Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644

Walking With Dinosaurs Singapore

Resolved

User:Powerlinux copied Walking With Dinosaurs as his user page, removed some paragraphs, and then moved it to Walking With Dinosaurs Singapore. The article should of course be speedy deleted (I removed some material before realizing this was the case). A side effect is that both his user and talk page are now redirects, and I can't even leave him a proper message. I left it at Talk:Walking With Dinosaurs Singapore which is in fact his talk page which was redirected. Please fix that as well. --Muhandes (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am in the middle of cleaning this up, I think you may have recreated the Talk:Walking With Dinosaurs Singapore after I moved it back. I will check further. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. This was already corrected. You are too quick :) --Muhandes (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Phantomsteve has finished it off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Threat against WalMart

Are we supposed to report stuff like this? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It geolocates to New York City, though that may not prove anything. For what it's worth, December 27 is the Monday following Christmas, when one might expect to see white sales. And FYI, Clark County contains Las Vegas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in contact with Clark County Law enforcement. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

They're probably laughing at you. They have more important things to worry about than some website. October First (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Last year, I reported this threat to police in Goshen County, Wyoming; they responded with a notice that they'd investigated and caught the threat-maker, and I even got an apology email from the kid who'd made the threat. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be oversighted? Buggie111 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so, it's not offensive or anything, just dumb. It's already rev-deleted. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see it; it hasn't been revdelled. It should deleted as RD3 though. Oversight shouldn't be necessary though, it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:OVERSIGHT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought revdell and Oversight were synonymus. Ok then, learning lesson for me. Buggie111 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I couldn't see it the first time. I'll rev-del it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I fried the edit summary, too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In these kinds of situations, things like this probably shouldn't be oversighted or revdeleted, in case whatever authorities have been notified would like to have a look at the edit themselves. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They can contact the Foundation for that, I feel. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What I can't figure is why 66.66.119.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked. It's edited sporadically for 2 1/2 years, and every last one of them was useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sporadically in this case being an average of about 3-4 edits per year; it's most likely a dynamic IP address and has had some occasional vandalism. We shouldn't block it based on a total of about 10 edits, spread across 2-3 years; it could deter constructive users at the IP in future. This is why AIV insists on recent warnings + vandalism before blocking IPs. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Road Runner IPs are quite static. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to check the contribs for a range of IP's all at once, to see if a pattern emerges? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Here are contribs for 66.66.0.0/16. Antandrus (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. And while it's only a 3-4 day sample, the topics for each IP suggest a degree of stability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You must be using a different type of road-runner ISP, because mine changes every time I'm forced to unplug the router for fluctuating internet(the wireless dies, so I have to unplug everything and plug everything back in).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to have RoadRunner in NYC...I kept the same IP address for two years. It only changed when I moved. 170.149.100.10 (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I use RR in Rochester NY, and I don't think I have a static IP (whenever I reset the modem, anyway). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Should there be an automatic one year block for threats? Just blocking for a few days or weeks is too short. Anyone who threatens has a psychiatric problem but that can change in a year, but not in a few days. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of an IP, we only block for longer periods when we are quite certain that the editor behind the IP remains the same. Many IPs are dynamic, and many others are used by many editors (schools, libraries, ...). Fram (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And even if it's a stable IP, we might have reason not to block for very long; if the authorities are able to catch the threat-maker, as they did in the link I posted near the top of this section, there wouldn't be any need. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oversight needed

Resolved

Can someone suppress this edit and block the user who made it? It's a blatant attack against EnDaLeCoMpLeX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The first rule of Oversight is do not talk about Oversight. Skomorokh 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oversight requests should be made in private using one of the methods listed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Requests for oversight should not be posted on ANI, which is wide open to the public, and gets over 2,000 views each day. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this edit needs to be oversighted, to be honest. Deletion seems sufficient in this case. TFOWR 15:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock of banned user?

User:Bobsaget1qw and his dynamic ip army seem like sockpuppets of abanned user? Anyone know who this might be?Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In connection with this, I have semiprotected User talk:JamesBWatson for 6 hours. Otherwise, it doesn't look like anyone I recognize. The IP range looks too large to manage by rangeblock. --Jayron32 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is indefinitely blocked genre troll Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs), operating from a mobile device. Tagged as such. –MuZemike 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grossly offensive user name

Resolved; socks blocked. WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suarneduj, then Juden Raus, now 유태인 아웃 ("Jews out" in Korean), has returned. I did leave a note for Sandstein who did the original block. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up re: John Donovan

From his blog: [1]. Anyone know his user account? His blog says he's pursuing legal action. Is this matter being addressed elsewhere? Are his concerns being addressed anywhere? Rklawton (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And no, it's not this user User:John Donovan. Rklawton (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine it's Johnadonovan (talk) (already blocked), as the blog refers to this article. TFOWR 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

See User talk:Johnadonovan for the current status. As TFOWR notes, this editor was indefinitely blocked in September for making legal threats. I see him as a credible critic of Shell, but in practice he has not been easy to work with. (His COI editing was not quite blatant enough to deserve a block, but he wasn't very cooperative either). His editing of Wikipedia was first discussed at WP:COIN in early 2008. Other noticeboard discussions can be found through this search. The comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns show that his recent contributions are seriously lacking in neutrality. If the legal threat were to be withdrawn, I suggest we should have another discussion as to whether he belongs on Wikipedia at all, given the recent trend of his editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Rklawton (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User: Dweeby123 - misuse of both Twinkle and the term 'vandalism'

Dweeby123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been repeatedly asked to stop labelling edits that he disagrees with as 'vandalism', e. g., [2], [3], [4], [5]. He has been edit warring at Tony Curtis over the wikilinking of Curtis's birthplace, calling some of the reversions against his preferred version 'vandalism'. He refuses to stop, and does not respond to other editors' entreaties on his talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 23:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good-faith but inexperienced editor here; over the last month or so, I've seen the vast majority of his edits being constructive, at least in intent. Some advice as to the nature of "vandalism" would be in order, and maybe even adoption or mentorship, but I don't see it as being that destructive at present. Perhaps if you notify him of this discussion, that would focus his mind a tad. Rodhullandemu 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, Rod, but it's been spelt out on his talk page a few times already, and the behaviour continues. Radiopathy •talk• 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

He's done it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dweeby123#More_pretend_.22Vandalism.22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.140.186 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to neither heed nor read messages or warnings on his talk page. The only way to make him aware that anything is wrong will probably be a block.--Kudpung (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. I imagine it will get his attention. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he will request for an unblock sooner or later. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Umm, isn't an indef a little strong for a first-time block? Radiopathy •talk• 16:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's an indefinite block, not an infinite one. It'll last only until he enters into some kind of reasonable dialogue. Usually this happens within 24 hours, sometimes the user never responds. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• My guess is that he just needs to slow it down. He's offered to stop using Twinkle, I'm thinking maybe we just add him to the Twinkle blacklist and require him to get an admin's permission to turn it back on once a reasonable amount of time has passed without a recurrence of this problem. I'm going to place his unblock request on hold pending the outcome of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I really think you should give him a one more chance then, if he messes up then that's his problem, isn't really??, okay I don't know this person (at all), but it look's to me that he's passionate about Wikipedia, like we all should be --83.218.31.112 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He is being given a chance - see Elen's comment above. TFOWR 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

83.218.31.112 looks suspiciously like Dweeby123... AnemoneProjectors 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on the same thing. The edit summaries from Dweeby123 ([6]) and the IP ([7]) are strikingly similar. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And it started editing straight after Dweebly123 was blocked. Oh dear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Emmerdale" is a dead giveaway. Could you block the IP as well? Radiopathy •talk• 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at both Dweeby123's and 83.218.31.112's contribs, the (do'h) and (tweak) edit summaries sound a lot like quackery. Ishdarian 07:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got to wonder how an IP user who "doesn't know this person (at all)", who consistently misspells Homer's catchphrase "D'oh!" in the same way, and who persistently "tweaks" page, also came and found and then contributed to this discussion, and made a strong point of not knowing the person. It is an astonishing set of coincidences. More seriously and like Radiopathy, I thought the block was a little harsh as little chance had been given for him to respond to this discussion, he had done just a handful of clean edits apart from calling something good faith but writing "rvv", but that could simply be not understanding or a typo. But now that he appears to be sockpuppeting to sway a discussion about him, forget it. Disappointed. Halsteadk (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've formally denied his unblock request and directed him to consider WP:OFFER. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle and his IPs

User:Grundle2600 has been community-banned for disruption and has a huge list of sockpuppets, as seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600/Archive. Most recent was October 7. Now more often he pops up with IPs, mainly in 71. and 72. range, and today a 96 (all Verizon, Pittsburgh). Some IPs are [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. For those of us familiar with Grundle, it's easy to tell when it's him. Is there anything that can be done other than revert on site? Is it even worth reporting for a short block? Grsz¹¹ 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The ranges you mention are too busy and dynamic for IP blocks to work. Two possibilities: 1) WP:RBI, or 2) WP:Abuse report.
Amalthea 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a single situation in which filing an abuse report has accomplished anything beyond the server going "That's nice; go away now."? HalfShadow 01:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea, what about a rangeblock or would there be too much collateral damage? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant with "too busy". Amalthea 18:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, but my brain wasn't quite working up to speed yet (not enough coffee). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Grundle2600/Sandbox should be deleted (along with history) since he enjoys linking to old versions of it that reproduce the contents of deleted articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, people have legitimate grievances but they did something the wrong way. For some people, not all, the opportunity for the banned to explain their original grievance is a way to reflect and help the situation. I don't know if this is the case with Grundle.

People say "banned is banned" but I have seen many bans in ANI that were just railroaded through. Most of the time, I said nothing because the people were bad. But there is merit in having fair processes.

In the USA, there was a debate about Bush being bad for letting terrorist suspect rot in Cuba. With Wikipedia, banned is banned would mean that the Bush actions are to be praised. Without dragging more Bush into the question, we should allow banned people to make a statement once every 12 months, which would not result in repeated messages but just open the door to appeal. There are those that say secret appeal by e-mail exist. Likewise, the people in Guantanamo can appeal secretly. Yeah, right. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grundle certainly has that right. It most certainly wouldn't be accepted given his history of socking. But he isn't coming back to try and appeal, he's coming back to continue to disrupt. Grsz¹¹ 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:STANDARDOFFER applies for Grundle as much as anyone else. If he stopped trying to edit Wikipedia for an extended period of time (6 months-1 year) and returned under an agreement to avoid all editing regarding topics of a political nature, as broadly construed as possible, then he would be more welcome here. The fact that he refuses to play by the rules, and egregiously so, is why he is a persona non grata. --Jayron32 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@Suomi: It's certainly possible that some bans have been railroaded in, but Grundle's most certainly was not. It was a very long process, with three or four withdrawn indefs before the end.

A problem is that Grundle doesn't see himself as a disruptor; he sees himself as Robin Hood. He's totally convinced that his badly-cited synthesis is necessary to defend wikipedia from the liberals. He's proud of his socks, and rarely if ever tries to hide them. And he's actually quite likable. Any ideas about anything to do beyond silent reversion till he gets bored? PhGustaf (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. He's familiar enough with Wikipedia to know how to be maximally disruptive when he wants to be, and his IP range is impossible to block. Just revert, block, and ignore is all we have. Rinse, repeat. --Jayron32 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

StandardOffer is an essay, not a guideline or policy. There are a number of banned editors where I wouldn't support an unban even if they meet the standard offer. Fram (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone said it was a policy, and in the case of any community sanction only another community discussion can overturn it. The standard offer is meant as a "road map" for those that honestly want to reform. At this point Grundle has shown no sign of that, he would have to quit with the socking before overturning his ban would even be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "any ideas"...we should all chip in and get him a Netflix membership so he can find some more usable usernames. Seems like it's been a cavalcade of IPs for awhile now. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Here [16] from ReformAmericaNewYork‎ (talk · contribs). I can confirm that the previous whois info posted by Wookieinheat was accurate at the time and has since been updated to the value posted by the user. However, the talk page refactoring and legal threats are definitely not kosher. Notifying user now. User notified. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked ReformAmericaNewYork (talk · contribs) for making a legal threat but there seems to be a bigger WP:BLP issue going on here. Toddst1 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what possible BLP issue there might be? Is the posting of whois records with contact information when sorting out spam sites not allowed on talk pages? I don't see any problem with the article itself. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, yes, disclosing contact details like that is a huge BLP issue. Although, I suppose it is public Whois details. So not that huge, I'd suggest just removing them to be on the safe side (Wikipedia is search engine indexed while Whois records are not) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any legal threats here, yea, he's posting a whois, and some legal language from the whois site, and yes, he's refactoring comments, so yes, the block is fine, but not on NLT (just my two cents KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is this article really worth all the trouble it seems to be causing? It's apparently giving the subject grief, and notability is marginal at best. Deletion may be an option here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, though it passed an AfD less than a month ago. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, looking back now i see why my posting of the article subject's personal data is a no no. i wasn't thinking of it in that light when i did it, i was mainly focused on the creation dates of the websites which supported my conclusions about the wikipedia article(s) being discussed. i simply copy-pasted the whole record into my comment, the personal data was really irrelevant to the main point on the dates; i'll be more careful in the future. with that said, i would take the legal threats from the new account pretty lightly, after looking over their edits they bear the hallmarks of the COI editor who was the root of the issue. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:A Radish for Boris

Resolved

 – No further action needed; duck-block reinforced by checkuser and IP also blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor as a WP:DUCK sock of User:Otto4711. Behavioral evidence:

• Wikistalk w/ Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• Wikistalk w/ Otto4711

No further administrative action anticipated, posting here for notification. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed, and  IP blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, pretty obvious. I'd preserve that Doctor Who trivia AfD though, it was a good spot even if they're banned. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't closed the other AfD he started, either. He took care to start pretty reasonable AfDs, but the contributions in other fictional AfDs were pretty obvious. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed; it was just in case someone took it upon themselves to revert everything they'd done. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of automatic revert tool, Twinkle, reverting good faith edits

Resolved

I was making edits to the Leonard McCoy (Star Trek) article and the next day my two good faith edits had been reverted by editor User:EEMIV and I noticed the (TW) after the edit synopsis. This was my first experience with someone using this tool. I read the tool's article and noticed that users have to be careful of it automatically reverting good faith edits. I wrote to the editor on his/her talk page, and mentioned the tool had done this. I received no explanation or apology. Yesterday while editing the Data (Star Trek) page, I noticed an anonymous user made an edit. It may not have been the greatest placement of the information, but it was true, wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, and looked like a good faith edit to me. Editor EEMIV's TW tool came in and reverted it. Now, I respect this editor because they are obviously a Star Trek fan :) but I am losing all respect for this automated tool. These are dits that a human needs to look at and decide if it is vandalism or good faith. Akuvar (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are three incidents of this, the first was on Jean-Luc Picard. Akuvar (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because twinkle has been used doesn't mean a person hasn't looked into it. You need to talk to EEMIV, but as far as I can see, he has a point: You're asserting a fact (sawbones is no longer common slang for a surgeon) that he believes needs a citation. Talk to him, see what you can find... but WP:BURDEN applies to your addition. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I don't know how to do this (I'm sure there is an easier way) but look at this edit I made at Jean-Luc Picard http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Luc_Picard&diff=389581060&oldid=388133602 I added a wiki link to what enterprise he commanded and corrected syntax by adding the word "the" Twinkle reverted that edit. It was after that revert that I contacted EEMIV on his/her talk page and received no answer or explanation. You may be right, perhaps I am assuming that they are not looking into it and that the twinkle isn't doing this indiscriminately and automatically, but the evidence says otherwise. Akuvar (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

EEMIV should be answering your questions, though I don't think these are the most controversial of reverts. I can see a case for the Picard one, because the sentence refers to the Enterprise in general (i.e. E as well as D) and has most likely already been wikilinked earlier in the article. The 'the' is neither here nor there. I would advise seeing if EEMIV will get back to you now they have been notified of this thread. _{Star Trek is awesome} S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Akuvar - in case he hasn't realised it yet - but Twinkle isn't an automated tool as he seems to think - certainly his posts imply that's how he sees Twinkle. As well as talking to EEMIV, I suggest he also pops along to The Twinkle page, for better understanding of that too. a_man_alone (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar left a message on my talk page that I just haven't replied to yet. [My contributions that last couple of days have been minor, my time spent mostly doing rote chores; probably tomorrow I'll have time to give him a thorough response.] The conversation should continue on my talk page, and it will; I don't see any need for an ANI thread, and will not be watchlisting ANI for subsequent responses. --EEMIV (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds good. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle isn't a bot; a user is still behind the helm manning the controls. All Twinkle does is make certain tasks easier.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

POV tag in Nair article

Background: mention of what academics call polyandry in nair article. this is the third thread. User:EdJohnston and User:DGG had commented on the previous discussion. I have listed their comments here. User:DGG said, "I do have an opinion on that. I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV"

In the mean time, some users Robynhood.Pandey (talk · contribs · count), Pichaiyan Nadar (talk · contribs · count), Bhattathirippadu (talk · contribs · count) and 203.131.222.1 (talk · contribs · count) have been blocked as socks.

Current issue: I added a POV tag and suggested we resolve what needs to be added in the talk page (as recommended by User:EdJohnston). Shannon1488 (talk · contribs · count) who has no edits outside Nair related topics removed the tag for a reason i dont think appropriate. --CarTick 14:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am simply stating that some one who is neutral and having a good knowledge of India-related topics should oversee the tagging and related issues. The problem here is-

• Polyandry was practiced as a mandatory form of marriage by only the Kammalan and related castes in Kerala.
• For other castes (including Nairs), single marriage was the preferred form of marriage, but in rare instances polyandry was practiced along with polygamy.
• Therefore, the over-emphasizing of polyandry in the Nair article is outright confusing. This question was asked to Cartick many times, but he refused to answer.
• Polyandry of whatever type fell out of use in Kerala during the 19th century and not many people even remember it now.
• The language used in the Polyandry in India article is deeply offensive.
• The relevance of the type of marriage in Nair article should be reviewed by an admin who is having good knowledge about Indian ethnic groups.

Please look in to these facts. I will abide by any decision the admin takes on this. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not content dispute, this is about removal of maintenance template.

even a casual search in google books or google scholar or jstor gives so many references.

I have access to all the academic references which discuss in detail about nair polyandry and can send it to Shannon if he wants (through an administrator, dont want to reveal my e-mail to him). The only issue is, in what form the information has to be included which will be discussed through WP:NPOV notice board and WP:RFC. whether polyandry existed in Kammalan and other castes are irrelevant here and User Shannon can raise the issues in relevant articles.

In the mean time, the POV tag needs to stay in place to alert the readers. --CarTick 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are again running away from the questions asked to you. I am not talking about searches and other things. I am asking you what is the special relationship between Nairs and polyandry. I can give you hundreds of examples for instances of polyandry practiced in Europe, Middle East and North America. Similarly, you might also be able to provide some references about polyandry among Nairs. But as long as you are not able to prove that polyandry was unique in someway among the Nairs, I am not going to agree with you. How can you add a link to polyandry in the Nair article, when it was practiced primarily by someone else? This is like saying that Turks are the major population group in Germany, when they are just 3% of the population. I will make it a bit more simple. Say, there are 100 instances of polyandry in Kerala. Out of these 25 were Nair, 25 were Thiyya, 25 were Kammalan and 25 were other. Now here it seems that Nairs are one of the major practitioners of polyandry. But if you look at the per-capita rate, then it will be something like this: 2% of Nairs practiced polyandry, 2% of Thiyyas practiced polyandry, 100% of Kammalans practiced polyandry, 2% of others practiced polyandry. Now, to which group is polyandry relevant?

And if admins feels that the removal of POV tag is wrong, then they can revert my edits. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

pls familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies first. relevance not uniqueness is the criteria for inclusion. --CarTick 16:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about relevance. It might be relevant in the Polyandry in India article or the Marriage Ceremonies of Keralites article. But what is the relevance of some obsolete marriage custom last practiced many centuries ago, which even at it's peak had no more than 2% or 3% of Nairs practicing it in the Nair article? If 100%, or at least one-third of the Nairs practiced polyandry during the 1500s, then it might have been important enough to get an inclusion in the article. But this is going way overboard. If you want to malign someone you don't like, then you better find some good tactics to do that. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry if this information is offensive to you. I am afraid i could not find any wikipedia policy or guideline which discourages inclusion because it offends somebody. There is also no policy which dictates your "percentage calculation" or "many centuries ago practice" as a criteria for exclusion. If an arbitrary one-third participation is a criteria, lot of information in the article and very many articles should go. --CarTick 16:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which discourages inclusion because it offends somebody. But there is also no policy which says that irrelevant and disputed views should be added to an article just because another user doesn't like the ethnic group. Let me see if the admins agree with your views or not. I am just remembering you, the answers for my questions are still not here. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand how Polyandry among Nairs is not relevant in Nairs. but, that is your view and i dispute that and User:DGG agrees with me that not including it is violation of WP:NPOV. so the POV tag needs to go back. we will sort the issue out in article talk page. --CarTick 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying if admins feel like POV tag is needed, then they can add it. A minor dispute should not be used to tag an entire article as neutrality-disputed. Just wait till we get more comments here. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DGG is an administrator and he said not including it violates NPOV. --CarTick 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Any admin (including DGG) can add the tag. But it will be better to wait till some one with more knowledge on this issue comment here. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lot of time is getting wasted on this non-issue. This is a very minor dispute and users like Cartick are hell bent on inflating it to their own needs. How else can anyone explain a dispute to add a link going on for two weeks now? If the admins were willing to spend a few minutes on this, the disruption caused could have been easily averted. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like two admins have spent time on this issue. Accepting what they said would seem, to me, to be the best way to end further disruption. TFOWR 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I had earlier stated that I'll abide by whatever decision the admins take. Therefore I have added the link back in. But I don't believe it is relevant in the article. Also, the comments by the two admins were vague and inconclusive. I hope the remainder of the discussion, whether to keep the link or remove it, can be done in the Nair talk page. It will be better if someone with a good knowledge on this issue can help out on this matter. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to settle a content dispute. What they will do (and, indeed, have done) is recommend how to solve a content dispute. For example, EdJohnston (talk) recommended a "request for comment" ("RfC"):

The degree to which Nair ought to link to articles which discuss polyandry is a valid question that could be discussed in an RfC at Talk:Nair. If 'polyandry' is not the right way to describe the former customs, as an IP argues above, this could be worked out (with sources) on the talk page.

Likewise, DGG (talk) recommeded—if at all possible—compromise and moderate coverage, and if that fails then raising it at the neutral point of view noticeboard ("NPOV noticeboard"):

I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV. When I saw the subhead of this section it immediately came to mind that it must be about this particular topic, & I was right--those who know only a very little about the Nairs, know about this. There has been frequent efforts to include disproportionate coverage of the past or present customs of various groups--usually religious groups-- that are different from the common Western norm and might seem disreputable; reciprocally, there have been frequent efforts to give these aspects as little coverage as possible. Both are gross violations of the principle of NPOV, which is arguably a matter that does concern administrators. But if the discussion is to be continued, I 'd suggest the NPOV noticeboard as the appropriate place. I do not recommend it; I recommend compromise and a moderate degree of coverage.

Both these suggestions are sensible. I'd suggest you strive for compromise and a moderate degree of coverage. If you remain unable to reach a compromise consider either an RFC or taking it to the NPOV noticeboard. TFOWR 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

i will try to get a compromise with these editors, if not i will open an RFC. i will be happy if some responsible users keep an eye on the talk page. Thanks. --CarTick 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Impostor alert

Resolved

 – Boomerang took out both the sock/impersonator and the OP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello community. Apologies if I'm interrupting the more serious discussions that are the norm of this noticeboard, but there's an impostor here that needs to be blocked: PirateCrackK (talk · contribs). Thank you. --GoogleUnderscore (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Imposter of whom, any similar usernames? –BuickCenturyDriver 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Notified user, as the page requires you to do. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess that he's referring to PirateSmackK, who's banned. Don't know anything about said user (I'll have to look on the list to see why), but I think that's who GoogleUnderscore is getting at. I'll move this to WP:UAA, which is where this should have gone in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know if it's PirateSmackK, seems more like an impostor to me, perhaps Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has had a history of reporting himself to ANI just to cause a fuss ... trolling in its purest form, really. GoogleUnderscore was the creator of the userpage for PirateCrackK, as well as the creator of this thread, so it seems obvious to me that the two accounts are at least working together and quite likely actually the same person. They are now both blocked (one by me, one by another admin). —Soap— 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed way too easy to be a legit sock... marking resolved. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

PirateCrackK (talk · contribs) and Hole Puncher (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed. CU investigation continuing. –MuZemike 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All three are confirmed. Also blocked the open proxy this person (whomever he is) is using. –MuZemike 17:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:V and WP:Before

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

There is no administrative action needed here, from what I can see. This is nothing but a content dispute/meta-discussion which is more suited for Talk:Charles Kuralt, WT:V, WT:DEL, one of the village pumps, or other forms of dispute resolution. –MuZemike 22:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

---

at Talk:Charles Kuralt, User:Cresix states:

Regardless of the accuracy of the information, it is more than a little serious (and possibly libelous) that there is nothing to back up this information. I know that Kuralt is deceased, which limits the applicability of WP:BLP, but he was a major public figure in recent times. I've placed a tag specific to that section. If there is no sourcing and no comments here within two weeks, I plan to remove the section. If anyone thinks he/she can find some sources within a reasonable period of time but you need more than two weeks, please leave a message. This can wait, but not for months.

questions:

1. does WP:V apply?
2. does WP:before apply?
3. does WP:GRAPEVINE, or WP:BDP apply?
4. is questioning a proposed section removal, a personal attack?

Accotink2 talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V always applies on Wikipedia, especially for disputed material, and even more especially for unsourced, potentially libelous information about a public figure's personal life. Even if the information is true, asking for sources is far from unreasonable; it is supported by clear policy.

The "personal attack" to which Accotink2 refers has nothing to do with questioning the policies. It refers to his/her repeated false accusations that I made threats, and especially Accotink2's false accusation that I threatened to nominate the article for deletion here. Apparently Accotink2 didn't like it that I asked for sources instead of adding them myself, and decided to personalize this content issue. Cresix (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

questioning an editor's statements is not a personal attack. i consider the "ticking time bomb" method of directing other editors, to be a "threat". i understand that this method is in use in the BLP Prod process, but now we have an example for WP:BDP where there can be no libel. i understand that WP:before is widely flouted. does it apply to contentious material deletion? if not, then should we not do away with wp:before, since noone follows it? it's unclear to me, that the "ticking time bomb" method increases the quality of the wiki, is it really policy for contentious material for non-BLP's? Accotink2 talk 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Falsely accusing an editor of making threats is a personal attack. You weren't just questioning which policy applies; you were accusing me of making threats, including a threat to AfD the article. You're use of the phrase "ticking time bomb" is a straw man that you have contrived to portray me as using threats to edit. I simply placed a statement on the talk page that unsourced and sensitive information about the private life of a very public figure needs sourcing, that I didn't think the unsourced information should remain in the article for months (and it had already been in the article unsourced for over four years), and that I would wait a couple of weeks to see if anyone wanted to add sources. I stated that if anyone felt he/she needed more than a couple of weeks, there would be no problem if I knew that someone had the intent to add the sources. My so-called "tinking time bomb" was simply a statement that the information did not need to remain in the article indefinitely with no one even attempting to source it. Even if I did delete it, the information is still available to be sourced in the article's history, and my comments on the talk page serve as a reminder for editors to be aware that the information is available. Here's the bottom line, Accotink2: You didn't like it that I suggested adding sources without adding them myself, as seen in your edit here, telling me I should edit the article instead of the talk page. And because you didn't like that, you decided to personalize this matter by accusing me of making "threats" and setting up "ticking time bombs". I have no problem with your questioning which policies apply, even if I disagree with you. It's your innuendo and false accusations that are the personal attacks. Cresix (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that Cresix said (as presented here in this thread) is inappropriate or a misconstruction of policy. While the "ticking time bomb" metaphor may have been misunderstood, it's not an inappropriate description of the potential damage that unsourced allegations in a biography (even of the deceased) can cause. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Without deciding between one side or the other here (they both look equally as bad, though for different reasons), I have to note that a) Material a resonable person may find questionable or controversial should be sourced or removed from the article until reliable sources are found. b) Nothing here that has been said could be construed as a personal attack. Nothing at all. --Jayron32 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jayron32. So I assume that you consider it acceptable if I repeatedly accuse you with no basis of threatening to AfD an article simply because you disagree with me, that is acceptable to you. Similarly, if I assume that every citation-needed tag that you place in an article without taking the time to find a source is a threat to delete with no justification, and I announce that as your intent -- that you consider that acceptable behavior. I respectfully disagree. Cresix (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Cresix. I said none of that. You have placed additional meanings into my statements which did not exist. My statements mean exactly what they say, no more or no less. Your additional interpretation of them, as they are applied above, have nothing to do with my assessment of the situation. I would only say that if YOU did those things TO ME, then I would find them annoying. However, this has no bearing on the current situation, that is any hypothetical set of events between YOU and ME. I only stated that I didn't see anything in the statements made which indicated a personal attack. I also didn't say they were justified or right. There are lots of shades between "acceptable" and "personal attack". Something can be inappropriate or incorrect and not a personal attack. --Jayron32 20:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless one harbours extreme WP:OWN issues (or maybe is the subject of an article), a "threat" to AFD an article is a threat to an article, and not to a person/editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

conclusions:

1 wp:V applies

3 wp:grapevine applies

4 no

2 given the silence - WP:Before is a dead letter, i was wrong to mourn it, or be upset; this pattern of behavior of setting timetables for deletion will continue to be a widespread practice. (agreeing with user:DGG), "For old articles, a procedure of summary deletion is particularly reckless."[17] (in whole or in part).Accotink2 talk 14:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A false accusation toward an editor of making threats is more than a threat to an article. It is making false statements about what an editor has done, has said, or intends to do. By your line of reasoning, I could repeatedly announce on talk pages that you are a chronic vandal on Wikipedia articles, and that would be OK as long as you didn't vandalize. I would like to see someone's rationale for making repeated false statements about an editor as being appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. So far that hasn't been provided. Cresix (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BEFORE is not a dead letter, BEFORE applies to article deletion discussions, not discussions of individual elements of content, where WP:BURDEN is more applicable. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

if you don't like the "threat" characterization, how about: "stern warning with consequences"; "offer the world can't refuse"; "negative feedback"; "deadline enforcement" i understand your interpretation that WP:before applies to AfD only (i didn't mention it) you've taken a rationale used at BLP and used it at BDP where there is no urgency by slander. how long until "all unreferenced contentious material PROD deleted" + contentious in the eye of beholder?

what i object to is not you, but the pervasive behavior. you are above average, i note we have an ocean of admins who edit "article space" less than 50% of the time, choosing to issue warnings and tags. i wonder how we're going to improve "article space", by writing in "talk space", ANI and at AfD? it seems a very indirect approach.

Before: Ignore at Leisure, i have my answer, i had hoped that deletion was a process that included inquiry. the problem with wp:burden is that it applies to new material. we're talking about old articles that are not improved fast enough for some. quality improvement is going to require a process of editing articles, not stern warnings with consequences Accotink2 talk 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is your false presentation of my intent that is a serious problem here, regardless of whether you call it a "threat" or some other term. Read all of my comments above. The unsourced and potentially libelous information was in the article for over four years. How long do you think is a reasonable time to wait before removing it? Another four years? Or maybe just another year? As I have already said, the information is always, ALWAYS in the article's history waiting to be restored as soon as someone is ready to provide some sources. And my talk page comments would be a reminder that it would be there. But I suppose you think I should have simply said, "Could someone . . . please . . . maybe . . . if you don't mind . . . add a source before Wikipedia is sued for libel? Please . . . if it's not too much trouble." I'll repeat what I said earlier: you weren't reacting to any "threat". You were simply pissed off that I didn't add the sources myself. That's how all of this got started. That's obvious in your own comments on the talk page (already linked above) telling me I should edit the article instead of the talk page. Now, I've beaten this dead horse enough. Unless other editors have new comments, I'm finished here. Cresix (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BDP = can't libel the dead + it was verifiable, but unverified - but the "four years" is the same excuse as for the BLP. the fact that the inline reference standard was rolled out without any process of implementation, doesn't validate acting out of frustration, that articles haven't improved. i'm not "pissed off", i'm profoundly disappointed, that people imagine that articles can be improved by "persuasion", (threats) rather than editing articles. as i said before, i really meant the "edit the article" for the 71.36.204.109, but if the shoe fits wear it.

this is not a personal attack: it is a philosophical attack upon the dysfunctional mindset. how's it working for you wikipedia: are you tired of the vituperation and edit wars yet, are you capable of showing some leadership? are you tired of fixing problems, will you start fixing the system? i don't see it, and without leaders, the inline reference problem will continue. Accotink2 talk 22:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be frustrated, which is your right to feel, but that never justifies making false accusations, which you clearly did. And you have no idea what I have and haven't done to "fix the system" by simply looking at my request for sources on one talk page. I don't consider that question a personal attack, but I do consider it arrogantly presumptuous, as if you know what other editors do to improve Wikipedia. How many problems have you fixed on Wikipedia? How many articles have I added sources to? How many has every editor on this discussion page fixed? Have you done more or less than everyone else on this discussion page? The answer is that you don't know.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying: An anon makes a comment more than one year ago, and you pick the very same time that I commented, immediately after my comment, in the very same statement in which you said you added the sources that I requested, and without naming a specific editor that you're responding to -- and you say it's a response to the anon? For anyone who believes that, I have some really cheap beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

You never answered my very simple and straightforward question about how long the information should have remained in the article unsourced. Three weeks? Three months? Three years? Or do you think it should remain there indefinitely? I doubt that you will ever give us a specific answer. My guess is you'll talk all around that question without ever giving a very specific time period, or give a cop-out answer such as "I would have sourced it", which of course isn't really an answer. If that's your tactic, how long in any bio article should unsourced, sensitive, and potentially libelous information about a public figure remain in an article, because I doubt seriously you plan to fix that problem in all of Wikipedia. How long? Cresix (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

forever. since it was a true statement, and a verifiable statement, but temporarily unreferenced, three years is the blink of an eye. i don't share the widespread fear of libel. this is the nightmare of lawyers. repeating: he's dead already - there is no libel. i may even go to Colbert's "keep fear alive" march. while i may respond to your "offer i can't refuse", or even source some BLP's, i don't find the process functional, hence the statement. are you really defending the functionality of "stern warnings" on talk pages? how is it working for you? i am disappointed, not frustrated. we agree that we need to reference all the old articles. will you join in a referencing effort similar to the BLP = Category:Articles lacking sources only 279,000 articles to go, or Category:Delisted good articles only 1973. we'll give out a "RefCup" for edits in article space, and you will do well. Accotink2 talk 02:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether libel or some other legal action, it is clearly a legal risk. So you think potentially legally damaging, unsourced, personal information in a bio article can stay forever, as long as there are sources floating around somewhere but not in the article. I think it's a very safe bet that 95% of serious editors here disagree with you, and that number would be very close to 100% for administrators; Jimbo would probably have a stroke if he knew you are editing with that attitude. But that attitude explains a lot about your behavior. No futher comments. I prefer to discuss matters with editors who are actually concerned about the protection of Wikipedia rather than entertaining their pet theories about legal action at Wikipedia's expense. Have a good life. Hope we never cross paths again. Cresix (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

actually it's the lawyers on Arbcom not Jimbo. they were already coddling the mass deleters in the name of "libel prevention". however, Defamation: "Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense." this kind of fear mongering is why i take such a radical iconoclastic eventualist approach - all the hyperventilating doesn't fix the problem. when is wikipedia gonna stop the crisis management, and start the preventative leadership? "editors who are actually concerned about the protection of Wikipedia" - p-l-ease. this is an attitude that will kill wikipedia: you will protect it to death. all the firewalls, and legalistic policies will not deter the plaintiff's bar, they go where the money is, regardless of the facts. reductio ad absurdum: lets delete all 279,000 unsourced articles, since they may contain false statements someone may sue over. Accotink2 talk 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I almost agree that you're an extremist. A more precise descriptor would be a dangerous, reckless extremist. Fortunately for Wikipedia, there are enough reasonable people (even some of the worst editors fall into that category) who are here to rein people like you in from time to time. I won't say any more of what deserves to be said because I don't want to violate WP:NPA. As I said, I hope I never cross paths with you again. Cresix (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You speak as one who obviously never heard of Charles Kuralt nor of the litigation that already occurred. There was no question that this woman was Kuralt's "other wife". There is no possibility of "libel" against wikipedia on this already widely-covered story. The question to be decided in court was strictly about the intent of Kuralt's will, and the handling of the estate. Deleting something that's widely known, just because you're too lazy to look for a source, makes wikipedia look stupid. So don't call others "extremists" when it's your own perspective that's out of whack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Before" is just some guy's essay. Ignore it at leisure. "Verifiability" is a policy, though not enforced sufficiently.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:BEFORE is a restatement of WP:Deletion policy, and is part of the instructions at WP:Articles for Deletion. Some people still choose to take it as a recommendation only, which is allowed by the wording, so it is high time that the wording be revised to make it an explicit requirement. This change has been discussed every half year or so, and gets nearer and nearer to consensus. Opinions like the above about it being an essay only are to be discounted as ignorance or, worse, as the persistent refusal to participate in improving articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Nearer and nearer to consensus? That's not my impression. And nothing in it is enforceable anyway. Are you going to make it an explicit resuirement that people "consider applying a tag" and "consider sharing your reservations with the article creator [...]"? Or do you intend to change the "considers" into "you must"? The first is a list of advices, not requirements: the second will never get consensus. In many cases, first applying tags, talking to the article creator or related wikiprojects, ... is a completely unnecessary intermediate step. Share your concerns with the wider community in an AfD, and let them decide whether you were correct or whether the article can stay. But don't start "voting" "keep: nominator has not first tagged the article for notability before nominating it for deletion" or "keep: nominator has not checked all interwiki links"... Fram (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That said, it does not literally apply to the removal of content from an article, but even here, an effort should always be made to source it. Everyone shares the responsibility--at least those who want to improve Wikipedia. With respect to the particular material here, CNN seems to be like a perfectly good source. If this were a BLP, the question would be whether it was negative and unrelated to his career, but this is considerably relaxsd subsequently. I don't see what all the fuss is about--is the source disputed? The transcript seems perfectly clear to me, and supports the material DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. How was DGG able to shift the focus of the discussion? Both of the policies/procedures DGG is referring to have to do with deletions of whole articles. The governing rule for content within an article is this line from WP:V: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately" (emphasis added). Even if it doesn't fall under BLP as a recently deceased person, it sure seems to fall under the first part allowing removal. It looks to me that the OP was actually being extremely generous in giving some amount of time for others to add the source; xe could have, per clear policy and standard editing behaviors, removed the source and required it to stay out until it was sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "Anything challenged or likely to be challenged..." So who's likely to challenge the widely-circulated and unrefuted news stories about Kuralt's once-secret life? The idea that this could be "libelous" is silly. It's also extremely lazy to take a few minutes to threaten to delete something that's a well-known fact, rather than taking a few minutes to find a source... as another editor noted in the Kuralt talk page... and then taking parts of several days arguing over it just because he felt stung by the accurate word "threat" (maybe he should have said "promise"?). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• DGG is beating the WP:BEFORE drum again? Color me surprised. As I recall, you have had this suggestion soundly rejected in various venues. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The WP:BEFORE item seems to be about entire articles, not about specific text within articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • i'm sorry, his views strike me as common sense, so i invoked them. if we require a minimum amount of work and sourcing before adding material, should we not also require a minimum inquiry before deleting? Accotink2 talk 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • But we don't require a minimum amount of work of sourcing before adding material, everyone is free to create completely unsourced articles or to add unsourced material. It may be removed, it may be sourced by someone else, it may stay unsourced for years and years: but there is no minimum requirement for the moment. 14:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
        • That's not quite true, as there is an ongoing effort (last I heard) to blank out BLP articles that lack sourcing. The Kuralt article is obviously not a BLP situation, and Cresix's threat to delete the well-known story about the "other woman" wreaks of fanatical deletionism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
          • That's also not quite true, we only delete BLP articles that lack sources, that are created after somewhere in March this year, and that have been tagged as a BLPprod for seven days without any improvements. But even these exceptions happen after the fact: nothing has stopped the creation of these articles.Fram (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
            • In any case, that's about BLP's, and there is no BLP issue with the Kuralt article, and no possibility of wikipedia being sued over reporting this old-news story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there an admin needed here, or are we just having a community discussion for the sake of having one? –MuZemike 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Bugs, what about his paramour? She's still alive, isn't she? Anything we say about her is clearly covered by the BLP policy. Anyway, the info is in the article and sourced, now, so I'd say problem solved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Talk:Nair

Resolved

 – Reverted and warned GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

an user posts non-English comment which appears to be offensive and unhelpful. --CarTick 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please let users know when you raise issues concerning them.

I've warned the user, and I see you've already reverted them. I'd suggest that this could be marked resolved. TFOWR 17:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

i will next time. thanks. --CarTick 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

user Disranter

The context of this is a series of edits made by Narwhal2 (talk · contribs) on the 8th and 9th where he added several references to the fringe self-published author Ralph Ellis, and when I removed them went off to various forums complaining about me. Note that he has uploaded File:Baalbek- largest stone.jpg where he identifies himself as Ralph Ellis. 4 days later along comes Disranter (talk · contribs) reinstating an edit Narwhal2 had made (as an aside, the edit was basically redundant as the material is elsewhere in the article). He's been edit-warring to get it back and attacking me at Talk:Joseph of Arimathea, eg "Your fame is spreading though the blogsphere as an opponent of historical research, and there are many who are not impressed." (very ironic) and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This is pretty clearly WP:DUCK *as well as WP:COI. I'm too involved to block him myself. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:

• Disranter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnatorim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Samosterat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoogson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Narwhal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Tiptoety ^talk 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd wondered about Hoogson but hadn't connected him with Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• All blocked and tagged. TFOWR 18:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Forceful intervention in an on-going discussion

I started a discussion on Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games regarding how the article was emphasizing low-priority concerns while neglecting the severe adverse impact of the Games on the city hosting it. Perhaps it was my frustration which made me cross the line of civility while starting that discussion. Anyways, the point is that User:Lucy-marie has forcefully intervened twice in the discussion: first blatantly deleting my comments and then archiving it. According to her, the comments raised by me were not "related to the content of the article". I'm still learning how to have a meaningful discussion with other Wikipedians (I admit that I cannot give diplomatic replies) and this experience definitely didn't help. Not that I'm keen to participate in the discussion but "closing" or "archiving" it was rather too extreme and deeming my concerns as "inappropriate" and "irrelevant" was uncalled for. I'm pretty sure that Lucy would archive the discussion again as it doesn't serve her point of view. Therefore, I would like to seek administrators' intervention in this issue. --King Zebu (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't notify the user about talking here, as the page's rules mandate. I have corrected this for you. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have previous with Lucy-marie so won't take any action either way here, but as far as I can see, with comments like "Some people have twisted brains. It is absolutely disgusting to see that some Wikipedians here are rather too keen to highlight "clogged toilets", "empty seats" and "Delhi Belly" but the article barely mentions the fact that India (home to the world's largest concentration of poor people) spent billions of dollars on a 12-day sporting event. For any sane person, the latter is the biggest controversy related to the 2010 CWG.", "I will just strive to improve the article and not bother much about starting discussions because they will ultimately be "deemed irrelevant" without any logical explanation" and "Ah, I see that you are not an administrator. Interesting." (and editwarring with one of our most experienced sports writers, with an edit summary of "It seems that some people do not understand the difference between an encyclopedia and news outlet") the only one heading for any kind of block or warning here looks to be you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not your personal soapbox. – iridescent 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a forum and that was made abundantly clear in the original edit summary, It seemed appropriate to then close the discussions when it was restarted in an identical vein by the same user who has now reported this to the ANI. The user was given a full explanation as to the reasons why the discussion was closed and the language used by the user in their comments were incendiary and inappropriate to the talk page and Wikipedia as a whole, as demonstrated above by Iridescent. The user appears to be someone who is pushing an agenda and a specific POV and someone who is unfamiliar with the rules and procedures of Wikipedia. I request that the user be either warned or blocked for a short period of time for being deliberately disruptive, rude and incendiary. Users cannot post incendiary language and then complain bitterly when someone says it is inappropriate. The user also seems to fail to realise all users are the same regardless of weather they are an Admin or not. I have been on Wikipedia for a few years now and understand what I am doing. I may though make mistakes from time to time but believe this is not one of those cases. This user believes Wikipedia is a place to discuss anything, anywhere, which it is not. Wikipedia is here to discuss article content and not POV push. I would also request this user be warned as they have made malicious claims against me such as making a "forceful intervention" and making personal attacks and POV pushing which are unfounded and cannot be allowed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lucy-marie's action of archiving that particular discussion. It was starting to get heated and personal, with approaching borderline NPA infringements. It would have worked as a cool-down measure if it had remained, but since the archive/cooldown-measure was undone/unapprecuated, we'll just have to monitor the situation more closely.

Oh as a final note to this post, the discussion that King Zebu started and Lucy Marie deleted was originally titled "Some people have twisted brains" before it was renamed as "My two cents". Though the title was since changed, the discussion remains the same. But with that sort of original title setting the stage for a discussion .... Zhanzhao (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Heavydata being uncivil

Resolved

 – At least let's all pretend like it is. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Heavydata multiple times, and he will not stop being uncivil to other editors. I made a report at Wikiquette alerts. He said that he'd stop being rude. But right after he said that he made an attack page. I've requested directly to the user, Nyttend, who deleted Heavydata's user page, that he'll show what was on the user page. This is getting really annoying, so please help me out on this. Endofskull (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See the userpage, which I've now restored. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, turns out someone else made it. Nevermind that. But other than that, Heavydata been uncivil lots of times. He's gone over what I think should be allowed. Endofskull (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If I read the WQA discussion correctly, he agreed to change his communication methods; your misinterpretation of the vandalism on his user page seems to be the cause of the most recent comments directed at you. I tend to agree with his comments; he's agreed to moderate his actions, and you need to now give him the space to do so. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it best to delete the userpage again, especially in light of Tony Fox's comment. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could probably just blank it, it's not really worth having visible. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DUDE, would you knock it off already?! I said I'd stop, and all you're doing now is making things worse. I have no idea what you have against me, I'd appreciate it if you simple left me alone and stopped posting these ridiculous messages on the notice board. I have one question for you:

What do you want from me? Heavydata (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here, look at the second paragraph (The first one was the one that started this in the first place, so ignore that): [18]. Is that OK with you? Heavydata (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm sorry about that Heavydata. I guess you really have changed. Good job. Please keep doing that, and you'll be absolutely fine. So, I'm going to mark this as resolved! :) Endofskull (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Explosion of IP attacks

AIV is getting buried at an rapid pace by bot reported attacks from IPs such as this. Not sure what to do about this. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reported the IP. Could you list the other ones, please? Endofskull (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Their posts literally never get seen. HalfShadow 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're all being reported at AIV. Endofskull (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating what I said above. Now, what to do about this seemingly coordinated bot attack? Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

RBI, deny and DNFTT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see nothing. HalfShadow 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See the history. It's changing rapidly [[19]. It looks like MaterialScientist figured out a rangeblock or 2. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see this as an issue; if the vandalism isn't actually making to the page, I simply don't care. HalfShadow 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the targeted article should be semi-protected immediately so that AIV won't get flooded with more reports relating to the same vandal; I've already requested the page protection at RPP. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This has stopped, hasn't it? I declined the RFPP because the article has moved off the main page, but that's easy enough to change if the problem persists. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Violations of Talk page guidelines

The Universe Is Cool (talk · contribs · logs)

As can be seen from the history of the user's Talk page, he has removed a series of warnings posted by other editors about his editing and his behavior in violation of WP:TPO. I would have reverted his changes. However, because of the number of edits and intervening undos or blanking, it would be difficult for me to do. My request is that the user's Talk page be reconstructed and he be counseled appropriately.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to blank warnings, however it is taken as de facto evidence they understand the issue and have read it. If his editing behavior is a problem, then he has no quarter or excuse since he's been receiving the notes (whether they remain or not. ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a long list of items that an editor can do to his own Talk page at WP:TPO, but as far as I can see, it doesn't include blanking warnings. Wouldn't it be helpful to add this item to the guidelines, along with your description of the implications of the blanking?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See the very bottom of that section: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but archiving is preferred. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." In practice people are allowed wide latitude in blanking (even if it's uncouth or just bad mannered) but it means you're responsible for reading it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That page is mainly about article talk pages. The relevant policy is at WP:REMOVED. Looie496 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, that resolves the issue for me (and I'm glad I didn't revert anything).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes well they shouldn't be allowed to blank warnings. The only people that tend to blank warnings are the ones who seem to be attempting to hide their behaviour. All it does is disrupt the flow of communication and many times we've ended up having disputes or disruptive users carrying on because they have busy talk pages and no one has the time or patience to piece together their fractured talk pages. Unless there is evidence the warning was given in bad faith it should be archived after a normal period of time like everything else. Blanking talk does not serve the community.--Crossmr (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

sock block needed immed pls, & CU for underlying range

TungstenCarbide XXX (talk · contribs) again. → ROUX ₪ 05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this Elsie? --Jayron32 05:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All I know is it's the 30th incarnation of TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs), whoever that was originally. Can't we hardblock that username or something? → ROUX ₪ 05:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Temporarily forgot that one. I have blocked per quack, however a CU would have to look into a possible IP-level block or rangeblock. I should note, however, that according to several prior CUs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TungstenCarbide/Archive several have declined to block the underlying IP as either impractical (collateral damage) or ineffective (uses too large a range). --Jayron32 05:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another rev del

Diff and edit summary please Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this really need to be revdeled? It just looks like harmless vandalism to me. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RD2 mostly because of the edit summary. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But I fail to see how it is grossly degrading and insulting. By your logic, if the aforementioned diff satisfied RD2, then just about one in every two incidents of vandalism would qualify for revdel. Honestly, somedays I feel like revdel is being unnecessarily overused. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was Osama bin Laden, I would be appalled that such a degrading personal attack would ever be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I mean, saying that he's Jimbo Wales is probably worse than saying that he's the pope. This is clearly a gross slur against Mr. Bin Laden, and must be removed immediately. Buddy431 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I kid, I actually agree with Fastily, that Rev. Deletion is used far too frequently. Buddy431 (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions about these rev/dels. First, does this edit summary qualify since it attacks another editor? Second, do we have (or are we going to start) a page like AIV rather than using this page? Thanks ahead of time for your time in answering these. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This really doesn't qualify for RD, and it would be a stretch to delete it as such. The diff is in no way grossly degrading and insulting. And yes, there is a discussion in progress regarding the establishment of an RD noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Time_for_WP:RFRD.3F. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear - it was not the edit that was a problem it was the edit summary. It looks like another editor agreed with me and did find it (and the many that followed) to be a gross insult to a fellow editor. I hope that there are going to be a hard and fast set of criteria for these rev/dels so that we regular editors don't get confused over things. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note for any who are wondering what edit summary I was using as an example please take a look at the revision history here [20] since the specific edit summary in question has been deleted. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's just run of the mill vandalism, WP:RBI and move on. Jimbo can take it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New edit filter needed

Vandals have been using a new trick to get around the abusefilter:

Examples (possibly objectionable content)

Extended content
FU<nowiki />CK<nowiki /> YOU CU<nowiki />NT I WILL RAPE YOU

this is becoming common and we need a new edit filterAccess Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the above example be removed and hidden, in order not to give instructions to other possible vandals. RolandR (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This probably belongs here. —DoRD (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Kellie Pickler

Resolved

High school kid using IP inserting nasty comments about girl who shot down his date offer or some such. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User attempting to ban and delete discussion on Jerry Brown talk page.

