Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive685

Vandalbot!

Resolved

 – Blocked by Timotheus Canens. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Somebody block it! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is the one to blame... T. Canens (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Leakingisgood

Leakingisgood (talk · contribs) whose first edit was December 30th just copied someone's userpage to his [1]. I can't recall what we do when this happens, although I'll revert him and notify him of this discussion. There have been other problems with this editor, see their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the second time he has copied Favonian's user page. Mathsci (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Third time, actually. GiantSnowman 18:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:MaxIsScared

User:MaxIsScared is likely a troll. His bizarre edits includes randomly undoing legitimate edits [2], adding unsourced info [3], removing sourced info [4]. I believe he is a sock of indef blocked User:DiehardNFFLbarnone since he makes the same exact edits on Terrence Williams.—Chris!_c/t 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He now become User:IHateGlennBeck, User:TerrenceWilliamsforPrez.—Chris!_c/t 18:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All three blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Timfitzpatrick and DFCU Financial

There is a long history of inappropriate additions of non-notable living persons to the DFCU Financial article, usually by IP editors [5], [6], [7], [8]. The most recent of these [9] was done by User:Timfitzpatrick - a probable impersonator and the name of one of the real life employees of the company who is continually added into the article, and one of the subjects of this ongoing harassment campaign. I have notified the user. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, user had been previously warned about the addition of defamatory material in June 2010. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed a listing --in the article, not even in the external links, of a facebook group about the bank. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 76.89.129.139

• 76.89.129.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), IP of the repeatedly blocked Icsunonove (talk · contribs), uncivil behaviour with Neo-Nazi claims: [10], [11]. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco

Resolved

 – Semied for 6 hours by Materialscientist Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Massed vandal attack. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist has dealt with it. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warrior

Resolved

• Jprescia (talk · contribs)

Edit-warring to insert unsourced POV material on Ron Wyatt - over the past few days, Dougweller has reverted 3 times and I've reverted 3 times. Looks like a block is needed now, but I don't think I should do it as I have been involved in the reverts. In fact, I actually did block, but then suddenly realised I shouldn't, so I unblocked - can someone else please take a look and do what is necessary? Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reinstated the block as the editor restored their preferred unsourced version after the edit warring warning. Note I only blocked for 24 hours as it was a first time block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

SALT request

Resolved

Some kids have been making articles about themselves and their mates - can an admin SALT a couple of articles please? Ragnar Hansson has been A7ed three times, Ríkharður Árnason twice, and Jón Gunnar Hafsteinsson once. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 18:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Handled by ErrantX, tho probably WP:RFPP is the better venue. Syrthiss (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a bit of a hash of it ;) but got there in the end. Syrthiss is right, sometimes RFPP is faster. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, hadn't realised that RFPP was for SALT requests as well, many thanks though for the quick response guys. GiantSnowman 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page

Page: British National Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anglo Pyramidologist is a recent account whose main contributions have been to "identity" topics: British Israelism (the theory that the British descended from the "lost" tribes of Israel and the Jews are imposters), Young earth creationism (the theory the earth is only 6,000 years old), Christian identity (a "racialised" understanding of Christianity) and the British National Party (a party that speaks for the "indigenous" population of the British Isles). His comments at Talk:British National Party#The BNP and animal welfare are abusive:

• Just keep reverting 'Multiculturalists' edits, he is vandalising the BNP page with lies, now he's trying to lie....
• . Your claims that BNP do not support animal welfare only stem from your anti-BNP biasness, hence you are vandalising the page with your edits which are false representations of the BNP's views. Do you have a conscience?
• All the most evidence Multiculturalist is a troll, he is now pointing out other posters spelling errors - just to wind them up or attack them. This is despite his OWN posts are filled with poor spelling and punctuation, for example he spelt nearby as 'near by', above, there should be no space between the two. Also going to his talk page, reveals he has mispelled 'terminology' as 'teminology' (23:30, 14 July 2010), in fact i counted more than 10 spelling errors on his page in total. So not only is 'Multiculturalist a troll, he is also a hypocrit and can't spell English perfectly himself.
• Also look at Multiculturalists sources on the animal welfare nonsense hes posting - Seachlight, a well known anti-fascist magazine written by communists. How is that a neutral source on the BNP?
• Also why are his only sources from cranky communists like searchlight? Kind of ironic Multiculturalist above tries to smear the BNP by linking them to murder, when he quotes from communists. The communists under stalin killed millions of innocents.

Anglo Pyramidologist has been asked to avoid personal attacks on the talk page: "Also, you need to avoid personal attacks." He was also given a template message on his talk page.[12]

This discussion falls below the standards of etiquette that editors should follow and I recommend Anglo Pyramidologist be blocked until he agrees to civil discourse.

TFD (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the user's behavior is unacceptable. I've left a final warning on the his talk page.   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that Anglo Pyramidologist is not the only editor who opposes Multiculturalism's changes. Both sides are being unnecessarily dogmatic here, possibly because of the strong feelings that the BNP engenders, but Anglo P does not seem to be behaving outrageously. His edits suggest that he holds a world view which I find, shall we say, less than sympathetic. But I don't see any egregiously bad behaviour here. Paul B (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a vandal on the BNP page who is now removing local election details, and secondly is posting sources about the BNP from Searchlight a communist source. This source is biased and not neutral. I have made no personal attacks against this individual vandal, he also attempted to wind me up by saying i cannot spell (and is basically trolling me). I'm not sure why i got the warning, i've done nothing wrong. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is NOT a "communist source", and describing it as such has just let slip your biased POV - kudos. GiantSnowman 16:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight was founded by a communist - Gerry Gable, furthermore it is backed financially by the Communist Party of Britain and Young Communist League. Here is a website exposing the Communist basis of Searchlight - http://searchlightexposed.com/. Searchlight in their protests also have communist banners, they display these publically. You can find hundreds of videos on youtube which show this - so not sure what your agenda is here denying these links. It has nothing to do with biased POV. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, wrong again - Searchlight was actually founded by two Labour MPs (Reg Freeson and Joan Lestor), as well as anti-fascist and YCL member Maurice Ludmer. Gable is merely the publisher, and hasn't been a member of the Communist Party since 1962. Yes, it's got a left-wing lean, as anti-fascist activity tends to do, but that doesn't make it 'communist' - so describing it as such is wrong, and once again shows your biased POV that you seem unable to remain neutral when editing these kind of articles. GiantSnowman 17:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This board is not for content disputes. Anglo Pyramidologist has continued personal attacks against another editor event after receiving a final warning from an administrator.[13] In fact he is continuing that attack here by calling another editor a "vandal". TFD (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in a content disupte - I'm completely uninvolved. Never edited any of the articles in question, never encountered either editor before. I was merely pointing out that Anglo Pyramidologist clearly has a POV when he edits these articles - which has manifested itself through personal attacks against those who oppose him. GiantSnowman 18:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TFD is continuing to make false accusations against myself, so i have reported his posts. Please stop with the personal attacks. I only called someone else a vandal AFTER THEY DELETED AN ENTIRE SECTION on the BNP's page in the local elections. That's what vandalism is - deleting material. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that Anglo Pyramidologist clearly has a POV when he edits these articles, i don't have POV, all i pointed out is that quoting COMMUNIST sources on a BNP (nationalist) page is not neutral. In fact, most other posters agreed with me on this - if you view the BNP's talk page. Searchlight is not a neutral source, so anyone quoting from it is baised. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: the user mutlticulturalist is deleting MORE peoples content on the BNP page - 86.10.119.131 (talk) (150,617 bytes) (Undid revision 422528221 by Multiculturalist (talk) dont delete peoples material bro. That's not even me this time he deleted content from. As was pointed out above many have a problem with Multiculturalist editing the BNP page. He is biased (look at his name). The BNP is a nationalist party which opposes multiculturalism, so how is a user with 'multiculturalist' as a name percieved to be neutral? He also left me personal attacks all over the BNP talk page, but the mods don't take action against him ever. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please check the talk page on the BNP section where another user has just owned up that multiculturilist is their sock puppet account. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's prooven that the account is a sock? then it must be banned. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No it has not been proved and is not true either. It is merely another example of Anglo Pyramidologist's unfounded abusive comments about other editors. TFD (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

He's accusing me GoodDay! --Snowded ^TALK 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WHAT? Holy smokers AP. Accusing Snowded of being a sock-master, is like accusing J. Edgar Hoover of being a Commie. Honestly, such an accusation borders on paranoia. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

AD's behavure is veryy poor and in actionable. But I do feel that he is not alone in this. Mulitcuturalist has als made epaeted PA's (such as a ccusing users of biase) has edited from (what they admit) is OR POV. I think that it would be best if both accounts were blocked from editiing far right pages.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that User:Multiculturalist has said some offensive things on that talkpage, he deserves a warning also and should keep his personal opinions to himself as they seem quite extreme. If someone has made a comment linking themselves to another account then report it at WP:SPI - I have edited in many areas of the wiki and that section of articles is infested with opinionated editors unable to edit in a NPOV manner. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you all take a look at the BNP talkpage, you will see that I only criticised Anglo Pyramidologist after he had launched an unprovoked personal attack on me: I do not remember even having encountered this user before. I had merely questioned whether we should allow a pro-BNP POV passage to stand which had stated that "The BNP supports animal welfare" and I provided sources to highlight the fact that they favour hunting with hounds and that their opposition to Kosher was not necessarily to do with animal welfare (citing scientific research which indicates that this may be more humane than other methods of slaughter). Anglo Pyramiologist responded by saying "Just keep reverting 'Multiculturalists' edits, he is vandalising the BNP page with lies, now he's trying to lie and claim the BNP are for animal cruelty when in fact they are against halal and kosher barbaric killing methods and have donated to green peace's save the whale campaigns." He then followed this up by saying "The BNP supports animal welfare. This is in there manifesto, and they have donated to save the whale campaigns. Your claims that BNP do not support animal welfare only stem from your anti-BNP biasness, hence you are vandalising the page with your edits which are false representations of the BNP's views." Regarding Anglo Pyramiologist's assertion that I vandalised the section on local election results, this was in fact a new section comprising blatantly pro-BNP POV which he had created himself without first referring it to the discussion page. I reverted his edit and pointed out to him that there is a tag on the article which states that it may already be too long to navigate comfortably, and that it therefore does not help matters to add further sections. As for Snowded, s/he has been an editor for a lot longer than me and, judging by his userpage, belongs to a totally different political tradition. Our styles of editing and debating are so dissimilar that it's beyond me how anyone can believe we are the same person: if someone criticises me I respond in kind (occasionally resulting in a protracted debate) whereas Snowded, to his/her credit, simply issues the miscreant with a warning.Multiculturalist (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what they said, that does not give you the right to dish out personal attacks of your own. Just step back for a bit and let the admins handle any civility issues. The content dispute isn't going to be solved here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• note - I have also warned user multiculturist that his comments attacking the group of people on the talkpage of the article he is involved in contributing to is in violation of WP:BLP and his vocalized dislike of the group on the talkpage is disruptive and attacking in nature - if he hates the group and can't keep his hatred in his pants he should not be commenting there at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted the latest personal attack from AngloP. Its pretty obvious s/he is not listening. I suggest a neutral admin takes a look at the page and issues warnings if they deem it appropriate. --Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, so your removal of others comments is vandalism. Furthermore you still never answered why you are obsessed with the BNP and the BNP page on wikipedia when your profile states you are a far left wing anti-monarchist 'anti-nazi' socialist. You clearly have a biased agenda against the BNP and are not neutral. I have no idea why you are allowed anywhere near the BNP's page, you are not neutral and are breaking wikipedia policy on neutrality. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have a biased agenda towards the BNP - so why do you continue to edit such topics? GiantSnowman 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin take a look at this please, continued accusations of sock puppetry by Ango P but refusing to make an SPI report, more personal attacks and failure to assume good faith. Its tedious --Snowded ^TALK 20:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the only edit(s) i made on the BNP page was two. Firstly updating their election(s) results, which is entirely neutral, and i do that to other parties (national front, UKIP, english democrats etc). However snowded and multiculturalist (if they are the same user) deleted info which personally upset them that two recent BNP councillors were elected. On both those accounts they deleted local election material on the BNP, obviously because of their personal biased views on the party. Secondly my only other edit was getting the holocaust denial tag off the party bar - which was a smear. And a mod or admin removed it, and agreed with me that the BNP are NOT holocaust deniers. My only problems with the BNP page, is that the user multiculturalist is biased, not neutral and is only editing it to smear the BNP or make them look bad. How exactly can someone be trusted to edit BNP material when their name is 'multiculturalist'? The BNP is a nationalist party who stands against multiculturalism, therefore someone with the silly name multiculturalist is hardly going to be neutral are they? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's the matter of your sock accusations against Snowded. Are you going to retract those accusations or file an SPI report? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, multiculturalism is well bad and all that. GiantSnowman 21:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Anglo Pyramidologist blocked for a day for repeated personal attacks and ludicrous sockpuppet accusations after repeated warnings. I hope everyone will redouble their efforts to discuss the article on its talk page calmly, maturely, and biting their tongues to avoid insulting others, even when they think it justified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song)

Looks like there may be some canvassing going on at that AfD (which I will deal with), but I'll also promote that AfD here to attract a more neutral crowd. Your comments there are welcome, if you have a few minutes to look at it. Prodego ^talk 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Darwinek continues to move articles without discussion and in violation of WP:RETAIN and WP:POINT

Previous AN/I discussion on this subject

User:Darwinek continues to move articles without discussion and in violation of WP:RETAIN and WP:POINT, and without proving sources to justify the need move articles. His edit summery of “to correct name” [14][15][16][17] is subjective and violates WP:NPOV. This issue has previously been discussed here and he has been warned here. By continuing to make these unilateral moves Darwinek has demonstrated by his that he is unwilling to open discussions to seek consensus for moves on an article-by-article bases, and it is time to take admin action to stop his disruptive editing. Dolovis (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DIACRITICS. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"His edit summery of “to correct name” [82][83][84][85] is subjective and violates WP:NPOV." No it doesn't, edit summaries are not subject to NPOV. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See no issue here, user was WP:BOLD as he is allowed to be, its not up to him to start a discussion on every article, its up to you to start a discussion if you object to his move on each article. ie WP:BRD. Retain is about varieties of english which isn't applicable here. And I see no point violations as he isn't doing anything to purposefully disrupt the wiki. As for discussions on the matter, there have been some in the past. Although he wasn't part of them the ice hockey wikiproject (which I mention because those are the articles you used as examples) came to the conclusion that European ice hockey bio articles get them if the players name includes them. So he isn't editing against consensus, but rather with it. I also note that he did attempt to discuss with you on your talk page about the moves on March the 8th and you did not respond. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Darwinek posted his message on my talk page only after I posted on my talk page that I was taking a wikibreak.[18]. Dolovis (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It would make life easier if a discussion could be held on any necessary changes (or nor as the case may be) to WP:DIACRITICS. I'm surprised this wasn't opened up last time given the opposing views. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that one wasn't because its a perennial argument that never gets fully settled because it seems to be a roughly split 50/50 down the middle on if they should be used or not which is why WP:DIACRITICS says there is no preference. And I would bet another reason would be due to the warning in that page to "Beware of over-dramatising these issues". I think this is again a case of over dramatising it when it could have been discussed on their talk pages as was attempted by Darwinek on the 8th of March. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Until the issue is clearly settled to give consensus to mass moves, Darwinek should follow the policy of WP:RETAIN which states that the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Darwinek has supplied no sources to verify the common use of diacritics in the names of there people, and his edit comments that it is the “correct name” is clearly WP:POV. None of the sources included in these articles support the renaming of these articles. Djsasso's says that WP:BOLD applies, but that policy contemplates the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is something that Darwinek has neglected to follow. I am not able to revert these moves because I am not an admin, and (unlike Darwinek) I am not able to move these articles back over a redirect to continue the BRD cycle. Dolovis (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you see that he isn't following the BRD cycle. He was bold, its up to you to revert, then you discuss. Since you have not reverted then he is following the cycle. And as pointed out he tried to discuss with you and you did not reply which indicates he is able to continue doing the moves since you did not discuss. As you were told in the last discussion, any editor can move an article over a redirect (unless its been edited by another user which is rarely the case). It does not take an admin to do so. It is in fact what you should be doing if you object. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would revert if I could, but I do not have the needed admin powers to revert the move of an article over the redirect. Would an admin please move the above linked articles back to their originals names so that I may pursue this matter on an article-by-article bases through WP:BRD as instructed by DJSasso. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, you don't need admin powers to move an article over a redirect, or even to revert these moves. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Undoing a move explains how. Ravendrop 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but it does not seem possible for me to revert Darwinek edits without admin help. Even the informational link provide by Ravendrop states "If page A has subsequently been edited, or the move software is behaving weirdly, only an admin can sort things out", please I am requesting admin help. Dolovis (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What that means is that if I moved location A to location B. And then a 2nd editor came and edited the redirect that was left at location A, for example change the page that it was redirecting too. Then it takes an admin to fix it. But if all that happened was page A moved to page B then you just have to pick move and type in the old name and hit submit and it will move over top of the redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked with the first move you cited, and you should be able to revert it without any problem as the original name (what is no the redirect) has not been edited. To do this go to Special:Log/move and search either by the user name or the name that the article was originally at, and then hit the revert button at the end of the line. Enter your reasoning for reverting and confirm. I'd do it for you, but since I'm neutral about the issue at the moment, and you're the main opponent of it, I feel its better for you to revert it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendrop (talk • contribs)

That would also work. Either way is good. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now figured out how to revert the moves, and have invoked WP:BRD on some of the moved articles. Pursuant to BRD, I will now wait to see if Darwinek wishes to open discussions on the affected articles talk pages to determine if renaming is appropriate on an article-by-article basis. Thank you for your assistance. Dolovis (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly would you want to do that? As explained above, diacritics are commonly used throughout the Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that you did do it in fact, looking at your mass reverts [19], this kind of action just looks like looking for trouble. Especially since most people above, and most people at thew previous AN/I discussion have pointed out to you that the moves were correct, according to WP guidelines and that you should probably leave it well enough alone, and FIRST start a discussion rather than engaging in mass reverts of another user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that the mass changes are a problem, but not the mass reverts of Dolovis. The mass moves made by Darwinek without discussion or consensus, that is where the problem lies. Dolovis is merely restoring the status quo ante so that discussion can take place, per the BRD cycle. As an admin, Darwinek should know better, especially since this exactl same issue was brought to AN/I within the last few months. Deliberately doing the same thing that was objected to previously, again without a consensus to do so, is disruptive, and absolutely terrible behavior for an admin, whose job is to reduce disruption, not create it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, he wasn't really doing something against consensus, as consensus at the hockey project (and he was moving hockey articles at least thats what I see from the examples) is that bios of hockey players whose name contains diacritics have them added. So he was moving them to be inline with the hockey projects standard. Personally I don't think they should have been reverted but its Dolovis's right to do the reverts. I like most others in both discussions think he should have left it well enough alone. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:RETAIN, these sorts of moves should not be undertaken without some sort of prior discussion. Even if it is in line with the hockey Wikiproject, they are only a Wikiproject and not in charge of articles about hockey players. If Darwinek or the hockey wikiproject wished to undertake these changes, then he or they should have opened a centralized discussion on the matter in one of the main Wikipedia discussion boards and obtained consensus for such a change. Thus, Dolovis is perfectly correct in reverting them and invoking both WP:RETAIN and the necessity of WP:BRD. Silverseren^C 22:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So as part of the BRD cycle I undo Dolovis mass reverts (because I think they are wrong headed) that should be within purview of the BRD cycle as well, right?Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, WP:RETAIN explicitly states: "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs" - this isn't the case for the vast majority of the articles here, at least I haven't found one yet where it would be applicable. For Monkey Sake! Most of these articles are barely a month old or so and nothing more than one sentence stubs. Clearly they have not "evolved sufficiently". They're still in the primodial Wiki ooze more or less. Hence WP:RETAIN just doesn't apply here, and I would really really appreciate it if people actually bothered to read policy/guideline pages rather than just quoting them like some fighters in an old kung fu movie ("WP:Drunken fists!" "WP:RETAIN!" "WP:Flying mongoose!" "WP:DIACRITICS!" "WP:Shadowless Fist of Death!").Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You know perfectly well the rules regarding this area and also the fact that reverting a revert is not a part of the WP:BRD process, but instead part of a very different process. Considering the past clashes between the pro and anti diacritic sides on Wikipedia and across multiple ANI discussions and policy pages, an admin should know better than to unilaterally move articles and change them to diacritics when it is an obviously controversial action to do so. Silverseren^C 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're dropping the WP:RETAIN defense (which is in the title of this thread) and changing the topic of conversation? Ok, fine, then the edit-warring, to the extent it's even there, appears to be due to Dolovis being too emotionally involved in removing diacritics at all cost from these articles, bringing up his complaints in pointless AN/I threads which waste everyone's time, stubbornly and repeatedly quoting the same inapplicable policies even after it has been pointed out to him/her that they're inapplicable, and insisting on reverting these moves even after lots of folks have told him to leave it well enough alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Man, those would be great links for Wikipedia essays! Anyone else think so? I got dibs on writing the first draft of Wikipedia: Shadowless Fist of Death! -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN doesn't apply here for a few reasons, one its about english variants, diacritics or no diacritics are not a english variant. Secondly the articles haven't evolved enough for it to apply even if it was an english variant. They are one sentence stubs. Thirdly, no a wikiproject does not own the articles, but they do create standards for articles under their purview, that is sort of the point of a wikiproject. Local consensus can overrule a guideline, in this case since the guideline says there is no preference for or against a wikiproject can certainly come to a consensus to use or not to use them on articles in their scope. However, I was merely pointing out his moves were not out of consensus as there clearly was a consensus within editors of those types of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And clearly these moves are not agreed upon, since there are multiple users objecting to the moves. As I said, if a user wishes to move multiple articles in relation to WP:DIACRITICS, considering the past controversies in this area, they should re-obtain consensus to make such actions beforehand and not unilaterally do so by themselves. Silverseren^C 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Darwinek indeed shouldn't have moved those article titles, expecially with the 'annoying' accompanying edit summaries. It was agreed (I thought), that the pro-dios & anti-dios sides wouldn't claim their versions were correct. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all kinds of ridiculous. Darwinek made a bold move, Dolovis reverted. Why the hell is everyone still arguing? Everyone just needs to drop the posturing and, oh, I don't know? Discuss? If they are all hockey bios, then I encourage either of the involved editors to open a discussion at WT:HOCKEY and help achieve consensus on how we wish to treat these articles. Resolute 02:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No argument with that idea. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is an ongoing mass-move of hundreds of articles without prior consensus, IMO, it should be blocked without ado per WP:MEATBOT if the moves don't stop and stay stopped as soon as someone asks. (It does sound like this one has stopped, for now). BOLD doesn't apply to operations like that. BOLD is for single edits, more or less. Boldly make your one edit, then wait for other users' responses and discuss and reach agreement accordingly before doing your next edit. 100's of repetitive edits without consensus: treat it like an unapproved bot whether or not an actual bot was involved, and block. See also "fait accompli" as referenced in many arb decisions. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What we need is a clearly written policy at least at the level of the WikiProject. Policy that would reflect common sense and general use of diacritics throughout the EN Wiki. Moving back/deliberately creating articles without diacritics is a great step back in what the Wikipedians achieved here since 2004. I propose we create a discussion elsewhere, where we could express our opinions and/or vote to finally settle this and avoid cowardly ANI reports like this. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop using loaded words like "cowardly", especially since it was your action without discussion or consensus, which you knew from the last time it happened was going to be objected to, which provoked the report. Your suggestion for a Wiki-wide (not Project-level) discussion is a good one, but it's a step you should have taken instead of just picking up where you left off after the last AN/I. Your notion of "progress" may or may not be shared by a consensus of editors, that's to be found out, so stop behaving as if you have the green light to make these changes, because you do not. Again, as an admin, these are things that a rank-and-file editor should never have to explain to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wait for the wiki-wide discussion. Similar one was there in May 2008, it concerned only WikiProject Tennis but it "legalized" already normal convention of using diacritics. Discussion, again started by anti-diacritics revisionists and purists, can be found here. Mass-scale voting, AFAIR, was organized at WP:RM during one of the mass moves requests. The result was to keep diacritics (except special cases) and the WikiProject Tennis is peacefully operating since then. Still it seems the community needs to discuss it again, so let's do it. - Darwinek (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY is the best place. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If I am reading Darwinek's comment properly, I think he intends this to be a discussion with wikiwide impact rather than just hockey bios. If that is the case, a centralized RFC would probably be best. Resolute 17:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not long since we had a big thread (was it here or on AN?) on the subject of diacritics, foreign-language names &c. That thread didn't really settle the broader issue, and certainly didn't result in policy change. I expect there'll be another skirmish soon enough, and another, following some dispute on a different article. We have to acknowledge that some groups of editors will prefer names which are "accurate" from their own perspective - and these perspectives may differ. WikiProjects often have their own guidelines favouring names which work from that project's perspective, so a wikiproject on a latin-alphabet-but-not-anglophone country will probably be more sympathetic to diacritics.

Is it worth starting a bigger discussion so the community can try to narrow the policy gap a little? Or has that been tried before? bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Music reviews added against consensus

Siberiankiss1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding now over a hundred reviews to a music site, DEAD PRESS. When looking into it last month, it was deemed to be non-RS and to have malware associated with its links (see RSN discussion here:[20]) I removed the links, and left a message with the user. The user replied by email, where he said the malware alerts were false, but did not discuss the reliability issue. I had assumed this was over, but it seems they have been back at it, adding dozens more links to the site. I think this user's edits need some admin scrutiny, The Interior (Talk) 01:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the user's talk page, letting her know that she has now run afoul of WP:SPAM. I'm certain that, now that she understands the rules, she'll stop, but if there's any further problem, I'd be happy to block her. I've added her talk page to my watchlist, but feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page or request help here if the problem resumes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

thnaks, I'll check up on them after a bit. The Interior (Talk) 02:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Spam blacklist anyone? There's a link right now in List of albums released in 2011. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to reopen WP:AN #Peter_Damian_block_violates_WP:IAR

Not an incident. Moving back to AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

PR Firm Editing?

I've just tagged the Hawaii Convention Center article with a {{News release}} tag, and upon some digging, I noticed that most of the edits were done by User:JenTLC. Her edits are strictly to the article in question, the 3RR violations are over a month old at the latest (so no use even reporting it to 3RR or edit warring due to age, seeing they only cover recent 3RR violations), she's been dinged with numerous Non-free Image deletion warnings, and I don't know if I should tag the article with {{db-spam}} seeing the article is a mess. Any advice on how to handle it?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it, but did you notice the spelling Hawai'i? I've seen this elsewhere, not sure why editors change it to this, some sort of nationalist thing I presume. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's "Hawaii" in Hawaiian. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the glottal stop is part of the spelling. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I've often seen spellings Hawai'i, Kaua'i, Moloka'i, etc., for the Hawaiian islands. It's apparently to give a visual cue that the trailing "i" is to be pronounced separately. As in "mo-lo-ka-ee", not "mo-lo-kye". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See here. The article started as cut-and-paste copyvio. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I trimmed it all up and rev-deleted the edits with the copyvio material. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted File:HawaiiConventionCenterMeetingRoom.jpg, another of her uploads...claimed it was cc/gfdl-self, but it's on the organization's own website. I'd say she works for them or an associated PR firm. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding overtly racist editor and recidivist sockpuppeteer

User:Giornorosso was blocked on 13 March 2011 following this discussion on ANI. After that block, the user went on to create sockpuppets Beholdernig (talk · contribs), Killtheniggur (talk · contribs), Lootsucker (talk · contribs), and Howardnug (talk · contribs), all of which were blocked on 27 March. Although I pointed out the likely connection of 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in a follow-up discussion on ANI, it remained unblocked. When I asked User:Tiptoety, the checkuser who had handled the sockpuppetry case, why it was not blocked, they blocked it for a week. Tiptoety left on a wikibreak when I asked them to explain why it wasn't indef blocked.

