Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626

Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again)

Resolved

 – ChaosMaster16 will remove problematically sourced material, and everyone concerned will play nicely in future.

See also: Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes § pifeedback.com as a source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pifeedback.com, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625 § Problematic user: ChaosMaster16

ChaosMaster16 is refusing to acknowledge an obvious consensus at WP:RSN and edit-warring at List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, although not in a way that would justify reporting at WP:AIV or WP:3RRN. Some time ago, in the process of rebuilding List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, I removed several ratings figures because they were sourced from pifeedback.com, an internet forum. ChaosMaster16 reverted not only my edits, but all of the changes made by four different editors.[1] Eventually ChaosMaster16 allowed most of our changes to remain, but challenged the removal of the pifeedback.com information. Neither the RSN discussion in May or WP:SPS was ufficient proof for him that pifeedback.com is not reliable, so I initiated another RSN discussion.[2] The response of five editors still wasn't sufficient so he spammed several user talk pages, resulting in the recent ANI discussion linked at the top of this section. Now, a total of 19 editors have been involved with 13 editors declaring either that pifeedback.com shouldn't be used or that it is definitely unreliable. That still is not good enough for ChaosMaster16.

When it became clear that consensus was that pifeedback.com was not reliable, I removed the information from the article.[3] My edits were reverted, as were the edits of another editor who tried to remove the information.[4][5] In my case, I was accused of vandalism.[6] He then claimed that four editors said the pifeedback.com figures should be included with citation tags.[7] In reality, a single editor suggested the possibility,[8] and ChaosMaster16 took that as consensus. I challenged his claim and, when he hadn't responded in two days, I removed the pifeedback.com information. However, it's back again, having been restored for reasons that aren't entirely clear from edit summaries. He now claims that the "for and "against" sides are even at 6 people each, despite a tally that I did so as to hopefully resolve this debacle, shows a somewhat different story. (13 not reliable - 3 reliable)[9] This may seem like a content dispute but when one editor is ignoring the opinions of many others, or twisting their opinions unrealistically so that they support his arguments and just making stuff up, it's beyond mediation.

It's really not just this issue. His whole attitude to the project needs adjustment. Edit-warring, reverting significant edits by others, improperly warning users and deliberate addition of false information[10] is not showing respect to the project. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on this particular incident, but I did feel his final question in the previous discussion indicated, shall we say, a tendency to wish to push the boundaries, rather than understand the point at issue. To wrap up an ANI discussion by trying to get clarification on just how far you can push in future seems a little problematic. Is there any future in counselling here, in case it's a case of good intentions, but not understanding? To elaborate, what I'm suggesting is that sometimes a user gets pulled into conflict without understanding there's another way - and maybe this has happened here. Just a thought. Although I guess he's been here a while now - maybe he should already have "got it" - just trying to see a painless way forward.  Begoon^talk 20:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"a tendency to wish to push the boundaries, rather than understand the point at issue." - This was something that I observed about him elsewhere. He applied for rollback permission and when told he needed more vandal fighting experience, with a suggestion of at least 50 vandal reverts, rather than getting some general experience he rushed out, did 50 reverts then came back and said OK, I'm done.[11] As for counselling, I think it would have to be forced. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok - take your points, and you obviously have far more of the history here than I do. I would always just rather see us be able to reform a user than lose a user, especially one with a long contribution history. I haven't fully reviewed that history yet - my comments were based on my default to "fix" rather than "abandon". I see from your initial comment that's your preference too. I'll comment fully later.  Begoon^talk 20:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Initially, I mainly see this one dispute over pifeedback.com as the main point of contention. That certainly seems to be the focus of recent problems. Is there more than that, or should we, in reality, concentrate on that as being the nexus of this complaint?  Begoon^talk 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