In the California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown's article, over the last several months there has been many photos and portraits placed and/or removed by consensus. Naturally, these photos have been moved to the talk page for discussion. Some users think some photos are bad, some don't.

But User:Off2riorob has come along and began an edit war over a photo in the article.[21][22] And then this user began deleting all the images under discussion in the Jerry Brown talk page.[23] When the photos were placed back, he removed them again with the edit summary including the phrase "Discussion is over", [24], this despite this user being in an edit war over photos. This user continuously removed all or some of the photos. When I attempted to discuss this photo issue on the user's talk page, the user moved the photo to my talk page and stated:

"The picture I have posted here is unworthy of any discussion "[25]

When explaining that there is no content or photos "unworthy of discussion" on article talk pates, User:Off2riorob responded:

Yes, unworthy of discussion, there is nothing to discuss at all, the pic is close to attacking and never had or will have any chance of insertion in the article, so , nothing to discuss at all.[26]

Slanderous WP:BLP issues aside, I strongly believe there should ALWAYS be discussion of ANY content, particularly in something as important as a major candidate for governor of the most populous state in the United States. A user attempting to "ban" and delete discussion of anything should not be tolerated. This user needs to be reminded that they don't have the authority to deem a topic "unworthy of discussion." --Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

am not attempting to ban or delete discussion at all. As for the pics, I did not delete them I replaced them with the links for access, the discussion about the infobox pic is imo over, the clearly best pic is in the infobox.there is no reason to have a picture farm on the talkpage, I was especially wanting to remove this pic as it has no chance of ever getting in the article and as such does not need to be on the talkpage, it makes the subject appear angry and imo is a negative portrayal, user Oakshade has reverted all my good faith edits and I don't see what more he wants. I am a complete neutral in the American current elections and there is some awful partisan editing occurring across multiple such articles. Like this, what is the insistence to keep negative pictures on the talkpage that will never ever have any chance of insertion in the article, this pic I would remove on sight, so what discussion is needed and why insist on keeping it on the talkpage.   Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Comment, I also object to the title of this section. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  I changed it. Hope that helps. --TS 20:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I removed the bizarre bit. It was attacking Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care much about this, but as far as I can tell this is an official gubernatorial portrait. What's the problem? Or is that some other edit war? --TS 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the image in dispute is File:Former Governor Jerry Brown.jpg. –xeno^talk 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) that one →

Near as I can figure, the odd painting size is the issue -- which is not really worthy of an ANI complaint at this point (indeed, the file name in 2008 was apparently a bone of contention - with two different pictures bearing the same file name?). I think the game of using ugly pictures and other political silly season work should be viewed with a jaundiced eye for all articles. It certainly does not appear that Brown has much negative material in his BLP, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I see that now in the hist of the article. –xeno^talk 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He may not be the cheshire-cat, but that's definitely a smile there. Most likely the picture was taken whilst he was speaking, but as Freudian as it may be, I don't see any anger in the picture. a_man_alone (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - if we're actually talking about this picture - [27], why are we showing another one in the discussion? I'm confused now. a_man_alone (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User Off2riorob attempted to remove both, one from the article (the official Governor portrait because Off2riorob didn't like it) and the other as well as all photos from the talk page so they couldn't even be discussed.--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The glob pic imo is a poor representation of a living person and I boldly removed it from the article, it was replaced as notable, although it has no citations to support that the picture is notable for inclusion even though it is a poor representation of a living person, I requested citations to prove it is notable. user Oakshade replaced it and in an effort to reduce the effect of the picture I then reduced the size, it was also imo quite large, user oaktree then reverted my edit and again made the picture bigger Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If by "glob pic" you mean the Official Governor of California portrait, your opinion is noted but it is only your opinion. To clarify, it was a different user who reverted your removal of the Official Governor Portrait, not me.[28]--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:E brownjr.jpg

Official gubernatorial portrait of Jerry Brown painted by Don Bachardy

Not worthy of an ANI complaint? I'll tell you what isn't worthy of an ANI complaint: nearly every single whining complaint on ANI! This board was originally designated for admins to communicate with one another about matters of importance, not every petty edit war in existence. Just stop it and learn how to pursue dispute resolution. Leave this page for its designated purpose. --TS 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Stacy Naoto Kodani

I'm not sure what needs to be done about this page, so I was hoping an admin can look at it. Three different new users (probably all the same person) have tried to remove most of the content from the page, and the more recent two have also nominated it for deletion. The most recent prod tag says that the information on the page has helped compromise "important accounts" [29]. This person obviously has some concern about the page, and I have no idea what the proper way to address it is. Calathan (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD, since I disagree with it. They can take it to AfD if they wish, but I really don't see much "personal information" in the article. Certainly nothing that couldn't be found from a google search anyways. Silverseren^C 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment since I realize I mispoke, the first and second accounts tried to remove most of the content from the page, but not the third account, who only placed a prod tag on it. The second account did put on AFD tag on the page, but didn't follow through and actually create the AFD discussion. I ended up removing that AFD tag when I reverted the edits that removed most of the content from the page, but perhaps someone could help this person start an AFD discussion. Calathan (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits at the Soviet ministry articles

Resolved

 – editor already warned, reported at AN3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Harrypotter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he is creating two articldes on the same topic; the People's Commissariat for Finance and the Ministry of Finance of the USSR, and all other commissariat and ministrial articles on the topic of the USSR. The organizations are the name, sources say so, these organizations were renamed. At the same time, the organisations' structure and its duties and responsibilities stayed the same after ther renaming process. Creating TWO articles ON THE SAME topic is ludicrous. Also he is copying material that i wrote on the ministry pages on the people's commissariat pages, so the pages become redundant.

List of examples:

• see his talk page, he is unwilling to discuss a solution
• See the pages of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs and People's Commissariat for Finance revision history, he is creating articles which has copied material from the ministry articles' i wrote. See his recent edit on the Council of People's Commissars. Sources say it was renamed, Soviet sources from the renaming process says it was reorganised, I don't really give a dam about the reorganisation process seeing these organisation had very little effect on the basic structures on these ministries.
• he creates redundant second articles like this one (link) and copies the text of the Ministry of Finance articles, he has done the same thing to the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs on several occasions. It may not be vandalism, but it is REALLY unconstructive and thats the reason for why he should be blocked for 24 hours, because of his uconstructive edits. If you do this, he might stop his unconstructive behavior. --TIAYN (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that redirects already existed from the OLD name (commissariat) to the NEW name (ministry). What Harrypotter has done is copied the text from the ministry article into the redirect (without accreditation!), removing the redirect. This may simply be due to him not being particularly familiar with Wikipedia, but he ought to respond to explanations that this is not the way to do it. TIAYN has now restored the redirects, which is the right thing to do. As long as Harrypotter does not edit war over this, or try to do any others, there shouldn't be a problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Further, User:Magog the Ogre has warned him about copypasting, and I have advised that any new information he wishes to add needs to go in the existing article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Harrypotter has been here since June 2005 and has made over 12,000 edits, so he should be rather familiar with how Wikipedia works by now... Fram (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice on his talkpage that another editor is arguing that the commissariats and the ministries should have separate articles [30]. I have no comments as to whether that view is correct but I have left a note that it is the copypasta that is the significant problem - he needs to create the articles properly.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Soviet sources say reorganised/renamed, modern scholarly sources say renamed, this means, the People's Commissariats and Ministries are just the same, there is no need for two seperate articles covering the same topic, when the article in itself are very small and sources are already very scarce. --TIAYN (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a content discussion for another place. And could you stop marking all your edits as minor please. If you have the 'mark all edits as minor' option turned on, could you turn it off. Thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

here, the Soviet law say transformed, but never say they dissolved the Council of People's Commissars and created a new executive branch, known as the Council of Ministers of the USSR. It says transformed, and it says that for a reason. Yes, it is a content issue, but it is a serious one and when editiors act as unconstructive as he does, it is hard to improve the coverage of these ministries. --TIAYN (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are now good suggestions on Harrypotter's talkpage about where to discuss whether one or two articles are appropriate (especially as you appear to have merged two into one at some point). Harrypotter's faulty process in how he recreated the articles does not invalidate that need for discussion on the underlying content dispute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just a brief note to opine that Trust Is All You Need is correct, historically speaking, that the "People's Commissariats" were simply renamed "Ministries." An American analogy would be the renaming of the "War Department" to the "Defense Department" — the name change does not indicate an institutional change, only a change of nomenclature, and there should not be two articles established on that basis. Carrite (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember to notify users when reporting them to ANI. Harrypotter has now been notified. --Stickee (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I declined a block at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Harrypotter reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result:declined). I also recommended the users file a dispute, that this is not appropriate for an administrator noticeboard yet. And frankly, to reporter: the fact that you got turned down at AN3 and brought the matter here (without making a link) is forum shopping. I'm marking this as closed, as there is no new information. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - also was turned down at AIV.  7  00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Forsyth, not run over by bus

Resolved

 – Semi'ed by Dabomb87. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Bruce Forsyth article, I see several edits from IP addresses, all looking much like this diff, adding information on death today. I cannot find any news reports confirming this, and a look at Twitter shows only a couple of tweets about a rumour.

Perhaps this article could be semi-protected for a time until the situation is clear? --Pete (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of verifiable information on the Ani article

Two days ago, an IP user deleted, in two separate edits, a large chunk of verifiable information from the article on the medieval city of Ani. Here, he removed a block quote and its accompanying source; and over here, he removed the introductory line preceding the block quote. According to a message left on the talk page of the IP, that information was supposedly restored, but after two days it still has not been re-added. I would do the edit myself, except that a topic-ban regarding this field prevents me from doing so. If it is not too much to ask, can a responsible editor re-add said information? Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You could always re-add it yourself? Also, if you want to have the page semi-protected, you should try asking at WP:RFPP. One possible outcome of such a request could be that the individual IPs are warned, or possibly blocked if they have been repeatedly warned. If they have not be warned, then warning is always a good first step. Just some thoughts. Thank you. 64.128.201.49 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I re-added it. Good luck Marshall! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. I appreciate it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone put an end to this?

Resolved

 – No need for this, it's a simple mistake. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Here I am, reading Wikipedia in the local cafe, and the new messages light pops up. So, I go to my talk page, and read the warning, which is over a year old. Realizing that as I am working on a shared IP, that this message is certainly not intended for me, nor is intended for the other current users of the IP, I replaced the message with the standard shared IP template. The next thing I know, the new messages lights up yet again. What do you know, my edit has been reverted. I remove the message again and leave a message on the editor's talk page explaining the issue. While I am in the middle of adding this message, bang, the new message light pops up again. What do you know, I have been reverted yet again. Isn't there a policy against this sort of thing? (1) A user removing a warning from his/her talk page is indication that the message has been read, and there is no need to revert it, (2) A warning on a shared IP page that is years old certainly does not need to be re-added again and again. It is extremely unlikely that this is the same editor. I am afraid that IPs are just not treated with the same respect as users who log in. I was actually about to log in when I got the new messages light, and I was simply trying to clear the warning since it clearly did not apply anymore. Thank you. 64.128.201.49 (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, I just made a mistake. Another user has already pointed me to wikipedia:DRC. Not knowing that policy was why I had asked another user to remove his warning off my talk page (he made a mistake). I did not know I was allowed to remove my own warnings. I am only human. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then this is closed? Somewhat ironic (or hypocritical) considering that you are frequently blanking your own user talk page. 64.128.201.49 (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oy vey. I'm just going to mark this as resolved. RE was acting in good faith, and most users are surprised to learn that IPs are allowed to clear warnings from their own pages. Seems counterintuitive. No harm intended, no drama needed. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sven. And FYI, I only restored the comment once, as can be seen from the history in the IP's talk page. I had messed up my edit somehow and then fixed it. Also, according to the history, you complained here right after I did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaper Eternal (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of racist comments

Resolved

 – There is nothing here S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's about enough WP:IDHT thanks

We could easily have articles about greedy Jews, drunken Irishmen, dumb Poles and ignorant Americans, and claim that the article was merely listing examples rather than promoting a fringe theory. I have ask him to strike the comments, he refused. diff in the same breath he compares "greedy jews" to "mass killers" he also tries to make a case for anti-communist also being anti-semitic? after a search of the archeives, TFD name appeared several times with the term "Jew". Darkstar1st (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC) That's an example of hyperbole, not racism. Not enough information to comment any more than that. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Indeed, he is listing other things which he claims are stereotypes or fringe theories about groups of people. My reading of this comment is that he rejets those, and that if we have an article on such incorrect ideas, we should not just present the ideas, but indicate the fringe nature of them. Whether he is right about the communism article, I don't know, and I haven't checked his history, but I see absolutely no racism in this post by TFD. Fram (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. I've been following some of TFD's comments for a month now, and I've never seen anything approaching racism, but I could be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The killing of kulaks and cossak was not different from killing Jews. talk page—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) Um, are you implying that the killing of kulaks and cossacks is somehow different from the killing of Jews? That looks to me more like a racist comment than the comment made by TFD. Comparing ethnic cleansings is awalys a dangerous thing, but stating that killing a cossack child during an ethnic cleansing is comparable to killing a Jewish child during an ethnic cleansing isn't that farfetched. The next sentence of TFD's comment was "The death of a Ukranian Kulak child deliberately starved by the policies of Stalinism is equal to the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto deliberately starved by Nazis." To see any racism or antisemitism in such a statement seems to me to be a huge mistake. Fram (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Agree (with Viriditas). Also, "Americans" are not a race by any definition I'm aware of (and, thinking a bit further, neither are Poles or Irishmen). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Auschwitz was after all modelled on the gulags. Considering the severe threat posed by Communism, the actions of Nazi Germany at least had a rational basis. are you serious? "rational basis"? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Darkstar, that is invidious misquoting. As clearly described in that talk page he is paraphrasing the views of "Furet, Nolte and Courtois." Please be aware of your responsibility in providing adequate context when quoting other editors. Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC) the text was his explanation of the book and not a quote from the book as it was originally posted. if the author actually said such, perhaps you would supply us the page #? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC) That may be, but TFD is correct. The Final Solution was a rational enterprise. "...the defining features of modern bureaucracy were not only well established in Germany during the Holocaust, but made the Holocaust possible...Even the choice of extermination 'was an effect of the earnest effort to find rational solutions to successive "problems", and at no point did the Holocaust come into conflict with the principles of rationality."[31] Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC) My meaning was that we could create an article about members of a group that shared certain attributes, and although the examples might be factual the article would imply a POV. That should be clear from the talk page discussion and that is how most other editors understood it. The statement about kulaks is from the Black book of Communism which is used as a source for the article and which I oppose including. I provided a reference to Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared which opposes this comparison.[32] If Darkstar1st believes that the comments made in the Black Book are anti-Semitic, then he should also agree that it should not be used as a source for the article. TFD (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC) This complaint has no substance, and obviously so. I notice Darkstar1st has been accused of being a sock of User:RJII, in an SPI that didn't get much airing. Perhaps a suitable PLAXICO effect for this frivolous complaint would be for any interested parties to revisit that issue and see if they can shed more light on it. Rd232 talk 09:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) i wasn't the only one offended by greedy jews , others in talk said so at the time, the fact that none of you see the hurt caused by enforcing stereotypes even to make a point is astonishing. lets try it a different way, and see if it is offensive this time, i'll the second word, you think of the 1st word you associate with the term in a derogatory since: ______ Muslim, ______ Italian, ______ Mexican, ________ African-American Darkstar1st (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The point that TFD was trying to make is that because those stereotypes are offensive, so is all stereotyping. → ROUX ₪ 10:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Only one person misconstrued TFD's remarks, and was criticised for it by several others as being a personal attack. The issue had lain for several days by the time you brought it here, and examining the circumstances makes your complaint here worse, not better. In view of the fact that this entirely frivolous complaint concerns charges of anti-semitism, it amounts to harassment. Rd232 talk 10:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (multiple ec)He is not enforcing stereotypes, he is stating that such fringe stereotypes about groups of people should be countered on Wikipedia, which is the opposite of racism. I hope you are not denying that the offensive stereotype of the greedy Jew exists? You give me the impression of only reacting to the words "greedy Jew", without noticing how and why they were used here. By the way, I may have missed it but the "others" (plural) in talk, who were they? I only see user Collect sharing your interpretation, and Writegeist an Rick Norwood disagreeing with Collect. I fail to understand why people are trying to paint TFD's comments as racist an antisemitic when he is actually claiming that those drawing a "connection between Jews and Communists" (in the framework of communist mass killings) are anti-semitic far right conspiracists, and that he wants Wikipedia to show how fringe that position is. He may be right, he may be incorrect, I don't really care, but everyting you have shown here are comments by TFD that are anti-racist and anti-antisemetic. Fram (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The point that TFD was trying to make is that because those stereotypes are offensive, so is all stereotyping. → ROUX ₪ 10:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC) This report has absolutely nothing to it. It is immediately obvious to me that TFD was deploring the idea of racial stereotyping masquerading as established fact. His post that you link to is infact quite insightful and explanatory. Boldly closing through WP:COMMONSENSE S.G.(GH) ping! 10:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC) so having an article about mass killings under communist regimes is as ridicules as having an article about greedy jews? i fail to see the logic, one is backed by historical fact, the other is a racial slur. @RD232, do you consider drunken Irishmen dumb poles anti-semitic? i used the term racist, anti-Semite is your description. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think we should have articles on French people that portray them as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, it would be fringe theory masquerading as fact. Note, in that sentence, I did not call all French people cheese-eating surrender monkeys, I merely commented on the perception. This is what TFD did, it is not racist to state that such stereotypes exist, particularly when his comment is openly against such stereotypes. I fail to understand why you are not getting what everyone on this thread is trying to point out to you. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC) maybe it is you who doesn't get it? Why don't you ask a friend who is Jewish, Irish or Polish, see if they think using a hurtful stereotype to make a political point on wp is kosher? I doubt you will find any French who will be offended by the word cheese, however "surrender monkey" go over well. using offensive terms to make a point, does not lessen the sting of the term. try explaining this in front of real people and see what kind of reaction you get after saying greedy jew in any context. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Close thread again, apply trout.  pablo 10:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

The subpage hasn't been edited in about 2 weeks, so timestamping this thread for archival. –xeno^talk 14:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kubura - hounding, sock puppetry, disruptive editing, personal attacks

Background

User Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of conflict with other editors over articles relating to Croatia. See his contribs. On 4 October I made two reversions of pending changes to previously accepted versions of Croatian language: [33] and [34]. As there appeared to be an edit war starting, I asked in the edit summaries for discussions of changes to take place on the article's talk page to attempt to reach some consensus. As the user, Jack Sparrow 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and some Croatian IPs had continuously made the same edit, I asked for page protection [35].

Hounding

Kubura arrived at my talk page two days later to obviously make a WP:POINT and posted a 3RR warning [36] to which I responded explaining that he was in error and that my only involvement was as a reviewer, that he should feel free to either strike out the warning or recognise his error or not but that either way he should at least check contribution histories before lashing out and issuing warnings out of some vendetta. He chose to do neither, and in his response he addressed another user who had commented, and used a phrase that does not pop up often (see Sock puppetry below) "don't etiquette the opponent as nationalists."

I removed the warning myself two days later only for Kubura to return a further two days later and reinstate it with the summary "No censorship. You appeared on edit warring on 4 Oct 2010 with 2 reverts in 28 minutes, without explanation on the talkpage." A page watcher saw the reinstatement and removed it here [37]. Getting thoroughly peeved with this WP:HOUNDING I asked Kubura to stop posting irrelevant warnings on my talk page. Kubura responded that as far as he was concerned I was part of a tag team pushing POV on the article. I attempted again to impress upon Kubura that he was wrong not to AGF my 2 reversions of 4 October, that I was not part of a tag team or anti-Croatian conspiracy and that I was fed up to the eyeballs with his hounding. He then repeated his tag team allegation to an admin, stating that I was gaming the system: [38].

His next step in his campaign of harassment was to complain about me at WP:WQA here: [39]. This was in the midst of another rampage of WP:POINT warnings, where he issued notices of WP:ARBMAC to everyone who he disagreed with, and then posted to another user a hint to do his dirty work for him in reporting User:Kwamikagami to WP:ANI here: [40] as he could hardly go there himself due to unclean hands.

Sock puppetry, disruptive editing and personal attacks

Kubura has since made no logged in edits, however the campaign of disruptive editing and hounding has been continued by Croatian IPs: [41], [42], [43] including the same allegation of censorship directed at me that Kubura used, [44], [45] demonstrating an understanding of wiki editing, [46]. The IP focuses his attacks on me (for censorship), and Kubura's two other favourite targets, Kwamikagami and User:Ivan Štambuk. He specifically cites Kwamikagami's WP:INVOLVED investigation, and another subject close to Kubura's heart, Ivan's "insults." Another Croatian IP, 83.131.95.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated the same arguments used by Kubura, made personal attacks calling other editors "liars", and trotted out the same phrases including the accusation that people were "ettiqueted as Croatian nationalist," an unusual turn of phrase used by Kubura.

I call WP:DUCK.

Relief

In view of the above, I am raising these matters for the attention of others, and request that you consider if any action should be taken against Kubura. Personally, I believe he should be blocked indefinitely, but I leave the conclusions to be drawn by, and any outcome decided, to my peers. Keristrasza (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Keristrasza's evaluation of the situation with User:Kubura. Keristrasza has been totally uninvolved with the discussions at Talk:Croatian language, but Kubura dragged him/her in nonetheless with ridiculous accusations. Kubura's hounding goes beyond just Keristrasza as well. He/she actively sought out someone who has a past history of reporting User:Kwamikagami for admin issues. This research turned up User:Neutralhomer, and Kubura posted this on his/her talk page. Neutralhomer then trotted over to WP:AN/I and used Kubura's information to initiate an AN/I complaint against Kwamikagami (a complaint which led nowhere). Kubura has contributed nothing to the discussion at Talk:Croatian language and has been disruptive on the Talk pages of those who oppose his/her POV. --Taivo (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Death threat

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Breeg_%28Person%29&action=historysubmit&diff=390816883&oldid=390816799 216.93.213.191 (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was the page deleted? The authorities need to be able to see this. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G3. I do think it should be undeleted for now, though. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Credible threats should be reported. If you feel this threat was credible then reply here. I do not, and apparently neither did the admin who deleted it. I have indef'd the account though.  7  03:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not undelete death threats, under ANY circumstances. If the authorities wish to know exactly what was posted, then that is an administrator's job to email them with said information. –MuZemike 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I missed something? If only I had some power tools--I made that talk page, explaining why I nominated the article for speedy deletion as a hoax. But I have two mean, mean dogs to protect me. You'd be surprised at how terrifying a Miniature Schnauzer can look in the middle of the night. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

True... as I think about it, that could potentially be bad PR in the future. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 04:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Buy yourself a Spaniel. Anybody comes to the door/window, that dog is sure to pee immediately - and bad guys hate stepping in dog pee on the way into the house. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that erstwhile good guys will be tempted to break into your spaniel guarded house because, due to the Laws of Inverse Property, they delight in stepping in dog pee? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I'm the admin who deleted the page. I'm not sure that the threat was on the page when I started to delete it—the edit and the deletion are both time-stamped 03:44 UTC. If I had noticed it, I would have brought the matter here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to comment here ... don't worry about the authorities being able to see the threats, when they're notified. I assure you, the appropriate authorities know pretty well how to get in touch with the Foundation, and we will work with them to provide any information they need, within the guidance of our legal counsel. Let's not ever assume something SHOULDNT be deleted so that the police can see it - it's a better thing to assume that they'll know how to find us and see it. Thanks... Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors who advocate violence

Even for ANI this is too pointless; find something productive to do, please. Looie496 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am concerned about Nableezy Most of this editor's work is in the Israel/Palestine area. On his user page he openly advocates violence. http://wikibias.com/2010/10/who-edits-wikipedia-part-ii/ His language openly supports the right of "all individuals and groups" to take up guns, bombs and rockets and kill innocent people. I think that it is inappropriate for an individual with thee views to edit on Israel and Palestine pages.Andycarr78 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC) We can't really do anything to some one for having views like that, but we can do something if you have provide Diffs of civility violations or threats toward an individual. Or some context to what you complaint is about. I would general agree with the statement above depding on the context as every one does have the right to defend them selves but its all context The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Even from that biased source, you can distill the correct statement. It says: “This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties." The biased source then goes on to explain that the "correct interpretation" of this statement is as follows: "This statement justifies Hamas rocket attacks on civilians, the massacre of Israeli children on school buses, and the bombing of the Oklahoma city federal office building". This looks bit similar to me to how Obama's health care plan became a plan to euthanize senior citizens. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Oh please, this junk again? If you don't know the history...IIRC this goes back a very long time to a user named Embargo (talk · contribs), whose user page had varying versions of; ' This user supports the Islamic resistance. on it, the above being the most recent and mild. Unfortunately, even this still was never good enough for Embargo's wiki-opponents, thus he eventually left the project. Nableezy's current tag appears to be a much milder takeoff on this old one, with the links as a form of protest. Nowhere in it does it actually link to Hezbollah as Embargo's did, which was generally the crux of his problems, and I don't give two shits what some half-baked conspiracy site like wikibias.com has to say about affairs on the Wikipedia. Tell em to get bent. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Andy Carr, do you have any reliable sources for these assertions? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Are we really saying that users are not responsible for the content of their userpages unless quoted in a wp:RS? The idea seems preposterous. Or did Orangemike mean that we need an RS to be able to tell that the userpage is full of advocacy? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I think Orange Mike was looking for a cite for "take up guns, bombs and rockets and kill innocent people." That part seems absent from Nableezy's userpage. TFOWR 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Nothing to see here IMO. Mo ainm~Talk 16:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Andycarr78, wikibias.com ? Really ? That's where you get your information about editors ? ...and your 9th edit to Wikipedia is an ANI posting ? Jeez. At the very least can an admin officially notify Andycarr78 about the discretionary sanctions and log it please. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Innit Wikibias about as believable as Fox News? HalfShadow 17:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC) HalfShadow, that is an ignorant comment. Additionally, there is no need to defame Fox News in this discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC) That's right. There are plenty of other opportunities out there for defaming Fox News. In fact, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I'm more concerned that we may have defamed wikibias by comparing it to Fox. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I'm glad my one userbox is supporting a cause far more cut and dry than this one... come on, can we drop this now? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The irony of this is that an Israel supporter could post essentially the same assertion as is being complained about here - because in Israel's eyes, they are under attack from all directions, and hence they feel justified in using violence to protect themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I think it is a terrible userbox. It advocates violence while also it was also created to make a point and stick it to other editors. It is some sort or "protest" against the decision sometime ago. He has been asked multiple times to remove it. He won't and people rally to his defense. Baseballbugs and I are on the same page since I have recently created a [userbox. I think it is mildly disruptive but consensus seems to allow these things. I will be happy to remove it if things change and these are considered not acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Cute. Kind of the Galactic Empire philosophy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The trilogy Galactic Empire or the prequel trilogy Galactic Empire? HalfShadow 18:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Whichever trilogy it was where the Empire was ruled with an iron fist yet 50 or 100 of its soldiers at a time couldn't hit a stationary target, and where it was eventually defeated by clumsy dwarfs in furry suits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Since people are so busy whining about "users supporting violence", I find it a bit curious that nobody has brought up userboxes like these: This user supports the troops in Iraq. This user supports the troops. Surely these are every bit as big of a problem as banners supporting the other side of the conflict, no? Or is it only a particular type of violence we advocate on Wikipedia? Why don't you all bugger off, and stop wasting everyone's time trying to cause problems for an editor whose politics you don't agree with? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC) "Bugger off? Uncivil, Jrtayloriv. Vastly uncivil.Andycarr78 (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC) ..and saying someone said "kill innocent people" when they didn't is what, moderately impolite, not cricket, frowned upon ? ..man. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) I fully advocate violence against userboxes in general, as my own page states. Let's get back to more important matters now, like Star Trek episode articles. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Supporting one's troops is not necessarily the same thing. Although maybe the editor would get less flack if he would take a more positive approach, by posting a yellow ribbon and saying, "I support the Palistinian troops." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC) There is a vast difference between advocating the right of any individual with a grievance to take up a weapon and murder someone, as Nableezy does. And advocating the right of a legitimate government to use police and military forces to prevent violence or in self-defense. Civilized people call this distinction civilization. The difference lies in the right of individuals to from a legitimate government to protect themselves and their families from violence. And in the fact that governments, police and armies in well-governed states operate under rules that limit the use of violence and protect the security of persons. Under the rules of Nableezy's UserBox, any individual who claims that a government is illegitimate can pick up a gun and murder any other individual. Or blow up the Oklahoma City federal building. That way lies the disintegration of civilization into a world of violence.Andycarr78 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC) The problem in the Israeli situation is that each side is firmly convinced they have the moral high ground, and neither is strong enough to defeat the other. Violence is not exactly new, you know. Peace doesn't necessarily come from deciding to get along, it often comes from conquest. And when you've got a situation like in the middle east, a stalemate, it can only get uglier over time - until someone finally wins, or they get tired of fighting, which can take a long, long time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I think that anyone that advocates any view as the theme of their user space should be kept away from dealing with it in article space. User:Nableezy happens to have devoted his/her entire userpage to pro-palestine text and images. Therefore it calls into question his/her ability to be neutral in palestine related manners. Same thing for the other side. One "I support the Red Sox" userbox shouldn't bar a person from editing the red sox, but a whole page with quotes and images should. Sven Manguard Talk 19:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) (ec3)As I've said before, I love it how both sides have chosen Wikipedia to be a battlefront within the larger Middle East conflict, and think that creating or deleting other user's userboxes actually matters in the grand scheme of things. I created my own in the wake of Embargo's railroading, in fact. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC) WP:NOT#FORUM would seem to cover it. User pages are not a good place to advocate one side of a battleground issue or another. Where the advocacy is uncontroversial or unchallenged we let it slide as a reasonable exercise of self-expression. It's a fallacy to say that because we allow some, we have to allow it all. Having a POV doesn't disqualify anyone from editing articles, they just have to abide by the rules and work with other editors to create a neutral article. Advertising a POV or adopting controversial userboxes doesn't disqualify you, it's just not the best way to encourage collaboration and goodwill. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

128.104.truth

128.104.truth (talk · contribs) is an occasional editor here who previously was blocked for edit warring BLP-violating material into the Brittny Gastineau article. BLP discussions and consensus on the page was clearly to keep the material (dealing with her appearance in the Borat movie) out of the article. 128.104.truth has returned several times to renew the discussion and readd the material [47] [48] [49], but consensus at the two locations again was to exclude it.

Since April, he's returned on several occasions to continue to try and put the material in the article [50] [51] [52] [53], each time being reverted. However, his further behavior is what has led me to bring this to ANI. When 128.truth is reverted on the Gastineau article, his next move is usually to stalk and revert the edits of the editor who removed the BLP violation. For example, in August he inserted the material [54] twice [55], then followed Off2rioRob to the V. Ganapati Sthapati article and reverted [56] a long series of edits he had made. This month, he's added the material again [57], then followed Onorem to the Beverly Hills Chihuahua article to revert him [58], followed Rob to revert [59] him, and followed me to two other articles [60] [61]. Today, he seems to be taunting other editors with his edits [62].

Would an admin mind taking a look at the behavior from this account? Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, this is pretty egregious stalking and harassment of users that "the truth" is having editing disputes with. Fully support a block, probably indef, at this point. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite agree. The editor has undoubtedly been stalking and needs to cease that behavior, but he doesn't edit all that frequently and most of the edits have been useful -- although certainly not all. It seems to me that the appropriate response at this point is to leave a very clear and unambiguous warning on the talk page, and I have done so. But if another admin feels that stronger action is called for, I have no objection. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Kquinn2 − Unblock Troll

Resolved

 – Talk page access disabled by Tony Fox ~ mazca ^talk 20:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at User talk:Kquinn2. He was blocked for being a vandalism only account, and has had three appeals rejected. He's just lodged his fourth appeal of the day. Each time he seems to ignore the admin's verdict, he doesn't seem to have read WP:GAB, and just keeps banging the same drum that had him blocked in the first place. I think he's trolling, and suggest a talk page block per WP:DENY. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. He's obviously not going to get it, and the voluminous insistence that his addition is good is getting annoying. Talk page access removed, suggestion to contact Arbcom left. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a fine line between trolling and just a gratuitous failure to get the point - whichever one he was doing, it wasn't going to be aided by further unblock requests. ~ mazca ^talk 20:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum civility issue

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.

---

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

Can a previously uninvolved admin please instruct Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) not to use such language when commenting at my user talk page? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why, what's wrong with it? And since when did admins get to "instruct" other editors?Parrot of Doom 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're looking for an admin who hasn't been the target of Malleus' blunt language? Good luck with that. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Parrot, if you actually read it, there was some cursing it. Seems that he is also has a nice block record of that also. I don't even see why he keeps getting unblocked early, but then again it isn't my issue.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to read that three times before I understood it, but thanks for presuming I hadn't read something about which I was commenting. I think that says more about you than it does me. Parrot of Doom 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Parrot, Sorry, I left a note on your talk page. It is my fault for not assuming good faith.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• You're on a hiding to nothing here. Using fuck as an intensifier is not inherently incivil. Even if it were, Malleus is immune to any criticism of how he speaks. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jclemens, in that case, any admin other than myself stating such in a post to his user talk page, would be appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And why would I want to kick that hornets' nest? Any of us who've been around for a while know how Malleus conducts himself, how he responds to attempts to change it, and how effective the community is not at doing anything about it. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't take action myself, but it's my belief that an RFC based on long-term incivility is well overdue. Nobody should be fireproof here, however well-connected they may appear to be. The break may well be when one's own supporters give up the ghost as being no longer sustainable. I'll leave it to others to decide that. Rodhullandemu 23:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Using "fuck" as an intensifier is inherently uncivil, in the context of our policy WP:CIVIL. I can't take action here either but accord with RHE that a RFCU might be the next step. --John (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a rule for long term incivility anyways? Knowing admins to unblock you ain't cool.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because your version of civility might be different to another person's. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't what the policy says. It says (in part) "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor... can ... result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." I'd say this outburst is probably blockworthy in itself, when taken alongside MF's history, though it may be worth taking the context into consideration, something I have not (yet) examined. --John (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that, what happens if another admin just unblocks him?--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Then another one will just block me again. It's happened before. What I continue to find curious is why so many admins like John are just slavering to find any reasn to block me, when I do far more for this project than they could ever dream of. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's just the arrogance that is anathema to this project, and is arguably the supposed source of your immunity. Contributing here isn't just the content you've provided, but I've also argued on several occasions that there are two dimensions to being here; content contribution and collegiality, and it is on the latter point that you appear to be missing the point. See above: "nobody is fireproof". You may have allies, for now, but that may not last. With great respect to your content contributions, a holistic and collegiate attitude might save you from perdition, but it has to be said that I don't see your usual acolytes flooding to your defence right now. Hmmm? Rodhullandemu 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm is right. I'm just watching and wondering when someone is going to say anything about Cirt's long-standing approach to FAR. Oh ... Malleus finally did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For fucks sake, not this thread again. Out of pure curiosity, would it have been any better if Malleus had said "I believe that you don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about."? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 00:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. There comes a time when to enjoy the picnic, you must swat the wasp. THis has been going on for far too long. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Admins are neither the naughty words police, nor supposed to look away when casual abuse of other editors happens. Sometimes, the former becomes or is part of the latter.

A lot of thin skinned people are sensitive to naughty words, which is why we try to discourage them, and sometimes have to whack someone for using them. But we really need to focus more on casual or directed abuse.

Malleus (if I may paraphrase some years of familiarity) seems to believe that naughty words never transgress into outright abuse, and has a higher threshold for what's abuse than the community writ large. The community does not as a whole agree with that, hence WP:CIVIL and various editor abuse blocks that have happened and will undoubtedly happen again. There is an ongoing debate about where the line should be.

IMHO - Malleus put the first foot "wrong" but the two of them were starting to engage in a bit of mutual combatantry there. The wrongness was into the grey area but not across the line in a clear manner, and was clearly more of an exasperated utterance than a focused intentional insult. These are not good, but "admins are not the naughty words police".

With that said - Malleus, please knock it off. Cirt took it as a personal attack. You're pushing too hard when people react to you that way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt didn't take it as a "personal attack" at all, he saw it as an excuse to have me blocked again, along with his mate Rodhullandemu. A rational personal looking at the circumstances, should one ever be found amongst wikipedia's administrators, might even conclude that the incivility was on Cirt's part, even though he didn't actually use a naughty word. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why did he come here for an opinion? And I specifically deferred blocking you, or whatever, to an RFC. I'm amazed that you have any idea what a "rational person" may think, given your history, but, I do urge you to read our article on paranoia before take one step further forward. As I read it, your credibility here is rapidly going down the drain, and that isn't up to me; it's up to you. So fix it. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you read the start of this thread? He didn't come here for an opinion, he came here to ask someone to admonish me. Go on, block me, you know you want you. I bet you're hovering that button even as we speak, and you're probably not alone. Malleus Fatuorum 01:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• No thanks. When I see a rich source of the comedy of ridicule enfolding, there is no way I am going to stifle it, because professionally, I can use it. You go full steam ahead. I've been asked for another draft script, and the richness of this is beyond price. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The "rich source of comedy" I see is clearly not the same one as you see. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my effing god, he said "fuck". I am so offended. Yworo (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

MF gets shlepped here so often, they're considering naming the new wing after him. Actually, the offensive part was saying that the other editor didn't have a clue. That's equivalent to calling him an idiot, which at one time here was considered uncivil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, you dirty so-and-so! Your mother was an elderberry and your father smells of hamsters! HalfShadow 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This thread's feeling much bettah! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

MF is blocked for 12 hrs, not for the original comment, but for the responses here. notification on his talk page

The responses here were not ruder or more abusive, but they did constitute a denial that anyone would legitimiately take offense at his language and behavior. Whether Malleus' viewpoint on civility is right or wrong, he is aware that he's operating at the outside edge of community norms here, and knows what those norms are. To do so in the honest belief that those norms are wrong - and I don't for a minute doubt his beliefs - is not wrong. But anyone operating intentionally and knowingly outside community norms cannot reject the effect that those actions have on others, or abandon responsibility for the offenses caused.

It would be one thing to say "I did not intend that as a personal attack", which I think is true. It's another to say "...and nobody could take it as a personal attack, and it must be other hostile motives," which Malleus did. Obviously people can take it as a personal attack. Most of the time they won't - but when they do, it's an editors' responsibility to acknowledge that and take responsibility for it.

Counterattacking, by denying that anyone could be offended and questioning motives in the complaint, IS a personal attack.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus never said such a thing as "...and nobody could take it as a personal attack, and it must be other hostile motives," (certainly not those exact words, and their spirit doesn't seem to be in his words either) and your suggestion that he did may be among the more problematic behaviors here. I've unblocked him. Ucucha 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The exact quote above, responding to my first comment, is:

Cirt didn't take it as a "personal attack" at all, he saw it as an excuse to have me blocked again, along with his mate Rodhullandemu. A rational personal looking at the circumstances, should one ever be found amongst wikipedia's administrators, might even conclude that the incivility was on Cirt's part, even though he didn't actually use a naughty word. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an explicit denial that Cirt did take it as a personal attack, and a claim that nobody should have.

Furthermore, as I noted on your talk page, except in cases of obvious gross error, administrators are supposed to seek a noticeboard consensus and/or discuss with the blocking administrator prior to issuing an unblock. You failed to do either here. While the behavior and block are clearly the subject of some community dissent here, there is considerable administrator and experienced editor support for there being a problem of some magnitude above, which rules out "obvious gross error" and voids the excuse to simply wheel war the unblock rather than make any attempt to discuss first.

I'm fine with undoing it if consensus here develops against me; I'm fine with you undoing it on your discretion after talking it over. I'm not fine with this unblock; it violated policy which is there for a good reason. Please revert until discussion has had time to reasonably happen here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Would there be any possibility of having a discussion about Cirt's involvement at FAR and his/her "editors' responsibility to acknowledge that and take responsibility for it"? Perhaps we need to institute a "take it to the talk page first" rule to prevent the demoralizing delist, delist, delist trend furthered at FAR by Cirt. Someone was bound to speak up sooner or later, and since it happened to be Malleus, of course we have another blockfest. A good deal of the advice being given to MF might be applied to Cirt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mild agree - see prior comment about mutual combatantry. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! So, does Cirt consider the affront to Malleus to be called "lazy" considering how much Malleus does for so many articles, content review processes, and other editors? So, just who was uncivil? Cirt is a prolific "delist, delist, delister" at FAR, and the tone isn't always conducive to all this collegiality we're asking of MF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any further purpose in this thread. Let's close it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, late in the game Malleus Fatuorum's use of vulgarity on an editor's talk page is wildly inappropriate. It violates WP:CIVIL and likely WP:NPA. Basket of Puppies 03:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• My comment is obviously late as well, but I just got back online. Of course his comment was inappropriate and rude. That's what Malleus does. Everyone should know that by now, and just be prepared to get over it. It's obvious he's not going to be blocked for anything, as his content contributions are enough to overshadow everything else in the minds of enough admins to render this a waste of time. He was blocked for fifteen minutes before it was overturned, which is still long enough to make that the longest block of his last three. This isn't even worth trying to fix anymore. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Going again

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

---

• Hard to add much to what I said here: I admire MF's contrarian spirit, but struggle with the logical incoherency of being against civility but complaining when he perceives that others are uncivil, which seems to be his position. I also regret the pointy disruptiveness of his methods. Whatever folks think about the merits of MF's campaign, I imagine I am not the only one who tires of the trail of drama which this talented editor seems to continually leave behind him. Really at this point there's little else to say short of a RFC/U, as it seems unlikely MF will moderate his behavior which causes offense, as he feels his content work exempts him from the rules the rest of us have to try to follow. --John (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You have no idea what I feel, and I can't even begin to imagine why you believe that you do. My position is very far from the one you describe; I have explained it to you and many others in the past, but very few seem to have either the intellectual resources or the integrity to understand it. You have never seen me complain about the incivility of another editor, except in your dreams. What I have repeatedly complained about is the inequality in the application of the civility policy in particular to administrators and non-administrators. Any fair-minded person could easily take the view that it ought to have been Cirt who received the block, as his behaviour at FAR has been disruptive for some time now, but as he's an administrator that just gets ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • "In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Here's where you expressed the view that your content work makes you exempt from following civility rules. This wasn't very hard to find; you are complaining about the incivility of others (although you do not use the word), as recently as 30 September. You can't have it both ways, you know. You talk about integrity and intellectual resources; how about demonstrating them for us? --John (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I can only assume that English is not your first language John, or at any rate not one that you have any real understanding of. Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Since this appears to be going again, I will translate MF's post above. John has alleged that Malleus believes his "content work makes you exempt from following civility rules", yet the diff he provides shows no such thing. John also stated that "he feels his content work exempts him from the rules the rest of us have to try to follow", which is simply not true-- in my experience, Malleus is actually quite humble about his prolific work, not only on writing FAs, but on helping others write them, and he never plays that card. It does appear that there is a problem with John's English, yet Malleus has been blocked again for stating that (Malleus is some kind of a block magnet). In fact, MF's point is quite simple: a double standard exists when it comes to Malleus versus what admins can get away with, and admins are frequently far more uncivil than Malleus has ever been (John might recall a post he made once to Ceoil, another FA writer). Since I seem to be another magnet for abuse, whereby anyone can say anything anytime anywhere about me without consequences, I'm becoming increasingly sympathetic to his position (at the same time, I acknowledge my appeciation that John actually did something about the last attack on me). The recent block was unjust: John, was it really necessary to ignite this again after the section was archived? Please try to take greater care when making statements about other editors that are just not true. I also continue to note that nothing has been said about Cirt's participation at FAR, which warrants attention and is what started all of this. Oh, and the sooner y'all can let Malleus get back to work, the sooner the FAC backlog can be addressed; we've got work to do, and that is why we're here right? Malleus was doing that at FAR before the tangle with Cirt. SandyGeorgia (Talk)17:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
        • @SarekofVulcan: I might understand your block of Malleus if the standards were the same for everyone as they are for Malleus. I have some examples. I was once told to "fuck off" in plain view of multiple admins and several arbs, yet the offender received narry a warning. I am routinely attacked on my talk page, and there are rarely consequences. The attack on Ceoil I mentioned above was far worse than anything Malleus has ever said, but nothing was done. And every time lately that I bring a serious issue to AN/I, the same offenders poison the well here with grossly disparaging and false accusations about my character and editing, yet nothing is ever said or done. Of course, those untrue statements about me are never accompanied by diffs, because there are none that back up the attacks on me. Malleus simply points out the truth-- different standards are applied to different editors, and because he states that often, he has become a block magnet, while I remain an abuse magnet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't recall calling MF a troll on September 30 or any other time, but my memory is not perfect. I don't know why I would characterize MF as anything besides MF. There have been many editors that thought wikipedia couldn't survive without them. Nearly all of them have been wrong so far. :) On the other hand, some folks get way too excited over name-calling. Content is what matters here. When anyone throws obscenities at you, they can't harm you, they can only harm themselves, as they reveal that at heart they are low-lifes. Don't feel anger. Feel sorrow, and wonder what happened to them to make them so hateful. Pray for them. Someone needs to. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Exactly right, but for two things. 1) This begs the question of why Malleus is always blocked for lesser offenses than routinely occur on this very page. 2) Sticks and stones may break my bones, but because words don't hurt me, and I "take a licking and keep on ticking", the offenders continue, and article content is affected by the poisoning of the well, as admins take no action. It's high time for admins to start paying attention to the inequities, and start blocking truly uncivil and disruptive editors instead of Malleus, since he does at least contribute content, while many of them don't (and that is me tooting Malleus's horn, not to be confused with the inaccurate accusations that he does that). Ec for Black Kite-- again begs the question, since a double standard applies, and the "fuckwittery" routinely occurs right here, right under the noses of multiple admins, who always act when it's Malleus, but rarely act when it's not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
              • It does seem that Malleus makes himself a lightning rod and does nothing to try and improve the situation. It's a matter of what bothers you, I suppose. I don't care what somebody calls me. There are far greater problems on wikipedia than name calling is: POV-pushing, edit warring, vandalism, endless fights over stupid stuff like whether to include a comma in an article title - all those things are the bugaboo of a site like wikipedia, and it's the kind of stuff that makes people not trust wikipedia. Editors calling each other names behind the scenes is well down the critical list. Complaints about a double-standard are technically fair complaints, but in real life we often put up with a lot from people who are productive. Life is a bowl of tradeoffs. In fact, Malleus has not suffered anything from all this. If an admin gets annoyed and blocks him, he'll be unblocked ASAP. Truly useless editors who do the same stuff are sent to the phantom zone in a heartbeat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                • ah, but now you're really missing the point :) The POV-pushing, edit warring, etc is allowed to continue because bringing important matters to this page results in the offending editors launching attacks, for which there is no retribution while admins turn a blind eye, yet MF is blocked for trivialities. I'd love to see the editors who routinely make far worse attacks on me on this very page blocked when I'm trying to address POV-pushing and edit warring. Of course, I recognize admins have much more fun fighting over Gimme and Malleus, for the drama factor, while taking on true POV pushers and disruptive tendentious editors would be like ... real work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                  • I do see what you're saying. I was just now, for the first time, taking a look at MF's rap sheet Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I was amazed that he's still here. Most guys with that many blocks would have been gone long ago. So I don't see what MF has to complain about. If anything, he's been given a lot of latitude. You might also be onto something about admins sometimes standing at the side of the rink and watching a couple of guys slug it out for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                    • Generally, if more of them would let something unfold and be sure they understand it before taking action, that would be a good thing. Instead, they block some editors quickly, without understanding the buildup or issues, while ignore much more significant issues on this very page. There is a double standard in play here, MF points it out, and it does affect content work and productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                      • No one is forcing MF to be uncivil, he chooses to do so. If he doesn't like the consequences, he has the option to change his behavior and still be an effective editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                        • It would be a travesty of logic even to suggest that your comments exhibit double standards Baseball, more like at least triple or quadruple. I could make a very good case that you and John have been far more uncivil than I've ever been, yet you choose to try and occupy the moral high ground. I don't know what you call that where you live, but I sure as Hell know what it's called where I live. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                          • Well, here you are, freed from yet another block, so it's pretty clear who benefits from a double standard here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
                          • P.S. Can you show me where I called you a troll? I don't remember doing so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• The main issue that is that the obvious presence of a large amounts of fuckwits editing Wikipedia doesn't mean that we need to point out their fuckwittery in such clear language, as it should be obvious anyway (and equally clearly, this is a general comment and not related to any of the parties involved here). Let's face it, if we'd all felt the need to do that when we first started, we'd all have been indeffed anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm late to the party as usual but what I see is a number of supposed adults snarling at each other but some of them have baseball bats and at a certain point in the snarling competition use them. I used to think MF was being somewhat paranoid, defensive but I'm really beginning to wonder. Baaaad block. There are other ways of being rude than using naughty words. For the avoidance of doubt - ownership of a baseball bat does not constitute a moral high ground. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor block, worse discussion, though I got a few laughs here and there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the entertainment value, they really need to stop dragging MF here every time he gets mad at somebody. Name-calling is harmless unless it's accompanied by disruptive editing. Thick skins are good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone want some popcorn? It's butter toffee... HalfShadow 21:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's at least try and get the facts straight before this goes into archive oblivion. I never called anyone names, that would be your mate Cirt, who called me lazy. What I said was "I don't believe that you have a fucking clue what you're talking about", which I stand by. What is clear at least to me is that Cirt was the uncivil one, but I was punished for using a naughty word that GWH doesn't like, and then the saintly SarekOfVulcan came along to rub salt in the wound.

