the genetics is irrelevant here, it is a matter for article talk pages. He has no right whatever to make racist accusations against other editors. But has there been any since the 15th, the date of BWilkins' warning? DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than referring to someone as an Afrocentrist and then confirming calling them that, no ... and even that is a little iffy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

SV seems to think that name calling is acceptable, I resent the caricature of Afrocentrism and SV is aware of that as I have mentioned it to him. His use of the term, indicates a lack of sincerity in his admission of incivility. Disruptive User's who evade detection often avoid gross breaches of civility, but their minor breaches of incivility are frequent enough to be disruptive. As I have mentioned before, the isolated breaches of incivility are normal, and can be brushed aside. It is persistent incivility that can bring collaborative editing to a halt I believe this is the case with SV. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG about formatting and procedure. The most important thing is to communicate the problem. We have brought this issue for the attention of the wider community as it appears to be affecting our ability to edit. What we would like to know, is whether the community feels these comments are uncivil, and if they are, whether anything should be done about them. The people at the receiving end of these comments, shouldn't be blamed for complaining about them. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the issue of Science. I want to try to explain the basic problem in as simple a lingo as possible so that we can understand the malicious nature of the edit-warring that goes on.

Background

Background. The story goes like this, back in the 60s Molecular anthropology began, it largely used highly indirect measures of quantifying similarities and differences between humans. In 1980 to 1987 is was found by AC Wilson and company that diversity in humans was far less than other species of extant apes, humans had the diversity of a smallish isolated subspecies of ape. In 1987 Wilson's group found that for mtDNA, all diversity appears to flow recently out of Africa. The Y chromosomal diversity was later established, and it was basically found that both have undergone fixation recently. In 1996 Tishkoff et al established that there is, at least, evidence of gene flow from Africa into Europe, but, at that time, the appearance was not statistically attributable to recent migrations, simply that Europeans had more markers that are found in SSA than Europe than peoples further to the east. The HLA mirrored this point of view, however in specific instances, such as Sardinia and the Basque, there was sufficiently unambiguous genetic types to assert a conclusion. A conclusion has been drawn by on researcher, Arniaz-Villena which has drawn criticism because of a sub-Saharan/Greek claim. He used HLA-DRB1 as his support, however if one looks at HLA A-Cw-B haplotypes, many studies, have shown links between Western and Southern Europe and Africa that appear to exclude West Asian intermediates. The question has become, now, what part of Africa. The intensity of these patterns is either not visible with mtDNA and Y, or the punctuate pattern of Y (such as in the Pasiegos) is credited to strong drift. Here is an example of how interpretation difficulty arises. Ethnic Sardinians represents a more discrete subpopulation of humans and can be defined by the collapse of gradients seen in both Europe and Africa. Consequently, by HLA it clusters independently of Europeans despite being in Europe. The HLA type A30-Cw5-B18 is qualified by three different studies as being of paleoNorth African (i.e. not-Berber origin since Berbers would be of paleo NE African), its frequency ~20% and examining of Sardinia for other N.African haplotypes brings the level to about 30%. There are three aspect of the haplotype that make it of probable N/NW African. A*3002, Cw5-B18, B18-DR3. The problem is that because of its early study in Sardinia A30 was not resolved into A*3002, while it almost certainly is A*3002 or a derivative. However, the level of Sub-saharan Y and mtDNA in Sardinia are low, and all Y of possible recent African ancestry or mtDNA of African ancestry are well below 30% (for Y 30% of males). A30-Cw5-B18 could be a very ancient haplotype of N or NW african origin. At the current level of understanding ~10% of mt or Y (at maximum) may be of direct/recent N Africa origin. HLA on the other hand, preserve diversity and the effect on allele population or ploidy is technically 4 times that of Y or mtDNA and so drift affect this locus less. In practicality, because of a known selection for diversity the 2N rule would register this locus as being >>4 times that of mt and Y since HLA albeit refuse to fix. HOwever, disease and diet are known to select HLA. And for DR3-DQ2 there appears to be a preference for our ancestors who lived in coastal areas and routinely ate shellfish. It is known, at times for example in Guatemala, DQ8 violates the rule and is close to saturating frequency (at 80%). DQ8 might also be under coastal/maritime selection. Which interpretation of the 'facts' is correct? or is the actual level of genomic contribution somewhere in between? So that results of different publications battle each other. Its not the fault of scientist, this is the way genetics plays-out. The proponents of the use of Y or mtDNA claim HLA is under-selection. However, the biggest problem with Y chromosome is that its TMRCA for humans is 1/2 to 1/3rd the TMRCA for mtDNA, and in fact its TMRCA occurs after humans expanded from Africa by both physical and molecular anthropological methods. Consequently, Y chromosomal tracking is problematic as hegemony and cultural selection have been presented as playing large roles in frequency distributions. What makes the problem worse it is established that when invasions or migrations to occur, there is a preferential expansion of Y 'types' found in the invaders (relative to other markers) and a reduction of local Y 'types' frequencies. On the other hand mtDNA is frequently preserved in local populations, and this would be a good sensor except for the fact that many older branches thought to be ancestral to Europeans are also found in North Africa, and this could be the result of Northward or Reverse gene flow. However it has been widely reported that mtDNA are underselection Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA (December 2007). "Whole-mtDNA genome sequence analysis of ancient African lineages". Mol. Biol. Evol. 24 (3): 757–68. doi:10.1093/molbev/msl209. PMID 17194802. is probably the best most recent example). There is a very active scientific discussion at the moment on mtDNA selection and its cause, this is not settled science. IOW neither Y or mtDNA are immune from the selection critique each can introduce bias into arguments of the amplitude of a given ancestry/migration. With regard to selection, very few studies, despite reporting 'selection' (i.e Tajima D statistic), have actually determined selection coefficients or modeled selection for the selection they claim to exist. F. Ayala is the only example that comes to mind in 'myth about eve' Science 1995 and due to an oversight in evolutionary mechanisms, he apparently got it wrong. Noone really ever knows how much selection occurs at a given selectable locus. Many things under selection in the past are not under selection now, and so we have difficulty measuring real-time rates in humans. Given this editors need to decide how to handle and present evidence and make it encyclopedic. One broad point about the history of molecular anthropology is that errors have occurred when people have relied solely on one data set (for example Y chromosome dominates the discussion on the Genetic history of Europe page. The best situation is to present as many different factual perspectives, accepting that each brings its own bias, a level of that we currently can't quantitate nor should we pretend that we understand it, so that we are not biasing the discussion by trying to focus on that source we believe to be least biased. My opinion is that editors on these pages be allowed to represent the various facts in support of POV providing the least opinion (or 'discussion-styled' speculation) and that each factoid set be represented without the nitpicking and harassment of presenters of other fact sets. PB666 yap 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Layman's version : So that the basic Edit War is between Muntawandi, which adds alot of interpretations from the literature that are speculative, and SOPHIAN (currently blocked) & Small Victory who is trying to delete these addition and use a 'the most anti-afrocentric markers and finds a way of discounting all other markers (even though the problems with the markers that are being used are well-known and discussed in the literature). This is the reason this EditWar cannot be resolved. I am very familiar with the two POVs, I was a participant in sci.anthropology.paleo from almost the day of its propogation on the UseNet. These same points of view were present (e.g. in Egyptology) prior to the broader acceptance of Molecular Anthoplogy, they are all-but independent on facts or accepted results. A-case-in-point there were many people who believed that Neandertals were humans immediate ancestors for Europeans because there was no possible way they could have recenting ancestry with 'those [racial epitath]' and this belief has continued despite saturating evidence to the contrary. The point I want to make here is that in unmoderated forums of expression, it is the unwillingness of participants to control their obsessional support modern mythos that ultimately has caused the 'content crash' in the USENET sci.* groups and a principal reason that higher-level content providers have moved to more moderated groups. 'Wikipedia' should be aware of the danger of unmitigated POV behaviors and should exert its moderating presence with greater speed as this POV war has been moving from page to page. Most of the time editors can work together, but in some areas the topic is contentious and plays into extremist subcultures within modern societies and, consequently, needs a bit more surveillance than most pages.

I don't agree that Muntuwandi should have brought this issue here, yet, but I have to say the Small Victory is continuing with insulting behavior (over exactly this issue I describe above) after this issue was brought to WQA and he was warned and brought here, so that I think with his latest edits on Genetic History of Europe, he clearly is thumbing his nose at the arbitration process. Muntawanda has already stated he has difficulty self-moderating his POV, and it is clearly evident of the hostile style in which Small Victory defends his POV that bring us here. I apologize that this discussion has attracted so much attention, but we do need more active administrations where-ever these two engage each other.PB666 ^yap 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda is using exaggerated claims of incivility and personal attacks in order to deflect my criticism of his biased edits, per WP:SPADE. He doesn't want to be referred to as an Afrocentrist because he knows there's truth to it, and being exposed threatens his agenda here. At the moment, I'm the only person calling him out on it, so getting me blocked and out of the way is essential. His motives are so transparent, it's ridiculous. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPADE is "advice or opinion", not policy. Every single editor has a POV - especially you. I'm not arguing that anyone is an "afrocentrist" or not. Discounting someone's edits, or bullying them because of a perceived POV is not in line with collegial editing. You have begun to use the calling of "afrocentrism" as a way to attack edits you do not agree with, and the editor who is making them, and you seem to believe it's justified - which it is not. You are welcome to perhaps define an edit as being "afrocentric" but not label editors as "afrocentrists" in order to discourage their edits. In the long run, keep in mind WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, fine. His edits are Afrocentric then. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned this previously, but SV is a single purpose account whose primary interest had been in the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and since its deletion, now Genetic history of Europe. This is evident in his editing record which shows that in his 3 years on Wikipedia, SV has only edited 24 unique articles. The article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe was one of those articles that is tucked away in an obscure corner of Wikipedia, and as a result didn't get much scrutiny. Because the article was SV's only interest, SV had very limited exposure to the wider community. As a result, he somehow believed that it is acceptable to be uncivil to other editors on Wikipedia. Since we stumbled upon the article, the topic has now gotten more attention from the community and SV has learned a few things about how Wikipedia works. For example, he has recently learned How not to engage in original research, and hopefully now, he will learn about civility. However, he continues with his confrontational approach, even with newbies to his topics per [137], [138] Wapondaponda (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION: Everyone who participated in that discussion learned that citing a chart which is explained in the study it comes from is in fact not original research. However, your attempt to have such evidence barred is information suppression. When will you learn not to engage in that? ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

SV, your constant refrain of "I didn't hear that" is becoming tiresome. You are the only person claiming that your interpretation of the chart isn't OR. Everyone else in the discussion is pointing out that it is OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally false. You're the one who's not listening. First of all, I proved with direct quotes that it's not "my" interpretation but that of the studies' authors. Secondly, TheFeds never believed it was OR. Neither did Shreevatsa. And Irbisgreif and PB666 didn't really take sides. The rest (you, Blueboar and Elen of the Roads) made very weak arguments, often based on poor understanding of the subject or misreading of policy, which I easily refuted. ---- Small Victory (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Original Research issue - I really think people have gone overboard with this, although I have erased edits because of the guidelines as a scientist I am kind of bewildered by the stance. For example, a scientist can take 1 observation of something in a sample size of forty and publish that as a 2.5% frequency in a population without given the variance. We know that the 95% CI on that is 0.125% to 12.5% for that measurement (IOW an occurrence of 1 in a much larger sample according to the binomial probability distribution can vary at 95% confidence over a 200 fold range, an occurrence of 0 has infinite fold range, or to make in laymans terms absences of evidence is not evidence of absence, in fact the binomial probability distribution basically proves this). In fact it would be easy enough for a wikipedian to have a template table for presentation of frequencies so that all one needed to do was enter "|observed1 = 1 |SampleSize1 = 40" and to have a line on the table produce "2.5 +/- 1.2% (or whatever)" so that the presentation is objective. But, I cannot, by the OR standards, do the appropriate statistics to make it a given percentage with a error range or (better as a 96% CI range for low occurences). However, I can present an inappropriate percentage if the literature cites it as such. IOW, for wiki certain versions of data are more or less a black hole. I agree that SV should not argue once it is determined something is Original Research here, but it is confounding at times how that decision is made. To the specific issue at hand - The data SV added were absolute frequencies converted to percentages [Formula: 100 * f_abs/N ] (WP - no original statistics). However, if Wiki had a specific guideline for dealing with absolute frequencies (for example state the 1SD confidence range or 95% CI) then I think it would be perfectly legitimate to present those frequencies, but with an error range. PB666 ^yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to be fair-handed in this discussion, I do realize that POV does blind editors to others points of veiw as we tend to agree and present POVs of authors we agree with; however Muntawandi, albiet with difficulty appears to want to work with others, whereas SV does not. I asked SV to improve his referencing so that material is not obscured in a 'Snakes nest' of references and he chose not to. In addition throwing a long list of percentages into the text is not really encyclopedic in its style particularly if data from several papers was given as a single reference. It was only in trying to sort out which data belonged to which reference that I found that a statistical conversion (original research) had been made on his part. The data given by SV and the other editor may both be correct (see above, its the way statistics works sometimes). If the guideline had allowed me to add a confidence range to his percentages or combine 2 different samples as one for a typed population, then I would have not deleted his data. PB666 ^yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Small Victory distorting this whole question into one of Afrocentrism is unfortunately typical of how he addresses all disagreements or perceived disagreements with others. It reminds me of the case where, when I told him he was out of line to call me a chimp, he wrote in an even more uncivil tone that "I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ!" (In other words he only compared me to a chimp in terms of being sub-human in terms of comprehension skills. He did not call me a chimp as such, and therefore he is in the right to write abusively and my mis-wording just proves it: "And then you wonder why I talk down to you.") In summary, Small Victory often looses sight completely of what the point is, because he has constantly got this way of looking for an angry way to twist things into a personal attack. It is very distracting from actually editing articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wish to make some corrections here. Elen of the Roads, Muntawandi did not post using the quotations template, I did. I did not know there was an established method, and I think the repeated picking on this issue biting the newcomer (although not to wiki, this is the first time I have posted a complaint) after all it brought to attention an issue that needed attention. Nor was the thread designed to beat up on Small Victory, after repeated attempts to try to get admins involved in the constant edit warring and derogatory comments I decided it was time to take things a step further, it seems that the step was justified at this point based on the overall response. Muntawandi, there is a process here and you shouldn't use your POV as a reasoning for trying to get Small Victory blocked, he has been warned, and that would equate to information suppression. However, I do believe that there should be an admin whose better willing to survey what is going on pages to which SV and SOPHIAN posts to for a while, so that his behavior is followed up on. If (I) we had managed to attract better surveillance to begin with we would not be at this point, IMHO.PB666 ^yap 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• People watching this case might want to look at edits in the last few days both by User:Small Victory and User:Victorius III. There has been more personal attack, lack of civility, and tendentious editing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• You can add another User:Victoriusmaximus a new use with no activity other than the Genetic History of Europe. We seem to have a troll farm under the Genetic History of Europe page.PB666 ^yap 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes SV has been warned, but this is not his first warning. The spotlight is on SV right now, so he may be more careful with his edits. But what will happen when the spotlight is not on him. The number of times he has used uncivil language, despite warnings, seem to indicate that he is quite comfortable insulting people who don't agree with him. One way to end incivility in these disputes is to prevent uncivil editors from editing. However, SV's type of incivility rarely results in disciplinary action, because he avoids crossing the line, though he is consistently very close. Should such a pattern persist into the future, then a case for disciplinary action would be justified. These are just the first steps, so that there is a record of complaints about SV's incivility. His rudeness has made the possibility of collaboration a very difficult prospect. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out (since my name is mentioned above) that Small Victory's presentation of the outcome of the OR debate is at odds with the version prevailing in this instance of reality. All I had to do was cite the policy, his own response verified that the breach of it was clear (I won't rehash the argument, you can go and read it here [139] ) - SV says this is a weak argument. The Feds explained that what he was doing was OR - SV prefers to read it as saying that he isn't. The hand that feeds you explained that what he was doing was OR - SV just disagrees with him. And so it goes. It appears to be no good talking to this chap, his behaviour is as one who has their fingers in their ears and is going "La la la, I can't hear you!"Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dcasanovax: adding OR, leaving insulting messages in edit summaries