The week-long block on the IP has now expired. New user Holy0cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared right on schedule to continue editing the same articles and with the same agenda as Giornorosso. I cannot understand why the IP was not indef blocked in the first place, or why Tiptoety would feel that a week-long block was appropriate, but I am not privy to the checkuser information. As far as I can tell, this is a racist POV-pusher and persistent sockpuppeteer using a static DSL IP - why is it not blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins can't assume an IP is static, end-of, especially since in many cases a router reset will change an IP. Thus, IPs are rarely, if ever, indef'd. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't happen all that often, but IPs are sometimes indef blocked, or blocked for very long periods. Year-long blocks are not uncommon for school IPs, for example. Looking over the contributions from the IP shows that the same user has had it since March 2010. How much collateral damage is likely from blocking this single IP from the Czech Republic, even if it turns out to be dynamic? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Many users change IP when they get blocked so the fact they've had it for a while may not say much... Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that it appears that this user had had the same IP for over a year now and did not appear to change it when their main account was blocked. None of this answers the question why was the IP not blocked at that time? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If the IP was being used by a registered user, then I presume it would have been caught in an autoblock when the user was blocked, wouldn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it for others with access to the checkuser data to comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All above-reported accounts are  Confirmed as Giornorosso (talk · contribs), and they have already been blocked. –MuZemike 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dominic, a checkuser, has blocked the IP for 3 months. NW (Talk) 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

85.160.221.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now blocked for 24 hours, because I don't know that there's any value to blocking longer than that. If checkuser or somebody more familiar with the region feel a longer block is necessary, no objections from me. Same if 24 hours proves too long. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In this removed posting to ANI from 85.160.221.224 (currently blocked), the user says "I think that it is clear that Delicous Carbuncle tried to have me blocked completely from the very beginnning, and he tries to permanently blcok one of my IP adresses". So, given this and the "checkuser" block of the IP in question, there should be no question that this IP was being used by User:Giornorosso. It comes back to the same question, why was this IP not blocked previously and why, when I asked about it, was it only blocked for a week? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question. But can we be sure the guy has a static IP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. The later is a silly question. Obviously we can't be sure it's static. As I pointed out above, the fact it had been used for a long time was largely irrelevant. We realisticly had no way of knowing of they would change IP the moment their IP was blocked. There was obviously little reason for them to change IP when their IP wasn't blocked no matter what else was blocked (clearly if their IP was autoblocked too it would be different but no one with access to checkuser has suggested any of this was poorly handled). Blocking for a short time to test was obviously therefore appropriate, as many including me have hinted at. Escalating that block if they come back afterwards is obviously also appropriate and the normal way to deal with it. Making a big fuss over something that could have been handled simply by asking for a longer block once it became clear they were coming back with the same IP after being blocked well you can guess what I'm going to say... Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a silly question. I've had the same IP for about 3 years now. However, I haven't made any effort to get it changed. But you've given further information, which is good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is a silly question to ask why someone wasn't blocked for longer when the reason was given multiple times by multiple people before you asked and where if you were confused, you could easily have asked for clarification on the parts that were confusing you. Also I gave no further info in my post above that couldn't be gleaned from the existing discussion. It's already been explained several times in this thread before my post that changing IP is sometimes easy, often simply a router reset. An uptime for a router of 1 year is not really that unlikely if you have a decent router, a decent household power supply and a decent ISP and no changes that require resetting. Therefore anyone who knows how, and we have seen many times on wikipedia, many do know how, can change their IP on demand. Not really mentioned above but in other cases an IP may be a bit sticky and if you reconnect within a certain number of hours you get the same IP. In this case, it's even more likely that a person may have an IP for a long time since even short resets, short power failures, moving the router location, even changing router can all be undertaken without losing IP but anyone who knows how and is able to put up with no internet for however long is required can change their IP. (Some ISPs assign IPs semi-staticly meaning even days later you will get the same IP (but it's not truly static as the ISP doesn't in any way guarantee you will keep the IP and can change it at any time at their discretion). In that case you may be able to request it to be change, but can't usually do it yourself and if you do request they will likely ask why and 'I got blocked from wikipedia and want to come back' isn't usually going to cut it. There are of course a large variety of other policies.) As I've already said, they key parts, i.e. that it can be trivial to change an IP and the longetivity is irrelevant was mentioned several times above before DC asked again. If for some reason there was any confusion, the polite thing to do would have been to seek clarification rather then continuing to suggest the situation was poorly handled. BTW, one of the reasons we don't like to spell things out in such detail is because while many know, many don't so per WP:BEANS it's best not to, but sometimes I guess we have no choice... Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne, while it is certainly possible that the IP is not static, your supposition that it could be a dynamically-assigned (or even semi-static) IP seems far less likely than it simply being a static IP. Again, I am unable to assess the collateral damage of a long term block on a single DSL IP from the Czech Republic, but I would guess that it would be negligible. Regardless, you are missing the point entirely - the IP was not blocked when the user was originally blocked, nor was it blocked when I specifically pointed it out in a follow up ANI discussion (that resulted in another Czech editor being temporarily blocked as a sockpuppet), nor was it blocked following the sockpuppetry investigation. My question is why wasn't it blocked? Here we have an overtly and self-identified racist editor creating sockpuppets with offensive names like User:Killtheniggur and their IP is not blocked for any length of time until I ask about it? We block IPs for innocuous vandalism all the time, but for some reason this particular one doesn't get blocked? There is something not quite right about this whole episode. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It's always a dilemma where the persistent, recurrent sockmasters are concerned. It's a consequence of wikipedia's refusal to require registration. Meanwhile, anything you didn't want stated openly could have been stated in an e-mail to the OP here. One thing that can be bothersome is the fact there don't always seem to be enough admins around to handle problems quickly. Like with the Sundae situation, where an RFPP was placed and it was like 3 hours before someone did something about it, hence inadvertently making a legitimate user feel like they had been labeled a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Despite what negative things (per wikipedia standards) this editor has done, the responses to his repeal appear well beyond the pale by one of wikipedia's administrators. If not, I'd like to see what wikipedia standard applies to the ongoing conversation. My guess is none. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I see the responses as being reasonable. Meanwhile, I like where the blockee says he was "forced" to create socks. What a crock. No one "forced" him to do anything. He chose to do it. It relates to his glaring character flaw of racism, in the sense of blaming others for his own problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think what Thegreatdr is not understanding is that this guy has had a history of being blocked, and blocked, and blocked, and blocked, and had sockpuppet after sockpuppet put down. It has to be very tiresome to deal with people who are this determined to create havoc on Wikipedia and even the admins at times will be less cordial or less polite than they would normally be after dealing with the same person for so long. This racist is desperate for attention and he's getting it here through his continued use of sockpuppetry. At some point, I imagine it becomes ridiculously tiring to try and talk sense into someone who has none and refuses to listen to any. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 01:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thegreatdr, what specifically is beyond the pale? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe User:Thegreatdr believes that I acted inappropriately in telling the user that racists are, inherently, not welcome at Wikipedia, and in advising him that his racism would doubtless have other lasting consequences in his life, much more serious than merely being blocked from a web site. He seems to have forgotten to notify me of this discussion, as is customary, but fortunately, I noticed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is one thing to advise someone what they have done to violate wikipedia standards, but it is quite another to start attacking them personally. What happened to assuming good faith and being polite/showing editors a little respect? I know this user has done some non-trivial things on here to enforce a certain POV, but in some cases, he apparently had references. The conversation about his repeal got quickly sidetracked into how certain countries do/do not have free speech, which is peripheral, and not entirely relevant to the block levied, and how he should be ashamed at his POV. If there is an element of burnout in dealing problematic editors, take a time out or some time off. Don't get personal. Isn't throwing attitude at editors (in at least one case by an admin) part of what got the global warming folks in hot water last year? I apologize to Fisherqueen for not throwing the notice on their page, but I did post it on the problem editor's page, which I knew they were watching. This is the second time I've reported the actions of an admin onto this page before, despite five years on here, and wasn't completely versed in the process. My interest on here is improving the met project per wikipedia's article progression (which despite his other issues, he was trying to improve), not in becoming an admin. As part of a couple minority groups, I'm sensitive to these kind of overt attacks on others, even if I don't subscribe to his viewpoint. People do deserve some respect, regardless, and these kind of attacks could turn other editors off to wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked into the history of the editor in question? It's appalling. The guy has no value whatsoever to wikipedia. He's forfeited any expectation of "good faith". And if the admin's blunt and truthful statements discourage other racists from editing, all the better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes calling a racist a racist is needed and appropriate. We shouldnt sugarcoat something if it is true. I dont want to be throwing around "Jimbo said" or anything like it's gospel but if I recall correctly Jimbo did once say that those that have an unhealthy obsession with adding only negative POV about race/religion/etc should in fact be blocked/banned. I think we have to draw the line on our Wikipedia version of "free speech" or "freedom to edit" one's choice of topics at the point where it is really an unhealthy obsession with just spreading hate and getting it into Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Thegreatdr is directing people to a discussion in which Giornorosso repeats their earlier claim that I "hate" them because of their beliefs, I would like to say that I have no ill feelings toward Giornorosso, although I do find their beliefs objectionable. If Giornorosso were able to edit neutrally, they would not be blocked now. Anyone who holds extreme views is unlikely to do well here since they will eventually come up against issues of neutrality and undue weight. In this particular case, any presumption of good faith is now dispelled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I have strong opinions about numerous social and political topics. I defy anyone to determine what any one of them is by looking at my edits. We don't extend the assumption of good faith to persons who are overtly acting in bad faith. That's just nonsense. Overt racism is not welcome here, just as it is no longer welcome among polite company in the vast majority of the civilized world. Society is much less tolerant of racism than in it used to be and Wikipedia is not an exception to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We should not be tolerating anyone who is explicitly and/or obviously racist, hetero-/homosupremacist, an extreme polemic, etc. In all the cases I've seen of such people editing, they've wound up unable to check their beliefs at the door and call others out on the rug for opposing their views. Their weltanshauung does not permit anyone but themselves and others like them to be right or pure, and so they generally have a major issue with a project like this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still looking for a plausible reason why the IP used by an overtly racist editor and sockpuppeteer was not blocked, even after a checkuser was involved in the sockpuppetry investigation. Considering that Tiptoety has been active on de.wiki since they had someone declare them on "wikibreak" here, it is unlikely that they will be gone forever and I will again ask for an explanation when they return. In the meantime, if anyone familiar with checkuser and blocking IPs has an explanation, I would be glad to hear it. (To forestall another suggestion that IPs are not blocked for long periods or that it may not be a static IP, see for example this one year block of an IP by Tiptoety just days ago.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars

• Fjp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.8.218.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.8.216.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.8.217.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just came across this editor, apparently in an edit war on Bee Movie with an apparently dynamic IP. I gave him a warning but he blanked it and said "I know", then started dicking around when I asked what he was doing and offered to help. Checking his contributions, it looks like he's been in edit wars all over the place - his history seems to be almost entirely reverting stuff.

The latest wars have been with the above IP addresses, which are presumably the same person. I've no idea who's right here, but as Fjp1995 flipped me off when I asked him to explain (and carried on warring), I've indef blocked him, and I've blocked the latest IP for 24 hours - both for edit-warring. I really don't know what's been happening here other than edit-warring, or who's right - it's late here and I need some sleep. I'll notify Fjp1995 and the newest IP.

Can anyone work out what this is about and whether anything needs to be done? (Feel free to change my blocks without needing to check with me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• AntiFjp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just been created and commented on Fjp1995's Talk page - presumably a sock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I first noticed this guy on March 20 when I followed up on one of his early AIV reports and mistakenly blocked an IP who was making good edits. Discussion between me and seaphoto is at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 8#65.8.221.157. Since then, Fjp1995 has been filing many AIV reports on what appear to be content disputes. I have not been investigating them as my pop-cutlure knowledge is insufficient to know which edits are any good. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the same problem, that I don't know anything about these topics, so I can't decide who's right - is there a Project anywhere that might help, do you know? (I can't think of any obvious ones) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As I'm a bit baffled by what's going on, I've had another try to talk to him, at User talk:Fjp1995#Your editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the user might be very young. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, judging by the answers I think you're right. I'm tempted to ask him to slow down, stress the need to talk, offer help when he needs it, and unblock - what do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, thinking again, I don't think I really want to offer to help too much, because I know nothing of pop culture TV and care even less - and I don't way to get dragged in to "Is SuperPingoBoy 11 or 12 years old?" arguments. So maybe just a friendly warning that he'll be watched. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing is to remind him of the verifiability requirement: if he's going to say that SuperPingoBoy is 11, he needs to have a reliable source that says he's 11. (Unfortunately, a lot of young editors seem not to realize that neither the SuperPingoBoy Wikia site nor its fan forums are reliable. But I digress.) That's why the standard second chance says to show both what changes you'd make to an article and what reliable sources exist to back it up.

I think unblocking would be in order. I also think that a one-revert-rule (or even 0RR, though that's a bit harsh) would be a reasonable condition for the unblock: if he's going to revert an edit, he must discuss the matter on the talk page (and not escalate straight to AIV). —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds great - I'll go with that (will do it after I've had lunch) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the problem has been solved. Since unblocking, Fjp1995's 2nd and 3rd edits (actually reverts) seem to be troublesome. This revert removes a table of Aron Warner's filmography that seems to be accurate according to IMDB (not an RS, I know, but in this case...). This is a table that he has removed 6 times from the article since April 6th 3rd. While it's not verified by a RS within the article, I'm troubled by this odd obsession of removing some random producer's film credits. This revert consists of changing the initials of the name of a storyboarder for the television show Phineas and Ferb from a "J.G." to "L.G." Elsewhere in the article, the storyboarder is referred to as "J.G." or "Joe." This appears to be a nonsense revert. He has not discussed either reverts on the article talkpage or with the contributor he reverted. Chillllls (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)corrected date Chillllls (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Dianaa has had a word with him, and I've reverted his new edits and given him one last warning - if he does it again, he's blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Byzantinus and COI

Byzantinus (talk · contribs) is an editor whose sole contribution is the addition of the same publication by a certain Konstantinos D.S. Paidas on Byzantine "mirrors for princes" in several Byzantine-related articles. Wareh (talk · contribs) and I have reverted his first additions and tried to explain WP:COI to him and to engage him in a discussion, but he refuses to communicate. Instead, he returns every few days, re-adding the publication. In the latest round, in an effort to bypass Wareh's and my concerns, he tried to insert the publication as a cited source, cf [21] or [22]. While this is an improvement, the last diff shows clearly that the intent remains purely and simply the promotion of this particular publication, and the COI concerns have still not been addressed. After consulting with Wareh, I ask for administrator action in the form of a concrete warning and, if that fails, blocks. Constantine ✍ 00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a bit of a pity. The guy does seem to be a genuine published academic on Byzantine matters (assuming that he is in fact K.P.), so it would be nice if we could retain him as a knowledgeable contributor, if only he could be made to show a bit of a wider range of editing interests. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If he is indeed this scholar, he'd be valuable. Pity that most of them I've come across only come here to add their own publications. Constantine ✍ 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An expert contributor on Byzantine history would be worth their weight in gold, if they could actually make a transition to broader contributions. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to reach out on their talkpage, although I'm no byzantinologist; they've had some (deserved) criticism, maybe it's time to switch from bad cop to good cop. bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good effort. I sincerely hope he responds. Constantine ✍ 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see from my comments on his talk page that I'd like the COI issue addressed, but that I've also laid out clearly for him how his own works can become cited while sticking to the established Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, while his editing clearly shows that he has seen our talk-page comments, he has not responded. The presumption that he is Konstantinos D.S. Paidas is natural, since his account currently has the single purpose of promoting and including this writer's work. I feel that all his edits mentioning that writer should be reverted until he takes notice of the repeated COI objections and follows the appropriate procedure (bringing up the proposed edit on the talk page, leaving it to neutral editors to make the edits based on good reasons -- which of course he is most welcome to help us appreciate).

Of course, I equally feel he should receive all possible encouragement to use his scholarly knowledge to edit where there is no self-promotion issue, and I'm glad this has reached a wider audience who may help with diplomacy towards that end.

Unfortunately, I want to end by saying I'd like some feedback here about what should be done if it remains a single-purpose apparent-COI self-promotion account. A block perhaps to get his attention? I'd prefer words to blocks, but that's hoping for something we haven't been able to get after repeated efforts so far. Wareh (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• COI is a problem when it harms content - for instance, affecting neutrality. I'm not convinced that trying to cite an extra source in history articles is very high on the "harm" scale, even if the source is only partially relevant.
• Although likely, it is not guaranteed that somebody citing one source repeatedly is the writer of that source. It might just be a third party who really loves that source sometimes when I find an interesting source I'll use it in a few articles before moving on.
• If the problems continue, then sure, technical countermeasures can be appropriate - but I think a potentially valuable new contributor should get one extra chance compared to the average kid who's been caught pasting "Joe is cool" 6-7 times into an article about their school. bobrayner (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yobot block

Yobot made an error which was reverted. The error was reported to the bots talk page. Subsequently the bot repeated the error. I then blocked the bot for edit warring. User:Magioladitis then unblocked the bot, apparently without fixing the problem. Are bots allowed to edit war? Are bot owners allowed to unblock their own bots? SpinningSpark 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Some notes. I usually load every list of pages twice. Everybody who follows Yobot's edits knows that I report and try to fix every bug. Since the task was over the block was unjustified. We also have a {{nobots}} to prevent a page by being edit by a bot. Moreover, Spinningspark is an involved editor. They shouldn't block. Additionally, 2 edits don't define an edit war. And this isn't all. Checking Spinningspark's log you'll find that they blocked for vandalism without giving final warning. You can see the back use of the block tool on Yobot's block log when they used "account creation blocked", fixed after 4 minutes and didn't leave a message on my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Check Special:Contributions/12.40.65.2 fo instance. The editor wasn't active at the moment of the block and didn't get a final warning. -- Magioladitis (talk)

• For clarity, how is Spark involved? And what does blocking vandals without final warning have to do with this? (I don't think you're going to find many admins jumping to undo a block of an IP with a few prior vandal warnings, but no "final" warning.) Anyway, while stating "edit warring" as a block reason isn't very good here, an automatic bot can be blocked for a repeated malfunction. The main questions, I would think, are whether these were malfunctions, whether it was going to be fixed, and whether a block was the appropriate way to handle the situation. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• I find it inappropriate the person who reverted the edit twice and works on the page to block. If this was an actual edit war it would be completely inappropriate to block the other party of the edit war or protect the page in your own version. Check Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION.
• Preventing a bot from editing because of a rare bug occuring in a single page by blocking it is also inappropriate. Thye are ways to do it.
• The bug is rare. I'll report it to AWB's talk page but the best solution until is fixed is to use {{nobots}} with |deny=AWB since the problem isn't only restricted to Yobot.
• With my examples I saw that Spinningspark is not familiar with the policy nor the tools and they are misusing them at the moment. IF they have made a block request for the above block, it would have been rejected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Bots that are broken are routinely blocked; the standards are not as high as with blocking actual editors. Yobot's user page directly says, "Administrators: if this bot continues causing harm after receiving a message, please block it". Since the bot made the same broken edit after receiving a message about it, blocking it is a reasonable response. Editing the bot's user page is supposed to stop the bot, so it's not clear why the edit would have happened a second time anyway.

I know I have pointed out to Magioladitis before the need for the Yobot not to re-do edits that are reverted; the bot can easily keep a list of pages it has edited and avoid editing them a second time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how Spinningspark is involved here, but by definition a user is involved in any situation that involves that user's bot. Carl is spot on with the blocking bit: we assume good faith with humans and with bot owners, but we can't assume good faith with the bots themselves, so it's always safer to block a bot temporarily until the owner can solve the problems. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• That unblock was highly inappropriate, basically akin to an admin unblocking themselves. Even if the block was placed in error, which I do not believe it was, we can't have admins undoing a block on one of their own accounts. WP:WHEEL is first-day reading material for administrators, I suggest a refresher course is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The unblock wasn't inappropriate if the bot wasn't going to make that edit again. The unblock reason on the other hand... Prodego ^talk 03:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Boy, the unblock reason was very sketchy if you ask me. And unblocking your own bot 7 minutes after it was blocked is really inappropriate if there wasn't any conversation about the mistakes it was making (which there didn't appear to be). An edit warring bot to boot. And the "involved editor" bit....that's a odd interpretation of that concept. Hopefully there won't be a re-occurrence of this. RxS (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• The both of you(nevermind, Bot operator) should have gone about it better (repeated errors->block->friendly heads up->confirmed fix->unblock). Fixed bot? Hopefully this is stale now but the lack of discussion really makes this a shame that should not be repeated. NOBOT does not need to be used. Your bot should function properly. You guys both should have discussed it better to lift the block since it looks like everything was going to be fine. Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... how many times has this bot been blocked? And who keeps unblocking it, usually minutes later? Involved indeed... Doc talk 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If the block was right, we have to block all AWB bots until all bugs in AWB's bug page are fixed. This is nonsense. We have {{nobots}} for a reason. And I don't understand why Carl overcomes some facts: That the block reason was wrong, the blocking admin didn't contact me after the block and has a history of tools misuse. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot's been blocked seven times. Except for three of them (two unblocked by the blocking admins and one unblocked by you several hours later) the average time of your unblocking your own bot is seven minutes. To call a blocking admin involved in light of this is... unfortunate. Doc talk 06:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Involved to the article and I mean in the context of "Edit war" in which they blocked Yobot. I get as you agree it was not an edit war and the blocking reason was invalid. Take note that the first block was 100% wrong and they had to rethink about it. Block/stop a bot makes a sense if the bot makes a series of bad edits. Going back to the example of the anonymous IP you'll see that Spinningspark can't exactly understand when exactly an editor (or bot) is active or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Check this too: Special:Contributions/216.70.249.102. 1 year block to a school IP without schoolblock by the same administrator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

When you raise the specter of "involved", you must know very well that most think of "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved." You have been very involved in unblocking your own bot in five out of seven cases. You shouldn't unblock it the next time it screws up: hopefully that won't happen again, right? The world won't end if another admin looks at the circumstances before you unblock it... Doc talk 07:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Then we go back to the main question: Do you agree with the block and/or the block reason? I don't like the expression "screws up" so please rephrase. I have no objections to leave my bot blocked if it's malfunctioning or the community disagrees with its/my edits. The blocking reason was invalid and the block unreasonable. Feel free to reblock if you don't think so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment Without researching and digging into history, I'm just curious. (and note: I have a great deal of respect for both editors/admin.) Couldn't you guys have just talked this out a bit on your talk pages without escalating into noticeboard drama thread? Not enough research to comment on who was right or wrong, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what's expected here. If a bot is making bad edits, it should be blocked. If it's been fixed, it should be unblocked. Seems pretty easy to me. — Ched :  ?  07:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, this entire episode would be avoided if the admin who unblocked had communicated to the other admin about their reasons *before* unblocking. Two minutes dropping a comment onto their talk page and this wouldn't be an issue at all. To me, that is the ENTIRE issue now. It doesn't matter whether the bot messes up, malfunctions, or screws up. Communication is important, and that is where the actual malfunction is. Next time, drop a note to the person who makes the block before you undo their action 7 minutes later. That's the long and short of this, and I hope this message sinks in. -- Avanu (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll do next time. The bot didn't fix the issue and I don't it's gonna do on the next few weeks. Bot has more than 10 known bugs as all AWB bots and the AWB software itself. Just think what is the best way to handle these cases because bugs will keep coming. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Resolved? — Ched :  ?  09:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any acceptance by Magioladitis that bots should not re-do reverted edits which is the issue for me. This is a simple principle; bots don't take precedence over humans. Apparently, this has come up before according to Carl's post above. On why it was brought here, as far as I was concerned, the matter was ended after the first case when I reported the mistake to Yobot's talk page. I only blocked after I got no response there and Yobot made the edit again. If Magioladitis had responded to that with "sorry for the problem, but I'm working on it" or somesuch, again that would have been the end of it. His response was nothing of the kind, after self-unblocking and being asked on my talk page if he had fixed it or I should go to ANI, his reply was "Please report to ANI. Thanks". So now we are here, does Magioladitis accept that bots should not re-do reverted edits? SpinningSpark 15:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not really the point though, is it? If he agrees to communicate with the blocking admin before unblocking his bot, then whatever the issue, it will get discussed first. The errors you point out above seem rather minimal, and while I don't support introducing errors into Wikipedia, the only real problem here is that the bot was unblocked without any communication between the blocker and the blockee. Bots probably end up having issues occasionally. So that isn't unexpected. But what is expected, and what Magioladitis had agreed to do now and in the future is to discuss unblocks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My answer wasn't a result of impoliteness but I am rather busy in real life and with other stuff in Wikipedia. I always try to fix stuff. Since I didn't mark the report as "resolved" this means I leave it open to fix. Check my talk page and you ll fix all (or 99%) of the reports. I don't accept the block reason since I don't think the bot participated in any edit war and the problem could have been solved otherwise. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem fixed [23]. There were unbalanced brackets. Drama is over. Thanks and sorry for wasting your time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow-revert behaviour.

Resolved

 – PLAX... err, WP:BOOMERANG applied. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like someone to help me and User:Dreadstar to avoid a conflict. The user has followed all of my recent contributions (what, it itself, I don't think is a problem) and revert each on of them.

The last time I acessed Wikipedia, I've worked on:

• Asking for sources on the article about computer scientist Simon Peyton Jones,

  And Dreadstar fully reverted it.

• Removing non-free images, pov and asking for sources on the article about actor Shakeel,

  And Dreadstar fully reverted it.

• Asking for sources and removing bad link on the article about the organization Chilling Effects,

  And Dreadstar fully reverted it.

Also, in the artitcle about the writer Bill Kennedy, I mistakenly remove a whole paragraph (that I believed was) tagged as uncited, when the tag only referred to the last sentence. Dreadstar reverted not only my mistake, but also the removal of a bad external link I have done.

These blank reverts of virtually everything I tough is getting on my nerves. If we go further in the past, we will find more situations where it happened.

Dreadstar seems like a good editor, but with not much patience. I wish I could have more of his trust. --Damiens.rf 16:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you notify him of taking him to ANI? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs, he subtly notified me on my talk page.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagging every single uncited sentence in an article with {{fact}}, as you did with Simon Peyton Jones, is never a good idea, Damiens. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And with Chilling Effects, you stuck a {{who}} in the middle of a sentence that had cites at the end that answered the question. Again, not cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens has a long history of disruptive, drive-by tag-bombing on a very large number of articles, espeically problematic on WP:BLP's like this, where I first noticed this behavior. I've been trying to help him gain a greater understanding of the problems here,[24][25] and have added many sources to the articles he's done this to. Dreadstar ☥ 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, you tag bombed Simon Peyton Jones asking for cites when they were already there, so far as I'm concerned Dreadstar was right. On Shakeel, yes, there was a source to tripod, I doubt it's reliable, so yeah, asking for valid sources is ok. On Chilling Effects you tag bombed that one too and asked for references that were already there. Someone needs to stop, but I don't think it's Dreadstar. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 16:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And I just blocked him for edit warring "porn star" into the lede of Kira Reed with the edit summary "I hope this is not someone trying to force me on 3RR", without providing any citation to establish that the term actually applied.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's rather ironic,[26] given his fact-tag blitz. Unless there's some hidden fact not stated in the article, Kira Reed does not qualify as a "porn star". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Users in the range 220.255.2.XXX

Edits such as [27] [28], [29] and others, from this range of IP addresses at Hard disk misunderstand or misrepresent MOS:NUMBERS; continuing removal of the IEC binary prefixes in a table that is intended to illustrate the difference between binary and decimal prefixes. The user(s) have had the issue explained several times. Doesn't seem to be an English comprehension issue. Odd IP-hopping behavior, with 5 or 6 addresses used in 30 minutes and different addresses in consecutive responses. Can't drop template on all of the Singapore ISP IP pages, but the subject appears to be aware of the problem he's causing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, I have protected the page for a day. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IP user

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 month Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

174.54.34.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Just Today Harassment, and soap boxing. The IP seems pretty stable for over a month now been pretty disruptive and thus needs a vacation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I smell socks, just can't figure out where they are coming from. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My thought as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Several users smell pretty socky at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (3rd nomination). The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding overtly racist editor and recidivist sockpuppeteer

User:Giornorosso was blocked on 13 March 2011 following this discussion on ANI. After that block, the user went on to create sockpuppets Beholdernig (talk · contribs), Killtheniggur (talk · contribs), Lootsucker (talk · contribs), and Howardnug (talk · contribs), all of which were blocked on 27 March. Although I pointed out the likely connection of 90.177.208.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in a follow-up discussion on ANI, it remained unblocked. When I asked User:Tiptoety, the checkuser who had handled the sockpuppetry case, why it was not blocked, they blocked it for a week. Tiptoety left on a wikibreak when I asked them to explain why it wasn't indef blocked.