I actually think that Jophn's idea of an RFC might be a good idea, but not for the reasons that he does. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is going to to change here because the likes of GWH and SofV don't have a effing clue as to what is really going on and that's the way it has always been.  Giacomo  21:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, as some might say, "an MF-ing clue". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• • MF claimed I called him a troll, but he won't produce a diff. I've got a good mind to contact Mr. Hungadunga and get him on the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You mistake "won't" for "can't be bothered to", as I know that producing it for you won't make a blind bit of difference to anything that's going on here. Prove me wrong and tell me what would change if I provided that diff? Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I would improve my behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, ya got me stumped, son. At one second into Sep 30, you posted this statement[63] claiming I had called you a troll within the last 24 hours. I checked my entries for the 29th and the 28th, 48 hours back, and I don't see it. So either (1) it was farther back than you recalled; or (2) it didn't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
        • So far as I'm aware I am not not your son thank God, so please try to keep your comments on track. In what way would your behaviour be changed if I were to produce that diff in which you called me a troll? Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I had been channeling Senator Claghorn for a second there. (But as far as paternity, one never knows about these things, does one?) This is pretty much moot, since I really doubt there is a diff that you can produce. But if there is one, then first off, I won't do it again; and second, I'll entertain your top 5 additonal suggestions for improvement. Provided they're G-rated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Urgent edit filter request

Resolved

Please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Jcarleo. This user has been adding {{sockpuppet|jcarleo}} over and over again to User:C.Fred's user and user talk pages for the past hour. Can someone create a filter? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD non-admin closure

NAC reverted, community has sufficiently expressed its displeasure with the conduct involved

Resolved  – NAC reverted by Bali ultimate SnottyWong converse 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Can an admin take a look at this non-admin closure and revert if necessary: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise). I don't think that this nomination was "unquestionably vandalism or disruption", which is part of the WP:SK policy that the closer references. The nomination points out notability issues and is clearly not an attempt to "end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Also, there was a vote to merge the article already, so speedy keep doesn't seem appropriate here. Colonel Warden often comments about AfD's he deems inappropriate because the most likely outcome will be a merge, not deletion. It appears he is trying to take this to the next level by actually closing AfD's he deems inappropriate. SnottyWong converse 01:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Non-admin, but this doesn't look like vandalism or disruption; in fact I see none of the criteria at SK have been met. Merging is acceptable after an AFD if it's agreed on the tpage of the relevant article. You should have noted that the vote to merge was yours, and in any case that is only a criterion for speedy keep if the nominator withdraws and/or suggests it. → ROUX ₪ 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with your assessment, but as I am somewhat involved (I agreed with the merge at another venue) I can't really do anything about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Without getting too deep into the specifics of this particular incident, the Colonel is increasingly trying to use his own interpretations of policies to bully, hector, and harrass other users and stifle debate at various AFDs. Policies are tools, not weapons to be used to further someone's pet wiki-philosophy, and the Colonel needs to understand that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I forgot to disclose that the one vote to merge was made by me. SnottyWong chatter 01:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I've reopened. Problem solved.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks. SnottyWong talk 01:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of this issue. This editor has been stalking me a bit lately, removing prods without explanation. They seem to be adamant in their anti-deletion views. I see a couple of admins have left some cautionary words on this editors talk page. Hopefully this will calm things down a bit.--RadioFan (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC) If there is evidence that this was a pointy close, he should be blocked until he unequivocally states he won't repeat the behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC) The discussion has been restarted and we observe that not a single editor has agreed with the nominator's proposition that the article be deleted. Nominations of this sort are sadly very common and their outcomes are therefore quite familiar. When a merge discussion is already underway for such an article, it seems to be disruptive to nominate it for deletion as this is forking the discussion in a forum-shopping manner. SK criterion 2.4 exists to curtail such process abuse and seemed quite appropriate. When SK criteria apply then the whole point of that subprocess is that it be used speedily so as to be effective in shutting down an inappropriate discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC) And no-admin closures are only to be used in clear cut cases when it is a non-controversial close. A long time user has also made an argument for deletion at this point.--Crossmr (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Colonel, you are adept at pointing out that no one has agreed with the nominator, however you seem to be blind to the fact that no one (out of about 10 editors) has agreed with you that any SK criteria apply to that AfD, or to similar AfD's. Continuing to argue your point will not change this. Accept that you were wrong and don't do it again. SnottyWong spill the beans 13:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC) i think the colonel probably did not follow policy but after reading this[64] i can see why he thought that SK 2 4 nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion applied. the colonel should probably have contacted an admin since this was going to be controversial, but i can see why the colonel might have thought this was an ok thing to do. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC) IIRC he's done this before, so no, I would not assume good faith here. And following the the reversal, it has all (one flawed IAR and one "they're all notable" notwithstanding) gone to the delete or merge end of things. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC) i only see 2 keep votes. 1 is yours and the other was someone in the original merge discussion. that doesnt sound like "all gone to the delete" to me. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) You are misreading it completely, then. I and someone else right above mine called for deletion, and there have been 4 calls to merge following the re-opening. dream Focus' keep will certainly be discarded, and JClemens is not as bad but still just a WP:ITSNOTABLE jingle. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC) im sorry i meant i see only 2 delete votes, yours and the person from the original discussion. and i see that you called someone pathetic[65]. this does not seem constructive, and you probably shouldnt say whose votes count and whose dont since you are involved and this is not the place to discuss that anyway. Aisha9152 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I called the response pathetic, not the user. When said user essentially lies about the rationale I used for my deletion opinion, I find the term more than fitting. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I have stricken the term, so we can avoid going down side-tangents, though. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC) i have a question if someone put a link to this afd under the discussion under the main merge discussion page[66] would that be canvassing? Aisha9152 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC) No, just a link that says "this article has been proposed for deletion. The deletion discussion is here" is fine. Just don't say anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) well i mean because the discussion for the merge is actually on a different articles talk page and i think the people opposed to the merge might not be watching the page but were in the original discussion. Aisha9152 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Getting back to the original point here, it's clear that the speedy closure of this debate was a move not supported by consensus. I feel it is important that the message be sent to Colonel Warden than this sort of thing is not acceptable and that he acknowledge consensus is against it. We don't all have to agree here, but we do need to be able to acknowledge and abide by consensus even if we happen to disagree with it. This problem goes beyond just this one afd closure, the Colonel has been issuing a lot of orders lately. Policies are not meant to be used as instruments of war to silence ones opponents. Indeed, we should not even be thinking of one another as opponents as that creates the type of battleground mentality that has a tendency to crop when someone is overly confrontational and bossy with other users and makes broad declarations that seem to indicate that their interpretation of policy is the only valid one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC) You might be better of looking at your own conduct first and making an effort to be more collegial. Unless youre trying to make folk laff at the idea youre a worthy foe for someone like the Colonel, your inflammatory language - "try a little harder colonel" - is only going to escalate matters especially following your uncivil and crude response to the Colonels policy based keep vote. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC) "Worthy foe?" Whose trying to make who laugh here? I don't want to be anyone's foe, that's the whole point. I don't wish to take orders from the Colonel and it's important that people be willing to acknowledge when consensus does not support their position, something I am willing to do, and as we can see here [67] it is not something the Colonel is willing to do in this case. I have no interest in forming an adversarial relationship with the Colonel, but when someone shows up at an afd and implies you are a moron and they are here to correct your stupidity with their superior policy knowledge, it does tend to rub one the wrong way. That he now appears to be collecting evidence to support his view of how great and wise he is [68] tends to support the view that he is digging in his heels and preparing to fight rather than being willing to acknowledge consensus is against him. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC) i think feyd has a point. originally i thought colonel was out of line but now that i see how the people who disagree with him act like in their example of beeblebrox's behavior to the colonel, or tarc's behavior in general and to me personally here [69] saying to mind my own business in the afd discussion i wonder if colonels actions were the result of weeks of frustration with people. maybe he did not know the right way to deal with the situation. Aisha9152 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed, Beeblebrox. Though I did vote to keep the article the early close was completely out of line and there will be consequences if it happens again. Enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I actually came to the conclusion that this was getting too personal and have buried the hatchet with Colonel Warden. Hopefully we've all learned something here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To collapse or not to collapse

Always a pleasure to see someone from the same wikiproject, involved in the discussion coming along to bury any talk about their compatriot. Even better when they don't sign their name so we have to dig through the history to find out who did it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll note that Bali Ultimate originally undid the close, Snottywong marked the thread resolved, and multiple people including me admonished the editor (at his talk page or here) for his action. You want to heap some more abuse on Colonel Warden? Think that will help the project? Then by all means revert the hatting and go for it, if it'll make you feel better. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you'll note that you voted keep on the article, participate in the same wikiproject that colonel warden does, which has been brought up in the deletion discussion, and hatted this without signing your name. I can't see any reason for hatting it in the first place, threads are left up for 24 hours for a reason. So all time zones can participate in the discussion.I made a comment before I crashed, only to awaken and find it locked up and hatted. This rush to try and bury threads and prevent discussion is getting out of hand, especially by heavily involved editors.--Crossmr (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

While I fundamentally disagree with clemens on...oh, everything...I'm still a bit of an optimist when it comes to admins and their tools. This discussion had devolved into general bitching (i.e. "worthy foe". lulz) and really did need to have a pillow stuffed over its face. So to speak. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He didn't use any admin tools or abilities when hatting the discussion. Any user could have done that, and routinely non-admins do throw up resolved tags, or put archive hats, or shrink discussions here as non-involved parties without any kind of conflict of interest. While certain parties may have degenerated, they could have been asked to step back and let other editors who may have had something to add do so.--Crossmr (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but what else were we going to get out of this? Warden screwed up, again, and got reverted. The AfD rumbles on. If you wanna propose sanctions for him for doing this then I'd toss in a cheerful support there, but it should really begin in a fresh discussion. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We already had a fine section on him in which sanctions could have been proposed if they were needed. Why start moving things around to other sections? we almost always keep things related and if a new section had been started its almost certain someone would have ended up merging it into this section anyway. Related sections are almost always merged on here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) What additional outcome do you want to see, that was inappropriately cut short by my collapsing the section? I didn't see any additional positive outcome, hence I collapsed it. If I'm wrong, tell me what I'm overlooking, revert the collapse, and continue on with the discussion. If, on the other hand, you just want to complain about something, then don't let my sincere efforts to be responsive to criticism get in the way of your efforts at emotional fulfillment. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jclemens here. I marked the thread "Resolved" a mere 18 minutes after I started it, because the issue had been resolved by an uninvoled editor. Yet here we are, still discussing it nearly 40 hours later. I agree that many of Colonel Warden's editing patterns are disturbing, but unless you're going to start an RFC/U on it (which I would also support) there is nothing further that is going to be accomplished here besides plain old bitching. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U is a wasteland of pointlessness. Let's all spend a month or more in a non-binding situation in which the subject of the RFC/U is under no obligation to reply.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who performed the action. I haven't seen you make a case for why this needed to be collapsed in the first place, or why you needed to be the one to do it. You wrote a little summary, but it's hardly grounds for collapsing, let alone even hatting. "sufficient" is a very subjective observation, and the community has already agreed that discussions should be given 24 hours before we get rid of them unless there are some extreme circumstances, and this was hardly a very long conversation at that point. It's possible that sanctions could have been suggested but the discussion has been derailed now. in the future I'd recommend you only collapse discussions which truly need it and not ones in which you're heavily involved where it could look like you're trying to cover up for someone in your camp.--Crossmr (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You've failed to assert an actionable harm, failed to attract any support for your position, even from the original complainant (Snottywong) and Tarc, who I agree disagrees with me on most everything. :-) I collapsed the discussion after 22 hours--two hours before your ideal 24, after you'd had your say, and no one else had endorsed your sanctions proposal. You assert that I'm somehow allied with Warden, which is both untrue, assumes bad faith, and reeks of guilt by association. You complained that my collapse was unsigned, yet neither of the other collapses on the page at the time was signed either. You've had your say, and here's mine: Thank you for your input; I will accord it all due respect in considering future actions. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's 24 hours after the last comment, not from when the thread was started. If you have such absolute misunderstanding of the process, I highly recommend you don't close anything on here until you read up on it. Your collapse came only 30 minutes after the last comment[70], [71]. As for you being allied with Warden, yes. You both voted the same way on the discussion and you're both part of the same wikiproject (article rescue squadron), which was being brought up and discussed at the AfD as well. I never said you were guilty, I said that that kind of involvement could be seen as a conflict of interest, so you should leave the unsigned hatting of threads to others who are less involved. As for what others have done on this page, if they jumped off a bridge, would you be lined up to do it next? For the record, I never suggested sanctions. I noticed someone indicating the edits might have been pointy based on previous behaviour. I said if there was evidence of that, sanctions should be applied, no one brought the evidence.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide again

Resolved

 – Whacked with a banhammer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide XXXI (talk · contribs) Can someone add this guy to the title balcklist? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that will help. He'll just start naming his accounts something else. --Jayron32 05:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather than blocking the creation of the account, could an edit filter block him from editing? (Almost serious. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It'd be tough to do. His edits usually aren't all that distinguishable from anyone elses. His whole attitude is "Yes I was banned, but I haven't done anything disruptive, so I should be able to come back an edit whenever I want". Conceding the point that his edits are not all that problematic of themselves, the fact remains that he has never gone through the proper channels to get unbanned, which is why he is just going to be reverted and blocked every time. --Jayron32 03:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This sock's (XXXI) contribs were pretty damn problematic. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should watchlist XXXII through XL so that it pops up in their watchlist when the account is created? I did this with the last two, but people beat me to them. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I did that, but tungstencarbide has been added to the titleblacklist. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:RomanHistorian

Review requested. I've watched this user interact with others for the past few weeks. He's violated 3RR, he's edit warred, and he's contentious in his editing. I'd post diffs, but basically his edit history pretty much makes the case. I blocked him once when he clearly violated 3RR, but other than that I've tried to stay out of it. Most recently I've tried to advise him to mend his ways, but without success.[72](note that I copied/pasted his comments from my talk page in order to form an easy-to-read thread). What I'd like is for a few editors/admins review his interactions and offer him (and me) their own advice and/or suggest possible sanctions. Rklawton (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR block was improper, as the 1st of the 4 "reversions" was not a reversion but my original edit. I sent Rklawton an email on this but never received a response. He doesn't like my edits, and there is nothing I can do about that and no reason why it should matter.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The first edit was a deletion of material, a reversion of content that Leadwind added [73]. If you thought the block was improper, you can always request unblock publicly, as that will raise the attention of an uninvolved admin (The preferred way to appeal a block is to use the {{unblock}} template, but you can also contact the blocking administrator or appeal by email.) In cases like this, where the rules may not be entirely clear, and the blocked user shows confusion over the rule, but has remorse and agrees to stop edit warring, unblocks are typically granted. E-mail isn't always ideal because the admin may not be around a computer, or the e-mail address may be out of date or what have you. But I'm sorry you didn't receive a timely response. Hopefully there is a good reason for that. That said, I hope, though, this information won't be needed again for future reference :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that now, but by I didn't know that simply making changes that involved deleting or changing something constituted a reversion. By that definition, making four edits to an article, each time deleting or changing a single word, would be 3RR violation. I understand now and won't violate it, but I think this is a poor way to have the rule, as few would guess that "reversion" can also mean changing or deleting a single word, which of course is a normal part of the editing process. 3RR is supposed to be objective, and I think that by including this as part of the definition of "reversion" you make the rule unobjective. When is deleting a word or sentence a "reversion" and when is it a legitimate edit? The first "reversion" of mine on that 3RR violation was actually the third edit in a row I had made, so I didn't exactly go in there to delete some else's edit. The fact that the question can be asked shows the rule is no longer objective. Also the block was only 24 hours, and when I looked into an unblocking request, the page said the process can take quite a while so there was no point to go that route.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A reversion of material included in 2008? - rather than me dig through the history, can anyone provide the diff of RomanHistorians revert. Without prejudice to any evidence provided, removing content that has had implicit consensus by existing for two years is not a trivial matter - the new potential consensus for its removal was immediately challenged and the matter should have been resolved by discussion at that point, rather than any revert. 3RR, which again should be noted as not an entitlement but an absolute limit, is for newly introduced material, not where there is a clear and apparent consensus - that is provided for by WP:BRD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Go here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive141#User:RomanHistorian_reported_by_User:Andrew_c_.28Result:_31h.29 for the 3RR violation. Look at that first "reversion". How is that a reversion? I have no idea of when that information was originally entered, but it sure wasn't entered at once, nor was it entered recently. None of it was entered by the guy who edited right before me, StAnselm (nor any other recent editor, as far as I can tell). Some of it was entered by Leadwind in July 2008, but not all of it (by definition, all information is entered by someone at some point in time). I have no idea when the rest was entered. Note it was Rklawton who started the edit war that led to him blocking me. He was the first one to revert. He reverted my three changes at once. How can simple editing count as part of a 3RR violation? I also urge you to look at my user page, if you want to see if I have been productive or not on wikipedia in the past.RomanHistorian (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of particular interest to me in that link is the warning you received in September, where User:Andrew c made the same comment that I did above - when you change long standing content and are quickly reverted the appropriate response is to start a discussion to determine consensus, and not edit war. It appears that you have acted in such a manner before to have drawn that comment, and that the edits you refer to is a another example. As noted 3RR is a limit and not a right, but in any event all four edits may be considered reverts when it indicates a pattern of imposing a preferred version rather than forming a consensus. You were on notice that removing content and reverting its replacement is improper - I think the block was appropriate under those circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It was Andrew's post that alerted me to what a 3RR was. I don't see how context changes the defintion of a reversion. The first "reversion" was not a reversion, and so I don't see how that changes the fact of whether this was 3RR or not. I also wasn't aware of the concept of 'edit warring' beyond 3RR until later, and once I realized that I all but gave up on reverts. As you can see I do work in good faith, and a true reversion is necessary for something to count as 3RR.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This ANI request isn't about your 3RR. This is about your contentious editing. Your comments on my talk page notwithstanding (linked above), your unilateral mass deletion of references to the Jesus Seminar without discussion from various articles are but one example that indicates a complete disregard for the many editors who have worked together and compromised on these articles for many years. [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]. And your editing following these reversions remained equally contentions - to the point that you were warned about edit warring (repeatedly reverting without discussion and reverting during open discussion but without consensus). Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What I want to know is if this 3RR was proper. I don't think it was, and I am not exactly happy that people keep accusing me of something I never did. I guess if the definition of a reversion is deleting anything in an article then maybe it was proper. Otherwise, I don't see how it was proper. I also want to know if, assuming it was truly improper, it can be undone so people stop attacking me for violating 3RR when I never actually violated 3RR. I was well aware of the rule before this incident, and was being very careful to avoid breaking it. I was very surprised when I just happened to be blocked, which apparently happened almost immediately after I was reported for the 3RR violation. As I said above, I emailed Rklawton who blocked me and he never bothered to respond, even to defend the block. This actually seems pretty arbitrary. There was no recourse and I had no way to appeal it. Apparently it takes just one editor to approve a block. And as mentioned above, Rklawton not only blocked me but actually did the first true reversion of this edit war. So he starts an edit war and blocks the one he edit wars with. How is this proper? If you have such a subjective definition of "reversion", how can you not have a great deal of abuse of this rule?RomanHistorian (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your belief that my opinion about your pattern of behavior is wrong is why I posted here. Review by other editors will help determine if it's just me or if your contentious editing should stop. Keep in mind I was right the last time, too. That's why experience matters. I've been around, and I generally understand the rules pretty well. [79]

RomanHistory has had a somewhat warring approach to Historicty of Jesus, making multiple edits in the last week, many of them reverts, before making his first comment on the Talk page.[80]. That being said, many editors on the various historical Jesus articles bring an edit-warring approach to editing. The whole arena is a mess. I haven't researched RomanHistory's behavior in depth, but off-hand there is no reason to single him out. It seems to me an RFC/U is in order. Better yet, the community needs to acknowledge that principles of AGF and consensus-building are in shambles across a broad spectrum of related articles, and do something more than running around putting out minor fires. Noloop (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty on this and I have to say that I strongly agree. Gospel of John just had to be locked because of this behavior, and there have been outbreaks of edit warring throughout the biblical articles. Good examples include Joshua, Book of Joshua, Battle of Jericho, Historicty of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Jesus, History of Israel and Judah, and no doubt many more that I am not aware of. I haven't been editing these articles for too long but it seems to have been a long standing problem. I agree that something should be done. All this leads to is accusations by people involved in these edit wars to others involved in them. Ultimately most seem to be going to far on some areas. I think somewhere in wikipedia's FAQ section a comment is made about how contentious religion articles can often be. I am not sure what can be done though. Any suggestions?RomanHistorian (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize if I went too far on Historicty of Jesus. Actually that might even get into another issue. I didn't feel like I was too aggressive, although I guess others did. I think there is a disconnect on many of these religion articles, which is probably part of the reason there is this edit warring (in other words, no one realizes there is an outright fight going on until it is well under way). I have seen a lot of accusations of bad faith in these articles recently, and I doubt many people are truly acting outright in bad faith, even if they might be too aggressive occasionally.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think explaining 3RR, and discussing the block is good because hopefully it raises awareness of policy, and doesn't leave a bad taste of "I was unjustly blocked". That said, I don't think an ANI thread is needed in regards to any recent conduct, and this is coming from one of the few people actively engaged in talk page discussions with this user. If, on the off chance, the edit warring continues, RomanHistorian will be blocked again. Simple as that, but I really hope (and don't think) it will ever come to that. I don't see any admin action needed, and would suggest closing this thread.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your frankness. I actually agree with your point on 3RR. I am not angry with the 3RR so much as a bit confused about it. I now have more of an attitude of "be careful" and have realized how much more productive one can be when they avoid reverts, or anything that looks like a revert. My main concern going forward is stuff that doesn't look like edit warring to one person looking like it to another (see my discussion below with Nloop). I am trying to be vigorous while avoiding being too aggressive, and often the line is very difficult to see. I am afraid I might cross it in the eyes of some and am trying to avoid that, while at the same time continuing to make at least some edits to wikipedia.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, if you have multiple reverts before you have a single comment on the Talk page, you have a non-collaborative attitude. As I said, many editors on these articles have that attitude (mostly with better skills at 3RR-skirting), so the entire environment is bad. I have not researched your editing on other articles. It is quite possible you deserve a block. I think you had 4 reverts in about 36 hours on Historicity of Jesus. I see no cure for the overall environment. Arbitration has been rejected twice, mediation once, RFCs are wikilawyered to death, and the problem is too big and cultural to be handled by the usual dispute resolution channels. Edit-warring policies still need to be enforced, but nobody should be under the illusion that they will solve the systemic problems here. Noloop (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, although I disagree on some points I truly appreciate your fairness. I do agree that this is a major problem throughout the biblical articles. Its probably a bigger issue on wikipedia in general, which we just don't see because we are limited to what we edit. I will say though about those edits on Historicity of Jesus, when I made those 4 edits within 36 hours I thought I was doing it the way wikipedia policy specifies. The reversion of my edits cited a specific reason, and I addressed the reason, like citations, when I made further edits. I realize now that my edits apparently did not deal with all of the objections, but at the time I assumed that I was doing things correctly, vigorous back and fourth editing to arrive at a consensus, rather than taking part in some kind of edit war. I mean not all these issues can (nor need to be) discussed at length on the talk page, especially if they are minor. For example, my edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&action=history) on October 14 at 02:39 was reverted, restored (not by me) and reverted again. Sources/references were mentioned as a reason why, so I added them. Then I was told sources weren't the real problem, so I took it to the talk page at that point, realizing the edit comments weren't relayig things clearly. I guess I thought this was how you were suppose to do things on wikipedia, so I can see how that might cause issues if others didn't see it that way. Do you think it should have been handled another way?RomanHistorian (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Another way? Yes. On articles that are heavily edited such as these, it's best to discuss proposed changes first on the talk page and seek group consensus. Rklawton (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My initial concern with RomanHistorian was that he doesn't really live up to his name; he has very little understanding of the historical topics that he edits on and doesn't seem to realize how far from the mainstream his views are. He has a Biblically conservative Protestant viewpoint and does not seem to acknowledge that, say, a Biblically moderate Catholic viewpoint might have some legitimacy. But while this explains some of his motives, that's not really why this discussion is going on. The problem isn't in his ideas, but in how he behaves. In my experience, he is eager to make massive changes that remove referenced facts and add bias, he is always happy to provoke an edit war, and he can be something of a bully.

After the administrators chose to protect Gospel of John instead of singling me out for a block, he went on a campaign to get me permanently blocked from editing. If you look at my talk page, you can see his unpleasant visit, where he tried to intimidate me away from ever editing "his" articles again. He also wikistalked me and reverted 9 of my changes in a row, where half of these were uncontroversial edits on articles he has no interest in. This is a far cry from the collegiate attitude I have almost uniformly encountered on Wikipedia.

He took this very personally, but I'm not going to. In fact, I'm not asking that he be blocked or whatever. I just want him to slow down, get consensus before making controversial changes and generally work with us instead of against us. However, I think he will only do this if he can be made to understand that this is the only way his contributions will be accepted here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example from just a few minutes ago where he simply reverted edits back to his own POV without bothering to participate in any discussion.[81] It's this type of behavior and his very unpleasant demeanor that calls for warnings from other editors/admins - as he has already clearly expressed that he has no respect for mine. Rklawton (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Too early to determine if behavior problem exists or if this requires the attention of an administrator. Pursue further discussion on the article talk page first. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather perplexed at my current interaction with Off2riorob (talk · contribs). On Climate change denial, I recently changed a disambiguation link at the top of the page, and was reverted by this editor.[82][83] Another editor, Dmcq, reverted to my version, but then Off2riorob reverted again.[84] At this point I asked Off2riorob on his talk page if, rather than reverting, he would participate in the discussion. He responded by removing my comment and posting this invective on my talk page.

Following this Dmcq reverted a second time, and then Off2riorob reverted a third time.[85] I've attempted to ask Off2riorob why he is responding like this, and he has again deleted my comment. I'm taking it here because I don't see how I can work on an article with someone who won't have a discussion and responds by making accusations that he won't explain. Mackan79 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ow, he won't explain himself to my satisfaction..I am getting close but I don't think I can attain to the user that had three separate sections in one day (no names mentioned). Is this a 3rr report or a civility report or a personal attack or a legal threat? I don't see an actual actionable issue? Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so Mackan79 is competing to be the first editor sanctioned under the Climate Change discretionary rules, is that it? Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Striking, remark was uncalled for. Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are responding to or commenting on. Mackan79 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed the sections you posted below, which clutter the page and don't state where the comments were posted. If you want to summarize, feel free, but please don't repost my comments here as if I made them on this board since it is only confusing. Mackan79 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To the point, you responded to a request that you join the discussion by posting invective on my talk page and reverting the article a third time. Dmcq, someone I generally haven't agreed with, has now posted a comment about this on the talk page. I am simply trying to get past this rather bizarre position where you are reverting, and posting insults, but won't have an actual discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You have forfeited the discussion with this worthless report. This is not the place to encourage discussion. Also insults , what insults? Are you inviting me to the talkpage for discussion? Off2riorob (talk)

I thought the place to encourage discussion was your talk page, but you responded by deleting my comment, posting this to my talk page, and then reverting another editor a third time. I am under the impression that we should not be revert warring, so given your refusal to discuss, rather than to revert myself I am asking for review. Mackan79 (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit too early for an ANI report. Try starting an RFC about the dab header, and I would be happy to participate. Try to focus on the content dispute, and if there are still behavior problems after making a sincere go at DR, then come back here. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the suggestion. I just posted in a section that had already been started by another editor. Mackan79 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Looie496

I started this section because a user was repeatedly reverting while refusing to participate in discussion, in search of some simple advice (I am aware that sanctions could be sought on the newly created page here). Perhaps this was a waste of time, but I did not expect an administrator to respond with taunting insults of the sort I have just seen from Looie496 (talk · contribs) here and here, at the same time as undoing Off2riorob's bizarre edits to this page,[86][87] and telling him privately that he was not helping himself. I request an explanation. Mackan79 (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off. You are now trolling. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment was certainly not trolling, but I have now withdrawn the request as Looie has kindly withdrawn his remark. Mackan79 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:AbsoluteGleek92 and lack of communication

This user does controversial edits to film articles everyday without leaving an edit summary. There’s a lot of good edits and there’s some that go against the WP:MOSFILM. The problem is that the user has been given warnings every month since they signed up in July of this year to use an edit summary, and has not given a single response or sign of acknowledgement. We would like to communicate with this user, but it seems impossible. I think this is a clear case of disruptive and tendentious editing. What should be done about this in order to encourage collaborate editing? Mike Allen 05:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, and this may be part of the problem, is that there was, especially in the early going, very little actual communication with this user. The first dozen or so contacts consist solely of templated warnings, and the bulk of the page (i'd estimate 90% of it) is nothing but substed warning templates. Any actual human contact is really buried there. Just to stretch AGF a bit, and take the side of the accused, if I had gotten what looked like a series of automated messages the first 10 times the "you have messages" bar showed up, I may not understand that real people are trying to communicate with me. The WP:UWT templates certainly don't look like a real person trying to talk to someone, and for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, it could just look like some automated process which is easy to ignore. He may be resisting communication because he legitimately doesn't know anyone is trying to actually discuss things with him. This is where the UWT templates can go wrong, especially in light of WP:BITE. I am not saying this is necessarily the case with this user, just that it is one possibility besides the idea that he is willfully ignoring you just to be a dick. --Jayron32 05:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but he has never communicated on any talk page. I'll leave him a personal message and if he doesn't respond, block him. Hopefully one of those will do the trick. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He makes a lot of good edits (template changes and other tidying up) bundled together with other edits that are not helpful, and sometimes make no sense. Rather than making one edit at a time, he makes several all at once, and offers no explanation for his actions. The templating did get out of control, and I am one of the culprits. But, when no response was forthcoming, I kept trying to prod him into a response. Obviously, this did not work. Hopefully, Doug's message might. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine, if that's how you're going to play it, I'll add edit summaries if it'll make you people shut up. AbsoluteGleek92 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you add a side of civility to go with it? The request that you use edit summaries is not based on a whim, but on sound and well thought out policy that makes perfect sense. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've a better idea: forget the edit summaries and cease editing altogether. If you are going to respond to this rather simple request with the kind and level of incivility you have shown above, we might well be better off without your assistance. If, on the other hand, you want to continue editing you will do so with a modicum of respect toward your fellow editors. I certainly believe that we have extended such respect to you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that wasn't the response I was expecting (at least we got one), but it shows he's not willing to work with others. Mike Allen 04:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Between 19:47, 14 October 2010 and 20:28, 14 October 2010, he was listening. He has now apparently forgotten. It goes beyond simple lack of edit summaries and shows a little WP:IDHT and WP:CIVIL problems I guess. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This has gone on for a number of months and I've blocked him now for 31 hours. I've told him that if he continues in this way his next block will almost certainly be indefinite. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

I have noticed that User:Shyguy1991 has been repeatedly adding every concert to appear at particular venues across the world. They have been asked several times to cease and desist by several editors. Yesterday, the user took a strange turn and started deleting entire concert content from several pages. Some of these that they did delete do need some paring, but not to the point of deleting the entire content. I consider this to be disruptive editing. So I am asking that something to be done to stop this. Here are the diffs that I have noticed, in the last 50 edits the user has made:

Credit Union Centre [88] Westfalenhallen [89] Nippon Budokan [90] Royal Dublin Society [91] Colston Hall [92] Scandinavium [93] Valby-Hallen [94] Philips Halle [95] Wiener Stadthalle [96] Orpheum Theatre (Boston, Massachusetts) [97] Tower Theatre (Upper Darby, Pennsylvania) [98] Poliedro de Caracas [99] Brandt Centre [100] Verizon Wireless Arena [101] Times Union Center [102] FedExForum [103] Events at Madison Square Garden [104]

There are likely countless other examples of this. However, these are just a few that have been deleted. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I fixed a few of the links for you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only are these laundry lists way too long, but there is generally not a single reference. I don't have a problem with this editor removing these long lists that they've added because they should not have been there in the first place on the articles I've seen, but the editor refuses to respond on any talk page (including their own) and never uses edit summaries. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been clearly demonstrate that that Shyguy1991 has possibly not fully understood Wikipedia policies and/or how to implement them. Blatantly removing every informal request or warning template from their talk page within seconds does not remove them from history, even if they believe it does. On unfolding the history it will become clear that they either need help, or that they simply do not wish to be part of the community. Either way, if their edits really become disruptive within the interpretation of our rules, or if they still refuse to provide ES for their hundreds of edits, then a procedural block will be the only answer. --Kudpung (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's that the user doesn't understand Wikipedia policies. Based on the user's behavior and edit patterns/habits, it's more likely that the user doesn't care. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but this user's behavior, at least to me, indicates that the behavior is/was intentional. Somehow, I stopped this user from adding more performers to his long list in Staples Center. But he has continued on a bunch of other articles. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've spent some time going back over his contributions to the beginning of June, and looking at the history of his talk page. He's received numerous warnings from various editors and never responded. The warnings concerned not just edit summaries but sources and other issues - all he does is blank them. I've blocked him indefinitely. That means he can easily get the block lifted if he can convince an Administrator that he now understands the problem and will change his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Meat, Libel, four AfDs, and assorted weirdness at David Bruce McMahan

We have a strange situation brewing and I believe that we will need an admin to come in immediately and sort it all out.

Issue One: Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money

An IP posted a link to this article today at the talk for David Bruce McMahan. I responded that the process was all done legitimately to my knowledge. It was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McMahan (3rd nomination).

Considering that this is an issue of libel against Wikipedia, this might need intervention by the office staff. Or we can ignore the blogger, [REDACTED], and move on. More likely option is the first one, with all the chaos that entails.

Issue Two: Meatpuppetry or other Odd Beheavior

Someone with more experiance than I should look at the edit histories of user:SirBruce and the IP 69.140.102.40. SirBruce has not been seen since 9 Feb 2010 and then posted in the talk page warning another user not to remove sources. The other user (Melaen) seems above question and seems to have taken the correct actions, but SirBruce's appearance raises questions. This is compounded by the edit history of the IP which has been absent for over a month before posting the link to the voice and making accusations against Wikipedia.

Finally, the article creator Wikidpedia appeared today for the first time since 2007 to create this article. In 2007 he created several other articles that were deleted. The timing of all these users is suspicious. The admin User:Cirt blocked the account for 48 hours for disruptive editing, but I think this is someone's dormant sock, as there is no other explination as to why the account would suddenly come in and create an article like this.

Issue Three: The curious history of Bruce McMahan and David Bruce McMahan

There have been four AfDs for this article. Three without the David, one with it. I upgraded the fourth to a CSD G3 on account of it being deleted before. That being said, the first and second AfDs resulted in Keeps, and the third was a Delete. The sources seemed not to have changed, but the consensus shifted. In full disclosure I voted delete on the newest AfD, but was unaware of the other three except for the notification of the deletion history at the AfD. I wanted to bring this up in light of the posting from the Voice, and because the people that hang out here will know the best course of action in all three incidents.

I will not be participating in the discussion of these issues unless I am asked to do so. Please inform me at my talk page if I am needed. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

The page in question has just been deleted. Apparently this is not a problem for Admins, so I don't advise restoring it, as it can only cause more problems. All three issues are still valid though. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant link to final AFD before speedy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bruce McMahan. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

So this guy gets his page deleted because he's not "notable" even though he's had plenty of articles written on him and lawsuits against him. What would make him notable in the eyes of Wikipedia? A reference on Family Guy? Does Peter need to go "Bruce McMahan? That's like that one time I slept with Meg!"?

Just because the content of the article is poor, doesn't mean the entire page should be deleted. This person is clearly notable based on the wide coverage this has received in addition to his role as CEO of a firm that has received coverage, philanthropy that has received coverage, etc. Most of the criticism leveled is hung up on the negative nature of the original article -- clearly, the article's content was unacceptable. But, that means a stub should be created, sources listed, and appropriate tags citing need for improvement, perhaps even created with protection given the obvious controversy, and so forth. In other words, deleting articles due to controversy is ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of articles with far less reliable (and far fewer) sources that we don't go around randomly deleting. We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that we are deleting the article repeatedly due to, 1) the article content being bad (even in poor taste), and 2) controversial. However, neither of this actually justify the actions taken. It means that it's just going to be a huge pain in the ass for an admin to maintain and a writer to create. Strom (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted this wretched and unacceptable article, along with its talkpage. They should not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all well and good, and I stand by the delete, but issues one and two are still important. Should issue 1 be taken to the office and issue 2 to the sockbusters? If so, can someone else do it, I'm not sure how to report things to the office staff or how to report possible meats without knowing who the leader is. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and salted the article on the reason that some extensive discussion will be necessary before considering recreation. –MuZemike 02:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a random policy question from a new-ish user. I know salting prevents recreating articles, but do the discussion pages also get salted? If so it didn't get done in either case... Just curious, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain this to me? NYB's deletion summary indicates that there are multiple AfDs that have deleted this, but I'm only seeing one (proceeded by 2 keeps where consensus was strongly on the keep side). Further I'm not having problems finding sources on this person. There is all the "odd" stuff like [105] and [106], but there are also things like [107], [108] and [109]on his world-record setting car and for his foundation work [110], [111]. Help? Hobit (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

3rd AFD, 2nd AFD, 1st AFD. As far as this last deletion was concerned, after looking at the deleted copy, I do have to agree with NYB. It was entirely negative in tone and would have likely fallen under WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page; it just happened to have been deleted a bunch of times before that. –MuZemike 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd and 1st were keeps. So if we do want this recreated we get a userspace version and DrV it? If so, I'd like to request the version deleted by the 3rd AfD be userfied to me. I'll dig back and find what was keepable about 1 and 2 and use that as a starting point. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any of those articles, but I'm guessing that the most recent version was a gross violation of our BLP policies, and as such it shouldn't be userfied either - i.e., it should stay invisible to the public. If the result of the second AFD was "keep", then maybe that one could be userfied - if its content is not potentially libelous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me I suppose, but given that it wasn't deleted for being libelous, I assume that the 3rd should be fine too. I'll take either (assuming I get the history). Hobit (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a page that should exist. David Bruce McMahan aka D. Bruce McMahan aka David B. McMahan has had several feature stories written about him in newspapers and magazines, including cover articles in New Times Broward-Palm Beach and Village Voice. He was the subject of multiple lawsuits and has tried to censor journalists and now Wikipedia from reporting on him. He is also a successful businessman and philanthropist who has multiple projects named after him.

The content of the article on Wikipedia was at one time up to standards, but got gutted. The article should be improved and not deleted. There is more than enough information, including direct source legal papers, to fill an appropriate article on him. The page just needs time to stay up instead of being deleted so it can be improved.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-09-26/news/daddy-s-girl/

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/10/memo_to_bruce_m.php

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-09-28/news/feature.html

--66.246.94.130 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I really hate to do this, as the comment I am about to make flies in the face of many of my core policies, but it has to be said: I'm been to South Florida. I've had the distinct misfortune of reading the New Times. It is unreliable, and has such tremendously low journalistic standards that it is on par with trash tabloids. I would never use it as a source in anything. I'd sooner use the National Inquirer. The New Times is NOT a suitable source, ever, period. As for the other sources, anything with blog in the name is genertally viewed with skepticism. A few blogs are editor reviewed and have high standards. The NPR blogs come to mind. Most blogs are not editor reviewed and therefore are not good sources. Also considering this article my view of the voice as reliable isn't that high.

You need better sources. If the man is notable, they will exist. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@66.246.94.130: Your edit here is higly inappropriate. Avoid attacking the closing admin, it never helps an argument. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Joe Arpaio article cites the Phoenix version of the New Times on multiple occasions, and has for some time despite some controversy on that article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugs Malone (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

<ec>Two things. #1, as I listed above, there are plenty of other sources, so if the New Times is really that bad, we can cope. The discussion about the New Times can happen at WP:RSN. #2 Sven, do you have any WP:COI issues with McMahan? Given your relatively short history here (though lots of edits in that time) I figured it would be worth asking just to be sure. I assume you are a returning editor going for a WP:CLEANSTART, but the COI think also seems possible. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no COI. I have the unfortunate habit of unknowingly stepping into existing conflicts, (see the above ANI that I posted in) but this is more of a "I saw something wrong and went after it" sort of thing. As to my knowledge, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006. I only got an account recently because I spent three months abroad and away from Wikipedia, and came back to a new review system, a dramatic increase in semi-protections, and an overall less condusive atmosphere towards IP editing. Before getting the account, I never used automated tools or participated in ANI or AFD, although I did launch one SOCK investigation from my iPhone. Hence my large general knowledge and low specific knowledge. Also I seem to bite off more than I can chew and have terrible spelling, but again, no COI. If you want to give me guideance on anything, please feel free to do so. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The "blogger who appears to be a hack" that Sven speaks of in his "Issue 1" above is Tony Ortega, Editor in Chief of The Village Voice, as it says at the end of the Ortega/VV blog that Sven linked to. Sven, since you referred to Ortega as a "hack", he appears to have now returned the favor by referring to you in an update to his column as a "minion" (see immediately preceding link, "Update" section). I'd very respectfully suggest that it might help keep drama to a minimum, now that you've made your opinion known, if you were to follow through on the intention you stated when you initiated this thread, and perhaps not continue to participate in this discussion. You're free to do as you think best, of course, and perhaps it'll be necessary for you to comment further, at least briefly. But it would be unfortunate if you (or any individual editor here) were to in any way "become the story". This thread shouldn't be about your opinion of Ortega, or his opinion of you: It needs to remain focused on whether we are to have a McMahan article on Wikipedia.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Tony Ortega did not claim, nor imply, that Wikipedia deleted the article "for money". If he did say or imply that, please do let me know, because that's absolutely false and libelous. But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures. I don't recommend having a brawl about it, and of course Newyorkbrad's wise comments should be very thoughtfully considered. For me personally, a big test for this article, and a challenge perhaps difficult to meet, is WP:BLP1E. Beyond that, the article would need to be thoughtful and respectful of human dignity and would have to work really hard to draw conservative conclusions rather than following a single source as if it is the gospel truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to quote what Ortega is saying about Wikipedia, since I'm not clear that everyone in the discussion is actually reading his blog post (and just to point out - yes it's a blog post, but also the bloogier who wrote it signs his blog posts "Tony Ortega is the editor-in-chief of The Village Voice" - for those not aware of the Voice, it is considered a "reliable source," and not just in the wikipedia context.

From the blog post Memo

UPDATE: Wikipedia's reason for not wanting a McMahan page? According to one of their minions, I'm a "hack."

The last time, while they were under constant attack by McMahan's lawyers, they pulled down references to our articles because, they said, The Village Voice was not a legitimate source of information for biographies of living people.

Say what? I tracked down the Wikipedia minion who had written that, who turned out to be an electrical engineer in England. He sent me some long explanations about the nature of journalism and what information is reliable. But eventually, I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan, but it was easier to say that the Voice wasn't a legitimate source. You can imagine that my respect for Wikipedia took a nosedive at that point.

This time, we get a Wikipedia minion saying that McMahan isn't "notable" and that I'm a hack. You can almost smell the fear, can't you?

Not notable? Well, OK, Wikipedia, how's this for notable. It turns out that moneybags McMahan put on a show earlier this year with his new $3 million race car, and unveiled it with the help of 2010's Playmate of the year, Hope Dworacyk. Notable enough for you?

I don't know. Hedge fund kabillionaire, noted "philanthropist," race car dreamer, Westchester County bigwig, and...oh, he married his own daughter in Westminster Abbey. Is that really not notable enough?

UPDATE 2: And now it's down. Well, we learn once again that Wikipedia is afraid of McMahan (which is fine, we don't expect others to take on these kinds of stories), but that they will continue to slime the Voice as their reason for taking down information about him.

For the benefit of Wikipedia editors, who still may not understand this situation, the Voice is doing things the old-fashioned way here. We are reporting what court documents revealed about a relationship between a very notable super-rich old guy who abused his grown daughter for years. Those facts are contained in court documents which are available here and elsewhere. Normally, that is the bedrock of what Wikipedia considers legitimate sourcing. In this case, however, McMahan's money talks.

(emphasis added)

I'm sticking my nose in because I find this particular incident fascinating on many levels. The collision between journalism & wikipedia, and the awful, awful story that this whole discussion is about. You guys should really get a handle on your "minions" =) illovich (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the identity of this "minion", their source of said "minion's" information, the reason their word (if it was ever actually given) should be believed, or why it's impossible any of the other provided reasons would not justify any particular course of action, remain mysteries. I was tempted to just slap a bunch of {{fact}} tags in the above, but re-factoring someone else's comments is a faux pas. Between several plausible and supported motives versus unsubstantiated hearsay, I think it's fairly obvious what further discussion should be predicated on. - Vianello (Talk) 22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knO5Ad7cD0M is this an appropriate source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.201.102 (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

National Cristina Foundation

As long as this is being discussed, someone should have a look at this edit. I reverted, but perhaps the IP who made it should be dealt with and a revdelete imposed. Also, please examine the link to the Village Voice story recently inserted. Admins should watchlist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've revision deleted that edit, and a similar edit to the talkpage. I gave the IP a final warning, as the edits were from several hours ago. They have, however, already had one block for a similar (deleted) edit. If someone else feels a block here is warranted they'll get no objection from me. I haven't looked at the Village Voice link yet. TFOWR 17:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the talk page history. The libelous edit summary is still live. IMO the talk page should be deleted entirely. Also please look at the link to the Voice story in the article. Perhaps that should be revdeleted, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries have been deleted as well, now - thanks for catching that. I'm still catching up with the Village Voice link/ref. TFOWR 17:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a link to the same Voice story mentioned in the first post of this thread containing the accusations against McMahan. It's not relevant to the Cristina Foundation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've revrted it and semi-protected the article. I have not revision-deleted the Village Voice ref, however. (I may yet, and have no objection to anyone else doing so). TFOWR 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Further to this issue, some time after TWOFRs post an IP posted a link on the articles Talk Page to a YouTube video alledgedly about "Bruce McMahaon's dark past". I have deleted the link and related comments - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

External publicity

This whole sorry mess is now being posted about on Reddit, which has an unfortunate habit of publicizing "interesting" Wikipedia vandalism - see discussion here and be sure to view the image linked at the top of the discussion page, which is visible to anyone who sees the link on Reddit's front page. When we spend our time dickering about what we should do instead of just nuking the offensive material, this is how the world sees us. That's apart from the harm being done to a living person (again, see image linked in the discussion there), which is horrendous and irreversible. This whole lengthy discussion did nothing to prevent either issue - whereas immediately deleting the BLP-violating material and reconsidering it afterward would have prevented it. One ounce of action beats any amount of debate, every time. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The original Reddit link to the Village Voice article, from yesterday: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/dooud/rich_guy_has_an_affair_with_daughter_gets_called/ - as you can see, they're pretty miffed about this guy's behaviour. This is what a person who claims to be the original editor of the Bruce McMahan article says about it:

Thank you for linking to Tony's article. I'm glad to see this scumbag's past dredged up again.

I can offer some possibly interesting perspective on this incident. I was the Wikipedia editor who first created the Bruce McMahan page several years ago. I used the original Broward/Palm Beach New Times articles as my main source and was even nice enough to not call him out on his mail-order PhD.

Once the article entered Google and became a first-page hit for "Bruce McMahan", Bruce's hired gun from the law firm of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP (www.linerlaw.com) emailed me proposing changes to the article. What a fuck up! The idiot didn't even know he could edit the article himself. I ignored him.

Bruce's PR firm wised up, and vandals began blanking the page. I kept restoring it, and we went back and forth. His PR firm soon figured out that they could actually re-write the pages instead of vandalize them. A resume was posted over the article. When I and several editors pushed back, several new but deeply concerned editors began inserting outright lies then tried to weaken the language of the daughter-fucking incident and bury it under mounds of glowing hagiography. They accused me and a handful of editors as being members of a conspiracy to destroy Bruce. One of his daughters even jumped in with a ridiculously long apologia in the discussion page. The volume of edits and sock puppets knocked the fight out of me, but a handful of other editors kept up and actually expanded the article to cover far more of the daughter-fucking incident than my original stub.

Eventually, Bruce contacted Jimbo Wales, who directly intervened and had an admin settle the debate in favor of scrubbing ALL references to Bruce's daughter fucking from the article. For the next couple of years, the article became a paean to Bruce's charity work with the National Cristina Foundation and other bullshit. Bruce won. It stood this way for a long time until someone noticed that there was a random fluff piece floating around Wikipedia and proposed to delete it. Fuck it, I decided, and I voted to kill it.

Reddit, I implore you: vote this link up. Get it to the front page. Make Bruce McMahan and other rich people realize that when they try to suppress information with the tools of coercion and deception, free-speech-loving individuals will turn around and blow it up to the stratosphere.

So, yes, thanks for caving to the guy with the money, Wikipedia. 94.193.244.17 (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

When do I get my money, and how much will I get? TFOWR 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, to be clear, I have nothing to do with this. Bruce did not contact me, I did not intervene. There is no prohibition by me or the Foundation on creating an article on this topic, and never has been.. Years ago, Brad Patrick had conversation with some people about this; he may be able to explain more if he is interested. But he did not, to my knowledge, intervene back then. As always, I am a strong proponent of WP:BLP and WP:RS - those policies are clearly relevant here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• As for what Tony Ortega thinks of us: [REDACTED]. HalfShadow 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Insufferably long comment

I believe I've now discovered and examined all or nearly all the articles and web sources that are at all relevant: I've probably sifted through and read well over 200 pages, including court documents. I do not choose to provide my opinion of the facts presented in the media; other editors can examine the available evidence for themselves. I will say, however, that I don't think it's a worthwhile or justifiable exercise to attempt to shoot the media messengers in this instance. Nor do I think it's useful (or appropriate) for any of us to try to stand in moral judgment, based on our interpretation of the facts we have available. If anyone here finds he can't refrain from doing so, can't think of or discuss this issue without moral indignation coloring his thinking, this article and related ones available on the web may be of considerable use. The suggestion is not to be construed as indicating any opinion about the facts that have been presented on either side in this matter.