His unwillingness to acknowledge consensus the he himself help to create is certainly a major issue. If we can address that, hopefully the result will be positive for all. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that posts such as this are appropriate. This one seems like he's forgotten the other ANI discussion already. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok - you got me there - my good faith is stretched remarkably now. I hoped he'd absorbed the advice given - seems not really. I just find it sad when seemingly a single issue can end up this way. It's like we've all failed to stop an accident. Sorry for seeming so insistent initially - now I've read some more diffs I agree this isn't really tenable as it is.  Begoon^talk 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How in the world is asking Mike Allen, who was already in the discussion and obviously has some interest in the issue, and adding a notice on top of an entertainment notice not appropraite? I admit the entertainment board is pushing the limits, but you are seriously going to pick out Mike Allen's and use that against me? And let me remind you Aussie, that this is an ongoign discussion, it doesn't exactly have a consensus yet, as we are still discussing the issue, which you seem to be in complete denial of discussing. Coming here before the discussion is over is proof enough. And, Begoon, I don't exactly see how my question in that discussion was "pushing boundries". I mentioned it in my previous response, and Aussie responded, a few times on two discussions, blatantly ignoring the question. I honestly just wanted to hear his opinion on that, and certainly wasn't intentionally trying to "push boundries". I do apoligize for sounding mean?, I don't mean to. ChaosMaster_Chat 00:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't sound mean. I just think it's time this was put to bed. It isn't going to be seen as constructive after an ANI thread here regarding spamming a request, where you agreed to be more circumspect,to then "piggyback" that request on another template. That's certainly pushing boundaries in my book. If this was a schoolyard, I'd ask you to all go behind the bikesheds and settle your differences. It's starting to look a bit silly  Begoon^talk 01:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So what should we (or I rather) do? I am opened to anything, as this is getting rediculous. I think that the discussion is getting under both Aussie and I's skin, but I do think that it has progressed and improved. The point I was trying to to make was heard and I hope with that, it will turn the tables so we can do whats best for wikipedia, not just simply obide by five or six rules that prevent us from using common sense. ChaosMaster_Chat 01:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what I linked above (after the edit conflict) might be a start if you genuinely can't just discuss it and reach a compromise independently on your talk pages. You both want to contribute positively, but there is a difference of opinion. Certainly couldn't hurt to try  Begoon^talk 01:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

suggestion, Has anyone ever heard of WP:SNOW? That's exactly what this issue is. So far this is quite strong consensus (key word being so far) that the source provided is not appropriate. Don't forget WP:Consensus isn't decided on the number of votes, its the quality and merit of the points made. Instead of fighting over it here's a suggestion. Chaosmaster16 should remove the information to his personal user page or a sandbox/whatever to preserve it and search for more appropriate sources. You should really accept the evidence before you about why the source is not acceptable. Once that it does maybe you and 'Aussie' can work together on the rest of the article/project amicably. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - that was the kind of agreement I hoped they would reach independently - I agree, though, some nudging may help :)  Begoon^talk 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to start an arguement, but I did already try to provide other sources, as well as another user (I guess, from the edits he has made), but I haven't come up with anything better than that source. I don't see any reason to use my sandboxes for this if I alread basically went through the notion. Now what? ChaosMaster_Chat 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you're "open to anything", ChaosMaster, how about we start there - with Lil-unique's proposal. It works for me, and hopefully makes some sense to you too. At some point, the stick will need to be dropped.  Begoon^talk 01:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is you cant leave poorly sourced or unsourcable information in an article in the hope that one day it might be sourceable from reliable sites. The whole point of using a sandbox is to preserve the information if you are intent on adding it to the article. Whilst your determination is admirable, I've scanned the discussions and have to agree that there isn't currently a good source for the info. You and 'Aussie' are obviously both passionate about this so why not focus on other aspects of the project/article. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it would seem a shame if this got further prolonged into more tit for tat and ended in some kind of sanction - that's avoidable at the moment, but I suspect this audience has limits to its tolerance.  Begoon^talk 01:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Begoon would agree with me if I said that if you drop ChaosMaster16 drops the issue then this report can end here without sanctions right? Both you and 'Aussie' should agree discuss things more. I'm sure you'll find that the project/article will make more progress this way. After all wikipedia is about the community not the interests of individual. I'm sure both of you would love to see the project make progress (y) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Its fine with me. But what worries me when that happens is that since I have used that source on other pages that I edit, I fear the same situation happening. But for Ghost Whisperer's page, I will do that. ChaosMaster_Chat 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets eat the elephant one piece at a time. First you can tidy this up, then if you need to, you can worry about other places you've used the source - how does that sound?  Begoon^talk 01:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, should I do this now, or wait for his or another comment? ChaosMaster_Chat 01

57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're in agreement to it then the situation is resolved. Go ahead and removed from the original article which 'Aussie' bought you here for. Then I think its a case for you and Aussie to agree to be more civil to each other and please discuss things more! --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - and thanks for talking it through with us. Do that, shake hands,and get on with the stuff you enjoy!  Begoon^talk 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you two for helping me! :) ChaosMaster_Chat 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Though it should be noted for future reference, I'm a completely neutral editor with no interest in the subject at question. Nor am I an admin. I simply saw the discussion and having been through a similar situation myself offered some neutral advice. Glad there has been a calm resolution. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - I hate to see conflicts escalate, when they can be avoided. Very glad this seems to have been resolved.  Begoon^talk 19:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of Ocean Mystic Researcher?