Dcasanovax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After I reverted this edit to the Romanians article (because it added info sourced from wikipedia and some personal website, on a very contentious subject), Dcasanovax reverted and returned with this edit summary - tu ai o mare problema comportamentala baiatule (Romanian for: "you have a huge behavioral problem, my boy" (note how the edit was marked as minor). He returned with another revert, which has for its edit summary: uuuu dar cata indolenta si vai ce ocupatii interesante ai si tu ("my, but how much indolence and gee what interesting occupations you have"). This I interpret as harassment.

What's more, considering the focus of his edits, his jingoistic Romanian mindset, his instant familiarity with wikipedia subtleties, and his immediate jumping to insults (see his contributions for more eloquent samples), I strongly suspect that Dcasanovax is a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte, User:Greier or another one in the pack of blocked/banned users (additional clues: Bonaparte has a long history of edits related to Romania's international affiliations, Romanian economy and what is, per this, his place of residence, Cluj-Napoca city - which gives us the bulk of Dcasanovax's contributions so far; unless I'm mistaken, Greier was also from that city). Dahn (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want action on possible sockism, WP:SPI is thisaway. If this has to do with uncivil edit summaries, WP:WQA is thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we do both here instead of starting two new threads about what may be a clear-cut case? It's not like I have every waking moment to waste on this editor, and I believe both my rationales are equally validated (and similar to the several other cases on this page where admins have already intervened). Dahn (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how's this then: it appears you have a content dispute, and that you're both edit-warring - apparently both reaching WP:3RR violations. You deleted what appeared to be a wide range of edits, to which s/he replied "you have a huge behavioural problem" - which can also mean "you're behaving very strangely...[by deleting my edits]". S/he re-added them, and you promptly deleted again. At that point they made a comment about "interesting occupations", which can also mean many things - none of which are harassment. So, there's no incivility - only potential blocks on both of you for edit-warring. Now, you're trying to make a case for a sockpuppet, but you can't even guess exactly which one it is. Not all admins have the ability to see IP addresses, and WP:SPI is the only place that you can find someone who can - you were advised to go and make your case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think I should find it an insult when someone tells me I have a "behavioral problem" (as per the term used in psychology) and discusses my "indolence", and you don't find it problematic that an editor comes out of nowhere and informs me that s/he's been following my edits, fine. I'm just not gonna bother changing that kind of attitude, but we could all do without the lecture. For one, I'm not "reaching" any WP:3RR violations, "apparently" or not. Also, what I have deleted was a condensed number of edits which were either unsourced or sourced from wikipedia itself and a personal site. And finally, it's really not my fault that a cluster of the most disruptive wikipedia editors come from Cluj-Napoca.

Lastly, BWilkins, I don't much like to be patronized (starting with the "thisaway" and "thataway" comments), particularly since I only use this page when I identify potential problems for the project, and even more so since I have a good standing as a long-term contributor and I have other things I'd rather do on wikipedia. This kind of problem is usually sorted on this page (it's been the case with several of Bonaparte's sockpuppets, who were often identified starting from the uncivil comments they made); assuming that I should both identify the problem and then go through the whole bureaucracy to restart this on any number of levels, just because you won't find it alarming that someone is editing in the manner described above, simply isn't realistic. Dahn (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, you don't get it. Personal attacks are not only allowed, but encouraged. Those who object to the attacks are the ones who get slapped down here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there - I work my ass off dealing with violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL because I heartily believe in them around here. I asked another Romanian editor about the translations, and they provided quite different ones that were much more tame. The words used were quite likely intentionally readable differently, but I always WP:AGF in that kind of case, and there was no way in hell I was slapping anyone down. I acknowledge and second Sandstein's block below related to nationalistic edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Dcasanovax's few edits and have found them to be generally unproductive - a typical Eastern Europe nationalistic edit warrior. In combination with the personal attacks, that's sufficient for me to have indef-blocked the account. I don't object to an unblock by any admin who believes the editor is not a sock and ready to contribute productively.  Sandstein  23:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock attack

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, folks. MuZemike 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddity on WP:AE

Today, because I have WP:AE on my watchlist due to a sudden interest in the arbitration case I was a part of, I saw that Sephirotix (talk · contribs) had added an enforcement request against Seha (talk · contribs), an administrator on other language projects. I removed it and posted the user to AIV as it was the user's only edit and have found that it is Zepceteam (talk · contribs), who was reverted somewhere for spam by Seha on a project where Seha has sysop. I don't know about any blocks, because I can't find any done anywhere relating to the user.

So this is now a crosswiki drama session that the English Wikipedia could do without, and perhaps the external link could be added to the meta blacklist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Now he's doing stupid things at WP:RFAR to try and bring punitive measures against Seha. Would someone please block this user to prevent further disruption at arbitration pages and advise him that this is the English Wikipedia and not whatever project he was (initially) blocked from?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

He has now started Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3C_Seha_.3E.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

Focus of dispute, or action in dispute

We are currently trying to find a good way of presenting both the fact that mainstream Judaism does not recognize Messianic Judaism as Jewish and the fact that Messianic Judaism view itself as Jewish. One editor has been unwilling to include the latter in the article's lead paragraph despite the mention of the other in the lead paragraph. This editor also accuses the Messianic Jews of predatory behaviour and "deceptive practices" and uses these accusations as the rationale for her behaviour.

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

User:Lisa

This user was notified on Talk:Messianic Judaism. The notification was added in this revision: [[140]]

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

This comment from User:Lisa appears on Talk:Messianic Judaism section "Questioning the lead". It exemplifies this editor's unwillingness to allow the mention of the Messianic Jewish view of Messianic Judaism's relationship to Judaism into the lead paragraph based on

a) a misuse of WP:FRINGE, which applies to fringe theories within academic fields of study, not to fringe groups within established religions.

b) non-neutral POV accusations against the Messianic Jews.

Here is the comment:

Josiah, how the group views itself is mentioned within the article. But since it's a fringe view, it does not belong in the lede of an encyclopedic article. Please be aware that the current lede is a compromise worked out over a long time. Were it up to me, the lede would read something like this:

Messianic Judaism is a Christian group which preys on Jews, particularly those with a limited Jewish education, in order to convert them to Christianity via deceptive practices. Judaism views the worship of a person as idolatry.

I think that's an accurate description of the group, and can easily be supported by reliable sources. However, MJs and their supporters can bring MJ sources that say otherwise. Hence the compromise lede. Of course, the problem with such compromises is that someone from one side or the other of the debate will show up long after the compromise has been achieved and, not realizing that it is a compromise, will view the compromise position as a place from which to start. It isn't. I'm happy to go back to something along the lines of what I wrote above, if you like. Then we can thrash this out and wind up back with the compromise language. Or we can save ourselves a lot of time and edits and leave it alone. Your call. -Lisa (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. JosiahHenderson (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

I'm willing to let the quote Josiah presented speak for itself. For the record, I'm uncomfortable with the compromise lede, but I support it because it is the compromise. -Lisa (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

I'm confused by the use of WP:FRINGE here. Would this policy be used to prevent users from describing the claims of Scientology in that group's article? Shii (tock) 05:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by closing editor

This appears to be a RFC, the OP needs to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment but it could also go on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, which is what I'd recommend. It doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Block list collides with copyvio

I tried to flag a copyvio at ‎Role of media in marketing, which is copied from "REMOVETHIShttp://www.ehow.com/how_2109071_understand-role-media-marketing-business.html". But the block filter won't let me mention an external link to "ehow.com" in a copyvio template. Nor will it let me mention it here, hence the "REMOVETHIS". Maybe that block filter needs to be turned down from "kill" to "stun". --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've nuked the page as a copyvio. In future you can put the link inside <nowiki> tags and the filter won't block it. ♣ Ameliorate! 07:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat

From almost the very first of Wladthemlat's edits [141] 80% of his "actions" are reverting. He uses Twinkle since the day he registered, and links to wikipedia guidelines and whatsoever like an "old" editor. I am pretty sure, looking at his all edits: [142] that this an account of an existing user (or someone's who were previously blocked indef for doing this, like User:MarkBA) and it is registered for only one reason: edit warring and disruptive editing and whatsoever. (Jones121) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.4.31 (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No real urgency as they haven't edited in over a week. If they come back it might be a concern. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Contimm User issues

Contimm (talk · contribs)

Hello administrators, i have a concern that i would like to bring to you before the situation gets out of hand. I eddited the Lagos and Abuja Pages, I added many new up to date photos of the skyline, appertment blocks, street level, tourism ect. however some other users felt that two of my photos (the apartment ones) were pointless in the article and therefore the went ahead and deleted them. Now i am still fairly a new "member" on wiki so i not knowing the rules undid all their editing and we went back and forth. Eventually we discussed the issue and i edited the text to correspond with the apartment photos. But just yesterday another user User:Contimmstarted removing many of the photos on the Lagos and Abuja pages. I would like you guys to please discuss with him the policies on wiki and urge him to discontinue this behavior. Thanks allot and i hope that this issue is resolved asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.237.201 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing I notice is that giving the images odd sizes (250x250px) causes page formatting problems. I also noticed that you and your regular account Kehz99 (talk · contribs) seem to be in an edit war over the pages, have ownership issues and have not once bothered to use the article talk pages to discuss the edits. And you forgot to notify Contimm, which I have done for you. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And User:Kehz99 issues

Dear Administrators, and Kehz99,

This is Contimm. I would like to vehemently deny the extent of the allegations made against me. I explained all of my changes in great detail to Kehz99 (aka 67.191.237.201) on the talk pages of both. I only deleted a couple of pictures that were either of low quality or irrelevance. In one case, I moved a picture to a more appropriate page. Please see the User: Kehz99's user talk for my explanations. He keeps deleting my explanations from his UserTalk page so you may need to look into the history. You will also note from the Lagos history page that User: Ankimai and User: Quantpole made similar changes to the page previously and were both unfairly 'undone' by Kehz99 (aka 67.191.237.201). I would actually like to counter and report the behavior Kehz99. Instead of actually looking at what changes I had made, and editing where he saw fit, he simply undid my whole revision - this is incredibly unfair and disrespectful. I ask you to please review the changes made to the Lagos and Abuja articles and decide for yourself who is in good faith. I also would suggest that you look at the Hartford, Connecticut page (I wrote a number of sections and added almost all of the photos), as well as my contributions to other articles. You will see clearly that I am acting in good faith.

Sincerely, Contimm (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Date linking by User:203.97.255.42

IP editor 203.97.255.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been advised many, many times to stop turning dates into wikilinks, but never takes any notice and continues to do so.–Signalhead ^< T > 13:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given them a final warning for their continued disruptive editing. Many of their other edits are good edits, it's just this one topic that they seem to be stuck on. Canterbury Tail talk 13:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Sockpuppet with Nationalistic Attacks on Talkpage

Resolved

User_talk:Romandrumanagh

This user was blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. His "retiring" message included a nationalistic attack - and in fact, he made a similar statement against an Irish admin.

I removed the most recent attack, but they were re-added by another editor.