A procedural note is probably in order. While the article was in its most recent (4th) AfD, a user tagged it under CSD G4, and it was, in fact, deleted as a "speedy". While that tagging was no doubt made in all good faith, the article probably didn't meet G4 since the just-deleted article has been described as being very negative, while the previously deleted version (AfD three) was anything but: it was described as having been "whitewashed", and as a vanity piece. CSD G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version".

Some of the "external publicity" about this has already been mentioned and even quoted. There's a very great deal of it, and it appears this thread is being followed pretty closely in some corners of the web. ( A good reason for choosing one's words deliberately here, I think. ) As might be expected, some people are hoping for and trying to promote a "Streisand effect", and others believe just as strongly that the allegations should never have been published at all. There has been some suggestion of a conflict of interest re one editor along with a corresponding reference to a previously disclosed real-life identity ( I do not say "credible" suggestion, note ) and there's a different, previously-involved editor who has expressed great indignation off-site at what he sees as the improper suppression of this article. That editor has made accusations that target that indignation back to Wikipedia; and it's my opinion that it wouldn't be very extraordinarily improper ask him whether he might have some potential conflict of interest, given certain individual factors. I mention this not because I think it needs to be investigated (I don't) but because I think it's appropriate that editors should be forewarned of it. Each side in this conflict is sure it holds the moral high ground, each side just knows it's on the side of the angels.

As I see the question, there are two distinct ways we can decide whether to have an article about this. We can base a decision on rules, or we can base a decision on values.

If we're to base our decision on rules then I think Jimmy is exactly right that it comes down to BLP1E. That question resolves to (a) whether McMahan is also notable in our very-specific and admittedly idiosyncratic sense of the word on Wikipedia for his race-car development, his success as a hedge-fund manager, his wealth, or his philanthropy, OR (b) whether the coverage about the father-daughter controversy has been broad-enough and persistent-enough in reliable sources to call for inclusion in Wikipedia. If either condition (a) or (b) is met then our rules dictate that a carefully-written, non-sensational article that includes the topic currently at issue here should not be deleted.

In the course of looking into the question, I saw a great many mentions re "condition (a)" about McMahan. That's it exactly: there were a great many mentions re that condition. The NY Times mentioned the sale of a $30 million condo (furnishings and artwork included), Playboy mentioned his race car development, some trade publications mention his work as a hedge-fund manager, there were a few mentions of his philanthropy, and one or two of his great wealth. I saw nothing in-depth about these topics, however, no "feature" articles about McMahan in any of these contexts or roles. It's possible I missed something, of course, but I tried carefully to be thorough. It's a borderline case, a judgment call, and I'm not going to argue the point with anyone, but it's my view that McMahan's notability apart from the one big issue that's current is probably not sufficient to warrant an article.

So what about "condition (b)", then? Well, there's a great deal of material, multiple articles, from Village Voice, and the follow-up official blogs. ( The New Times in other locations is also Village Voice Media, btw, as I understand it. ) And there are two articles in the New York Post that I know of: one essentially follows after the Village Voice and one introduces denials and counter-accusations against the long-lost daughter, made by a different daughter and (same) half-sister. A lot of editors will disapprove of the Village Voice and the New York Post, of course, because their respective editorial outlooks don't suit. I have nothing to say about that, but it's my opinion that they're both reliable sources, have sufficient editorial oversight, etc. There will be editors here who disagree with that, of course, but I think any such debate would be moot. A case could be made that it's due to McMahan's success in getting civil lawsuits sealed in multiple jurisdictions, perhaps quite a strong case, too, but for whatever reason I was unable to discover any other reliable sources that touched this story. The Village Voice directly addresses the issue, of course, this apparent lack of extensive coverage elsewhere, but the fact remains. Oh, there was a new story today in English at thaindian.com, too. That's all I'm aware of: It's my overall opinion that our "condition (b)" probably isn't met, either.

What, then, if we base our decision on values? Before I really looked at this in-depth, I was sure that the "values" decision had to come down in favor of having an article: I completely understood the great indignation that the Editor of the Village Voice has expressed. I'm fairly sure I still do understand that, actually. I would almost certainly feel the way he does, were I in his shoes. But I can't work myself into the same state of indignation after looking at this as closely as I now have. There's no moral high ground here, in my view; the angels aren't on anyone's side. They're probably all just quietly weeping somewhere. Whatever you believe about the facts presented, whether you believe in guilt or innocence or some combination of the two for the accused or accusers, what we have here are terrible, devastating personal consequences, a real tragedy. If we're going to base our decision about this on values, then it seems morally right to me to leave the personally involved to suffer through the grief of this as best they can without all of us here shining a spotlight their way. I realize that others may disagree in perfect good faith, of course, but that's my view of this matter. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as an exceptionally thoughtful, well-reasoned, and empathetic comment. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Amazing. Makes me proud to be a Wikipedian.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully supporting Ohiostandard, after spending an hour or so familiarizing myself with the previous article versions and some of the online articles. And i'm an inclusionist. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohiostandard makes a good case that the article falls into a "grey zone" of notability, between articles that pretty unambiguously need deleting and those that pretty unambiguously need keeping. Within this grey zone we have a collective choice, and Ohiostandard raises the issue of "values". I'd suggest that there are two concrete things to inform the choice: i) WP:NOTNEWS (the fewer sources there are on a BLP subject, the more a Wikipedia article takes on the qualities of a news source rather than an encyclopedia - especially in view of Wikipedia's typically high Google ranking) ii) the notion of the "Public interest". Within the grey zone, we're balancing a subject's desire for privacy with the public's right to know. The moral strength of the latter depends on the interest involving more than prurience; for example, it's more reasonable to say that it's in the public interest to have corruption in public office reported than, say, adultery. Bottom line, McMahan falls into the grey zone, and on both considerations I've suggested, I think the choice should be not to have an article. Rd232 ^talk 08:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Other article venues where this has spilled to

• The Village Voice
• Streisand effect

Just an FYI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I haven't really edited many articles, in fact I finally just created an account because of this incident. Doesn't the fact that there is such a fervent discussion over McMahan's inclusion/exclusion point out that he has enough notoriety to warrant inclusion here? Is it simply because there are no major articles giving a complete biography in several publications that means he shouldn't be included? As soon as you willingly step into the public light, i.e. a public unveiling of a car with the help of a playmate (which absolutely is an attempt for attention for his product), you lose your right to anonymity. Certainly, the article should be balanced, giving all available information. But deleting an article of a notable public figure because they're not famous enough ignores all of the other articles on Wikipedia that certainly have garnered much less attention. I'm not implying that anything untoward happened, but given the allegations, simple deletion smacks of impropriety. BTW, if I've made any faux-pas's regarding my post here, let me know, still trying to figure this all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a touchy subject. One group of Wikipedians are against keeping articles from deletion just because their notability is Wikipedia-related, & they often win the discussions. (I don't always think their opinion on the matter is correct, but that's besides the point.) In this case, I would believe you have a point here if this squabble over an article about this guy makes it to the news beyond The Village Voice or the New York Times -- for example, it gets picked up by one of the major media networks in the US or in Europe. Or the incident gets picked apart in the next book on Wikipedia. Until then, while I weakly agree with you on this there just isn't enough evidence for notability; or to put it another way, if I'm going to spend time writing an article on a living person, I'd rather work on one of the major government officials of Ethiopia -- we don't have an article on their Minister of Agriculture, for example. In the long run, an article on the Ethiopian Minister of Agriculture will help more people than on this guy. -- llywrch (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible DRV

I know this is going to be wildly unpopular, but our primary concern here should be adherence to our own policies, primarily, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:N. Deleting one-sided attack articles is certainly beneficial and desirable, but if a subject satisfies the WP:BIO section of the notability policy, and the article is built from verifiable facts, does not violate BLP, UNDUE or NPOV, then I think we should have it. We should never prevent creation of an article that satisfies the requirements of these policies just because the subject is controversial. I hope this will be taken to DRV and thoroughly discussed after all these meat/sock issues are resolved. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than one article

A cursory search led me to find mention of McMahan in Genetic sexual attraction and Streisand effect (I removed it from the latter), but I have a feeling some POV pushers may have, upon deletion of the BLP article, peppered mentions of McMahan throughout WP. I am far from an expert on BLP policies, but if McMahan is not notable for his own article, then I doubt that using his alleged "controversial relationship" as an example in other articles is appropriate; possible vandalism. Anyway, just wanted to bring this to an Admin's attention The Eskimo (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And just an aside, I was simply casually browsing the ANI thread, and am now fully aware of the controversial information about this non notable individual without actively "looking" for it. I for one hate when I follow a discussion only to find the gossipy stuff courtesy blanked or whatever (just out of sheer curiosity), but I understand why that is the case, and if this information is potentially libelous, well, I'm just saying... The Eskimo (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, though, this information is not libelous as he has already settled all court cases (at least according to the Village Voice). If in fact it is still available through the CT courts, the information in the article should be verifiable. Also, I understand the need for multiple sources, but ignoring a source because of a purported yet unproven bias is another. The Village Voice and The New York Times are both legitimate sources, whether or not one agrees with what they say is a different matter entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffjt (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen is that a BLP article should be written based solely on the notability of his business ventures, ignoring the controversial content for now. If the article stands up on its own (and doesn't get deleted as non-notable), then a discussion should be started on the talk page about whether or not to include the controversial material. At that point, certain important issues can be discussed, such as policies regarding biographies of living persons, how much focus, if any, should be giving to the controversy, and whether or not the Village Voice is a good source for the article. Let consensus work it out before including any controversy, because, in the future, you're going to need to link to those discussion to defend any deletion attempts that will surely pop up if the thing about his daughter ever makes into the article. A slow and non-controversial re-start would be the way to go if someone want to try another stab at this. The Eskimo (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This last suggestion seems a sensible way of resolving this in an orderly manner. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what is going on here is a perfect and chilling example of the Streisand Effect. Or maybe not, because in this case, huge resources are thrown at removing material, and the resources appear to be winning. Maybe it should be re-inserted under that aspect. As far as Genetic sexual attraction goes, McMahan was removed from that also. A 20 word mention, followed by three sources was removed as "not sourced that his meets subject of article." Can we demand a least literacy when articles are being censored? Where is the outrage?

In Mia Farrow, the following sentence stands unopposed: "Farrow and Allen parted after Farrow discovered a sexual relationship between Allen and her adopted daughter Soon-Yi. During the subsequent custody battle involving Farrow's and Allen's three children, Farrow filed charges that Allen had molested their daughter Dylan, then seven years old." The assertion is completely unsourced, no-one bats an eye. BsBsBs (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the difference there is that the Mia Farrow article has facts about Mia Farrow, albeit unsourced. The genetic sexual attraction article should only include material relevant to the genetic sexual attraction phenomenon. In this case, it is a well-sourced fact that David Bruce McMahan had a sexual relationship with his genetic daughter, but there's no evidence or source that genetic sexual attraction was a factor in their relationship. Hence it's out-of-place in that article. 192.18.1.36 (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. So someone has sex with his daughter and I have to prove that "genetic sexual attraction is a factor?" BsBsBs (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely unsourced? A source can be added for a few sentences at a time. Source 22 in the article sources the statements you are quoting, with things like "Dr. Leventhal headed the hospital team that was asked by the Connecticut State Police to investigate the claim that Mr. Allen molested Dylan last August at Miss Farrow's summer home in Connecticut.","Mr. Allen's lawsuit to gain custody of Dylan and the couple's two other children" and "The doctor suggested a connection between Miss Farrow's outrage over Mr. Allen's affair with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn,[...]"[112]. It could probably be sourced a lttile bit clearer, but it is all there. Fram (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What Have I Started?

Hello there, minion here. I just got a message on my talk page reminding me that this was here. Honestly once I saw a few of the more reliable users and an admin had gotten involved, I stopped checking in. If you look at the origional posting, WAY up top, you will see that before any of this media coverage spilled out, I was concerned about three issues. Media issues not withstanding, I thing that these issues have run their course in discussions, and move to end this mess.

Point 1: See below on my opinion on the Voice.

Point 2: I don't see any recent activity. We can bring this up again if it becomes a problem again.

Point 3: If an editor in good standing wants to create a well balanced and properly sourced article on this man, then I would have no objections. In the meantime, I see these pages being salted as a good thing.

Now it would appear that in my absence, the editor of the Voice has decided to drop a few levels on the pyramid. We are now in the orange and red areas. This begs the question. If the Village Voice is making statements that Jimbo Wales is calling false, is resorting to personal attacks, and is a blogger without editorial review, why do we consider him a good source? I think it's time we reexamine the Village Voice as a reliable source to be used in articles.

I know that I'm not exactly uninvolved, but I think it bears being mentioned. Sorry if this causes more drama than it should, but at this point, I view the Village Voice as an anti-Wikipedia crusade, rather than a constructive source of journalism. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what you mean when you say "is making statements that Jimbo Wales is calling false" – you are evidently talking about claims made without evidence, and whose truth Jimbo Wales is in a good position to judge (i.e. accusations of undue influence on Wikipedia). But it's not necessarily coming across that way. Hans Adler 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from Jimbo from above in this ANI:

But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures.

That is what I was referring to. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A PR Disaster

This is becoming a PR disaster, and it will hurt Wikipedia in a big way, if it not already does. Jimbo shot himself in the foot by becoming involved. If an article is truly killed due to mere non-notability, a Jimbo Wales doesn’t have to show up. Him showing up proves that there is much more to it. I have worked for more than 30 years in advertising and PR for large corporations. My specialty: Disaster management. First order of business: Take the CEO out of the picture and coat him with as much Teflon as available. I know how to astroturf without getting caught. I ran “enthusiast” websites with a well hidden agenda.

Not notable? Mr. Mahan himself would beg to differ. There is his site for his version of his biography. . There is mcmahan-philanthropy.com.. There is McMahan’s own car website with a pitbabe to boot. And those are just the first three on Google (which shows that high level of expensive SOE is at work.) If the man is not notable enough, then 75% of Wikipedia should be thrown out. A philanthropist that helps children who lost their legs to landmines and who marries is own daughter is highly notable, if you ask me. This scandal doesn’t pass the vaunted WP:Duck test at least not with me.

I am mentioned eight times by name in Wikipedia. I’m not notable at all. Does anybody patrol the pages and scrubs them, because I am a nobody? You need to be a McMahan to be extended that courtesy.

At Wikipedia, five editors and a few well chosen sock puppets (with a VPN, and one PC each – we know how fingerprints work) literally can change history. With a largish PR firm and a lawfirm, one can literally throw hundreds of well informed and well behaved editors at an issue – without getting caught. And I have no doubt that this is what is happening here. Can I prove it? No. But I can tell you how it’s done without even a twitch of the needle of a checkuser tool.

What if McMahan would hire me? I would take the job. I hawked cigarettes, and I don’t smoke. I would have advised him to NOT do what is done here. DON’T suppress. It will bite you big time, as Streisand effect shows. It did’t work before the Internet either. Say “Yes, I did it, I’m sorry.” Contrition works miracles, especially in the U.S.A. “Look, we all made mistakes.” Is anybody hounding Woody Allan or Roman Polanski? Own up to it, and push your good side. Surround yourself with kids with one leg. Who can hate you? The world will forget quickly that you buggered your daughter if you don’t remind the world every waking day.

Wikipedia would gain a lot if it would defend this article against interference. Let’s face it: Hedge fund owners are not high on the respectability scale anymore. Incest? No very popular. Heavy handed suppression of news? Not liked in this country. Wikipedia could look like a white knight that defends the virtues of democracy and free speech. Wikipedia defending its editors against a heavy handed, well armed posse would give the MSM the desperately needed opening to write about McMahan without receiving a fax “followed by registered mail.” Instead, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. Sad, very sad. BsBsBs (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at with all of the above. The VV editor made statements that indicated WP was paid off to ignore information regarding this person. An editor brought this to Jimbo's attention, and he replied with a short, but strongly worded statement denying it. Jimbo's statement was completely in keeping with his character. He often comments on controversial issues when asked. Had he not spoken out, anyone could have claimed that "Jimbo's silence on the issue is deafening." I am not sure why you seem to think this is a PR nightmare...McMahan is not really that well known (it's still to be determined if he even warrants and article). Whatever controversy exists has not been widely covered from what I can tell. Regardless, WP does not report the news, nor is it a gossip column, nor is it a place to give Mr. McMahan advice on how to handle his public/personal affairs The Eskimo (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

When the New York Times pays attention, then is a disaster, right now it is a couple of editors against a blogger. I for one have no idea who these people are, and I really don't give a s***. I brought this up because an editor at the VV was making potential libelous statements about Wikipedia, and because there already was meatpuppetry and confusion involved. I don't care if the man gets a page or not. If it meets the requirements for a page (without using Village Voice as a source) then it should have the page. I got involved because of the libel. I stayed because some blowhard with an agenda decided to turn a procedural delete into a conspiracy. Because people paid attention to this blowhard, it became what it is. We should have ignored him and moved on. It should have been done when with when I left the first time. An attack article was deleted, a puppet was blocked, and the admins were made aware of the potential libel. Instead, this head editor published a bunch of garbage without bothering to understand how Wikipedia works, and as a result, we're still here.

MOTION Anyone who is not an admin or staff should stop posting here and ignore this mess. Let the pros sort it out. We're only feeding this fire and making things worse. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A Proposition

Strike all that above. I am not sure I understand your post well enough, and re-reading my reply I think I may have assumed bad faith. My apologies if so.

I have a bit of a sinking feeling about this whole thread, going all the way back to the most recent AFD discussion. I want to assume good faith, but I can't help but wonder if this whole thread is being perpetuated by interested parties in order to keep McMahan's name "out there." Therefore I am going to make a bold proposition, which I suspect may be met with skepticism that I am somehow in cahoots with one or the other involved parties. And if this is a horrible idea, please feel free to say so. I am not an admin, but I wonder what others think about possibly courtesy blanking, revdeleting, or whatever the proper procedue for blanking this discussion would be due to the follwoing reasons.:

We have a very long and detailed discussion that:

1. Involves a living person, who no longer even has an article on WP due to notability and other reasons.

2. Is peppered with potentially libelous allegations from the sources in question sources that he had a sexual relationship with his daughter.

3. Contains statements that, though I would not consider to be legal threats exactly, are insinuations that WP is setting itself up for legal ramifications based on its action/inaction in regards to this subject (depending on who you are talking to at the time.

Is it even possible (or withing precedence) that this thread be blanked? Perhaps some sort of message box that reads something like "This discussion has been courtesy blanked due to containing controversial information about a living person who does not have a WP article. In the case that an article is one day created that passes notability guidelines, this discussion can be reactivated following admin review."

Anyway, I would support this and will step away to leave it to others to discuss, as I am feeling a bit icky about the whole thing. The Eskimo (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(sorry about the typos- it was a long post and I wanted to pound it in before an edit conflict occurred. The Eskimo (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read this thread, and I'm trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Indeed, this whole thread is full of libelisms (including from respected editors). So the guy married or was accused of having sex with his daughter and wants to hide it? For some reason, someone is intent on it being out in the open? Why is it so important to everyone? What the living heck is going on here? Long time admins posting long creeds, a new user claiming to have been here for forever (always suspicious). Why is this so damned important? Half of this feels incredibly astroturfed to me. Would someone clear the damned thing up? I have the same sinking feeling, Eskimo, like all of a sudden realizing half the things I read in the world have been changed thanks to someone's thought police (thanks Bsbsbs).Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's what happened:

1. I brought several problems with an article (see my original post in the top section,) to the ANI, and the article was subsequently deleted. Note that this is the second deletion.
2. One of those problems was an allegation by an editor at the Village Voice, who implied that the article was deleted the first time because the subject bullied Wikipedia. As far as I know, this is a complete fabrication by the editor. The real reason it was deleted the first time is because it was whitewashed and in terrible shape.
3. When it was deleted for a second time, (this time because the recreation was a blatant attack on the subject,) the same editor called me a minion.
4. Jimbo Wales got involved. (This is a statement of fact, I don't think it is a bad thing or a good thing, just something that happened.)
5. Reddit caught wind.
6. Because of point numbers 2 and 3, and aggravated by points 4 and 5, we have spent a large amount of time and effort talking about this topic. Little of it has anything to do with the original posting reasons, it is mainly focused on whether or not this person should have an article.
7. Other than the allegations of libel, which is still an issue, my origional points have been addressed. The socks were blocked and are now inactive, and the article is gone.
8. Also, this is ANI, so plenty of drama that may or may not be constructive.

Hope this helps Sven Manguard _Talk 00:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This guy really isn't encyclopedic

I just did some basic research with an eye towards creating a decent article about the guy but didn't find anything that made him notable enough for his own article. In short, he is: a hotshot accountant and a self-proclaimed philanthropist with a taste for pretty girls and fast cars and the money to indulge himself in both. Married twice. Divorced once. Current wife is young enough to be his child. Rumor has it that she is, but that's rumor off of the gossip sites not facts from a reputable news source. He may be a local celebrity but he hasn't done anything notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article.--*Kat* (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Enough

This thread began with three issues raised, of which only the first has been addressed. It's becoming a messy DRV-lite. If anyone has anything to say about issues 2 and 3 (at very top of thread), fine - otherwise, let's drop this. A DRV can be opened if necessary for further discussion of whether there should be an article. Rd232 ^talk 08:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic?

You’ve got to be kidding me. He’s not “encyclopedic?” Well, he’s definitely encyclopedic in the second sense of the word. The better word would probably be “not notable.” I give him the benefit of the doubt and call him as notable as the other 12 McMahans (there is a disambig page for Jeff McMahan on Wikipedia.)

• “David Bruce McMahan” (in quotes…) produces 342,000 hits on Google.

• The Securites and Exchange Commission finds him highly notable. Bruce McMahan has 67 EDGAR entries to his name. (I’m jealous, I have none.) You need to be a higher achiever than just an American born big band musician who played with the Lawrence Welk orchestra to get on EDGAR 67 times.

• If he’s not “encyclopedic” – why then, pray tell, is his National Cristina Foundation “encyclopedic?” It’s a completely unreferenced (and currently semi-protected) puff-piece that was written by the same Sunrainprods who, quite coincidentally also penned Maxximus G-Force (which reads like a mirror of Mc Mahans’s racing site,) and who otherwise did nothing to WP, except for one minor edit for Stand up to Cancer?

• Why is Maxximus G-Force “encyclopedic?” if the owner isn’t?

“Not notable” is highly ambiguous and subjective. What’s notable to some is highly boring to others. This must be the first case that someone claims he is “not notable” to make an (not congratulatory) article go away. It’s that same person that finds other facets of his life highly notable and newsworthy. Alleged lack of notability also serves as a highly effective WMD on WP. You don't like an article? Call it "not notable". I'm sure there will be some who share your dislike. If all else fails, make them up.

Before I went to “the dark side” of corporate propaganda (the money made me do it), I used to be an investigative journalist. In my professional opinion, Bruce McMahan is extremely notable and newsworthy, and I applaud the journalist who went to the trouble of sifting through dusty court records.

I recommend to be careful with the word "libel" or "libelous". In some states, libel can still be a criminal offense, and a felony. Be careful accusing others of potentially criminal acts. Speaking of libel, truth is an absolute defense against libel accusations. If you have court documents (as the Voice does) to back up your claims. you are pretty much libel-proof. What's more, a "person of public interest" (and McMahan should qualify) has a higher threshold of libel. He or she must prove malice, which most often is an insurmountable burden. As the WP is not in possession of the documents, I can understand that the WP is less enthusiastic than the Voice. However, the proper amount of "according to" and "it is alleged" would solve that matter.

A lot here may be clouded by bias against the Village Voice. In my likewise professional opinion, the Village Voice is a first-class paper. It earned its reputation amongst investigative journalists (a dying breed.) It has several Pulitzers to show, along with other awards. Sure, most people have a love it or hate it relationship with the Village Voice – investigative journalism by nature polarizes. I don’t share their political leanings, but I tip my hat to them. Lately, the Voice has been affected by the same problems that affect most publications that are printed on dead forests: Lack of readership and budget. The Wall Street Journal also isn’t what it used to be. Formerly voluptuous magazines look downright anorexic. Lazy (or call that overworked) journalism is quite the norm these days. If – in this day and age - someone takes the time and the trouble to thoroughly follow-up on a story, this person has my complete respect. Especially when under fire from lawyers. The Voice deserves another award, they don’t deserve to be called “hacks” or be marginalized as “bloggers.” - That reminds me: I blog every day. For money. It’s accepted as serious journalism. Should I be offended? The "hack" and "blogger" exchange (and the minions response) didn’t help the matter.

I am not related in any way with McMahan (had never heard of him or his hobbies), or Ortega, or the Voice. I have no moral outrage issues with either of them. But the matter has piqued my professional interest. The article and the talk pages are gone. Even some of the AFD discussions are gone (although accessible with a little digging). The AFD cases strike me as a bit strange. One “nomination withdrawn”, followed by one “keep” and then suddenly, one unanimous delete followed by a speedy.

It is a little disconcerting to note that several attempts have now been made to quash this discussion also. Speaking of DRV-Lite, I’d like to look a bit more into the matter. I would especially like to form an opinion whether there was puppetry involved in the 3rd AFD, or if the article had been sufficiently neutered by a whole Sesame Street of puppets to be worthy of a sudden strong “Delete” vote by totally uninvolved editors.

In accordance with the rules set forth by WP:DELREV I request (alternatively, in descending rank of preference)

• That the article, edit histories, and the attendant talk pages are temporarily restored, if necessary completely edit-blocked.

• That the article, edit histories, and the attendant talk pages are restored to my user space

• That the article, edit histories, and the attendant talk pages are sent to my email.

Thank you.BsBsBs (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No edit history is available for that article. This means that no admin is able to see the article, or to fulfill any of your requests. I suppose that the article was oversighted, and that only an oversighter can decide to fulfill any of your requests (assuming that there is anything in the edit history that is not "oversightworthy", since things that really need oversight are never sent to users afterwards, AFAIK). Fram (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? What page are you talking about? Special:Undelete/David Bruce McMahan and Special:Undelete/Bruce McMahan works for me. T. Canens (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

BsBsBs linked to the secure server. The equivalent pages on the normal server work as expected. Rd232 ^talk 13:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Thanks, both of you, for correcting my mistake and explaining it! Fram (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I get: "Unauthorized - The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Researchers. I must not be of the chosen few. BsBsBs (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You clearly haven't got a clue of how Wikipedia works. Most people who haven't been editing here for at least a few months don't have a clue, so that's normal. What's not normal is that such a huge drama is being made out of a simple misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission. I suggest that before lecturing hundreds of editors about how they have been manipulated and put under pressure by a person from (in many cases) a different continent, and whom they never heard of, you take one day's deletion discussions (random example) and read them, to get a feeling for how we generally do things here. But of course you might not be interested in doing so, because it might disprove your conspiracy theory. Hans Adler 13:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oho, Mr. Adler, landed right at the bottom of Sven Manguard's triangle, didn't we? Are you perchance referring to the fact that I am from a different continent? FYI, I plied my profession in the U.S.A, for 27 years, and I still pay my taxes here. As for the rest of it: Sticks and stones. You can try insulting me as much a you want, I'm used to it. BsBsBs (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

??? You seemed to be overdramatising so I thought you were this Village Voice guy or someone related. Now I see you have been around a bit longer, though apparently not enough to understand our notability criteria. Sorry for the confusion. Hans Adler 14:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am following procedure as outlined in WP:DELREV. I don't know how the request is fulfilled and who will fulfill it. WP:DELREV doesn't mention any oversighting. I strongly doubt that the data have been erased and thrown away. Suppositions are not helpful. Again, I am filing this request in order to help me form an opinion whether this article should be nominated for WP:DELREV. In the business, we used to call this "file an FOIA request." BsBsBs (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The October 2009 third AFD had 6 participants, of which two are admins, plus 1 user now at 17k edits, one at 8k. The discussion was on the basis of a version of the article with no mention of the controversy, which had been removed in August by a new account which did not participate. Rd232 ^talk 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It must be cleanup day. Write a few lines, and suddenly, National Cristina Foundation, and Maxximus G-Force are redlinked. I amend my request and add National Cristina Foundation, and Maxximus G-Force to the request. Thank you . BsBsBs (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I just collapsed this entire mess, my comments included. Continue posting there if you feel the need to be nonconstructive. Lets look at the above issues:

• Issue 1: The 'libelous' comments by the Voice: has been beaten to death by the community. The voice itself is a reliable source, it's blog, perhaps less so, and Jimbo Wales fiercely denies money as a factor in these deletions
• Issue 2: The meatpuppets: has been over for days.
• Issue 3: The article history: is the cause of most of the stuff in the box.

A primer on the article history. (Mind you this is detective work and I have not seen previous versions)

At one point this was a functional article. It was put up for deletion twice and survived twice. Between the second and third AfDs, the article was whitewashed, and became unbalanced towards a positive view of McMahan. It was deleted by community consensus as a bad article. The article was then recreated, this time heavily in the balance against McMahan. I, with my special talent for stepping unknowingly into existing conflicts, put it up for speedy deletion. I saw an attack page with a history of deletion, and put it up for the CSD for recreations of deleted material. Then I saw the comment and the puppets and posted this thread.

That's it people. No conspiracy theory, I don't care if the man has an article or not, it was a procedural nomination. I don't know anyone else involved, I'm not a minion, and I am tired of the drama unfolding in the box.

We need to end this mess now. Stop posting outside of the box, heck stop posting on this period. There is a proper forum for determining notability, and it ISN'T HERE. And god bless our tortured souls, Sven Manguard _Talk 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, Sven, but you comment on the earlier, deleted versions of the articles - have you seen them, or are you speculating as to their content? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, as I said before this is my first interaction with the articles of this person. However I am assuming in good faith that the people that have seen the articles are being accurate in their depictions, and these assertions are backed up in the various AfDs by the comments of experienced editors. Sven Manguard _Talk 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Collapse

I don't think the collapsing of large parts of this discussion is a prudent move.

• It removes large parts of the discussion from plain view and will add fuel to allegations that there is something to hide
• It breaks the links from the Table Of Content and confuses users
• There is no other reason for the collapse

Also, if this is not the proper place to discuss notability, then notability should not have been introduced right at the beginning of the discussion. I totally understand that Sven wants this discussion to go away. It will go away the old fashioned way, by the problems being resolved. Causing a collapse of the page and communication is not conducive to a solution..

Also, I reiterate the application I made above. It was no frivolous application. I meant it. A similar application had been made above, and it has been likewise ignored. BsBsBs (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want the thread to go away, per say, but it has gotten totally off track, so I collapsed it to try and make people focus on the points brought up in the beginning. The post had gotten so long and people got so distracted that I felt it to be the best option. If people focus on the issues and not the notability or the publicity, then I don't care how long this stays in ANI. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

( Discussion uncollapsed in archive to re-enable archive's top menu to work properly and to allow linking to individual sections as per WP:RTP Please see associated edit summary.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC) )

I'm not sure that there's anything else to be said on the subject, but I am sure that ANI is not the place to discuss the subject's notability. WP:DRV is that way (or, recalling that the key AFD was based on a version of the article with no mention of the controversy, a new version which does ought to not meet WP:CSD#G4, though it would probably end up at AFD again). If there is no actual misbehaviour requiring administrator attention, then really this discussion is over. Rd232 ^talk 13:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Genie In The Bottle

I totally sympathize with the attempts of stuffing the genie back in the bottle. But the genie got a little bigger after having been released, and it won't fit the bottle. If you want the genie in the bottle, don't touch that cork. I'm coming back from Google Analytics, and the topic spikes like wild.

As for discussing the issues raised, IMHO, there was only one relevant issue raised in the initial ANI post:

“Issue One: Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money.”

“Issue Two: Meatpuppetry or other Odd Beheavior” never received any traction. It was full of unsubstantiated allegations. And few people doubt that there is serious puppeteering going on here anyway. Strangely, Issue Two misses most of the puppets. But professional socks are hard to catch.

“Issue Three: The curious history of Bruce McMahan and David Bruce McMahan” is superfluous. It is in plain view that the history is curious.

Job #1 in any ANI opening is to state clearly what the problem is.

Job #2 is to ask clearly what the desired remedy is.

Which brings us back to Issue #1.

Problem stated: “Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money.” Further problem stated: “This is an issue of libel against Wikipedia.”

Desired remedy: “This might need intervention by the office staff. Or we can ignore the blogger, [REDACTED], and move on. More likely option is the first one, with all the chaos that entails.”

When filing ANIs (and when participating in ANI discussions,) one should have one’s facts together. The allegation that there is a “blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money” is patently wrong. In the English language, “deleting for money” means getting paid for the deletion. To my knowledge, nobody alleged that, and nobody has received any funds.

The Village Voice and their Editor in Chief, Tony Ortega, did not say that Wikipedia was paid. They said that “The court saw through your little stratagem, but you're appealing the judge's decision to quash my subpoena because, well, why not? You have more money than you know what to do with. That couldn't be more obvious seeing how much money you spent scrubbing Wikipedia. For months after our original story came out, you had your goons launch daily attacks at the website, using sock puppets and other methods to intimidate the online encyclopedia into removing any mention of what was in our stories.” Did Ortega say that WP was paid off? He did not. He alleged that McMahan hired “goons” (let’s be charitable and assume he referred to lawyers and a PR agency) to “scrub” Wikipedia. I’m sure he has proof for that, if not, it’s a matter between McMahan and the Voice.

The allegation of money changing hands was also quickly refuted by Jimbo Wales: “Just a quick note: Tony Ortega did not claim, nor imply, that Wikipedia deleted the article "for money". If he did say or imply that, please do let me know, because that's absolutely false and libelous. But I think what he said was also false, and it is worth me saying so plainly. His claim appears to be that McMahan's money allowed him to intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats. That's absolutely false. There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me. Whether or not there should be an article about this topic is entirely up to the community in accordance with the usual procedures.”

At this point, the right thing to do for the complainant would have been to say: "Sorry, I misunderstood and misspoke. I retract the ANI." Genie back in bottle. But he didn't say that. So sadly, we must go on.

Let’s carefully parse Jimbo's statement. Jimbo Wales never said that McMahan never tried to “intimidate Wikipedia into deleting the article through legal threats.” All Wales says that “There is no prohibition on creating the article from either the Foundation or me.” If there were no legal insinuations, one would expect a more forceful statement, along the lines of “Wikipedia was never approached by either McMahan or parties acting on his behalf. We are not in receipt of any communication raising the possibility of legal consequences.” Now you only say that if it’s true, and if nobody can produce an email or fax that says the opposite. If there is such proof, you sidestep the issue.

I think this is what we have here, especially because further down, Jimbo Wales makes another statement: “Again, to be clear, I have nothing to do with this. Bruce did not contact me, I did not intervene. There is no prohibition by me or the Foundation on creating an article on this topic, and never has been. Years ago, Brad Patrick had conversation with some people about this; he may be able to explain more if he is interested. But he did not, to my knowledge, intervene back then.” Brad Patrick had been hired in 2006 as “as general counsel and interim executive director” of the Wikmedia Foundation. If “some people” contact the general counsel of a company, then it is a fair guess that legal matters were involved in the contacting.

(Digging through New Times back issues from 2007 we read a claim that - also years ago - Brad Patrick had contacted the New Times for advice: "Patrick called to see if it were true that there was a court order making it illegal to post the documents. New Times was happy to explain that Patrick was being snowed." If this is true - and I'm not aware of any denial - then Wikimedia's general counsel and interim executive director seemed to have had no WP:Reliable Sources issues with the New Times.)

Wales’ reply had been in response to an article posted on Reddit by someone who claimed he had been the original editor, and apparently to the sentence “eventually, Bruce contacted Jimbo Wales, who directly intervened and had an admin settle the debate in favor of scrubbing ALL references to Bruce's daughter fucking from the article.” From the above, I gather Wales was not contacted, but the general counsel and interim executive director was. This is customary when lawyers are involved. They contact your lawyer if you have one.

What is also worthy to note is that the remaining allegations in the Reddit post remain unopposed. Namely “Bruce's hired gun from the law firm of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP (www.linerlaw.com) emailed me proposing changes to the article. What a fuck up! The idiot didn't even know he could edit the article himself. I ignored him.” And “Bruce's PR firm wised up, and vandals began blanking the page. I kept restoring it, and we went back and forth. His PR firm soon figured out that they could actually re-write the pages instead of vandalize them.” It would be most unwise to accuse someone of lying if the other guy can pull out an email.

Speaking of unopposed allegations, here is an interesting nugget from the Village Voice article: “I tracked down the Wikipedia minion who had written that, who turned out to be an electrical engineer in England. He sent me some long explanations about the nature of journalism and what information is reliable. But eventually, I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan, but it was easier to say that the Voice wasn't a legitimate source.”

It is not entirely clear who that electrical engineer from England is, but from the back and forth I assume it is Sven Manguard (correct me if I’m wrong.) What is much more interesting is that the following assertion is, to my knowledge, unopposed: “I got him to admit that Wikipedia was wiping the McMahan page simply through fear. They were afraid of being sued by McMahan.” If I would be in that situation, and if I wouldn’t have said it, I would protest loudly and say “show me the proof that I said that, or you will be talking to my lawyer.” If the other side has an email, or possibly a voice recording, I would ignore the matter.

It also isn’t helpful that Manguard has made his disdain for the Village Voice and its sister publication, the New Times, known. As in “I'm been to South Florida. I've had the distinct misfortune of reading the New Times. It is unreliable, and has such tremendously low journalistic standards that it is on par with trash tabloids. I would never use it as a source in anything. I'd sooner use the National Inquirer. The New Times is NOT a suitable source, ever, period.” Apart from the tortured grammar: We all have our opinions. I don’t think that anybody can be totally objective. However, in matters like these, we should keep our opinions to ourselves, because they will backfire.

This ANI started with a patently false allegation, namely “Blog accusing Wikipedia of deleting articles for money.” It also accused another party of libel.

I mentioned above that one needs to be careful of making accusations of libel. In Florida, and this is where both Ortega and Wikipedia appear to reside, and where the most likely jurisdiction would be, libel still rates as a criminal offense. Not a big one, a misdemeanor, unless extortion is involved, which would make it a second-degree felony. If all fails, there’s always the little known Tortious interference.

As far as the notability discussion goes, which some so desperately try to quash, and for which this allegedly is not the proper forum: Notability was the main criterion in the AFD discussion that led to the article’s demise (I’d evaluate the discussion as a tie). Furthermore, Jimbo Wales himself said that “For me personally, a big test for this article, and a challenge perhaps difficult to meet, is WP:BLP1E.” Which translates to “Subjects notable only for one event.” There you go, the nasty notability again.

As for the puppeteers: Of course they are gone. Mission accomplished. Article removed. That’s all they wanted to. PR agency and lawfirm SLAPP-happy. Time to write a bill. Article deleted for money. But not to Wikipedia.

Morals:

- Don’t open a discussion, and then yell “enough.”

- Have your facts together. Ask questions first, shoot later

- Don’t let personal opinions cloud your judgment – at least not publicly

- Be careful of being manipulated

As for the WP:DRV, I am waiting for the material I requested. I would like to form an opinion. BsBsBs (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu has already left the building

Resolved

 – An editor apparently mistook the closing admin for one of the sockpuppets. Page deleted by Risker (talk · contribs) as requested. –xeno^talk 14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only have I left the building, but I left in style. Three times now, each time to the catcalls and brickbats of many adoring fans and haters (sadly more haters than fans).

Perhaps you could delete the ridiculous accusation of sock-puppetry on my old user page? I was curious to see if anyone had left any messages and was surprised that anyone would be stupid enough to have recreated the old user page!!!

Thanks. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realise why this happened. Should have realised. Thanks Xeno/Risker. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I couldn't even post here to say I'd responded to the CSD for all the edit conflicts! No worries TBSDY. Risker (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Left, but still editing as an IP isn't quite the same as left. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that's a bit odd - if it is who s/he claims to be. I'm pretty sure that's well outsite WP:Vanish with or without self-proclaimed style. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the WP:VANISH rules were written with the intent of ensuring that false accusations of sockpupetry would remain on vanished users talk pages. But I've been wrong before.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Tbsdy lives (talk) exercise WP:VANISH, or simply retire? TFOWR 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication they exercised RTV. –xeno^talk 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I forgot about the talk page bit

He somehow persuaded Arbcom to enforce an out-of-process and contrary to policy deletion of his usertalk pages, so he managed to vanish rather more than would be allowed to editors in good standing. DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

and now has the audacity to ask that a false claim of sockpupetry be removed.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake, no-one is complaining about the removal of a mistaken sock notice. What I'm complaining about is how come he gets to have his talk page deleted as being forever gone and in special circumstances, but then carries on editing as an IP. It was strongly implied that if he returned the talk page would be restored. The IP's contributions are clearly his. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Gentleman, I make small on and off edits under an IP address. Indeed, I vanished. Until I noticed that someone had added something to the Ta bu shi da yu page I didn't post here. If you look at the edit history of that IP address, you'll notice that I edited a few articles and asked a few anonymous questions about statistics related matters because I'm teaching myself statistics. If folks like DuncanHill want to get all high and mighty about it, well tough. I'm not contributing a great deal, but I'm still making the odd edit. I was never banned, so far as I know. However, it's a moot point as you'll never, ever really know it's me editing if I decide to switch ISPs. To all intents and purposes, I have indeed vanished. Thank you one and all, and especially to those who cleared up the very small matter of my old user talk page. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't retired, you haven't vanished (an early talk page edit from your IP made it clear you were a returning "old-hand". Yet, somehow, you have persuaded Arbcom to threaten any admin who follows policy and restores your account's talk page. No, you weren't ever banned, but you've gamed the system like a pro. DuncanHill (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just add, have you read Facts from Figures by Moroney? It's jolly good. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As the user has clearly not "left Wikipedia finally and forever," the user has not WP:Vanished at all, rather has switched to an IP address. The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. I have tagged the IP address as such and restored the user's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• See thread further down - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Restored user talk pages

Restored user talk pages

Resolved

 – per SlimVirgin Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_has_already_left_the_building for background. DuncanHill (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe it. I anonymously made a few edits from an Optus Cable account and you have restored my user talk pages? I've never seen such an act of bastardy on Wikipedia, ever. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh do give it a rest, you are starting to bore people.  Giacomo  23:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding in that you exercised a WP:RTV rather than retiring the account under the circumstances then prevailing, which resulted in the pages being deleted. I do not know whether those circumstances still hold, but if they do then you should contact ArbCom again and see if the deletion can be returned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was RTV, the pages still should not have been deleted sans MfD. I'm fairly sure Brad said that Tbsdy would not be editing again, when he was asked to justify his request that the pages stay deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that Brad said that the page should remain deleted, but that comment was made on my talkpage so would have not been seen by too many people. After that point I do not know what transpired, and I assume Toddst1 was acting in good faith and a misunderstanding of the original situation - but it would help if Brad or another Arb could comment on what the position is now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted ArbCom, per LHVU's advise. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith, LHVU. As I stated on my talk, If there was an arbcom decision, I'd be glad to self revert. All I've read is hearsay and a statement from NYB in May asking that the page be left deleted but with a qualification of "at this time." Since then, TBSDY has returned and is actively editing. That changes any RTV. Unless arbcom has ruled, we all follow the same rules. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a misunderstanding, sure, but why are regular editors who know as much about the Wikipedia ethic as I do acting so robotically towards a very well regarded editor who has exercised the right of all people in good standing to edit Wikipedia anonymously? --TS 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is a correct representation of the events. The user returned and was quite disruptive, left under a cloud and as I remember had his admin removed, correct me if I am wrong.Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't leave under a cloud, and Brad politely asked me if he could remove my admin rights after I left, which I readily agreed to. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, Brad politely informed the rest of us that your loss of admindom counted as "under a cloud" if you ever asked for them back. I'll sniff about for the diff. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You recall rather wrongly then. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, interpretations may differ, but this was the comment I was recalling. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck it. The reason I was leaving was because I was having suicidal thoughts that were causing me a great deal of problems. I have a young family and had I taken my life I would have left a widow and two small children without a father. Happy now? That's the whole fucking reason why Brad was being so oblique, you unbelievable twat. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact here is that I have made a few minor edits to Wikipedia, and asked a few questions on the Math RD. All under an anonymous IP address. If I'd asked for my old user page to be deleted via a proxy, then this wouldn't be an issue. But that's not Cricket, so for my honesty I'm being punished? That's fucked up. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• To quote Right To Vanish: "Editors who invoke this right should expect that, should they return, their previous identity will be fully restored and may be linked to their new one if required for communal scrutiny, and any open sanctions and outstanding administrator or arbitration matters may be resumed." If you've 'vanished' that doesn't mean you get to edit anonymously; it means you're done here. HalfShadow 00:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What is that new identity? And are you saying I'm banned from even making the odd small change to a typo? - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Hint: it starts 114... And yes. If you invoke RTV that means, to use Marcellus Wallace's words, "You get gone. And when you gone, you stay gone." That's how it works. You chose to link an IP to your former account, you decided to break the RTV. In essence, you banned yourself by invoking RTV. → ROUX ₪ 00:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • • But I didn't link that IP address to my old account. It was a pure accident in that I posted to WP:AN/I asking for the slur that I was a sockpuppet to be removed. Had I not done that you'd never have known... my mistake I guess. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Given your failure to understand this, I'm curious as to how you became an admin in the first place. Was there a raffle or something? HalfShadow 00:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I created this noticeboard. I got quite a few articles to FA status (at the time). I helped organize Wikimeetups. I started Wikiproject Sydney. I did a lot of work to remove trolls, I cleaned up a lot of things, I created the {{fact}} tag, and on and on it goes. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I just tried to write a post explaining the RTV, but realized I could think of exceptions for everything I said was the case. Maybe this is the time to nail down what RTV means. Are pages moved or deleted, do they include talk pages, does it mean the user must never return, or is he allowed to keep on editing under a different name/IP? etc. And what is the difference between RTV and fresh start? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A fresh start means a new account is created, or you start actively contributing to the project under an anonymous IP address. I didn't believe, and still don't, that RTV means that you can't correct typos, or ask questions at the reference desk! - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• It means different things depending on who is involved (who the editor is, who is handling it). That has always been the problem with it. Strictly speaking talk pages shouldn't be deleted under RTV, but moved to a new name. Strictly speaking if you invoke RTV you're meant to stay vanished. But exceptions abound. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Toddst1 just warned me that I'm about to get blocked. Please! As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is actively pursuing someone when they know they have a serious mental illness is a twat, pure and simple. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope no one ends up being blocked. TB, is there a reason now that you want your talk pages to stay deleted? You don't need to elaborate, but is there still a reason? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard for me to elaborate, but it definitely relates to my ongoing illness. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then I am going to delete them for now, and we can continue discussing what to do in the longer term, and in more general terms with this kind of situation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If it means that I never, ever edit on this site again (ever! even for typos, etc.) then so be it! - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted them and dropped Todd an email to let him know. Meanwhile I think this is a good opportunity to nail down what we mean by RTV at the RTV talk page, and whether talk pages should be moved or deleted, and when they may be undeleted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#Deleting user talk pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that the editor in question never invoked RTV, he retired while blocked, something he had done before. As he was blocked, and had had talk page access and email access denied for abuse there is no way he could be considered to have been in good standing for RTV. Please could some of you be less willing to take his lies at face value. He has a long history of lying about his retirements and the circumstances surrounding them, even to the extent of lying to the Bureaucrats last time he reclaimed his admin tools. DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  Duncan, I don't know whether you realise who Ta bu shi da yu is, but even so calling him a liar like this is unacceptable. Please back off from this issue and let others handle it. --TS 11:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that even after block logs and edit histories were posted shewing that he had retired while blocked, he continued to claim that he hadn't retired while blocked. "Who he is" doesn't make any difference. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Threat of suicide

here. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revdel the threat. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest to the user that he not leave a mess and get on with your life. HalfShadow 03:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A CU needs to call the police and give the guy a reality check. That's all. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore, troll Secret ^account 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't risk it. May also be related to Sebdog69 (talk · contribs) (see Trollwikiday's now-RevDel'd edit on Pepsi). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a suicide threat, also I saw the original edit of Pepsi Max while I was doing some vandal fighting, I was beat by the revert and placed the editor on AIV Sebdog should be blocked. Secret ^account 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind I see it first sentence. Someone should tell him to calm down, I 100% sure he's lying look at the username he wanted to be blocked. But a checkuser scare should make him stop trolling. Secret ^account 03:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he just emailed me saying "that it was all a bit of a prank" and that he was not serious in regard to the suicide. I don't think it was ever completely serious, but it doesn't hurt to err on the safe side. Now, though, it's probably not worth bothering about. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A suicide threat is not something to joke about. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to the editor. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 04:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever happened to don't feed the trolls? Looie496 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Nummy, nummy!" Contacting the authorities in this case as a real suicide threat? Not necessary... Doc talk 04:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but lets do it anyway. The resulting medical bill ought to be large enough to keep this troll from joking about this ever again.--*Kat* (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Slap a {{Suicide response}} template on his page somewhere, and let him get on with celebrating "International Troll Wikipedia Day". He wouldn't really "off" himself, because then he would miss out on the "festivities" he's alluded to... Doc talk 05:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How likely is a user calling himself "Trollwikiday" to be sincere about anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Look. Lets short circuit the usual nonsense. There are a set of editors who feel that most suicide threats on wiki are attempts to troll editors and do not invoke some responsibility to call the authorities. There is another set that feels every threat is a potential loss of life or health (since many failed suicide attempts result in permanent damage). If see a reasonably credible threat, post it here, DONT delete it and someone will contact the authorities. But agitating one camp versus another is pointless. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy on this kind of thing, or is it handled on a case-by-case basis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. If there is a policy it should be WMF handling it, not joe admin. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like every time one of these seemingly external problems come on-wiki, everyone starts to sound like Scarlett O'Hara: "Where will Ah go? What will Ah do?" Maybe this is a question for Mr. Wales? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh. I'm of two minds. first, google "WP:TOV" and see what the top link points you toward. That should give you an idea of how intertwined these threats are w/ trolling. Second, I really do think this is the sort of thing best left to people with @wikimedia.org email addresses. There is only so much I am willing to do for WP, and firing off emails or calling local PDs is not high on my list. I have no idea what the law says (or which jurisdiction is appropriate). The police have no reason to believe that an @gmail.com address is a good contact point. And I'm unwilling to bear the risk, however small, that someone didn't want their suicide threat to impact their professional life and sues me for reporting it (this is a bit intertwined with the law bit, but worth mentioning by itself). So the present equilibrium where concerned editors forward this sort of thing to checkusers is probably fine for those users, but if the WMF wants to get serious about handing cases like these, they ought to step in and hire someone who doesn't have all of the reservations that a volunteer editor might have. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for any of the editors above who are not aware of it or did not refer to it before acting or commenting, and perhaps more relevantly, for anyone else reading who might have to deal with potentially more serious instances in the future, there is an essay on this, at WP:SUICIDE --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Strongly support taking action in the event of threats of violence to oneself or others. Even if the person wasn't serious or it was "just a joke", local LEOs might catch the person who made the edit and chastise them severely. (I seem to recall this having happened within the last week or two regarding an edit made on wiki, but I can't remember whether I heard about that on wiki or in IRC. For some reason, Roux comes to mind as the one who might have called Law Enforcement, and it might have been in Wyoming...but I may be totally drawing a blank here. I'll drop a note by Roux and see if I remember correctly or if I'm just sleep deprived.) On the other hand, if they were serious, hopefully it's a life or lives saved. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never contacted any LEO agency with regards to anything on Wikipedia, and haven't been on IRC in almost two years. → ROUX ₪ 07:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:SUICIDE, Demiurge, that seems informative. It gives this advice: "Treat all claims seriously. Wikipedians are not as a rule properly trained to determine if such a claim or threat is an immediate harm to someone's well being, and should assume the worst and act accordingly. Treat such claims seriously and as an emergency. The template {{Suicide response}} is available as a standard response to such posts." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also mention the article strongly emphasises that "Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat." I've contacted five different law enforcement agencies about cases of this nature, and all of them took that view. None of them asked dumb questions (which they occasionally do in other types of cases like threats of harm to others). Although none corresponded by email and the overseas agencies didn't appear willing or able to phone me back internationally, the one case where I had especially detailed location information resulted in police arriving at the location within minutes, and the end of my involvement in less than an hour, after nothing more than one phone call each way (me calling to inform the police of the situation, and them calling me back to inform me of the outcome). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Socking by Jonas Poole

User:Jonas Poole essentially admitted to abusing a sockpuppet account here; I've disabled the sock account but would like another admin to hand out a sanction for the main account, as I've become involved in a minor content dispute with him. His block log is already rather extensive, especially in regards to edit-warring with other editors over this same issue. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Are you sure that's the right diff? The first one mentions nothing of socking... Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• For the benefits of those who took as long as I did to connect the dots, here (including Jclemens I notice after this edit conflict ☺): "which, as I said in reverting your edit for the second time, shouldn't be used outside the German language" by Jonas Poole (talk · contribs) links up with "The German spelling shouldn't be used outside the German language." by OttaSotta (talk · contribs). And the reason that Parsecboy is involved here is because these two accounts have been tag teaming against xem at Bismarck class battleship.