The week-long block on the IP has now expired. New user Holy0cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared right on schedule to continue editing the same articles and with the same agenda as Giornorosso. I cannot understand why the IP was not indef blocked in the first place, or why Tiptoety would feel that a week-long block was appropriate, but I am not privy to the checkuser information. As far as I can tell, this is a racist POV-pusher and persistent sockpuppeteer using a static DSL IP - why is it not blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Admins can't assume an IP is static, end-of, especially since in many cases a router reset will change an IP. Thus, IPs are rarely, if ever, indef'd. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't happen all that often, but IPs are sometimes indef blocked, or blocked for very long periods. Year-long blocks are not uncommon for school IPs, for example. Looking over the contributions from the IP shows that the same user has had it since March 2010. How much collateral damage is likely from blocking this single IP from the Czech Republic, even if it turns out to be dynamic? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Many users change IP when they get blocked so the fact they've had it for a while may not say much... Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that it appears that this user had had the same IP for over a year now and did not appear to change it when their main account was blocked. None of this answers the question why was the IP not blocked at that time? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If the IP was being used by a registered user, then I presume it would have been caught in an autoblock when the user was blocked, wouldn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it for others with access to the checkuser data to comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All above-reported accounts are  Confirmed as Giornorosso (talk · contribs), and they have already been blocked. –MuZemike 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dominic, a checkuser, has blocked the IP for 3 months. NW (Talk) 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

85.160.221.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now blocked for 24 hours, because I don't know that there's any value to blocking longer than that. If checkuser or somebody more familiar with the region feel a longer block is necessary, no objections from me. Same if 24 hours proves too long. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In this removed posting to ANI from 85.160.221.224 (currently blocked), the user says "I think that it is clear that Delicous Carbuncle tried to have me blocked completely from the very beginnning, and he tries to permanently blcok one of my IP adresses". So, given this and the "checkuser" block of the IP in question, there should be no question that this IP was being used by User:Giornorosso. It comes back to the same question, why was this IP not blocked previously and why, when I asked about it, was it only blocked for a week? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question. But can we be sure the guy has a static IP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. The later is a silly question. Obviously we can't be sure it's static. As I pointed out above, the fact it had been used for a long time was largely irrelevant. We realisticly had no way of knowing of they would change IP the moment their IP was blocked. There was obviously little reason for them to change IP when their IP wasn't blocked no matter what else was blocked (clearly if their IP was autoblocked too it would be different but no one with access to checkuser has suggested any of this was poorly handled). Blocking for a short time to test was obviously therefore appropriate, as many including me have hinted at. Escalating that block if they come back afterwards is obviously also appropriate and the normal way to deal with it. Making a big fuss over something that could have been handled simply by asking for a longer block once it became clear they were coming back with the same IP after being blocked well you can guess what I'm going to say... Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a silly question. I've had the same IP for about 3 years now. However, I haven't made any effort to get it changed. But you've given further information, which is good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is a silly question to ask why someone wasn't blocked for longer when the reason was given multiple times by multiple people before you asked and where if you were confused, you could easily have asked for clarification on the parts that were confusing you. Also I gave no further info in my post above that couldn't be gleaned from the existing discussion. It's already been explained several times in this thread before my post that changing IP is sometimes easy, often simply a router reset. An uptime for a router of 1 year is not really that unlikely if you have a decent router, a decent household power supply and a decent ISP and no changes that require resetting. Therefore anyone who knows how, and we have seen many times on wikipedia, many do know how, can change their IP on demand. Not really mentioned above but in other cases an IP may be a bit sticky and if you reconnect within a certain number of hours you get the same IP. In this case, it's even more likely that a person may have an IP for a long time since even short resets, short power failures, moving the router location, even changing router can all be undertaken without losing IP but anyone who knows how and is able to put up with no internet for however long is required can change their IP. (Some ISPs assign IPs semi-staticly meaning even days later you will get the same IP (but it's not truly static as the ISP doesn't in any way guarantee you will keep the IP and can change it at any time at their discretion). In that case you may be able to request it to be change, but can't usually do it yourself and if you do request they will likely ask why and 'I got blocked from wikipedia and want to come back' isn't usually going to cut it. There are of course a large variety of other policies.) As I've already said, they key parts, i.e. that it can be trivial to change an IP and the longetivity is irrelevant was mentioned several times above before DC asked again. If for some reason there was any confusion, the polite thing to do would have been to seek clarification rather then continuing to suggest the situation was poorly handled. BTW, one of the reasons we don't like to spell things out in such detail is because while many know, many don't so per WP:BEANS it's best not to, but sometimes I guess we have no choice... Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne, while it is certainly possible that the IP is not static, your supposition that it could be a dynamically-assigned (or even semi-static) IP seems far less likely than it simply being a static IP. Again, I am unable to assess the collateral damage of a long term block on a single DSL IP from the Czech Republic, but I would guess that it would be negligible. Regardless, you are missing the point entirely - the IP was not blocked when the user was originally blocked, nor was it blocked when I specifically pointed it out in a follow up ANI discussion (that resulted in another Czech editor being temporarily blocked as a sockpuppet), nor was it blocked following the sockpuppetry investigation. My question is why wasn't it blocked? Here we have an overtly and self-identified racist editor creating sockpuppets with offensive names like User:Killtheniggur and their IP is not blocked for any length of time until I ask about it? We block IPs for innocuous vandalism all the time, but for some reason this particular one doesn't get blocked? There is something not quite right about this whole episode. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It's always a dilemma where the persistent, recurrent sockmasters are concerned. It's a consequence of wikipedia's refusal to require registration. Meanwhile, anything you didn't want stated openly could have been stated in an e-mail to the OP here. One thing that can be bothersome is the fact there don't always seem to be enough admins around to handle problems quickly. Like with the Sundae situation, where an RFPP was placed and it was like 3 hours before someone did something about it, hence inadvertently making a legitimate user feel like they had been labeled a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Despite what negative things (per wikipedia standards) this editor has done, the responses to his repeal appear well beyond the pale by one of wikipedia's administrators. If not, I'd like to see what wikipedia standard applies to the ongoing conversation. My guess is none. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I see the responses as being reasonable. Meanwhile, I like where the blockee says he was "forced" to create socks. What a crock. No one "forced" him to do anything. He chose to do it. It relates to his glaring character flaw of racism, in the sense of blaming others for his own problems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think what Thegreatdr is not understanding is that this guy has had a history of being blocked, and blocked, and blocked, and blocked, and had sockpuppet after sockpuppet put down. It has to be very tiresome to deal with people who are this determined to create havoc on Wikipedia and even the admins at times will be less cordial or less polite than they would normally be after dealing with the same person for so long. This racist is desperate for attention and he's getting it here through his continued use of sockpuppetry. At some point, I imagine it becomes ridiculously tiring to try and talk sense into someone who has none and refuses to listen to any. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 01:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thegreatdr, what specifically is beyond the pale? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe User:Thegreatdr believes that I acted inappropriately in telling the user that racists are, inherently, not welcome at Wikipedia, and in advising him that his racism would doubtless have other lasting consequences in his life, much more serious than merely being blocked from a web site. He seems to have forgotten to notify me of this discussion, as is customary, but fortunately, I noticed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is one thing to advise someone what they have done to violate wikipedia standards, but it is quite another to start attacking them personally. What happened to assuming good faith and being polite/showing editors a little respect? I know this user has done some non-trivial things on here to enforce a certain POV, but in some cases, he apparently had references. The conversation about his repeal got quickly sidetracked into how certain countries do/do not have free speech, which is peripheral, and not entirely relevant to the block levied, and how he should be ashamed at his POV. If there is an element of burnout in dealing problematic editors, take a time out or some time off. Don't get personal. Isn't throwing attitude at editors (in at least one case by an admin) part of what got the global warming folks in hot water last year? I apologize to Fisherqueen for not throwing the notice on their page, but I did post it on the problem editor's page, which I knew they were watching. This is the second time I've reported the actions of an admin onto this page before, despite five years on here, and wasn't completely versed in the process. My interest on here is improving the met project per wikipedia's article progression (which despite his other issues, he was trying to improve), not in becoming an admin. As part of a couple minority groups, I'm sensitive to these kind of overt attacks on others, even if I don't subscribe to his viewpoint. People do deserve some respect, regardless, and these kind of attacks could turn other editors off to wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked into the history of the editor in question? It's appalling. The guy has no value whatsoever to wikipedia. He's forfeited any expectation of "good faith". And if the admin's blunt and truthful statements discourage other racists from editing, all the better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes calling a racist a racist is needed and appropriate. We shouldnt sugarcoat something if it is true. I dont want to be throwing around "Jimbo said" or anything like it's gospel but if I recall correctly Jimbo did once say that those that have an unhealthy obsession with adding only negative POV about race/religion/etc should in fact be blocked/banned. I think we have to draw the line on our Wikipedia version of "free speech" or "freedom to edit" one's choice of topics at the point where it is really an unhealthy obsession with just spreading hate and getting it into Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Thegreatdr is directing people to a discussion in which Giornorosso repeats their earlier claim that I "hate" them because of their beliefs, I would like to say that I have no ill feelings toward Giornorosso, although I do find their beliefs objectionable. If Giornorosso were able to edit neutrally, they would not be blocked now. Anyone who holds extreme views is unlikely to do well here since they will eventually come up against issues of neutrality and undue weight. In this particular case, any presumption of good faith is now dispelled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I have strong opinions about numerous social and political topics. I defy anyone to determine what any one of them is by looking at my edits. We don't extend the assumption of good faith to persons who are overtly acting in bad faith. That's just nonsense. Overt racism is not welcome here, just as it is no longer welcome among polite company in the vast majority of the civilized world. Society is much less tolerant of racism than in it used to be and Wikipedia is not an exception to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We should not be tolerating anyone who is explicitly and/or obviously racist, hetero-/homosupremacist, an extreme polemic, etc. In all the cases I've seen of such people editing, they've wound up unable to check their beliefs at the door and call others out on the rug for opposing their views. Their weltanshauung does not permit anyone but themselves and others like them to be right or pure, and so they generally have a major issue with a project like this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still looking for a plausible reason why the IP used by an overtly racist editor and sockpuppeteer was not blocked, even after a checkuser was involved in the sockpuppetry investigation. Considering that Tiptoety has been active on de.wiki since they had someone declare them on "wikibreak" here, it is unlikely that they will be gone forever and I will again ask for an explanation when they return. In the meantime, if anyone familiar with checkuser and blocking IPs has an explanation, I would be glad to hear it. (To forestall another suggestion that IPs are not blocked for long periods or that it may not be a static IP, see for example this one year block of an IP by Tiptoety just days ago.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Byzantinus and COI

Byzantinus (talk · contribs) is an editor whose sole contribution is the addition of the same publication by a certain Konstantinos D.S. Paidas on Byzantine "mirrors for princes" in several Byzantine-related articles. Wareh (talk · contribs) and I have reverted his first additions and tried to explain WP:COI to him and to engage him in a discussion, but he refuses to communicate. Instead, he returns every few days, re-adding the publication. In the latest round, in an effort to bypass Wareh's and my concerns, he tried to insert the publication as a cited source, cf [30] or [31]. While this is an improvement, the last diff shows clearly that the intent remains purely and simply the promotion of this particular publication, and the COI concerns have still not been addressed. After consulting with Wareh, I ask for administrator action in the form of a concrete warning and, if that fails, blocks. Constantine ✍ 00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a bit of a pity. The guy does seem to be a genuine published academic on Byzantine matters (assuming that he is in fact K.P.), so it would be nice if we could retain him as a knowledgeable contributor, if only he could be made to show a bit of a wider range of editing interests. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If he is indeed this scholar, he'd be valuable. Pity that most of them I've come across only come here to add their own publications. Constantine ✍ 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An expert contributor on Byzantine history would be worth their weight in gold, if they could actually make a transition to broader contributions. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to reach out on their talkpage, although I'm no byzantinologist; they've had some (deserved) criticism, maybe it's time to switch from bad cop to good cop. bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good effort. I sincerely hope he responds. Constantine ✍ 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see from my comments on his talk page that I'd like the COI issue addressed, but that I've also laid out clearly for him how his own works can become cited while sticking to the established Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, while his editing clearly shows that he has seen our talk-page comments, he has not responded. The presumption that he is Konstantinos D.S. Paidas is natural, since his account currently has the single purpose of promoting and including this writer's work. I feel that all his edits mentioning that writer should be reverted until he takes notice of the repeated COI objections and follows the appropriate procedure (bringing up the proposed edit on the talk page, leaving it to neutral editors to make the edits based on good reasons -- which of course he is most welcome to help us appreciate).

Of course, I equally feel he should receive all possible encouragement to use his scholarly knowledge to edit where there is no self-promotion issue, and I'm glad this has reached a wider audience who may help with diplomacy towards that end.

Unfortunately, I want to end by saying I'd like some feedback here about what should be done if it remains a single-purpose apparent-COI self-promotion account. A block perhaps to get his attention? I'd prefer words to blocks, but that's hoping for something we haven't been able to get after repeated efforts so far. Wareh (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• COI is a problem when it harms content - for instance, affecting neutrality. I'm not convinced that trying to cite an extra source in history articles is very high on the "harm" scale, even if the source is only partially relevant.
• Although likely, it is not guaranteed that somebody citing one source repeatedly is the writer of that source. It might just be a third party who really loves that source sometimes when I find an interesting source I'll use it in a few articles before moving on.
• If the problems continue, then sure, technical countermeasures can be appropriate - but I think a potentially valuable new contributor should get one extra chance compared to the average kid who's been caught pasting "Joe is cool" 6-7 times into an article about their school. bobrayner (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yobot block

Yobot made an error which was reverted. The error was reported to the bots talk page. Subsequently the bot repeated the error. I then blocked the bot for edit warring. User:Magioladitis then unblocked the bot, apparently without fixing the problem. Are bots allowed to edit war? Are bot owners allowed to unblock their own bots? SpinningSpark 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Some notes. I usually load every list of pages twice. Everybody who follows Yobot's edits knows that I report and try to fix every bug. Since the task was over the block was unjustified. We also have a {{nobots}} to prevent a page by being edit by a bot. Moreover, Spinningspark is an involved editor. They shouldn't block. Additionally, 2 edits don't define an edit war. And this isn't all. Checking Spinningspark's log you'll find that they blocked for vandalism without giving final warning. You can see the back use of the block tool on Yobot's block log when they used "account creation blocked", fixed after 4 minutes and didn't leave a message on my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Check Special:Contributions/12.40.65.2 fo instance. The editor wasn't active at the moment of the block and didn't get a final warning. -- Magioladitis (talk)

• For clarity, how is Spark involved? And what does blocking vandals without final warning have to do with this? (I don't think you're going to find many admins jumping to undo a block of an IP with a few prior vandal warnings, but no "final" warning.) Anyway, while stating "edit warring" as a block reason isn't very good here, an automatic bot can be blocked for a repeated malfunction. The main questions, I would think, are whether these were malfunctions, whether it was going to be fixed, and whether a block was the appropriate way to handle the situation. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• I find it inappropriate the person who reverted the edit twice and works on the page to block. If this was an actual edit war it would be completely inappropriate to block the other party of the edit war or protect the page in your own version. Check Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION.
• Preventing a bot from editing because of a rare bug occuring in a single page by blocking it is also inappropriate. Thye are ways to do it.
• The bug is rare. I'll report it to AWB's talk page but the best solution until is fixed is to use {{nobots}} with |deny=AWB since the problem isn't only restricted to Yobot.
• With my examples I saw that Spinningspark is not familiar with the policy nor the tools and they are misusing them at the moment. IF they have made a block request for the above block, it would have been rejected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Bots that are broken are routinely blocked; the standards are not as high as with blocking actual editors. Yobot's user page directly says, "Administrators: if this bot continues causing harm after receiving a message, please block it". Since the bot made the same broken edit after receiving a message about it, blocking it is a reasonable response. Editing the bot's user page is supposed to stop the bot, so it's not clear why the edit would have happened a second time anyway.

I know I have pointed out to Magioladitis before the need for the Yobot not to re-do edits that are reverted; the bot can easily keep a list of pages it has edited and avoid editing them a second time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how Spinningspark is involved here, but by definition a user is involved in any situation that involves that user's bot. Carl is spot on with the blocking bit: we assume good faith with humans and with bot owners, but we can't assume good faith with the bots themselves, so it's always safer to block a bot temporarily until the owner can solve the problems. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• That unblock was highly inappropriate, basically akin to an admin unblocking themselves. Even if the block was placed in error, which I do not believe it was, we can't have admins undoing a block on one of their own accounts. WP:WHEEL is first-day reading material for administrators, I suggest a refresher course is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• The unblock wasn't inappropriate if the bot wasn't going to make that edit again. The unblock reason on the other hand... Prodego ^talk 03:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Boy, the unblock reason was very sketchy if you ask me. And unblocking your own bot 7 minutes after it was blocked is really inappropriate if there wasn't any conversation about the mistakes it was making (which there didn't appear to be). An edit warring bot to boot. And the "involved editor" bit....that's a odd interpretation of that concept. Hopefully there won't be a re-occurrence of this. RxS (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• The both of you(nevermind, Bot operator) should have gone about it better (repeated errors->block->friendly heads up->confirmed fix->unblock). Fixed bot? Hopefully this is stale now but the lack of discussion really makes this a shame that should not be repeated. NOBOT does not need to be used. Your bot should function properly. You guys both should have discussed it better to lift the block since it looks like everything was going to be fine. Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... how many times has this bot been blocked? And who keeps unblocking it, usually minutes later? Involved indeed... Doc talk 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If the block was right, we have to block all AWB bots until all bugs in AWB's bug page are fixed. This is nonsense. We have {{nobots}} for a reason. And I don't understand why Carl overcomes some facts: That the block reason was wrong, the blocking admin didn't contact me after the block and has a history of tools misuse. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot's been blocked seven times. Except for three of them (two unblocked by the blocking admins and one unblocked by you several hours later) the average time of your unblocking your own bot is seven minutes. To call a blocking admin involved in light of this is... unfortunate. Doc talk 06:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Involved to the article and I mean in the context of "Edit war" in which they blocked Yobot. I get as you agree it was not an edit war and the blocking reason was invalid. Take note that the first block was 100% wrong and they had to rethink about it. Block/stop a bot makes a sense if the bot makes a series of bad edits. Going back to the example of the anonymous IP you'll see that Spinningspark can't exactly understand when exactly an editor (or bot) is active or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Check this too: Special:Contributions/216.70.249.102. 1 year block to a school IP without schoolblock by the same administrator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

When you raise the specter of "involved", you must know very well that most think of "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved." You have been very involved in unblocking your own bot in five out of seven cases. You shouldn't unblock it the next time it screws up: hopefully that won't happen again, right? The world won't end if another admin looks at the circumstances before you unblock it... Doc talk 07:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Then we go back to the main question: Do you agree with the block and/or the block reason? I don't like the expression "screws up" so please rephrase. I have no objections to leave my bot blocked if it's malfunctioning or the community disagrees with its/my edits. The blocking reason was invalid and the block unreasonable. Feel free to reblock if you don't think so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment Without researching and digging into history, I'm just curious. (and note: I have a great deal of respect for both editors/admin.) Couldn't you guys have just talked this out a bit on your talk pages without escalating into noticeboard drama thread? Not enough research to comment on who was right or wrong, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what's expected here. If a bot is making bad edits, it should be blocked. If it's been fixed, it should be unblocked. Seems pretty easy to me. — Ched :  ?  07:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, this entire episode would be avoided if the admin who unblocked had communicated to the other admin about their reasons *before* unblocking. Two minutes dropping a comment onto their talk page and this wouldn't be an issue at all. To me, that is the ENTIRE issue now. It doesn't matter whether the bot messes up, malfunctions, or screws up. Communication is important, and that is where the actual malfunction is. Next time, drop a note to the person who makes the block before you undo their action 7 minutes later. That's the long and short of this, and I hope this message sinks in. -- Avanu (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll do next time. The bot didn't fix the issue and I don't it's gonna do on the next few weeks. Bot has more than 10 known bugs as all AWB bots and the AWB software itself. Just think what is the best way to handle these cases because bugs will keep coming. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Resolved? — Ched :  ?  09:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any acceptance by Magioladitis that bots should not re-do reverted edits which is the issue for me. This is a simple principle; bots don't take precedence over humans. Apparently, this has come up before according to Carl's post above. On why it was brought here, as far as I was concerned, the matter was ended after the first case when I reported the mistake to Yobot's talk page. I only blocked after I got no response there and Yobot made the edit again. If Magioladitis had responded to that with "sorry for the problem, but I'm working on it" or somesuch, again that would have been the end of it. His response was nothing of the kind, after self-unblocking and being asked on my talk page if he had fixed it or I should go to ANI, his reply was "Please report to ANI. Thanks". So now we are here, does Magioladitis accept that bots should not re-do reverted edits? SpinningSpark 15:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not really the point though, is it? If he agrees to communicate with the blocking admin before unblocking his bot, then whatever the issue, it will get discussed first. The errors you point out above seem rather minimal, and while I don't support introducing errors into Wikipedia, the only real problem here is that the bot was unblocked without any communication between the blocker and the blockee. Bots probably end up having issues occasionally. So that isn't unexpected. But what is expected, and what Magioladitis had agreed to do now and in the future is to discuss unblocks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My answer wasn't a result of impoliteness but I am rather busy in real life and with other stuff in Wikipedia. I always try to fix stuff. Since I didn't mark the report as "resolved" this means I leave it open to fix. Check my talk page and you ll fix all (or 99%) of the reports. I don't accept the block reason since I don't think the bot participated in any edit war and the problem could have been solved otherwise. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem fixed [32]. There were unbalanced brackets. Drama is over. Thanks and sorry for wasting your time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow-revert behaviour.

Resolved

 – PLAX... err, WP:BOOMERANG applied. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like someone to help me and User:Dreadstar to avoid a conflict. The user has followed all of my recent contributions (what, it itself, I don't think is a problem) and revert each on of them.

The last time I acessed Wikipedia, I've worked on:

• Asking for sources on the article about computer scientist Simon Peyton Jones,

  And Dreadstar fully reverted it.

• Removing non-free images, pov and asking for sources on the article about actor Shakeel,

  And Dreadstar fully reverted it.

• Asking for sources and removing bad link on the article about the organization Chilling Effects,

  And Dreadstar fully reverted it.

Also, in the artitcle about the writer Bill Kennedy, I mistakenly remove a whole paragraph (that I believed was) tagged as uncited, when the tag only referred to the last sentence. Dreadstar reverted not only my mistake, but also the removal of a bad external link I have done.

These blank reverts of virtually everything I tough is getting on my nerves. If we go further in the past, we will find more situations where it happened.

Dreadstar seems like a good editor, but with not much patience. I wish I could have more of his trust. --Damiens.rf 16:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you notify him of taking him to ANI? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs, he subtly notified me on my talk page.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagging every single uncited sentence in an article with {{fact}}, as you did with Simon Peyton Jones, is never a good idea, Damiens. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And with Chilling Effects, you stuck a {{who}} in the middle of a sentence that had cites at the end that answered the question. Again, not cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens has a long history of disruptive, drive-by tag-bombing on a very large number of articles, espeically problematic on WP:BLP's like this, where I first noticed this behavior. I've been trying to help him gain a greater understanding of the problems here,[33][34] and have added many sources to the articles he's done this to. Dreadstar ☥ 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, you tag bombed Simon Peyton Jones asking for cites when they were already there, so far as I'm concerned Dreadstar was right. On Shakeel, yes, there was a source to tripod, I doubt it's reliable, so yeah, asking for valid sources is ok. On Chilling Effects you tag bombed that one too and asked for references that were already there. Someone needs to stop, but I don't think it's Dreadstar. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 16:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And I just blocked him for edit warring "porn star" into the lede of Kira Reed with the edit summary "I hope this is not someone trying to force me on 3RR", without providing any citation to establish that the term actually applied.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's rather ironic,[35] given his fact-tag blitz. Unless there's some hidden fact not stated in the article, Kira Reed does not qualify as a "porn star". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin with protected talkpage

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.

and... this is why the page is protected :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Please see here for the discussion I had with Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about why she has a semi-protected talkpage without an alternative avenue for IPs to leave messasges, as stipulated by WP:UPPROT. She refused to account for this, and refused to do anything about it, and I think this to be inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not "stipulated by WP:UPPROT"; there's a difference between "should" and "must", and that wording was carefully chosen. Nothing to see here. – iridescent 16:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TreasuryTag, with respect, you seem to spend a fair amount of your wikitime raising minor matters and non-issues on ANI. It strikes me that it might be better if you did something else. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are IP's allowed to use e-mail? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Favonian (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

They are allowed to, but they can't Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You lost me at the bakery. OK, so if they have a legit need to communicate with an admin, what should they do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're using the indefinite article, then the vast majority of admins do not have semiprotected talk pages. If you mean the specific admin in question, then I suppose the answer right now is "not a lot". I don't think that's a particularly satisfying answer, but if it was specifically decided to allow for this then I suppose it's not a matter for ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Obviously I can't speak for Gwen and I don't know why her page is set up the way it is, but I can say I too have had mine semiprotected for a long while, and refuse to create another subpage. After the amount of harassment I've gone through, with vandalism of each and every page I let sit unprotected, it would defeat the purpose of the protection if I offered the harassers another alternative venue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but there's a solution: Create such a page, and then take it off your watch-list. Then they can rant and rave all day long, and you need not be bothered by it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, but that's like the old Usenet alt.flame newsgroup. Trolls don't want a place to just troll, they want to do it where they're not supposed to. I had my pages protected for a short bit recently due to some persistent d-baggery, and I really don't begrudge admins leaving theirs on for good. All you have to do is become autoconfirmed anyways to post on a semi page, so if someone's legitimately here to edit, they will meet that low threshold in short order. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So long as Gwen takes no admin actions against editors she refuses to receive communications from, there should be no problem. However, if she does take any such action, or make any comment about any such editor where here status as an admin is relevant, then she really should make an unprotected page available for them. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the reason Gwen Gale's page is set up like that. I will be glad to discuss it with anyone, but am always blocked. <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.14.103 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So my signature and e-mail address have already been blocked, there is some kind of flag on my IP, and nobody will address me here. After I just confessed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.14.103 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

By socking yet again, you are ruining the reputation of Illinois, if such a thing is possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not socking, I am posting from my dining room on my computer thru my IP. For a pithy remark, you assume bad faith, rather than actually listening. Illinois is right, I will post my address if someone will come to listen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.14.103 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked a month ago for... guess what... block evasion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• For anyone genuinely interested in how an ip can contact an admin with a semi protected talkpage (and no specific alterntive) the answer is; ...ask some other admin (or editor, in fact) to convey a message. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • And IP's get told this by Gwen, do they? DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• I will note that the defense to the sock accusation was "but I'm at my dining room table". That is just too awesome to pass unremarked on. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Users in the range 220.255.2.XXX

Edits such as [36] [37], [38] and others, from this range of IP addresses at Hard disk misunderstand or misrepresent MOS:NUMBERS; continuing removal of the IEC binary prefixes in a table that is intended to illustrate the difference between binary and decimal prefixes. The user(s) have had the issue explained several times. Doesn't seem to be an English comprehension issue. Odd IP-hopping behavior, with 5 or 6 addresses used in 30 minutes and different addresses in consecutive responses. Can't drop template on all of the Singapore ISP IP pages, but the subject appears to be aware of the problem he's causing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute, I have protected the page for a day. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IP user

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 month Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

174.54.34.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Just Today Harassment, and soap boxing. The IP seems pretty stable for over a month now been pretty disruptive and thus needs a vacation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I smell socks, just can't figure out where they are coming from. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My thought as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Several users smell pretty socky at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (3rd nomination). The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ComtesseDeMingrelie, edit-warring, and BRD

Resolved

 – Blocked as a sock of Polgraf. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs) is edit warring to make his change while ignoring any process of discussion. The issue first arose on Asia, where they added a footnote to Georgia, which is a list of oragnisations that have Georgia listed under a European category followed by a list under an Asian category. Now, that is all well and good, but while reverted twice by another user, who even included WP:BRD in edit summaries, they still reverted it in. It was after this point that I became involved, and entered discussion at Talk:Asia#Georgia as a transcontinental country (a discussion started by the user who first reverted). Even after discussion was ongoing, when another outside user reverted to the version before the edit warring and noted WP:BRD again, ComtesseDeMingerlie again reverted this. After this I redid the footnotes on the page, trying to form the compromise, and the Asia page was fully locked due to the edit war. Note I did not ask this in any way, and had no idea it was going to happen, but then ComtesseDeMingrelie noted suspicion on the talkpage that the page had been frozen at my version (while saying I had a zealous and narrow minded point of view), after which the blocking administrator posted an explanation on the talkpage explaining how he had protected the wrong version, and offering to revert back to the previous before-edit war version. While all this was going on ComtesseDeMingrelie decided to add the footnote to Western Asia (which they had never edited before), which I reverted, as well as making other changes qualifying the UN's inclusion of Georgia in Asia. I got into a bit of an edit war here admittedly, but the point is the user never once went to discussion (and, coincidentally, never added the footnote to Eastern Europe). I raised it on their talkpage, to which they responded that I was using discussion to try and push a POV, indicating that they did not wish to discuss at all. They then posted a message on my page, more explicitly stating they did not want to edit, as well as stating I was trying to get pages locked into my preference, even though the wrong version was explained to them by the administrator locking the Asia page.