I suggest that this page be deleted, or that someone else remove the offensive comments. I would take this up with the editor who re-added them, but as they (and an admin I had never met before) are currently playing tag-team "beat-up on on the neutral WQA helper and include pure bullshit while doing it" on my talkpage, I would rather disengage from them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

problem solved. --Jayron32 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman

I bring this here because I'm not sure whether it calls for semi-protection or a block. This article, about a convicted con artist, has repeatedly been a low-level source of trouble: an editor, who may be the subject of the article, tries every so often to remove sourced material from the article or add unsourced information that exonerates Coleman. Since it seems possible that the reason for this is to use Wikipedia to add credence to false information, we need to be particularly vigilant about this. Anyway, currently 68.59.124.204 (talk · contribs) has been carrying on the campaign and ignoring warnings to stop. I will notify the IP about this section. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Looie496 on this one. The vandalism seems to be continuous, organized, and narrow in its scope. Prior to its most recent history, the article existed alongside a second dubious article proclaiming the existence of a separate entity, or twin brother, whose life and accomplishments so closely paralleled Lester Coleman's life that it soon became obvious that a single entity, or a biased cabal, was working diligently to falsify information and to give credence to some truly well-crafted fiction. —Merry Yellow (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 1 month. That should encourage the offending IP to use the talk page more appropriately. Lets see where he takes it from here. --Jayron32 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

High profile vandalism alert

A review of an Edinburgh fringe performance may not be the most likely place to start an investigation into Wikipedia vandalism, but this one states "The show's liveliest sequence comes when Holmes invites the audience to devise its own salacious rock-star rumour, and then updates the relevant Wikipedia page (Mick Hucknall's, in this instance) accordingly". Jon Holmes may not thank the reviewer for giving that example as it points directly to this vandal edit and therefore to the IP responsible: Special:Contributions/88.107.194.233. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was intended as a joke, but ...

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours for personal attack

Mr. IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really don't get that kind of humor. I've asked for a retraction, but no response. I voted in the RfA in question, so I don't feel I can act. The editor's talk page reveals at least one (not recent), shall we just say strong allegation against another editor at the Village Pump, which was later removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply ignoring him will do. It's rather bemusing how people like him strive for attention by making controversial claims. —Dark ^talk 11:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because the vote was an astounding 141 to 0, he figured it was safe. Although maybe he should change his user ID to IPONU, as he tries to rain on the nominee's parade. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how anyone could see that as a joke. This is a serious legal matter. — neuro^(talk) 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is a pattern on the part of this user, then it must be assumed to be a string of personal attacks. If he does not explain himself, he should be expunged from wikipedia, as such comments are way over the top even if their author thinks they're funny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This warrants an immediate block for a serious violation of WP:NPA - this goes way beyond acceptable. Darkfalls - we do not help the encyclopedia by ignoring this kind of thing or brushing it off. Exxolon (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Add this [143] into the mix and we've got a serious problem here. Exxolon (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The user's approach to things is a bit fishy in general. I also posted the RfA thing to WQA, so presumably someone will put that fish on ice soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've redacted and indented his comment. I have not blocked him at this time in the absence of continued pushing of this comment - but certainly leaving that comment to stand is simply not acceptable. There's a line between making a joke and making an egregious, libellous personal attack - and that line is several miles behind that comment. If someone else feels this is immediately blockable I won't take issue with it. ~ mazca ^talk 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the original comment opening this section could certainly be read, in isolation, as a metaphor for the user it's addressed to allegedly transgressing Wikipedia norms and rules, rather than the law. Without evidence as to a different intent, I'd be inclined to ignore it. Much more problematic to me is the other comment directed at another editor, "please limit yourself to molesting helpless animals rather than molesting our encyclopedia". That is equally difficult to take as a serious accusation of anything, but it is way out of line. The question needs to be asked: is this a longer-term pattern or a bad hair day? Rd232 ^talk 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. It was enough to make me reach for the block button, but for the fact it wasn't terribly recent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

His rant over at the deletion discussion page might provide a clue as to what he's on about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you give us a diff?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about this, from April 14, which was the final edit after several he made to that statement that day. You can get details from the contribs list at the top of this section. [144] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That came 9 minutes before his "molesting animals" comment that Exxolon referred to earlier. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) nothing to see here that can't easily be cleaned up. Redacting the comment was fine, and I've moved the ensuing discussion to the talk page. And it doesn't matter whether it was libelous or not, this is as likely to end up in court as a twig or a leaf are to tackle an elephant. However, the wider behavior of the editor in question may well be a serious problem. I'm not familiar with this one at all, or am I? On the user page, the editor claims "After nearly 7 years at Wikipedia under various accounts and names... I prefer to edit under my IP addresses....I will now be using this account to [do things IPs cannot do]...and agitate for the sake of anonymous users throughout the encyclopedia." That seems to be a claim of widespread sockpuppetry - if any of those IPs are being disruptive, or if the registered account is disruptive (as it clearly was with this joke), that's textbook good hand / bad hand behavior, using multiple accounts to further disruption. Self-styled rogues out to prove a WP:POINT about Wikipedia are an occasional problem here. This one seems to be vowing to stir up drama. Perhaps a CU is in order? Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Attacks on FT2 + Strong oppose votes in RFA + Disruption + Sock .... hmmmm, it does make one wonder doesn't it? — Ched :  ?  16:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Mr. IP's edits are severely disruptive at the very least, and I think there is more to it than 'the very least' as well. — neuro^(talk) 17:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what page this was done on, or which user made such a comment. It is a clear and egregious violation of our personal attack policy and as the policy suggests I have blocked this user for 24 hours. We need to protect Wikipedians against such attacks, not ignore them. Chillum 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Tiptoety ^talk 18:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block. — neuro^(talk) 19:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, it is almost exactly 1 year since this account was last mucking around at RFA, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielfolsom 2 here and here. Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sherurcij

Resolved

 – Discussion moved elsewhere

User:Sherurcij has been making unwarranted personal attacks against me in a number of AfDs. Taking this as an example he accuses me of attempting to censor Wikipedia and of being an ideologue attempting to destroy the records of my "idealogical enemy" because I failed to nominate US bases for deletion at the same time. Anyone who knows anything about me will know that I am a) British, b) a Liberal Democrat and c) about as right-wing as Jimmy Maxton, making these comments incredibly offensive to me. Considering Sherurcij's stated aim on his userpage to attempt to record everything vaguely Al-Qaeda related I'd say this is him bringing his POV and bias in. I have repeatedly asked him to withdraw the comments and he's made no attempt to do so, or even respond to my points. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to have civil dialogue on my talk page, I'm open to discussions with you; but speaking on AFDs is not really the place to have a 200-response discussion on our views of each other. You accused me, for example, of bearing "[a] desire to document the worlds arseholes on Wikipedia" and suggested that is why I thought it was improper for you to say that stub articles dealing with military training centres belonging to al-Qaeda weren't notable, even though they were sourced, neutral articles (which I did not create, as a point of interest, nor did I ever edit so far as I know). I have worked on Assuming good faith from you from the beginning of my knowledge of you, but it is a continued pattern over the past year that I am finally at wits' end and point out that I feel you are using fallacious logic to try and delete articles you "don't like" rather than honestly "have no opinion towards and just want to improve the project". Nobody has ever suggested you are American, and if you take offence to my suggestion that you apear to "bear a personal dislike of the article's subject and feel it is "unworthy" to merit an article" then you are free to dispute it. It's not really the type of issue to ramp up to ANI in my opinion, but c'est la vie. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"the past year"? I don't recall us running into each other any more than a month ago. The articles are not sourced to the requirements of WP:N, specifically the general notability guideline, something I brought up that you didn't respond to. I disputed your personal comments - again, another thing you failed to respond to. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For context, for outside readers, this is following the Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp which Ironholds nominated, and after the AFD was closed against him, he proceeded to nominate the six other camps for deletion with the same rationale, and I answered with "Strong Keep per Snowball Keep of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Abu Masood camp; these seem to all be nominated by the same person, attempting to perform Damnatio memoriae...", which he interprets to be a personal attack, while I consider his actions to be "disrupting WP to make a point" and an example of the "If at first you don't succeed in deleting something you dislike, just nominate again and again". (edit conflict) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

no, give the full sentence - I consider a personal attack to be accusations of deletionism, censorship, trying to destroy things I don't like and bias. I don't see what the WP:POINTy element is, nor the "if you don't at first succeed.." - My nominations this time around contained a better argument than the previous (fails WP:N), which is the reason I nominated these ones - I wasn't trying to prove a point, I honestly feel that a) these articles shouldn't be here and b) the new nomination argument does make a significant difference. Again - how have we interacted over the past "year"? Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Iron, this probably belongs at WQA. Sherurcij, WP:AGF is not optional and applies most of all when dealing with people who take actions that you may disagree with. Do not keep making comments like the one linked above. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  Rightyo - sorry, I read these things a lot but I rarely submit them. I'm going to mark this as "resolved" for now simply because discussion has resumed on talkpages and elsewhere and I don't want to waste youse lots time. Ironholds (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Was this a good unblock?

Resolved

 – unblocking Admin has replaced the unblock message with a satisfactory one Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to a discussion at AN with me starting to participate here which I think should have been here. An Admin bundled together several blocks by another Admin for username violations, and one of those was the block of Bottracker (talk · contribs). After a discussion in which I didn't take part as I hadn't noticed the name, this user was unblocked with the message:
An unblock and an apology The two admins who blocked you were completely unjustified in doing so. There's a consensus at the Administrators' Noticeboard that you did nothing wrong, and you should have been welcomed for your contributions, not blocked. This was a Wikipedia process that went way out of control. I apologize sincerely on behalf of Wikipedia. I understand it's probably far too late to have any effect, but I've unblocked you. If you're willing to give Wikipedia another try, I'll offer to help you, especially in uploading your images. rspεεr(talk) 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I originally blocked the user for personal attacks and copyvio problems after he'd deleted a number of notices without discussing them (hoping that would bring about a useful discussion). In the event, two unblock requests were declined by two other Admins (a fact not mentioned), and a 3rd Admin, the one involved in the other 4 blocks, blocked his talk page mentioning as more or less an aside a possible problem with his username. I'm not happy about this and feel that I should have been notified and that the discussion didn't report accurately the chain of events. I feel pretty strongly that the apology is over the top and that it's pretty clear that 'did nothing wrong' is not the case and not even consensus at AN.

As I've said, I think this probably shoud have been raised here, and now that it's gone this far I think it does need to be discussed here, although of course I may be wrong in which case apologies and slap me with a trout (although I'd prefer a mackerel). I wouldn't terribly mind being told my initial block was wrong (although I'm not convinced any other attempts would have worked), just that to not involve me at all and then make that 'apology' is not the way to go about reversing a block. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great unblock, though I understand the rationale behind it. However, I definitely don't see a need to split the discussion between two noticeboards. AniMate^draw 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I'm no longer an active administrator, although I see fit to call out discrepencies and ills that are brought up and discovered. I don't see a reason that this is split off from the AN thread; there is a specific reason that I posted it at AN, which I elaborated on there. seicer | talk | contribs 23:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite has been very helpful and the issue is resolved, with a new unblock explanation by the unblocking Admin. Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

UFA on page for four hours without reply

Resolved

 – Blocked. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can one of you please take care of the Empiresfade report on WP:UFA? Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Evil saltine. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem =) Evil saltine (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem at Caster Semenya

History. Some editors and IPs don't believe the subject should be called a she. Can some admins keep an eye on this. I don't feel like reverting anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: there seems to be a general consensus on the talk page that female personal pronouns are appropriate. It looks like it's just The Homosexualist who objects. His reasoning is that the page must remain gender-neutral as there are no specific Wikipedia policies that cover this situation. --clpo13_(talk) 01:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, lately. It's a BLP, so a certain amount of extra care is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but she obviously identifies as a she, so those pronouns ARE appropriate, even though news articles have also reported her as a tomboy. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tje controversy, which only arose a few days ago when she smashed the 400M world record, was whether she fulfilled the criteria for "female" as regards athletics only. In every other sense she is recognised as a woman, and thus the article should reflect that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:SoxBot malfunctioning

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot IV shows the bot is approved to clear out the sandbox every 12 hours. It is currently clearing out the test templates (X1-X9) every 3 minutes. This is interfering with some testing I am doing at the moment. The owner doesn't appear to be around at the moment, so could someone put it on hold for the time being please (2-hour block or some such)? Thanks, 81.110.104.91 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, the owner has left a prominent warning on the bot's user page: "WARNING: If you block this bot, please TURN OFF AUTOBLOCK, so that the other Toolserver and ClueNet bots keep working." 81.110.104.91 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have a solution for you - please see User talk:X!/Archives/11/2009#SoxBot_on_test_templates. Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot is doing this because your edits are removing the sandbox header. AFAIK, it's supposed to/was approved to do that. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't properly noted. I had the same issue. There is nothing in the header that says don't remove the header. I had previously talked to him about that and he mentioned he was going to update the warning or something, but apparently that didn't happen. There needs to be a new warning for headers as this can be quite confusing to people trying to test something out who aren't familiar with this.--Crossmr (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the innards of the template (only visible during page editing) *do* say 'Please leave this line alone (template sandbox heading)' and 'Feel free to try your formatting and editing skills below this line' - but I agree that it could and should be made much clearer. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we make an editnotice that helps explain this? — Kusma ^talk 10:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Living Biography dispute

There is a dispute occurring at the moment on my living biography page. Since I am the subject of the entry, and my credibility is at stake, I have tried to satisfy the objections, which have resulted in multiple flags at the beginning of the article.

After a long and detailed discussion in 2006, in which the decision was to 'keep' the entry/article, it has operated without incident until now.

Recently I have been involved in an Australian national social activist campaign for a review of the Family Court Act in my country. This is extremely controversial amongst father's rights groups, who brought in some amendments to our FLA in 2006.