  Given the months of history (start with Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Spitsbergen) that there is over this one single issue — the spelling of Spitsbergen — using sock puppets to edit war about it was definitely the wrong thing to do. I am strongly tempted to decline this request, given that it is based upon the assertion that using multiple accounts to make the same edit one two three times was not sockpuppetry. I would have hoped that after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625#User:Jonas Poole, Jonas Poole would know better than to do this sort of thing.

  I note in passing it's not a good idea to accuse people who make spelling changes, of this sort, of "trolling". There's a significant difference between being convinced of the rightness of one's position, and trying (albeit with exceedingly poor execution) to get the encyclopaedia to reflect what one believes to be correct and accurate, and making spelling changes just to provoke. (Executive summary: "troll" is not short for "person who disagrees with me".) Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • As you noted, Jonas should have well learned his lesson on arguing over the spelling of the island; that he steadfastly refuses to do so and continues to disrupt articles over this single issue sounds like trolling to me. Parsecboy (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The lessons to have learned were not to employ personal attacks, not to edit war, and to discuss things with other people in a civil and adult fashion. They were not to learn that xe is wrong about the facts of the matter, given what is written here (including Weakopedia's final comments) for starters. (I did recommend reading that discussion the last time.)

      Again, someone who genuinely disagrees with you about spelling and thinks that xyr spelling is the right one and your spelling is inaccurate, and who wants to make the encyclopaedia accurate, is not the same as someone who is making spelling changes not because of any desire for accuracy but simply and solely to annoy or to disrupt. You pointed to m:What is a troll?. It's a good idea to go and read its first four paragraphs. ☺ There has been nothing presented in these noticeboard and talk page discussions over several months to indicate that Jonas Poole does not have the accuracy of the encyclopaedia as xyr goal, even if xyr methods of working towards that goal have been bad ones. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I nearly missed this. I watchlisted Spitsbergen after one of the last reports, but it seems I am the only one. Currently there seem to be so many fans of original research and nationalist debate about this extremely minor point, that it is impossible to fix the weight problem. At the moment the very first section goes into excruciating detail about who wrote the word with an s or z, and which is or isn't correct and why, and completely drowns the little encyclopedic information it does convey. I have commented in more detail on the talk page some time ago, but my points were simply ignored.

I am asking uninvolved editors to watchlist the article so that next time this comes up we have a more representative sample of editors commenting there. Thanks. Hans Adler 11:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• It came up at Bismarck class battleship this time around, however. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. I was put off by the work needed to understand the first post, without noticing your solution key. Now that I have understood the issue: It seems clear to me that (1) a consistent spelling of "Spitsbergen" throughout Wikipedia is prefereable (per Weakopedia), (2) in spite of the absurd section Spitsbergen#Etymology this is just a minor spelling variation that does not involve any real-life nationalist conflict; (3) calling either spelling "German" or "Dutch" is anachronistic (the variation dates back to when the island was (re-)discovered; the discoverer was a native of a village that spoke Frisian at the time, a language separate from Dutch and German; Dutch and German formed a dialect continuum rather than two separate languages; and spelling was chaotic). Hans Adler 13:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Jonas has been blocked for edit-warring and refusing to discuss the problem in the past. Also, he has no connection with the article in question, yet less than 17 hours after I posted the rewritten version Jonas showed up to "fix" the problem. The only method I can imagine he'd have found the link was by patrolling the What links here? tool. That's some rather obsessive, paranoid behavior, and especially concerning, given its connection with a nationalist issue. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Obsessional: perhaps. Paranoid: Such a thing is impossible to diagnose from looking at pseudonymous edits to a wiki, and it's not a good idea to call people paranoiacs, either. Yes, that's clearly how xe found the article. However, it doesn't seem that there's actually much of a nationalist issue (outwith Wikipedia, that is) here. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record:

• 3 September: Jonas Poole gets blocked for a month for disruption at Spitsbergen
• 4 September: Jonas Poole tries to negotiate this into a topic ban so he can still edit exploration-related pages.
• 6 October: Jonas Poole sets up a new account specifically for exploration-related pages
• 15 October: The second account comes out accidentally. Up to that point has failed to connect the two accounts per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.

I think this sequence of events speaks for itself. I have thought about asking for checkuser but it does not seem necessary at this point. Hans Adler 13:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see enough reason to unblock the sock account User:OttaSotta at this time. User:Jonas Poole may have exhibited too much zeal for a particular spelling of Spitsbergen but that issue now seems resolved. Unless Jonas or OttaSotta will show up here to explain in more detail why a second account is needed, I suggest that no further action is required. If Jonas is willing to attach the WP:SOCK#NOTIFY templates to his OttaSotta account then we might discuss further. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Benoît Mandelbrot

Resolved

 – Article fully protected by User:Bwilkins GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Since noone is acting at RPP can anyone fully protect the article because the edit-warring trying to add the death date of Benoît Mandelbrot with unreliable sources is immense. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Er, and you're one of the edit warriors...and not all of your reverts meet the rules...(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked you at your talkpage due to problems editing here. But now that I can edit this section can you please explain your comment? Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Death confirmed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/us/17mandelbrot.html, can someone edit this into the article please, currently fully protected. Exxolon (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon, you know better than your little series of minor tirades on my talkpage about a mere 10 minute delay in someone doing the protected edit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Exxolon. I just saw that the article was updated by sysops. Great. I had asked at RFPP since early on for full protection fearing another Seigenthaler incident-type BLP violation but it was only semi'd initially with which I agreed at the time and for a time the semi-protection seemed to work. The rest is history. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is also worthwhile to note that apart from the unreliable sources during the stage of the edit-warring the proposed death date was wrong. It was edited in as the 15th of October (sample). It is good to know that our reliance on WP:RS worked and that when we put it in, the date was encyclopaedic and correct. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

White Rabbit requested moves

Resolved

At Talk:White Rabbit, the IP 75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made a third request to move the page in the last four months. The first two requests were unanimously opposed, yet the third request attempts to do the same thing. It seems to me that the IP is trying to game the system, but I'm not sure about the proper course of action in this case. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Easy: I blocked the IP for a week. It's the second time I've blocked them for this, betweentimes JodyB has a quiet word with them, and several other editors have also tried to discuss this with the IP. Either they're trolling or they're incompetent. I don't really care which. TFOWR 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate to play "grammar nazi" but the phrase You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Stop messing around with page-move requests in the block notice doesn't make sense. I'm assuming a script did this? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I like write always that. I understand Don't what Problem the is? ;-) Aye, Twinkle has a field for "additional comments" - I assumed it would do the sensible thing and append them to the block notice, instead of inserting it as a block reason. Sometimes I hate Twinkle. This time is one of them. I saw it, and half-thought I'd fix it, but ran into fractal-related distractions... TFOWR 15:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for you, Ron Ritzman. ;-) TFOWR 15:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Problematic IP editor

92.10.108.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just made this grossly offensive edit. For background, it is also the same editor as 92.11.242.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who previously made similar remarks, and was blocked for 55 hours. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And is now edit warring to keep it on the page. O Fenian (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Their edit-warring days are over: John (talk) has put a stop to that silly game. TFOWR 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you John. O Fenian (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• RD2, RD3? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations

Resolved

 – blocked by CactusWriter --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:22alatham is repeatedly creating articles from copyrighted material. Despite numerous warnings on his talk page, he continues to restore the copyvios. Could an admin please block him from editing until he reviews and notes that he understands WP:COPYVIO? Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor has not responded to any previous messages. I have applied a 24-hour block and left a note. Let's hope this catches their attention. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry help requested

Unresolved

 – RFCU in progress Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Presume you meant SPI? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect

While reading the Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden article, I came across an odd user name, User:Princess Mary of Sweden. There I found a confession on the Princess' user page that Baseball Bugs, The Transhumanist, and Princess Mary of Sweden are socks. This is disruptive. I recommend investigation and then blockage of all the sock accounts. The main one is the Transhumanist, so that one can stay. This is because the Transhumanist edits but Bugs tries to butt into dramatic arguments on ANI and AN and Princess Mary sounds too much like real royalty (just like if someone were named Gregory W. Bush or Bernald H. Obama). Conclusion: shut down all the accounts except the main The Transhumanist

If I am wrong, sorry, but I don't think so. I'm just reporting what I saw. Let's have a checkuser work on this. I don't know how to submit a checkuser so either someone else do it or let the guilty get off scot free. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but all the User:Princess Mary of Sweden page says is:

I am a permitted use of an alternate account.

It names no names and nothing about those other ones links them to alternate accounts.

Where are you getting this from?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Scroll to the bottom. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I notified Bugs, as Chase me failed to do so. Grsz¹¹ 03:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This screams out "Joe-job". SPI on the account and on the reporting account here? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ron in looking at the edit histories I am not sure what you want us to scroll to the bottom of. As to "Chase me", no edits for 15 months and then this comes up. It feels like a little unneeded wikimelodrama is about to ensue. MarnetteD | Talk 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

First line is I am a permitted use of an alternate account.. This is followed by 89 Crlf's, a leading space and the text My main accounts are Baseball Bugs and The Transhumanist. This is a secret. Do not tell anyone or "out" me.. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This all screams "sockpuppet of banned user" to me. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone up for a bet that Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect == Princess Mary of Sweden? I'm in for a nickel. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Who knows. There's been more socking in the last week than in the past 6 months combined. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone has been holding a 15 month grudge. Let's be gone with this guy. Grsz¹¹ 03:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Not that this is definitive, but Grundle's back in active operation, and has a thing about Obama ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(lotsa ec)This[113] edit, both in its style and its placement, looks a lot like User:ChildofMidnight. Then again it could be Grundle fucking around, or who knows who else. PhGustaf (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections to indef'ing them both for disruption or trolling? This is, frankly, ridiculous. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Support indef block for both, with a checkuser and possible ban (if not already banned as Grundle) Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I don't know much about CoM except that he's very fond of harassing Bugs, and these accounts seem to fit that description.

CoM is fond of listing enemies, calling them "thugs" or the like, and running to Jimbo. Grundle does none of these. But it could of course be someone else. PhGustaf (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• • What's been done with User:Princess Mary of Sweden that warrants revoking editing privileges? The account has six edits in total. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I have serious doubts that the claims made that User:Princess Mary of Sweden is run by Baseball Bugs and/or The Transhumanist. The very fact that it is impersonating other users in this manner is egregiously disruptive, and also clear evidence that it is a sock account of somebody, likely someone who has a grudge against Bugs and Transhumanist. Starting an account for the sole pupose of falsely claiming that other users are operating it is beyond disruptive. Blocking it seems a good idea. A checkuser should also check for connections or socks. Furthermore, the reporting account looks like an impersonation account to harrass User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. --Jayron32 03:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to drop this. I only filed this report because of what I saw. They say I haven't edit. That's darn right, I just read Wikipedia now.

If you do file a SPI, this should include all parties and not conveniently leaving out some. All, Princess, Transhumanist, Bugs, should be included.

This also shows how manipulative Wikipedians can be. You call me Grundle. I am not Grundle. But that is a slimey and easy way to get rid of anyone you hate. I hate user X, call him Grundle. I hate user y, call him Grundle. I am losing a discussion, call the other side either a sock or Grundle. The next person who uses this tactic should be banned. This should be the new Wikipedia way.Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice rant... --Jayron32 04:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

All we're saying is that Grundle has been extremely active lately, and there is a slight possibility that you are a Grundle sock. Understand now? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh...why is it that all the new people who report something to ANI get very fussy when people, not without reason, think something odd may be afoot. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actual new users getting flustered is not suprising; what is annoying is sockpuppeteers who repeatedly come back here despite the fact that they get picked up reliably and blocked again, and get vocal about it each time.

You'd think they'd find somewhere else to hang out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with CoM; is this one of his standard rants? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but if you check his edit history prior to todays little glitch, there's stuff going on at the Obama articles which bear his hallmarks. The link above that PhGustaf linked is very CoM-like. CoM and Grundle tended to edit from the same perspective, but where Grundle is snarky and sardonic when under a perceived threat, CoM tended to get angry and/or defensive. Check out User_talk:Jayron32/Archive11#Gerald_Walpin which shows CoM descending into his angry/defensive stance. There's similarities in the tone of his comments there with those of Chase Me... here. Additionally, that discussion shows some of the grudge that CoM shows towards Baseball Bugs. You can find similar conflicts with Transhumanist too, I'd imagine. --Jayron32 05:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Could Grundle and ChildofMidnight be the same person operating two complex sockfarms? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Only under the "anything is possible" criteria. But seriously, no. They are distinct people, I have absolutely no doubt about that. --Jayron32 05:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

They would have to be exceptionally careful if that were the case. No similar IP addresses, styles of editing, etc, and plus the more people that know about something, the harder it is to keep it a secret, so the editor behind it couldn't even tell his closest ally without a significant amount of risk involved. Overall, kinda maybe sorta possible, but highly unlikely. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I ran wikichecker on Grundle2600 and CoM; their day of week and time of day patterns are fairly similar but nothing to warrant suspicion AFAIK. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Almost certainly not. In the Obama wars a year or two ago, they pushed similar POVs, but in entirely different styles. For one thing, Grundle has never been mean, but mean is CoM's middle name. The passage quoted by AD above is odd: It has a CoM tenor to it, but seems less literate than I'd expect. I have notified CoM of this discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed my resolved tag per objection. I can't believe you guys are wasting so much effort fucking around with this blatant and obvious troll. I've indeffed him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

meh. I'm married and its Friday night. Got nothing better to do. --Jayron32 06:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's funny. I should send you my Margarita recipe. Toddst1 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of tequila right now. Had a few cans of Yeungling, so that's helping a bit. --Jayron32 06:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm married, not out of Tequila, and it's Friday night. We've got much better things to do. But I'm stuck supporting a remote site IT change going on in the change window tonight. So nothing better happening, and no margarita. Yet.

Yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My wife's parents are visiting from out of town. So my better thing to do isn't getting done... ;) --Jayron32 06:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'm left scowling at the thought I can't enjoy one for another ~3 years. The drinking age in the US fails. Oh well, I've still got energy. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just saw the notice a little bit ago. First, I want to mention that while my interaction ban with CoM is still in place, I'm now allowed to comment for administrative purposes, so here goes: I doubt very much that either CoM or Grundle are behind the OP here. The one place where someone asked "does this look like CoM", I would say, No, it doesn't. Also, those two may have done some socking, but impostoring is not their style. I can think of several users who've done impostoring and dragged my name into it, but as I've learned, it's best to not spend very much time trying to figure out who's doing the socking, because that's precisely what they want - so just block the current offender and any "sleeper" accounts and be done with it. Although if a familiar pattern emerges, it doesn't hurt to look into it further. The fact that the OP is using an obvious play on Chase Me Ladies (as pointed out earlier) tells you something right there. What this actually reminds me of most starkly is the guy from summer 2009 (never identified) who impostored the indef'd user Axmann8 by using obvious plays on his name and editing the same articles that Axmann8 had worked on - mostly to do with Obama and other political matters. His sole purpose was to try to move Axmann8 from indef'd to banned, and he almost got away with it until somebody figured out what was going on. It's either that guy here, or someone else imitating that guy (an impostor of an impostor). If an SPI finds him, that would be good. He's been a minor thorn in my side and others' for some time now. The pattern in this case matches that of summer 2009, in that the OP might be trying to convince people he's CoM and/or Grundle, for the purpose of tricking the community into permanently banning one or both of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

CoM's ban has been "reset" several times due to socking so it's not unreasonable to suspect that some of his "enemies" might try to impersonate him in this way so the clock on his ban keeps getting restarted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, I think CMDIAI isn't a problem user at all. He's never harassed me, and I personally have never encountered any problems with him, he's been courteous and polite. I don't support an SPI or anything similar on him; I'm not sure one is warranted? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is looking into this matter. It should be resolved shortly with his help. IESNEC (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here he comes to save the day. PhGustaf (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Now he's impostoring an impostor of the indef'd user called CENSEI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is User:Pickbothmanlol? This fits his modus operandi (Impersonation usernames, trolling AN/I). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 02:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme

Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for one week following the repeated insertion of negative material about a living person on the article Jonathan Cook. The user then evaded the block as an IP and the block was reset (see here). After repeatedly removing the block notice and declined unblock requests, the user's talk page access was revoked. Since the block expired, the user has returned to continue with the same problematic behavior. His very first edit, after removing the block notice and unblock requests, was to reinsert the very same material he was blocked for reverting on the Jonathan Cook article (here). The user then hounded my contributions, reverting my edits at two unrelated articles, both times reintroducing problematic material here and here. The user also has made reverts of multiple users at the article Expédition d'Irlande in the day since he returned. It appears that a 1 week block was not enough to get the message across. nableezy - 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked indef which = The amount of time it takes for them to understand that they cannot edit war over BLP questionable material. I do not need to be consulted if another admin decides that point has been reached. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. --John (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support block -- This editor has not gone to much trouble to show that he is editing in good faith. He is always just on the edge and this time he fell over. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to more or less automatically enable pc protection on controversial BLPs when things like this happen? Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry and old userspace articles

Wikipedia:Deny recognition

He's been very active today, reposting rejected stuff from long ago. Could someone clean out all the subpages at User:Grundle2600? I'm not sure how to even look at them, but he's retrieving from somewhere, and this is my first guess. PhGustaf (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I've gotten started, but its a sysiphian task, the list is here: [114] There's probably 40 or 50 or so. I am going to bed soon, so if any other admin wants to take over, that's cool... --Jayron32 05:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC) There are some useful things in those subpages; it's not all rubbish. Jonathunder (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, its not that, taken in isolation, they are necessarily bad. It's that, in the hands of the long-since banned Grundle, they are being used to continue his disruption. --Jayron32 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Grundle2600's subpages: user talk —DoRD (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC) They're not very useful if they're being used disruptively by a community banned user. If someone wanted to make legitimate use of them they would have done it already. Wikipedia is not a webhost or online storage: delete the lot to help prevent the ongoing disruption. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Retain the userboxes and talk page archives, but much of the rest appears to be aborted articles or userfied copies of deleted ones. Will this all have to head to MfD, or can an admin just can it unilaterally, given the snowball's chance in hell nature of the indef ever being lifted? Tarc (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for acknowledging the awesomeness of my userboxes! 71.182.212.74 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC) One of the pages caught my eye, and I sent it to MfD. Let's see if it can be dispatched without drama. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Do we really have to go through that? I mentioned his sub-page on Michelle Obama's arms here recently and an admin deep-sixed it. Here are a couple of others that can only be useful to Grundle's POV campaign User:Grundle2600/Obama Bear Market and User:Grundle2600/Teleprompter. The guy is banned and he's only here to disrupt. Take his toys away. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, and User:Grundle2600/Reann_Ballslee. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I doubt it'll make any difference, but anyway, all of User:Grundle2600's old WP:FAKEARTICLE subpages are now gone. Rd232 talk 09:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) What about User:Grundle2600/Carmen and User:Grundle2600/Doughnut Days 2009? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Another user asked me for permission to store that in my userspace, and I said yes. 71.182.212.74 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC) User:Grundle2600/Carmen had an MFD going, and the other one was just a redirect after being moved, so I left them. The MFD looks certain to conclude with deletion. Rd232 talk 14:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Can someone block his latest IP, active now. Grsz11 02:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC) The problem is that he can just log on and off and pop up on another IP. Is there a mechanism for addressing this through his host Verizon? PhGustaf (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Can a rangeblock be put in place? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I also have the entire Carnegie Library internet access available too. 71.182.208.25 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I do believe 71.182.Grundle means the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. Either way, lock 'em both down. The collateral damage can just get an account. This IP hoppin' bullshit needs to stop. I would also get Verizon of Pittsburgh involved and also make the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh aware a troll is accessing their computers. 71.182.Grundle wants to play, we can play. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I would thinks that's reasonable. Use {{School block}} (for the library atleast). Grsz11 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Good. If it comes to that, we can always make it so. GWB appears to have rangeblocked the 78.181.128.0/17 range for 72 hours. Hopefully that takes care of some of the other problems. I also think we should take this one step further and start a report at WP:ABUSE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Grundle, a lot of people here, including me, like (or perhaps liked) you. Do yourself and us a favor and just go away with whatever dignity you have left. Nothing good can come of what you're doing. PhGustaf (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Grundle, I'm with PhGustaf. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I too am with PhGustaf but doubt very much that he has any dignity left. He went from being a decent editor to disruptive to socking to vandal; No point to not speaking it out.TMCk (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I never liked Grundle. ... .... ... Who's Grundle? HalfShadow 17:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Who is Grundle? Not sure. When I have nightmares he pops up as the jester :) TMCk (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I have rangeblocked 71.181.128.0/17 for 72 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Grundle is now posting from a 96.235. IP[115]. It's him; the material is his has he has three or four confirmed socks from that block already. PhGustaf (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Sure it's him. He leaves a slimy trace like a snail which one can hardly miss. But then again, that's what he likes to do (purposely) while not seeing how he's just embarrassing himself. So he'll be indeed back and back and back till he dies or grows up, whatever comes first. Quite pitiful but true and short-term rangeblocks won't do. There is no "cure" for it yet it seems.TMCk (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC) FIY, 96.235.50.161. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) For what it's worth, in another web forum I encountered grundle on, he admitted to being an Aspie. So while I'd love for him to just stop all this as well, I don't think he can. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I have Aspergers and I can stop when things are going wrong. Being an Aspie doesn't cause your brain to be able not to stop doing annoying shit. That is his choice and his choice alone. Time to file an ABUSE report on this guy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Besides Asbergers, he seems to have other "more serious problems" at least IMO.TMCk (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC) He has also admitted to being "obsessive", though that admission has no clinical weight, and speculation on any such "problems" is not appropriate here. It is appropriate to note that he doesn't want to be an editor here: he wants to be an investigative reporter. He also perceives himself on a Mission from God to save articles from WP's pervasive leftist bias. He's not likely to change his mind or approach about either of these any time soon. PhGustaf (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Also, the problem with an abuse report is that the IP range he's editing through is very brought so a range-block won't work w/o scrutinizing other users, even potential ones.TMCk (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Grundle...Grundle...Hey! Isn't he that guy who created that teleporter and turned into that giant mutant fly? No wait; that was Brundle. Damn. HalfShadow 22:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC) No. The only thing Grundle created (besides his wiki-problems) was himself and his stinking socks :) TMCk (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC) He acknowledged that here on wiki before and pointed out that he doesn't want and expect special treatment because of it. Don't have the link ready but I'm sure that if you ask him he'll confirm it.TMCk (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) So...he is a giant mutant fly then? HalfShadow 23:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Possible. Nobody knows for sure.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly inserting entry at 2012 despite being reverted

Das Baz (talk · contribs) has repeatedly (at least 7 times) inserted an entry at 2012 about the end of bullfighting in Catalonia despite being reverted each time. I've warned him about this on his talk page [116] but he persists. To give him some credit, he did, at my request, ask about it at Talk:2012, sadly suggesting though that the reversions may have been malicious vandalism. No one has responded, but each of the three editors who have reverted have explained in edit summaries at one time or another that they are reverting as it is a local event. At least one other entry of his has been reverted for similar reasons (with a 4th editor involved), again with edit summaries for the reversion. He virtually never provides edit summaries, something else I've told him he should be doing. I've been involved with him before and he clearly won't listen to me. Perhaps if someone never involved with him had a word it would help. I'm not asking for him to be blocked, just counselled. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have added some counseling to his talk page. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just added a polite and relevant reply at Talk:2012. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Das Baz could probably be blocked for 24 under 3RR. While it isn't a revert, it is adding the same information over and over again. If that isn't possible, a block just for disruptive editing (24 as well) could be used unless the user stops. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I hope that every administrator reading this has the same reservations as I about blocking an editor for adding verifiable information to an article. Dougweller is quite right. We should be thinking "explain" not "block", here. For starters, perhaps one of the people who are in the "local event" camp on this issue could point to where the consensus is recorded that year articles only contain non-"local" information, and what the definition of "local" that is being used is. That would certainly help, not least because Das Baz could in turn be pointed to it. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
        • If you look at WP:YEARS, you'll see that there is a draft for guidelines for recent year articles, WP:RY. Those guidelines say: "Recent year articles (e.g., 2009, 2010) are among the most heavily edited on Wikipedia. Since so many events happen in a year, not all events will be notable enough to merit inclusion on the page. Such events may be better placed on a subpage. That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is insufficient ground for its inclusion. The event must have a demonstrated, international significance. The fact that other year articles may include events which break this set of guidelines is not a valid reason to do so for another event." That seems pretty clear to me that local events are not noteworthy. Although only a draft, maybe that would help.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with UncleG that a block is not appropriate here, however I should make something clear: Being verifiable is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for adding a bit of information to any article. Wikipedia articles are not a random collection of factoids paraphrased from random reliable sources. They are well written articles about a topic. Part of writing well is editing well, and that means making editorial decisions about what to write and, more often than not, what not to write, in an article. Merely being verifiable is not a trump card which wins any arguement, and can overrule core behavioral policies (such as WP:EW) or which takes precedent over good quality writing, in all that it is. --Jayron32 01:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, no block for now but if Das Baz is reading this thread, consider this, "what if everybody did it". While there may be no current guideline/policy about inserting local events into year articles, imagine how friggin HUGE they would become if everything someone somewhere considered important was added to them? We have to draw the line somewhere and requiring such events to be of international scope makes good editorial sense. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I have to apologise for forgetting to add another repeated date insertion of his, one at September 18, the latest being [117] - "1948 – Sniper slays Yoni Abramski, age 12, in Jerusalem.". No article, no edit summary. He's added this about 17 times over the past 13 months, no edit summaries, reverting editors explaining their reasons. Dougweller (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Block for review

I have blocked Eman007 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for numerous personal attacks at WP:WQA#Abuse by Users Paul.h & Binksternet in San Francisco Article, after previously being warned for edit-warring. Because this is the first block I have imposed outside the context of AIV and UAA, I would like to put it up for review. Is it a good block, and was it handled correctly? Any admin who feels the block was improper has my permission to overturn it. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not impartial—I was the target of the personal attacks—but I think the block was appropriately timed and sized. The blocked editor's assumption of bad faith was escalating with no indication of letting up; you recognized this and acted. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that a 24 hour block for WP:CIVIL violations was appropriate here. Eman007 resorted to comments about Binksternet as a person rather than addressing any problems with actions. Once a user changes focus from actions to person, or loses or lacks the ability to make a distinction between the two, a block is probably appropriate. --Jayron32 02:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good block. I recently reviewed that section at WP:WQA and starting to write a comment that the complaints appeared without merit, and that serious breaches of WP:CIVIL were being perpetrated. However, I did not comment because I thought I would probably only inflame the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good block. The NPA violations were obvious enough to justify a block. Couple that with the edit war over the last few days and there's little doubt left. It's the only block of a long-time, if infrequent, editor who got upset, so someone may want to review the unblock request, as it seems to more or less address the issue (assuming Looie has no objections)? --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good block. I'd like to ask again why we allow on "My Preferences" the option to mark all edits as minor, as this user has done; that is very disruptive, as people who choose not to track minor edits on their watchlists will not see said edits. –MuZemike 02:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad block. WP:CIV explicitly says that "editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility". There is much worse on this board and nobody does anything. I also don't see a warning; civility blocks without prior warning should generally occur only for racist attacks or similar serious breaches of community discourse. The main problem I see is the editor was trying to resolve a content dispute on the etiquette page. A more appropriate response would have been to direct the editor to the appropriate forum for resolution, if not actually resolve the issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Being the subject of a WP:WQA is its own civility warning, since that IS the noticeboard for civility violations. If you are aware of a discussion at WQA regarding yourself, you have been adequately warned that your behavior is a problem. --Jayron32 03:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32, if you are claiming that starting a WQA report is its own warning, as well as a self-warning, where is this documented, and why does it not apply to ANI? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. I misinterpreted the situation. I thought that the WQA thread was about Eman007, not started by him. I guess based on his behavior there, I was led to the conclusion that someone had started a thread about HIS behavior. My point was that "When someone starts a thread at WQA about your actions elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is safe to say that you have been made aware that your actions are a problem" However, since HE started the thread, that makes my point a little misplaced. I still think it was a fine block, but I take your point. Sorry about the mixup. --Jayron32 03:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Nevertheless, it seems to me that far worse incivility has not usually resulted in blocks from ANI. (Well, except for editors who already have a block log filled with civility blocks). I am concerned about uneven application. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, while the block was 100% justified in my opinion, his unblock request also seems heartfelt. What about unblocking him? Can we agree that this was a good block when it was made, and also think that he can be unblocked? It looks like the message has been received. --Jayron32 03:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked him. Looie496 (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Revealing personal identity

User ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in this diff reveled my personal identity. That was my username before, so he knows it from then. As this problematic user (whose block expired in less the 15 days ago) was well aware of Wikipedia:Harassment policy, and informed several times about it, i would like urgent admin reaction regarding this incident. Also, i would love some insurance that this user will not again do this. I didn't removed my name, but someone should do that also. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry I forgot about that(btw you were discussing this with another editor not me, since you've never reported me for that), but I'll remove it myself and an oversight should delete the diff. I'm sorry about it, but I honestly forgot about it(and my first block has nothing to do with that as for being problematic the verdict is on my 31 DYKs).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have Rev/Deleted both the original post and the correction mentioned above (because the diff shows what was changed from as well as to) and restored the corrected post to the page. I have also warned ZjarriRrethues about being so careless in future and, per WP:AGF, hope that this concludes the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, NEVER place a link to a diff containing personal information on any page on Wikipedia, including this one. In stead, send it STRAIGHT to oversight. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Resolved

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities contacted

This edit is probably vandalism but I leave it in your capable hands. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC) It's more like a cry for help in my opinion. Seems like the IP has now been blocked, but perhaps the legal authorities should be notified also? In any case, no admin intervention is necessary here that I can see, so it should be marked resolved. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I blocked the IP. I will leave it to others to deal with the now-reverted vandalism. RevDel may be appropriate, as may contacting the local authorities. I have no opinion on that matter, and someone else can take up those causes if they so desire, but the IP is blocked. --Jayron32 03:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC) IP locates to atlanta; please do not revdel for at least 48hours.Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC) That's not the geolocation that I'm seeing.  :) I've got another set of eyes looking at it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Just a note for all: The Foundation is aware and actively investigating at this time. Jalexander-Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Does someone notify the foundation of these recently or are they just monitoring for such occurrences? Either way, does this mean the foundation is contacting the local authorities now? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) A combination of both. Usually we get quick notification from this board. Tonight, I happened to be reading it. Yes, the Foundation will assume the responsibility of contact if that's appropriate (I haven't done any significant investigation on it yet). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much to everyone who took the time to investigate. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC) As final confirmation, the Foundation has contacted the authorities. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Xxmatt2010xx

Resolved

 – Articles deleted and salted, user warned. Incidentally, the base article Matthew Allen doesn't look fantastically notable either.. Black Kite (t) (c)

The above user had a final warning in July re his persistent attempts to create an article about his (non-notable) self as Matthew Dieu Allen. Up for WP:Proposed deletion (been there 6 days so its about to go) is Matthew Allen (actor). It is the same one. I'd just left a note on his talkpage re a Prod-2 recommendation that it be salted and a COI notice - but only then did I check out the rest of the page and see the final warning there. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're nicer than I am; I would have tagged that for A7 in a second. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Me nice? Aw shucks. No, I'm just a bit dim. I prod-2'd it just to suggest to the deleting admin to salt it as the original tagger mentioned previous attempts. And as its 6 days since it was tagged I reckoned it would go any time now. I didn't realise til a bit later it had been created 4 times before and there was a final warning in there . Plutonium27 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if I didn't know it was a recreation, I probably still would have tagged it- whether it would have been deleted is another matter. Anyways, this guy seems to have a terminal case of either IDIDNTHEARTHAT or incompetence, and I'm not seeing any signs of improvement. You issued him a warning about salting the article title; I'd say that suffices for a final warning. If not, someone can drop by and do the honors if they're so inclined. Seems he got a final warning in July over this, and just kept on going. Prospects for improvement don't look too promising. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is in fact the sixth time he's tried to create an article about himself, using three permutations. Four times as Matthew Dieu Allen (once in 2007, twice in April 2010 and once in July 2010), once as Matthew dieu Allen (also April 2010) and now Matthew Allen (actor). Other contribs are not impressive: projects he's been involved with and stuff for crystal (all speedied). There are still many variations on the name but and apparently no end in sight to his endeavour.Plutonium27 (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.bonus: base article tagged Plutonium27 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointy AFD nomination of Western Azerbaijan

Resolved

 – AfD was closed as speedy keep by Stickee. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ninetoyadome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated Western Azerbaijan for AFD, claiming the article is "basically an azeri fairy tale which doesnt have any evidence to back up". This is a fairly disruptive AFD nomination of what appears to be a fairly sourced article on the basis of nationalistic politics. The user has only edited Armenia-related articles to date, which is why this is appears to be a WP:SPA, and I doubt any communication with the user would get anywhere in this case. Therefore, on the basis of WP:IAR, I'm bringing this issue directly here. A speedy keep and slap on the wrist would be good. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Range block pretty please

Note:Move from AIV per admin request:

• 63.118.16.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) range block needs to be reinstated. The IP range has been blocked twice for BLP policy violations and insertion of ethnic/descent categories to biographies. Previous ANI discusions here and here Original blocking admin is no longer active, so I'm making the range block request here. --Jezebel'sPonyo
  •  Done blocked this one IP for 1 year. This was not of the same range as the ANI thread indicated before, do you know what the prior rangeblock was, and do you have evidence that he is operating from that range now? --Jayron32 00:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was actually another editor who supplied the difs on my talk page, I just brought the issue here for follow-up. Reviewing the difs again it's apparent the now blocked IP is not related to the previous ANI complaints. He is however returning to the same behaviour that he has been blocked for twice previously, so thank you for giving him the year off. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kubura - hounding, sock puppetry, disruptive editing, personal attacks

Background

User Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of conflict with other editors over articles relating to Croatia. See his contribs. On 4 October I made two reversions of pending changes to previously accepted versions of Croatian language: [118] and [119]. As there appeared to be an edit war starting, I asked in the edit summaries for discussions of changes to take place on the article's talk page to attempt to reach some consensus. As the user, Jack Sparrow 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and some Croatian IPs had continuously made the same edit, I asked for page protection [120].

Hounding

Kubura arrived at my talk page two days later to obviously make a WP:POINT and posted a 3RR warning [121] to which I responded explaining that he was in error and that my only involvement was as a reviewer, that he should feel free to either strike out the warning or recognise his error or not but that either way he should at least check contribution histories before lashing out and issuing warnings out of some vendetta. He chose to do neither, and in his response he addressed another user who had commented, and used a phrase that does not pop up often (see Sock puppetry below) "don't etiquette the opponent as nationalists."

I removed the warning myself two days later only for Kubura to return a further two days later and reinstate it with the summary "No censorship. You appeared on edit warring on 4 Oct 2010 with 2 reverts in 28 minutes, without explanation on the talkpage." A page watcher saw the reinstatement and removed it here [122]. Getting thoroughly peeved with this WP:HOUNDING I asked Kubura to stop posting irrelevant warnings on my talk page. Kubura responded that as far as he was concerned I was part of a tag team pushing POV on the article. I attempted again to impress upon Kubura that he was wrong not to AGF my 2 reversions of 4 October, that I was not part of a tag team or anti-Croatian conspiracy and that I was fed up to the eyeballs with his hounding. He then repeated his tag team allegation to an admin, stating that I was gaming the system: [123].

His next step in his campaign of harassment was to complain about me at WP:WQA here: [124]. This was in the midst of another rampage of WP:POINT warnings, where he issued notices of WP:ARBMAC to everyone who he disagreed with, and then posted to another user a hint to do his dirty work for him in reporting User:Kwamikagami to WP:ANI here: [125] as he could hardly go there himself due to unclean hands.

Sock puppetry, disruptive editing and personal attacks

Kubura has since made no logged in edits, however the campaign of disruptive editing and hounding has been continued by Croatian IPs: [126], [127], [128] including the same allegation of censorship directed at me that Kubura used, [129], [130] demonstrating an understanding of wiki editing, [131]. The IP focuses his attacks on me (for censorship), and Kubura's two other favourite targets, Kwamikagami and User:Ivan Štambuk. He specifically cites Kwamikagami's WP:INVOLVED investigation, and another subject close to Kubura's heart, Ivan's "insults." Another Croatian IP, 83.131.95.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated the same arguments used by Kubura, made personal attacks calling other editors "liars", and trotted out the same phrases including the accusation that people were "ettiqueted as Croatian nationalist," an unusual turn of phrase used by Kubura.

I call WP:DUCK.

Relief

In view of the above, I am raising these matters for the attention of others, and request that you consider if any action should be taken against Kubura. Personally, I believe he should be blocked indefinitely, but I leave the conclusions to be drawn by, and any outcome decided, to my peers. Keristrasza (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Keristrasza's evaluation of the situation with User:Kubura. Keristrasza has been totally uninvolved with the discussions at Talk:Croatian language, but Kubura dragged him/her in nonetheless with ridiculous accusations. Kubura's hounding goes beyond just Keristrasza as well. He/she actively sought out someone who has a past history of reporting User:Kwamikagami for admin issues. This research turned up User:Neutralhomer, and Kubura posted this on his/her talk page. Neutralhomer then trotted over to WP:AN/I and used Kubura's information to initiate an AN/I complaint against Kwamikagami (a complaint which led nowhere). Kubura has contributed nothing to the discussion at Talk:Croatian language and has been disruptive on the Talk pages of those who oppose his/her POV. --Taivo (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This thread was archived for being over 24 hours old. Is this the wrong noticeboard, and if so to which one should I move it? Covering as it does vandalism, sock puppetry, and arbcom rulings, I am unsure which would be the most suitable Keristrasza (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that no one cared to act on your complaint. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, a green light for him to just carry on regardless. Oh well, c'est la vie. Keristrasza (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Jamesinderbyshire

Resolved

 – James agrees he made an embarassing booboo, and we all learned something about Google Books.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve Famine in India to a GA level article for the last few weeks. I am no longer able to assume good faith in User:Jamesinderbyshire who is being disruptive per my understanding of policies. I am asking experienced admins to evaluate the matter and enforce an article-space/talk-space topic ban on Jamesinderbyshire.

User:Jamesinderbyshire provided a ficticious reference by misquoting tow authors through an intricate setup of fake links/snippet view from Google books. He typed out the following (fake) quote from page 504 of the book[132]:

“ The Bengal famine "killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, Partition and the worst famines of the 19th Century." ”

The quote, if true, would have pretty much put an end to the dispute with Jamesinderbyshire's POV prevailing (my claim was that the late 19th century period of 1875-1900 caused the maximum famine deaths which is a totally different period from the Bengal famine of 1943). I had to spend significant amount to my Wikipedia time to decipher Jamesinderbyshire's intricate setup of book names, authors and bad links to look for the correct books and locate the quote which reads like this:[133]

“ The Bengal famine "killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, plus the communal holocaust which accompanied Partition." ”

After pointing out this fallacy, Jamesinderbyshire apologized by claiming it was a mistake but then quickly went back to his pattern of indulging in trolling or original research on a different subtopic of the same article. [134] These are classic symptoms of gaming the system as the essay on fictitious references points out. The same essays states about fictitious references:

• "It is a most serious offense because it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia"
• "Fictitious references are typically those used to support a hoax, original research, essays or opinion passed off as neutral facts"

Of these, Jamesinderbyshire has indulged in two - original research and essays or opinion as has already been pointed out me and another user to Jamesinderbyshire.[135] [136]

The Famine codes and Malnutrition section of the talk page have the relevant details. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a mistake in a quote and immediately on having it drawn to my attention corrected and apologised for it. I also expressed an opinion in a talk page about Indian government expenditure. Other editors have also critiqued Zuggernaut's approach to editing the article at Talk:Famine in India. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see the very considered comments by a number of editors at User talk:Zuggernaut in the British Empire section (this row built up originally from an ongoing dispute between Zuggernaut and multiple editors at British Empire) calling on him to restrain himself, explaining that he is misunderstanding POV and in particular one very considered statement there from User:Pfly [137]saying "while I can understand the frustration you might feel when faced with a team of Britons defending the BE page, I have to say your methods have not exactly lent themselves to sympathy from people like me". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You typed out content that was blatantly inaccurate, put quotes around it and used it to support your position. I assumed good faith, you said sorry for the fictitious reference and then continued on with similar behavior. Your strategy is a classic example of someone who is trying to game the system to push your own POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage further in silly point-scoring. I apologised for the mistake and I did bot repeat it - the allegation you make about the second item is unrelated to the first. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a real pattern of wrongdoing here? One misquote is not a pattern of POV-pushing, and the only other diffs you provide seem, on the face of it, to be fairly harmless. I'm certainly not seeing enough evidence to suggest any sanctions of Jamesinderbyshire here. I've not really looked into the behaviour of Zuggernaut himself as yet. ~ mazca ^talk 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a pattern. On a previous occasion he demonstrated similar behavior when he cited a page number in a book and provided a link which did show some of the pages before and after the page in question but not the actual page being used to strengthen his case. When I looked up the actual page elsewhere, I found that the data was irrelevant to the topic being discussed. [138] Nonetheless, doesn't WP:FAKE talk about a "zero-tolerance policy" for such behavior. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The misquote might be passed over except that Jamesinderbyshire went on to use the misquoted form specifically to support his argument. In my judgement that's a pretty serious error, and an appropriate response to having it pointed out would be for Jamesinderbyshire to withdraw from this particular discussion. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Did he use the misquote to support his argument after it was brought to his attention that the quote was in error? If not, then we should AGF and assume this was a mistake. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to AGF and assume it was a mistake, but to mistakenly misstate a quote in exactly the way needed to support one's position, where a correct quote would not have supported it at all, is such an appalling mistake that I would want to hide my head in shame if I did it. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But as Larry Ubell says on the Leonard Lopate show, he who doesn't make mistakes is probably not doing anything. Best to AGF without passing judgement. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I came here after assuming good faith as I mentioned in an earlier response. Jamesinderbyshire has behaved in a similar manner just a day or two prior to this instance (page 501 of a different book was cited, the provided link had pages 500, 502 but no 501. When I looked up page 501 elsewhere, content was irrelevant to the argument). Maybye this is a case of WP:Competence? Whatever it is, it's caused plenty of disruption because I have to fight hard and spend significant amount of time on what is a very well known statistic. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We have one minor mistake corrected quickly. This should never come to ANI, but its pretty typical of this user who has both canvassed and forum shopped before on a subject where his edits pursue a clear Indian Nationalist agenda. This is a clear attempt to bully an editor with a sound edit history over multiple articles (including contentious ones) away from the proposers pet subject. If every editor here who made a mistake was blocked no one would be left --Snowded ^TALK 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This ANI is not about my behavior. It's about Jamesinderbyshire's attempts to use fictitious references by gaming the system to have his POV/OR prevail. Nonetheless, it's best to check a persons logs/history for the allegations that User:Snowded, Jamesinderbyshire's collaborator is making. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you bring something to ANI then your behaviour is subject to review. In this comment you are now alleging a conspiracy! I suggest you withdraw this one and start to behave collaboratively with other editors and stop forum shopping. --Snowded ^TALK 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Looie496, I can only say, yes, I was very embarassed - I know it looks like it might have been deliberate, but it really wasn't - I wasn't pasting a source from a Google Books entry, I was manually typing in late at night mytime from a book and I also had in my mind to say something about comparison with the 19th Century figures - the two got conflated and I completed the quote incorrectly. As I said, I did immediately apologise and revert this edit as soon as it was brought to my attention. I do understand how this would look and will try very hard not to make that error again. On Zuggernaut's second point about me behaving "in a similar matter" previously, this is simply incorrect. The reference he refers to is this [139] which does appear on page 501 in the Cambridge Economic History of India Volume 2, it's just that the quick Google Books search does not list page 501 - you have to click page 500 and then follow it down. The table on that page was relevant as it shows overall death statistics in India during the period in debate. Zuggernaut got agitated that I had claimed this covered "famine deaths" and not "general mortality", something I did not claim. I simply raised it as a discussion point and it has been rather unfortunately seized upon as evidence of some kind of malfeasance on my part, which is both unfair and untrue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who clicks the link in the paragraph above will see that page 501 does not appear in the preview. I get a clear message saying "Page 501 is not part of this book preview." I had to hunt down this book elsewhere, look up page 501 to discover that the page had detailed tables completely irrelevant to our topic as any discerning reader conversant with the article will be able to tell. Sadly this is a pattern with Jamesinderbyshire. He is trying to game the system in order to come up with data that supports his OR or POV. As the WP:FAKE essay points out, these are classic symptoms of someone trying to game the system. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're just a little unclear as to how Google Books works - the reference is to page 501, which does I assure you exist, which does have the table of data I accurately referred to. In fact, the only one attempting to Game here is you Zuggernaut, as you are attempting to gain uncontrolled access to the article by using ANI to hopefully drive editors off who produce sources you don't like. Note that other editors are busy reverting your latest round of edits to the article because, like me, they feel put out by your attitude. All very ironic because on Talk:British Empire, the original source of all this disgruntlement on your part, I actually tried to take your side and get some attention to the views you were proposing for content in the article; other editors there were so annoyed with your conduct that they wouldn't listen to you. Now you've added another annoyed editor to your growing collection. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In this edit Jamesinderbyshire claims that this source provides a "table of death rates according to a range of academic sources for India between 1871 and 1950." Well, p. 502 of that source does provide such a table. Jamesinderbyshire, hang your head in shame - 501 does not equal 502. Zuggernaut, Jamesinderbyshire made a mistake with one source and has acknowledged it. The only mistake with the second source seems to be that Jamesinderbyshire said 501 instead of 502. Unless I'm missing something I think your claims of WP:GAME and WP:FAKE are completely out of line. TFOWR 17:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Jamesinderbyshire - you said the data goes up to 1950. It actually goes up to 1951. I'll let you off seeing it's the weekend, but do please pay attention. ;-) TFOWR 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, I am honestly trying, and I am honestly also quite confused now. When you go to that book, do you not see the page number as "501" on the page where the table is? I will take another look - perhaps it goes over several pages. As for the end date, yes, I stand corrected - it is 1950! Mistake. Cough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, 'fraid not! What I'm seeing is at the top of page 502: "Table 5.12 Estimates of Expectation of Life at Birth by Sex, Indian sub-continent, 1871-1951". The bottom of page 500 is text and a couple of footnotes, and page 501 "is not part of this book preview". I wouldn't worry unduly: my chastisement was very definitely tongue-in-cheek. TFOWR 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realised, thanks. Strange though - I see a large table on Google Books at page 501, entitled Table 5.11, Death Rate, Infant Mortality Rate in Indian Sub-continent, Various Sources, 1871-1951. The table is sideways on, eg, Landscape Mode. It's quite odd this - do people see Google Books differently? I assure you I am seeing that, I wonder if anyone else who is casually reading this can say if they are? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, definitely don't get it. I can tell you, based on the tables I can see, that Table 5.11 is either on page 499 or page 501. I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume you're not trying to mislead me, and it really isn't on page 499 ;-) TFOWR 19:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more a case of assuming sanity I think - hopefully I am still in one piece and when I see "Page 501" it really exists and not just in my head! My hold on reality is starting to depend on confirmation from other editors in talk pages... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, wait a moment. The table in this book is in portrait, not in landscape, and on a page that has 502 printed on the page top and bottom. Clearly TFOWR is looking at table 5.12 and James is looking at Table 5.11, although I can't figure out how he can see it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - Jamesinderbyshire maintains that there's a mystical "page 501" between pages 500 and 502, and an equally mystical "Table 5.11" somewhere between "Table 5.10" and "Table 5.12". ;-) TFOWR 15:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Google Books presents things differently to different people in different parts of the world. (I had firsthand experience of this in an AFD discussion, several years ago; and I've seen the issue come up many times in the years since.) There are many reasons behind this. Officially, Google Books tries to respect different countries' copyright requirements. But there are almost certainly other factors at work, including things like incomplete database replication. Hence two maxims to remember:

• Don't ever just point to a Google Books search results page. What you see will not be what other people see. They won't necessarily see the results in the same order as you. They won't even necessarily see all of the same books as you.
• Don't use bare Google Books external hyperlinks as citations. Give a proper citation, with the title, author, publisher, year of publication, and page number. Supply the ISBN, where available, so that people can follow the Wikipedia:Booksources hyperlink to a book source of their choice. (For discussion pages, I personally use a brief ISBN+page number format. But for articles, always a full citation and never a Google Books hyperlink.)