In summary, the user absolutely point blank refuses to discuss the edits, despite being reverted by multiple people, while insisting I am only using the edits to push my own POV in my zealous narrow minded point of view. Could someone please explain to this user that they need to discuss their edits if reverted, and what a POV is. Thank you, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has also made similar edits to Middle East[39] and Geography of Georgia (country)[40], in the second one even removing Asian templates from the page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how much of a problem this is. These disputes about border countries have been a periodic problem on Europe. At the same time as the recent edits by CdM, there have been related edits by unrelated IPs, probably a single IP-hopping account. These have affected the principal map of Europe, The clickable country titles on that map were colour-coded two or more years ago to indicate the status of (a) the five countries that spanned Europe and Asia (the continguous transcontinental countries) and (b) three countries geographically outside Europe, but considered to be in Europe for historical and cultural reasons. The IP-hopper has elsewhere edited to remove Georgia from lists of countries in Asia and to state that Georgia is European. Unforunately the status of Georgia is ambiguous and has always been so. The IP-hopper, seemingly disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT, has at the same time been changing the labelling of the template {{Europe and Sea}} to indicate that Metropolitan France, the Netherlands and Portugal might span more than one continent. It is true that Italy and Greece have islands geographically in Africa and Asia repectively; that the United Kingdom has overseas territories in North and South America (particularly the Carribean); that France outre-mer has island territories geographically outside Europe but counted among the French départements; and similarly for the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. But these vestiges of colonialism are unrelated to the ambiguities in the borders of Europe, which is the problem that the labelling of the map addresses. To prevent further attacks on the template, the map has been transferred wholly into the article Europe, as was originally the case prior to the creation of the template. The article is permanently semiprotected whereas the semiprotection of the template, although requested, has not happened yet. The three IPs are 141.161.133.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 141.161.40.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 141.161.133.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing from Georgetown University in Washington DC. The first IP was already blocked on 3 April for problematic edits also concerned with the status of Georgia. Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking back at the situation at Asia, it seems that ComtesseDeMingrelie was perhaps the front runner in participating in the edit war. I also do note that ComtesseDeMingrelie was recently blocked for edit warring. At first, Mathsci and ComtesseDeMingrelie had a dispute which spanned a couple of days. This resulted in them having a compromise. Another dispute soon followed revolving the same issue. Amakuru tried to remedy this situation by reverting to the pre-edit war version. However, ComtesseDeMingrelie disagreed again and reverted back to what he/she calls the consensus version. To me at least, there was no consensus reached based on the discussion.

I also checked a possibility of rangeblock on the IPs above and it seems we'll have a bit of collateral and there's quite a number of related pages being edited. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 12:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The main point is to have a stable situation. This a recurrent problem, which was more or less solved on Europe by including a detailed and sourced historical account of the borders and possibly over-detailed footnotes. Since I only watched Asia when a user started adding the words "eurocentric" to the lede of both articles, I have no idea of the history on Asia. I was happy with the version prior to the edits and the compromise. Thanks for looking at the IPs. Mathsci (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The main point I think is that in these areas we can not afford leniency with editors who don't respect our policies about editwarring, sources and dispute resolution. From what I have seen of Comtesse, she does not.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of post is not very encouraging.[41] Mathsci (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny how everyone accuses me of not discussing changes when I wrote paragraph and paragraphs on Asia page during my exchange with Mathsci. Chipmunk did not show up until we laready placed the footnotes in the article. Moreover, the user who blocked the page did not block it on pre-edit war page, he blocked it on the version created by Chipmunkdavis. He is the one who continuously reverted what I believed was a consensus on Asia page and he himself received a notice from Mathsci regarding this - I did not start the edit war and I will not be singled out. Chipmuunk may cite as many rules and regulations as he likes, for him it breaks down to only one thing - ensuring that nothing against his views is included in the article. As you may see, the pages in dispute are quite one-sided as they are.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, nothing I don't like is added to the article, explaining why I compromised on adding footnotes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And BTW, user Maunus has long tolerated and encouraged separatist propaganda on Georgia-related articles and I refuse to deal with him in any way possible as I put in question his intentions. Not letting him have his way on the aforementioned articles is the reason why he is here in the first place, taking so much time to spread lies. If there is anyone who has been "lenient" with editors like you, Maunus, it is me, and that is only because I am powerless against technocrats who wield certain powers that I do not have. If you had the audacity of denying me my identity and spreading lies that Mingrelians are not Georgian, in conjunction with other lunatics on the page, you have probably nothing else left to surprise me with. This all breaks down to marginalizing Georgia in every way possible, and not rules and regulations and endless discussion, which is what they all hide behind once all is set in place as they like.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

These statements by CdM are not helpful at all and misrepresent Maunus completely. Is WP:DIGWUREN relevant here? Mathsci (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@ComtesseDeMingrelie: You disagreed over the pre-edit war version as well. As I stated previously, another user reverted to the pre-edit war version which you reverted. It's hard to tell what will make you happy since you disagreed both Chipmunkdavis's version and the pre-edit war version but now you want it at the pre-edit war version. I can and will revert to the pre-edit war version. However, I need an agreement with the warring parties for me to do so. Pages that are fully protected have to remain in the last version. The only non-discussion changes an admin can make are undoing obvious vandalism, copyright or libel. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot understand what I agree with? Then I'm afraid you have not read the discussion I had with Mathsci on Asia page. What I agree with was agreed upon there, and also existed on Europe page with no problems, until, of course, Chimpunkdavis popped out of the blue and made a big deal out of nothiing. If not him, I am confident that no one would make such a big noise about any of the footnotes, not just the one made by Mathsci. He is the one who caused the initial disruption and now pretends to be editing in good faith, when all he is trying to do is to use endless discussions as a means of effectively preventing any substantial changes to the one-sidedness of the article, which he seems to agree with.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is "one-sided" about the Asia article? One of the points discussed on the talk page was that the article Europe was twice the length of the article Asia. In particular it has a more elaborate system of notes. Chipmunkdavis was starting to emulate that structure of notes on Asia as a part of a general cleanup, just before the page was locked. Mathsci (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Asia page is one sided because it is based entirely on the UN Statistics Department classification, including the regional divisions on the main list, as well as all of the maps that are present.My note that the UN assignment was for "statistical convenience" was removed on every page by chimpunkdavis, which shows that he is against changing the one-sideness even though the UN Statistics Department itself says that their classification is not what it is taken to be on this page. I wonder how long they will keep suppressing this truth.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words and it gives a different impression of what you are saying. The fact that you reverted an editor who reverted to the pre-edit war version shows that you were not in support of having the pre-edit war version. Now the page is protected you want the article to be reverted to a one of the versions that you were not in support of? Based on that revert, the impression that I got was that even I had reverted the article to the pre-edit war version, you still would have been unhappy. The only way that would have made you happy is if I reverted to your version which is not allowed under policy. Furthermore, consensus is not final and can change anytime. See WP:Consensus can change. The discussion between you and Mathsci is not binding at all. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Elockid is right here. Certainly I did a double check on CdM's editing history once I saw what Maunus had written and what CdM had then written about Maunus. Also it's clear that Chipmunkdavis is quite keen on improving Asia and that is a very good thing. I'm not taking sides here and consensus is not formed by alliances. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just noting here that, unlike what the Comtesse is saying, I have not reverted the addition of the note to every page, whether I want to or not. For example, I have not reverted on Middle East. I have also not reverted on Geography of Georgia (country), to which it was inserted into with no edit summary and along with a variety of POV changes including removing the Asian Templates. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a non-adminstrator, a very basic editor, never on this page before! But the personal attacks, blind reverting, nationalist POV, and other most unpleasant "contributions" from Comtesse have been as disturbing to me as any that I've seen over the years. Some of his "contributions" such as "you other two clowns", "you organized group of thugs" (directed at other editors!)' "you Armeanians (SIC) hold almost all distinctions that can possibly exist in the world but this is not the page for you to brandish them..." "cesessionist propaganda " and his "End of story" and "I'll never change my mind" attitude has been most unhelpful. Just a outside view, for what it's worth. (And if a character reference is in order for Chipmunkdavis, I've noticed his expert yet calm, patient work for a long time.) DLinth (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ComtesseDeMingrelie is blocked as a sockpuppet of Polgraf (talk · contribs). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izzedine for additional information. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A page 'violating' election law? Legal threat?

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

No action required. This is playing itself out at AfD.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premiership of Stephen Harper where a group of 5 articles have been nominated for Afd. Editor there insists that the pages "...constitute illegal advertising..." "...may also be of concern to the Chief Electoral Officer..." and are in "...contravention of election laws...". I believe this is bollocks and thought I would post here to alert an administrator, given these may amount to legal threats. Outback the koala (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat? I observed that the retention of highly questionable SPAM/POV/UNDUE articles on a given party/leader in the context of an election campaign is in contravention of Canadian election-advertising/spending laws and falls in the same category as COPYVIO, BLP and other legal liabilities which Wikipedia must observe. To me your launching of this ANI is just a way to silence my objection to the existence of these articles, which you claim can be merged with other articles - but have made no attempt to do so, nor to fix their overtly POV/SPAM intent/nature. You are being disingenuous in the extreme in calling my pointing out Canadian election laws as a "legal threat", and to me it seems that this is a case of "kill the messenger".Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF? Someone closed this topic - I am in no way trying to silence you. I am simply looking for further guidence. If the law has been violated we should contact the authorities and the Wikipedia foundation. I am not personnally attacking you in any way. Outback the koala (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The WMF follows US law. It can hardly follow simultaneously the separate law of every jurisdiction about which an article is written. If something might possibly violate Canadian law then those subject to Canadian jurisdiction should be cautious, but it's their look-out , as with everything else they do in life. Anyone who wishes to complain about this should complain to the foundation, from whom they will do doubt get a polite letter explaining this at greater length. What NLT means is that, if anyone intends to take legal action about an article or article, they should not simultaneously comment on the articles or edit them. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks DGG. So I would be free to contact my local police or ministry offical on my own time, but it's not really the place for the foundation. Is this correct? Outback the koala (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way. We've got graphic portrayals of Muhammad in some of our articles. These images clearly violate the law of several different countries - but not U.S. law, so the images remain. However, if the poor slob who uploaded one of those images happens to live in one of those countries, and if he's found out, then he might find himself prosecuted by his country. That's his problem. Likewise, unless the U.S. has some sort of treaty with Canada regarding its election laws, it's simply not a U.S. (or a Wikipedia) problem. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, then again, the US has strict laws (not often enforced) against US companies interfering in political/governmental processes in other countries....and being liable for any such activity.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What you're effectively saying is that if a Canadian party/candidate takes out advertising on TV stations and newspapers reaching Canadian markets (which is often the case - in 90% of cities in fact), then that's OK? That those companies can't be charged with violating Canadian election laws by Canadian authorities, only the parties/candidates in question can be? I think you'd find out you're very wrong about that....Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Canada can do what it wants to its own companies, but I don't know if Canada could do anything to a US company that did the same (unless that company did business in Canada). Monty₈₄₅ 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Advertising in Canada, cross-border, is indeed doing business in Canada.....and that's why Canadian election ads aren't tolerated on Seattle, Detroit etc TV stations...somewhere in the Free Trade Agreement, also, there are items about expressly this kind of responsibility.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Before continuing in this thread, please find proof that websites based in Florida are required to abstain from this type of content. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the content in question has to be obviously advertising of some kind for the rules to come into effect even within Canada. An article on the premiership of the Prime Minister which anyone can edit and which nobody paid for and which could allege the most arrant nonsense is not obviously advertising, and is in fact the kind of third-party "let's see what crap Leader X has trotted out this week" stuff that's produced by every TV station, radio station, and newspaper from the Globe and Mail all the way up to the mighty Inuvik Drum. There are no rules about reporting, only about promoting. This is reporting. (Also, the rules regarding advertising on Seattle, Spokane, Fargo, etc. TV stations are enforced by the locally owned cable companies which block the ads out. --NellieBly (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Winkleross merge

I am not sure where else to get help. There has been a discussion on whether to merge Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss pages. The discussion has gone on for half a year. It doesn't seem like anybody on either side of the issue, (merging or not merging) cares enough to close the discussion. Being a partisan on the issue, I personally don't feel qualified to determinate the results of the discussion. I don't know if we can start merging it, or if we should just close the discussion. It would be good for a neutral party to make that determination. Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Facebook stuff has everyone distracted. These guys are Olympic athletes, right? So they're individually notable as Olympic athletes. --NellieBly (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to link the talk page. Talk:Cameron Winklevoss. Note that the discussion spans several sections. I am not posting here is not so much to discuss wither or not the pages should be merged. I am asking this because I am not sure how to end the discussion being made about the merge. I have no clue what consensus has determined, and don't feel qualified to end the discussion. Oldag07 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

India v. South Asia

The following editors have, IMO, gamed the system to have their way when the broader Wikipedia community opposed a move request, something which all of them had supported.

• Mar4d (talk · contribs · block log)
• Athenean (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · block log)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · block log)
• Huon (talk · contribs · block log)

Neutral and uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the situation, rectify it (by deleting List of South Asian inventions and discoveries and restoring List of Indian inventions and discoveries to a state where content was not removed due to "duplication") and take appropriate action against the editors per WP:GAME and WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

Timeline

• Around March 19th, Fowler&fowler made a move request to move the article titled List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries (which was a redlink till very recently).

• By March 27, the move request had more or less failed but it was still open when Fowler&fowler encouraged User:Mar4d to go ahead and create List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Mar4d did so soon afterward.

• On the basis of this newly created article/list, Gun Powder Ma started removing content from the original List of Indian inventions and discoveries calling it "double entries" because the same or similar content now existed in the newly created List of South Asian inventions and discoveries.

• Because the move request was still open and newer people were still arriving at the discussion to oppose the move ("WP:FAITACCOMPLI", 2nd oppose, "no consensus"), I pointed out that this was a case of gaming the system and WP:FAITACCOMPLI (also pointed out by another editor) and reverted the removals. My revert was then undone by User:Athenean.

Zuggernaut (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I was fooled by the proposed move template, which states: "The discussion may be closed after 7 days of being opened, if consensus has been reached." Seven days had elapsed, and consensus seemed to have been reached on a proposal almost everyone agreed on before the first of the "new" oppose !votes Zuggernaut links to arrived. RegentsPark pointed out that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions actually has a little more to say, which I acknowledged here. I still don't think that implementing a solution which at that time almost anybody but Zuggernaut agreed on counts as gaming the system. Huon (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I too was under the impression that a valid consensus had been reached on the talkpage (Not counting a couple of !votes, it was 8-2 or something like that at the time). Moreover, Zuggernaut's revert undid several valid, unrelated intervening edits, which I found inappropriate. Combined with the absence of any talkpage posting by this editor, but instead canvassing [42] [43], and spurious accusations of "gaming the system", I deemed his revert disruptive and undid it. In general, it is my impression Zuggernaut has been disruptive in this discussion, as he has canvassed [44] in non-neutral fashion (note the wording), launched into personal attacks against others [45] [46], and largely been absent from the discussion only to return a week later to claim "consensus" (and then more canvassing). Athenean (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and support positions were running neck and neck right from the start and at almost no stage of the move proposal was there any consensus. So even before the new votes arrived it was clear that the move was doomed. As for Athenean and you not understanding the text in the move template ("The discussion may be closed after 7 days...) and pursuing another 'solution' with an identical title could have be viewed as a problem of competence if [you were newbies but given that both of you have thousands of edits on Wikipedia over the years, it is a clear case of gaming the system. You should be topic banned from editing articles on Indian history. I see that revert/edit warring has been a pattern with Athenean as is reflected by his block logs. More recently this person received an interaction ban as a part of Wikipedia:ARBMAC enforcement. A topic ban on Athenean will help us all keep the focus on improving articles in the limited time we have. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone needs to be topic banned for the sake of progress, it is you, for canvassing, assumptions of bad faith, major incivility and general disruption on this topic (and now mudslinging by bringing up something completely unrelated to this topic). Talk about gaming the system. Athenean (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be under the impression that you will get away by obfuscating the situation. Let's wait until what other admins have to say and if either of us are not satisfied with the outcome of ANI, we can start take it through WP:DRR where Fowler is headed anyway and you can come along as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Zuggernaut, was not a part of the regular discussion on the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries page. He has an old gripe with me from the Talk:India page and was there in the "inventions and discoveries" discussion for only one purpose, and that was to oppose me. Unfortunately for him, he managed to confess said purpose in one of the rare posts he made on that page. Said he, crossing in the process the line between reality and fantasy several times:

"It has nothing to do with your opposition to the project proposal and more to do with your patronizing and arrogant attitude which you have repeatedly displayed on Talk:India. In addition, I will scrutinize each and every proposal coming from you on my watchlist for your strong and demonstrated anti-India, pro-British bias. Your edits throughout Wikipedia demonstrate this bias and have included separating out Indians and British by ethnicity when the situation is ugly so you can put the blame on those of Indian ethnicity ..."

This means, of course, that if I support/oppose something, Zuggernaut will naturally oppose/support it, on the logic that I am demonstrating my anti-India and pro-British bias. What "India vs. South Asia" has to do with it, beats me. If anything, "South Asia" is more American and international usage, Britain (still fondly remembering its Indian empire in the haze of an after dinner pipe and port) would likely go for "Indian." As for the real discussion that began on March 1, there were some regular discussants; these were: Gunpowder Ma, Athenean, Huon, SSeagal, Mdw0, Wikireader41, SpacemanSpiff, Mar4d. In this discussion, Zuggernaut made two appearances, both on March 1 (his first ones); once in a humorous vein and the other to (predictably) protest my tagging the article. He then disappeared for three weeks, while the regular discussants labored through all the permutations and combinations of words in the various proposed names. They considered stopping the "List of Indian inventions ..." at 1947, they considered Gunpowder Ma's proposal to create a new "List of inventions and discoveries in the Indus Valley Civilization," ... Predictably, Zuggernaut was absent from all those discussions. However, when I finally proposed a page move, Zuggernaut was the first one to register an "oppose," confessing, in the process, the real reason (quoted above) for his appearance.

He then canvassed. At first, in this somewhat provocatively worded post on the "Noticeboard of India related topics" in the hopes that putatively "Indian" editors there would naturally oppose a page move in which their beloved "India" was being deleted. When the editors there didn't bite, he appeared in this discussion, accompanied by music from the Twilight Zone, on the Talk:India page. His fellow conspiracy theorist there has meanwhile added an oppose vote as well, having been no part of the "India vs. South Asia" discussion.

Now for the page move and the votes. First, the page has not been moved. My proposal was not implemented. What has been implemented is Gunpowder Ma's proposal. That proposal had 8 support votes—not just the six who supported my proposal, but also Shovon76 (who merely commented on my proposal) and AshwiniKalantri (who opposed my proposal). In other words, we reasoned that the vote count among the regular discussants one week later for Gunpowder Ma's proposal, which did not involve any explicit page move, was 8 to 2 not including Zuggernaut's drive-by vote.

Sadly, for Wikpedia there is now a type of editor, of which Zuggernaut is a good example, who spends his energies not in adding content (Zuggernaut has added precious little (read zero) to the "List of Indian invention and discoveries" page), or for that matter to the India page, but in holding forth every now and then on the deep ideological biases involved in the work of those who actually do add content, and in leaving no stone unturned in their path to help them trip. As the New York Times reported last year, a large proportion of Wikipedia editors left in 2010. I'm afraid that trend is only going to continue if Wikipedia doesn't stop a handful of disruptive editors from heeding the clarion call of their conspiracy theories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fowler&fowler. Zuggernaut was mostly absent from and participated little in the discussion, realized too late that a consensus had crystallized and is now trying to undo community consensus via the noticeboard. I don't see any bad faith on the part of the users listed above, all has been only done after lengthy discussions taking over two weeks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh. Another tedious encounter with our modern-day Indian wiki-nationalists. Zuggernaut has arguably merited a page-ban for stalking Fowler - which is, self-admittedly, his entire reason for being there - and CarTick apparently lacks the ability to follow a coherent argument. Someone really needs to sort this out and deal with the issues of consensus-stacking, canvassing, harassment and disruption. Moreschi (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is not Zuggernaut's first attempt at canvassing and will not be his last (there are at least two ANIs where this has been discussed), he has consistently used provocative language and posts to canvass his positions on WT:INB. The only reason he canvassed me (per Athenean's statement above) this time is because I had a mild disagreement with Fowler on this particular issue. I'm not entirely convinced that a name change is in order at the present time, although I can appreciate the arguments in favor. It's not a page ban that's needed but a topic ban that's required here. See the history on Talk:India where his proposal was rejected in September, then he comes back a few months later adding the same POV stuff in claiming that there was consensus in September, then in the face of complete opposition starts an RFC and keeps arguing the same points again and again. —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't commented on the move discussion (and would oppose it actually), but this Zuggernaut Vs Fowler thing is getting a little bit out of hand. Though Fowler doesn't help things with his sharp remarks and pithy edit summaries, Zuggernaut's behaviour is getting tiresome - he has a pretty strong POV on this issue. He has even suggested that projects to distribute wikipedia articles offline in india, go through the contribution history of articles to check for "known editors who have a known POV issue". Read the whole thing - he is actually suggesting a "pre approved editor list" for india related wikipedia articles that are selected for distribution. It gives me the creeps. Apparently, if you are non-Indian and you dont agree with him, you dont count; and if you are an Indian and you dont agree with him you are a "Brown Sahib" [47]. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps it is time for a topic ban on zuggernaut. I have opposed the move proposal but it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the merits of a proposal or on alternative titles when persistent POV pushers with an agenda are around. The persistent resurrection of topics that don't get consensus (see the Talk:India history pointed out by SpacemanSpiff above), the references to brown sabibs noted by Sodabottle (not, I am sorry to say, for the first time[48]), the long list of acronyms in the complaint above, these are all examples of an editor with a single minded agenda to insert his own POV into wikipedia. I suggest a topic ban on all articles related to Indian history. --rgpk (comment) 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

let us not forget the English nationalist POV pushed by Fowler. His edits across wikipedia promoting British East India Company, attempts to forecefully define Indian history to have started from English intervention and his recent attempts to separate Indian history from South asian history thus resorting to history revisionism requires a topic ban for Fowler as well. his relentless English nationalistic POV brings out the worst among other contributing editors. --CarTick (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen anything by Fowler&fowler during the move discussion that I recognized as pro-English POV pushing. Could you please provide relevant diffs if you argue for a topic ban? Huon (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

because he didnt do that. what he did in that move discussion was history revisionism. i am sure you didnt notice that! will provide evidences when topic ban is seriously considered. dont want to waste my time for nothing. --CarTick (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on your view that Fowler&fowler has an "English POV"? Because I don't know what this means in this context and I haven't seen any of it yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Zuggernaut does have a very strong POV on issues regarding India and the British. If you look at Talk:British Empire, about two thirds of archive 12 and most of archive 13 are filled with threads started by him or exacerbated by him trying to add information about famines in India and how they were completely the fault of the British. Back then he was also canvassing and forum shopping to try and get his way (at one point contacting the Ireland noticeboards to try and get them to comment on whether information about famines should be in the article). His POV is very clear when he makes comments such as "I'm sure, free and democratic nations such as India would have industrialized or even surpassed Europe in the industrialization" as a reason for including economic information about India in the British Empire article (seen in this thread). Notably when discussing this article he had another editor pegged as a British POV warrior, similar to fowler now. Zuggernaut has twice before used AN/I to try and censure other editors (search for "Zuggernaut" here and here, both of which were remarkable flops. The current disruption has been caused because he found this inventions article and objected to the move to South Asia, which is fair enough. However, he provided no solutions to the issue at hand, and it trying to maintain that the article List of Indian inventions and discoveries should include inventions from all over the Indian subcontinent/South Asia/India before 1947, and for all inventions from the Republic of India as well, going as far as to ask for sources calling ancient inventions Pakistani. I dislike the idea of a topic ban, as the user does make good contributions to some India articles; however there does seem to be some sort of need for it as the same behavioural patterns have continued until now. Perhaps just one relating to Indian/British history, under the discretion of an administrator or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• This remarkable bit of logic just appeared, "reliable sources consider IVC a part of India and per WP:Commonname, India equates to the Republic of India." I leave it up to others to make sense of this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• If others want to take the time to discuss this, I support a topic ban of Zuggernaut as there is plenty of reason to believe the nationalistic POV pushing will never end voluntarily. One clear example was a suggestion here (permalink) that text be added to Famine in India to say that due to his racist views, Winston Churchill had deliberately ignored pleas for emergency food aid and had left the population to starve. Despite the fact that the "refusal" was in 1943 at the height of World War II, Zuggernaut did not want to consider the possibility that the failure to ship food might have been influenced by the war—further than that, Z did not even want the war mentioned, saying "World War II is more or less European history and I think its a distraction in this discussion" (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That might sound displeasing to Churchill's supporters. but he seems within bounds to suggest that sentnence as i hope he had reliable references to back up his claim. however, the decision to include or exclude the sentence should depend on several other factors, WP:Due being one important. it is a content dispute and he clearly has a pro-Indian POV. what about other editors with pro-English and anti-Indian POVs? --CarTick (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• So, is a topic ban being planned for Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and, if so, how will it proceed? Will RegentsPark and Morsechi (and SpacemanSpiff?), being admins, take the initiative, or will they invite some other admin? Please let us participants here know what is being planned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions

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.

Closed as consensus for imposing all four points. There is consensus in general to impose the restrictions with only limited opposition. Point #3 has slightly less support, but enough that I am happy to impose it. The comments below suggesting mentorship are also good, and I will include this in my notification to Zuggernaut --Errant ^(chat!) 08:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) is indefinitely:

1. topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia.

2. banned from interacting with or commenting about Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), directly or indirectly, anywhere on Wikipedia. This means Zuggernaut is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of this user.

3. subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits, comments, or actions which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages. The ban will take effect after it has been logged here and the administrator has posted a notice on his user talk page. If he is specifically not banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.

4. banned from List of Indian inventions and discoveries and List of South Asian inventions and discoveries due to inappropriate canvassing in relation to these 4 pages. Note to closing admin: this last measure is to be logged as an enforcement action of the probation listed at 3.