Initially the flags were only on one segment in which the new Family court material was added. Now the flags are everywhere, including at the beginning of the entry, giving the impression that the whole entry is not credible.

I believe these groups are trying to discredit me through wikipedia by putting multiple flags on the entry.

As I satisfy each of the objections, somebody is putting back the old wording and using this as an excuse to remove the material and citations, which evidence the claims made.

Is there an experienced administrator available who can arbitrate this dispute?

--Barbbiggs (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits came across as grandstanding. Please do not accuse people of attempting to discredit you. It is a simple case of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia and limit soapboxing. Any thoughts on the article from anyone (including admins if needed) are of course appreciated. The flags are there for reasons. I also deleted 2 this afternoon. You shouldn't have been making edits to your article as discussed since 2006. This has caused a knee-jerk reaction from some editors who might have an agenda against you (I don't know their motivation) but it is hard not to view the article critically when it has been so poor. I think it would be appropriate for admins to review the history and talk pages since it has unfortunately not been corrected through other means.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The tagging did appear to be unnecessary, and I've removed them from the header as such. We don't tag with the conflict of interest flag simply in response to someone editing their own article, there must be significant (even if subtle) deviations from neutrality to justify it, and that just didn't appear to be the case in reviewing the article. I've added the article to my watchlist, and I'll look more in-depth through the history. It's probably a good idea that the issue was brought here, so that administrators and other editors can add it to theirs, as well. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, J! The use of citations are still a concern for me but that has been getting cleaned-up so losing the flag was probably a good call.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The tagging may well have been required at some point, but as you acknowledge, it didn't appear to be necessary at this point. Just two points:

• User:Cptnono, it is important that we alway seriously consider Ms. Biggs concerns, and we have no policy explicitly forbidding her editing the article (although, as you suggested, wp:coi certainly recommends not doing so in order to avoid the resulting issues).
• User:Barbbiggs, it would, nonetheless, be better if you posted the changes you would like to see on the talk page of your article, where other objective parties can implement them. I will keep your article's talk page on my watchlist, and I would be more than happy to work with you and the other editors at the page to help neutrally implement any changes you believe should be made.

Again, it's my hope that administrators and other editors will do the same. Should I be missing in action, in the future, and should either of you need to bring up issues with this article, you can also try wp:blp/n, a noticeboard specifically geared towards issues involving our wp:blp policy on the biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the second set of eyes. Just to clarify, primary promotional edits caused by COI can result in a block (Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Common rationales for blocks#Disruption-only} so I again recommend that Ms. Biggs keeps her edits to the talk page due to the history.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, re: promotion- and disruption-only accounts. I don't believe any administrators would assume Ms. Biggs edits, to date, to have been lacking in good faith, so I don't think that would apply there. Nevertheless, I agree, that it should always be strongly encouraged that individuals use the talk page to recommend changes to their own biographies, to avoid any unnecessary concerns or confusion. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Justen's comments that it's always very important to take seriously concerns of article subjects and also that the COI guideline is a recommendation, not a blanket ban on article subjects editing their own articles. That said, it's obviously not ideal for Barbbiggs to be editing her own article, but I've had a look at her edits and exchanged a couple of emails with her (she contacted Wikimedia Australia asking for advice on how to deal with this situation) and I believe that she is sincere but simply doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and genuinely believes the article is being targeted by political opponents. Now there are independent people watching the article, it would be best if User:Barbbiggs stopped editing the article directly and instead made suggestions on the talk page and allowed neutral editors to make any edits, but I think it's important to deal with article subjects compassionately as they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of a Wikipedia article showing up in the first few search results for their name. User:Barbbiggs has been honest and open about her identity and has been making an effort to try to get advice and information in a number of places (including contacting a user she has had contact with before, OTRS, Wikimedia Australia, ANI, and the help desk) and it's pretty clear to me that she's operating in good faith so I don't think there's any realistic purpose for talking about blocking her. Blocks, and especially when on article subjects, should be used as a last resort. It would be better to answer User:Barbbiggs's questions and concerns and try to help her understand how we work, get the article in line with BLP and then keep it there. Sarah 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Sarah on this one; when people who are the subjects of articles have legitimate concerns about those articles, we should make every good-faith effort to work with them, and not merely dismiss them. I agree that Ms. Biggs shows a naive understanding of the operation of Wikipedia; however we shouldn't use that as an excuse to block her. She should not be blocked, but rather we should work to try to alleviate her concerns while helping her to understand the importance of Wikipedia's well thought out guidelines. She has legitimate concerns. --Jayron32 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by IP?

Forgive me if I'm way off the mark here (I haven't had too much experience with this particular issue before), but would this constitute a legal threat? It almost looks like a strange sense of humour, but I thought bringing it here might be advisable just in case. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clear legeal threat, IP should be blocked, for how long, I don't know.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • [Edit-conflict]No, that isn't a legal threat, to be one it would have to be serious. It seems like a strange joke, revert and warn as vandalism. Prodego ^talk 04:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • OP already reverted, meanwhile I posted a warning on his page not to do it again or he'll be blocked. We can't indef IP's, but if someone wants to issue a healthy temporary block, that would be fine. Probably just a drive-by, as you suggest - messing around - but it can't be left unchallenged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure it can. Looks like standard revert and warn to me. NLT is meant to apply to serious legal threats, not vandalism. Prodego ^talk 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Kissing up to editors who make legal threats is not a good practice. It sends the wrong message. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • If we ignore facetious legal threats made by IPs then the terrorists have won! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
            • If you assume they're facetious, then they're that much closer to victory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Prodego. It's just vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• As do I. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Revert, Block, Ignore but don't make them feel more important than our usual vandal. -- Luk ^talk 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:RedPawl

Besides a number of nationalistic edits to Cornish related articles, eg several like this one] where he changes the fact tha Cornwall is a county of England to claimining it is a 'nation of the United Kingdom', he has at three times called another editor a Fascist and/or revealed personal information about that editor: [145] [146] [147]. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm...since RedPawl literally just got back from a 3RR block and continued the same reverts, I've just reblocked for 72 hours. He's already been warned about edit warring and personal attacks but doesn't seem to be responding to the notes left on his talk page. Shell ^babelfish 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Given his continued behaviour, I doubt he'll be around much longer. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic newbie editor

M. Abdollahi (talk · contribs) is new here and has stirred up a bit of trouble in the past few days. I think he generally means well, but is, well, totally clueless. He's created and recreated an article that has been speedied several times, has uploaded a number of obvious copyvios, and started an RfA on himself the first day he appeared on-Wiki. Also found and tagged a couple copyvios over on Commons. Can someone try and help him out a bit? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. The situation doesn't seem too bad -- he wrote some unreferenced articles. This is in a topic area (Iranian television) where many other unreferenced articles already exist. I'm not saying that this is a good thing or that we should care about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the guy deserves a chance to figure out reliable sources. I'm going to try to help him. rspεεr (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I think he has good intentions and just needs some help. We have a dearth of Iranian modern culture stuff, so hopefully he can help out. The kids show looks cute, wish I could find some refs for it! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Saint"?

Resolved

An IP insists on adding the title "saint" to Jack Kevorkian. At first I thought it was vandalism, but now s/he throws in citations from the Church of Euthanasia and the Church of Reality. I checked wp's naming conventions and am at a loss... Any opinions? Seb az86556 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't designate people as saints as a title in the name when they're famous for other things in addition to sainthood. See Thomas More, Joan of Arc, and Charlemagne. Durova³⁰⁶ 07:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Brighton Institute of Modern Music

Hi all. I've just been contacted by Brighton Institute of Modern Music regarding their Wikipedia entry, specifically these changes, apparently by a disgruntled student editing as Thee Undead (talk · contribs). The institute reverted the edits, and I've added back an accidentally removed paragraph - could another admin please take a look at this, and determine whether it's appropriate to block the user and/or semi-protect the page? More eyes on the article's changes would also be good. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Undead should be blocked immediately to prevent the repeat of his libellous statements and only unblocked if he agrees not to repeat them. ah I see this is quite stale.. if he returns.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Now we have Bimmrock (talk · contribs). I restored some of the text, giving the history of the subject, that was lost because of the vandalism reversion. But Bimmrock has just blanked it again. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I suspect that's an institutional account, although I'm a little surprised as it doesn't fit in with the approach of the person I spoke to on the phone... Mike Peel (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued readding of unsourced material

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

User:Rgowran continues to add this section to Jack Van Impe. Willking1979, myself and admin OlEnglish tried to explain it to the user that is needed sources, probably violated BLP and NPOV among other things on Willking1979's talk page. The user readded the section and it is now an ongoing discussion on my talk page. Could someone have a look at the situation? Maybe if he hears something from an admin he will accept it. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

User has been notified. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Admin: Please read complete dialog here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran There should not be a concern for liability as my entry was only about the actual statements made by Van Impe in an August 5, 2009 program, which is currently available to view on Van Impe's website. The quality of the writing and the information was at least as good as the information currently in the Van Impe article. My entry complied and passed every WP brought up to me. The information in my entry is accurate, unbiased, pertinent and recent. I did not mean to get into an "edit war", to which I was at a disadvantage since there were two users to just myself. Also, the one user, WillKing1979, if you look at his user page, you can see he has a political agenda. Thank you for taking the time to hear my case. --Rgowran (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That last bit about Willking1979 having a "political agenda" is just a bunch of crap. Why cause he is a Republican? Hell, I am Democratic leaning Independent, I have a better chance of having a "political agenda" then Willking1979 does. But neither of us do...this is just a way to get the heat off you for edit warring and adding unsourced information over and over. Ain't happening Buckwheat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I remember that addition; I reverted it once as well, a few hours ago. Go read WP:UNDUE. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Admin: The problem they are having is that they are ignoring the facts. If you would please read the entire dialog at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran you will see that my entry passes all the criteria. It is true, honest, unbiased, just the facts of what has happened recently on Van Impe's program. I did not slant my writing against Van Impe, I only stated what he himself said, along with a link to document what I entered. Also, I am just mentioning that I do not find my Wikipedia user page a good place to push my political agenda. I try to keep it completely unbiased. I do not begrudge any that do, I am just stating that you can see they could hold a bias. --Rgowran (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, trying to pass the heat onto someone else. I am || <that close to requesting page protection. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Your addition is unacceptable on so many levels, and I see you've been given WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:OR. Let me elaborate on the next one I gave you above: WP:UNDUE... You take one video, cherry-pick the most outrageous stuff from it, and slap it in there to make it roughly one fifth of the entire article. So... Would you like us to dig up some more reasons? I'm sure we can find a few... Seb az86556 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Seb and Homer as above, that section clearly violates several wikipedia policies. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Admin: I feel there are anger issues with these censors. I always believed in Wikipedia and its unbiased information. And if you have read the entire dialogue at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgowran, you will see my entry was accurate and unbiased. The anger is coming from other users with such threats as "reporting me for vandalism", "page protection". They really are looking to censor me. And to accuse me of cherry-picking is ridiculous. That is why I put a link to Van Impe's program archive. There are many more outrageous comments, however I had no intention on writing a novel on the ludicrous statements of Van Impe. What I wrote about his show, was based on a portion of the last half of Van Impe's show. He spent a good deal of time on the subject of robots and cyborgs and I never took words or ideas out of context. I am certain none of these other users have even watched the entire August 5, 2009 episode. --Rgowran (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • He is right when I says I haven't watched the episode. I don't watch people who spout off about robots and cyborgs and New World Orders and crap. People like that don't need television time, they need a funny farm....but that doesn't cloud my judgement on my decision to remove the information from the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since the information is true, relative and pertinent. It should stay. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgowran (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't true, it is made up mumbo-jumbo by some guy on TV, please tell me you don't believe that crap. It isn't relative and it isn't pertinent to any discussion. It is junk. It has been deleted and will remain so. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just reading the information is enough to say it doesn't need to be included. Then comes the multiple policies you break. Just let it go. The information in that section is unsourced and biased. Wikipedia is not a forum. –túrian^patois 07:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• What is wrong with you that you cannot understand? My point is that what I have quoted Van Impe is true, not that what he says is true. I have been explaining this over and over and you still do not understand. --Rgowran (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And no policies were broken. None. I have fully explained that. --Rgowran (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Yeah, every policy listed was broken. –túrian^patois 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT...it isn't allowed, isn't necessary. Period. We, collectively, have explained that to you and you don't understand. Also, you are not an admin, you don't get to say if a policy was broken. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Homer and Turian are right, Rgowran. I'd suggest you just let this one go, or take it to the relevant talk page to continue the discussion. Just making a blanket statement that you've not broken any policies isn't going to sway anyone. Dayewalker (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You can quote as many WP's as you like. None have been broken. Then entry needs to be reposted. --Rgowran (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could we get a block for disruption? Is that possible? Seriously? I think we all have sufficiently explained this and this has gone on too long. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker, you have not read all the posts. I have already explained that none of the WP's have been violated. I looked them up and my entry did not deviate from any of them. What I stated is strictly what was stated by Van Impe himself. Along with a link to substantiate it. --Rgowran (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And why is there such animosity and anger over this? What is the fear? I am not giving this up based on mob mentality. --Rgowran (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Again... WP:BURDEN. –túrian^patois 07:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

First is a "jihad", now it is a "mob mentality". It is neither. We have politely explained to you the rules, you have disregarded them, disrupted several pages and wasted our time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is totally verifiable and easily verifiable. That is why I put in the link. NO VIOLATION. --Rgowran (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above (and on your talk page), simply denying what everyone is telling you is not helping your case. Everyone here is trying to explain the problem with your edit, and all you're replying with is that a) they're not, and b) no one else has read your talk page. No one needs to read your talk page to see that edit violates several wikipedia policies.