Uncle G (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Uncle G, I didn't know that Google Books result vary to different user groups like that - I've not seen them much used in actual sourcing but they are pretty widely deployed during talk page discussions, so it's important to know about this and I will keep it in mind. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One feels there must be a guideline or help page somewhere that this advice gets added to - I always use cite book templates for Google books, but I was unaware that it showed different pages in different locations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New for me as well. That said this is now a content issue. Unless someone wants to look into Zuggernaut's behaviour in running to ANI about one mistake quickly corrected I'd suggest that this is closed off and discussion continues on the talk page of the article itself. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than a general suggestion to zuggernaut that using ANI as a weapon in editorial battles is perhaps not the best of ideas, I'd say this is a dead horse that has no further need or desire to be flogged. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Zug seems to have slunk off. Unless James wants to make something of it, I suggest we mark this as resolved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No argument here. Thanks for the various points of advice and will try to take them all on board. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Links to European American

There seems to be a rather odd campaign underway to replace references to White people in the United States in a wide swath of articles with references to European American. This is particularly inapt in articles reporting U.S. Census data on "White" people, who may descend from geographic origins as far-ranging as Israel and Afghanistan. The issue was specifically addressed and resolved by community discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page, but this is a one-article resolution. Advice for a swift and complete resolution would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The new link to the above mentioned discussion is at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States/Archive 6#Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page. Mitchumch (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark

Resolved

 – Nothing left to do here -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent IP vandalism including obvious defamation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty bad. Deleted. AniMate 02:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dbpjmuf and sockpuppets

This user and multiple dynamic IP socks have been edit-warring, namecalling and ignoring consensus of multiple editors at Big Beautiful Woman, adding loaded language and POV pushing. This page was semi-protected, but it's not enough. This is not just 3RR, edit-warring and incivility, this is multiple issues with this editor. I request a block until they can clean up their act. Wikipedia is not a battleground.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor is undoubtedly identical with the IP who has been making the improper edits. However, I have been unable to find any record of a clear warning about edit-warring being given either to the account or the IP, so I cannot justify imposing a block at this time. I have now given such a warning, and any further attempts to impose this edit should be met with a block. Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are two warnings blanked by the user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A89.100.0.70&action=historysubmit&diff=389887517&oldid=389836409

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A89.100.0.70&action=historysubmit&diff=391304428&oldid=391089929

Plus check out the edit summary history here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A188.141.12.67&action=historysubmit&diff=385521919&oldid=385521817 --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not pov pushing to use an appropriate reference for an appropriate definition. "above average weight" is a nonsensical phrase. What exactly is average weight. Overweight is verifiable, and I have referenced it. Repeatedly. But the reference has now been misappropriated. Dbpjmuf (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The first is the content issue, which is not appropriate on this board, but, I think Dbpjmuf is correct on that score. On the other hand behaviourally; it is important to evolve consensus. In this case extended discussion is likely to come down in your favour Dbpjmuf, so instead of edit warring to get this in involve in a full discussion. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Re: Justus Maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an administrator please hide Justus Maximus' soapboxing at Talk:Communist terrorism and warn him to stop. I have already warned him on his talk page. Here is his latest posting. All these lengthy postings argue from the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and other early writers that Marxism is pro-terrorist. But articles must be based on secondary sources and therefore these postings are distracting. TFD (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"must be"? Not quite. Reread the guidelines on sources - primary sources may, indeed, be used to show what the primary sources state. Thus the writings of Marx are absolutely proper sources for what Marx wrote. Marx used the word "terrorismus" which is quite akin to "terrorism." The German word "terror" is also akin to the English word "terror." Collect (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are actually scholars who have made a study of Marx and Marxism, and it is not necessary for us to comb through his works and determine what he really meant. Furthermore, it is wrong to then form interpretations of the actions of the Soviet Union and of modern terrorist groups based on our interpretations of Marx. I realize that you may be able to do this, but that is original research. TFD (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This would appear to be a content dispute. Collect, while it is perfectly acceptable to quote Marx as saying "I hate white rabbits" it is not acceptable to interpret this into an explanation for the Soviet government's approach to Alice in Wonderland without a reliable source for the interpretation, and you know this full well. Ergo anyone attempting an to get an argument from first principles into a Wikipedia article is always going to run into WP:OR issues, even if this isn't soapboxing. Ultimately it doesn't matter what Justus Maximus thinks, what matters is what the sources say. Suggest everyone get back to discussing that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already provided scholarly sources stating that Marx advocated revolutionary terror etc., such a the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, in the Discussion. At no point have I demanded that my personal views be included in the article. What I requested to be included were observations made by scholars, which should be considered as legitimate by any standard. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been in part a content dispute but it is rapidly becoming a behaviour issue. We need a few uninvolved editors to take a look, and someone sympathetic needs to provide some mentoring to Justus on the use of primary sources. --Snowded ^TALK 09:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm an uninvolved party with a specialization in left wing history, although I suspect Maximum Justice Justus Maximus would see me as part of what he calls "the same Marxist apologist brigade that suppressed the Marx quote from Radzinsky's book since 1996 and controls the whole Wikipedia project!" [140] Regardless, here's my take. I think Justus is grinding an axe on this topic, trying to score political points instead of approaching a topic dispassionately. There absolutely is a fully sourceable relationship between the terror of the early Soviet period and the France of 1793-94 (as well as the comparative lack thereof in the 1871 Paris uprising and its bloody suppression). But he is so fired up to make political pointus maximus that he is insistent on dragging in a polemical volume by Radzinsky rather than making mature use of the really vast scholarly literature.

The article seems to have been reverted to some earlier variant which enumerates various Marxist guerrilla movements, but the battle continues, it would seem. If Justus wishes to write polemics in the guise of encyclopedia articles, Conservapedia is ready and waiting. To write for Wikipedia, he is going to need to learn to really UNDERSTAND the concept of Neutral Point of View and to be able to put some emotional distance between his own personal views and his writing on certain hot topics. Some people can never do that. Others can. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should first explain why Paul Siebert is removing my contributions on dubious grounds and why legitimate sources like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Robert Service, etc., are "inadmissible" for the purposes of the article. Without these sources the article seems incomplete it being silent on where later strands of Communist terrorism got their inspiration and ideological justification from. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"The German word "terror" is also akin to the English word "terror."" Not only that, but in some cases the German original has "terrorism" as I pointed out in the Discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User Justus Maximus. A newbie who deeply misunderstands how WP works.

Justus Maximus started to edit WP recently [141] focusing at the Communist terrorism article. From very beginning he demonstrated deep misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Justus Maximus posts numerous and lengthy texts on the article's talk page where he draws his own conclusions based on the sources available for him (see, e.g. [142], [143], [144], etc), a considerable part of which are primary ones. His views are based on anti-Communist sources, which he believes are the only reliable sources, and any attempts to demonstrate to him that many scholarly sources do not support his views have no effect (see, e.g. his post here [145], my response here [146] and his response on my response [147]).
He believes that " I think the approach of attempting to base the article on mainstream scholarly opinion at all costs is not without problems of its own" and accuses me in "quoting endless apologist literature [that] can serve no other purpose than wasting valuable talk page space and interrupting" and in "cherry picking", and he seems genuinely not to understand that the sources I quote are the articles in western scholarly journals, which per policy are the most reliable secondary sources and the most unbiased sources available for us.
My proposal to discuss a possibility to think together how to present the material neutrally have been fully ignored by him.
Finally, in his recent post he directly characterised me and another editor as apologists for Marxist terrorism ("apologists for Marxist terrorism (Paul Siebert & AndyTheGrump) who have done their best to sabotage and wreck both the article and the discussion"), and accused us in "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;"[148].
My repeated proposals to apologise or at least to retract these accusations (see, e.g.[149]) are ignored [150].
I fully understand that Justus Maximus is a newbie, so his behaviour can be partially explained by that fact. However, his misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works is profound and I saw no improvement of the situation during last two weeks. In connection to that some mild sanctions might be helpful in that situation. Another possibility would be to assign a mentor for him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone spoken to him yet about WP:NPA? From what's been said it appears he's taken to attacking other editors, rather than their content contributions. (Addendum: Oh, I see he has, in a twisted sort of way. By User:Marknutley.) Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing my level best to coach him/her through a collaborative approach on the talk page of the article at the moment but I am not sure s/he is listening. Any help appreciated --Snowded ^TALK 13:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat

Resolved

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities contacted

I recently blocked User:BrandonMMcLean as a vandal-only account, but also noticed the following edit: [151], the editor adding (presumably) himself to the list of 2011 deaths. This is a bit disturbing, is anyone else seeing the same thing here I am? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Looks like a suicide threat to me. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 07:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I agree, and it should be taken seriously.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Can someone else file a quick RFCU? I'm using a slow internet righ now and the page isnt loading properly. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) RFCU is Sockpuppet Investigations, are you sure Access? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC) If that's the case that it is a legit threat, then someone may have to inform the local constabulary. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Oh for goodness sake. Stop with the melodrama. It's one thing to treat an articulated threat as genuine (which I still think is unhelpful), it is another to read a threat into simple nonsense. Revet, block, ignore. You are being trolled. I always simply remove these things as simple vandalism.--Scott Mac 08:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Scott, please read WP:SUICIDE, we have rules for this. Everyone else, please find a Checkuser online (per WP:SUICIDE) and have them run a CU on the account, then call that town's police department with the information...name, time of post, etc. Police departments have said time and time again, they would rather people call and it be nothing, then no one call and it really be something. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) WP:SUICIDE is an essay, not a "rule". I happen to think it is misguided and choose to disregard it.--Scott Mac 09:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) You can choose that, fine, but when someone actually does kill themselves because you ignored it, it will be your fault and your fault alone. I pray you are never in a similar situation where you post (or even say out loud) a vague cry for help and someone ignores it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) That isn't going to happen. Get a grip. People who are crying for help, actually cry for help, they don't post anonymously to an anonymous website. This is just drama stirring and troll feeding.--Scott Mac 09:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Like I said, I hope you never need that help and someone ignores you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) People... Scott is right in this case... listed for 2011? what are they supposed to do? stick a memo on their computer somewhere that says "remember: check next year in summer @ so-and-so's door"...? man... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Would you seriously rather take the chance the dude does something between now and who knows? Each suicide threat, no matter how troll-like, should always be taken seriously cause you never really know if they are serious or not. Dude could be laughing his ass off as he writes it or sitting next to a cocked loaded pistol. You don't know and that is why WP:SUICIDE is in place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) There is no need to contact the police unless, I guess, it appears urgent within the next few hours. User:Philippe (WMF) said in another suicide threat thread above Yes, the Foundation will assume the responsibility of contact if that's appropriate and confirms they keep an eye out for these things. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 08:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Then someone should contact him. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think he'd be very happy if some stranger from Wikipedia out of the blue got his phone number and rang him up to see if what he posted was some form of sick joke or a real threat. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I was meaning via email, which I took the liberty of doing (see below). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC) let me be clear:WMF assumed responsibility of contact in that instance. Not generally. We have much too small a staff to do that generally. Please do not assume we will always do that. In this case I got an email that I happened to check in the middle of the night and I'm on it. Time spent waiting for staff could be critical. Don't wait to find us. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) In this sort of case (an ambiguous case with no obvious threat or immediate deadline) I think it is best to hand this off to yourselves at the foundation. Whilst it is good that WP users want to try and locate these individuals and contact the authorities it is not always appropriate. We in LE, of course, never mind receiving such information and will always act on it. But I advise that there be a credible risk before taking dramatic action. It is generally (in the long run) counter-productive to send fairly non-credible threats to the police with any degree of urgency. The correct response in this case (for all involved) is to investigate thoroughly and then make a routine report to the relevant authorities as required; it will then be treated appropriately :) This is, of course, only my own advice, but I think it is good. I appreciate that this is somewhat different from the point I made before, sorry for misunderstanding Phillippe --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone delete from history the image he uploaded on top of another one here [152]? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rodhullandemu 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions re. User:Mario96

Moved to WP:AN

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert war at Urdu

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts § Revert war at Urdu

Just for your information. It's fully protected. Please use the conflicts noticeboard and Talk:Urdu for further discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Deceptive online pharmacy spamming

An editor, Lex2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding in online pharmacy spam links to wikipedia articles, disguising them as part of a discussion on the article subject matter. Their first edit to the encyclopedia was online pharmacy spam and survived for over six months until I deleted it this evening. Other edits regarding spamming internet pharmacies.[153], more deceptive/disguised spamming and this deceptive disguised spamming. As can be seen it appears they have resumed internet pharmacy link spamming.

Added original research violating WP:BLP policy,[154], [155], and then proceeded to edit war over it,revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4, revert 5, revert 6, 7, revert 8, revert 9, revert 10, revert 11, revert 12. This editor was blocked for this for 48 hours at the time, for edit warring as well as BLP violations. I am just giving this information for background, the problem is deceptive spamming which seems to go unnoticed by article watchlisters as being a productive edit.

All of the editor's edits have been unproductive. The only edit that looked like it was possibly done good faith was this original research contribution. I think that the editor should be indefinitely blocked. Thank you for looking into this matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The only two edits this editor has made since 2009 were on Oct 7, both spam as noted above. The editor has previously been blocked for BLP violations, but has not previously engaged in spam with the sole exception of the edit LG mentioned. Since LG has issued a final warning regarding the spam on the editor's talk page, I can't quite see a justification for doing more at this time, other than keeping an eye on this editor's contribs. Looie496 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This kind of spamming is quite common on pharma articles and usually I would just leave a level 1 or go straight to level 4 warning and not bring it for admin review. It was after I reviewed their contributions a bit closer that I realised that they contribute nothing positive to the encyclopedia. I agree that they are not a very active editor, although given the deception and the types of contributions they make, I wouldn't be surprised if they edit using ips or sockpuppets which I thought of and made me consider a block might be the best way of dealing with this editor. If the consensus is to just leave the account as active with a level 4 warning that is ok. My concern was the level of deception and these edits sticking to articles as constructive contributions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

there seem to have been no edits from that account since Oct.7thm but it certainly bears watching. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Typesupper2

Resolved

 – User warned

A "new" editor, Typesupper2 (talk · contribs), has chosen to make, as their first contributions to Wikipedia, disparaging remarks about living people. The user calls Norman Finkelstein a "Nazi propagandist" in an AfD here. I removed the comment (here) and informed the user that such comments violated Wikipedia policy (here). The user responded by reinserting their comment with the edit summary of "reverting Muslim censor" (here). Could an admin provide this user with a greater understanding of the BLP policy than I have been able to provide and an ARBPIA notice? nableezy - 02:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite a very strong temptation simply to indef per Godwin's law, I have simply given an I-P sanctions warning, which this account has not yet received. I concur with Nableezy in thinking this is not a new editor, though. Looie496 (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Typesupper (talk · contribs · logs) ? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Typesupper has only two edits from 2007, and the two seem to have different, er, interests. Anyway, in the case of further disruption, a block and maybe a SPI should ensue, but until then I think we can mark this as resolved.  Sandstein  20:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats, edit warring and username-violating sockpuppetry

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive75#Robert Garside|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive75 § Robert Garside]], [[:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive71#Robert GarsideWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive71 § Robert GarsideWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate]], [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#Robert Garside|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552 § Robert Garside]], and [[:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive67#Robert Garside|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive67 § Robert Garside]]

• Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 85.248.106.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• A host of socks with names including "bot" and "admin"

This was brought to my attention on my talk page, but given my activities at the long embattled article Robert Garside, I don't think I have any place getting involved in it. There's edit-warring in the article and potentially a legal threat to deal with ([156]; [157]). (The IP is also User:Dromeaz.) I blocked the most recent sock, but a softblock may have been inappropriate now that I see that he has evidently been deliberately violating our username policy. It's all very strange and needs somebody uninvolved in any capacity to look into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• (Oh, I should add that this may be a very old argument. The IP/Dromeaz are quite likely User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate, indeffed in July 2009, but if so, he is working much better with Wikipedia practices this time. I am unsure if the other participant is part of the old dispute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC))
  • Hi, I'd just like to clarify that my reverts ([158][159]) had nothing to do with the edit warring between User:Dromeaz (now blocked) and User:RemyBot/User:Lanknek112/User:Lagarhead. (I was trying to revert this, which seemed like vandalism to me. I reverted it back after User:Lagarhead told me I was wrong, although I did not know he was a sockpuppet of User:RemyBot.) Guoguo12--Talk--  20:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you'd need a playlist to keep up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

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

Resolved

 – full protection implemented; suggestion of mediation and/or RFC. Please keep further debate located at the proper venue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK Everyone, this was posted on my talk page. And seeing as I can't make heads or tails between the two bickering parties, I'm going to repost it here. I really don't have much comment other than to note that Phoenix7777 indeed makes the poor choice of labeling any edits he disagrees with as vandalism. So this is posted from my talk page; if anybody can make heads or tails of it, by all means please step in, because I feel like I'm having the Chewbacca defense thrown at me. Regards, Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

quoted from talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Magog the Ogre, I would like some assistance in dealing with an edit-war that's occurring in Senkaku Islands dispute. In a nut-shell, this page is about a territorial dispute between China and Japan. While POV-pushing is a common occurrence in that page, a long-time editor of the page known as User:Phoenix7777 Special:Contributions/Phoenix7777 has recently took it upon himself to revert practically every attempt to correct pro-Japanese misinformation presented on the page. This includes numerous types of contents that had been discussed extensively and properly justified. To name a very good example, a figure and reference of a newspaper article published by "People's Daily" or "Remin Ribao" was used in the article. The article said a number of things, which are widely confirmed by Chinese editors and very well discussed: (1) "Senkaku Islands" was listed as a constituent of "Ryukyu Islands", which is not the same as "Okinawa" (2) "Ryukyu Islands" was occupied by the U.S. at the time of the article's writing (3) The author of the article explicitly disagreed with how the U.S. and Japan conspired to have the U.S. annex the "Ryukyu Islands". However, some editors grossly misused this article and decided that it is evidence that claims "Chinese recognition of Senkaku Islands". Also, in the figure caption, the same editors persisted to put "(Okinawa)" beside "Ryukyu Islands" Phoenix7777 when the figure did not make such an equality (nor Okinawa is ever the same as Ryukyu Islands even when under U.S. occupation). Even though the degree of misuse is very obvious and occupied several threads of discussion(1, 2, 3), Phoenix7777 still refuses to acknowledge the error. He tried to justify his point by citing a load of outside Japanese review articles that made the same logical mistake, but that still doesn't change the fact that the original referenced newspaper articles did not recognize Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands (which also had been pointed out to him several times). Needless to say, he also reverts attempts (1, 2) of correcting the mistake on the article and even threatened to report me of "vandalism". This is only one of several examples of his disruptive behaviour. I think other editors more affected by his conduct may be able to provide even more examples. In addition, there were others who complained about his edit-warring in the past (1, 2. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Note: This complaint has been notified to San9663, Winstonlighter ‎ and STSC by User: Bobthefish2. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I will explain the recent edits I've reverted as vandalism. San9663 (talk · contribs) removed a description from a direct quote[160] and by the very next edit removed the corresponding description from the paragraph.[161] Bobthefish2 (talk · contribs) removed a citation and a cited description[162] and by the very next edit added a {{cn]] to the sentence.[163] Aren’t these vandalism? I ask Magog to warn them or to block them for an appropriate period.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC) It's puzzling that you insist to only selectively read certain sentences of my writing and not others. As I've addressed before in here and in previous discussions, many of your citations were inaccurate in their reading of the source they cited. The disagreement is not even a matter of subjectivity, but rather a matter of definition. If an article unambiguously says "A" and not "B" and your sources say this article says "B", then your sources are wrong. And needless to say, your cited description is also misinformation by extension because it is advocating that the original newspaper article is saying something it is not. This is a VERY simple refutation and I am surprised you can't come to terms with that. Anyhow, I believe it is a very clear-cut case of who's actually vandalizing and engaging in an edit-war to push his POV. If an admin can't set an example of destructive interference like this, then it will be hard for editors who are actually interested in writing objectively to do anything. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Note. A canvassed user San9663 came to comment here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Sans9663 is not a canvassed user. What I filed was a complaint and not an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. I did not ask for a consensus and as a result, there is no vote to stack. What I did do was to notify two other editors who had made similar complaints in the recent past and another editor who's planning to file the same complaint. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) The reasoning of my edit was fully explained in the note, following the reasoning of another editor (john smith)'s principle suggested in a preceding edit elsewhere. It did not change the content as all, just removed some redudant description wich were repeated in the saem entry and could be found by simply following the wiki link. While Phoenix7777 had made several edits which were POV and controversial, and changed "claim/POV" by removing the source/claim in the sentence to make it look as if were undisputed fact, often right through reverting without discussing. Recent examples can be found here and here. I tried to convince him through talk page but since he put my name here I had no other choice but to repsond and raise the issue. San9663 (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Oh yes, I forgot about that too. I don't think User:Magog the Ogre will want to go through the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute talk/history pages, but all the evidence are there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) This is another example of sabotage, and has been done various times. San9663 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Actually we don't need wikilinks to all of the alternative name which double-redirected to the most widely accepted name. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Another example of User:Phoenix7777's destructive behaviour can be found in the Rare earth element's history. While on the surface, it appears he is removing a link to a term because the link already existed earlier in the article, a closer look will show that numerous chemical compounds or elements in this page were linked more than once (i.e. monazite, loparite, cerium, and more). To add context to this, he is not a participant of that wiki page and the edit he reverted belonged to User:San9663, whose reverts are regularly targeted by him (and often for no justifiable reason). Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Statement from the accused user

I misunderstood the interpretation of the vandalism. User:Qwyrxian explained me and I understood. See my talk page. I apologize for my misuse of the term. However the unexplained removal of a citation or a cited material I labeled as vandalism is still a malicious edit unacceptable to this community. Please note the problem is that User:Bobthefish2 is insisting the edits made by Bobthefish2 and San9663 are not vandalism but legitimate edits instead of malicious deletions. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already gave you the reasons why they were bad references in a thread where you listed them. For some reason, you like to pretend the counterarguments and refutations never existed! To repeat myself for the gazillionth time, whatever you cited was completely and unambiguously wrong.

And of course, I don't care if you apologize for mislabeling us as vandals because that does not encompass the worst of your behaviour. I filed this complaint because you've been vandalizing other people's edits including mine. You've reverted contents that were against your position regardless of whether or not they were backed by sound justification. Then later on, you even turned this into a game. Just look at how you followed User:San9663 around and reverted his edits in pages where you have no previous activities on. Your contributions page says it all. I am also not the only one who has run out of patience with you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that User:Phoenix7777 has just reverted yet another attempt to remove his dubious references and claims which were, again, very unambiguously refuted in multiple threads. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am an involved editor on the page, although in the specific dispute above I think my only involvement was to correct Phoenix7777 on the use of the term vandalism. Hopefully, based on the apology above, xe will not do so again. I will say that this article is definitely a problem right now, as it's 1) a big mess, so it needs major revision, but 2) is extremely politically charged (i.e., enough that the related topic is causing riots and acts of violence in China against Japan right now), and so 3) is very difficult to make edits to. Yesterday, User:Bobthefish2 came to my page asking what he thinks we should do: [164]. My response ([165]) is that the next best step is probably Full Page Protection (on both Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute), for about a week or two. As I told Bobthefish2, I would make the request myself, except for the fact that I recently made the most recent significant changes (moving a sentence and citation from the main article to the dispute article), so I don't want people to think I'm trying to protect "my version", especially when neither article is even close to what I would consider my "preferred" version. I do invite admins to take a look, and then lock the page down for some time, in any wrong version that you arbitrarily like. My feeling is that if we (all) can't get into a more collaborative editing mode in the next week or two, we're going to have to seek mediation. I don't agree with Bobthefish2's most recent comment on my talk page, [166], which recommends "the worst vandals and their IPs" being banned from participating on the article, because I don't see anyone who meets that criteria. Instead, I'm seeing mildly problematic editing from multiple different editors on both political sides of the debate, but no one person is particularly worse, and I don't see anything so bad, yet (although, like the real-world situation, we're riding on the edge all the time). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)--Sorry, but I'm removed the resolved tag. It seems wrong to me to claim in less than 1 hour after Magog posted here that the issue is resolved. Can't we just give this at least half a day to see if anyone involved actually wants to comment on the issue here? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian's observation and recommendation regarding the wiki entry and the issues. An example is, I added the double square brackets to the text so that it would provide a proper link to its corresponding wiki entry, but user [Phoenix7777] always tried to revert me (diff here). He indeed became so obsessive as to stalk me to another unrelated entry Rare Earth Elements to remove the double brackets I put to link a chemical element to its wiki page (see diff here). I view this as unreasonable disruption targeting someone he disagrees with, call it "malicious" according to [Phoenix7777]. Though behaviors such as this are probably better described by as "not particularly worse" (quote Qwryxian -- in my view it is simply minor nuisance and childish but I don't disagree with Qwryxian), it does presents unnecessary hassle to the community and creates problems and sometimes unnecessary arguments among the members. I have now basically stopped editing in entries where he participates because I do not want to waste time in meaningless edit warring. ---- (I think I do not understand how to make "Notify" function works - help/pls fix) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding reason for discussion. The thread is thread name of the discussion.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —San9663 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

San, he reverted the wikilink at Rare earth element because it was superfluous. All the elements are linked to their wiki articles via the table. To add a link elsewhere as well is overlinking. And I am at a loss as to why you have stuck that piece about notifiction on the end of the edit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To help Magog the Ogre get to the bottom of all of this (& advise any Admin with enough time & courage who might want to do the same), this article is about a clutch of islands claimed by either two or three different countries as part of their sovereign territories. (The number varies depending on whether one counts Taiwan as a country separate from the PRC.) In other words, an ethnic/nationalist dispute IMHO similar to Liancourt Rocks dispute, which is currently under an active ArbCom probation. And I see a lot of actions on the article page alone which look, at first glance, to be motivated more to favor one POV in this matter than by good faith (e.g., statements tagged as "citation needed" which arguably don't need to be tagged, images illustrating the disputed claims nominated for deletion). Although further examination shows that some of the individuals involved still should be treated as acting in good faith, this article is at a tipping point. If things continue as they have been, this article will be put under an ArbCom probation at least as restrictive as Liancourt Rocks dispute is currently under; but if all parties involved start behaving civilly to each other & make an attempt to find areas they can agree on & build from there towards a consensus, everyone -- those involved in the article, the rest of the Wikipedia editors, & our readers -- would be very happy. Until either of those happens, I for one wouldn't fault MtO if he simply deleted all of that discussion from his Talk page & act as if no one had contributed to a thread about these islands there. -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the "quote" in the reference

Please comment on the following edits.

1. San9663 (talk · contribs) removed a description from the quote in the reference[167] and by the very next edit removed the corresponding description from the paragraph.[168]
2. STSC (talk · contribs) removed the whole quote in the reference.[169]

The quote was added because the availability of the preview of Google book is precarious and dependent on the region. Actually the page is currently invisible. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The contents removed by STSC are the same dubious contents I've referred to many times. It's a good thing that you brought this up yourself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There was diff no quotation marks on the wiki text. It does not appear like a quote at all. I thought it seems a redundant and subjective description and removed it according to the reasoning by a previous editor of "non relevance" —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Involved user) I note that San9663 in this reversion and this reversion said "continuing John Smith's previous edit of simplifying". This refers to a removal of a reference I made of the Washington Times' supposed ownership by some church. I don't think that San's reversions are comparable, as it's a bit daft to refer to every publication's ownership if mentioned in a Wikipedia article. However, the People's Daily's ownership/control may be far more relevant given the Chinese government's territorial claims.

I also don't think that STSC should have marked his recent edits as minor.

I haven't looked at everyone else's edits widely. John Smith's (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we may agree to disagree. My reasoning is that, many people, especially those who know a bit of Asia and the two countries disputing these islands, know what People's Daily / Renmin Ribao is. We all know it is a state-owned, propaganda organ. It is quite redundant to add a full sentence for description. But I don't mind it either way personally. I edited it once and I am not going to do any revert, or even bother to discuss about this. It is too minor an issue to me, until [Phoenix7777] forced me to explain myself. On the other hand, Washington Times is much less well known. I mistook it for Washington Post a few times when I first heard of it. A short qualification to remind reader not to confused WaTimes with WaPO is necessary IMO, and more necessary than for People's Daily. Even if not, two double brackets to wiki-link it should be agreeable to all. Unfortunately, people like [Phoenix7777] keep removing the links, and even worse, removing the WT and the "claim" word totally. I know this is the Japan POV section, I have no objection for anything written there, Japan can "claim it owns the world" and we have no ground to say Japan does not have the freedom to say so. In short, I do not mind as long as it said someone "claims" or someone "asserts". But trying to pretend "claims" as undisputed facts are, IMO, against wiki's rules. San9663 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Death threats on Flint, Michigan

Resolved

 – accounts blocked, cops on it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

According to User:Finmcaley12 and User:199.8.26.10 on Flint, Michigan someone named Brice Davis is going to get murdered. [170] [171] Should we contact the authorities? TomCat4680 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think is just plain vandalism, I seen plenty of those before, Finmcaley should be blocked indef. Secret ^account 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in touch with the police at Indiana Wesleyan University where the IP is from. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have indeffed the account and rev-del'ed the edits that include the name of the threatened party. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And I've restored them so the cops can take a look. Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If they need access they have ways to see the data. Making it public is a very bad call in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed this one. SnottyWong ^converse 23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's a CU online right now, please ping me via email. I will give you the email address of the detective I'm working with, but he would love to decode Finmcaley12's ip address. You can email it directly to him. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary -- essentially the same edit was made by IP directly before the account made it? Looie496 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Toddst hit my talk page, I'm on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed User:Finmcaley12 and User:199.8.26.10 are the same. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible Death Threat

Resolved

 – --Chaser (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This worries me. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah; that's something that requires immediate action... HalfShadow 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Standard WP:RBI. Let's not waste time on these punks. Rodhullandemu 00:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is too vague to be actionable or to be worthwhile reporting. Marking as resolved.--Chaser (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Merridew behaviour

Resolved

 – No, it is. No admin is going to take action here, as my previous reverted close suggested. There are other venues available for dispute resolution. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Per [172], [173] and [174], I ask an uninvolved admin to block Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) for disruption. This is a continuation of a pattern of abusive editing on Merridew's part to impose his preferred styles on articles over objections. He is now accusing me of "harrassment" [175] for undoing his undiscussed changes to the styles established in articles that I previously edited. Merridew was banned by arbcom for past stalking and abuse of multiple accounts. His current arbcom sanction mentions " follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts". I submit he has failed to do so. I believe, at this point, his behaviour is more than serious enough to warrant a block. I would block him myself for disruption, but other admins have felt I am involved. (I will be offline for many hours now.) Gimmetoo (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are involved; and very much so.  pablo 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute, and a kinda lame one at that. Is there a version that is more frequently used in other actor bios? Has this been discussed in a style guideline perhaps in a wikiproject? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about colours or styles or my editing; he's decided to target me. Merridew 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• this statement
• ANI632#obstruction of ref clean-up
• ANI632#Gimmetoo, again
• ANI641#RexxS behaviour (which was about Gimme' reverting me)

Merridew 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not going to lie, after reading over those diffs, and your ANI report, it looks like you, Gimmetoo, are the one who has been doing all the harassing. If there's a content dispute, take it back to square one with Jack and discuss it civilly. For the record, Jack is more than willing to talk about his edits. On a side note, considering that you yourself do not have all too stellar of a track record, I encourage you to not hurl stones at other people's glass houses when you live in one yourself. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that last bit isn't very fair. One 12hr block for 3RR and one temporary indef to confirm that an alt account was genuine does not make one's abode a glass one. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Fastily's summary of the interactions between Jack and Gimmetoo/trow. It is clear that Gimme is the one being tendentious and unreasonable, and has indulged in hounding behaviour over a period of several months. Gimme seems to believe that he owns certain articles and interprets all disagreement on their content or presentation as a personal affront, and I'm sure I don't need to say that that is a totally unproductive and irrational attitude. It is also worrying that Gimme takes such delight in bringing up Jack Merridew's (very distant) past bad behaviour, as though it's prima facie evidence that Jack must be in the wrong now. That is quite obviously wrong too. I urge Gimmetoo to leave Jack the hell alone and stop being so precious. This is beyond tiresome. Reyk _YO! 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed this, before Gimmetoo/trow finds themselves having a major issue. Blocking Merridew themselves would result in a desysop RFC. So don't do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not resolved. Merridew went immediately to making similar inappropriate changes of style known to be controversial, in this case in direct violation of WP:CITE#Citation_templates_and_tools: " Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." The edits in question are to Kerr and Andress. Merridew made no attempt to gain consensus, no post on the talk page, no attempt at discussion that I can find. Furthermore, his edit to Andress installed a bug in the table that Merridew ought to know about, because it was the content basis for the last ANI issue. (An issue which, by the way, Merridew misprepresents above; Merridew undid one of my edits, I started a discussion, and Merridew didn't respond.) And I noticed these because both Kerr and Andress are articles I have watchlisted, and that I've edited quite a bit, as far as I know long before Merridew ever edited them. (I've also edited the other articles Merridew edited: Bynes and Bullock.) It seems likely to me that Merridew is stalking me, especially given Merridew's documented prior stalking. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? The difference between this and this is what you are so flustered about? Removing some entirely redundant coloring is an "inappropriate edit" that gets you up in arms like this? --87.79.51.168 (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup much? 160.44.248.164 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Looks like someone is suffering from a serious case of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop for the good of the project. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're all missing the point-- we have policies and guidelines for a reason, and Gimme is following them. How about telling Merridew to move along and find something else to occupy his time with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Gimmetoo/trow is making it a habit of demanding blocks of editors who disagree with him when he doesn't get his way, has a major ownership problem with some articles, and refuses to listen to constructive feedback. Why should Jack "move along" when he's working for the good of the project and obeying policy and guidelines (indeed, helping to improve them) simply because an obstructionist doesn't like it? What needs to happen here is for Gimetoo to "let it go;" I hope that action will be taken against him the next time he makes one of these frivolous complaints.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain your assertion that Jack is obeying policy and guidelines, when it is Gimme who is doing so? If Merridew doesn't like our citation guidelines, he should take his crusade to that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that there are other venues for resolution of disputes before marching straight to ANI. This page is not for yelling "I don't like what this editor's doing, please block them". This is why I've marked this resolved (twice). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The explanation of how Jack is obeying policy and guidelines is that he's making articles internally consistent (and very often consistent with other similar articles as well). Consistency is a principle that overrules personal preferences. It is downright disruptive to complain about changing a reference like this: <ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20414325,00.html</ref> to this: <ref>{{cite web|last=Oh |first=Eunice |url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20414325,00.html |title=Miranda Kerr: Yes, I'm Pregnant! - Babies, Miranda Kerr, Orlando Bloom |publisher=People.com |date=2010-08-19 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> and Gimme knows it. He's also aware that MOS:ENDASH documents the consensus that we should change dates ranges like "1987-1988" to "1987–1988" and Gimme knows that as well. He even knows how to fix the problem that his browser causes him, because I've taught him how to do it (add a sort key). It's about time that Gimme stopped obstructing editors whose only desire is to improve Wikipedia, and quit running to ANI every time he doesn't get his way, before the community loses patience with him. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. ANI is not here to play mommy. I also don't see anything wrong with Jack's edits as a purely practical matter. He removes redundant coding, an outright good thing. Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive as we say. It describes accepted community standards, not tells us what to do. We even have/had that wording on one of the policy overview pages, followed by 'it can and does lag behind community practices at times'. I think the lack of outcry and the frustration with Gimmetoo's hounding of Jack is fairly good evidence that the policy in question is starting to get behind the times. -- ۩ Mask 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) Another editor tried to work things out with Jack once before but he managed to out last her. She retired from the project, see it here Wildhartlivie. I'm done for the night but I'm sure Jack can supply the many difs to the RFC and the projects who dealt with this. Have a good night everyone. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:A Nobody also had frequent arguments with Jack Merridrew. A Nobody is now banned from editing. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, and blatantly untrue.  pablo 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think you can draw a causal link between those two statements.  pablo 11:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There was obviously a big argument between the two: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WHL (and a second account first thought to be a sock but later identified as a friend who edited at her house) seemed to be on a crusade to keep a wild variety of colors in various articles rather than going for a more unified, sober, and meaningful approach. There were more editors than WHL and Jack involved in that, but there was some edit warring on both sides, and I would not by any means paint this as "WHL tried to work things out with Jack". As for A Nobody, it's probably a lot more accurate to say that after a community RfC on A Nobody, the findings of which he failed to heed, and a subsequent ArbCom case which he "retired" to avoid, A Nobody was blocked and then a community ban was layered on top of that. A Nobody went on to disparage other editors on his private Wikia wiki, to the point of being ordered to desist by Wikia staff. That's probably a far more accurate recounting of events. I don't really hold Jack responsible for either of those two editors departing. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what CronhieGal's comment is supposed to mean. This dispute started when Merridew tried to install cite templates on two articles, and was reverted (by me on one, and another admin on the other). The consequent discussion on both articles did not provide consensus for Merridew's edits. Nevertheless, well after these discussion concluded, Merridew made precisely that change on two other articles - articles that I routinely edit, and edited long before Merridew ever edited them. Merridew made no attempt at discussion, and given the past two attempts, likely would not get consensus for Merridew's edits at the articles in question. Nevertheless, many editors appear to be supporting Merridew's edits as perfectly OK.

Nobody who edits here for any length of time is going to do everything perfect. Everyone has faults. Indeed, most of the commentators above have committed wikifaults in various degrees, including me. Indeed, some of those above are involved in this dispute but neglected to reveal that point for genuinely uninvolved editors. Some editors have civility issues. Some editors fail to observe WP:BRD. Some may be canvassing. Given the two IP edits from the same country, there may be sockpuppetry. Nevertheless, I saw the behavior displayed by Merridew as much worse than anything anyone else in this thread has done recently. But apparently those commenting above disagree. Therefore, I would like to get this straight: is it the consensus of this ANI thread that:

1. there is nothing wrong with edit-warring to change an article to meet an editor's preferred style, regardless of the style present in the article, how long it has been there, or any past discussions
2. specifically, the prohibition of WP:CITE of edit-warring to install cite templates is obsolete and is to be marked historical
3. there is nothing wrong with targeting articles another editor edits routinely
4. there is nothing wrong with edit summaries in article space identifying a specific editor's edits as harassment

Is that the consensus here? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about:

1. specifically, there is nothing wrong with improving an article by changing a bare url to a properly formatted citation, regardless of how many badly-formed references there are in the article, nor how long they have been there
2. it is unacceptable to edit-war to revert article improvements
3. the guidance against changing the style of references is subordinate to the need to have references displayed in a consistent format in an article
4. there is nothing wrong with identifying harassment when it occurs
5. ANI is not dispute resolution, and the community has only limited patience with those who abuse it

Perhaps we could get consensus for that? --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying, if any part of an article is "inconsistent" in any way whatsoever, that you are 100% completely justified in changing every style aspect of the article to any style you choose, and that it is 100% completely justified to remove any other fixes or corrections to the article at the same time? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And you're saying that on articles that you routinely edit, and have edited for a long time, nobody is allowed to format the references to display in a consistent manner, or you'll report them to ANI? Or is it just Jack who isn't allowed? --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say "consistency" is fine, if it reflects the way the article has developed. For instance, I would say that an article that is stable with 90% one variety of English could be made 100% that variety, but taking a 10% variation as an pretext to make the article 100% a different form would probably not be OK. Would you agree? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that consistency of presentation is far more important than whatever underlying mechanism is used to achieve that. I certainly would agree that an article which is 90% one format and 10% another would be improved by making it 100% consistent. To address the issue of which format, the "majority style" of English is not one of the deciding factors given at WP:ENGVAR for good reason. The primary deciding factor is whether the subject has strong national ties; the secondary one is the first major contributor who used a variety of English. Since an article may have been expanded considerably by an editor who used a different variety, we've reached the present consensus that majority usage is not a deciding factor. Nevertheless, extrapolating ENGVAR to other issues requires caution. "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language" means that we hold either variety in equal respect. The same does not apply for the display style of references. For example, I believe that one of the fully-formatted references (as enumerated at WP:CITE#HOW) is always preferred to bare urls (which often only display a superscript numeral). It would be a mistake to object to an edit which improved an article with inconsistent referencing by bringing it into consistency with one of the full citation styles given at WP:CITE#HOW. Wouldn't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I would disagree with some of your statements. Installing citation templates is contentious. While a "fully-formatted reference" is in some ways an improvement, I think that using "fully-formatted reference" as a pretext for installing citation templates in an article that has developed without them is an abuse, and to do so to target and bait editors who support WP:CITE is pointy and WP:HA. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your view, and appreciate it. Citation templates are contentious, but I'm not prepared to either endorse or condemn installing them without considering context. I still think the way references are presented is more important then whether they are made via a good hand-crafted reference or a citation template. As everyone knows, citation templates make citation maintenance much easier and present a (generally) consistent result. Not everyone understands the problem that an large article with 100+ templates can take a considerable time for the server to generate in edit mode. That is an issue that will require developers to address. Personally, I have no difficulty with someone converting an underdeveloped article to citation templates, but I wouldn't recommend it for large, heavily referenced articles at present. I accept that your view may be different, and there is a large "grey area" in between the obvious extremes, where discussion and judgement is required. I'm glad we can agree on the value of fully-formatted references, but I would still recommend that individual articles deserve individual discussions, and suggest that the relevant article talk page is a better venue to search for consensus on this issue. --RexxS (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you can see this same type of disagreement being discussed multiple times. First, here is an AN/i report very similar to this one. Also instead of writing down all the difs in it, you will see in that report all the difs of where this was discussed at multiple locations like the village pump, WT:ACTOR. All I'm saying is that this same kind of complaint got no where before and it needs to be dealt with this time. The actor project had a few major discussions going on about this too, the dif is in the link above. Jack did the same thing to Wildhartlivie following her from one article to the next. The dif for that was deleted so I can no longer get access to it. Jack has a set way that he feels the project should follow and he just barges in and makes the changes and doesn't bother to discuss it with editors who are working the articles. I dropped out the discussion finally myself because it was like talking to a brick wall. Wildhartlivie, finally got fed up with no one taking this serious to help her out with all the harrassment she felt she was getting so she finally just slapped a semi-retirement up and slowly found that she couldn't work here with running into Jack still that she found that her enjoyment here was no long going to be had and she left permanently. We have to have Jack follow the same set of rules as everyone else. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand that Jack does target editors and he is relentless. I know he has his supporters but it is time now with another editor saying the same thing about it to make it stop. Just my opinion but this is kind of a rerun of what I saw the last time. I hope this clarifies my hurried post last night. Gimmetoo is not wrong, he is right, Jack has no right to force his opinions on everyone else. He's been doing that for a long time now, is anyone going to say enough is enough now? HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate or helpful summation at all. You (as a friend of WHL) are wildly misstating the case here. WHL was not harassed by Jack and to say that really is over the top. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, you know I've taken WHL's side in a lot of disagreements, more than most, in fact, but your summary of events is plain wrong. Her departure was far more complicated than you indicate, she was consistently hostile towards Jack, and her standard reaction became to completely lose her temper, not just at Jack but at several editors, usually for piddling reasons such as they did something she didn't like. I think it's fair to say that WHL viewed Jack with malice. You also know that Jack asked me to mediate between the two of them, WHL agreed, and then at the 11th hour absolutely refused to proceed and instead chose to depart. Her choice. She could still be here if she'd kept a cooler head. I agree with Lar's comments, above and below. Rossrs (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I need to clarify what I meant in saying I agreed with Lar's comments. I agree with what he said regarding Jack's intentions. I'm convinced that his aim is to make incremental improvements where he sees the need and rather than ask permission to make edits, which he should not have to do, he makes them and then discusses them when questioned. That is how it should be. I was strongly against him at the beginning of the talk you refer to at WP:ACTOR, then I thought that as nobody else was prepared to listen to him, I would, and ultimately I could see his point. WHL wouldn't/couldn't (I don't know which) but didn't make an effort to see any viewpoint but her own and if anything her attitude fanned the fire. I think she was more than capable of speaking up for herself, so I don't believe it's right to portray her as a victim. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's my view on this contretemps. ((obDisclose, I've stuck up for Jack before) Jack, in his gnomish way, has been going around improving things (I find it hard to argue against moving citations from bare links or hand formatted references to the citation templates, and even harder to argue against changing bare dashes to emdashes per the MOS.) and that seems to have setGimme off to the point that he's exerting ownership characteristics. That needs to stop. The case, as presented by Gimme is spurious (and it was closed twice already). I'll go farther, if Gimme keeps reverting improvements to articles, whoever makes them, a block is in order. Jack is editing in agreement with our convention. Gimme should drop the stick and back away from the horse, now, before this degenerates further. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's any help, Lar, your summary reflects my own thoughts (obDisclose, I share Jack's perspective on improving Wikipedia). To be as fair as I can to Gimme, I should say that citation templates present an issue in very large articles (as I outlined above), and that changing hyphens to endashes in date ranges (per MOS) presents a minor problem particular to the Safari 4 browser (as outlined in Gimme's earlier complaint against me). These issues are solvable, but not at ANI. I'd encourage Gimme to engage in the process of seeking solutions, as there are plenty of editors willing to collaborate in that. --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true. The issues are discussable and solveable. I'm not going to buy into the citation discussion any further than I have, but I have been discussing the use of colour in film award tables at Talk: Halle Berry, and in fairness to Gimme, he is discussing it. On the other hand, we discussed the same thing a few weeks ago on my talk page, specifically Halle Berry, and he reverted me in mid discussion and suddenly I was alone in the discussion. That appears to me to fall under the heading of "ownership characteristics". If he's looked at my talk page since then, he's aware of how negatively I viewed that, but as long as the current discussion remains on track, the issue remains solveable. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

nb: Gimmetoo's reverts of my edits to Ursula Andress && Miranda Kerr are being discussed at Talk:Ursula Andress and the awards colour-thangs at Talk:Halle Berry. I'm still travelling. Jack Merridew 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the color issue, but MOS specifically addresses this by stating that excess markup should be avoided, and ACCESS discusses the issues wrt vision-impaired editors and screenreaders. I rather imagine there is a similar issue occurring here, as there is probably little reason to introduce color there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, Sandy, the "color issue" is that some articles have developed with tables that use colour-coded results. Merridew et al. are trying to remove them. I am viewing that issue as mostly an arbitrary style change. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation-- if the color coding conforms to WP:ACCESS, I don't have a problem with it. The usual problem with color coding is that it doesn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, editing a table to reflect a site-wide default style is not "an arbitrary style change". If I was reckless enough to change the colours to yellow and purple, that would be arbitrary. Deciding among a relatively small group of editors that the plain table needed to utilise colour, and then adding the colour to various but not all tables, is far more "an arbitrary style change" and creates an inconsistency (yet another one) that didn't exist before. Why is one choice arbitrary and one not? Rossrs (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this either. Am I to believe that the first editor to get to an article can lock down its presentation style for ever and ever? Even in the face of pretty strong support for the idea that changes might be an improvement? To me, that is pretty much what WP:OWN tries to prevent and does not agree with the principle that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's never that black-and-white, unfortunately. Where a particular style is only a matter of personal preference, then our guidelines require other editors to respect that (because it prevents edit-warring over something that is only a personal preference). Sometimes editors feel that changing certain elements of a page is an improvement, but others believe that they are simply making a mere style change unnecessarily. The question (as here) depends on whether the change is an improvement. Those making the change think it is, and see those resisting it as 'owning' the article; those thinking it only a style change see it as unnecessary. Each side has a good-faith case, but neither can convince the other of it. --RexxS (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Slippery slope

This discussion has been marked closed several times, but it continues; some of the arguments above mystify me and this discussion appears to be headed for a slippery slope if not resolved, so please let's not mark it closed again.

RexxS, I'm particularly confused by some of your feedback, because at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1 you understand the reasoning behind not switching citation style, but here we find many editors expressing different opinions, contrary to WP:CITEHOW. I don't want to derail this discussion, so perhaps you can explain the apparent contradiction on my talk?

The slippery slope: editors above appear to be endorsing the use of citation templates in articles that don't use them, and allowing Merridew to continue this behavior against guidelines. Certainly bare URLs are not preferred, but neither are citation templates, and many of us hate them because they so clutter the text. If we're headed down a slippery slope that endorses them, here are some counterexamples to refocus the issue away from Merridew's behavior, which I do believe is disruptive.

1. Tourette syndrome (TS). I largely wrote and cited that article myself. I hate citation templates because they clutter the text and are subject to the ever-changing whims of whomever edits and changes them. I cited TS manually because it is easier to grab the info from PMID and format it to conform with WP:ITALICS (journal names, etc) and WP:MOSBOLD (volume number), without cluttering the text. On the other hand, I endorse the use of citation templates at other medical articles that are frequently edited by numerous editors, since most of them won't understand an individual style used on an article edited mostly by one person. If Merridew decides to impose citation templates on TS, I'm going to be kicking and screaming.

2. Venezuela suite of articles. There has been a long-standing problem on those articles, as no particular citation style has been endorsed across the suite (as in medical articles, which largely use the Diberri template filler); the citation style used in Venezuela articles is a mish-mash because of the number of different editors who edit those articles and format citations differently (unlike TS). When Rd232 starts a new article, he uses his own citation style-- one I have never encountered elsewhere-- but if he started the article, guidelines say we should continue his style (which never happens because few understand his style-- I try to conform, but I can't bring myself to violate ITALCS and MOSBOLD). Are those arguing against Gimme here willing to say that we should alter Rd232's style when he started the article with a consistent style? He also hates citation templates, but his citation style does not follow WP:ITALICS or WP:MOSBOLD.