• Proposed. Interaction ban warranted after [49] & [50]. Enforcement of probation warranted after canvassing (note the wording for the lack of neutrality). The repeated POV-pushing warrants the topic ban and need for supervised editing - see other diffs in the above discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I suspect we may need more evidence presented in order to gain a consensus on this broad proposal, but my observations over the last few months have convinced me that some form of topic ban would be the only way to provide a stable editing environment. My above comment with timestamp "05:04, 30 March 2011" has one example of unhelpful POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose that he has pro-Indian POV (which i dont deny) can not be a reason for such broader bans. everyone comes with a bias. that he has no blocks logged indicates he has worked within the boundaries of wikipedia policies and guidelines. looks like an effort to get rid of a serious opposition to pro-English and anti-Indian POV pushers. --CarTick (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that Ncmvocalist is not acting in good faith? Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • nope, i am not. please dont put words in my mouth. i just disagree with him. most of the ban proposers had fought with Zuggernaut in pro-English and anti-Indian camps in various talk pages and i dont expect them to be objective. so, i would say Ncmvocalist is one of the uninvolved here. we should consider where the opposition comes from. i dont want to accuse everyone of holding a grudge against Z. some are sincerely worried about the way Fowler vs Zuggernaut rivalry is playing out in various talk pages. i have my own reservations about Z but i dont think we have sufficient background for topic ban yet. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • i have such a bad memory. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey, Ncmvocalist and many others including myself were defending YellowMonkey. ncmvocalist was quite vocal in his defense. the RFC was filed by User:Yogesh Khandke over a block. Zuggernaut was there opposing YellowMonkey. therefore it is wrong to say Zuggernaut and Ncmvocalist have never interacted. just clarifying. --CarTick (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • It appears that you have no idea what the meaning of uninvolved is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • My preference was to avoid losing the user's contributions from all areas of the project when the problems seem to be when he is editing in relation to these topics. But to take an example; arbitration examines the conduct of all involved parties, and as you are one of them in this case, your own conduct could be the subject of a finding of fact. Is it necessary to get to that point before the problem can be addressed through a binding voluntary agreement? If we want to think about blocks, to take you as an example again, your edit-warring in the mainspace ([51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]) was worthy of a block...but do you really want blocks to be used? These two ways of dealing with the issues are a last resort, and the restrictions I've proposed are to avoid the need for that in the future, particularly if in the case of the Zuggernaut, he can conduct himself more appropriately and provide useful contributions in other topics. Incidentally, having a POV is not the problem; what is a problem is when it is pushed in a way which is disruptive and inappropriate; the canvassing, the comments I linked to above which were directed to Fowler, and what Johnuniq has shared earlier, are just a few examples of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral: This seems too harsh. The civility restriction I can agree with, and while we're at it we might consider a WP:1RR restriction to head off edit warring. However, I've seen his most recent interaction with me (on a naming proposal to end the debate that seemingly started all this) to be civil and in compliance with relevant policy. Obviously the consensus hasn't been judged yet, and I'd be curious to see what his attitude will be when/if the consensus is judged to be against his point of view on the matter. N419BH 14:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I did consider 1RR, but I think it simply slows the edit-warring down to a point of exhausting everyone involved rather than resolving the underlying concern. That (to me anyway) seems pointless and will just exhaust precious time unnecessarily when it could be spent addressing the content issues. I'm not going to waste time trying to prevent the inevitable (I've been here far too long to try to meddle with what is destined to happen, be it an arbitration case, or more frequent usage of the blocking tool to prevent the problems). But at least after reading this discussion, nobody in the future can complain that there was a shortage of practical good faith proposals at the time (which is now). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to Support in light of Zuggernaut's response, which clearly indicates a total lack of understanding of the issues at hand and is full of wikilawyering. Enough. N419BH 03:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Limited Support: As I said above, Zuggernaut has done good work (a few GA's etc.) in some areas, and I don't wish to see him shut out of areas of editing unnecessarily. The topic ban range under 1 sounds feasible, although perhaps could be trimmed down to just British history, unless similar problems exist for other time scales. As for 2, I'm not sure if this will help. Fowler's not the only editor Zug's had these issues with, and frankly I don't think Fowler gives a damn (he can correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, Fowler works on many Indian related articles, so this may push Zuggernaut out of non-history areas as well. I'm not sure what 3 will work, although if it's creating a place where administrators can look over complaints that sounds good. As for 4, that seems to depend on 3. In the end, what I really wish for Zuggernaut to understand is that just because information he wants to place about how India's economy was destroyed, or how Churchill was racist, or how famines were caused by the British, was not added to the article due to other editors does not mean that the article is controlled by a British cabal, or that the editors involved are pro-English and anti-Indian. He should make sure he's not out on a mission to right great wrongs and fix the systematic bias of the wiki, and needs to understand that opposition to his pro-India edits does not mean a systematic bias is being enforced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Changed to support. As seen in his response below, Zuggernaut just doesn't understand what it wrong, and refuses to acknowledge he's violated guidelines on editing. His claim he doesn't know if he has violated canvass is (per his want to call things a spade) complete bullshit. A previous time he was accused of canvassing, he asked about it here, and was told that it was indeed canvassing. After that he made a request (section below that) to change the guideline to allow people to ask others to vote with them. He has even edited the actual guideline. Another user additionally noted in the discussion that he was forum shopping, which he has also done at the systematic bias page, and arguably has done with this and previous AN/I's. In summary, he has broken editing guidelines, and he knows it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• From my brief time spent looking at this problem and being involved at the list page, I'll support 2 (very strongly, as he's openly admitted wikistalking), 3 (clearly necessary), and 4. 1 is probably a little OTT for now, and can easily be implemented under 3 later if necessary. Best, Moreschi (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3 and 4 per my reasons above. --rgpk (comment) 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 2, 3, and 4, particularly 2 due to odious wikistalking. Athenean (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 3 without reservations. At this point this is a necessary measure, given the past behavior on various topics (Famine in India, India, British Empire etc etc). 4 is just a subset of 1, so I'm not sure it needs to be called out, but it has my support nevertheless. As far as 2 goes, I think it's necessary in principle, but the behavior is not restricted to F&f, so something broader would be preferred in terms of addressing the issue of wikistalking and not just interaction with one editor. That said, there's also the problem of one-way interaction bans (although there's no reason to make this a two-way ban currently) being that there's always the possibility of the perception of the banned party not being able to respond etc. —SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 2 and 3. (4 comes under 1) We all come here with our biases, but most of us learn to suppress the worst of them and work within the limitations wikipedia imposes on us. In the past, i had hoped Zuggernaut would change his ways and use his obvious talent to do some good work; But his disruptive behaviour far outweighs the article work he has done. I dont believe any editor who advocates censorship based on nationality, wikistalks, throws out insults like "brown sahib", "acting white" would be a net positive to India related articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Since I am mentioned by name in the proposal, I won't express an opinion on Zuggernaut. I will say that Zuggernaut was not the only one accusing people of anti-India and pro-British bias; CarTick, too, on the Talk:India page was accusing me, and Chipmunkdavis as well, of such bias, repeatedly accusing me of having "sneaked in" the reference to the British East India Company in the lead, and making me out to be a 21st century lobbyist for the East India Company on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support: For an amazing disregard for the dignity of other editors. For a shameless modus operandi of canvassing, race- and nationality-baiting, and bulldozing through painstakingly built consensus. For a lack of demonstrated self-improvement and compromise, revealing an incorrigible POV crusader attitude. Quigley (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support; Nationalist pov-pushing is incredibly destructive (it either wears down the productive editors, or it consumes all their time). bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor in question has not a single block, so their editing has been well within the confines of existing policies and guidelines. A case of canvassing (perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't) is not reason enough for what is essentially an "India" topic ban -- EVERYTHING relating to India is part of its history!!! Mentoring may be a better option, instead of drastic measures such as being proposed here. What is it with a community which would rather ban editors - because that is the easy way out! --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Z has a series of POV positions, if he looses them in one article he tries again elsewhere. Time for him to take a break. I would support a tighter restriction namely Indian History issues where the British Empire is involved as that is his strong PoV issue (much as I dislike the Empire we need to be neutral). Also he shows no sign of understanding the issue which means he really needs a mentor regardless of what sanction if any is agreed. --Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed bans are against natural justice as there has not been a single block in past. Also the proposed bans are disproportionate to the crimes allegedly committed by the editor. A formal warning should suffice to start with. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Russavia & Shyamsunder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentontunic (talk • contribs) 12:49, 7 April 2011
• Support 1, 2, and 3. 4 is merely a explicit example of 1, and does not need to be formally defined. What we have here is a POV pusher who has engaged in canvassing- the evidence clearly shows this. Our system of blocks does not readily adapt itself to such behaviour, as specific examples are usually not worth a block in and of themselves, or are uncovered too late for a block to be anything other than punitive. Also, it is unstated that violations may be met by a block by an uninvolved administrator, but if the closing admin's decision is to enact these restrictions, it should be explicitly stated. Courcelles 14:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it might be appropriate to state it explicitly due to the circumstances which led to this (this step is being tried prior to blocks/ban from editing the entire site; almost the last resort). I usually loathe spelling it out though because anything which hasn't been stated ought to be covered by policy, and it can mean less scope for frivolous wikilawyering (eg; "enforcement by reversion is not permitted because the restriction only mentions enforcement by blocking"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1 though I do not like "broadly construed" at any time, and would prefer to have it "narrow;y contrued". I also would append that "ban" does not include userpages created in anticipation of dispute resolution or arbitration proceeding, or to participation in mediations and arbitration proceedings not started by himself. 2. marginally, but an interaction ban should address both users directly - the same interaction logically should apply to each, with the same restrictions relating to the ban. Oppose 3 as being a draconian remedy, and one which get others who have tangled with him in the past to carp on every edit in hopes they can run to a friendly admin. Also oppose 4, as 1 and 2 addresses the concerns fairly well -- this becomes redundant. Collect (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC).
• Oppose per Russavia & Shyamsunder. mentoring maybe a better solution. He is a productive editor who needs to be given a chance to improve while working on areas of his interest.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Responses

Three policy violations have been cited for the ban. I will address each of them below.

1. POV pushing - As a part of my editing philosophy, I follow the essay on POV pushing, which says:

The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing.

Since I have never knowingly violated 3RR and since I've now been sticking to 1RR as an editing philosophy, it is, by definition, impossible for me to push my POV in to articles. I would like to point out that all of the diffs and references made to my violation of this policy by those who want me banned are from talk pages.

2. Wikistalking - I had been thinking of setting up a new project about special India issues for several months. A diff from February shows this. Since I spend only a limited amount of time on Wikipedia per day, I never got around to doing this until March 4. In preparation of the creation of such a project proposal, I was searching Wikipedia for India-related articles that would come under this project. One such article amongst several others that I was able to locate was the List of Indian inventions and discoveries.

3. Canvassing - Per my colloquial usage of English, I am pretty sure that my notification on the India noticeboard is not "non-neutral" but I now see how other speakers of English variants might see it as non-neutral. I'm sorry about that.

Here's my general editing philosophy on Wikipedia:

• No edit warring, stick to 1RR
• Stick to WP:BRD
• Stick to all known Wikipedia policies and guidelines closely (no particular diffs to provide, just look at my entire edit history)
• If there is a policy or guideline that I have hitherto not been aware of and have violated, I apologize for doing so and I ensure that I abide by it in the future
• Calling a spade
• Be civil and polite as seen in GA success for Upanishads, GA success for Deshastha Brahmin, GA success for the Third Anglo-Maratha War

A friendly note to closing admin - here's what the banning policy says:

If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

Pretty much everyone here who has participated in the ban discussion has been involved with the underlying dispute. Exceptions are Moreschi and N419BH. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly Zuggernaut, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of uninvolved anymore than you understand the meaning of tendentious POV pushing (the page you're looking at is an essay and what you've cherry picked out of that part of the essay is not widely held by the community). Good intentions don't justify disruption, and similarly, the worst kind of disruption occurs on talk pages. These proposals are giving you an opportunity to demonstrate that you can contribute usefully in other areas without engaging in problematic conduct; perhaps this issue won't exist in areas you don't feel so strongly about, and perhaps in the future you can resist your temptation to push POV so strongly to the point of testing and exhausting the patience of so many of your peers. In any event, whether you voluntarily accept the restrictions as binding, or whether they need to be imposed on you involuntarily, is another question altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a response to the actual issue, such as the Churchill dispute that I mentioned above? Do you believe that it would be reasonable to state that a significant cause of a famine was Churchill's racism which led to him to deliberately ignore pleas for emergency food aid, without any mention of the fact that Churchill was fully occupied as one of the "big three" leaders fighting World War II, and might have had a number of issues competing for his attention? Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the editor's defence, people should read things such as this, for example. There are clearly reliable sources out there which put forward the view that Churchill was racist in regards to Indians. Or this which states: "Few statesmen of the 20th century have reputations as outsize as Winston Churchill's. And yet his assiduously self-promoted image as what the author Harold Evans called "the British Lionheart on the ramparts of civilization" rests primarily on his World War II rhetoric, rather than his actions as the head of a government that ruled the biggest empire the world has ever known. Madhusree Mukerjee's new book, Churchill's Secret War, reveals a side of Churchill largely ignored in the West and considerably tarnishes his heroic sheen." If the points raised in this and other reliable sources are accurate, then yes, this is a POV that is valid for inclusion in articles relating to the famine and Churchill himself. For the POV that you are asking about, you would of course need reliable sources to back up your assertions as to the reason for famine, etc. This clearly looks to me to be a case of an editor presenting information into articles that others don't want to see, and this as an attempt to censure said editor for wanting to do so. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying he was racist. The problem is Zuggernaut wanted to insert information in the article along the lines of "These Indians died because Winston Churchill was racist and withheld food from them", when in fact he no doubt had bigger things on his mind at the time, which Zuggernaut thought was tangential (as has been pointed out above). Besides, it's not based on this one incident, and the current report was caused by his complaint about a completely different article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Russavia: Mukherjee's book has been roundly criticized, both in the New York Times review by Joe Lelyveld and by Amartya Sen himself (quoted in the review). Churchill might or might not have been a racist, but his decision not to send emergency food rations to Bengal has other explanations. As Lelyveld says in his review (see full quotes in the Talk:India archives), Churchill's main scientific adviser, Lord Cherwell, was an astute man and had in fact anticipated many of the principles enunciated by Sen five decades later. Cherwell, was of the view that there was enough food, but it was being held back by unscrupulous hoarders (both among the farmers and the grain merchants) and profiteers, that it would be more effective policy (bringing speedier relief) to go publicly after the hoarders and profiteers than to divert rations from elsewhere (already strained by the demands of a global war). In other words, Churchill's culpability is by no means a historical fact. In spite of this, Zuggernaut wanted to insert two loaded sentences about it in the very distilled history section of the India page, which earlier didn't have anything about the Bengal famine or any other famine, or World Wars, I or II. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, Zuggernaut is here because he opposed moving List of Indian inventions and discoveries to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. for reasons and motives i will never understand, User:Fowler&fowler suddenly decided a few weeks ago that Indian history is too confusing for him. what next Fowler? moving all the content from History of India to History of South Asia?. Zuggernaut, rightfully opposed that. i dont think it is a mistake in Z's part at all. He is one of the over 10 oppose votes. there are roughly equal number (may be more) of "oppose" and "support" votes. this is just to make the point, he is not in the minority.

now, talk about canvassing. I dont think User:Moreschi is here as an uninvolved editor. Here is the message] Fowler left in his talk page in the middle of a previous dispute in Talk:India page. From the message, one could reasonably conclude that they have a good wiki-relationship. Moreschi was just waiting for an opportunity and this ANI provided him the cover. he did this edit without even participating in the conversation. anyone who has the time to read the discussion page (at and until the time he made that edit or until now) can conclude that there is no consensus to remove any content from the article. Yes, Fowler was not explicit as Zuggernaut has been. --CarTick (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick: First, Zuggernaut is not here because he cast an oppose vote in the India vs. South Asia page move. Many editors opposed that move, include a handful that are now supporting Zuggernaut's topic ban. Zuggernaut is here because he chose to open an ANI thread in order to after some people (including me). Unfortunately, the plan backfired, because after months of opening similar ANI threads, Zuggernaut's pattern of editing on Indian history topics is becoming manifest. It is that pattern of editing that is being castigated here. Second, it's not a good idea, CarTick, to make up outlandish conspiracy theories and then treat them as fact. I merely welcomed Moreschi, who I had heard had left Wikipedia, back to active editing. I have always liked his firm opposition to all forms of nationalistic POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Please don't make wild connections in order to bolster you flimsy argument. If I had in fact intended to leave a coded message for Moreschi to intervene in the Talk:India dispute (whatever it was), I obviously didn't succeed, since Moreschi didn't intervene on the Talk:India page, but somewhere else, a few weeks later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, Zuggernaut is here because one of his traditional moves - complain about bias to ANI - has backfired. I supported the ban topic because i am tired of being accused of being a "brown sahib" if i oppose him and getting sick of attempts at censorship by nationalism. I have supported and opposed Zuggernaut's proposals in equal measure before. Fowler's attempt to change "India" to "South Asia" is nothing new. SBC-YPR made a [[Talk:History_of_India/Archive_4#Requested_move|proposal] to move "History of India" to "History of Indian Subcontinent" in 2009, for precisely the same reasons. I count atleast two other oppose voters - regents and spiff - in the inventions move discussion here. This should indicate even those people who sometimes support Zuggernaut's proposals are fed up with his actions--Sodabottle (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found Zuggernaut disagreeable in many occasions and I expect to disagree with him in the future. However, there really is no case for topic ban yet. here is why.

1. This ANI, as other would have us believe, does not appear to be frivolous. User:Athenean, User:Huon, User:S Seagal, User:Fowler&fowler, User:Mar4d, User:Gun Powder Ma, User:AshwiniKalantri and User:Shovon76 supported User:Gun Powder Ma's proposal. User:Zuggernaut, User:Wikireader41, User:Mdw0, User:Ohms law and User:Andrewa opposed it. 8 support votes and 5 oppose votes at the time the content was moced. 5th oppose vote by Andrewa was at 18:25, 27 March 2011. The content from the article was removed at 20:08, 27 March 2011. Gun Powder had created the South Asian List before the last two oppose votes. 1) there was no overwhelming consensus to remove content 2) it is conflict of interest to judge and execute the consensus by one of the highly involved editor, GunPowder. Z filed this report at 00:50, 29 March 2011. i am willing to buy the argument that the last two oppose votes happened late and it could be that GunPowder didnt notice it. now, i will let other uninvolved editors decide whether this is a frivolous thread. while everyone is upset about the frivolousness, nobody seems to care about the conflict of interest.
2. That Mukerjee's book got bad review at NYTimes review can not be an argument for exclusion. the book has made news across the world. one possible way to deal with this issue could have been to add both Mukerjee's book and also add the NY times book review and let the readers decide instead of censoring it. regardless of the merit of the case, the point is, in both cases, Churchil's racism and Indian list as extensivley discussed in this thread, Z had references that supported his POV and is not entirely wrong. I dont see any difference between the passionate defense of Churchill by some of the editors here and Z's passionate involvement in Indian history articles. POV is a POV.
3. Thanks for pointing out the History of India to History of Indian subcontinent move by another user. i would like to note here that Fowler wants India to be changed to South Asia (not Indian subcontinent) per the discussion page.
4. Calling users "Brown Sahib" or "acting white" is reprehensible. he could be warned in his talk page and if continued, even blocked to convey the message. now, Zuggernaut was not the only one acting uncivil. please see the discussion pages Fowler has participated. he was reprimanded by User:Shovon76 here.

In summary, when claims of POV pushing, frivolous ANI threads, uncivil comments and canvassing accusations are weighed in sum, there is really not sufficient background for topic ban yet. He was not even blocked once for either uncivility, edit warring or canvassing. i would recommend a formal warning, followed by a few blocks (if he repeats) before we even consider topic ban. as it stands, topic ban is too premature, early and exceedingly excessive. --CarTick (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to CarTick Shovon76, The issue is not whether Mukerjee's book is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's definition. Pretty much any trade paperback popular history or newspaper review meets Wikipedia's definition. However, sources in Featured Article have to be held to a higher standard. WP:RS say, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." A featured article, moreover, is required to report the consensus among scholarly sources, and in the absence of such consensus to report the controversy. Among the manifold scholarly sources on the Bengal famine of 1943, what is the consensus (if any) about the causes of the famine and where is Churchill's culpability in all of it? Mukerjee's book is not a scholarly book, it is a popular (trade) history. Even if it were a scholarly work, it is too recent to be a part of the scholarly debate. (Mukherjee has written no journal articles on this topic.) Besides, there is no record of Zuggernaut adding these details, indeed any details about the Bengal famine, to the History of India page. Since "History of India" is written in summary style, the causes of the Bengal famine (in contrast to a mention), might be WP:UNDUE in the first place, especially since many much worse famines are not mentioned. How then does Churchill's culpability belong to History of India's own summary, which—double distilled—forms the India page history section? If this is not WP:Main article fixation playing itself out in relentless POV-pushing, I don't what is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

PS to CarTick Shovon76. As for the "reprimand" diff you provided, perhaps you should have also provided diffs for my reply and your more balanced response to the reply. The problem here is not one of incivility, but of something much more insidious and hard to deal with: relentless POV pushing, especially nationalistic. As someone said upstairs, it wears down other editors and even if it doesn't, it takes up all their time. There are sources out there these days for the wildest of assertions, and POV-pushers are good at cherry-picking one source, e.g. Mukherjee, and attempting to make it worthy of mention in a page in which both the topic and the decades of scholarly research in it have thus far gone unmentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind Shovon76 that he also thought that we could start splitting the article here. I fail to see how he can now turn around and accuse others of acting prematurely or even of gaming the system for doing what he too advised without becoming a hypocrite. Huon (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC) While these diffs are correct and address Shovon's talk page behaviour (maybe he too should have been named by Zuggernaut as another of those accused of gaming the system?), the comment I was responding to wasn't actually by Shovon. My mistake, sorry. Huon (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Huon, please refer to the talk page of the concerned article. My opinion as well as talk page behaviour does not reveal double standards or hypocrisy. At one of time I had an opinion when a certain amount of information were presented before me. As newer data came to my attention, I am entitled to change my opinion. After all, that's how the decision making process generally takes place. It does not matter whether I have supported or opposed the move. The point is that even before there was any consensus on the page move, Huon Mar4d created an article with South Asia in the title and started moving content from the List of Indian inventions and discoveries, which can be interpreted as presenting before other editors a fait accompli. Shovon (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Shovon, first of all, I didn't create the article; I didn't even edit the South Asian list. Secondly, of course you are entitled to change your opinion, so are we all. But that's not all you did, and it's certainly not what I critizise you for.

Fowler&fowler advocated splitting the list on March 27, 1:49 (UTC). You advocated splitting the list later, on March 27, 8:34 (UTC). Both of you did not just support the move, but argued that we could begin implementing it right away. There were no !votes in between, and Fowler&fowler made no relevant edits to either the article or its talk page between your edit and the opening of this thread. Yet Fowler&fowler was accused of gaming the system and creating a fait accompli, and you weren't. And then you said that the accusation of acting in bad faith is not baseless. Basically, you are saying: "Those who agreed with me before I changed my mind acted in bad faith." That's what I call hypocritical. Huon (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Huon: Yes, I had supported the move and also suggested that it can be implemented right away. But, I do believe that Wikipedia does not work on my suggestions alone. There are set of rules that bind the editors. Instead of following the rules to the letter and spirit, can you justify the page creation by giving the reason, "Because Shovon suggested this"? My contention was not against the page move/creation, but how and when the page was created and as such I do not find anything hypocritical in the concerned page. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting closure

• This was archived prematurely so I've restored it so it can be closed properly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, can someone step in and close the Talk:List of Indian inventions and discoveries#Requested move? No doubt it's no consensus. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote count (Just keeping tabs): As of 16:20:30 7 April 2011, a full one week after the restrictions were proposed by Ncmvocalist, there are 13 supports (Ncmvocalist, Johnuniq, NH419BH, Chipmunkdavis, Moreschi, rgpk, Athenean, SpacemanSpiff, Sodabottle, Quigley, bobrayner, Snowded, Courecelles) including the proposer's implicit support, and 4 opposes (CarTick, Russavia, ShyamSunder, Tentontunic) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Closed, logged and user notified. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request - RolandR

I have blocked RolandR. He has requested unblock, so I'm posting the request on ANI, because it will get a quicker audience here. The relevant thread is here: User talk:RolandR#Your 3RR report. I request review from any admin who is impartial with respect to Israel-Palestine issues and who is familiar with unblock request or is willing to spend the time looking at it. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin Comment I noticed you elected to claim the WP:ARBPIA reason for block. Even if you grant 100% rights to allow annother admin to overturn your block you should be aware that there is currently a discussion at ArbCom about overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by annother administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy. Your communication with the user, the blocking notice, and the block log notice seem to lead to the point that you are using an arbitration remedy for this situation. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am. And I also stated quite clearly that I am OK with another admin undoing my block. I don't think anyone would be upset if I reversed my own block, correct? Well, in this case, I will state that any other admin undoing this block is tantamount to me undoing the block on RonaldR. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why I don't make non-trivial edits to articles under 1RR. It's just poison for collaborative constructive editing - and blocking from a single removal of a citation template from the lead (allegedly because already cited in body, though I can't identify the citation) is as good an example as any. It's a shackle around every ankle because you don't know who the criminals are. Rd232 ^talk 02:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I looked fairly quickly at the history and I tentatively agree with the block. I didn't find RolandR's unblock request all that compelling so I declined it until he can demonstrate understanding and undertake not to editwar in future. --John (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Though I am sympathetic to RolandR's situation, I agree with User:John's decline of the unblock. The offer that John made in the decline message looks reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have unblocked, as I think that Roland's second unblock was more compelling. I have also given him some advice for the future. Hopefully I didn't step on anyone's toes. Feel free to reblock without consulting me if you think my action was inappropriate. NW (Talk) 14:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction has been quite successful in reducing edit warring in the I-P conflict topic area though. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia still lacks the means to reliably identify and exclude sockpuppets from the topic area. Like many "new" accounts in the topic area, AFolkSingersBeard does not look like a new editor. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The behavior of AFolkSingersBeard is so blatant that he seems unlikely to have a long career, whether or not he is a sock. He has already been notified of the I/P discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Promethean attacking science fiction conventions en masse

Resolved

 – Many of the AfDs have been closed and the others are proceeding, Promethean has apologised for incivility. If anyone (Raul) has wider issues, speaking to Promethean individually or an RfC/U might be your best bet. Fences&Windows 22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Promethean, who apparently knows nothing about science fiction conventions or science fiction fandom, has done a bulk set of AfD nominations for various conventions, including some of the oldest (Icon (Iowa science fiction convention), Marcon) and most distinctive (Readercon) on the planet; as well as an AfD nomination for List of science fiction conventions, one of the most carefully maintained lists I know of. It is increasingly hard to assume good faith here, as he seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT about these articles, some of which could certainly use improvement and more external sourcing. Each convention discussion has understandably started drawing input from people familiar with that convention, and the accusations of COI, sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are flying. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I like sci-fi as much as the next guy, but sometimes our favorite things just aren't attention-worthy enough to the outside world. In those 3 articles linked above, I see coverage that is purely local. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the examples above, I see no need on the face of it for admin action. Some prompt article rescue would appear to be called for, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, you need to get out more ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Those 3 conventions are all well known. I bet there is coverage in Locus (magazine) of all of them. The nominations sound pointy, sort of like that guy who was nominating articles about transistors recently (I'm not into the inclusionist/deletionist thing, but I generally believe uncontentious reference info about non-self-promoting topics is fine to leave alone). That said, if there are a lot of such convention articles it might be ok to merge some clusters of them. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pointy or no, there's nothing here worth administrative attention. Let's close this. Editors need to work this one out; if there is insufficient referencing in these articles, well, the answer is left as an exercise for the student.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete it! Tarc (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's one idea, Tarc. Does the rest of the class have any other ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt: We're doomed if people can't figure out that you're screaming at them to just add some sources. Sheesh. --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the attacks on editors opposing him that Promethian is coming out with. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just from a cursory search about these conventions, i'm finding it quite clear that the nominator, Promethean, is failing WP:BEFORE pretty badly and, thus, his actions could be seen as being pointy. The rapid nature at which he is AfDing these articles show that he isn't even following WP:BEFORE even in a cursory sense, since there isn't enough time between nominations for him to have made even a quick look for sources. Silverseren^C 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• I honestly don't think Promethean is out of line, although I can certainly see where the "pointy" argument would come up. It appears to me — someone who casually likes science fiction, but not avidly — that we have a situation where some sci-fi related events, such as cons, may not meet general notability standards, but still exist because of a different, unwritten level of notability applied to the genre. This may be because of systemic bias, which is unavoidable to some extent. But it does beg the question: Do we need to establish specific notability policies for cons? Is a one-off event at the local Sheraton's meeting room, which draws 300 or 400 attendees, notable enough? And what of similar fan events in other genres? Something that needs to be addressed, IMHO. Cheers! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• My deep reserves of good faith are quite strained when Promethean argues "I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do" (here, for example) nearly a dozen times. - Dravecky (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, my comment probably wasn't tactful, was somewhat uncivil but I feel it falls short of a personal attack. It is an unfortunate that you do tend to see people who tend to vote keep (inclusionist) or delete (deletionist) without due regard for what they are expressing their opinion on and I refer to those as shitter arguements because they are the best way to screw up the otherwise working system and in this instance Dravecky arguing that limited coverage in a single local newspaper (who would report even on something as un-notable as a kid's face painting event) automatically qualifies MystiCon as 'Notable' is smacking of a typical inclusionist argument. Moving onto the mass AFD'ing, you might call it WP:POINTY or you could call it well intentioned but misinformed (Which it was, but I'm only the person who did it so I must be biased), it is ever so apparent that I am not someone who gets off to science fiction on any level, Among other things the MystiCon thread raised that there were a sizable number of articles which probably should go as well. So starting of with the list which honestly seems nothing but a mere promotional page with the number of external links and dates on it I started cherry picking random articles which imho failed to establish (by themselves) why on earth where they were notable. Other than checking out the refs on the article I did not follow WP:BEFORE and would duly note that not doing so is neither a blockable or warnable offence and was done more so out of naiveness than an attempt to disrupt. All in all the spectacle has done nothing but raised attention of the subject of science fiction conventions if nothing else and I’m sure that this will result in the references and cleanup fairy visiting quite a few pages in the list. Also, the thread title couldn't be any more dramatic if you tried, this isn't an "attack" on science fiction and en masse is somewhat inflating.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How about apologising? Make any further personal attacks like you did (yes, they were personal attacks) or continue with gross incivility and you'll deserve to be blocked. Fences&Windows 23:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed Dravecky personally.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly prefer all of my Wikipedia-related communication to take place on Wikipedia. I did take it as an uncivil personal attack, and one not well-grounded in the facts. (Before this deluge of AfDs, I was involved in precisely two active AfD discussions: this one where I attempted an article rescue and !voted a policy-based "keep" and this one where I've !voted and argued "delete" for similar reasons.) I prefer no drama and my boss calls me "the calm one" but this ongoing incident is seriously damaging my calm. - Dravecky (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone here should be aware that Promethean has a long history of incivility and personal attacks, including against me. Raul654 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this pot calling the kettle black Raul? I see two effective blocks for incivilty in 2008, three years ago, where I got into two heated debates that probably shouldnt have happened in the first place. One was defending a user who was blocked for socking and later cleared. The latter was accumulated from various incidents. Meanwhile at the same time you were running around abusing checkuser (A Checkuser confirmed you checkusered me while while we were in a personal dispute for no reason at all and found nothing) and trying to get back at me by blocking my rename request out of spite. (which WJBScribe overruled you on, which I will never forget).   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I checkusered you after this edit in which you stated your intention to evade a community block by using sockpuppets. As for your rename request, I opposed it because I said you were troll with a history of incivility who was using the rename request in order dodge your own well-earned bad reputation. Lo and behold, you have gone ahead and proven me right. Raul654 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Note - Promethean was reported for incivility three days ago at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Promethean. That discussion is still ongoing. Raul654 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not an admission of sockpuppeting, thats a suggestion of starting over, on a new account, without all the drama and something I was well within my right to do and something recommended to me by an Admin at the time due to the fact that I kept getting stuck in a rutt. At the time a community block was not even on the cards so I wasn't trying to evade that. As for the rename it was from prom3th3an to promethean, I doubt that would have caused much confussion as talk pages and block logs follow users so your reasons for blocking it are flawed. A checkuser obviously felt it wrong enough to encourage me to report you to the Ombudsmen and at the time I did just that, but all this is hear say right, how else did I know you checkuser'd me when this is the first time you admitted doing it and WJBScribe told you to review how you acted on my request so not many people agree with anything you did regarding myself. Much like your presence here is fairly transparent. In any case I have sent both users concerned an apology per Fences and windows's question here and his warning on my page.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Just remember to watch out for unhelpful comments when things are getting heated. Fences&Windows 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

At the time you made that edit, there was an on-going discussion about community banning you which numerous people supported. Four days after you made that edit, you were again reported at AN for misbehavior and again a community ban was suggested. So your claim that a community ban "was not even on the cards" is a flat-out lie from someone with a history of trying to bury evidence of his past misbehavior. And your first claim - that your claims about creating a new account was to avoid drama is plainly contradicted by the fact that (a) you cannot edit without causing drama (then or now, three years later) and (b) it was just-as-likely-as-not that you were about to be community banned.