Again, please stop. Just saying you don't believe all of the other editors isn't going to work. Dayewalker (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just removed half the article - unsourced BLPs should be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am actively looking for an admin to either lay down a stern warning or a block. Something needs to be done. This is beyond disruption now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So it is not the rules, it is the other editors. Since I have provided proof that the entry abides by the WP's, now I should just go away because the other editors say it doesn't belong. No. Can't do that. --Rgowran (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No rules have been disregarded. For some reason, someone (some people) do not want the entry in, regardless of the fact that it is completely verifiable, true and well sourced. And one wants a block now. So if we block the truth... --Rgowran (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply saying it doesn't violate policy doesn't mean a thing. You may not see what's wrong with your edits, but quite a few other editors do. That's generally a sign that you need to re-evaluate your position. --clpo13_(talk) 08:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also sounds like we have a pusher. It is not properly/effectly/well sourced in any manner. Just giving a link is not correct citing or prove that it is verified. –túrian^patois 08:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• This has been fun. When you get you fingers out of your ears and stop going "LALALAICANTHEARYOULALALA", please ready, throughly, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, WP:BURDEN, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If anyone needs me, I will be over in the radio station section. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it a disruption? I came here to plead my case, and I get a barrage of editors telling me off. I want someone with some real knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies to take a look at my entry and its link for validation. It passes every WP thrown. Funny how I am accused of disruption. If you would have just let me say my piece and leave it at that, it would not be a disruption. I am only defending my entry. There doesn't have to be the constant reply back to everything I say. You said your piece, and I said mine in defense, and you had to constantly come at me with more WP's, so I checked them and my entry passes them all. I will not let this go. I am totally in the right, according to the Wikipedia policies. You saying that I am not, does not mean you are right. The policy matters, not your opinion. --Rgowran (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But the link I provided does validate my entry. Because my entry was based on a quote form a TV program, which I linked to in Van Impe's archives. It is what he said and it was in context. It is ok to put back in. --Rgowran (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning. Despite the fact that multiple editors have told you to not include it, you still fight for it? WP:GETOVERIT! –túrian^patois 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Another outside view...let's remember that the views of Mr. Van Impe are of his own personal opinion. They are not indisputable facts, and on most of the stations and networks the program airs on, those organizations are very clear that Van Impe's views are his own and do not reflect the views or opinions of their management as they lead in and come out of the opening of his program (especially in the fact that he pays to air his program on many stations). Rgowran, the editors are correct. There is absolutely no need for this information in this article, and neutrality must be maintained, no matter how off-base his statements may be. I urge you to stop because there are so many guidelines that this talk about robots violates, and of course we know he doesn't agree with the president (that's a given considering his worldview). Nate • (chatter) 08:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since Rgowran has mentioned a few times that he has no intention of giving this up which seems to include both edit warring and refusing to listen to more experienced editors attempts to help him understand policy, I've given him a short block hoping to get the point across. Shell ^babelfish 08:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've had no luck - if someone with experience helping acclimate new editors to Wikipedia has some time, Rgowran could use some assistance getting back on the right track. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 09:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'd say we reached apoint where this is self defeating. The user has been told repeatedly and insists on not listening. They will clearly be right back at it when their block expires. I have therefore varied the block to indefinite - meaning an undermined period depending on when the user confirms that they won't readd the material to the article without a consensus on the article talk page. Otherwise I'm afraid that we will be here in 24 hours wasting even more time on this guy. Ball is firmly in his court now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, since I am now wide awake, I believe based on what happened in the last few hours, an indef block was the right thing to do in this circumstance. Prior to today, the now-blocked user's last edits were in 2007. He seemed to not understand the BLP policy, among other policies, which has come a long way since 2007. Willking1979 (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good block. There's something fishy about the Rgowran account. 2 edits in summer 2006, creating an article. 2 edits in spring of 2007, attempting to blank that article (he should have been indef'd then and there). Then nothing until yesterday's activity. He's got some 'splainin' to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Any checkusers viewing this may want to note that Rgowran has just admitted to having multiple accounts and will edit again: [148] Willking1979 (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To prevent damage to the encyclopedia, this user should be CU'd.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing of interest on his IP. -- Luk ^talk 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

this seems to have escalated rather quickly. does anyone think that this indef block was a little premature?
it seems that the user stopped adding the info before this an\i started and was discussing his position here and on talk pages.
from his responses he really does seem like a newcomer who was frustrated and then started blowing off steam after being blocked.
he did violate 3rr before this report so a short block is justified, but if he agrees not to continue to readd it and to seek dispute resolution if he wants to build a consensus he should probably be allowed to finish out a short bock and try again to contribute collaboratively.
otherwise we may have pushed him into becoming an anonymous blp vandal which will create more drama, work, and page protecting for the rest of us. untwirl(talk) 14:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not premature in the slightest. It doesn't matter that he stopped adding the info, he told everyone without reservation that he was completely justified in adding the information and planned to put it back in. He previously had edit-warred to keep it in. He wasn't "discussing" his position, he was declaring it and not budging. Here's what I think you might have missed... The block is "indefinite" but that doesn't equate to "permanent". Indefinite means that there is no set expiration for the block. But that doesn't mean he can't be unblocked. All he needs for an unblock is to pledge to do exactly what you're claiming he's doing (and actually isn't doing); promising not to add the info back in until consensus is formed to do so. What's the difference between "becoming an anonymous blp vandal which will create more drama, work, and page protecting for the rest of us" when he was doing essentially the same thing as a registered user? -- Atama頭 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Lisa in violation of editing restrictions?

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines, LisaLiel (talk · contribs) "LisaLiel is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should she exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, she may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.". Looking at the history here I see three reverts on this page since the 19th. The last time (July) I asked her about editing restrictions I had no reply, so this time I'm bringing it here. I think I would be justified in blocking her but I'd prefer other opinions first. I'll notify her now. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't WP:AE the correct venue for this? → ROUX ₪ 17:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The reverts do look to be counter productive, Historicity? Is this a word?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm on the wrong page, apologies, this is more complicated than I thought. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Bible and history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This *does* seem to violate Lisa's 1RR per week restriction. Doug would be justified in taking action. Lisa's been invited to reply here, and if there's no promise of improvement, a block is appropriate. Simple restrictions can surely be discussed here at ANI. WP:AE is good for messy cases or subtle issues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Having been a party to the Alastair Haines arbitration, I'd encourage everyone here to pick a better battle. The substance of the arbitration restrictons had to do with higher level content disputes. From my vantage Lisa is certainly abiding by the spirit of those restrictions, and a quibble over history vs. historicity shouldn't really count as an issue here. Is she technically in violation? Perhaps, but Wikipedia isn't administered by machines. I'd request you give her a pass here.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but did you take into account the 2 reverts on the 19th? I should have pointed to them in particular. I don't have any great desire to block her, just to know what the story is. She's replied to my notice on her talk page. Ah, this is not a statement about whether her reverts are right or wrong either, as I'm not sure she was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom's editing restrictions create no benefit if admins aren't willing to enforce them. If SkyWriter thinks this particular restriction has become obsolete, let him file a motion with Arbcom. Until they undo the restriction, Lisa should follow it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed, please understand that I'm not arguing against enforcement of Arbcom rules -- but that I'm merely arguing in favor of taking into account the context those rules applied to. As the person who actively requested that Lisa be included in such enforcement in the first place I think I am qualified to advocate on her behalf now. She's simply not reproducing any of the actions that led to those restrictions. While she could theoretically be observed to cross the path of the letter of that restriction, it's only an accident of the brevity of the specific wording of those restrictions. If I knew nothing of the context of that Arbcom I'd have to agree with you on technical grounds and argue for a mechanical application of them now. But I DO know better. I was there. Even Doug is granting that she wasn't wrong -- which to me means that she was only doing something that you or I could have done. A violation? Yes, but can we save the Arbcom enforcement for something the enforcers wouldn't have done themselves? Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also -- just to add, I reviewed the passage that Lisa deleted, and it appears that she was trying to remove a passage that was both irrelevant to the article and somewhat antisemitic as well. I'd agree with Doug that she was not wrong in this instance. I would have deleted that as well. You seem like a decent chap -- and you'd probably delete it too.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)It seems the text in question which Lisa removed twice in 1 hour is this: [149]. It is not obviously anti-semitic, and whilst it may belong in a related article rather than that one (a related article which may not exist yet) it isn't wildly off-topic. Certainly nothing to justify breaching editing restrictions. A warning may be sufficient rather than a block, but it has to be acknowledged the restrictions were breached without good reason. As to whether a warning may be sufficient, it has to be observed also that another editor (not the one who added the text) had said the text was justifiable the day before Lisa removed it twice. Rd232 ^talk 23:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd -- from what I understand the restrictions are set to expire in less than two weeks. Could we give Lisa a pass on this? It's technically a single violation. Maybe a finger shake or something? It's a little silly to come down full force for a second revert less than two weeks before she's up to the 3 reverts the rest of the world can do.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the one-year restriction was imposed last September, and Lisa was only once blocked for violating it (in October). So at this point a warning and a reminder that edit warring does not require there to have been more than 3 reverts in 24 hours (that's just one measure of it) may suffice. However the incident suggests that any admins who hang out where Lisa edits should probably keep an eye on her when the restriction initially runs out, to see if she suddenly returns to the behaviour which led to the restriction in the first place. Rd232 ^talk 07:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For Godssake give Lisa a bit of leeway on this. She reverted twice on the 19th, and again a few days later on an edit that was totally unrelated. As someone who's been far more active on that page than she has, and who's taken the other side (meaning that Lisa's been reverting me), I haven't taken any offense at her edits at all. Give her some slack, please! PiCo (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe she has in fact violated the restriction before, I don't think that action now would make any difference or be a benefit to Wikipedia. But I agree with Rd232 and think that it would be a good idea to try to help Lisa not return to the behaviour that led to the restriction. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Long-term persistent block evasion

I'm referring to User:PIO/Luigi 28. This user was blocked in March 2008, and has since simply continued to edit with no problems for seventeen months. Occasionally he creates socks like User:Ciolone, User:Barba Nane, User:Agazio, User:Ustashi, and most recently, User:Ducatista2, but he knows he does not really need them. His edits have often destabilized articles, he has attempted to WP:HARASS me by posting my information on many occasions (me being the one reporting his socks), and he has been known to openly brag about Wikipedia's supposed inability to do anything about him and his disruptive edits. His newest sockpuppet, User:Ducatista2, was blocked a couple of days ago, yet here he is again on Talk:Republic of Ragusa following me around.

The guy is a menace. I'm not sure if he's right, that is, I'm not sure if something can be done about finally enforcing his block, but I really am damn curious. What good is it to ban a guy if he can still do things like edit-war on article talkpages? [150] (btw, I'd like to request someone semi-protects Republic of Ragusa as a temporary fix) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There may also be a connection with banned User:Brunodam, since User:Ducatista2 removed a Suspected Sock notice from one of Brunodam's (suspected) socks. [151] Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I think they're just good buddies. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IP hardblocked for 2 weeks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to be properly block him for good? There is absolutely no way he won't be back, he probably read this had a little chuckle - this isn't the first time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There's too much collateral damage from his IP range, so a rangeblock is out of the question, unfortunately. We'll have to deal with him on a case by case basis. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Right then. I'll report him wherever I see him. Cheers --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I give up on wp:blp.

Carly Fiorina, again. I have done my best, for more than a year now, to try to protect her biography from blatant wp:blp violations and to try to ensure it stays neutral and wp:due. There's only so long you can manage that, given her notoriety and controversy, before burnout.

I think User:Threeafterthree and User:Iterator12n both hit that point before me. It isn't easy to regularly have to argue points like why blogs are not acceptable (much less in a biography of a living person) and why wp:blp requires "high quality" reliable sourcing.

User:Jgm and User:Blaxthos have been editing the article for a year; both appear to not particularly have much respect for Carly Fiorina, and it shows in their "collaboration" on the article. Both appeared to have migrated away from editing the article until they were recently wp:canvassed back by User:Rvcx shortly after his 48h block for retaliatory disruptive editing on the article. User:Rvcx is likely the sockmaster of User:Benignprank. Those two accounts both instigated monthlong protections of the article, in June and again this past week, for reinserting wp:blp-violating material (see here and here).

Anytime an outside party attempts to mediate, they are ultimately ignored, like User:Jclemens. Or they are marginalized, like User:Tom harrison. Or they are attacked, like User:Tanthalas39.

I am removing the article from my watchlist, and I will do my best to avoid it from this point forward. It just is not feasible for one person to stand between an angry mob with their pitchforks and torches, regardless of what wp:blp demands, with only fleeting administrator assistance and scant watchlist coverage. I have repeatedly plead for assistance here and at wp:blp/n, but the only lasting contributor (thus far) that has brought in has been User:ThuranX and his venomous "contributions," (like here).