3. The Ormulum FAR linked above-- citation style was changed without consensus, and it's just plain ugly. (Added clarification: some editors' writing style is more conducive to parenthetical citations, and they should not be switched to the cite.php format, as specifically mentioned at WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I disagree with most weighing in here-- Merridew appears to be on a pointy campaign, while Gimme appears to be trying to enforce guidelines because he understands the slippery slope. If some handle isn't gotten on this matter, it's looking to head the direction of the most lame date-delinking case. No one should be unilaterally imposing citation templates in articles without gaining consensus on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

? I don't use bold in references, and per normal convention across many citation styles (and WP:ITALICS), I italicise books and journal titles. My citation style is a minor variation of APA style (in that I prefer to put article/chapter names in double quotes for clarity). Rd232 ^talk 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I may have misstated your style (I didn't go and re-check), but the point is, it's consistent, but new editors to the articles don't follow it, resulting in a mish-mash including the addition of citation templates, which is against guidelines. This is an example of the slippery slope that I hope will refocus this discussion with concrete examples unrelated to Gimme or Merridew. (I think it's true there probably isn't a MOSBOLD issue, as that refers to journal volumes which aren't found frequently in Ven articles, but on Italics, you italicize websites, which isn't normally done-- that's what I can't bring myself to do, since I'm a MOS maven on that sort of thing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Our principle is very well established: each article should be left in the citation style that has been established, and newer references should (over time) be reformatted back into that style. If a well-established article does not use citation templates, the references shouldn't be converted to use them. If it does use them, the references shouldn't be converted away from them. If it uses footnotes, it shouldn't be changed to Harvard referencing. If it uses Harvard referencing, it shouldn't be changed to footnotes. Going around changing styles on numerous articles violates this principle and is not appropriate as an editing pattern. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly my understanding of the issue and the problem that is occurring here. On the Venezuela articles, very few of them ever reach GA or FA potential, so the issue has never come to a head, but if an article started by Rd232 were to reach GA potential, citations would need to be converted back to his style unless alternate consensus were developed on talk. I do not understand the support here for Merridew's campaign, and am dismayed at the statements made about Gimme enforcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was looking at an article at GAN or FAC, and there had been a change in citation styles (to discover that would involve digging in the history). I really doubt I would quarrel with it. Unless editors involved with the article complained, I don't see why it should be an issue, as long as it is consistent. And yes, I do know the policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This has never been tested (the original editor of the Ormulum FA is gone, so he didn't complain), and I certainly wouldn't hold up a FAC over this, but the slippery slope exists nonetheless, and my concern that it is headed the direction of the lame date-delinking case (another area in which I would never hold up promotion of a FAC, but that engendered heated and lame discussion, which is why I say we need to get a rational handle on this rather than disparaging Gimme.) Let's suppose I'm hit by a truck tomorrow, and someone starts adding citation templates to TS ... or a Venezuela article gets stalled at GAN because Rd232 wants his original style respected-- how is this going to be resolved? We have a guideline for a reason, and both CITEHOW and WIAFA are clear. Gimme is enforcing guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could run after the ambulance for you :) ... I'm thinking judgment call, don't want to be too rigid in setting up guidelines in advance because as you imply, we can't anticipate all the fine points in advance. That bit of policy was not handed down on stone tablets, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but. What happened at Ormulum is inexcusable, because it opens the article to the potential for another FAR if anyone complains, rightly, about the citation style imposed upon the article by mostly one editor, who didn't appear to understand WIAFA. I could be pointy about it and insist that the FAR not be closed until this is corrected, but 1) I don't think that would be helpful considering other issues surrounding the deteriorating environment at FAR, and 2) one editor decided to ignore the citation debacle and simply bring the article to standard, which is generally a good thing. But the result is not optimal-- the original editor's writing is more conducive to parenthetical citation. My argument is that we should not be disparaging Gimme here for keeping the bigger picture in sight, and we should be resolving this in a way that won't lead to another lame date-delinking debacle. There will likely be a judgment call at Orumulum to keep the article FA in spite of the change, but what if someone later complains? It's a slippery slope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is basically an issue of consensus: people shouldn't go around changing existing styles unilaterally (with the exception of making style formats consistent within an article, when there is a clear style consensus developed). Anything else should be resolved by discussion on the talk page. To return to the original discussion subject - if Merridew is continuing to go around not respecting existing style usage, that's a problem to be demonstrated and then to be addressed. Failing to demonstrate/address should not raise concerns that policy is being overturned. Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, and that is how this discussion needs to refocus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, we had turned to discussing policy instead of conduct. Well, looking it over, I strongly suggest a RFC/U.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope my counterexamples that don't involve Merridew or Gimme helped bring the issue into more clear focus. Perhaps we could avoid an RFC/U by simply asking Merridew to stop? We won't benefit from an RFC on citation style because we don't yet have a good test case-- this only comes to a head at FAC and FAR where citation style must be respected, Ormulum is the best example so far, and Geogre is gone and no one else is willing to take up that crusade, since the article was brought to standard. Further, we already have a guideline, and an RFC is unlikely to overturn it. I think-- I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been RFC's on this issue here and here. The last one has links to where this has been discussed in other places too. I thought some difs might be helpful to this discussion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Those RFCs are on color; I'm more concerned with citations, as they relate to WP:V, a policy issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would be more than mildly concerned if I felt that any admins are underinformed enough feel that swapping citation styles without going to Talk first is at any time a viable option, or even an "improvement".. the reason we have things such as WP:CITEHOW is not to encourage WP:OWN but to encourage stability, discourage edit wars, etc. Styles can change, if one goes to Talk and works it out. Did that happen here, or did someone wander in with an Edit Bat? • Ling.Nut 03:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been RFC's on the citation part too in the WT:ACTOR as can be seen here. Most of that page is about citations, color, bullets, etc which I suggest reading. The same thing goes for the RFC at Moonriddengirl which discussed the color issues but also discussions about the citations were there too. Here is one that I just remember that was about citations started by Jack here. There are more I believe at some articles talk pages but off hand I don't remember which articles so there is no way for me to locate the difs without going through all the actors I have on my watch list. I think Jack should be able to give some difs since he said he brought it to the Village pump and other locations. Jack please supply difs for the RFC's and discussions about the use of citations, thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that if Merridew wants to change guidelines, rather than wandering in to individual articles talk pages, he should take an RFC to the WP:CITE talk page, and widely advertise it. Short of that, it would be helpful if he respected existing guidelines. Ditto for color at WP:ACCESS-- waging this battle across individual article talk pages is disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While that's sensible advice in general (seek consensus before changing guidelines, and don't think that consensus for sweeping change is achieved at individual pages), I don't think that's what Jack Merridew has been doing, at all. Jack tends to change things back to conform to guidelines when others previously wandered off into the weeds. As in this case. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely undiscussed controversial climate change move needs reverting

A less than a month old account that originally claimed to be a WP:CLEANSTART case and still has no obvious link to the user's previous identity has just moved Climate change denial to Criticism of Climate Change (yes, complete with the wrong capitalisation) without any prior discussion. To avoid a move war, can an uninvolved admin please move back so that a discussion at WP:RM can be started cleanly. Thank you. Hans Adler 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done and move protection enabled. Toddst1 (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, can you or someone provide a diff to the account's claim of cleanstart? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

da diff Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See new section below, which I have been preparing since I started this report. Off to a lecture now. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, and I was just thinking I'd seen this user's editing style before.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem... See here**Terra Novus's Diff**..I will stop editing this article if it really is such a issue due to me being a recent WP:CLEANSTART, but I hope that the more experienced editors involved will fix this article's WP:NPOV issues...--Novus Orator 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As a relevant aside, I'm about to close the Climate Change ArbCom case (once I have breakfast) and will be posting the details later today. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About the user

After some additional research, here is some further reading:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Edit warring on Cryptozoology articles – 13-15 September, ANI discusses what to do with the disruption caused by the Gniniv in cryptozoology area
• Gniniv claims to retire (15 September)
• First edit by Terra Novus claims clean start (18 September)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Terra Novus/Archive – 28 September, user asks for CU to clear them from suspected connection with FellGleaming
• User talk:Carcharoth#Confirmation – 1 October; user goes to an arbitrator's talk page for rubber stamping of their "clean start" after it came out that they had not notified anyone after disappearing while community action against them was discussed
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#User:Gniniv / User:Terra Novus / "Novus Orator" – 4 October ANI discussion
• Undiscussed highly contentious move in climate change area
• Extreme POV editing in climate change area

This seems to be a competence problem rather than bad faith, but something needs to be done. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage this editor to take this opportunity to completely leave all controversial topics, or at least to return to his initial account. To Terra Novus, if you continue having problems like this with the new account, I think you'll quickly be banned, since you will be taking too much community time when people have to figure out what you're up to. If you want to keep trying to improve controversial topics, and you want a fair hearing, you should go back to your other account. Really, I would recommend getting out of contentious topics altogether, since candidly, you don't show a sensitivity to the types of things that will get you in trouble across the board. But for maximum leeway you should surely go back to your first account. Only if you are extremely confident that you can stay out of all controversial topics altogether with this account, as well as any areas in which you've previously edited, is there any remotely plausible chance that you will not be sanctioned under this new account, at least in my opinion. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is quite clear in its statement that editors who decide to place {{retired}} on their original account and create a new account should not return to edit the articles/subjects that they previously edited as it could lead to WP:SOCK issues. If the intent was to simply keep editing the same way, one cannot claim cleanstart. One can hold an WP:Alternate account for specific purposes, but at this point, the new account does not meet them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and as I said above I have stopped editing Climate Change articles. If any one will take the time to look at my edit history as Terra Novus (After my cleanstart), they will see that I have adhered to the noncontentious topics policy in the articles I have chosen to edit. This was just a ignorant misstep on my part into a new subject that was too contentious. As I acted in good faith (and, to be honest, in ignorance of the move request policy) I hope that the community will understand my full adherence to Wikipedia's principles.--Novus Orator 04:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Then one of his next edits is at a subject dear to people of his outlook Out-of-place artifact. Hardly a noncontentious topic as it involves the evolution-Young Earth Creationist argument. Dougweller (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Other recent edits

I've taken the time Terra Novus suggests, to review his edits, and I'm sorry to say that I can't agree that he's stuck to non-contentious topics or edited in a responsible manner within them:

• In this edit to the Pro-life article we get blatant misrepresentation of the cited source, which says, verbatim: "Traditional Jewish teachings sanction abortion as a means of safeguarding the life and well-being of a mother. While the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative movements openly advocate for the right to a safe and accessible abortion, the Orthodox movement is less unified on the issue."

• In this edit to the Green Party article we get the Green Party represented as "Socialism", via a sidebar, with no edit summary and no use of the talk page.

• In the Swedish welfare article we get drive-by POV tagging with no edit summary and no use of the talk page.

• In this edit to the Solid South political article more drive-by tagging, with an edit summary this time but still no use of the talk page.

• Our article on Race initially had this sentence that accurately summarized its four sources,

This new science has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon.¹²³⁴

Then Terra Novus came along and first gave us this remarkable passage,

After the rise of the New Left amongst academia, a modified population genetics reflected a new understanding of the sources of phenotypic variation. Pressure from demographic groups in society has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon, although, ironically, they were the ones who historically popularized the concept. (See also Political Correctness).¹²³⁴

and then eventually gave us this sentence, which cites the same four refs but grossly misrepresents their meaning:

This new thought has lead most modern scientists in anthropology and biology to totally discount the validity of naturalistic racism.¹²³⁴

• In this edit to the article on Messianic Judaism we get argumentative, pro-Christian tags inserted into a simple statement taken directly from its cited source on what Jews believe about Jesus.

• In this John Birch Society edit we get a change from the correct full statement,

The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a "Patriot' Group". Its definition of patriot groups includes: "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order' or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines".

to this truncated one,

The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a "Patriot' Group". Its definition of patriot groups includes: "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order'.

The SPLC cited reference did indeed include the phrase "or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines."

I appreciate and value Terra Novus' contributions to space vehicle articles, volcano articles, and similarly non-controversial articles. I also imagine he believes he's doing the right thing by making these kinds of changes. But it's my clear impression from these and other edits that he's so agenda-driven that he will purposely distort controversial articles to match his political and religious beliefs without respect for the sources they cite. He doesn't seem to be able subordinate his beliefs to the policies we're all required to abide by in order to contribute here. I have no idea what the best remedy for this problem might be, but I know it needs one. This pattern cannot be allowed to continue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the impressive presentation. Since this came after a claimed clean start (which was very ill-advised but presumably in good faith), I guess the best way forward would be a mentorship, possibly in combination with a topic ban for contentious topics and contentious edits, and an understanding that once there is a mentor available the user can no longer claim to have been ignorant about an edit's controversial nature. Hans Adler 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to accept the advice and help of a more experienced user...If anyone is willing to give me comments and correction as I work on becoming less biased that would be much appreciated...--Novus Orator 03:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A start would be to remove the statement "Please join me in helping lower WP:Systematic bias on Wikipedia. " from your user page. I hadn't looked at your contributions recently and hadn't realised the extent of the continuing problem. You also need to make it clear that you are not going to continue what I can only call a campaign and avoid any articles that you would believe would fall into the scope of such a campaign, as you don't appear to be able to "subordinate our beliefs to the policies we're all required to abide by in order to contribute here." I'd definitely support a topic ban for contentious topics and contentious edits. Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Hans Adler is being a bit generous here. Terra Novus is presumably intelligent enough to figure out when his edits are to an area that has a political or religious controversy attached to it (race, abortion etc etc). He knows he has strong views in some areas - I don't think those are going to get any less strong. Ergo, I don't see that a mentor to 'make him aware of an edit's controversial nature' is necessary at all. Every edit that people are complaining about, Terra Novus seems to hold the view that things are being 'distorted' by political pressure or bias. Therefore, if he ever feels it necessary to make an edit that 'corrects' this 'distortion', he needs to raise it on the talk page first. The same should be true of any editor - they shouldn't just be barging into an article, changing content on the grounds of 'religious bias', 'political correctness' or whatever. I don't think TN needs a mentor, and I don't think his own views are going to change substantially. He just needs to follow the rules - if you think something needs changing because of your views on the subject, get into a discussion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was making an assumption on Novus Orator's age that may or may not be correct and probably doesn't need further discussion. Also most people have a lot more exposure to demagogy than to rational arguments, and many editors seem to believe that everything is about opinion and feelings (probably reflecting the state of the US popular media) – so Wikipedia's norms take some getting used to. If nobody volunteers as a mentor, my proposal is moot anyway. In any case I support an indefinite (not infinite) topic ban for all contentious areas and all contentious edits to other areas. Hans Adler 12:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the SPLC definition of "Patriot groups" it is possible that the definition, in itself, as it covers a large range of groups and motivations, might be misconstrued by some readers with regard to the infamous Birch society, with an thought that all of the ascribed factors are thus applicable to that group. To that extent, the attempt at truncation is likely defensible. Collect (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not without a source that says that the SPLC only applies those specific elements of the category to the JBS it ain't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As OhioStandard rightly points out, much of the sourcing in TN's edits does not stand up to scrutiny. Here is another example from today in interracial marriage: [176]. The original content was unsourced, but the source provided by TN was no better (the website of an interracial dating agency). On Heim theory, there is no reliable secondary mainstream source available that describes this theory as an "emerging theory". After TN's edits to the lede,[177] ("trimming"), it is not apparent to the reader that this is a fringe theory, not currently within mainstream physics. These were two random examples. Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the dating agency link was already there as a URL - Terra Novus just turned it into a cite template footnote. Horrible ref, which I've removed now. Rd232 ^talk 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

@Dougweller I am going to revise the Systematic bias statement on my user page to "Please be aware of Systematic Bias and do your best to correct it"...I think that would be less inflammatory. I don't think it is wrong for me to bring awareness to WP:Systematic bias as a issue, because it is something that the Wikipedia community is attempting to correct...--Novus Orator 03:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the concern was that you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of "systemic bias". It is not systemic bias if our articles are written based on an understanding that rape, slavery and torture are criminal and should not be allowed, or that Hollow Earth theory and alien abduction are not to be taken seriously. There is no significant difference of opinion about these topics between various cultures. Systemic bias is about the problem that we have more editors writing about the most trivial details of today's commercial children's toys than about classical antiquity, and more editors writing about obscure differences between two closely related languages that for some reason matter to nationalists, than editors writing about the major indigenous languages of South Africa. Hans Adler 08:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what you're describing (accurately) is "systemic bias", as in bias that is endemic to the system. What he seems to be complaining about is "systematic bias", as in bias that is deliberately and methodically inserted into the system, which is basically an ideological complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so there is also a real term "systematic bias"? People always seem to be linking it to WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, so I assumed they have trouble with the Latin and the meaning. Maybe they only have trouble with the Latin but mean what they say, not what they link. Thanks! Hans Adler 23:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... I don't know if "systematic bias" is a term used out in the real world, the meaning just seemed obvious from his usage and the meaning of "systematic" ("methodical"). Combine that with his clear ideological proclivities, and there you go! It's very similar to the complaints heard from conservative agenda-makers about "liberal bias in the media" and so forth.

It's more than likely that he means "methodical bias caused by deliberate insertions of liberal thinking", but is calling it "systematic bias" because he thinks that's what "systemic bias" is, if you take my meaning. Overall, I don't see any real ideologcial bias in Wikipedia, but the systemic bias you point to is a real problem – although the solution in my mind is not to delete the articles about Pokemon or Transformers but to increase the number of articles on more important topics. (And maybe even to, somehow, change the culture of confrontation that prevails here. Unfortunately, doing so would probably bump up against some of Wikipedia's basic precepts, which are among the causes of the systemic imbalance.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So, Terra Novus: The outcome here seems to be up to you, for the present. I'm sure I can speak for your fellow editors here and say that we all greatly appreciate your contributions to non-controversial articles. It's abundantly clear that you're a very intelligent, articulate editor who can bring significant value to the encyclopedia, and we'd all be disappointed to lose that. It's also clear, I think ( and I'm genuinely sorry to say so ) that many or most of your fellow editors don't feel they can trust your ability to keep your personal beliefs from overwhelming your willingness to follow the rules when editing articles that have anything at all to do with politics, religion, or other controversial matters, e.g. don't feel they can trust that you'll be able to impartially represent sources, maintain a neutral point of view, and so forth.

Speaking personally, I'd really hate to see you subjected to a community ban, because it's so obvious to me that you can make really strong contributions here apart from articles relating to politics, religion, global warming, and other highly controversial topics. Besides, I've really enjoyed collaborating with you on the few articles we've crossed paths over. So the question I have is this: Would you be willing to just stay completely away from such controversial articles, quit "drive-by tagging" them, avoid wholesale deletions or blanking, and use talk pages in good faith as suggested above? Would you be willing, in other words, to apply your obvious talents to non-controversial articles, exclusively?

It's your right to refuse, of course, but without an affirmative reply it's my strong expectation that if you're not blocked now then you'll be back here again very soon, with the eventual result being a community ban. I don't intend the least disrespect, and I regret having to ask, but can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.? I know this might seem restrictive, but there are hundreds of thousands of other articles here that would benefit from your considerable skills, and I just don't see any practical alternative if you're going to be able to contribute here over the long term. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I just appreciate you guys taking the time to help me fix my own bias. I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area. I would just ask that whenever I slip (as I obviously have in these instances) that editors will take me to the task (civilly), and assist me in finding more productive paths for my contributions. I will accept any constructive criticism or complaint that my work produces. I will generally try to avoid Climate change articles, and any subject in which editors are known to (or say that they have) widely differing opinions. Please put a note on my talk page whenever you have some friendly advice, or correction. I appreciate the editors involved in this case assuming my good faith throughout. @Hans, thank you for correcting my spelling of Systematic to Systemic, I see that the two have widely differing meanings, and will change it at once..--Novus Orator 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled. You must have known that Out-of-place artifact is contentious and for the reasons I gave. As I understood it, you are avoiding any articles linked to evolution (and presumably religion) Dougweller (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi

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

Not sure what to do with this editor. He's your pretty standard truth warrior ideologue and is going badly off the rails. Since the point-fest that was his article on "Judiasm and bus stops" which he freely aditted to having created because he was struggling to have an article on Judaism and violence deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops) his edits have grown increasingly aggressive and bizarre. He's been using a fringe source to try to brand Istanbul, Tiberias, Sanaa, as the "Islamic cities of hell" (using an apocryphal hadith from the 12th century from a traveller that hated these cities). For instance "ISLAM CALLS THIS CITY HELL HELL HELL HELL", [178]. He recently sought to remove the fairly basic fact that Hebron is a holy city to Muslims (since they believe the prophet abraham is buried there and that Muhamad stopped there on his night journey to jerusalem) [179]. Almost all of his edits have a slant -- either downgrading the muslim interest in a place, or seeking to create the impression that there are so many Islamic "holy cities" (for instance, he's just added the absurdity that Kairouan is considered by "many muslims to Islams fourth holiest city") that there interest in places like Hebron and Jerusalem is of no matter (I also saw him recently seeking to downgrade the non-contreversial fact that the original Muslim Qibla was towards Jerusalem with some irrelevancies about language in the Koran [180]). The sheer volume of this stuff is impossible to keep up with, and he just reverts and brushes off appeals to stop. He, charitably, is either not equipped to write on mainstream Islamic views, or is so equipped, but is simply using wikipedia to make political points. I won't oppose the edits of a propagandist any more. Hopefully this will be dealt with.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he's had a bee in his bonnet about Islam and "holiest sites" back to 2006, according to this AN/I report from then [181].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of this, I must say that it is certainly not absurd to describe Kairouan as "Islam's fourth holiest city". This is what I was told and read when I went to Tunisia many years ago; and there are over 200,000 Google repeating this[182]. RolandR (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Times' military correspondent wrote of Kairouan in 1939: "What a Hell of a place to put a Holy City". But unfortunatley Roland, we cannot rely on users' own experiences of what they "know" or what they have "heard". Only published RS are sufficient. That a user can remove material on the premise that it "has never heard of Damascus being a holy city in Islam" is unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly acceptable. According to our verifiability policy, unsourced material can and should be challenged and, if challenged, the people who want to include the material need to provide backing for it in reliable secondary sources. Removing that unsourced claim is quite OK. Reyk _YO! 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And if it's sourced with 8 citiations....? Chesdovi (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue was that you reverted several times without adding the sources, and now that you have added something others feel that the sources don't actually back up the claim being made. I don't presume to know enough about Islam to judge about that; you need to discuss it on the talk page. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I moved material from Hebron, I at least made a token search to see if I could find RS. "Bali" just removes anything he has not "heard of before"! I also noted the removal on the talk page. When I have added sourced material at Sana, it is again removed. I am quite capable of discussing matters amicably as I did when I added Tiberias is a city of Hell in Islam. But I will not have anything to do with "Bali", who describes my work in rude terms and airs his views in the most repulsive of fashions. Chesdovi (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject but Sana'a should be protected because of an edit war, and Bali you should know better by reverting that information as vandalism, as you did with your first revert, and with Istanbul even though it's not vandalism. And Chesdovi for reverting back and not using the talk page, and looking closely at your edits, your edits keep getting reverted, and you hardly go to the talk page and as the creator of the clearly WP:POINT Judaism and bus stops, some sort of saction should be placed on you. Secret ^account 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions belong on the "other" editor involved here. I am within my rights to abstain from comunicating with that editor, a most abusive and intimidating user whose use of profanities is outrageous. Chesdovi (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Err, Bali...even UNESCO think that Kairouan is a major Islamic holy city [183]. Chesdovi, you have every right to ask not to be sworn at, but you cannot complain if another editor uses bad language in a non specific way even if you don't like it. You must keep using the talk page. Plainly not all of your edits are outright wrong, some would appear to be, but if you don't communicate with anyone, all that will happen is that you end up being blocked for edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want anything to do with this "Bali". He has been creepily followng me around ever since I raised concern about his violation of WP:CIVIL. Chesdovi (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you need to be upfront with everyone else, and you need to add the sources THE FIRST TIME, not the seventh time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. But if users want sources, they could add a tag. If they want to stir up trouble, they prefer to remove and revert and then report. You can see the wonderful additions I made to qibla. My additions were a real improvement, and "Bali" uses it as an "example" of how I "downgrade the non-controversial facts", yet it is very clear from the discussion at Jerusalem that the issue is not so simple after all. Chesdovi (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of adding more smoke than light to this thread, I'd like to mention that Harar in Ethiopia also claims the title of the "Islam's fourth holiest city", a claim also supported by UNESCO. A Google search returns some 584,000 hits. So Kairouan's claim is one POV, & I'm while I'm perfectly happy either delegating the issue to WikiProject Islam to arbitrate, or adding "some say" to either Harar's or Kairouan's claim -- or both -- everyone involved should remember to be careful when making sweeping statements about any subject: there are content disputes on Wikipedia that are merely sleeping at the moment, & when awoken may cause unforeseen havoc. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"As I told you longe ago, do not calle up That which you can not put downe; either from dead Saltes or out of ye Spheres beyond. Have ye Wordes for laying at all times readie, and stopp not to be sure when there is any Doubte of Whom you have." --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Things must have got bad if you've started quoting the Necronomicon Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Naw, the only thing that has gotten bad is my attitude about how well people get along here on Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the editor in questions eventual intention (stirring up trouble, all leading back to some aspect of the IP wikipedia nonesense). What's undeniable is that he's spewing this stuff across a wide swathe of articles with no effort made to determine what the underlying consensus view is, to read the survey literature, or to couch it appropriate ways. He basically just finds a source with the desired sentence in it, and makes the edit (some stemming from a misunderstanding of what he's read, but life is too short to get into revert wars every time it happens). He's continued over the past day or two in other articles. There are places that local muslims consider important for instance, and folk-traditions that say such-and-such is "xth holiest in islam" but that "islam" writ-large is scarcely aware of. The local view of the importance of a location should of course be in any article -- but that's not what's being done. The broader issue is the overall agenda, which is easy enough to discern if you look at a few pages of his edits.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DGG's unblocking of Rangoon11

Appears to be a non-issue based on comments below. See my summary at end. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Appears to be a non-issue based on comments below. See my summary at end. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I am asking for community input on the actions of DGG (talk · contribs) in the unblocking of Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Rangoon11 was blocked just over a week ago for three months following a SPI and his posting to here (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident#Harrassment by User:Codf1977) At the SPI s/he avoided addressing the issue and following the block, s/he made no request for unblock or review, instead chose to evade the block two days later by editing from 92.29.112.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Only after that IP had been blocked did s/he make a unblock request, which was declined by Favonian (talk · contribs). Without further input from Rangoon11, Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) made an offer to intercede and get the block lifted at User talk:Rangoon11's talk page, this was followed by DGG's offer in the archive of the SPI and talk page. Rangoon11 then agreed to "make the required undertakings [to use one account]" and was unblocked. DGG did not consult with the blocking admin Hersfold (talk · contribs), only informing him after the unblock. Nor does it appear did DGG consult with anyone else, or take into account any other of the reasons for the block or it's length (as detailed in the SPI) nor the subsequent block evasion into account when deciding to unblock. I believe this is abuse of the admins discretion, not to dicuss this in anyway with any of the admins involved, or to bring it here for discussion since other editors here expressed concerns about his editing (see here). Codf1977 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Rangoon11, DGG, Hersfold and Favonian informed Codf1977 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) In order to clarify matters, it appears, per Rangoon11's talk page, that you have been involved in discussion or in some other manner with Rangoon in the past. Can you disclose what the extent of this interaction has been? SilverserenC 07:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, over his editing of pages on UCL, for his take on it see the ANI thread he posted linked to above. Codf1977 (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC) DGG is an editor of outstandingly good temperament, who would never do a thing just to further his own self interests, and has demonstrated an admirable ability to work with anyone. Instead of assuming bad faith or abuse on his part, one would do better to try to understand him as a role model. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I would think that all (or most) admins would want each of there actions viewd on it's own merits and not in the context of other good or bad actions. I also think that admins use of the tools not only should be free of any self interest, but crucially, also free from the appearance of any self interest and that can't not be said for this case. Codf1977 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Comment It doesn't seem to be self-interest to me. I think you're reading just a tad too far into things. If you read the entire Update and the following Unblock sections of Rangoon's talk page, he agreed that he will consult with the Col. and DGG on future related article. I think you should give it time and see if he improves instead of bringing this directly to ANI. You seem a little too involved in this issue at the moment. Worst case scenario: We run out of rope. Ishdarian 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I'm trying to find anything remotely problematic? What about an unblock is self-interest? Blocks are about prevention, and never punishment ... if the requirement to protect is no longer needed, the block should be gone. I cannot find any good reason that this review is here... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC) DGG is one of the most even-tempered and rational admins on the project and I seriously doubt that his action was carried out with anything other than the most honourable motivation. I hope he will post here to clarify matters and confirm my initial position, but there should certainly not be any rush to judgment. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) If anyone is to be upset it would be Hersfold but I doubt he will. DGG does a fine job and should be applauded for his work. Advance notice is good but I don't think we should get too upset over this decision. JodyB talk 11:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Hersfold's comment on this is "Ok... I'd appreciate being consulted before unblocking, but that's fine". It would, I think, have been reasonable to have put a friendly note on DGG's talk page suggesting that it would have been a good idea to have consulted Hersfold before deciding to unblock, but an ANI report claiming admin abuse is a gross over-reaction. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC) DGG's nicer than I am to people who've screwed up. That's not a bad thing. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Um... yeah. If I'd really had an issue with DGG's unblock, I'd have left a more serious note on his talk page (not mine) and then would have brought this to ANI iff I still wasn't satisfied. While I feel like an echo saying this, DGG is one admin that I consistently see exercising good judgment, and I understand and support his reasoning for unblocking here. As Jody said, if anyone would really be upset by this, it'd be me, but I don't much care either way, and there seems to be a consensus here that DGG has acted appropriately. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Let's not forget that DGG once was split in a transporter accident and has been spotted with a beard -- truly, which DGG are you talking about? --EEMIV (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) from the picture on my user page, you will see that I have a fringe of a beard. You may classify it either way as you please DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I have apologized to Hersfold--I was influenced by the apparent change in attitude and did not want to lose the momentum. And I am not disagreeing with his block--multiple sockpuppettry is a serious affair, and possibly it needed the long block to get some degree of cooperation. I hope it continues. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Decision is appropriate. Taking into consideration DGG's excellent record and impartial judgment qualities and also Rangoon11's commitment to refrain from the act which he/she was blocked for. The decision to unblock him/her is justified. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

212.219.57.60 / Wikiplayer13

212.219.57.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalized User:Kevin McE ([184]) and my own user page ([185]), and used threatening language in both edits. I do not take the threat seriously; I can't speak for Kevin McE. However, I am under the assumption that I am supposed to report the incident. I am fairly certain the IP address is being used by Wikiplayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as the vandalism occurs following warnings from Kevin McE ([186], [187]) and myself ([188], [189]). Another IP associated with this account, 82.46.89.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has previously vandalized our user pages when faced with various disagreements (for example, [190], [191], [192], [193]). See also: previous ANI discussion. I believe the editor's net effect upon Wikipedia is negative. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Wikiplayer13 indef, blocked the IP indef (or at least until we get some credible assurance that the administrators at that school are paying attention), and deleted the death threat revisions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You will (I hope) be glad to hear that I survived the day without any death threats being enacted upon me, and I've had far more immediate threats than some sulky keyboard warrior. I fully approve of the new policy of removal from edit histories, but I'd be sort of intrigued to see what he had to say if anyone is in a position to e-mail it to me. Kevin McE (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me get in touch with my team of multinational assassins. I think I can fit you in at about 1:30 PM on the 30th; we can have lunch and at some point after you'll be dead. I'll pay for lunch. of course. HalfShadow 17:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of you to offer, but I'm busy on the 30th: would the day before be possible? Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It would kinda help if you had your email address set. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that used to be set, and assumed it still was. But although I've asked for a confirmation code at two different e-mail addresses this evenings, nothing has come through to my inbox to facilitate me enabling e-mail contact. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The user has since implied that his account was compromised, which doesn't make any sense as the edits were made from an IP address, not while the user was logged in. But the user has essentially admitted to using the same computer from which the edits were made. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin help

Username blocked, complaint is moot until/unless he returns with a new handle. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Username blocked, complaint is moot until/unless he returns with a new handle. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Any administrator with a sense of fairness and not a political activist is urged to help. Visit the talk page of AGK for details and get AGK to help fill out arbitration forms. AGK is an arbitration clerk. AGK is not a party to this, just the clerk. The issue is that there is calculated effort to get Malia Obama off Wikipedia, at least her own page. Bo, the Obama dog has clearly survived deletion. Malia was discussed but that was TWO years ago! Since then, much has happened. Biased activists have removed the article and quickly placed a page protect on it. This despite no fighting (a reason for page protection). The talk page shows support for an article but people falsely claim consensus when consensus is actually for an article. Some people think the President doesn't want an article so they use phony and specious excuses, like non-notability. Well, Wikipedia has determined that Bo, the dog, is notable. Bo and Malia are in the same family. Malia has given an interview, not Bo. She was involved in the oil spill, not Bo. This article is not just a deletion issue or I would go through that. It is also an unreasonable political activist trying to get their way and using manipulation, such as page protection and falsely claiming consensus. Those political activists, like the ones listed in the requested arbitration, should be banned from writing about any Obama issue, not just Malia. ADMINSTRATION REQUEST: One person said that I needed a lawyer. Please, I am asking for an administrator to step forward and take on this case. I will leave it to you. The only request is either arbitration or similar process. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Can you find links for your claims. And BTW, as a talk page stalker of Looie496 I know his take on this.--Talktome(Intelati) 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Do you think it healthy to carry such a torch on Wikipedia? Your usernamw suggests you are here to do nothing else. Such one-dimensional approaches to Wikipedia to prove a point are severely discouraged. If you want to try WP:DRV you don't need an admin. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Here's the talk page. goes and grabs popcorn.--Talktome(Intelati) 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Capsule summary: in response to a request at RFPP I indefinitely full-protected Malia Obama as a redirect to Family of Barack Obama. My understanding is that there is a standing consensus that a separate article is not desirable. I am by no means fully versed in the history here, and if any admin feels that the page should be unprotected, I have no objection whatsoever. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Talk pages needs re-routing doesn't it? S.G.(GH) ping! 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Well Presidentmalia has been advised to try DRV more than once now to see what the current consensus is. Calling all opponents political activists is unlikely to help the cause though.Fainites barleyscribs 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) On the bright side, if they keep it up, they may cease to be an issue. Everybody wins. Well, everyone else. HalfShadow 22:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) It is laughable to suggest that this dispute is ripe for Arbitration, when pretty much no dispute resolution has thus far been attempted. Presidentmalia's understanding of the Wikipedia DR process seems to be minimal; if somebody would be willing to school him on the basics, we might avoid a waste of the clerks' time and a pointless RFAR. AGK 23:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Grundle2600 was previously involved in these pages. Am I being paranoid to wonder... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC) User first edited on 15 October. Perhaps filing that SPI is not such a bad idea. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Far too aggressive and belligerent to be Grundle, and he is much more interested in the politics of Obama rather than personal vendettas like this. I think the username should goto UAA though. Tarc (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC) If I had found that user name, I would have username-blocked it on sight. She's a girl, not a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Blocked last night, so problem solved. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Rubashkin

Sent to DRV. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – WP:DRV is the place to continue this discussion, article G10'd as an attack page - even the title has no reliable sources AFAICS. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I'd like to ask the admins to have a look at this version of Aaron Rubashkin. Scroll down to the "Family" section. What was the point of that long list of everyone in his extended family? How many of them might be minors? As far as I can tell from the edit history, the editor who added them was Ajnem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The list has been deleted, but it's still in the history. I think someone should revdelete or oversight all problem versions of the page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC) And could someone rule on the speedy nomination of Rubashkin crime family? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I think you meant this version of Aaron Rubashkin. All of the Agriprocessors related articles are pretty troublesome and need eyes on them. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, Sean, you linked to the same version of the article I did (16:51 UTC, 18 October 2010). And agree that all those articles need eyes on them. That would include Agriprocessors, Postville Raid, Milton Balkany, Sholom Rubashkin, and Moshe Rubashkin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC) ...and Aaron, that was the bit I changed. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Oops, yeah, corrected. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC) We also have Category:Rubashkin family. A kosher salami if you can guess who created it... and included it in Category:Crime families. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC) <Sigh> Pritzker family has a similar list, including a kid born in 1994. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC) HELLO What does it take to get a G10 attack page deleted? This has been here over an hour. Usually this kind of thing is acted on in minutes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I'm quite here. I'm not entirely sure how to act: it's been blanked which is good, but I'm somewhat involved, so don't want to act on it. I think the large amount of discussion is what holding it up. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC) You're only involved because you made the mistake of commenting on the AFD, an AFD that was filed specifically to derail a clear-cut, BLP violating, G10 speedy. So, you fell into the trap and the disruption worked. I'll repeat here what I said there. CSD clearly says "Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack." No source calls them the Rubashkin Crime Family. That attack was dreamed up by the editor who created the article. This isn't even a tough call. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, pretty much. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 14:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC) G10 applies. Speedied. --Courcelles 07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Entirely improperly, during a perfectly normal AfD -- and now non-admins will be unable to see exactly why deletion was inappropriate here. This is an abuse of admin powers and I request that the deletion be reversed so that the AfD can be decided by the community in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC) We don't have AfDs on articles that are deleted as G10, which fairly clearly applies in this case. The correct location is WP:DRV now. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC) The reason this should still be at AN/I is that it was speedied while an AfD was in progress, in clear violation of WP:GD: "Speedy delete, Speedy or CSD mean that the user thinks the article qualifies for one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria. If there are no objections, the deletion discussion may be closed early. If the decision is contested, the AFD discussion continues." Really, it ought to be obvious that this was improper and the AfD should be reopened, with deletion following community consensus in the normal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Bullshit. The AFD was started on top of the speedy notice for the obvious purpose of derailing a clear-cut speedy. You can't interfere with an obvious speedy by trying to yap it to death at AFD. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Bullshit yourself. That's exactly what can be done. Declining a speedy and requesting a full discussion at AfD is entirely normal, and short-circuiting that by interfering with an AfD is explicitly proscribed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Not true: Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to... Furthermore......If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. [emphasis added]. Even if you dispute the plain language requiring deletion, it's not even close to "admin abuse". --Calton | Talk 09:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I mean, if you'd like to take up the fight of your personal interpretation of a bureaucratic procedure -- and your adding "clear" to your term "violation" doesn't change that essential character -- versus Foundation-level policy regarding WP:BLPs, be my guest, but I suspect it won't end well. --Calton | Talk 09:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)If the article was G10'd for being an attack page that is entirely proper. Per WP:IAR and common sense. Because it is a BLP this trumps many of the normal rules, and calling them a "crime family" is a clear BLP attack violation --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC) At least you're acknowledging that "normal rules" call for a different outcome/process here -- "common sense" indeed.... I did quote WP:GD correctly, right? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC) No, I'm telling you the correct process was employed here. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC) No, "normal rules" -- as I've quoted -- call for immediate deletion. Which was done. No "admin abuse", normal procedure. You have a problem with that? Click --> here. --Calton | Talk 09:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC) NOW, could someone please go to that version of Aaron Rubashkin I linked to in my very first post (you know, the one that give the names of about 30 members of his extended family) and tell me if anything should be revdeleted or oversighted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Sent to deletion review. (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October 19#Rubashkin crime family) A middle-of-the-night rush to deletion deserves review. That article had been up for three weeks and had been edited by several editors; there was no need to rush to deletion. It's worth noting that the discussion here took place with the article already deleted, so those who commented here couldn't see the article or its history. Yes, it makes the subjects of the article look bad, but after five members convicted of various crimes, that may be justified. John Nagle (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) And the John Siegenthaler libel was up for -- what? 4 months? -- before being discovered, so should have been left up longer? Hint: age doesn't improve BLP violations. And policy says, explicitly, there there is, in fact, an actual need and requirement to "rush to deletion," no matter how much handwaving and wikilawyering about "admin abuse" User:Nomoskedasticity indulges in. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

PBS - block review

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

Cirt has pledged to avoid certain actions, concerns expressed later are valid but do not require immediate admin action appropriate for this noticeboard. Are we done? Franamax (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Would an uninvolved admin care to take a look at a block noted at User talk:PBS#October 2010, apparantly for re-adding merge templates to a couple of articles apparantly against the consensus at a talk page. Was it tendentious editing? Did it deserve a block? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to the block of PBS by Cirt. An unblock request is pending on his talkpage, on which I have commented. Further review of this block is requested. The blocking administrator is aware of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will admit to not being a fan of the blocking admin, Cirt, but even so blocking another admin, and a long standing previously unblocked one too, ages after the event seems grossly unfair, especially as it is debatable and borderline blocking offence. I am also concerned that Cirt hand picked his reviewing admin, GWH. Giacomo  10:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

GWH did not actually decline or accept the unblock request. I would say that Giano's description as "not being a fan of the blocking admin" is understated, just a tad bit, see [194]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned over the circumstances here. The block itself was delayed which argues more for a punitive block rather than a protective one. And any way you cut it, the blocking admin handpicked the reviewer. Whether that's bad or not is subject to debate but it certainly looks bad. As far as the actions that led to the block I am not particularly persuaded that either side is correct but the timing and review are lacking I think. JodyB _talk 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note above, the "reviewer" did not actually do a formal review, which is still pending. -- Cirt (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cirt, if GWH failed to review (you obviously thought one was necessary) can you please link to where you did post for a reviewing Admin?  Giacomo  11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt why did you feel it necessary to contact another administrator to review you decision? If that was necessary why did you not contact me first and discuss you concerns before blocking my account? Do you not see that there is a breach of ethics in pacing a block on an fellow editor and then soliciting someone you know, via a method for which no log exists, to review your decision? Do you not see that there is a potential conflict of interests in such actions? Do you always do this? If not, how often do you do it, and why did you do this time? -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I contacted an admin I highly respect to take a look at the matter. This admin responded, but did not actually accept or decline the actual unblock request. -- Cirt (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you always do this? If not, how often do you do it, and why did you do this time? -- PBS (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Not often. Because I highly respect the admin and wanted his take on the behavior pattern of the blocked user. -- Cirt (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the block has now been lifted by the blocking admin, after an agreement by the bloker and the blocked in respect of future actions on the articles in question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Regards to above re review, see comment from Shell Kinney (talk · contribs): "As far as other admins reviewing; the unblock template should attract some more." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• So you didn't request a review on site. Thank you Cirt. I consider the matter now closed.  Giacomo  11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That is what CAT:RFUB is for, and it is also why GWH did not actually accept or decline the unblock request. -- Cirt (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, unblocked, per this reply to my unblock offer. The unblock offer was suggested by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), proposed by myself, and accepted by PBS (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It was recorded on my talk page that Cirt in the words of Georgewilliamherbert he was "pinged by Cirt out of band to independently review [the block]" and I thank Georgewilliamherbert for his review. However this communication via a method which is not logged on Wikipedia, is something I find most concerning, because I have always assumed that an an administrator who was reviewing a blocked account was not solicited by the administrator who had put on the block. Maybe I'm naive but I had assumed that administrators who reviewed the block were in no way connected to the blocking administrator (and turned up through the random process of looking at whatever category has a list of pending blocks or some other equally random occurrence -- shows how often I get involved with bocks and unblocks), because AFAICT without such restraint natural justice goes out of the window. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad thank you for your intervention as a facilitator of a compromise, by how did Cirt draw you attention to the block because your edit history and the edit history of Cirt do not appear to show any communication between the two of you immediately prior to your intervention (I will be happy to be shown that I am wrong and that I have missed the exchange in the edit histories). -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

@PBS, note comment of Newyorkbrad: "My attention has been drawn to this block..." - so some as yet unnamed individual pinged him offwiki, to draw his attention to the matter. I chatted with him after that. -- Cirt (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did you chat with him? -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

On gmail chat. -- Cirt (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt higher up this page Newyorkbrad wrote "My attention has been drawn to the block of PBS by Cirt." are you contradicting Newyorkbrad when you write "so some as yet unnamed individual pinged him offwiki" or were you the person who pinged him? -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an ambiguously placed modifier. The phrase could be read as either "attention has been drawn by X to the block of Y" or "attention has been drawn to the block by X of Y". The latter seems to me more likely in this case. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded to this already to you, below. I was not. Someone else must have pinged him. Then I established chat with him after that, and chatted with him about the situation. -- Cirt (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like at least one unblock request existed on your talkpage after the block, and that places you in a category of users requesting unblocks. Several of us tend to those pages, though in complex situations some may not act on the unblock entirely independently. Personally I haven't been around much over the past fews days so I haven't reviewed any unblock requests. Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine the answer to Cirt and PBS's question is quite simple: It is my considerable experience that me posting on anyone's talk page several times in a few moments attracts the attention of at least 50 Admins and acouple of Arbs. Sometimes it works to my advantage and sometimes to my correspondent's - very occasionally to the advantage of both. The alternative is that Brad and I are in a secret liasion to undermine and destroy Wikipedia - he is Mr Nice and I, Mr Nasty. There again Brad could be my sock. I will leave it to all to decide which is the most likely scenario.  Giacomo  12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That is how I understood the system worked, I do not see it matters how complex the situation is, involved administrators should not review other cases and the blocking administrator should defiantly no be soliciting reviews. I am very surprised to learn that such behaviour goes on and that some editors condone it. -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not-- apropos of other recent situations, I suggest Cirt work on transparency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• My point entirely. Once cannot help remembering the recent block of Malleus Fatuorum (however he spells it) by GWH because Malleus was in dispute with Cirt. A block si contraversial that it drove Malleus from the project. I cast no aspertions, but as I said, one cannot help remembering. Can one?  Giacomo  12:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, considering Cirt did some offWiki campaigning in that case, yes. I do wish admins had to keep their discussions on Wiki, as is done with FAC business. Admins joining together off-Wiki is a real problem, when we lose one of Wiki's most prolific FA writers, and others are targetted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) Without comment on the block on PBS, I suggest that administrators should be reminded that the correct place to seek a block review is on ANI. Soliciting a review off-wiki (or chatting off-wiki for that matter) is, if I may be permitted the understatement, not the most transparent way to review ones actions. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that same applies to FAC/FAR business: delegates work very hard to make sure those processes are transparent.[195] [196] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A clarification of the chronology insofar as I am concerned might be helpful. I was reading my mail on Gmail this morning when a Gtalk window opened and an editor asked me to take a look at this block. The editor was not a party to the block (i.e., it was neither Cirt nor PBS). I do not have this person's permission to identify him (I haven't asked), but I don't think his identity would startle anyone.

Having been asked to look at the block, I did so and offered my comment on-wiki that I disagreed with it. Both because my attention had been drawn to the block off-wiki and because I found myself in disagreement with at least two other administrators, I did not unblock unilaterally but posted to ANI to call attention to the need for review. (I see above that someone else was doing the same at about the same time.)

Within a minute of my post on User talk:PBS, which detailed the reasons I thought this was a bad block, I received an IM from Cirt. During a short conversation, I reiterated my view that the block was problematic, but in a thinking-out-loud mode suggested a possible resolution of the block. Cirt asked if he could mention on-wiki that it was my suggestion and I said this was okay. As noted above, PBS accepted the proposed resolution and Cirt unblocked on that basis. Frankly, the resulting log entry for the unblock is probably less than the complete vindication that PBS was probably entitled to, but there's not much to be done about that at this point.

For what it is worth, I adhere to my view that blocks of good-faith editors should almost invariably be preceded by a specific warning. This is true in the case of any editor, and certainly it was true here in the case of an editor who has been editing since 2003 with a completely clean block log and a very solid editing history. In addition, this is also a reminder that it is very important that any block message contain enough information so that both the blocked user and anyone reviewing the block has a clear and complete explanation of the reasons for the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (corrected a minor typo above). I hope it's not a secret that I abhor off-Wiki attempts to influence a FAC or FAR, and think admin discussions off-Wiki are even more despicable. I hate IRC, chat, and don't even know how to find IRC, but the issue here is that some admins often discuss actions off-Wiki, and Cirt seems to be one of those; it now appears that GWH may also benefit from thinking more about transparency. Agree with Rd232 that a transparency essay might be useful. I'll also add that, considering my past interactions, I'm surprised that PBS has no block log, but that is neither here nor there-- I'm not a fan of some of his past behavior, but this block was still wrong. Just not quite as wrong as what recently happened to Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill, at least in terms of GWH being asked to do a review. As long as this was not intended to interfere with the usual unblock request review process, there's no harm in an admin soliciting a second opinion, as long as it is clear that the opinion has been solicited. More concerning is the block itself, which it is fairly clear should never have happened. People (admins are people too...) do make mistakes, but acting in this way in these circumstances is quite a substantial one, and should give the blocking admin pause to think about how he ended up at this juncture. As ever, if there are genuine concerns that a specific issue is actually part of a pattern, WP:RFC/U is that way. PS I was looking for an essay on transparency or on/off-wiki communication; there doesn't seem to be one. Perhaps someone would like to create Wikipedia:On Transparency. Rd232 ^talk 14:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's available elsewhere ...  pablo 14:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Since editors can be blocked through community consensus on ANI, can admins be desysopped here as well? Quantpole (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems an extreme sort of reaction.. however I believe the proper de-sysopping process is via an RFC. I concur with rd232 - this was a bad block, but subsequently sorted out fine. The issue of off-wiki comms should be addressed as a wider issue - and formally. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be extreme if it was limited to one issue. I still don't understand why blocking has less hurdles than desysopping when admin tools are supposedly not a big deal. Quantpole (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the admin in question, current policy only allows for desysoping by Arbcom. Even an RFC is only a step in the process leading to an RFARB, (barring the sort of action that Arbcom deals with as an emergency desysop.)--Cube lurker (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh getting an admin de-sysopped is an immense rigmarole, they rarely fall on their swords with honour and they all stick together like glue. Much better just to identify the corrupt ones, be aware of who they are, then ultimately avoid them and the areas theu inhabit. When they are vindictive, like Cirt, that too is obvious and people see it right away after the first few incidences. Oh and of course it was moi who "pinged" Brad and raised the profile of the block. Had I not, Cirt would still have him in his prison - or does anyone doubt that? It's what I do best round here - get people out of prison who have been wrongly banged up.  Giacomo  15:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

<ec>Why are admin rights deemed more important than the basic right to edit? Quantpole (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this issue in particular but... I suppose the theory, which I don't entirely disagree with, is that once an editor has received admin tools they are trusted by consensus of the community. The problem is that it sometimes does not take much for an admin to piss off a (vocal) subset of the community by applying the communities rules (which is what we ask them to do). So, by making de-sysopping a reasonable hurdle it avoids "weekly" AN/I threads along the lines of "propose de-sysopping of...". I suppose the rationale is that if an admin is so off-kilter that they are wheel-warring or otherwise outrageously misusing their tools in a way that fundamentally damages the wiki other admins will block them to avoid further disruption. Otherwise the normal procedures for the application of sanctions applies; except that the decision is made slightly further up the chain than a simple RFC & community sanctions. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well any consensus here would need enacting by a bureaucrat (I presume) who should be able to judge whether it is just a subset of the community with a grudge or not. Personally, I consider the incorrect blocking of two established users in the matter of a few days something which does fundamentally damage wikipedia. Quantpole (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again just on the technical aspect, Crats do not have the ability/authority to desysop. They can flip the switch on, but it takes a steward to flip it off. Stewards won't do that on community requests, only self requests, or official Arbcom requests.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An RFC/U with wide community participation and strong consensus in favour of desysopping provides the basis for a request to Arbcom to be approved quickly. I've no idea if that is a complete over-reaction here or not, but if there are issues, an RFC/U can clarify them even if it doesn't lead to desysopping. Rd232 ^talk 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo, I'm shocked! Struck my GWH comment above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Shocked that I asked an Arb to take a look the usual pile of backstage goings-on and Admin reluctance to address an issue, or shocked that such things go on? Admins had had quite long enough to addres the issue. If I were not taking a keen interest in young Master Cirt and his dreadful behaviour, PBS would still be blocked - not that I have much sympathy with Admins who find themselves on the wrong end of an unjust block, but I suppose one must treat all equally. Such is my lovely, generous nature.  Giacomo  17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Only shocked that I had the wrong perp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the big deal is with contacting other admins for review out-of-band (IRC, gmail chat, email, etc). I don't do IRC regularly, I typically am sitting behind firewalls that won't let me do it. But quite a large number of admins do that. Many admins and a few arbcom members of the past gmail chat me, I get such roughly on a weekly basis. I also get email from editors, administrators, current and past arbcom members, and Foundation staff regularly.