Also, for anyone else here who is watching, earlier today Promethean tried closing Wikiquette alert cited above. (See what I said earlier about "trying to bury evidence of his past misbehavior") He doesn't seem to grasp that users are not permitted to close reports of their own misbehavior. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And finally, it's worth noting that Spartaz's 2008 comment about Promethean - that he makes almost no useful edits - is still true. Pretty much the entirety of his activity on Wikipedia consists of voting in AFDs and being [redacted] to other people. Raul654 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Please don't attack people. Fences&Windows 22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Raul, if you feel the need to personally attack me on ANI, I feel it would be best if you disengaged from consequent discussions because it would be ever so apparent that your presense is personal. With that being said I am well within my right to close my own alert, that is the way the system works over at WQA, It's not a report, its A) Flagging to me that ive been uncivil, B) Giving me an oppurtunity to discuss it with the person who filed the complaint. Ebe has already told me the discussion is over[57] from his side and now it has come to a close from my side as well hence it is resolved.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally say much at ANI, but I've been following this since I commented at Ebe's editor review, and your last sentence is misrepresenting the facts. In that diff [58] Ebe told you the discussion was over when he removed your editor-review comments, but then you complained on Ebe's talk page [59] (saying "Thankfully you do not get to choose when a discussion closes (goes back to the non-admin thing)") and re-added your comments to the editor-review talk page. The problem continued for another two days, until the talk page was speedied by Fence&Windows [60]. Whether Ebe now feels the matter is resolved or not I don't know, but that diff really doesn't prove it. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ebe has added nothing to that report after he told me the discussion was over, this was 7 days ago and an admin has now acted on the report. I have also sent Ebe an apology via email as a show of goodfaith (I wasn't asked to do this) and I see no possible further course of action on that thread at all.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readercon as a snow keep after keeps leading 14-0 vs delete? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be an acceptable NAC scenario. I've closed it. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

comment Not that I checked out those particular articles, and I do admit that I lean toward the inclusionary side of things here at WP, as well as being a sci-fi fan; but, (1) I would think that these conventions can be pretty large, (2) Just because NY didn't cover one in LA doesn't mean it's not worth keeping, and (3) did anyone try to talk to the user and explain what we do here? OK, maybe one of the poorest sentence structures I've seen in a while there, but hopefully I got my point across. As far as NPA, well, that's a pretty big no-no here. If it's just a civility issue - those kind of things can get pretty dicey at times depending on the who and where of it all. Maybe the old trout would just be in order? — Ched :  ?  23:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC) This looks like a job for a quick topic ban. Easiest way to deal with this issue. Jtrainor (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Tholzel blocked indefinitely

Please see User talk:Tholzel#Blocked indefinitely and see if I have been too harsh. It's my feeling after reviewing all of this account's 2011 edits that they are definitely not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to advocate for a particular minority view regarding race and certain aspects of the history of WW2. If there is a consensus to unblock (and so far they have not asked for such), I would unblock or be fine with someone else doing so. --John (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done. IMHO this sort of thing ought to happen more often. It's awfully tiresome to editors who frequent articles related to Holocaust denial to have to put up with this sort of thing and tends to drive good editors off the project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not impartial as I have been in protracted annoying arguments with that user, but I do approve.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse:I have previously blocked this user and I endorse John's block. See my recommendation for an indef block if/when problems continue in this previous ANI discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the block. This editor obviously could not follow NPOV and has been unable to work with other editors constructively. TFD (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block. Tholzel wasted inordinate amounts of other editors' time soapboxing about improperly sourced matters, sometimes WP:OR, on Talk:Race (classification of humans). Nothing he suggested could have been included in the article. Mathsci (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars

Resolved

• Fjp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.8.218.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.8.216.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.8.217.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just came across this editor, apparently in an edit war on Bee Movie with an apparently dynamic IP. I gave him a warning but he blanked it and said "I know", then started dicking around when I asked what he was doing and offered to help. Checking his contributions, it looks like he's been in edit wars all over the place - his history seems to be almost entirely reverting stuff.

The latest wars have been with the above IP addresses, which are presumably the same person. I've no idea who's right here, but as Fjp1995 flipped me off when I asked him to explain (and carried on warring), I've indef blocked him, and I've blocked the latest IP for 24 hours - both for edit-warring. I really don't know what's been happening here other than edit-warring, or who's right - it's late here and I need some sleep. I'll notify Fjp1995 and the newest IP.

Can anyone work out what this is about and whether anything needs to be done? (Feel free to change my blocks without needing to check with me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• AntiFjp1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just been created and commented on Fjp1995's Talk page - presumably a sock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I first noticed this guy on March 20 when I followed up on one of his early AIV reports and mistakenly blocked an IP who was making good edits. Discussion between me and seaphoto is at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 8#65.8.221.157. Since then, Fjp1995 has been filing many AIV reports on what appear to be content disputes. I have not been investigating them as my pop-cutlure knowledge is insufficient to know which edits are any good. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the same problem, that I don't know anything about these topics, so I can't decide who's right - is there a Project anywhere that might help, do you know? (I can't think of any obvious ones) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As I'm a bit baffled by what's going on, I've had another try to talk to him, at User talk:Fjp1995#Your editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the user might be very young. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, judging by the answers I think you're right. I'm tempted to ask him to slow down, stress the need to talk, offer help when he needs it, and unblock - what do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, thinking again, I don't think I really want to offer to help too much, because I know nothing of pop culture TV and care even less - and I don't way to get dragged in to "Is SuperPingoBoy 11 or 12 years old?" arguments. So maybe just a friendly warning that he'll be watched. What do you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing is to remind him of the verifiability requirement: if he's going to say that SuperPingoBoy is 11, he needs to have a reliable source that says he's 11. (Unfortunately, a lot of young editors seem not to realize that neither the SuperPingoBoy Wikia site nor its fan forums are reliable. But I digress.) That's why the standard second chance says to show both what changes you'd make to an article and what reliable sources exist to back it up.

I think unblocking would be in order. I also think that a one-revert-rule (or even 0RR, though that's a bit harsh) would be a reasonable condition for the unblock: if he's going to revert an edit, he must discuss the matter on the talk page (and not escalate straight to AIV). —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds great - I'll go with that (will do it after I've had lunch) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the problem has been solved. Since unblocking, Fjp1995's 2nd and 3rd edits (actually reverts) seem to be troublesome. This revert removes a table of Aron Warner's filmography that seems to be accurate according to IMDB (not an RS, I know, but in this case...). This is a table that he has removed 6 times from the article since April 6th 3rd. While it's not verified by a RS within the article, I'm troubled by this odd obsession of removing some random producer's film credits. This revert consists of changing the initials of the name of a storyboarder for the television show Phineas and Ferb from a "J.G." to "L.G." Elsewhere in the article, the storyboarder is referred to as "J.G." or "Joe." This appears to be a nonsense revert. He has not discussed either reverts on the article talkpage or with the contributor he reverted. Chillllls (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)corrected date Chillllls (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Dianaa has had a word with him, and I've reverted his new edits and given him one last warning - if he does it again, he's blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK now - I'll keep an eye on him, and ask again here if I should need any further help. Thanksall. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal abuses/acquisitions

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nasnema (sorry used whole link, as was unsure how to do it otherwise) - repeatedly dismissed suggestions as well as accusing me of being 'drunk' and saying I should 'go to bed'. This just because I suggested a change to the Ricky Gervais article. I provided a source for the change. See talk page for whole discussion. The discussion in question was titled 'English', I was using a ip address as wasn't logged in. Robmanu7 (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Without delving into this too deeply, it's clear that this was out of line. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• And on the other hand, Robmanu, you hadn't notified Nasnema of your complaint here. I just did that for you. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• It seems to me that we have an ordinary content dispute here. Robmanu is well into 3R territory, and I've left a warning on their talk page, and the same applies to Nasnema (this is not a case of outright vandalism). AFAIK, there is no rule on Wikipedia for handling such a naming dispute (and I've asked around)--in short, it is a matter for the talk page, where these two editors are apparently engaged in somewhat civil discussion. I can't really find consensus on the topic in the history. Unless someone wants to slap one or the other editor for some incivility, I'd consider this case closed. Do I hear a second? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Blocked 48h, serious threat or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a legal threat here. Since the IP's other edit moments earlier was to vandalize a page, I don't think it is legit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Gharr

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

First, a bit of history: A few weeks ago, Gharr concluded that nominating an article for speedy deletion and giving the 3RR warning for edit warring constitutes "hounding" and started an ANI thread about it. The thread quickly devolved into boomerang warfare as Gharr's accusations were rejected by everyone else, with several users trying to kindly explain that Gharr was the one who was wrong and that copyvio articles (if I recall correctly it was copyvio) are always deleted and 3RR warnings are always given to people who breach/are about to breach 3RR. I stepped in quite late, because I wasn't involved in the original discussion but grew weary of Gharr's unfounded accusations directed mainly at User:Sloane and User:OpenFuture. Soon afterwards, Gharr was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, and soon after that, for 48 hours because of civility issues.

After a few days off, Gharr's back, and still attacking other editors on User talk:Gharr. I and several other users have tried to reason with them several times, but it appears that Gharr simply removes all messages without reading or replying. At their current state, they're absolutely impossible to communicate or cooperate with.

Sample edits by Gharr to demonstrate their conduct:

• [61] The Venus Project, Gharr doesn't justify this change in the edit summary, instead resulting to threats.
• [62] Talk:The Venus Project, Gharr's intention is quite clear - instead of justifying their edits, they attack another editor with 3RR breach accusation (which turned out to be incorrect).
• [63] Lifebaka wrote a long and understanding reply to Gharr, which was deleted by Gharr who immediately continued their behaviour...
• [64] Gharr's first action after the block already shows they didn't get it.
• [65] Gharr removes most of the nicer stuff on their user talk page and create a new section highlighting the perceived unfairness of their blocks.
• [66] The major problem with these edits is that they highlight that Gharr, despite several people telling them (at least 4 by my count), think they weren't edit warring because they didn't breach the WP:3RR.

I don't believe Gharr's going to listen to anyone anymore (please try to reason with them if you want to) and even less I believe they're going to have a spontaneus enlightenment about collaboration. For this disruption to end, I think Gharr should be indefinitely blocked - not infinitely, but until they remove the false accusations from their user page, start listening to people instead of treating advise as attacks and confirm that they won't attack other editors again. If someone can get these assurations from Gharr without blocking, so much the better. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The following people were notified of this thread: Gharr (the subject) and Sloane, OpenFuture and Lifebaka as all three were active in the previous thread and will most likely want to comment on the case. Zakhalesh (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Gharr hasn't made any edits outside of his talk page in a week. So it's currently a non-issue, and he isn't disrupting anything at the moment. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OpenFuture's spot on here, Zakhalesh. As long as Gharr sticks to his talk page, the simplest way for you to no longer have to worry about him is to just avoid his talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He's not doing any harm right now, but can we at least get him to clean out his talk page of all his attacks on other editors? I think I'm mentioned about fifty times. It's a little annoying.--Sloane (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just a load of rambling, and to be honest I don't think there's anything there that warrants forced deletion. I think the best thing you can do really is just ignore him. He'll either start behaving better or he'll be blocked again - there's no benefit in poking him further right now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the blocking policy and it seems I interpret it way differently than you. While I don't think of Gharr as a lost cause or anything like that, in their current state of mind where they can't listen to reason and their only mode of communication is attacks and accusations, I don't think they can contribute to the encyclopedia project. This started from a single revert war warning and a copyvio template - what happens if a similar situation happens again, now that Gharr accuses everyone who has been in contact with them for various misdeeds? Blocking policy states that preventive blocks to end disruption can and should be used, and there even is a statement: "Blocks should be used to: encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" which suggests, at least to me, that people who are too uncivil to collaborate it should be blocked until they agree to cease their aggressive behaviour. I still think Gharr should be blocked from editing until they confirm that they won't behave like that anymore - the length of the block would be one minute, maybe an hour, or however long it takes for Gharr to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment where being a partisan isn't going to help. Perhaps a block isn't necessary after all, if someone manages to have constructive conversation with Gharr about their conduct and why it isn't acceptable. I urge you to try, but I won't bother myself any longer, unless they have something to say to me, in which case I will of course reply with the best of my ability. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing he is currently doing that requires prevention, and so a block would not be justified. You ask "what happens if a similar situation happens again" - that's simple, we just block him again, for longer. Now, while he is only letting off a bit of steam on his own Talk page, which is the only place he's edited in more than a week, and not doing anything there that requires admin action (in fact, he hasn't edited there at all for 12 hours), there is nothing that needs preventing and nothing that requires a block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and there is no point trying to converse with him further at the moment - continuing to prod someone when they're clearly in an angry mood is almost never productive. An angry person is best ignored while they're doing no harm - if he does harm again, that's when to take action -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

While what you say makes sense, it still leaves one question open - how can one collaborate with an editor that sees everything as an attack? The entire racket started from a 3RR warning and a copyvio speedy template. As people tried to tell Gharr that warning for 3RR violations and deleting copyvios is a standard procedure, Gharr thinks it's a conspiracy. When Gharr's blocked for edit warring, Gharr thinks it's a conspiracy. When Gharr's unblock request is denied, Gharr thinks it's a conspiracy. And this all begun from a tabula rasa, as far as I know, with no previous interactions between Gharr and Sloane (who was Gharr's primary target in the first thread). It has to be explained to Gharr somehow - if they take a break and return, even with the intent of burying the hatchet, they'll still have the misconception that there's a conspiracy against them. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty, Zakhalesh. It is a very good principle. It applies here to. If Gharr chooses contribute in a constructive manner, he will be allowed to do so. If he chooses to disrupt, he will end up blocked. This part of the process works. Let it run it's course, instead of trying to force the specific outcome you would like to see. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) "how can one collaborate with an editor that sees everything as an attack?". The simple answer is don't. Just leave him alone unless communication is really necessary. And if he does something wrong and we really do need to communicate with him, we do it in the usual civil way - as he clearly reacts badly to templated warnings, I'd go for personal communication instead. If he then reacts inappropriately, we take whatever action is needed at the time - which might be a block.
• "It has to be explained to Gharr somehow". No, it actually doesn't. It's much better if it's explained and he understands, yes, but if he's completely closed to it and can't be shaken from the conspiracy theory, so what? As long as we use the right tools to prevent damage (like blocks), what does it matter what he believes? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Uh, I'm not trying to have Gharr hanged or punished for anything. Blocked, if necessary, until they affirm they can communicate without personal attacks, and I wouldn't suggest it if WP:BLOCK didn't state preventing disruption and encouraging civil behaviour as proper reasons. However, I don't feel the block is absolutely necessary, especially because BsZ has made some good points, and unlike you may think, I would prefer the whole issue settled in a more peaceful way. In any case, you didn't answer my question: how can you cooperate with an editor that perceives routine copyvio deletion as a personal attack? Well, it'd be no problem if the editor listened when people explain that it's not a personal issue but a matter of website policy and law. I swear by Socrates and Plato that if Gharr starts responding to people in a more acceptable way than refuting advice as attempts to silence or attack him, I won't bear a grudge of any sort and will welcome him to cooperate. I've already told this to Gharr a few times, I hope this time they listen. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Zakhalesh, as long as he's sticking to his talk page, collaboration isn't really an issue. The chances of you running into him elsewhere are exactly zero. Which is exactly the point. Right now he's not disrupting anything, so there's nothing we need to do. We can just ignore him and let him do whatever he's doing. And until he starts doing something else, that's exactly what we're suggesting you do. Just ignore him and let him do whatever he's doing. lifebaka++ 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I'm off to finish my article on the Kite experiment. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

New spam only account.

Resolved

 – Blocked indef as spam-only account, as the URL they were spamming matches their username, which makes it a clear vio of the username policy as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Agent4lee started an account and immediately began spamming the article Cape Coral, Florida.[67], [68] After removing the 2 spam entries, I gave the user a level 1 spam warning.[69]. Editor immediately went back and added the spam back manually. [70]. Spam removed, another template message [71]. Not sure if he will continue or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• User notified [72] Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Question...

Resolved

 – Silliness is tolerated on Wikipedia, regrettably.  Sandstein  13:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a guideline against vandalizing your own talk page? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it really vandalism? It seems to me to be a reference to some YouTube material which the editor in question thinks is funny. I don't, but given the diverse nature of humour, who are we to argue? HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The user's only edit other then what they did to their talk page was pretty clearly vandalism. So it looks like what they did to their own talk page was probably intended to be as well. It may still fall into the wide latitude you get with your user space, but it seems to be pushing that boundary if it hasn't outright exceeded it. Monty₈₄₅ 01:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We do have policies such as WP:NOTWEBSPACE, which is sometimes cited in the removal of such text. But a note on the editor's talk page with an explanation is probably more fruitful than an ANI thread, and will either spark more outright vandalism or clarify things for that editor. It's worth a shot, Erpert. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be vandalism really. -- Avanu (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Disregard then. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUND & WP:NPA

Reporting long-term WP:HOUNDING and long-term abuse by User:Timbouctou (forgive the length of the post, am trying to describe a long-lasting problem in a few words). After his recent arrival on Talk:Croats, the user posted one provocation after another, and in spite of being met by neutrality or even good faith on my part, succeded in completely disrupting any creative discussion and inflaming a conflict. After my having consented to the user's desired article changes, the provocations continued, finally causing a personal conflict. Seeing as how the issue was settled (in accordance with his wishes), I asked User:Timbouctou to please avoid me (seeing as how he obviously hates my guts). A mistake, apparently, since in the immediate aftermath of that request the user followed me to all other discussions I am or was involved in recently, opposed anything I proposed, and continued to insult and provoke. The user continues to follow me around, and I would like to see if something can possibly be done about this.
A more detailed description supported by diffs follows:

I cannot stress enough that the discussion on Talk:Croats was decently friendly and amicable up to the point User:Timbouctou arrived and posted the listed comments, and that my responses to User:Timbouctou (available for review Talk:Croats#Josip Broz Tito) were that of a person not quite understanding why he is being attacked and slandered by some user out of the clear blue sky.

• The user's very first recent post there (Talk:Croats#Josip Broz Tito) has a very belligerent and abrasive tone, among otehr things I am being described as "blabbering something" [73]. I had not spoken a word to the guy for months beforehand, and we never really had any previous conflicts.
• I was frankly very much surprised at such an attitude. This must be taken in the context of a discussion that was very civil up to that point, with absolutely no bad blood. An excerpt from the user's second post:

"I love it how he [DIREKTOR] thinks he is the only one who understands wiki policies and I just love it how he loves to be bold, but denies the same right to everyone else. Sure DIREKTOR - the thing you made is a work of genius, all praise to you - but it will be taken down unless you can prove that this article needs images in the infobox at all. Regards. (P.S. - The only reason the whole discussion started last November was over the fact that there were too few women in the picture - and after everything was said and done and after DIREKTOR decided to make this topic his little bitch what we have is one woman out of twelve images - and Savka is not even the woman we voted for - the consensus agreed on Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, Janica Kostelić and/or Blanka Vlašić. Well done DIREKTOR, you truly are a beacon of democracy around here.)"

• In his third post [74], again completely unprovoked I cannot stress that enough, the user calls me 1) "arrogant", he says I'm 2) "blabbering", 3) a "hypocrite", 4) "stubborn", describes a discussion I started as 5) "idiotic", adding "I said it, sue me"
• Fourth post: the user simply abandoned discussion and started edit-warring after the article had been peaceful for almost a month. He "declared" that he was starting an edit war with "Until you learn to participate in discussions your edits will be reverted without warning." [75]
• Fifth post, "bully", "troll" [76].
• This is followed by "Lol, your arrogance never ceases to amaze me" [77]. At the time I was still mostly surprised by all this hostility, I responded:

"Look you hate me or whatever, and I'm sory for that, but I'm not "arrogant". Did I not tell you just back there that the very reason I introduced this format is its flexibility? If you want to add/remove someone in particular to the infobox it can now actually be done more easily. Do you have any actual changes to propose? Lets discuss. Or do you just "hate me" and want to be insulting and start edit wars?"

etc.
I eventually agreed to all his proposed infobox image changes, and implemented them myself in a gesture of good will. I did not, however, add one image (out of 16) because its licensing was fair use, and I said so on the talkpage. He promptly accused me of "playing dumb", and stated the he "expects to see it included". I kinda lost it after that and told him to please leave me alone after habing his way with this Talk:Croats affair. Almost INSTANTLY I see his posts on the two other talkpages I am involved at, followed by a third shortly after. Insulting me all the way, and opposing even without any reasonable argument. (I will only post a few examples since the report is already pretty huge.)

• Talk:Yugoslav Front. "naive editors like Fainites who seem to have an endless capacity for putting up with your bullshit." [78]
• Talk:Serbs of Croatia, where he arrived and decided to "oppose" my edits on the grounds that listing secondary university publications is "WP:OR" :), is among other things home to "you're a troll", and "You're a paranoid individual with a greatly over-exaggerated sense of one's own importance. There are far more better terms for your activities on Wikipedia than 'edits'." [79]
• Talk:Ante Pavelić. Here an infobox issue had actually been concluded quite amicably a while ago. Seeing this, User:Timbouctou posted a new thread opposing my position in the recently-concluded discussion, taking the opportunity to insult my mental health: "your psychiatrist should know." [80]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• The situation is a tad more complex then presented here and is already being discussed at User talk:Fainites, an administrator who has been involved with the problem over the past few days. I'd appreciate it if whoever is in charge of responding to these reports waited a day or two before deciding on sanctions, should any occur. I might add that I have no intention of debating this with User:DIREKTOR here and if anyone in charge is interested, a lenghty post describing the situation can be found here. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do not try to confuse the issue. The complexity lies in the issues discussed, not in your conduct. The obvious hounding and personal attacks are very straightforward matter indeed. As for Fainites, the admin you apparently consider "naive", I posted this here so as to spare him any further trouble with this nonsense. I have informed him of this, hopefully the man will take a break from all this Balkans nonsense. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• You are not being truthful. These were all two-sided exchanges and you have been reprimanded by an admin several times for it in the past few days. You have been explicitly warned to stop being aggressive on your own talk page here and before that here. Timbouctou (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am being truthful. These were two-sided exchanges but the overt insults and WP:HOUNDING were overwhelmingly on one side. The same side that worked very hard to provoke the conflict.
  I admit I myself lost my temper after almost a week of continuous abuse, and I say so above, but there is in essence no comparison. Not least because you are the one who, out of the clear blue, started goading me to the best of your abilities, and then followed me around to pick a fight out of malice.
  The editor who warned us both was not aware of the above, or of your previous abhorrant behavior which brought about the aggressive atmosphere in the first place, the initial exchange having occured in a seperate talkpage section. You also curiously turned a lot more civil with an admin around (though that phase did not last very long, apparently). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The complain here by direktor is something that the word ridicolous just wouldn´t be enough. I will like all admins to read Timouctou´s comment on User_talk:Fainites#Block.3F which describes it all, and btw in a light manner. I fully subscribe Timbouctou´s words on that comment and much more could be added. We have a disruptive editor (direktor) that constantly creates battlegrounds all over Yugoslav related articles. He may have wrongly convinced in the past some admins that he was actually victim, but after 2 years of experience, many editors from many different nationalities have all gathered because they have been fed up of constant disruption and uncivility of this user. This was just the last exemple in which I have been involved that ended also with direktor being forgiven for clear disruption, beside all evidence and a total consensus from all other editors. Now, direktor, you just can´t say that this time I´m saying this because of the mediation, because you gave it up, so it has nothing to do with it anymore, but rather to expose your toal manipulation of this report against an excellent, one of the most productive, cooperative and NPOV editors ever found of Yugoslav area of wiki. I basically have all the best words for Timbouctou, and all the worste against you, and I´m not saying this because of our divergencies, because I had also divergences with Timbouctou, but those with him are allways constructive, while any action of yours on wiki, well I wouldn´t be exagerating to say that is allways destructive. An editor that constantly wants to make a point, consides every discussion and life and death battle and that didn´t contributed in any constructive way should really think about his actions first. I propose a topic ban for direktor and I really beleave most established editors on the area will agree. FkpCascais (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Direktor: Whatever. All I ask is that the discussions in question are considered in their entirety. You are pulling stuff out of context - and btw no - we were not BOTH warned, only YOU were. Post a diff from my talk page if you can find one, please. As for your "hopefully the man will take a break from all this Balkans nonsense" comment - I bet you'd love that wouldn't you. Timbouctou (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As some editors here know, User:FkpCascias is something of an "arch-nemesis" of mine, that also likes to do drop out of the clear blue sky, completely uninvolved, to oppose me because I'm me :). I have posted a report because of the overt insults and abuse I have had to endure for weeks now, and the fact that User:Timbouctou has been stalking me all over Wikipedia. I'm reasonably sure the responding admin will addres the topic of the thread, in spite of efforts by the "We Hate DIREKTOR" Club. If any of the users have a complaint regarding my beavior, they know full well they can post a seperate thread about their concerns. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you menaged to create an anti-you club composed of most editors of many different nationalities and opinions that actually solve their issues in a normal and civil way and that are fed up of your years long constant battlefield on a already sensitive area. We are actually a group of editors that peacefully edit and discuss articles and we are only not more productive because of unbelivebly tolerated constant disruption of yours. FkpCascais (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have been out of it when this kicked off. The kids are all ill. In short - I have been adminning around the Balkans pages for a while, trying to avoid getting involved in content and trying to bring - without much success, some order to the process. Whilst on occasion it has been possible to achieve a degree of consensus and some progress - for example the Yugoslav Front infobox belligerents section and the 16 pictures of famous Croats, these scarcely figure against the background of disruptive, party political editing and personal emnity. It is striking that on occasions, for example the translation of Yugoslav Front, even when consensus is begrudgingly reached, nobody bothers to make the actual changes to the article. Frequently when I stop a bad-tempered argument, everybody goes off and starts a punch up somewhere else. Another example is the Croats infobox pictures. No sooner had agreement been reached than an almost identical argument continued on the Serbs of Croatia article. It is painfully apparent that serious editors are probably avoiding the whole mess like the plague. On the first attempt to rename Yugoslav Front, there was a lot of valid, serious input. The second and third attempts have just consisted of the usual personalised rants. I have not posted any diffs here because really one needs to read the talkpages involved.

In short, after several weeks of involvment, and after analysing the ARBCom decision on Balkans articles, I have come to the conclusion that DIREKTOR should be topic banned for a period of time for disruption. It is all but impossible for any other editor to edit or express a view contrary to his without DIREKTOR aggressively personalising the issue and laying down the law. If a serious, source base challenge is raised, such as it Aloysius Stepinac, he simply leaves the discussion. I have tried reasoning with him on the subject on his talkpage. here and here. I do not know if he just doesn't get it or if he is pretending to be naive. His apology was not followed by any change in behaviour. I appreciate that this whole area is infected by nationalist and IP POV pushing. I have in general avoided taking a bureaucratic line on strongly expressed views, accusations of POV (inevitable in this topic) and reverts against nationalist editing. The field is full of wind up merchants. However, many of the articles are in a parlous state. The mediation on Mihailovic has dragged on for a year with no sign of resolution.

I am not proposing to indef topic ban DIREKTOR. He is knowledgable in the field and can be a useful editor though with a tendancy to select those sources that support his POV and aggressivley reject others. (For example promoting the use of Sabrina Ramet on one article when she was opposed for being a political scientist rather than a historian, then opposing her for the exact same reason on another). However, currently he acts as if he owns the whole topic and no-one else is allowed to edit without his approval.

Timbouctou has certainly been rude but it is quite wrong to suggest this was initiated by him with DIREKTOR only responding under provocation. I warned him also because his last argument with DIREKTOR become unacceptably abusive on both sides. The occasional spat is not the problem and can be easily resolved with warnings and short blocks when they get out of hand. The problem in my view is the overall pattern of aggressive WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT by DIREKTOR. Timbouctou has appeared on a number of Balkans pages recently. DIREKTOR appears on most of them. So do FkpCascais and Wustenfuchs and some others. It's all one big argument on the same theme carried on over numerous linked topics.

There are others who are frequently unproductive, contribute litttle other than argument and poke people with sticks. I was not proposing any immediate blocks of anyone else now though.

I am proposing, under the terms of the arbcom decision, to topic ban DIREKTOR from all yugoslav/balkan related articles for 1 month.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Which I have now done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I cannot help but wonder why the User:Fainites has posted my topic ban on a thread dealing with the conduct of another editor? Secondly, I am thoroughly apalled that User:Fainites has drawn such "penetrating" conclusions about my behavior based on a few talkpage debates in one of the worst conflict-ridden areas of Wikipedia. To be blunt, I am a long-standing editor with four and-a-half years on Wiki (and around double his own edit-count), who daily has to deal with disruption as described above. User:Fainites, you don't know me, and imo you are not really equipped to draw such (offensive) conclusions regarding my involvement on this project. You should probably extend your Balkans topic-ban to the vast majority of Balkans editors under these "criteria".