I will be away for the next week. All I can hope is that, when full protection expires or is lifted, that some other folks try to keep the article from the "rebalancing" User:Rvcx and others have promised is to come. Because, I can assure you, it won't be pretty. Take care, user:J aka justen (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am closing this down. ANI is not the place for rants. --Jayron32 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I opened it back up. I'll look into this. Lara 17:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note related discussion here. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me to be an editing dispute over which sources and to use and how exactly to portray events in her career. Clearly one editor wants a more positve version that the other, who wants negative content included. As long as I'm here I'd like to mention that Max Baucus has been subject to pointed editing of late if other can help keep an eye out. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:AJackl

• AJackl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in disruptive behavior at the article Landmark Education. He has already been warned with regard to conflict of interest by three different administrators, but continues the disruption. As I have contributed content to this article, requesting action be taken by another uninvolved administrator. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• Conflict of interest warnings by three different admins:

1. 22:15, 1 June 2008 = Warning given by admin Garden (talk · contribs)
2. 07:22, 23 October 2008 = Warning given by admin Jehochman (talk · contribs)
3. 18:50, 24 August 2009 = Warning given by admin John Carter (talk · contribs)

• Disruptive editing - sequence of events:

1. 18:08, 24 August 2009 = I add new material to the article, sourced to 15 WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources.
2. 18:36, 24 August 2009 = admin John Carter (talk · contribs) comments positively on this new addition of material: I am frankly amazed that you were able to generate so much relevant content in so short of a time. Thank you very much.
3. 18:41, 24 August 2009 = AJackl (talk · contribs) removes all of the sourced material I had added to the article.
4. 18:43, 24 August 2009 = Sourced material restored by admin John Carter (talk · contribs)
5. 18:45, 24 August 2009 = AJackl (talk · contribs) removes the entirety of the sourced material, again.
6. 18:47, 24 August 2009 = Sourced material restored a second time by admin John Carter (talk · contribs)
7. 19:05, 24 August 2009 = AJackl (talk · contribs) adds in a wholly unsourced, personal opinion comment directly above the sourced material - note: this was added not on the talk page but to the main article text itself.
8. 19:15, 24 August 2009 = AJackl (talk · contribs) removes New religious movements work group tag from the article's talk page, despite abundance of sourced material establishing relevancy and comments by multiple editors supporting its inclusion.

---

Clearly the warnings so far from three different administrators have not gotten through to AJackl (talk · contribs) - another form of action is now appropriate here. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As an involved party myself, I find that I would have to question taking action on this matter directly, but I do agree that the editor in question has clearly himself violated the existing consensus he seems so fond of with the unsourced addition here, and probably at least a few rules regarding sourcing and neutrality, as well. This does seem to be an abiding problem with this editor, considering his apparent conflict of interests regarding this topic was one he has been aware of since at least October of last year. The fact that he has unilaterally made several changes to the article today reverting the work of others who do not have the apparent conflict of interests he apparently has is I believe a serious cause for concern, and probably at least some degree of formal action. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you lay out the conflict? And if you are an involved party, John, then it is probably better that Cirt strike the mention of you as admin giving a warning. You can't play and referee in the same game.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the situation going back a while - I left a final warning for Ajackl for edit warring. If he can get consensus on talk page, that's fine, but he hasn't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume this set of false allegations has been dropped. I have been on a sabbatical for almost ayear because of my work. I have in the past worked on the Landmark Education cite to protect it from some of the spammers and POVers listed in the accusations against me above. Can someone follow up with me to see if I need to do anything to get this handled? Thank you! Alex Jackl (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

Resolved

 – backlogged debates closed by SarekOfVulcan. ~ mazca ^talk 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Over the last week or so, I seem to be the only administrator closing RfD debates. While it's mostly under control, a few more eyes there would be helpful - it's never healthy for everything to be closed by the same person.

Specifically, a few debates from a few weeks ago are rather overdue because I voted in them, and hence can't close them - would someone care to take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10? Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Got the two/three on August 10, but didn't review any others.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - those were the two that were really backlogged. Anyone else who cares to make RfD part of their general patrol would be appreciated; but the immediate "incident" is solved. Cheers. ~ mazca ^talk 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dking and COI, related problems

User:Dking is the Wikipedia account for Dennis King, who is the author of a book which is highly critical of Lyndon LaRouche. He has been an SPA ([152]) and a problem case for very aggressive editing and self-citing in violation of WP:COI. He was reported before on this board two years ago for "COI spamming" (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive227#More COI spamming.)

Dking has been inactive as of late, but in the past few days he has returned to make some very problematic edits at the LaRouche bio, including edit-warring to remove commentary from the New York Times and other commentators who view his book as conspiracy-theorizing diffdiffdiffdiff, and self-citing to promote his POV diff. He has also had a chronic incivility problem. Since this behavior has persisted for so long despite warnings from a number of admins diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, I think a topic ban may be in order. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• An outright ban may go too far, but Dking should not be adding references to his own books on any articles, and he should not be removing negative comments about his publications when such negative comments are supported by reliable sources. He can propose adding his publication or removing negative comments on the talk pages. Thatcher 15:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For Leatherstocking, a single-purpose editor, to be suggesting a ban of Dking is probably a COI of its own. Leatherstocking has also been disruptive. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? As for Dking, policy s[ecifically allows citing oneself:

• If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. WP:COS

I agree that it'd be better if Dking wasn't removing sources that criticize his book but the criticism was unbalanced - one critical comments out of much praise. The editors who are insisting on keeping the critical comment without properly reflecting the broader view are not following NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  16:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the criticisms of my book were being inserted in a paragraph that was about LaRouche, not me, and that the criticisms weren't directly relevant to the issue at hand--LaRouche's anti-Semitism. The same quote from the NY Times and a similar quote from Wilcox are included in the Dennis King article and I did NOT remove them there.--Dking 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms which you removed were in fact all specific rebuttals to your theories about LaRouche. In the case of the New York Times quote, which you say was irrelevant to the issue of anti-Semitism, the deleted text was "...in trying to see Mr. LaRouche as a would-be Führer, Mr. King may be trying to tie together the whole unruly package with too neat a ribbon. A number of loose ends hang out, not least of which is the fact that many members of Mr. LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish." --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss Leatherstocking's behavior, then start a separate thread on it. Let's discuss DKing here. Leatherstocking asked me to join this discussion. I believe, based on what I've seen, that DKing should be topic banned from all of the LaRouche articles. DKing runs, or ran, an anti-Larouche website and has written anti-LaRouche books. I have no problem with DKing editing any other topic in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How would those outside activities necessitate a ban on editing by a recognized expert?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I note that the links to the warnings placed on Dking's talk page all date from 2007, so are stale, and that some concern his reaction to what he thought was harassment.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:COS specifies that self-citing must be done in such a way that it does not violate neutrality policy, and the diffs I provided indicate that Dking fails in that department. Also, Dking's edits have historically violated both WP:COI#Self-promotion (the "COI spamming" problem) and WP:COI#Campaigning (he's not a neutral, objective "expert," but an "advocacy journalist" who is actively campaigning against LaRouche and his organization.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that Dking's edits violate NPOV, and some of the diffs you added don't even involve citing himself. Instead, it appears that this is a continuation of the harassment of Dking that has gone on for several years. How many complaints have you and HK filed against him?   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem here of conflicting practices. We want to make sure that the COI guideline doesn't invariably prevent experts from contributing in areas where they may have real-life involvement. But we also want to make sure that BLPs aren't tainted by people with personal grievances adding their views to biographies. Here we have someone who is a published expert (and reliable source) on a living person, yet who thinks poorly of that person, which presents a BLP risk.

I suggest that Dking be asked not to add or remove material about his own publications, or use his own book as a source; not to use his personal website as a source, or in any way promote it; and if he does edit a LaRouche article, should make sure the edit is well-sourced, and written in a completely disinterested tone. Alternatively, I suggest that everyone who appears to have real-life connections to LaRouche, for and against, be asked to restrict their input to the talk pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable request. I hope that such behavior would be met with equal restraint on the part of those who advocate in favor of LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  02:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

85.180.130.53

Can someone please keep an eye on 85.180.130.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) when their 24-hour block expires tomorrow? Best I can figure out is that they were steadily reverting anon IP edits, whether the edit was a good one or not (took some time to wade through). No one complained so new contributors likely didn't know what was going on. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Local Children's Television Series (United States)

I'm kinda new to the Wiki world, so I'm not sure if this is the right place for this. If not, my apologies. Anyway, the article List of Local Children's Television Series (United States) is having a lot of edits done by people trying to add false information. In particular, they're trying to edit in information regarding a non-existent children's show called Candle Cove. They've reverted edits I and others have made trying to remove it (I didn't make the edits while logged in, however) and also edited/reverted user comments regarding the situation. The television show in question is a fictitious one created by a website called Ichor Falls as part of a short horror story. Here's a link to the story- http://www.ichorfalls.com/2009/03/15/candle-cove/. If there's an actual existing show by this name I'm unaware of it, but no one's produced any evidence regarding its existence either. Anjldust (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The link in question is List of local children's television series (United States). ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 12:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm now watchlisting the article. I've done the research - crappy YouTube video, brief attempt to make it trend on Twitter, various self-answered questions on Yahoo, the full "lets make an internet meme" bollocks - and it's all a hoax. So far, the article isn't getting hammered badly enough to warrant protection, so a watching brief seems fine. Mostly IP action, plus one otherwise-seemingly-useful editor adding it (I'll warn them). ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 12:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned the 2 IPs that added it and cleaned up the talk page. Doesn't look to be serious, but I expect a couple more attempts before they get it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Sorry about the wrong link, I was in a hurry and didn't check it before I ran out the door. Also, a user named DrDoog was editing some comments on the talk page, trying to perpetuate the hoax. Not sure if you caught that also. Anjldust (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the editor in question to comment about that change, although I'm not hopeful of any useful reply (deleted user page). ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 06:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of edit warring on the August 24 article

• Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Edit warring bot — 06:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:JoshuaBrody keeps on removing cover images from Man on the Moon: The End of Day

Resolved

 – Hi-res version deleted, user notified about policy

Yeah, this has been bugging me a lot. He keeps removing the covers which are confirmed as official on the page as part of an ongoing saga that involves his images. First he replaces the official image with File:ManOnTheMoonTheEndOfDayFrontCover.jpg and File:ManOnTheMoonTheEndOfDayDVDDeluxeEditionCover.jpg. After I keep reverting them, he places them back without any explination. Even though the official versions are of lower resolution and are of non-free use, he keeps reverting them back to ones that have questionable fair use, even after they were deleted (I requested it to be deleted under F1 of WP:CSD) He reposts it under the name File:ManOnTheMoomTheEndOfDayREALFrontCover.jpg and still posts it on that page. The other image (File:ManOnTheMoonTheEndOfDayDVDDeluxeEditionCover.jpg), I uploaded a lower-resolution and official version from Amazon.com and oddly, he reuploads it with the name File:ManOnTheMoonTheEndOfDayREALDVDDeluxeEditionCover.jpg which was deleted under the same citeria as the previous image, and then he started doing this. Look I know his contributions might good faith but he should not trying to make a point by removing the covers from the page. I think he should be given a small time out and he should be educated on how copyright works on Wikipedia. Taylor Karras (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• There should only be the main album cover on the page per WP:NFCC, unless the alternative cover is particularly notable (an example would be Electric Ladyland). I removed the spurious cover from the article again, and it shouldn't be re-inserted. Black Kite 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good but can you please do something about User:JoshuaBrody. I just reverted an edit which removed the album cover, again and he won't stop. Even after I explained it to him, he won't stop. Taylor Karras (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I deleted the hi-res version and left an explanatory note for the user. Black Kite 10:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh War and related

Not sure what the site's readership is but this article:

http://www.today.az/news/politics/54933.html

may be going to cause problems.

Admins, keep an eye for any Azeri POV-pushing single-purpose accounts on the usual Armenia-Azerbaijan-related pages. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson articles - heads up

This notice of a potential BLP issue can now be found at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where everyone, not just administrators, can chip in with their tools to ensure that the project's policy is adhered to. Uncle G (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:TTKK

(I am not sure if this is the right place to deal with this, but after some time searching I can't find anywhere more appropriate. I will be grateful to anyone who can clarify this for me.)

TTKK's user page states that TTKK is a "contributor collective", and then goes on to repeatedly use the plural in reference to TTKK. Clearly this is a shared account. I have put a message on the talk page explaining that this is against policy, inviting them to set up individual accounts, and referring them to WP:NOSHARE and WP:BFAQ#ACCOUNT for further clarification. However, both those documents state that any shared account should be blocked, so I thought an admin should be informed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are right; at one time the userpage said "he" and now it says "they" so I can't even put it down to poor English. I've blocked indef, but a soft block, and left a very nice message on talk page, urging them to get separate accounts and saying they can even reactivate this one once it is no longer shared and only one person knows the password. I hope they do so, they don't seem to have been very active, but quite well meaning. Obviously an error due to ignorance, and I hated having to block. I have no objection to anyone unblocking without needing to consult me, if there is reason to unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol's redirects, revisited

Resolved

 – Being dealt with. Black Kite 13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since Tyciol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for excessive creation of bad redirects without showing any improvements or acknowledgement that the redirects created were harmful. No action has been taken to the 5000+ redirects I have listed here (some are deleted already but that was because the revision lag was old or something). Surely, these should be examined and deleted if necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• So why aren't you examining them? The response to "Somebody should do something!" is "You're somebody.". I've picked five entries at random from your list, and only seen one problem, and that was caused by User:DarknessBot (acting as a vandalism amplifier), not Tyciol. You're going to have to work on your list, and separate out all of the obviously proper redirects (such as molester → sexual abuse, sleep walk → sleepwalking, and sword stick → swordstick, to pick just three) before expecting other people to take action. Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't have the time to check through FIVE THOUSAND redirects on my own.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • So what makes you think that anyone else has? What makes you think that you have a leg to stand on when the rest of the world takes the same stance that you yourself do, that your list is too long and too indiscriminate to be useful? You created this list. Make it a usable one. Uncle G (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest looking at the ones that are people's names first. Where he's taken someone's name and created redirects for every possible combination of their names appear to be the most obvious deletes, and I've been slowly working through them. Nevertheless, it will take a while, because even someone who created redirects as randomly as Tyciol did, by the law of averages, create some useful ones. Black Kite 13:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (Further) more problematic are the ones that look useful, but actually aren't. Quite a few are redirects to articles where that word is merely mentioned briefly, or it's part of a minor character's name. However, such words may appear in dozens of articles. This means that such redirects are actively unhelpful, rather than being spurious, because they force the user typing something into the searchbox to the article that Tyciol has chosen, rather than giving them the search results. Black Kite 13:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that my random sampling of this list doesn't reveal the problem to be as bad as the hysteria has made it out to be. My random sampling of the list (which I've been expanding in the meanwhile) shows that it includes quite a lot of quite proper redirects — such as Criss Angel Mind Freak → Criss Angel Mindfreak, Strawberry Banana Burst → Go-Gurt#Flavors, and Flowers of Hard Blood → Shion no Ō. Extending the proportions from the sample to the population indicates that this is far from the "ZOMG! FIVE THOUSAND redirects!" problem that it is being portrayed as being.