When Cirt pings me and asks for a review (which does happen moderately regularly out of the total spectrum of contacts I get) I try to consistently indicate "I was contacted and asked to review...". If the contact might form an involvement of some sort that would mean I'm not unbiased I won't act to (for example) deny an unblock.

There seems to be some question out there about whether last week's thing with Cirt and Malleus involved some outside contact - it did not. I also did criticize Cirt for engaging in mutual combat before it degenerated into the block situation; see my original comment and my reply to SandyGeorgia from that thread.

As I said on PBS' talk page - Cirt did contact me last night asking for review, but because I have PBS' user/talk on my watchlist (And no, I don't know / recall for how long or for what reason, but I have around 1500 named accounts userpages watchlisted) I saw the block as it happened and went and did a quick review including checking diffs and looking at the relevant talk page histories for a while before Cirt had contacted me. I had concluded that the block was "ok" - I told Cirt (and posted on PBS' talk page) that I would probably not have blocked myself, but that I found the behavior disruptive, and I had concluded that prior to Cirt contacting me.

It seems to be somewhat lost in all the discussion above about undue influence that I did not in any way deny the active unblock request. I commented on what I felt the problem was, below the unblock request, but didn't deny it. The entire time it was active on the requested unblocks list and admins who watch that should have been aware and reviewing to the degree they regularly do. At any point they could have involved themselves, and nothing I did nor Cirt did would have interfered with that, other than giving them more context and opinions to review on the situation.

If people feel that there needs to be more transparency on requested reviews by other admins, I support that. As I said, when people ask me to review and it wasn't requested on-wiki (and even most times it is requested on-wiki) I try and make that clear when I get involved. If you search my wiki and user space contributions for "requested to review" you will see quite a number of hits.

I don't see that level of general disclosure by admins when it's email conversations or IRC involved. I believe that what I disclose is better than normal practice here and is transparent under any reasonable definition. If there are any questions I am happy to answer them either here or privately. I do need to be clear on one point - I don't keep chat logs, so I can't substantiate times or dates on conversations, if that is an issue. But pose any questions you may have. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• The big deal is that I suspect you of blocking Malleus on Cirt's private advice. You do seem to cycle in tandem, don't you?  Giacomo  19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence of that at all as I see. GWH's comments here imo reflect the quality of his Administrative decisions, honest , open and well expressed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

and who exactly are you to know these things? Besides which I was addressing the organ grinder not his monkey.  Giacomo  19:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins go on powertrips all the time. It is a fairly standard consequence of human nature, as documented in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Wikipedia's mechanisms for limiting the syndrome are extremely poor. Noloop (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying that User:Philip_Baird_Shearer should be unblocked as time served, please use more discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find he was unblocked some hours ago. a little late to the party, i would go home to bed if I were you.  Giacomo  19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Break

This was clearly a bad block, that I think is beyond dispute. The two real issues are A) did Cirt hand pick a reviewer? If he did so what? I've asked people to review my work (both admin and non-admin.) Just because you ask somebody to review your work does not mean that person is going to give you a pass and agree with you. The other issue B) is off-wiki communications. I'm not a big fan of it either and encourage communications to be on wiki. That being said, I don't think any of us who have our email enabled have 100% of our communications on-wiki. Usually they are quick responses and done with. I'm certain that NYB/Cirt didn't think their conversation would turn into WikipediaGate. Do I have preferences for on wiki? Definitely, but I think this is a little over the top. So unless you want to move to desysop, which I don't think this lone mistake is worthy of, then I think we should just pack our bags and mark this resolved.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not over the top when too much admin business is conducted off-Wiki without transparency-- clearly it causes problems, particularly with admins who regularly engage in such. FAC stays clean because we don't do that: people in trusted positions should avoid it as much as possible, that is, only limited to situations that require extreme confidentiality for valid reasons that would cause harm to individuals or the encyclopedia. About that essay on Transparency-- it seems to me that it's needed. Also, Balloonman, you won't find out if this is a "lone mistake" by marking this thread closed-- that would be another example of how things get brushed under the rug when admins join ranks. I see Giano is blocked again, but I'm reminded that neither Giano nor Malleus were inclined to hold their tongues when they saw this sort of thing going down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice, I didn't mark it closed... but unless other cases pertaining to Cirt and abuse of offline correspondence are brought up, then keeping this open is beating a dead horse. Does too much happen offline? Yes, I completely agree. I hate IRC and like you have never been there. That being said, I think NYB's description of the events is very believable and that neither of them thought much of it at the time. I am neither a fan of nor a critic of Cirt, but unless you (generic) intend to take this to the next stage and make a call for his de-adminship, then this has reached a natural conclusion. Do you, SandyGeorgia, believe that there is sufficeint grounds to pursue the desysopping of Cirt over this incident?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there have been other indications of problems with Cirt's conduct, and this is one symptom that may be part of a bigger pattern. However, the broader issue of lack of transparency among admins is worthy of discussion, not only for the Cirt/PBS issue, but also the recent Malleus issue. Too much gets swept under the rug here, and those who call it out end up becoming increasingly vocal and getting blocked; I say, stop ignoring them, and acknowledge the problems, often caused by a lack of transparency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, I received no contact off-wiki related to the recent Malleus issue.

I received an email regarding the Sept 29th warning to Malleus ( an unrelated incident ) from another administrator, not Cirt. Prior to that, I have emails from a thread I started on Wikien-L after Rodhullandemu retired (briefly) after his not-good block of Malleus in the July 12 timeframe. Those are all in the archive. I do not recall having had a google chat about Malleus in the last six months, with Cirt or anyone else, though as I said I don't keep logs so I can't confirm that or refresh my memory.

Regarding Cirt contacting me - I strongly encourage admins to seek second opinions on their actions. Whether that is a private IRC or gmail chat, an email, posting to ANI, posting to another admins' talk page on-wiki - the more review we do the better we are at finding issues and giving and accepting feedback. This is a good thing.

We don't want people deciding things in secret off-wiki Cabals. But asking for feedback is not making decisions. Suggesting that we shouldn't ask for feedback is outright wrong. We need it - we need more of it, if anything. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And what is wrong with asking for it on Wiki where everyone can see it-- maybe even right here in the very place designed for such? Unless one is asking one's most ... what was it Cirt said ... highly respected contacts ... that is, admins more likely to see things one's own way? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy (and B-man) I've been at the #admins IRC channel and "it is boring, so dreadfully boring, I want to be a lion-tamer, yes a lion-tamer" :) Private or semi-private channels are good for contacting people quickly, informally discussing wiki concepts and attitudes, letting off steam - and yes, asking someone to review your actions as an admin. The caveat is that you can't use those channels for on-wiki action or justification, if you want to co-ordinate, do it in main-channel where we all can see it. GWH's review or lack thereof conveys precisely nothing. If GWH were to publish here his findings, I would expect him to explain the provenance of the initial question. Yes, off-wiki communication is sometimes bad but everyone does it and it's nice being able to say "Isn't xxx a bit of an asshole?" and hear back that "yep, but I was thinking more a total jerk". There's nothing wrong with asking someone you trust to look at something - and if they are really trustworthy, they won't wrongfully comply with your wishes or even agree with you at all anyway. Franamax (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"but everyone does it and it's nice being able to say "Isn't xxx a bit of an asshole?"" I don't -- I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Wikiepdians I have contacted by email in the last five years all of those have been bilateral communications about bilateral content issue -- with one exception where I think that the person we discussed is/was insane and it would not have been correct or sensitive to communicate that opinion where such a statement could be read by the person under discussion. In no case where I have contacted someone or they me, have we ever discussed another user in disparaging terms, so strike one from your list. -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It is so pleasant to be able to agree with SandyGeorgia for a change!

Georgewilliamherbert as far as I recollect I have never had any contact with you what so ever. So I am puzzled as to why my talk page should be on your watch list (any user pages I watch are there because of a previous conversation I have had with them and I can look at the logs of the pages to find out when that interaction started to date how long they have there there).

You have on your user page that you are "A member of the unblock-en-l mailing list volunteers" what is that?

You wrote "I'm not sure what the big deal is with contacting other admins for review out-of-band (IRC, gmail chat, email, etc)." It is a big deal because of transparency. I appreciate that occasionally there may be a good reason for an off page bilateral discussion, but that should be very much the exception not the rule. For example you write "When Cirt pings me and asks for a review (which does happen moderately regularly out of the total spectrum of contacts I get)" why do you think Cirt does not make those requests on your talk page? Why did you not reply via his/her talk page?

Personally if a blocking admin asked my to review their decision I would decline because the moment they asked me to do so, in my opinion I would no longer appear to be a disinterested party (it falls under Catch 22). I would have thought that this is obvious, but if it is not obvious to you then ask me on my talk page.

The problem we now have as a community is that in future whenever Cirt, blocks a user account any person may legitimately ask of the reviewing administrator "did Cirt solicit you to review this block?" and because of the acknowledged use of communications other than the talk pages (and this and similar forum) ... which is why "contacting other admins for review out-of-band" is a big deal. -- PBS (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page - I have no recollection of why your talk page is on my watchlist.

(digging in) Ah... Diving into your archives shows these from 2007: [197] [198]

As I said, I have 3,000ish user pages watchlisted, of which about 1,500 are named accounts.

Regarding being asked to look qualifying one as an involved party - I agree with Balloonman below. I disclose such requests when made; in your case, I chose not to action the unblock request per se, only comment on the situation, to avoid appearance of impropriety in taking an actual admin review action, though I left my opinion on the situation. I disagree that being willing to listen to and respond to such requests makes me automatically biased; I generally agree with admin actions I'm asked to review, but I generally agree with most that come up at ANI or on other pages.

As I said, before Cirt asked me, I saw the block on my watchlist and checked on the situation and had concluded that there was some disruption. I posted that because Cirt asked privately for a public review. When I posted I disclosed the contact. I don't do requested reviews without disclosing it, as a rule. If someone's afraid that I'm unduly connected to Cirt somehow, go look at my unblock review history and/or ANI history for disclosures of requests to review and see what I said. I'm not unwilling to ask Cirt to undo something or criticize them politely if it's called for.

There seems to be a fear that I'm covering for or doing back room deals for Cirt. The same fear could be said of Fred Bauder, Newyorkbrad, Jimmy Wales, Guy, Tony, Allison, SV, Jay, or dozens of others who I have emailed or google messaged in the last year. Or for that matter, met in person at Foundation HQ or functions, or the Maker Faire booth, etc. It would be hard to count all the people I'm in contact with off-wiki at some level.

Other than privacy related Arbcom notifications, unblock-en-l, which is an official and confidential function, and OTRS, which is an official Foundation function and confidential, if anyone I've been in contact with offlist thinks I have been acting inappropriately or attempting to do back-room deals then I give my permission for you to bring it up and discuss any problematic correspondence. If anyone in those confidential channels things I'm doing something wrong you can discuss it generally but please don't break the official confidentiality without reviewing if user private data or related issues are involved in the email.

If you're concerned that Cirt's doing something untoward, or concerned about their admin behavior, feel free to talk to them about it and if that's not satisfactory start a RFC. I have an opinion, which is that generally I agree with Cirt's administrative actions and trust their judgement. That's not a blanket "They never do anything wrong". I wouldn't say that about anyone on-wiki (myself muchly included - Feedback needs to go both ways, and I certainly don't pretend that I never make mistakes). If you have a strong contrary opinion then take up the issue.

Regarding what unblock-en-l is - it's the email mailing list for block appeals, the first tier of appeals being the unblock request on user talk pages, the second tier being email to unblock-en-l, the third is Arbcom, the fourth is the Foundation, the fifth is Jimmy. The first three are listed in the block template (unblock request format) and the block message that comes up when you try and edit (the emails to unblock-en-l and Arbcom as second and third tiers). It's an official function and has confidential user data and names disclosed regularly, so it's not an open list or open membership. I'm sort of surprised you hadn't heard of it...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

PBS, a person who is contacted CAN review the admin actions of another person and do so objectively. Now, just like participation in an AFD/RfC, if your input is solicited, you should disclose said solicitation AND your voice will probably weigh in more if you disagree with the person who contacted you. For example, a few weeks ago, I was contacted by somebody wanting input on a WQA report. In my response, I disclosed that my input was solicited and I told the person who contacted me that they were in the wrong. If an admin came to me asking me to review their action, I would take that request as implicit permission to reverse their action if I disagreed with it. Should it be online, I would like it to be, I don't like IRC/off-wiki communications, but that is not a requirement.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Another concern I have (related to the two diffs I listed above) is about the integrity of the FAC and FAR processes wrt Cirt's off-Wiki behavior. The downward trend at FAR was advanced by now-indeffed or banned or whatever Mattisse (talk · contribs), yet Cirt seems to be continuing that trend of targetting Geogre/Bish/Giano FAs. Who else is Cirt backchanneling with? Sorry to all of you who engage in chat, IRC, or whatever, but FAC and FAR stay clean because we don't do that-- my actions, solicitations for input, opinions, whatever, are on Wiki where others can take me to task if they don't like 'em. And the arbs are aware of one FAC-- where I had to backchannel to guard confidentiality-- where someone was clearly stirring a pot backchannel, and I don't appreciate FAC being undermined in that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with discussing the subject of IRC/off channel communications, but as far as I am concerned this issue is resolved. Unfortunately, off-wiki communications is not against policy or practice. We may not like it, but we can't punish Cirt for not following an policy/guideline that doesn't exist. If you want to start and RfC on the subject, and use Malleus/Cirt as examples, that's fine there are scores of other examples that can be brought up as well. But I can't see any sanctions against Cirt for failing to follow what we (and I agree with you) feel should be. Thus, IMO, the thread is going no where.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What's this Malleus / Cirt thing? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

<groan> pleeeeease say you didn't say that, GWH. You blocked Malleus for the fallout over the Malleus/Cirt thing. Then Sarek blocked him when John told stories about Malleus that were, well, untrue, and Malleus said as much. Now Malleus is gone, and all he was trying to do was restore a FAR when he was called "lazy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not the question - I recall that incident quite well, thank you. The question is, what does that have to do with off-wiki conversations? There were none there. Several people have said something along those lines above; I have said above and repeat again now, there were none in that incident... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of repeating myself (I explained this above), let's see ... that was yet another G/B/G FAR started by Cirt, continuing a trend started by Mattisse, who (redacted to clarify) continues to e-mail some of her "plague list" and likely also her allies. Malleus was hard at work, trying to satisfy Cirt on that FAR, who apparently wouldn't be satisfied, and then the "lazy" comment happened, then John said untrue things about Malleus, Malleus rightly questioned his English, and the rest is history. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I hope Cirt isn't continuing Mattisse's disruption at FAR, and am glad s/he has decided to leave the GBG FAs alone. This is a question of people who do their bidding off-Wiki, and that includes FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Redacted to clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (with update of above)

Ok... Please keep off-wiki discussions about admin actions and reviews thereof and off-wiki discussions about FAR content separate. There seems to be implication at places above that Cirt solicited the block in that incident, which did not happen. I have no knowledge of the FAR activities or what Mattisse is or is not up to in email or elsewhere, other than that Mattisse is (still) blocked. I don't think the other admin who blocked, nor either unblocker, are FAR people (though I don't know so, I don't hang out at FAR). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion-- agree the two cases became confused. But, we're getting to the heart of the matter, that is affecting content contributors, now. Often admins and arbs aren't aware of what is going on in the trenches where articles are written, and content contributors are unfairly blocked, when those of us doing the work see the problems quite clearly. Malleus is an editor who worked his arse off, not only on the FAs he noms, but for others as well, and that admins don't seem to understand how the "lazy" comment hit him is disturbing. Then for John to so badly misrepresent Malleus right here at ANI, and for Malleus to be blocked for questioning his English is just plain insulting, and no restitution has been made to Malleus. Y'all really think that for someone to overturn these unfair blocks makes everything hunky-dory? All of that started with Cirt's activity at FAR, where G/B/G FAs are frequently targeted instead of truly deficient FAs. The only overlap between these two cases (PBS and MF) is that both Sarek and Cirt are involved in both. But the point is that admins are affecting content contributors when they aren't in the trenches and don't usually know what behaviors are feeding conflict. Yet those of us in the trenches see it all very clearly, but are treated unequally here at ANI-- note that Malleus's second block originated here at ANI, just as Giano's block did! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an undercurrent here that if someone's a really good content contributor, they will or should get a pass on user behavior stuff. Arbcom and the community have forcefully rebutted that argument, repeatedly. I appreciate Malleus' content contributions - and his feelings about the civility policy, which are honestly contrarian and well thought out. But he keeps poking the bear by being rude to people. A lot.

The policy is there because both casual and directed nastyness corrode the Wikipedia community, driving editors away and making disputes nastier and personalized and much harder to resolve.

It would help if the peer community of active content people helped convince Malleus and other problematic editors that, even if they disagree with the civility / abuse policies, they need to abide by them. The policy isn't there to create a nanny state where bad words are banned.

That could have saved Ottava Rima and CoM. It might help save Malleus. The pool of second chances isn't infinitely deep. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, we're not really going to go down this path again, are we? This is the same (false) argument given by John that led to Malleus's block when he questioned his English, and that is by no means the undercurrent, nor am I saying that anywhere, although it is a frequent diversionary tactic used by admins here who either don't or can't see the problem, and use that logic to avoid seeing the point. And the same John got away with questioning the mental health of a top FA writer, Ceoil!!! Double standards. Try re-reading. That admins apply different standards and admins routinely get away with more than any lowly editor can doesn't mean content contributors get a free pass-- it means admins get a free pass. And by the way, if you think one's contributions don't matter to the arbs, I suggest you re-read all of NYB's comments, and consider how long they let the Mattisse situation go on (in contrast, for the record, when I was involved in an arbcase, they declined to put forward a positive finding about my contributions, curiously, yet they do it for Mattisse, Ottava, etc-- there's another mystery for 'ya-- I've got a clean block record). And I don't think many content contributors are going to convince Malleus of anything, since many of us are increasingly seeing his point and concerned that something must be done to protect those who actually write articles from those who don't know what kinds of disruptive behaviors occur in the trenches. Please reflect on that. And I object to you labeling Malleus a "problematic editor"-- how much you wanna bet that if you weren't an admin, some overzealous admin would block you for that? Those of us who have worked with him don't find him problematic at all, unless admins are poking him in the eye with a stick, calling him "lazy", or blocking him for questioning the English of someone who misrepresented him to the point of untruthfulness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with SG. The point is - it takes a lot of research to understand what is really going on in the trenches on any given issue. A modest degree of rudeness, when taken in isolation, too frequently becomes a basis for ticking off irritated content contributors when the real long term subtle poking, baiting and disruption is missed. Content editors who struggle against this type of thing, often alone, are unlikely to take kindly to having their wrists slapped when the the discussion gets a little blunt.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(Replying primarily to SandyGeorgia) - There is a community standard in play here. It's that people have to be at least minimally polite at least nearly all of the time.

Again - I encourage content editors in every way possible, BUT, you will not get free passes on that community standard. Good content work, even really good content work, is not an entitlement to screw with the rest of the encyclopedia, including the community standards and our civility and personal attack and abuse policies.

If that means you quit if we block Malleus or Giano permanently, that's unfortunate. But that's the standard. If there are people disrupting process, call for help before someone gets really rude at them. If that's all outside admins see when we get to the situation, that's what we'll react to. It's really simple.

This has gone up to the community, for a widescale review of the Civility policy. There was a working consensus that we needed to be enforcing the policy and doing so consistently, including against admins and really good active content editors. That's been happening more and more. It's gone up to Arbcom twice - Ottava and CoM are gone because of that. Giano and Malleus have not modified their behavior - this is eventually going to get to that point, too, if they don't.

Again - if you feel this is just so wrong that you have to end your FAC work and the FAC groups go on strike or whatever - I'm sorry to see it come to that, but that's your right. It won't protect these guys from getting booted if it keeps up.

Anything you can do to avoid that happening would be appreciated. Arguing with me won't avoid that happening. Actually modifying those editors' behavior will. If you care about the situation, work on that end of it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That straw man is long dead. As Sandy repeatedly said, no one is arguing that good content contributors should get a free pass. Could you instead reply to the legitimate issues Sandy brought up in her latest post? Ucucha 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This is not a straw man.

I can't comment on particulars of other-directional disruption or abuse because I haven't studied particular incidents. I haven't seen diffs. It's not floating up to ANI in a coherent actionable form and nobody's filing RFCs or arbcom cases on these things. If this is being handled unevenly because of what's happening and where and that being a poor impedance mismatch to ANI-ish admins, that's unfortunate. If you can make the coherent case, then I and others are here listening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes people have filed ArbCom cases on these things. Repeatedly. Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

GWH, you wrote that there is an "undercurrent here that if someone's a really good content contributor, they will or should get a pass on user behavior stuff". Sandy denied that such an undercurrent existed, and did not argue that content contributors should get a free pass; you then proceeded to argue (purportedly in response to her) that content contributors should not get a free pass. I'm not sure how that is not a straw man argument.

I wouldn't be arguing about these semantics if they didn't illustrate one of the underlying problems. Sandy wrote about "diversionary tactics", and this (whether deliberate or not) seems a perfect example. A few days ago, during the mess concerning Malleus, you appeared to be misrepresenting Malleus's comments (I mentioned that then, and can elaborate on it if you wish); now, you seem to be doing the same. Please consider the arguments Sandy, Malleus, Giano, and some other people are making more carefully—it's more sophisticated than "content contributors should be able to say anything they like".

You won't get an ANI report in a "coherent actionable form". Not everything can be solved by an ANI report and blocks and warnings etcetera; what I'm rather hoping for is a change in culture. Ucucha 00:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent on old point miles up the page) I think the "second opinion" idea is missing the point. An unblock review is an independent review of a request for an unblock - not a second opinion. A second opinion would be if an admin blocked and then privately wondered if they'd done the right thing and pinged a trusted experienced editor to ask if they thought they'd f....d it up or got the wrong end of the stick in some way. Presumably if the trusted, experienced editor said yes, you'r off the wall here, you could apologise and reverse your actions. That is a human process. However, an independent unblock review is part of a formal process of checks and balances. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I will not in the future solicit offwiki review for unblock requests on blocks I have made. I will not in the future nominate to WP:FAR, as SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) calls them, "Geogre/Bish/Giano FAs". -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Block review—Grundle2600 socks

Socks confirmed, RBI,etc. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After seeing Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service show up as a blue link, I suspected we had yet more socks of Grundle2600 at work. After deleting the article as a G5, it was recreated by another new account, and edited by another. I have deleted the article again, and salted the title. I also indef-blocked all of the new accounts which created or edited the articles. I'd like to have another admin take a look at xkc125 (talk · contribs), Sarah 227 (talk · contribs), and Romney Wordsworth (talk · contribs), the three accounts blocked. I am absolutely positive about that last one, because of [199] and [200]. I'm pretty sure about the others, but another set of eyes would be appreciated, especially since the usernames don't fit Grundle's pop-culture obsessed pattern. Horologium (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC) No doubts there - clearly Grundle on all counts. (Is it worth making an edit filter to catch this idiot's obsession?) Rd232 talk 12:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC) The first two are outside the pattern, name-wise. I'm not sure if he still logs in to watch his original talk page, but if you posted a msg there or send a note via other means and ask "are these your socks?", he'll give you an honest answer. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Note: Grundle2600's talkpage is fully protected so he won't be able to respond there even as a sock.TMCk (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC) xkc125's only edit is to create the Walpin article linked above, which very closely matches the content pushed previously into Gerald Walpin. Sarah 227's only edits are to add/fiddle with the infobox in that article. Rd232 talk 14:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I know, just sayin it's different/weird, is all. :) Another possibility is either a comrade-in-arms, or someone trying to make Grundle look bad. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC) WP:MEAT is possible, but trying to make Grundle look bad? The mind boggles. Rd232 talk 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC) At this point, the best a false-socker could hope for would be that he might make him look better... HalfShadow 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Kabong! Well, it's always possible that it's a sock of "Chase me dinosaurs" continuing to try to impeach Grundle with false evidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC) There's no point. Grundle is buried so deep right now he'd get out of the hole faster by digging downwards. HalfShadow 17:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, and the Chinese will fix him up :) TMCk (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Even there, he might run into a wall. I may be wrong, but I think Grundle is only indef'd, not banned. "Chase me dinosaurs" might be playing a game to try and get him banned. We're still waiting for the outcome of an SPI on "Chase me dinosaurs", so we can't say just yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC) No, Grundle went from a politics topic-ban to a site ban in April 2010 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607#Request to modify my topic ban). That was when he started with the industrial-strength socking. As for the possible joe job, I can't say, but Grundle is already site-banned with little likelihood of that being overturned (the socking alone is enough to keep him away, and that doesn't even address the editing issues he presented before getting kicked to the curb). Horologium (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (e/c)Nope, he is already banned [201]TMCk (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I see. So, since he's already fully banned, which is the strongest sanction wikipedia can issue, an impostor would have no reason to impostor him unless he's just playing a game (which is certainly possible). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Time to introduce List of Wikipedia's most wanted. But seriously, there seems not much what we can do about this disruptive "editor" unless AOL (his provider) would kick-in which is more than unlikely. I don't have a cure for this but if someone thinks they have they should post it. Possible impostors are redundant compared to the quantity of G.'s socks.TMCk (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC) All are  Confirmed plus one additional sock. –MuZemike 00:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Giano

Going nowhere; as usual, no consensus for anything in particular; we have better things to do here: Nothing will happen.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it that time of year again. Once again we have an admin blocking giano over a very mild comment. Someone nip this in the bud before we get the usual.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Link for user: GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs). Link to diff that the admin believes is block worthy.[202] Sorry, I wasn't aware that calling other editors monkeys was acceptable this time of the year. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Neither is this the first block of this type for this editor. Rodhullandemu 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Neither is this the first stupid comment in this thread. Hans Adler 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) This is not calling someone a monkey for Gods sake it is a phrase used as I'm sure you are aware to refer that you are wanting to talk to the boss and not his subordinate. Not a blocable offence IMO. Mo ainm~Talk 20:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I have undone this as it's a bad block that is going to do more harm than good. Mo ainm hits the nail on the head. Nev1 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Nice of you to discuss it with the blocking admin first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I followed your lead as you did not discuss the issue with anyone in the first place. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Why is discussing it with the blocking admin more urgent than letting a badly blocked editor edit again? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I fail to see how Giano calling Off2riorob an organ grinder's monkey is acceptable behavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It's not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It is, apparently, an idiomatic phrase. In any case, I think we should have learned by now that blocking Giano for a short period time and time again is not going to have any effect. If you feel there is a problem with his editing (I don't clearly see that), there are other ways to solve the perceived problem. Ucucha 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC) He didn't [203], and from the people who are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia one can expect a modicum of literacy. Or at least the ability to use Google. Hans Adler 20:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC) And in case someone missed it: WP:Vulgarity did not become policy. Hans Adler 20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I'll thank you not to insult my literacy. I'm quite aware of the idiomatic use of the phrase, which wasn't anywhere close to civil anyway.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yet also wasn't anywhere close to blockable.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) "then learn to speak your own language" -- oh, yeah, paragon of civility we've got here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I was once blocked for calling people "idiots". If that's blockable, how is calling them "organ grinder's monkeys" somehow OK? Or have standards really dropped that much in the last few years? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I was once blocked for calling an editor "ignorant" in the technical meaning that he ignored... --Cyclopiatalk 23:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the person you were calling an idiot was clearly an idiot, whereas Off2Rio is clearly not a monkey?  Giacomo  20:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (EC) As a first offense, maybe not. As a fortieth offense, yeah, I can see that as a blockable offense. But as we've come to accept, some editors are bulletproof. Not complaining, mind you, no point in that anymore. Just saying it out loud. Dayewalker (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It's self fulfilment at work. He has a reputation for being bulletproof because every couple months someone uses a flimsy excuse to block him. And when the flimsy block doesn't stick everyone mutters about how he won't stay blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC) There is a huge difference between applying an invective directly to someone and merely implying it by using a bloomy idiom that happens to fit the situation perfectly. It's disappointing that one of the greatest literature projects in the world today has such a high proportion of "editors" who are sufficiently tone-deaf not to understand this. Of course the average literary quality of our output is of precisely the competence level that one would expect under the circumstances. Hans Adler The quality of admin judgment generally on display (and the mischievous, but lovable, IRC hi-jinks) reminds me of a saying I learned long ago in Indonesia: "Pay peanut, get monkey." Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC) *Oh, here we go again. I'll start the popcorn. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Indeed, I wonder which camp my editing falls into? S.G.(GH) ping! 21:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I'll take "People I'd like to find in a burning building so I could wave goodbye to them" for $500, Alex. HalfShadow 21:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I would dearly love to implement a basic literacy requirement for editors (& admins, a fortiori). Exceed a certain number of comma splices, or mangle "refute" and "repudiate" into "repute" -- off on a wikibreak, have fun. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC) @Hans: I find the idiomatic use in this context to be more uncivil than just calling them a monkey. It implies that the editor is a meatpuppet of sorts (dancing to someone else's tune) yes? Is there some other reading of this that I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Agree with Hobit. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I think you are all now foraging in desperation. It's a common, very common English adage. If you want to drive me off like Malleus you will have to work and dig a lot deeper and re-enter the realms of reality.  Giacomo  21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Hmm, well, I take no real stance on the block. But the idiom; is not particularly common and usually used disparagingly. I'd advise not using it again. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It's not especially common, but that's not what's in debate here and you know it. It's unimportant how common the phrase is, it's only important what the meaning of the phrase is. And calling someone an "organ grinder's monkey" is uncivil and insulting, suggesting that they lack the intelligence to think for themselves and are somehow below others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Maybe it's common in the UK, but certainly not in America, and to us it immediately comes across as highly insulting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC) and Cocksucker is used in America I beleive, and it's not insulting?  Giacomo  22:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It's extremely insulting, yes. How does that free you up to call someone a monkey? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Call me old fashioned, but I prefer the traditional way of announcing one's candidacy for ArbCom... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Aha - great minds think alike.  Giacomo  21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) There are so many admins and sole-co-founders who have not been blocked for far more obvious rudeness that it really does look like a case of "I've got a big stick, now who can I hit?" when a block like this happens to a non-admin. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC) The organ grinder and his monkey, Daily Mail Don't blame the monkey, blame the organ grinder, New Zealand Herald' Sarah Palin won't run for president, The Guardian "When 2012 rolls around, Palin won't be on the campaign trail. But every Republican candidate who is will be beating a path to her door to seek her endorsement. That will suit Palin just fine. After all, why be the monkey when you can be the organ grinder?" This is no time for a nervous Nellie, The Times "If Nick Brown and his deputy, Tommy McAvoy, Martin’s friend, prop him up, the shame will rebound to the organ grinder behind this monkey, the prime minister." What nonsense! Perhaps we should have an article on this well used phrase? Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.54.83 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks! To spell that out: Peter Mandelson was called a monkey in the Daily Mail, Paul Henry (broadcaster) was called a monkey in the NZ Herald, Sarah Palin and her future successors as candidates were all called monkeys in the Guardian, and the British prime minister was (almost explicitly) called a monkey in the Times. Except it's not true. Because using this metaphor, and even spelling it out, is perfectly acceptable in ordinary discourse. It's not advisable to compare your boss with either the organ grinder or his monkey, but then that's hardly a reasonable standard for civility, is it? Or maybe that's precisely what it's about. Applying this saying to your supervisor is insubordination. Is that what we have here? A hierarchy with admins at the top and producers of quality content at the bottom? I don't think so. I think it was just a misunderstanding. But thoughts of this kind naturally come up each time an admin forgets how stupid it is to block Giano without thinking first. Hans Adler 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC) And that should confer immunity for continued incivility breaches? I do not think so. Giano has had enough warnings, and blocks, for incivility, and should have learned by now not to transgress, or at least test, the limits. He isn't alone in that regard. Forgive me for an argumentum ad Jimbonem, but we are supposed to be a "collegial environment" here, in which we might be sensitive to cultural and personal differences, and moderate our terminology accordingly. In some circles, "monkey" is abusive to the point of racism, and should, on balance, be avoided. The point is also that Giano is intelligent enough to know that, and arguably should know better. Idiomatics aside, taking the piss isn't acceptable here. By anyone. Rodhullandemu 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Sigh. That would all be fine and good if admins applied these standards equally. John (involved in the MF block) questioned Ceoil's mental health once, and made grossly inaccurate statements about Malleus here at ANI-- why can admins get away this, but the lowly content contributor can't even defend themselves at ANI without getting blocked? Anyone who thinks there isn't a vast schism between most admins and most top contributors is seriously asleep. That Giano and Malleus choose to make that point time and again gets them blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Conflicts are bound to arise, but the set of admins who are "uninvolved" with editors such as Giano and Malleus is seriously diminishing. The "good content creator" argument being prayed in aid of tolerance appears to me to be wearing increasingly thin, because it could be seen as a divisive tactic to separate "ordinary editors" from "admins". However, the later comment is misguided. Admins contribute content not merely by reverting vandalism, and some have even contributed to GAs and FAs without shouting about it. This is a false dichotomy, reminding me that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". It should not be so here, and admins on a pure power trip should be kicked out, just as should be editors who imagine that content=immunity. The road to where we are is littered with former editors who have failed to realise that. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It is no more correct to say that Malleus was calling someone a monkey (akin to racism) than it is to say that taking the piss means you have accused somebody of being a urine thief. Lets have a little common sense here ladies and gentlemen. Fainites barleyscribs 00:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Crap. We're talking about Giano, not Malleus, although it's hard to put a cigarette paper between them. I'll spell this out once, and only once: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, open to all to contribute to, as long as they accept the rules. Apart from rules about vandalism, there are also rules about civility that mean that when there is difference on content issues, dispute should be conducted courteously. That hasn't happened here. The "urine thief" metaphor doesn't help; everyone knows what it means- however, it doesn't carry the same connotation as "monkey". Rodhullandemu 00:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) (ec) Jimbo's word is not law, and WP:Vulgarity was turned into a redirect after failing to get a consensus. The main reason Giano is being blocked and unblocked all the time is that Giano is being blocked and unblocked all the time and lots of admins wait for their chance to try if they can be the one who gets a block in that sticks. They know they have to be fast, because there is so much competition for every Giano-blocking occasion. They can't afford to think things through, because then another admin will do the block. The second reason Giano is being blocked and unblocked all the time is that Giano is taking a lot of things much more personally than he should. Which, of course, is at least in part because he is being blocked and unblocked all the time. Hans Adler 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, dear, where to start? "I want the organ grinder, not his monkey" is an amusing phrase, perfectly suited to certain situations, but to say it to one's fellow editor is, indeed, not very polite. It's not as horribly uncivil as calling someone c***sucker, which is certainly a clearly blockable offense. This was not in that category. But can we ask that everyone involved simply start being a bit more polite? It probably won't kill us to try. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Giano is the Gödel sentence of Wikipedia civility policy. --TS 23:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I completely agree with Jonathunder. An amusing phrase by someone, who yes, is quite rough around the edges, but you know what? Giano makes me laugh, if he ever insulted me he's one of the few I would never bring to AN/I because I bet I'd be laughing too hard. I can probably count on one hand, maybe two, the number of individuals I have come across on Wikipedia who are genuinely REAL, who I could respect their viewpoints, respect what they say, etc. even though I disagree most of the time Giano is one of them. Giano could be seen as the "anti-Jimbo"; while my religion does not have the concept of an anti-christ figure so I'm not completely in touch with what it represents I'm more familiar with the similar Zoroastrian concepts, and please dont think I mean he's "EVIL" or anything; I'm just saying maybe a counter-culture anti-establishment "leader" is needed as a balance, is there anyone better suited than Giano?Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I've never blocked anyone for incivility, but seeing that sentence had me reaching for the button. Then I thought better of it and was going to leave a message asking him to strike it... then I saw this shitstorm. Ho hum. I'm all for rich tea and sympathy when editors get mad at each other, but random, seemingly calculated insults are not acceptable. And literacy schmiteracy, comparing an editor to a monkey is an insult. Rd232 talk 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. There's a saying "failure to hit the target is not the fault of the target". However, if you choose to call a fellow-editor a "monkey", even with the best of intentions, you should accept the risk that this will be found to be offensive. An Request for comment on editors who cannot, or will not, understand this, is long overdue. Rodhullandemu 23:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC) There's a rather wide gulf between acceptable behavior and behavior requiring a block. If you want to block somebody, go looking for something really bad. Don't pick on edge cases. Jehochman Talk 23:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC) There is a difference between a true edge case and a medium infraction that's the 100th one in someone's abuse history. Someone without the history wouldn't have been blocked (I think). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Jehochman hit the nail on the head when he said "go looking for something really bad". Alot of admins think it is their job to "go looking" for these infractions and then punish with blocks, and certain other admins think it is their job to go looking for any requests for unblocking and then rubber stamp the block even when the block should in fact be removed. Too many it seem are watching Giano just hoping to pin something on him, that is why George says this is the "100th abuse", how many admins have similar accusations against them that get thrown out because the "thin blue line" equivalent exists? Admins need to stop looking and doing things with their own judgement and simply throw out trash WE the editors and users tell them to. Do what we want, not what you want. Listen to us. You want a !vote on keeping Giano, fine, if he loses ban him. No consensus or keep and he stays. Until someone he insults complains legitimately how about you butt out? I would be PISSED if someone insulted me and then a passing admin punished him without me complaining first.Camelbinky (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Are you sure you want to phrase it that way? Really? Perhaps I'm biased - I was (if I can parse the sentence object/subject usage properly) apparently the Organ Grinder referred to. But this was not a trivial minor thing. As one of the insultees, in this particular situation, I would rather not minimize the situation, and I am in fact in a position to complain, though I had left the thread to others until now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)I don't recall ever even considering blocking someone for incivility, so it seemed worth observing that it crossed my mind here. (That I didn't here reflects that I never actually have blocked for incivility.) It being Giano did not factor. (Giano-associated long-term drama I'm aware of from a distance; I don't really know what's involved, though I gather he's an ANI Hall of Fame member.) Rd232 talk 00:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin help needed with fully protected page

User:Rich Farmbrough appears to have logged off immediately after inadvertently breaking the 'Unreferenced BLP' template so that it now displays like this on 20,000+ articles. Could an admin please undo or fix his actions to correct the template display? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please revert the most recent changes to this protected template? It no longer displays properly in article space, and the editor/admin who made the changes appears to have gone offline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been reverted (not by me). Ucucha 20:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Anne Robinson

Recent string of vandalism from IP accounts, some of which manifests in the final, offensive edit summary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Ucucha 21:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

TfD snowed

Can someone please check this one Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_16#Template:Two_other_uses and tell me if a non-admin closure per WP:SNOW was correct? I disagree with the way this discussion closed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis, I think it was a reasonable close. To be honest, I was considering closing it early myself. Obviously, you could list the decision at Deletion review if you want. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good snow, well executed. A lot of these discussions go on ridiculously long for no earthly reason. --TS 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Good close: it clearly didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, and generally with templates "it's not useful" or "it's redundant" is generally trumped by evidence that others find it useful, anyway. Non-admins aren't meant to execute snow closes, but I don't think it's worth overturning the close simply to have an admin close it the same way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kotniski notified. Airplaneman ✈ 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 Good close. If User:Kotniski is looking for a reason to become an admin, to avoid frivolous AN/Is like this one seems like a pretty good one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wankers?

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

This is going nowhere fast. --Jayron32 03:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

---

[204] Does anyone really believe that's an acceptable closure? Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu notified. Airplaneman ✈ 00:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. However sincere the sentiment, and whoever about (newcomer through to experienced user, quiet user to drama magnet), the manner of expressing this is plainly not appropriate. I hope the admin will strike that wording out. It's inappropriate in any way. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

((ec)) Whatever. Pot/kettle, kettle/pot. You might live until Christmas, but I am not that optimistic for myself, which gives me a personal perspective on that. Meanwhile, while we can we should continue to build an encyclopedia using the time we have left to us, to the best of our ability. 01:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't really disagree with the close—the thread was indeed getting more heat than light. But it's rather ironic for Rodhullandemu to close the thread with that impolite comment when he has just been arguing against Giano's incivility. I suppose I could block him–people have been blocked for less over the last few days, and with less prior discussion—but that does not seem especially productive. Ucucha 01:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with closure, disagree with choice of wording. Just fans the flames more. That said, closure was way warranted. Block? Please don't. Drama not needed. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not calling for a block; in fact, I might unblock him if he does end up blocked. We don't need blocks for every naughty word.

But I find it hard to see why Giano was blocked today for calling another editor a monkey (and even that not quite), and Rodhullandemu is not blocked for calling an entire group of editors "wankers". Why is that? Ucucha 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Likely, Rodhullandemu was trying to be ironic. As opposed to some others, who are just being hypocritical. Resolute 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I see little to suggest that it was ironic, and even if it was, is it acceptable to ironically call people names? As for the hypocrisy, say who you think is being hypocritical, or retract the veiled accusation. Ucucha 02:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidently not according to most, though I doubt that Rodhullandemu was referring to anyone with his comment. More likely, he was daring the community to treat him differently than it treats Giano. But I'm certain he will keep the reaction in mind in the future. As to my veiled accusation, lets just say that the person who started this thread is quite possibly the very last person on Wikipedia who should be complaining about the use of a word that upsets the civility brigade. Resolute 02:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are either completely clueless or completely without honesty Resolute. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're completely clueless. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So just another admin fuck up that would have a lesser mortal blocked then. How many more before the light begins to shine? Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair comment. -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close this discussion, too (nicely)?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How much better does it get than this? I presume all of those calling for restraint here will exercise same next time it's a non-admin who uses a ninny word or term? Hell, I'm half-tempted now to start testing this myself: I've always thought most of the best editors have a block log, so I may as well have one, too. But I doubt that GWH gets it yet. I'm wondering who I can tell to F off and not get blocked? NYB seems to have a sense of humor: perhaps I should start with him? Well, it was good of Rod to prove the point we've been making so nicely. Bbb23, you 'must be kidding-- an admin can call other editors wankers and you wanna close it lickity split? Haven't we seen it all now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you're always welcome to tell me to fuck off. (I have skin of linoleum.) That aside, it has to be said that: (i) wanking is particularly safe sex; and (ii) it's not entirely clear who the referents of "Wankers" are. -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying not to envision someone with skin of linoleum wanking.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

La, la, la -- linoleum!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point in time we are unlikely to get anything useful out of such a debate. After the earlier failed block is seems unlikely than anyone is going to throw any more around and I would suggest that people's current moods means that constructive disscussion is unlikely for at least 24 hours.©Geni 01:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All fine and good-- just remember to apply the same standard to Malleus next time, and take note once and for all of just who gets the infamous "free pass". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That will never happen. The civility groupies have made their corporate mind up, even though most of them probably couldn't even spell their own names. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately groupings of fictional entities don't have much impact on who does and doesn't get blocked on wikipedia so your concern is missplaced.©Geni 02:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I stongly suspect I've still blocked more admins than anyone else so I see little cause for worry.©Geni 02:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• What a pile of shite. Here am I, living in extremely poor circumstances, yet using the bandwith I can afford to make contributions here. I could spend that money on food, cigarettes or other stuff but on balance, I pr4efer to donate my expertrise, such as itr is , her54e, Rodhullandemu 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So please block me; I don't have the luxury of a comfortable life at present, but Wikipedia is all I have. If I can contribute here, or on Commons I will, as long as I can draw breath. However, I an equally find other stuff to do. Rodhullandemu 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously nobody believes it's acceptable to call people "wankers". The other observation is that Rod commented quite strongly in the debate itself (5 posts). Although the close was obvious, and he closed it with the same decision that most other users would probably have done, it would have been much better to let someone less invested in the matter close it, rather than allow his personal frustration to direct the wording used for the otherwise-correct close. (The wording is a very well known - if crude - idiom for 'I want to speak to the key person on this, which isn't you'.)

Likewise Giano knows his penchant for provocative-sounding wordings regularly leads to this kind of result, it's not any surprise whatsoever in this case.

If Rod will redact his wording and try to not repeat, I would be fine calling this a lapse of usual judgment reasonably rectified, and letting that be the end of it. Propose it as "closed but with lessons learned" unless there's more. There's content to write. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For Rod to redact the word, he'd have to first put it back in. Sarek redacted it a while ago. Unless, of course, you're talking about Rod's subsequent posts in this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a pattern in Rod's behaviour; whenever he's caught out he claim sickness. It's got to stop. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Has Rod been blocked yet? No, he hasn't. What a surprise. Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could he be suffering from Portnoy's Complaint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(Wish Portney'd shut the hell up. Bitch and moan, that's all he does...) HalfShadow 02:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(Well, Portnoy is "blocked". Kinda ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh; Portnoy. Sorry, I thought you meant Portney. Eugene Portney. Damn kid. HalfShadow 02:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why we have a NPA policy. We go all crazy about a limited number of imprecations, that if directed at us, most of us brush it off, we've heard the word so many times that it's become almost meaningless. Yet we don't care about comments that are not insults per se, but certainly are claims the recipient is impaired in intelligence or language ability, on a website where intellectual ability and language skills are prized. I wonder if our efforts are not misplaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your beloved NPA policy needs to be applied to everyone equally, not selectively only to your enemies. Has Rod been been blocked yet? Malleus Fatuorum

Shall we re-block Giano at the same time? In the interest of fairness, of course. Resolute 02:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, but I've always found clowns to be quite frightening. I'll leave it to you to decide who is the clown here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you block an editor for making a personal attack, because then the recipient can accept that and you don't have to have a flame war. On the other hand, I think the snarky Judge Judy style attitude displayed by some admins on this board also does a good deal of harm in making the board effectively unusable for the average editor who wants some input without being attacked or threatened (e.g., the response I received here last week). It's mainly a matter of culture, and whether people actually want to change it. But those who are concerned about off-wiki collusion might consider the overall effect that incivility has in encouraging such collusion. If we insisted on a more civil discussion, transparency might come more naturally. Mackan79 (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Summary: Giano said something mildly intemperate. Unsurprising. Giano was blocked. Unsurprising. Giano was swiftly unblocked. Unsurprising. Discussion ensued. Unsurprising. Rodhullandemu closed the discussion as going nowhere. Unsurprising. Did so while insulting everyone who had been taking part. Somewhat surprising. Is not going to suffer any consequences for this, due to being an admin. Unsurprising. Discussion ensues here over Rodhullandemu's behaviour. Unsurprising. Admins refuse to do anything about Rodhullandemu's worse insult. Unsurprising. Nothing will continue to be done. Would you say that about wraps it up, however depressing the state of affairs may be, and no matter how unfair the double standard of behaviour allowed from admins and peons? → ROUX ₪ 03:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia as blog host - block request

Resolved

 – User has been blocked. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Amyxiao (talk · contribs) is using his/her user talk page as a blog; making no other contribution; and not answering any questions on his/her use of wikipedia as blog. The user has been warned that a block is certain to follow. Evidence is found in his/her contributions log and the user talk page history. I'd be grateful if an admin would consider a block. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Off the cuff that looks like a possible spam bot.    Thorncrag   02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not being used as a blog. It's advertizing spam for "maple story mesos" (whatever they are). Look at the links in the first set of edits, not the (arbitrary) text. Choosing junk text to bypass spam filters is a common technique. I think that's what we're seeing here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A ban & evisceration of the talk page is in order. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of it is serial copyvio-ing. This edit, for instance, is a copy of this. I'm not going to waste time looking for sources of everything, but I suspect that it's all copy/pasted from other places on the Web. Deor (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The bot's probably just grabbing random text from the internet to obfuscate the spam.    Thorncrag   02:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. Could we kill it now by banning the account and delete the talk page as copyvios, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WITH FIRE!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!...Sorry 'bout that... HalfShadow 02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

MapleStory is a game of some kind, and mesos are its currency. Or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this was a pretty blatant instance of spam, I've indeffed. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The spam blacklist would be a good next step. Acroterion _(talk) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never dealt with the blacklist, if you would care to do the honors. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I mention it as I also lack regex skills. Acroterion _(talk) 03:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The spam blacklist is for linkspam. Doubt that's what you want here... T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Acroterion intended this to prevent the link spam (the locus of the issue here) to that particular site from being posted again.    Thorncrag   05:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a few of these link spamming user talk pages. Personally, I think the user talk page should be deleted to prevent any chance of the SEO garbage from working. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

URL added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. –MuZemike 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

edits to Mike Francesa edits coming from themikefrancesa.com

the Mike Francesa article has been decimated by vandals from themikefrancesa.com

2 recent users have been editing the article on Secretariat tonight [205]

JLUrbach and RKO36

I suspect they are WP:SOCKs and if not, they only created these accounts to fool around.

Fatandloud (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

don't know where they all originated from, but they have also moved onto Jon Heyman and a bit of Evan Roberts as well. A bunch of blocks (or one IP block) may be in order.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's more with diffs NKC2228 [206] 98.116.0.67 [207] 24.151.80.130 [208] 70.23.207.102 [209]

Fatandloud (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)