I shall, of course, contest this with ARBCOM. I have, I deem, sufficiently demonstrated the fact that the first posts by User:Timbouctou are incredibly aggressive and riddled with a plethora of personal attacks and abuse (as opposed to my own), and as such point to my having been provoked, and not easily provoked at that. His simoultaneous activities on other talkpages constitute the very definition of WP:HOUNDING. Am I to be topic-banned, with this kind of behavior just glossed-over by our venerable admin?

I have essentially posted this report to recieve a response by the community, not User:Fainites, whom I deem has become prone to taking sides (as can imho be noted by any objective observer on this thread). Should I assume this decision is supported by default with the rest of you guys here? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite within the remit of any respondent at an Admin Noticeboard, and indeed any admin when reviewing a matter, to take a view of the entire issue and not just that part which has been brought to to the Board by an editor. It is also permissible for an admin to make a judgement upon their review and act upon it, under notice to the board. This is what has happened here.

Are you suggesting either that Fainities has abused his powers as an admin, or has so severely misunderstood the situation (in its entirety), as to put in question his ability to hold the post of sysop? If not (and Fainities has a fairly good reputation), then you should request review of the incidents at another place of dispute resolution, and also request review of the restriction placed upon yourself. A further word, also, would be to temper your descriptive terms of your impression of that admins actions.

To the last point; unless there is evidence to the contrary; yup.

I am quite familiar with the issues surrounding your editing of these topic, DIREKTOR, and the litany of abuse you suffer from editors with certain viewpoints. The fact you are often abused, and the system attempted to be gamed against you, does not preclude you from having to act in an appropriate manner at all times. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all right, where exactly did I breach WP:NPA I wonder? I am very careful about policy. My tone was not perfectly civil, yes, but that is hardy surprising considering the attacks. I would like to see any overt personal isults of the rank of User:Timbouctou's "bullshiter", "idiot" and the like (remember, I'm the one being essentially blocked for one month, while he's about to get off scott-free).

But, to get back on-topic, this thread is about User:Timbouctou's behavior, which is still not addressed in any way. User:Fainites seems convinced this thread will be "ignored" now ..? [81] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Greg_L is editing other user's comments on an RFC

Resolved

Greg L accepts that it is not permissible to refactor other editors' comments, and has promised not to do so in future. No further action needed unless the promise is broken. Mjroots (talk)

In the RFC about the table in the Hard drive article: Talk:Hard_disk_drive#RFC_on_the_use_of_the_IEC_prefixes

User:Greg_L keeps editing other users comments to advance his own cause, even after I warned him not too:

[82] [83] [84]

I went back through the revisions and restored all of the comments, and told him not to do it again. He won't stop:

[85]

Furthermore, he is threatening me with checkuser [86] in violation of the Check user policy which forbids a "threat against another editor in a content dispute." He thinks that anyone that disagrees with him must be a sockpuppet. He has been outright hostile and disruptive to anyone that disagrees with him.--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is a bunch of hyperbole and misrepresentation. I’m not substantively changing anyone’s !vote. Minor typestyle changes like this one and this one on RfCs when someone makes a !vote that has formatting unlike the others and which makes their meaning unclear is done all the time and any reasonable editor knows that. I alerted Arthur Rubin to what I did so he has an opportunity to look at it and revert if he feels I changed it for the worse.

  I didn’t “threaten” RaptorHunter with a CU, I asked him to declare that he is not User:Thunderbird2 and he coyly declined to so declare. I’ve asked User:Gwen Gale to perform a CU on RaptorHunter. He confuses disagreeing with his views as being “hostile.” Greg L (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Don't edit other editors signed comments in any way. Prodego ^talk 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

...and in the meantime, I've added to this user's impressive block log. I've blocked for 24h, but the block may be lifted if GregL shows that he understands that he must not refactor other editors comments and pledges not to repeat the offence. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to that, Gwen Gale has no ability to perform a CU even if you managed to persuade her to. That particular function is limited to a very few people, and unless there's a lot more to this than meets the eye I can't see anything to warrant it. – iridescent 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that. Gwen would have to go to someone higher up for the CU. The reason I asked her is she dealt with Thunderbird2 before (whom RaptorHunter seems to be) and would understand the basis for the request. If she declined to pursue the CU, then I would accede to her unstated reasoning to do so. Greg L (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've accepted the unblock request. Any repeat of this behaviour should be dealt with robustly. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Redoing punctuation and indents so that things line up is done routinely in these kinds of discussions. Changing the actual wording is a serious no-no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. And there won’t be another repeat of that which Mjroots would have to deal with decisively and “robustly.” After seeing that my first attempt to clarify meaning (changing actual wording, as you say, because I feared the bolded word looked to speed readers like he thought the RfC itself was “deceptive”) and was reverted by RaptorHunter, I agreed with his reasoning that I had been too bold and limited myself to changes I felt were very minor clean up of style (here and here) that was solidly within WP:REFACTOR. Had Mjroots waited (literally) 60 seconds before blocking me, he would have seen me say “OK” to Prodego. Perhaps a little interrogatory before banishment to purgatory? I’m out of here. Thanks for undoing the block, Mjroots; that was quick. Greg L (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No you continued to revert, even after I told you to stop. I ended up having to fix the comments 3 times. [87] [88] [89] This wasn't easy to do. It gets complicated sorting out your editing of other people's comments from your legit additions. This constant edit warring and combative behavior is wasting everyone's time. I suggest you focus on adding to Wikipedia instead of reverting it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don’t try to prosecute an edit war here. It also looks like your post was an attempt to ride in atop a tall steed of Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedia Way™©®—its nostrils flaring in the morning mist. Please save such posturing for the talk page; this isn’t the place for debating edit wars. MOSNUM is perfectly clear that what you are trying to do is absolutely prohibited and your arguments to get around that simple fact are rather uncompelling. Sorry. I won’t be baited here by you. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Folks, please, this forum isn't for carrying on personal arguments or content disputes. It's for incidents that need admin action, and there clearly isn't any further admin action needed here. Greg L has accepted that it was a mistake to make those edits and has committed to not doing it again, and I see no reason at all to think it was anything other than a good faith mistake. So can we let it go now and get back to doing something constructive please? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Technical problem: looping redirect

I found Tibetan macaque redirecting to itself, making the article inaccessible, and tried to solve it by moving the redirect page to Thibetan macaque. I thought this might uncover the real article, but it hasn't worked. Please could you unscramble this? --Stfg (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All I see there are three redirects, Thibetan macaque, Tibetan macaque, and Tibetan Macaque, all redirecting to each other, and in their edit histories I see no sign of any actual article in any of them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There was an article; it's viewable through Google cache. Very strange. --NellieBly (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of the user who completed the move (User:Rlendog). --NellieBly (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the only actual article got deleted along the way - trying to get it back now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's now back at Tibetan macaque -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the speedy solution. --Stfg (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1967 NFL Championship Game

Resolved

 – A new-ish IP editor and a slight rollback mistake, should be sorted --Errant ^(chat!) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I get permission to start reediting 1967 NFL Championship Game again. An editor reverted my edits 2x but has not responded to my 2 requests. I asked on the help line and a third party tried to contact the editor. A quick look at the history of the article shows well over a hundred good faith edits by me. The editor in question is HJ Mitchell. I do not know how to do make sure he gets notified of this, but I will try. {{HJ Mitchell|Ani-notice}} Thanks in advance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've notified HJ Mitchell properly for you - you do it by adding "{{subst:ANI-notice}}", exactly like that, to his Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

He's probably getting reverted due to throwing in excessive "hype" verbiage, as if he were writing for ESPN or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

66. I expect HJ Mitchell (who is usually fairly responsive) simply missed your post, with a bit of luck he will respond in more detail now this has notified him of the issue :) For what it is worth, the reason he is reverting you is almost certainly down to the language you're using; we call it weasel wording, which simply means words that "talk up" something. For example "destined" and "immortalized" are not appropriate words to use. Wikipedia policy suggests writing articles in a "neutral and off-hand tone". --Errant ^(chat!) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have rollback myself, but having just looked at Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback, I can't see how rollback should have been used in this circumstance. Perhaps the IP was being excessively verbose or writing in a style unsuited to an encyclopaedia, but I still think it is wrong to call that vandalism. Jenks24 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he didn't use rollback, he used Igloo ("Revert" doesn't necessarily mean "rollback") - though I'm not sure whether Igloo uses rollback to revert? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but according to WP:IGLOO, the igloo script does use rollback, which is why igloo should not have been used in this circumstance, according to my reading of the policies. That being said, I'm sure it was just a mistake by HJ Mitchell and if he apologised to the IP, I think we could all move on :) Jenks24 (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

By what I've understood, the reason rollback shouldn't be used expect in uncontroversial cases is the lack of edit summary and minor edit flag, not the technical implementation. I'd assume this applies for other mechanisms of reverting as well - if it's not uncontroversial, the revert must not be marked as minor and a summary should be provided. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Rollback should be used only under very narrow circumstances, i.e. that the reason for the rollback is obvious just by looking at what was rolled back, which is not the case here. Edit summaries should be used for anything other than pure vandalism, which this is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The excessive hype is just becomes I'm an inexperienced editor. Every citation in that article, about 90, is from me. The newbie help files clearly stipulate that editors are sometimes passionate about what they write. It just takes time to reign that in, IMHO. A quick look at the history of the article shows me decimating it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, the last edit I made I removed most the weasel words/peacock words. His revision put them back in :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just while you're here, can I ask, have you ever edited the article Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that article's name would be too difficult for me to spell correctly :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait maybe I did. I was kind of doing wikify stuff when I first started editing because I was afraid of adding edits to a real article. I think I was clicking on random article from the main page and then wikifying stuff. I do not know how many articles I might have screwed up but they were all start class articles I think. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Any edit by 66.234.33.7 or .8 is almost guaranteed to be me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was a different sort of coincidence I was wondering about, but OK. The city you're in, the articles you've edited, and a few aspects of your writing style all coincide with a recently banned problematic editor. On the other hand, as that editor pointed out themselves, quite a lot of people live in that particular city (and I guess quite a lot of people have an interest in American football). So no need to worry. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I am sorry for using the term real article. I meant FA, GA, A, or B class articles. If that particular article is of great importance to you, then I apologize.

However, my disastrous edits are not my fault. Those Project Wikify people should have said that you should be an experienced editor before contributing to the project.

I know for a fact that I did some really stupid things in one article. But I have not the slightest clue in what article. 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure which IP you will be on to read this :) so adding a comment here... please do consider making an account, you seem like exactly the sort of person who would be a decent editor here, such things should always be encouraged (we simply can never have enough polite useful contributors) and so this is me encouraging you to "come onboard" :) Anyway; HJ Mitchell was wrong to use that sort of rollback on you, which is intended for vandalism. HJ is a decent guy though so I am sure it is a simple mistake or one-off misjudgement. I entirely understand your explanation behind the reason for the language used, I'm pretty sure I started my Wiki career by describing something as "glorious" :) As well as the "weasel words" link given previously another useful piece of policy is WP:NPOV which discusses how we try to approach topics with neutrality. That can be damned hard sometimes (and I defy any contributor to deny that they have fallen afoul of it at some point). Wikipedia policy can sometimes be a headache to pick up (drop me a note if you have specific problems), but you seem pretty clueful already (what with the reference to GA/FA etc.). I've marked this section "resolved" because I think the issues have been cleared up :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That being said, let me be perfectly clear. The reason I was reverted was because someone did not do due diligence.

Everyone says I need to get a name, but having no name means I get no tools that can hurt people.

The edit reverts will cost me 3 hours at least and I was hoping on getting this article up and in the ballgame so I can remove the peacock stuff from the Vince Lombardi article.

I have over 200 entries to the ice bowl article. The next person has 19.

I have over 80 citations to the ice bowl article. Someone looks to have sneaked in 1, REPEAT 1, citation and that citation will never last.

I have to be honest, the stuff that has transpired here hurts me because I thought the admin folks would spend AT LEAST 30 seconds on the history of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to get the ostentatious, flowery, espn-like, stuff out of the Vince Lombardi article. I have complained, like a broken record, on the discussion page on the Vince Lombardi article. But no one helps me there. No one gives me advice. The Green Bay Packer Portal is inactive on Wikipedia. I am not a GB packer fan, or American football, fan for that man.

What attracted me to all of this is VL's sense of humor, which has been documented over and over again. 173.52.5.48 (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Block of M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz

I have blocked M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), but I bring my block here for review.

He is a Prince of the Windisch-Graetz family, and has been editing for more than a year, but his edits are only about himself and his family, usually containing large blocks of German or Italian text or detailed tables of ancestry going back four generations. This version of his user page gives the flavour. His article about himself, Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz was pruned by others, restored by him to this state, and has been heavily pruned and edited again. (Notability seems to me doubtful, but that is a separate question). He has also attempted to introduce articles about his mother (five times under different titles, four in Italian), his wife, his son and his great-grandfather, this last taking the tables of ancestry back a further three generations to show a Tsar of Russia and a King of Prussia among his great-to-the-fifth grandfathers.

His talk page shows a string of advice and warnings, but absolutely no response. On 1 April, Fram (talk) warned him that he would be blocked if he continued to post promotional articles about his family, but on 8 April he posted Princess Maria Luisa Serra di Gerace yet again.

I suspect that he does not speak English - this last English version of the article previously posted in Italian was a Google translation of the Italian text. He has also been active on :de (where his own article has been deleted), :it, :fr, :sl, :sv and :cs, similarly attempting to introduce articles about himself and his relations, and genealogical tables. On none of these has he responded to any comments or advice, or engaged in any discussion.

The complete absence of any response or dialogue suggest that he is not here to help build an encyclopedia, but only to promote himself and his family, and to use Wikipedia as a web-host for genealogical information.

JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, regarding lack of English, his user page says "He qualified in 1975 as economist and political science at the University of Buckingham UK". Although that sentence is not written as though he's fluent in English, presumably he must have been to get the degree! DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Impressive, since the University of Buckingham was founded in 1976. – iridescent 22:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Our article actually says it began as the university college in 1973 Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I trust their own official history (founded in 1976, in 2006 we celebrate our 30th anniversary, the start of the project in 1976) more than I trust a line slipped into a Wikipedia article by an IP and cited to a non-existent source, which itself disagrees with its own infobox. The University College of Buckingham was founded in 1976, and it became the University of Buckingham in 1983. – iridescent 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Er the IP didn't cite a non existent source. They didn't cite any source, probably because as I said in the EC below they weren't trying to slip something in but made an error (bearing in mind they made a number of subsequent changes, none of them showing any signs of being bad). Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Actually it gave both years. And this was introduced [90] I guess by accident, I presume the IP was re-writing and remembered the date wrong (since it received its royal charter in 1983). Whether this error in our article contributed to the er confusion on the part of M.Hugo Windisch-Graetz of when or where he got his degree, I can't say... Nil Einne (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo - lost complaint

Who at Wikipedia will consider the defamation of Palazzolo by Wikipedia?

I want Wikipedia to consider the defamation of Palazzolo, but the thread keeps getting removed.

See below, my messages to editors before.

Lost Palazzolo noticeboard thread On the 3rd April I posted my story regarding Palazzolo on the noticeboard at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vito_Palazzolo_and_Wikipedia.27s_unwitting_defamation_of_a_living_man but it seems to have disappeared. I was sharpening my pencil and drafting my version of the serious complaint we have regarding the defamation of Palazzolo, and it is no longer there. What shall I do? I have a long and very serious case to present to Wikipedia. Should I open up another complaint? Thanks - Alexander Fircks Fircks (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lost Palazzolo complaint Whenever I post my case on Palazzolo, it disappears. See below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vito_Palazzolo_and_Wikipedia.27s_unwitting_defamation_of_a_living_man, Can you tell me what to do next? Wikipedia will not hear our case, it seems. Fircks (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Fircks (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fircks (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's disappearing because you are changing archived content. Archives are not meant to be edited (and hardly anyone will read what you've added, anyways). Suggest you go to WP:BLPN to present your issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Note the editing of archives is still occurring [91] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I believe Fircks is occasionally editing as an IP (perhaps through ignorance rather than bad faith). See here on the Palazzolo Talk page and here on the archive. He is getting no traction at BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance on my part, I'm afraid, isn't helping my cause at wikipedia. I log in and so have an account, though might sometimes forget. I will contact the Foundation directly with this cause because I believe it is more than an individual editor can deal with, being so complex, and there are too many different pages involved including my mistaken edits of archives. Thanks for the help and keep up the good work. Should I simply email the Foundation?

Fircks (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation for legal issues but more likely WP:OTRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikivndlism1

Resolved: Blocked indef: vandalism only or bad user name - takes yer pick

This new account has already been blocked for 31 hours for "disruptive editing". I have been trying to submit a username report, as the namre (ie, Wiki vandalism") clearly indicates an intention to continue such behaviour. But my report is constantly being reverted by a bot, as the account is currently blocked. Please can someone advise how I can submit this report.RolandR (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've submitted a report using Twinkle. I'm not sure why you had a problem - are you autoconfirmed? You didn't sign your comment with four tildes ~~~~, which lets editors see who you are. Striking comment - user is autoconfirmed. --NellieBly (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign previously. NellieBly submitted a report, which has also been deleted by the bot. RolandR (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what the bot does - it's on the assumption that the user was reported in order to be blocked, so once blocked it removes it. I'd suggest having a word with the blocking admin, User:LessHeard vanU, and express your concern that an indef block is needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The block will expire in a few hours from now, and they can then be reported to Username board - however, I would suggest that a report should be submitted only if the account reactivates; I did consider a username block, but decided to make it a "common vandalism" 31 hour block in respect of WP:DENY. If anyone wants the account blocked anyway, however, I would be prepared to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked him indef for his/her poor choice in user names, implied intent to vandalize, and history of disruptive edits. In my view, dragging this out any further would violate DENY. Rklawton (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of an image from a banned user advertising their work depicting child sexual abuse

Melodia (talk · contribs) has just reinserted an illustration by Midnight68 (talk · contribs) in the article Fan service. Midnight68 was banned from Wikipedia by ArbCom, is banned from Commons, and is apparently banned from DeviantArt, which is a fairly open-minded site.

The illustration in question advertises "Kogaru Diaries", a graphical online roleplaying game that the user has created, and which depicts child sexual abuse (see [92], [93], [94], [95]). Several editors, including myself, Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) and Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs) ([96]), have expressed concern on the article talk page and/or in Commons that the work the image advertises seems to be in violation of [97] and [98]. I had removed the image this morning after the concerns voiced in Commons. Melodia's edit summary in restoring the image was "Stop trolling, please".

Advertising a work by a banned user in Wikipedia that is themed around pedophilia and child sexual abuse is not what Wikipedia should be about. Admin intervention is requested; I would like to see Melodia warned for irresponsible editing that could result in harm to this project. --JN466 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Is any source given that describes any of the pics in the article as an example of Fan Service? If not, it's OR. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 15:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)

That same argument has been made on the article talk page and at the content noticeboard; other editors disagree. Using a fan service version of Wikipe-tan to illustrate the article is a poor choice, for several reasons; it is self-referential (that image is not a prominent image in the world outside Wikipedia); it links a Wikipedia mascot to fan service, as though fan service were what Wikipedia is about; and the fact that all the images used in the article depicted scantily-clad girls is sexist—in the real word, fan service also includes similar depictions of male characters, and we should strive for something like gender parity in illustrating such articles --JN466 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking over the user's Talk page, they seem to be a very positive contributor to Wikipedia. Manga is something I have next to no experience with, so I'm not really sure whether that image makes sense in that context or not. But IMO discussion would be a better route than one-way warnings or sanctions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(non-admin comment) Far be it from me to state the obvious, isn't posting that sort of stuff illegal in most countries? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an attorney, but based on what I know of such laws from my photography work, the two images in the OP's diff are in a gray area. All the "naughty bits" are covered, even if scantily, so taken by the letter of the law, there's nothing overtly sexual about it, and manga characters are notoriously ambiguous in age. It would be up to the observer to decide whether either of them "appeals to prurient interest", as the statutes say. With my admittedly limited exposure (no pun intended) to uploading and using images in articles, I'm guessing this might be something OTRS needs to look at and make a decision on. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Manga and anime has so many sub-genres (which are notable) that WP should have an article about them...and probably should have pictures illustrating them, even if they are "in bad taste" for lack of a better description. WP is not censored. But promoting a specific game or artist should be avoided. On a side note, I would point out to others unfamiliar with Wikipe-tan (the anime girl with the WP puzzle pieces in her hair) that she has a rather dedicated following of supporters, and there's this kind of faux-consensus over numerous discussions that support using her (and her many depiction) in a bunch of semi-related articles. (If this discussion gains any momentum, expect a pile-on of editors, and, most likely, a diversionary sub-header somewhere in the future discussion thread that completely changes the subject.) Quinn ^☂THUNDER 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. To which I would add that in this case we were promoting the non-notable work of an artist who is banned here and on other sites. --JN466 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• The image was removed by admin Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) three minutes after this thread started. It has just been reintroduced by Jinnai (talk · contribs). --JN466 17:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I saw it and thought it was promotional, so I removed it for that reason - I don't object to being reverted if it's being discussed here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • There are really two concerns here, each of which is valid grounds for removal: (1) It promotes a non-notable piece of art (2) The piece of art in question is by a user who was banned here by ArbCom, is banned on Commons, and is banned from DeviantArt. It's a work of explicit pedophilia. I don't really understand why it should be controversial to remove it from the fan service article. --JN466 17:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Even though I agree with your pedophilia concerns, I think others would not agree, and that point runs the risk of throwing the discussion off track. (Not that I don't think it's important, but is a broader issue with anime/Wikipe-tan/etc. that IMO the Arb's need to make a ruling on one way or another).Quinn ^☂THUNDER 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Wow, getting banned from DeviantArt takes some doing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify, my argument is not that the image in question is sexually explicit, but that it is taken from a work, and advertises a work, by name, that has explicit pedophile themes, like panty cams and spanking of prepubescent girls: [99][100][101][102] Kogaru Diaries simply is not an example of fan service; it is a non-notable pedophile role-playing game. As such, it is not a suitable illustration for fan service. The fact that the artist is even banned from DeviantArt makes promotion in Wikipedia all the more inappropriate. --JN466 18:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Ooh, nasty - as it's clearly not an example of "fan service", it should be expunged with all haste -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (move "Support" comment below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
• Support removing the picture on the grounds that it is from (or on behalf of) a banned user. If nothing else, at least crop the photo to eliminate the promotional name. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Edit war participant User:Jinnai wishes to protect the page. Jinnai also seems to believe that consensus has already been reached despite the ongoing discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, if you look at the talk page and the image's deletion discussion, there is enough imo to justify it being kept. With respect to Michaeldsuarez, he basically came in after seeing 1 person (other than the nom) say to remove it and did no inspite numerous legitimate arguments both there and on the image's deletion discussion that its not. While he is entitled to his opinion on whether the image is pedophilia, there is a large consensus who does not agree it is.

Whether a member was banned or not should have no affect on what the community decides as a whole; we do not go and removed non-vandalistic/non-spam/non-overtly biased text from banned members just because they were banned. If the contribution of a banned member is seen a positive, we judge the content, not the person who posted it there.

As for the FPP, considering its being brought to here and there is a large body who believes the image is fine and moreso appropriate, I believe it is warranted to have an FPP till the issue is resolved.

I would also say that there has been a longstanding campaign to remove all the free images of wikipe-tan and images like the one I restored on multiple places that imo looks like forum shopping (a thought that is shared by others).陣内_Jinnai 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, User: Knowledgekid87's comment is mispreresented here. He specifically said he was fine as there was no policy against it. User:Kraftos said to remove it, but mostly because of it being an advert; since its licensed under CC, the advert portion can be cropped. That indeed has been the reason for most of the removals; rather than trying for the middle ground of cropping people want to simply outright remove the image even though cropping would satisfy their stated concerns, unless they are using it as an excuse (i hope not, but considering the recent history of page and the image its hard to unquestioningly apply AFG.陣内_Jinnai 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Knowledgekid87, I was referring to his delete vote at Commons. --JN466 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