      A discriminately selected list of the "bad" redirects would be useful. But this isn't such a list. It's just a list of all redirects, created over a period of several years, and selected entirely indiscriminately. Ryulong hasn't even applied your suggested selection criterion. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Yep - I guessed previously that very approximately a third of these redirects are or may possibly be useful, another third are actively unhelpful and should be R3'd on the spot, and the remainder are either debatable or should be fixed to redirect to a more useful target (such as I did with RunUp, for example). Black Kite 14:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, and the other major problem - redirects that should have been dabs - i.e. Conradt which I've just fixed. Whilst Ryulong's list is indiscriminate, it is generally quite easy to spot the ones that might be a problem. The user has created a lot of work for other people to clean up. Black Kite 14:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to have a look through the list, but am not going to be able to go through everything. Is there anything we could do to indicate those that have already been addressed? That would at least save the duplication of effort. Quantpole (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• When Black Kite and I have worked on such lists in the past, we struck through entries that we addressed. I generally sign as well, since it shows who checked what, in case the work of the checkers itself needs checking. But there really is some processing of this list that is necessary before we even get to that stage. At the very least it requires filtering and sorting. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • But surely to sort it, they would all need checking? If we went through and labelled them as 'good' or 'bad' would that help with the sorting? Quantpole (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The fact that all the deleted ones will be redlinks will help out somewhat. Otherwise, yes, we probably need to tag all the ones that have been fixed at some point. I can do that with mine, but clearly if anyone else has fixed any they'll need to be flagged as wel. Black Kite 16:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • He is still asking to be unblocked, and says he isn't clear why he was blocked. He says he'd like to see the specific reasons listed on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There are ways to sort such things. Alphabetical order is the simplest. More useful sorts separate, say, the single words from the long phrases. Filtering, the other thing that needs doing, would involve applying some of the criteria that Black Kite mentions to weed the list, or applying criteria such as not listing any redirects that have been edited by other editors. But none of this has been done. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to help, but I'm not sure what's best. Would it help if we each took sections of the list, and handled them by ourselves? e.g. I could handle numbers 1000 through 1499 and put a collapsible box around them so that no one else would needlessly duplicate my efforts. I would CSD the ones that I think need to be deleted, fix the ones that can be fixed, and leave the rest as they are. Would that be good? Or would you rather I just marked a list of the ones that I think should be deleted so that they won't clog up CSD? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Uncle G, way to be nasty with somebody who's looking for help. Why are you even discussing this? If you don't want to do anything, don't, but there's no need to attack the good faith reporter. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Soap or Ryulong, could you split the list into say ten chunks (I'd do it but my markup is so sucky it would take me ten goes for each chunk) Then one of us can note that we are dealing with say chunk 3, and strike it when we've finished. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm just going out now, but I'll have a go at it when I get back in a few hours. Removing the already-deleted ones should make it a bit easier. Black Kite 09:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've started work on numbers 1000 through 1499 (an arbitrary choice; I think the word 'Soap' just caught my eye.) Since I don't work with CSD much, I don't feel comfortable bringing them to CSD (and also, I don't want to stuff up the CSD page with 200+ of the same type of thing), so I am just putting notes next to each one indicating whether I think it should be deleted or not and my rationale. This is a bit unorthodox, but I think it's the best thing for me to do. If I understand correctly there is a script which some admins have that can delete a page with just a right mouse click, so this should actually cut down on the amount of work needed to delete the page. (This will also be helpful if someone disagrees with my rationale for keep/delete; the only ones where I don't give a rationale are where I think it's pretty unlikely anyone will disagree.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing content at WP:DOH

Looking at the Simpsons WikiProject page, I notice various wikilinks at the top of the page reffering to some makers of the programme as "nerds"; Matt Groening is "The nerd that created it". I initially saw this as a tad of WP:HUMOR and didn't think much of it. However, I then saw "The nerds that ruined it" linking to Mike Scully and Al Jean. This rather malicious comment is surely a violation of WP:PA? I then saw Great episodes, Not-so-great episodes and Episodes you've forgotten about. This is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and, wheter in main space or Wikispace, Wikipedia is not a place for fans to air their views on what they like or dislike - this is for the userspace. By placing it here, it seems like this is the view of Wikipedia the organisation and not a few users opinions. Thoughts? DJ 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Did you talk to project about it before you came here? iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've informed the WP of the discussion. DJ 22:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a joke and it's hardly "disturbing". It's hardly "the view of Wikipedia", it's not like it's the main page. The whole banner is a reference to a dicussion on the FAC talk page criticising us for producing good articles and "taking over the site". I suppose you could take it as too opinionated, even if it's all widely held by fans as true (especially Scully and Jean). Anyway, for the record, Scorpion made it and if it's deemed "wrong" we'll of course take it down. Gran² 23:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• It's not meant to be a commentary of any kind, it's just a joke in the project main space. Its name "Homerpedia" refers to the time that a prominant admin actually made a post complaining about the number of Simpsons related FAs. That always struck as pointless, and I decided to make the banner to reflect that some members of the wikipedia community regard our project as simply a cruft-improving waste of space. The banner was originally just for my user page, but as a joke I put it at WP:DOH at the beginning of the year, and to my amazement nobody objected (until now). It does reflect my opinions of the show (and any time a WP:DOH member objected, I changed it), but I would hardly call it "malicious". It's simply meant to be some Simpsons humour and I think you really need to lighten up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You may find it hillarious, but it's against Wikipedia rules. If I was to put "Jade Goody is the worst housemate ever" on the main WP:BIGBRO page, it would not be appreciated. It's not your place to publish "what the fans think". A WikiProject page shouldn't be an area to publish what you think of an issue, regardless of wheter you are an active member of the WikiProject or not. DJ 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wait a second here, why did you bring WP:OWN into this? That seems rather insulting, have I ever given any indication that I think I own the project? Like I've said, other project members were aware of the banner and were free to change it or remove it. Also, I really think you should have brought this up with us before coming here. It seems a little extreme. As a compromise, I'd be willing to remove the Scully/Jean bit, and any other "offensive" parts. 99.9% of the readers seem to realize that it's just a joke and doesn't mean anything. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Not so fast. Check and see if Groening, etc., call themselves that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • This seems like a perfectly appropriate use of wikiproject space. With only 1 complaint in 7 months perhaps the complainant would be well advised to lighten up. Leave the banner the way it is. L0b0t (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • A "Matt Groening nerd" search brings up nothing. And don't patronise me L0b0t - it's a valid issue. DJ 23:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • ["Matt Groening" nerd] in google finds many entries, many of which are irrelevant, but according to this presumably-authorized comic series [153] in at least one case (#36) he referred to himself as a "reformed nerd" in the credits. So that's one. Y'all can look for more. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Not to rain on what was surely intended as a harmless joke, but this really seems like a WP:BLP violation, to me -- it's fine by me if Wikipedians want to call themselves nerds, but to describe article subjects as "nerds", particularly in an insulting fashion like "the nerds that ruined [the show]", seems to convey the wrong message. If this is an inside joke on the part of the show's staff, that might assuage that sort of concern, some, but "plenty of fans say so" really doesn't strike me as a good reason to disparage article subjects in project space. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's just a fun thing on WP. Mabye we shouldn't say that anyone ruined the Simpsons, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Personally, I'd get rid of all those references. That one in particular I'm inclined to push much harder on, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I have removed the "nerds that ruined it" part. Is there anything else that should be removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Can't speak for everyone, but that's the only one that caused serious concern on my end. Thanks for the willingness to compromise. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Luna Santin. Having such text doesn't give the impression of a WikiProject that is intending to create neutral encyclopaedia articles in accordance with our NPOV policy. It gives the impression of a fansite. Having said that: Dalejenkins, you knew where both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons and User talk:Scorpion0422 are. WikiProjects have talk pages just like everything else. And this noticeboard isn't the Village Pump or RFC. This dispute is one that involves the editor that made the edit, failing that the WikiProject participants, and failing that the editorship at large. It isn't an administrator-only matter, and certainly isn't an administrator-first matter. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's he only one that needs addressing, all the rest seem either like they can be backed up by citation (See above), or are in-project jokes. ThuranX (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In-project "jokes" are not acceptable as they make it seems asif the project is closed off to those who don't "get it". The seasons "jokes" should be removed as they broadcast an opinion and its unprofessional. DJ 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

THe seasons were removed ten minutes before your comment [154]. Can we consider this resolved? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No. You reffer to Fox as "the evil network that controls it" (shockingly, this was added in after this debate started [155]. You clearly haven't learnt anything). And there's the "nerd" issue. DJ 00:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Joking insults about the Fox network is a trademark of the show ([156], [157] and I could easily dig up dozens of other refs). I've said it before and I'll say it again: lighten up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to read some policies. If the programme made racist jokes, would we put those up? No. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. DJ 01:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, because it is an encyclopedia, we would likely cover any controversial racist jokes. I'll say it again: It is just a silly banner thing and is supposed to be taken lightly, not seriously. Yes, it's not a fan site, but why can't we have a little fun on our project page? Calling Fox an evil network, in the same spirit as the show, is hardly as bad as a racist joke. Calling the producers "nerds" is not meant as an insult (and one of the writers even has a blog called nerd world. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The bit about Fox has been removed. Can we finally consider this tedious argument resolved? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Still not happy with the nerds thing. There's no strong reason why it can't be replaced with "people". 2 passing references to "nerds" is not enough - there are clear WP:BLP concerns. DJ 01:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, Groening calls himself a "reformed nerd". Are you under the impression that that's an obscenity or something? It may have been at one time, but now it's just a playful expression. There's no BLP issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Being a nerd can be a good thing. The staff members call themselves nerds all the time on the DVD audio commentaries. Both Al Jean and Mike Reiss have described themselves and the rest of the writers as nerds (see "Prime Time's New Man About 'Toon Pompous, loud, a zero with women-OK,..." here and "America Laughs With Harvard Accent, But It Doesn't Know It Humor:..." here). David X. Cohen describes himself as a nerd here, and several staff members are described as nerds here ("NO WORKADAY CARES INTRUDE IN THE ROUTINE OF `SIMPSONS' …"). Theleftorium 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Matt Selman describes himself and the rest of the Simpsons staff as "super nerdy" here and here. Theleftorium 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of killjoys. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. It's far more disturbing that the show has been around for 21 years... HalfShadow 02:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ultima-series character articles and User:Dream Focus

This is a rather drawn out event. User:Dream Focus has been waging a one-man campaign against merging Avatar (Ultima), Lord British, and The Companions of the Avatar into the List of Ultima characters, despite all applicable information already been merged there. Any attempt to improve the articles by removing peacock words, game guide material and rewording of in-universe content to be in line with Wikipedia's policies has been met with claims of wiping out half the related article,[158][159], and accusations of attempting to destroy the article and force a merge. Previous link will also show the user attacks anyone disagreeing with his opinion as "trying to destroy articles" and claims any motions is detrimental to wikipedia. This is compounded by his insistence that an AfD on Avatar (Ultima) that resulted in a closure of "keep without prejudice to a merge discussion on the relevant talkpage(s). No reason to list this at AfD", that the AfD was closed as keep only. He is also insisting that majority voted against merging the article, despite consensus through several discussions that they should be merged until sufficient sources exist or at least strongly considered in the case of the AfD, and also despite being informed that wikipedia is not a democracy several times.[160], [161], [162]. He is also insistent that despite their current condition, the articles are "fine", and insistence that through three sources that briefly solely discuss the death of Lord British by a player in Ultima Online, that the whole series of articles meets notability.[163]. Requesting a topic ban on Dream Focus for this subject so at least progress can be made to move forward and do proper work on the material to have it agree with existing policies and consensus.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to request this myself. There was no consensus to merge. Most people that commented were against the merge. But a small number of people argued nonstop with me, then went ahead, and did it anyway. The edit history at Lord British has been erased apparently. Please tell me if a small number of people can ignore the opinions of a greater number of people, who are against the merge, and do it anyway. Dream Focus 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples of bad faith accusations on the part of Dream Focus: [164] (borderline), [165], [166], [167]. As shown above (by both Kung Fu Man and unwittingly Dream Focus), Dream Focus fails to understand basic policies regarding consensus and (lack of) democracy. In addition to constant bad faith accusations, his repetitious arguments are disruptive in my opinion. An RFC was opened to gain further opinions and avoid edit warring; Dream Focus proceeded to fill the RFC section break with a large section full of turgid, redundant arguments, despite only one uninvolved editor commenting. This made the dispute seem more complicated and messy than necessary, thus making it harder to gain uninvolved editors. bridies (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit history of Lord British has been returned, I assuming that just a brief error. Anyway, at the start most people were against the merge, then a massive amount of arguing back and forth took place, they determined to ignore the consensus of the majority, trying to force their own will. Please read through the start of the discussion, and not just selective edits taken out of context. Dream Focus 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One man campaign? Please there were several editors who were opposed to the merge.

Peregrine Fisher against a merge [168][169][170],

A Nobody in AFD [171] on other pages.[172]

wwwwolf in AFD[173]

DGG in AfD [174]

FeydHuxtable in AfD[175]

Ikip in AfD "weak keep to merge" [176]

Offliner [177]

Xxanthippe [178]

Abductive, only one is a clear case for merging[179]

When someone says something so contradictory to reality, it is only natural to question everything else that person says.