His concern is not with it being pedophilia, but advertising a banned site. If that's the big concern, I'll go ahead and crop the image and upload a new one.陣内_Jinnai 18:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I know about the campaign to remove Wikipe-tan images. I wrote a satire of it: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Wikipe-tan&diff=1998274378&oldid=1998256939. I'm actually for Wikipe-tan images, and I never asked anyone to remove a Wikipe-tan image anywhere. Nevertheless, I'm against using TGcomix's images (they're unrelated to Wikipe-tan) on Wikipedia. I didn't "move in." Jayen466's comment concerned the Wikipe-tan image, not the Kogaru Diaries image. Concerning the "numerous legitimate arguments," none of them mentioned the "Kogaru Diaries" until I entered the picture. I injected an entirely new idea into the discussion. In addition, I want you to take a look at this, this, this, this, and these. Your image of pedophilia is extremely narrow and would be disastrous in a Public Relations department. Wikipedia shouldn't use any piece of art from TGcomix's / Midnight68's "Kogarus Diaries. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that comment. We shouldn't touch that work with a barge pole; it is not a suitable source of media for this or other Wikimedia projects. --JN466 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Support removal of the picture (I've already been reverted once); in addition to the concerns raised above, I fail to see what it adds to the article; there is already an example. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded a version that does not contain the advertising. As many of the "remove" votes elsewhere were based on the advert, those should not be counted as supporting removal of this version.陣内_Jinnai 18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing the text from the image doesn't change the fact that it's from the "Kogaru Diaries". Can't we just draw a entirely new image with an adult instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support as well. I had thought at the conclusion of last month's raging Wikipe-tan debates that the more pervy/creepy images were going to be removed from project-space. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, but as with most of these child exploitation images/Wikipe-tan related discussions, it fizzles out with nobody sure what to do about anything, each side claiming consensus, and nothing changes. It's going to take Arbcom or Jimmy or somebody from Wiki-Legal to set some sort of parameters about using these pictures. I mean, perhaps an image like this would be acceptable in an article about child exploitation in manga, but there needs to be some sort of guidelines. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 19:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support the removal of anything related to this "Kogaru Diaries" thing, as it's not "fan service", it's anime/manga pedophile porn - I'm amazed that we actually have people here passionately arguing to keep this image. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (Support removal of Wikipe-tan image too - it's not a genuine "fan service" character. As a non-official Wikipedia icon, it's use is debatable, but I think it has no valid place in article space at all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
  • Just as a comment, Kogaru Diaries images seem to be kinda all over the place. One on Underwear fetishism for example. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I've removed the Underwear fetishism one, and left a comment on the article Talk page pointing people here - I think we should seek out and remove all such images -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • TGcomix's images are commonplace on foreign-language wikis. Here's some more of his non-deleted images hosted on Commons: [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Remove. Pedophilia: the girl is too young for an encyclopedia to be encouraging the reader to leer at her. An image of an adult would be best. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Removing it is the best approach. We have one definitely free image which highlights the subject (it is not the best image, but meh). Fan service is not particularly related to images of underage girls so I don't see any particular need to use an image of one to demonstrate the topic. An acceptable second image, to me, would be one that demonstrates non-sexualised fan service. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(NB: I've just fully protected the page until this can be sorted out and the opinions of a wide number of editors can be garnered. Happy for someone else to unprotect when this discussion is resolved. Actually is taking place both here and article talk page) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've almost always taken a position of almost absolute non-censorship beyond the legal requirements. Bu tin illustrating articles on a genre or fictional concept, we normally use images from works that the reader is likely to recognize--basically, from the most highly notable works that show the range of the genre or concept. If the work and the artist are truly non-notable, that is excellent reason for not using them, regardless of their nature, if there are equally good or better images from notable works--preferably whatever is in the genre considered to be iconic. I cannot imagine there is likely to be any difficulty in finding some. This is the sort of article where a range of illustrations are necessary to illustrate the concept. However, is the work and the artist truly non-notable, or are we biased towards considering them non-notable because the work is objectionable? From the discussion, it seems they are quite familiar to people here. (If we did have to do an article on an artist who is highly notable for works of borderline legality, I suppose we would do it by picking one of the least objectionable for an illustration even if not characteristic of the range, and stating in words the characteristics of the others.). DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the basic principles DGG expounds here. Illustrations of fan service should be iconic, notable examples. As for potential bias, being known among Wikipedians—because of past on-site controversy, in-project use etc.—and being notable in the wider world our readers inhabit are two quite different things. That applies to Wikipe-tan as an illustration of fan service as much as it does to Kogaru Diaries. FWIW, I looked this morning and found no evidence of RS coverage of Kogaru Diaries or its creator. --JN466 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both images from the article - I hate to be the one who drags Wikipetan into this, but since we are discussing images used in the article, how can Wikipetan, a fictional character not part of a manga or anime series, be used to illustrate something that happens in manag and anime? An image of Wikipetan in a bikini was recently deleted at Commons, but here is another image of Wikipetan in a bikini being used in another article. I think perhaps it is time to draw a clearer line between use of Wikipetan in project space and use of WIkipetan in article space. . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So personal dislike of a character has become the new threshold for non-inclusion in Wikipedia. Wow. Talk about biased.陣内_Jinnai 23:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you actually read that comment by Delicious carbuncle? It doesn't say anything at all about personal dislike, but about non-notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Oops. That was meant for MuZemike, however, I'll note DC has a history of being against every Wikipe-tan image so while it was an accident, given his(?) history I would have to assume his reson for removal of the images is WP:IDONTLIKEIT for Wikipe-tan.
      • He also wants us to violate WP:NFCC by requiring any image of fan service be used in an existing manga or anime.陣内_Jinnai 23:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You do not appear to understand NFCC. For example, we use File:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg in several articles, even though it is from 1968 and copyrighted. Fair use is based on the fact that it is a notable representative of the article topics it is used for. The same goes for fan service. Find a notable, iconic example that is cited by multiple sources, and use of it in Wikipedia becomes fair. --JN466 23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Jinnai, there is no reason for you to assume my reasons - I gave them. And if you are going to start making accusations against people who hold a different view than you do, I am asking you to provide diffs. I have in no way advocated violating NFCC by asking for the removal of the images, so please do not try to put words in my(?) mouth. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Jinnai, I really don't think you'll do your case any good by trying to turn this into a personal criticism of other editors, and by making up their reasons for them - you really should leave people to state their own reasons themselves -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not doing anything that hasn't been done to me. Others have assumed what I said to mean X.陣内_Jinnai 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • I can understand it's annoying if that's happened to you, but retaliation in kind only makes things worse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • " An image of Wikipetan in a bikini was recently deleted at Commons, but here is another image of Wikipetan in a bikini being used in another article." < That image has since been restored so I do not know how that can hold any water here. Also fan service is not just confined to anime and manga works as was stated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support removal per Delicious carbuncle. This is not censorship, as some contend, as it is exercising editorial discretion. As far as I am concerned, there is no context to include images of Wikipetan in an actual Wikipedia article, even of this sort. Given that she is currently a contentious figure on en.wiki and that the community cannot agree as to whether or not she represents Wikipedia as its mascot (official or unofficial), we shouldn't be forcing it one way especially in the mainspace. –MuZemike 22:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In the caption box however it mentions: A bathing suit is typical "fan service". There is no single mention of wikipe-tan in that sentence, in fact if you remove the puzzle pieces from the image you have a fan service image and yes it can be done because wikipe-tan is a free use picture and as such benefits this article with an image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both images from the article per Delicious Carbuncle. --JN466 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• This is pretty clear, it needs to be removed unless there are some reliable sources linking it to (or showing a relationship with) Fan Service. Not even a question. RxS (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both images from the article per DC and MuZemike. It's not rocket science, people - Alison ^❤ 01:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose removing Wikipetan image To echo the opinion I expressed on the article talk page, where this is also being discussed, I think the Wikipetan fan service image is very illustrative of the concept, particularly for anyone who is already familiar with Wikipetan. That said, if someone had an alternative image that it could be replaced with that would not have copyright problems, I wouldn't object, but all of the images should not be removed. Also, since the primary issue raised here has been addressed, shouldn't the Wikipetan discussion continue at the talk page where it was started? Monty₈₄₅ 02:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose removing Wikipetan image Image is of fair use and is thus not easily replaced, this image has a deletion request over at the commons and currently has a down the line Keep consensus there. How many more places and consensus hearings does this need to go through? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose removing Wikipetan image War | Battle | Strife | Strike |Clash. Yeah let continue the long extended Wikipe-tan global conflict :) Currently this is the most suitable free image available at Commons to illustrate the article. If you can demonstrate that this image is unsuitable then no image at Commons is suitable. On a such basis we will be allowed to use non free to illustrate the article and there are "certainly" relevant non free images that even can fend off accusation of Original Research --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both images from the article per DC and MuZemike.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Re Wikipe-tan, I've proposed using an alternative Commons image to illustrate the article that seems more suitable (File:Anime_Girl.svg). --JN466 13:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removing both. Pedophilia appears to be part of mainstream Japanese culture, but it's illegal in most of the world, and especially in the US, where our servers are. Keeping the picture that is currently not in the article removed is therefore a non-brainer. The Wikipe-tan bikini picture is more of a borderline case, but the character is without a doubt depicted as under 18, and the context in which the picture appears removes any doubts that the sexualisation is intentional. Hans Adler 14:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • First, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of Japanese culture - and, on a personal note, I encourage you to visit the country and learn about it before making such unfair comments! Secondly; this is a depiction of underage girls, but it is not pedophilia. This is a relatively important distinction. I think it is important only to factor in the depiction/association as a factor. We have legitimate depiction of underage girls in minimal clothing in other articles (besides, you've probably watched American Beauty, a great film and definitely closer to the divide than many of these images). Ultimately there is not anything legally wrong with them. I think that the issue of it being a depiction of underage girls does factor into a removal argument, it is not sufficient to be the only valid reasoning --Errant ^(chat!) 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I was using the term pedophilia in its more general sense, which includes preference by significantly older people for not fully developed adolescents. Although I didn't say it clearly, the girl looks to me as if she must be at most 14, possibly younger. However, I am a European and since I know Japanese women generally look a lot younger to me than they are it seems conceivable that Japanese girls also look a lot younger. Sorry if I offended you. I have now googled for "pedophilia in Japan" and found that it's probably not so much a misrepresentation as it is a stereotype which, as most stereotypes, does appear to be rooted in a real, measurable difference that is, however, dominated by internal variance.

    I cannot respond as to whether what you call "legitimate depiction of underage girls in minimal clothing in other articles" is actually legitimate or not. I simply don't know what you are talking about. (The same holds for the film American Beauty. I know that there is a film of that name, but I don't even know what it is about. It sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me.) Hans Adler 20:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal — Ched :  ?  18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Administrator note: This board is only for discussing incidents, which need administrative intervention. This dispute is, however, purely editorial. Administrators have no authority to resolve content disputes or to order removal of images based on opinions of editors expressed on this page. So this "vote" is meaningless. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and a consensus on one of Wikipedia's most busy pages is not meaningless. (2) Staying well clear of illegal content is not a purely editorial decision. Hans Adler 19:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I feel like this chat has gotton out of control here, it was orginally for one image but the wikipe-tan image discussion has since become mixed up with this discussion, there is already another discussion going on at Talk:Fan service. The image in question is up for deletion over at the commons with more recent commons in favor of deletion due to it's nature (If it is deleted problem solved there) the wikipe-tan image is also over for deletion at the commons but has a solid keep consensus going for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know why we're even arguing about this. Pro-pedophilia advocacy has been bannable here for a long, long time. Jtrainor (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone should be accused of pro-paedophilia advocacy by simply because they support the inclusion of the original image. Having said that, it is worth noting that the originator of those images has been blocked by ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There are two colliding discussions one over "Kogaru Diaries" that should be removed for various reasons and not just the one creating the discussion here and the other on a "Wikipe-tan" image both present on the Fan Service article. As far as i can tell "Kogaru Diaries" is removed and will remain so, "Wikipe-tan" is likely to be removed and replaced. Meanwhile another discussion to remove "Kogaru Diaries from Commons is under way and discussions for the removal of several "Wikipe-tan" images from Commons ended with Kept or very likely ending this way to much the chagrin of some editors here. I guess that Commons isn't English wiki. --KrebMarkt (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • There are several aspects to bear in mind for Wikipe-tan.
      1. Wikipe-tan started out as a mascot for the Manga WikiProject. It seems appropriate as such, conforms to manga style, and Commons should host it to support those projects that wish to use it.
      2. Then there is the use of Wikipe-tan in mainspace. That is always inappropriate, unless reliable source coverage of the article subject references Wikipe-tan.
      3. Then there is the fact that a few Wikipe-tan images are in danger of crossing the line towards overt pedophilia and crass sexism. Examples are File:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside-cropped.png, with the waterline at the little girl's crotch, or File:Jumping_Wikipe-tan.png, which some editors feel is overtly sexist. Finding an editor blocked in Commons for their pedophilia advocacy in the edit history of some of these Wikipe-tan files doesn't help. As a representation of Wikimedia projects, these images are a turn-off to many editors, alienating in particular female editors, of whom we have far too few as it is: Gendergap listCommons deletion discussionGendergap listGendergap list etc. Lots of editors rightly question whether such images are an appropriate representation of the Wikimedia vision of a gender-neutral educational project.
    • Personally, I would wish for more restraint in creating Wikipe-tan representations that fall in either of these categories, and more restraint in promoting Wikipe-tan images as a generic mascot for the project, especially those that are a real turn-off to many people who would otherwise be valuable contributors. --JN466 13:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
      • The whole thing on how wikipe-tan drives women off is scapegoating, I have seen comments by women on wikipedia on how they cite other reasons, that and discussion after discussion about how women dont edit wikipedia have been going on with no solution in sight. Will getting rid of wikipe-tan get more women to edit? No Do most women know who wikipe-tan even is? Most likely No, so to say it drives off women is more of an opinion than fact (Yes you did provide examples I can just as easily provide comments that say the opposite here). As for images that runs into WP:OI you are not going to sit there and tell me that an image of wikipe-tan in cat ears and a tail does not fall under the term Catgirl, free use images are very hard if not impossible to find in some cases so we as editors have to rely on free use images. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I will sit here and tell you that. Wikipe-tan is an inappropriate image for that article. As for free images being hard to come by, it would have been just as easy for the artist to create an appropriate illustration in actual manga style as it was to create this one. --JN466 18:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I've been making the non-notable, original-research argument at the page in question, but it's like dealing with a brick wall. The arguments they're using are every bit as lame as the article itself is (with or without illustrations). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Would this whole slug fest not gone this far had this image not been Wikipe-tan? Permit some editors to think so. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Hard telling, but speaking for myself, I don't see any inherent problems with that cartoon character. What I see is someone in wikipedia inventing it and then trying to claim some kind of notability for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                • Some editors in this discussion are already close to their 10th discussion within a month related one way or another to Wikipe-tan so please permit them to be in sort "low trust" mode. That make reaching a "sane" solution even more complicated. Had i been me i would have already concluded that no free image can do the job and would be looking a non free image of unquestionable relevance. Forcing the issue would only result mutual lost of trust between editors. Trust is arguably the most valuable currency in Wikipedia, the second being reliable sources. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                • I for one am tired of hearing wikipe-tan come up in these discussions and it seems like it is always by the same editors, all this energy focused on how some call wikipe-tan "Pervy" can just as easily be used for better things. How many consensus and discussions does it have to take before this all ends? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • Basically my point here. The editors can't seem to get their way with all but a couple of images being removed/deleted (those that have been are usually for technical reasons like a superior version of the same image out there). They've just been shopping around and have decided to claim now that OI cannot apply to wikipe-tan because she isn't notable.陣内_Jinnai 21:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                    • Wikipe-tan is actully notable outside of wikipedia, her image has been featured in a newspaper, a gaming magazine, and has also been a mascot for wikimedia Hong Kong as well as cosplayed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
                      • If the character is verifiably notable external to wikipedia, then that could be a different story. The objection I have or had in that "fan-service" article was the conceit of using a wikipedia image as an example of something, based solely on the word of its creator. If wikipe-tan can be properly sourced as being valid for that article, then there should be no problem. If not, though, then it shouldn't be used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

* Support removal. Whatever encyclopædic value this vaguely-connected image might have in a stub about fan service - which already has a relevant and uncontroversial image - is far outweighed by all the drama. bobrayner (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You realize that the discussion has morphed into one about the only remaining image? Which has now become the center of the controversy now that the really controversial one has been removed. Monty₈₄₅ 23:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I am out of touch with current trends (nothing new there). Thanks. Comment stricken. bobrayner (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Quick Question Shouldn't a deletion debate take place in an AFD instead of here where regular users will never see it?--RaptorHunter (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kogaru1.jpg#File:Kogaru1.jpg_2. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan bikini outfit

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.

OrangeMike self-reverted his edit of the fully protected page, so there is no longer a question about administrative action. The issue of whether to include Wikipe-tan in the article is already an active topic of discussion at Talk:Fan service and should be continued there. Dragons flight (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

---

• • Since the article was editprotected [108] has gone in and inspite clear consensus both here, on the deletion discussion at at WP:Anime removed the image. Since its editprotected, and there is consensus to have that image in there, I would like an admin to restore that image; the dispute that caused the edit protection was not about that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 April 2011
    • Te best approach here is to talk directly to OrangeMike; he shouldn't be removing the image because the article is under full protection (regardless of the merits of the removal or replacment). It could well have been a mistake, I am sure he will self-revert if you point it out :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• I support removal of the image. It's in no way, shape or form an image that is notable in the wider world as an example of fan service. --JN466 22:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • While it might possibly not have been appropriate to have removed it while under full protection, this image has no place in this article - Wikipe-tan is not a notable "Fan service" character (or a notable character of any description, in fact) and should not be anywhere in article space -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting for procedural reasons, but that image is an obvious WP:COATRACK violation, as it is totally and utterly irrelevant to the subject of the article where it is used. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • I would beg to differ. She has been noted by numerous news organizations as associated with the Wikimedia Project (specifically Wikipedia). Of course those reports aren't accurate since she's a fan mascot, but they still attest that those claiming she's "unknown in the wider world" are just basing things on their own opinion rather than fact.
    • The image was also created as a depicition of fan service by her creator and notability doesn't play a part in article content.陣内_Jinnai 23:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • She may have been noted by published sources as associated with Wikimedia, but has she been noted by such sources as an example of fan service? Because the article is about fan service, not Wikimedia. --JN466 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Exactly. What I'm saying is that if we want an example of X, we should use a real example of X, not something made to look like X just for Wikipedia - we should use a genuine example of a noted fan service -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
          • The creator has said on his deviantart page that is a depiction of fan service. Surely you're not claiming the artist doesn't know when he creates something, especially something intended for use on an article page as an example, that he doesn't know what he's talking about?陣内_Jinnai 23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • OK, so can I make an image of a duck on DeviantArt, say it's an elephant and use it in List of mammals with big ears? OK, that's a bit sarcastic, but the point is that there are real genuine examples out there that are not deliberately made as an illustration of the style, which our NFC policy allows us to use - do you really not think that would be better? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
              • That's not a comparison because it doesn't illustrate the text. So yeah, that sarcastic remark isn't even close to what we have here and you know it. We're not trying to use this image to describe an anti-hero. We're using it to describe fan service, something that if you read the text, the image does.陣内_Jinnai 23:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Kasuga states on his DA user page "It's mere fanservice, lol." That doesn't make it a suitable image to illustrate the article fan service. --JN466 00:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Yes, in and of itself it doesn't. But it doesn't try to introduce new and unpublished ideas. It depicts something the article text (which is backed by RSes) says, girls in swimsuits.陣内_Jinnai 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
                • The new and unpublished idea, which is alien to published anime and manga works, is Wikipe-tan, the girl with puzzle pieces glued to her head. Please find a real-life, iconic example of fan service in manga or anime, upload it with a fair use rationale. You can use the Warhol example I posted above as a licensing model. Perhaps document sources referring to it as such an example for added security. Then add it to the article, and the project and its readers will be served. --JN466 00:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why you wanted to say "possibly' - there was no pressing need for the image to be removed, there was no consensus, and the article is fully protected. It was, I'm sure, just an error, but it wasn't an appropriate one. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It's just a figure of speech - this is about the image, not about grammar pedantry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

SchuminWeb and consensus in ref improve section

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

Moved to WP:TFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check User_talk:SchuminWeb#Refimprove.21.21.21. The editor denies to postpone mass edits with AWB and continues work based on unclear consensus. I revoked their access to AWB temporarily due to mass edits from a non-bot account with aren't that uncontroversial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I contacted the editor who marked {{Ref improve section}} is deprecated but they haven't been online after my comment. I also left a note in the template's talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that {{Ref improve section}} has 4177 transclusions at the moment after the editor did about a 1,000 edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Now let's discuss: See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 10#Template:Ref improve section. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Vote.svg

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

Resolved

 – workaround created, thanks Saibo! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Vote.svg has just been deleted from Commons. There are an awful lot of links to that file, at the English Wikipedia and elsewhere. Can this be fixed before the delinker bot starts to damage all those pages? I suggest File:A coloured voting box.svg as a temporary replacement. The image has (had?) permanent full protection, so I think the fix needs an admin. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed the commons admin who deleted the image at this thread. Exxolon (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That file was a derivative work of a file lacking permission (File:Voting box clipart.gif), which was not deleted by myself, as you can see in the log. The copyright status of the original image was not verifiable. I was concerned about the significant usage of this file and the original that it was derived from, and posted the concern on the copyright questions page, but as I said, the source image was deleted by another administrator. We can't really ignore licensing issues just because an image is widely used. The image was marked as missing permission since December 22, 2010, so I can't fault the other administrator either. Adrignola (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is why I hate Commons. It never would have occurred to them to create at least something to replace the deleted image temporarily, or even tell the rest of us about this. No, they just delete and damn the other projects that are forced to work with Commons. A good idea co-opted by mindless bureaucrats and wannabe lawyers, at this point I'm for requiring deletion discussions on commons to transclude to the proper place in each local project, as we never find out that they're about to pull the rug out from under us until our asses are on the floor wondering what happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Four days ago I added a request for just that sort of thing at Commons. Seems your comments provide a more recent example of the ill-will I remember seeing previously toward Commons. This follows the lackluster response I got posting the idea six days ago on the village pump. Adrignola (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, it's this sort of action that causes users, myself included, to feel that it is much better to just host images on-wiki and not deal with Commons. To date, all the images I have ever uploaded (which are very few, I admit) have been on-wiki. Silverseren^C 19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Silver seren here. Yes, Commons is independent etc etc etc but it's there to support the other Wikimedia projects, and at the very least should be notifying the major Wikipedias somewhere when they take a unilateral action that they know will cause massive disruption. – iridescent 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use files have to be hosted locally anyway. For other files, if they were deleted at Commons due to copyright issues, there's no reason to think they wouldn't be deleted here as well given time. Uploading locally would just be trying to take advantage of less oversight on images here. If you upload to Commons you will be notified of deletion discussion on your images or when an image you upload has an issue, such as no license/source/permission and get an email for the talk page change if you so desire. Adrignola (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true; the copyright rules on Commons are much more onerous than they are on wikipedia. I agree with Silver seren, Commons has become too much hassle to bother with. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not "much more onerous", at least for user-produced content (which should never be fair use). And if one is doing it right it doesn't matter whether things get uploaded here or to Commons as properly-licensed content can make its way to Commons by itself. Very few pieces of falling sky in my umbrella tonight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, that's not true. Commons demands that an image is out of copyright in its country of origin. wikipedia demands that it's out of copyright according to Florida law. Big difference. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris, my main issue is that they do an incredibly shitty job at caring about the impact they have on the other projects that are, at this point, pretty much forced to deal with commons. They make no effort to communicate with other projects, they don't factor cross-WMF impact into their discussions, and when you confront them, they almost universally say that it's "not their problem". You know what? That's a damn inappropriate way to behave and speaks very poorly about their character as people. Until Commons decides as an organization to work with the rest of the family, they're going to continue to be that second cousin everyone hates but still invites to family gatherings because they have to. Should commons delete inappropriate content? Yes they should. But if a file is being used by another project, they have an obligation to tell that project the day the file goes up for deletion. Finding out that a file used on hundreds of pages got deleted on commons only when the file disappears breeds the kind of hatred or distrust of commons that you're seeing here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that sentiment. I was responding to the point that Commons has unnecessary licensing requirements. Well, so do we: it's sort of what free content is about. Commons is particularly anal about it, but so long as there is a good enough feedback loop that shouldn't be a problem for us. The problem is the feedback loop, not the licensing requirements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

JFYI: Per request at commons:Commons:Help_desk#Vote.svg i have created a redir to the replacement file as a temporary workaround. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing and responding to the point about on-wiki uploading, yes, stuff that is deleted on Commons will also likely end up being deleted here on-wiki as well. However, the primary difference is that, in deleting it here, we'll make sure to follow the proper procedure and delink things beforehand so that the deletion doesn't end up disrupting hundreds of articles. Commons, on the other hand, doesn't notify the various Wikipedias when they are going to delete something and, when it is pointed out to them, say that it is not their problem. Well, if it's not going to be their problem, then i'm going to make sure that they have absolutely no say in the images I upload, as I will be uploading them on-wiki and they won't be able to do a thing about it. Silverseren^C 22:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder why nobody here bothered to get CommonsTicker running. Seems to work fine on other projects. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

    It's long been defunct. See contributions. That's why I'd like to see a replacement, so I don't have to feel like a bad guy working at Commons. Adrignola (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  Delinking would have been disruptive (had a negative impact) on us here anyway as the icon in question was still needed. What was needed was appropriate feedback which would allow for a replacement to be provided before deletion. As for a CommonsTicker replacement, someone on Commons said that dewiki already has one: can't theirs be cloned? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those who cast aspersions on the hard-working editors at Commons might want to walk a mile in their shoes before hurling unwarranted insults? Powers ^T 17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, actually. I don't think there is any need to be nasty about this. On the other hand a polite request along the lines of "hey, there is a problem here, can we work to fix it" would go a long way. Adrignola, I might be convinced to add re-creating the Bot to my to-do list (which is a bit long.... but this seems a pretty important issue). Would you be willing to clue me into Commons processes relevant to creating such a bot? --Errant ^(chat!) 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. There's no need to insult other people trying to improve either commons or wikipedia. Or is this another exception to acting civil/assuming good faith? If I'd seen these types of responses in 2006, I'd have run away from wikipedia and never looked back. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I, at least, have enough personal experience with commons to put conviction behind my words. They could easily transculde their deletion discussion to the local FfDs or find some other sort of work around. This becomes especially true for images used dozens or hundreds of times. Instrad, they say we should constantly watch their deletion discussions because it's more convenient that way. I'm sorry, but it may be convenient for them but it's not for us. If they want to insist on being an island, they can do so. More and more editors are choosing to upload locally only and some go as far as to use keeplocal tags. I don't trust commons, and I know I'm not alone. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then apparently your experience is not representative of reality. Commons does things a bit differently, this is true; however, we're not all madmen running around looking to piss off local projects. Juliancolton (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we all know enwiki is a perfect online community. Juliancolton (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Can an admin formally close it? elektrikSHOOS 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Marked as resolved. Discussion about Commons policy can go somewhere else, the incident at hand requiring admin intervention is dealt with. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Vote.svg

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

Resolved

 – workaround created, thanks Saibo! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Vote.svg has just been deleted from Commons. There are an awful lot of links to that file, at the English Wikipedia and elsewhere. Can this be fixed before the delinker bot starts to damage all those pages? I suggest File:A coloured voting box.svg as a temporary replacement. The image has (had?) permanent full protection, so I think the fix needs an admin. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed the commons admin who deleted the image at this thread. Exxolon (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That file was a derivative work of a file lacking permission (File:Voting box clipart.gif), which was not deleted by myself, as you can see in the log. The copyright status of the original image was not verifiable. I was concerned about the significant usage of this file and the original that it was derived from, and posted the concern on the copyright questions page, but as I said, the source image was deleted by another administrator. We can't really ignore licensing issues just because an image is widely used. The image was marked as missing permission since December 22, 2010, so I can't fault the other administrator either. Adrignola (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is why I hate Commons. It never would have occurred to them to create at least something to replace the deleted image temporarily, or even tell the rest of us about this. No, they just delete and damn the other projects that are forced to work with Commons. A good idea co-opted by mindless bureaucrats and wannabe lawyers, at this point I'm for requiring deletion discussions on commons to transclude to the proper place in each local project, as we never find out that they're about to pull the rug out from under us until our asses are on the floor wondering what happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Four days ago I added a request for just that sort of thing at Commons. Seems your comments provide a more recent example of the ill-will I remember seeing previously toward Commons. This follows the lackluster response I got posting the idea six days ago on the village pump. Adrignola (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, it's this sort of action that causes users, myself included, to feel that it is much better to just host images on-wiki and not deal with Commons. To date, all the images I have ever uploaded (which are very few, I admit) have been on-wiki. Silverseren^C 19:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Silver seren here. Yes, Commons is independent etc etc etc but it's there to support the other Wikimedia projects, and at the very least should be notifying the major Wikipedias somewhere when they take a unilateral action that they know will cause massive disruption. – iridescent 19:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use files have to be hosted locally anyway. For other files, if they were deleted at Commons due to copyright issues, there's no reason to think they wouldn't be deleted here as well given time. Uploading locally would just be trying to take advantage of less oversight on images here. If you upload to Commons you will be notified of deletion discussion on your images or when an image you upload has an issue, such as no license/source/permission and get an email for the talk page change if you so desire. Adrignola (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true; the copyright rules on Commons are much more onerous than they are on wikipedia. I agree with Silver seren, Commons has become too much hassle to bother with. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They're not "much more onerous", at least for user-produced content (which should never be fair use). And if one is doing it right it doesn't matter whether things get uploaded here or to Commons as properly-licensed content can make its way to Commons by itself. Very few pieces of falling sky in my umbrella tonight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, that's not true. Commons demands that an image is out of copyright in its country of origin. wikipedia demands that it's out of copyright according to Florida law. Big difference. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris, my main issue is that they do an incredibly shitty job at caring about the impact they have on the other projects that are, at this point, pretty much forced to deal with commons. They make no effort to communicate with other projects, they don't factor cross-WMF impact into their discussions, and when you confront them, they almost universally say that it's "not their problem". You know what? That's a damn inappropriate way to behave and speaks very poorly about their character as people. Until Commons decides as an organization to work with the rest of the family, they're going to continue to be that second cousin everyone hates but still invites to family gatherings because they have to. Should commons delete inappropriate content? Yes they should. But if a file is being used by another project, they have an obligation to tell that project the day the file goes up for deletion. Finding out that a file used on hundreds of pages got deleted on commons only when the file disappears breeds the kind of hatred or distrust of commons that you're seeing here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that sentiment. I was responding to the point that Commons has unnecessary licensing requirements. Well, so do we: it's sort of what free content is about. Commons is particularly anal about it, but so long as there is a good enough feedback loop that shouldn't be a problem for us. The problem is the feedback loop, not the licensing requirements. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

JFYI: Per request at commons:Commons:Help_desk#Vote.svg i have created a redir to the replacement file as a temporary workaround. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing and responding to the point about on-wiki uploading, yes, stuff that is deleted on Commons will also likely end up being deleted here on-wiki as well. However, the primary difference is that, in deleting it here, we'll make sure to follow the proper procedure and delink things beforehand so that the deletion doesn't end up disrupting hundreds of articles. Commons, on the other hand, doesn't notify the various Wikipedias when they are going to delete something and, when it is pointed out to them, say that it is not their problem. Well, if it's not going to be their problem, then i'm going to make sure that they have absolutely no say in the images I upload, as I will be uploading them on-wiki and they won't be able to do a thing about it. Silverseren^C 22:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder why nobody here bothered to get CommonsTicker running. Seems to work fine on other projects. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

    It's long been defunct. See contributions. That's why I'd like to see a replacement, so I don't have to feel like a bad guy working at Commons. Adrignola (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  Delinking would have been disruptive (had a negative impact) on us here anyway as the icon in question was still needed. What was needed was appropriate feedback which would allow for a replacement to be provided before deletion. As for a CommonsTicker replacement, someone on Commons said that dewiki already has one: can't theirs be cloned? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 07:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps those who cast aspersions on the hard-working editors at Commons might want to walk a mile in their shoes before hurling unwarranted insults? Powers ^T 17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, actually. I don't think there is any need to be nasty about this. On the other hand a polite request along the lines of "hey, there is a problem here, can we work to fix it" would go a long way. Adrignola, I might be convinced to add re-creating the Bot to my to-do list (which is a bit long.... but this seems a pretty important issue). Would you be willing to clue me into Commons processes relevant to creating such a bot? --Errant ^(chat!) 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. There's no need to insult other people trying to improve either commons or wikipedia. Or is this another exception to acting civil/assuming good faith? If I'd seen these types of responses in 2006, I'd have run away from wikipedia and never looked back. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I, at least, have enough personal experience with commons to put conviction behind my words. They could easily transculde their deletion discussion to the local FfDs or find some other sort of work around. This becomes especially true for images used dozens or hundreds of times. Instrad, they say we should constantly watch their deletion discussions because it's more convenient that way. I'm sorry, but it may be convenient for them but it's not for us. If they want to insist on being an island, they can do so. More and more editors are choosing to upload locally only and some go as far as to use keeplocal tags. I don't trust commons, and I know I'm not alone. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Then apparently your experience is not representative of reality. Commons does things a bit differently, this is true; however, we're not all madmen running around looking to piss off local projects. Juliancolton (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we all know enwiki is a perfect online community. Juliancolton (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Can an admin formally close it? elektrikSHOOS 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Marked as resolved. Discussion about Commons policy can go somewhere else, the incident at hand requiring admin intervention is dealt with. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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