Kung Fu Man's evidence is non-existent, there are no personal attacks here, Dream Focus stayed within all applicable guidelines.

Kung Fu Man's Link 1: Notice how Kung Fu Man has 11 edit diffs between this edit, this is the actually amoount of material that Kung Fu Man deleted,[180] This edit link is misleading and I am ask Kung Fu Man to strike it and apologize for the deception, Dream was right: "use talk page before you try to wipe out half of an article" Kung Fu did "wipe out half the article"

Kung Fu's link 2,3,4: [181], [182], [183] Meaningless, I don't see the relevance, if anything they show that the merge's are controversial.

Kung Fu's link 5: [184] content dispute.

I don't see the evidence for a topic ban. What policies warrant it?

User:Bridies edit diffs, summed up, Dream is arguing inclusion, deletion. Not included are the other two editors in the argument, Kung Fu and TTN:

"Really, I mean, you whine and moan about the evil deletionists destroying such important information, but do you honestly even care about anything more than the principal of these characters having articles? It is so annoying playing this whole game with people like you, who go on and on about how important this stuff is, and then when its all over, the articles just sit in the same poor state for years."[185]

Kung's personal attacks, WP:NPA: "apparently Dream Focus wishes to assume bad faith, conspiracy theories (yes I said it, deal with it) and onwership" [186] etc.

If anything, we need to reconsider address E&C2 again and whether TTN is following the guidelines of this arbcom, and whether E&C4 is necessary. Ikip (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No one else repeated those non-arguments ad nauseam in conjunction with disruptive editing. bridies (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I quote Kung: "User:Dream Focus has been waging a one-man campaign against merging" one man. he didn't say "Dream Focus was the only one repeating these non-arguments ad nauseam in conjunction with disruptive editing." He said that Dream Focus was the only editor against merging, this is false, and I ask Kung Fu to strike it, along with the other deceptive edit diff.

"Disruptive" is the complaint always used by any society to silence those who they disagree with, unless you have some actual policy violations, "disruptive" means, "I want to silence Dream because I disagree with him". Hardly compeling evidence for a topic ban. Ikip (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am content to let the talk page discussion speak for itself. bridies (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What we did have is TTN illicit support to try to stifle what he calls "an inclusionist" in the discussion and lo and behold we wind up here... If you cannot out argue someone, just start up a distraction drama thread that waste's the community's time and improves no articles in the process... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not waste administrators' time with such threads. More editors seemed to support keeping the articles than merging and so fixating on Dream Focus is beyond unwarranted and unfair. Just because he interprets policies and guidelines differently and in a manner consistent with how many article builders interpret them does not justify starting needless drama here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Did they have the right to merge without consensus? Can I get a ruling please, from a closing administrator? Most people participating in the discussion were against the merger. There was clearly no consensus to merge. A small number of people kept arguing that the opinions of those who were against the merge, didn't matter, that they were right, and going to do it anyway. I argued with them on that point for a time. I felt the references and other information justified the articles existing as stand alone articles. Most agreed with me on that. Can they ignore consensus, and merge anyway? Dream Focus 16:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, a respected admin should close the merge discussion. A lot of the dispute seems to be about interpretation of the results. This would be solved if someone would make a definite ruling. Offliner (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on AfDs also

Resolved

 – He's not about to be topic banned. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

---

If we're discussing topic bans for Dream Focus, may I propose that they are banned from AfD discussions? Aside from the apparent failure to understand basic policies as noted above by Bridies, Dream Focus fairly consistently makes comments at AfD which suggest that they feel that policies should be ignored in favour of "common sense" (as defined by Dream Focus). They frequently make comments which suggest they have difficulty confusing existence with notability. Look no further than the essays on their user page for evidence that they do not respect the policies which all other editors are asked to abide by. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The policies I abide by, the suggested guidelines are not absolutely required, you able to follow the policy of ignoring all rules, and using common sense, as defined by the Wikipedia guideline of common sense. And stay on topic please. Dream Focus 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond ridiculous. Dream Foucs is someone who actually makes thoughtful rather than drive-by WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:JNN style of non-arguments at AfDs. He does excellent working at actually improving content and only gets in disputes with those who rarely do any actual article work, but just act as self-appointed judges who again just go around tagging articles for deletion. Dream Focus is one of the best editors on Wikipedia, who simply "gets it". Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So I "rarely do any actual article work"? bridies (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All I see here is yet another distraction from actual article improvement. If Dream Focus does "not respect policies", it is only nonsensical ones inconsistent with the whole purpose of a paperless encyclopedia and foisted upon the community by a vocal minority. And the funny thing is, Dream Focus at least had the majority support of his stance with regards to these articles... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But he did not have consensus. I am not going to repeat the talk page discussion all over again as it can speak for itself. I like how you dodged my question: do I "rarely do any actual article work"? bridies (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to merge. No consensus means we default keep. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about my lack of article work? bridies (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are Dream Focus' arguments from the most recent three AfDs in which they participated: [187], [188], & [189]. I think they speak for themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are some damn good arguments of his! And certainly much better than say sarcastic and therefore baiting or a textbook example of WP:JNN. Yeah, so of all the participants in those disucssions, you take issue with someone who actually writes out original discussion specific comments and actually discusses sources!? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read that second one? First of all, he was claiming that something was notable because it was mentioned in a magazine which was a primary, not secondary source; and followed that up by claiming that it didn't matter anyway because fictional things don't need to have real-world notability. This, sadly is typical of DF's AfD comments; if he can't think of a good reason, he'll claim that the rules don't apply anyway. Black Kite 19:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of Dream Focus's arguments are rather non-standard and involve some unusual interpretations of policies; but they're a long way short of disruptive. I was one of the first to agree that some of Dream Focus's early AfD participation was unhelpful and confrontational, but all I'm seeing from these recent diffs are someone stating an opinion in a civil manner. I would most definitely oppose an AfD topic ban at this point - I often disagree with his rationales, but generally they're at least founded in reason and stated maturely. ~ mazca ^talk 19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting banning him from AfDs either, just pointing out, as you say, that he probably needs to give it a rest with the confrontational approach to anyone whose idea of "improving the encyclopedia" doesn't agree with his sometimes unconventional standards. Just reading through some of his screeds on User:Dream Focus will probably give you an idea. Black Kite 19:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I do get your point - you somewhat got screwed by Wikipedia's wonderful non-threaded discussion, in that my statement was rather pointed towards the section as a whole rather than you specifically! Generally, I haven't noticed any particularly objectionable AfD comments from him recently, so while he clearly has some strong and unusual opinions (per aforementioned userpage) he's presenting them reasonably at AfD. ~ mazca ^talk 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean screeds and confrontational approaches like on User talk: Black Kite? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. The difference being that I never edit-warred or disrupted the encyclopedia in defence of my views. Which is the point here, I think ... Black Kite 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It takes at least two to edit war and at least one or two of Dream Focus's opponents go about things far more disruptively. After all, nothing like argument about sources with those who admittedly "don't have the attention span to productively work on building articles. I can spend an hour chopping down a character list, but I get bored after five minutes while looking for sources." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Opps, I just noticed A Nobody beat me to the quote, although he got the wrong version.

I joined the project to improve an encyclopedia; it is no longer an encyclopedia, but largely a collection of trivia which would be rejected as too cruft-ridden and badly-written to display to the world even by the most amateur of fansites. Having nearly 3,000,000 articles is nothing to boast about when a good percentage of them are an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the expansion of trivia is now being helped by a collection of editors who game the system to produce AfD results like that with a combination of canvassing, vote-spamming, cluelessness....[190]

I am sorry you feel that way. Ikip (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A published magazine is a reliable source by any reasonable standard and again, his comments are far better than a number of what others have "contributed" to those same discussions, so by that logic, multiple editors from those AfDs would be bannable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the circulation of the magazine. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban is not warranted at this time. But that one was even suggested ought to give Dream Focus pause. Dream Focus needs to take the criticism they are getting about approach in AfDs on board, because some of the diffs given above evidence a serious lack of understanding of process or a reliance on spurious arguments. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If my arguments aren't valid, why do most AFD I participate in end in Keep? And why exactly are we going off topic on the AFD thing anyway? I won't take pause that someone who I've seen in some AFDs, decided to suggest such a thing, since I have done nothing wrong in those arguments worthy of a ban, and thus the suggestion too ridiculous to be seriously considered. Dream Focus 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I started the sub-topic because it seemed to be a related issue (it involves a similar type of action and argument on your part). If there's no appetite for banning you from AfDs right now, that's fine, I can wait. In the meantime I've pulled out some choice AfD arguments from your contribs going back only to the beginning of the month. I'm hoping that admins will start to see the problem here: [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], & [196]. They are chronological. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem with the diffs you've specified? Evil saltine (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the silliness at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diseases and conditions with unusual features about renaming it to "List of diseases and conditions that at least 5 Wikipedia members state are interesting to read about" isn't productive, but I don't think a topic ban is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, without dissecting each example, two of the arguments conflate existence with notability, all of the reasoning for keeping is specious, and none of the arguments are based on policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, this entire charade is getting embarrassing, and not for Dream Focus. After looking at all of the above links, I looked at one of your links[197] and I once again said, SO WHAT? This is evidence of an editor voicing his opinion civilly on an AFD. SO WHAT? There will be no ban today, that is for certain, and everytime when you attempt to attack Dream, he can point to this AFD and say, see look, this is what this guy tries to use against me as evidence, and your case will collapse. It is getting to the point of harrassment here. This is a content dispute that should not be on ANI. I am closing it for this reason. Ikip (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone who looks at that diff and then sees that Dream Focus is talking about the subject of the article once being a guest commentator on a news program and being quoted once in a relationship advice column might agree with my assessment. I just threw up diffs from the last three AfDs in which he or she had participated. It's rare that they will argue based on policy or guidelines, and almost any perusal of their contributions makes that point for me. You seem to be implying that I've attacked Dream Focus before and that I will attack him or her again. I haven't done so and don't intend to do so in the future. Suggesting that they be banned from AfDs isn't a personal attack and is intended only to improve AfDs discussions, not to punish Dream Focus. Please don't forget that the original discussion of a topic ban remains above. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (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.

Back on topic

We're not going to find consensus to ban Dream Focus from AfDs. His rationales are often odd, but I'm sure he feels the same about users who tend to vote delete. That being said, there does seem to be a fair amount of edit-warring that occurred today on these Ultima related articles. I'm not sure what needs to be done about that and think some outside input is necessary. Having peaked at some of the other articles on the Ultima franchise, I don't see the merge as a bad thing since those articles could definitely use some referencing. However, that's just my opinion and probably belongs on the article talk page. I'm more concerned about the back and forth merging on the merge and the breakdown of communication between involved editors. AniMate^draw 20:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with AniMate above. The edit-warring here is a concern, and it does take (a minimum of) two to tango. Dream Focus' editing style, personal philosophy, online manner etc are tangential, and best addressed elsewhere, if anywhere.  pablo_hablo. 21:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well something needs to be done to address Dream Focus's frequent assumptions of bad faith and battleground mentality. He frequently calls those he disagrees with the pejorative "deletionists" while claiming that merging of articles is a subversion of AfD. He has also made less then veiled allusions that WikiProjects, particularly WP:ANIME and WP:VG, are cabals of deletionists.[198] This isn't the first time Dream Focus has been brought to the attention of ANI. Back in April 2009, I brought up a similar complaint about Dream Focus's repeated assumptions of bad faith and battleground mentality, but nothing was ever done. Things really haven't improved all that much since except that Dream Focus largely stayed way from anime and manga related AfDs. --Farix (Talk) 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate from the user conduct issue, there's an ongoing dispute over how much detail should be included for popular culture subjects. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). There's a school of thought which argues that the general notability criteria should be relaxed somewhat for fiction. The usual point of disagreement is whether reliable third party sources should be required for fiction, or whether the work itself is a source for itself. We just had a minor flap over this in the Power Rangers area. What we really need is convergence on policy at WP:FICT, so we have guidance to follow. Until we have a firm policy in that area, we're going to continue to have these hassles occasionally. --John Nagle (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Farix, your ridiculous case was shot down, because it had no merit. Stop trying to add innuendo. Deletionists is an official Wikipedia term, some people using it to describe themselves on their own user page even. You are the only one who has ever claimed you found it offensive. And I have not stayed away from Anime and manga AFD since then, I still comment on anything I see as worth saving, there just not as many decent articles nominated as their use to be. And will some uninvolved Administrator make a ruling already on this merge against consensus? Dream Focus 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not mention cabals of deletionists. If I notice a small group of people that remain active at a Wikiproject, are all those with the same mindset, who always seem to agree to delete the same types of pages, then I will comment on it. There is a link above where TNN asks for help on the Video game wikiproject, saying he had attracted the attention of an inclusionist. It doesn't count as canvasing, if its on a wikiproject page. Stop taking my words out of context. If you want something destroyed, you can mention it where like minded people are at, and they can go and help you. That is what I'm complaining about. Dream Focus 15:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the exact link. [199]

“ I've attracted an inclusionist to this set of articles, so if I could get some more comments stating that no current Ultima character needs an article, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ”

And he then got people from there to try to eliminate them, while the majority of people that showed up were against it. Please, someone make a ruling, and close this case already. There was clearly no consensus to merge. Dream Focus 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to make a ruling here in regards to the merge. I will state that I went on a bit of fact finding mission through the articles on the Ultima franchise. The majority of the articles on the games these characters appear in contain few or no sources. Perhaps a better use of your energy would be used in getting those articles into better shape. AniMate^draw 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)