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked by MuZemike. LK (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Melanesian obsession (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account involved in article deletions and targeting Richard Arthur Norton's articles. The MO is uncannily similar to that of Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Any ideas? Or should I just go to SPI instead? Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In either venue, you'd have to expand on "uncannily similar". I can see some grounds for suspicion, but only weak suspicion.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, both accounts concentrate on AfDs as soon as they register, both have maritime related names and both start targeting RAN's articles soon after they register. Maybe a duck case but it is your word against mine at the moment. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just ban the asshat already, its clear what he's doing.--Milowent (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • He even prodded an article by RAN before without providing a reason. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, same user as User:Drawn Some and User:Torkmann, same pattern of right into AFDs and right into nominate my articles, and usually there is another account voting that is also him, look and see if there are any other delete votes for an obvious keep article and that will be another sleeper account. He usually has ones that are used for a short burst then quiet for a year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of fowl play I see. Great work Richard. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. –MuZemike 08:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much MuZemike. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Boldly closed this AFD a little early. Obvious keep. Left the rest open as they haven't been open for very long and/or have delete !votes aside from the nom. Perhaps an admin can look them over. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Unless I have misread the discussions badly, the consensus is clear on the article’s talk page and at RS/N: racial designations are hearsay in respect of the specific cited sources, and that race was not a factor in the crime. (This is the very short form of the discussions. There is no single diff that will help.) Richmondian, the more vocal of the only two dissenting points of view, keeps restoring racial designations to the lede. Richmondian also leaves edit summaries in misleading support of his idiosyncratic viewpoint. See here and here. (I will notify Richmondian of this discussion as soon as I finish this post. Disclaimer: I am “involved”.) I solicit suggestions as to the least disruptive way to stabilize the article at the consensus version. Bielle (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Posted [12] Bielle (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also just left this user Richmondian a warning template here on his talkpage for unnecessarily striking through one of my comments on the Richmond High School gang rape talkpage in this edit with some note of, duplicate vote stricken, which was news to me as it wasn't an AFD and was the first time I had bolded support in that way. This user has massive ownership issues with the article and is insisting of inserting content that gives weight to a claim that is unreflected in quality citations, namely that the rape was racially motivated. Off2riorob (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor put a "support" comment twice. Once without bold, once with bold. Could confuse people. Seems reasonable to strike out one. This will sound petty, but the editor seems to have some sort of grudge, against the article for some time. Not clear why but he's tried to remove info, tried to delete it, tried to damage the article to make an AfD more likely to succeed. Richmondian (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on the talkpage regarding reliable sources and requested a list of the sources being used to support the edit, I'll then evaluate and comment. Exxolon (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Commented. I'm for leaving the information out at this time. Exxolon (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the time and effort taken by Exxolon to evaluate the sources cited. He has added his voice to the many who have already reached the same conclusion, as linked above at talk page and at RS/N. Off2riorob has reverted Richmodian's most recent revert as a consequence. Perhaps Richmondian will now accept that the weight of policy and opinion is against the point of view he espouses. These actions seems just to continue the edit war, though, albeit with another voice involved. Is this the best way to handle the problem? Or are we just waiting now to see what Richmondian does next? Bielle (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

415plya, a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to this article and on this issue, has returned to revert Off 2riorob here which was promptly flipped back by Drmies here. The skirmishes in the war continue. Bielle (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea who that is. Seems like an editor that has a difference of opinion that should be considered (and probably an editor with other accounts...strange that they'd pop in to edit this article out of the blue) Richmondian (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan kirkpatrick back again?

Not sure if this is the right place, but while sitting on newpage patrol just now I came across an article written by User:Ryan Kirky. Username similarity aside, it looks very similar to User:Ryan kirkpatrick's air accident articles. Just thought it should be brought to your attention; I'm not sure what the best course of action is here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are no users with knowledge of Ryan to concur with any WP:DUCK-tests (I find that unlikely, he is well known) then I suspect an SPI will be in order. I suspect users with said knowledge will materialise soon. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've templated his new articles as copyvio - they could be, as at least one other was, just turned into redirects to articles that mention the incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image inappropriately cute for PKK article

I am involved in possibly the most curious episode of reverting I have ever witnessed, let alone participated in. I find that the image I reverted with this edit (with summary) entirely inappropriate for the article - most of the time I spend adminning the article is in removing gratuitous ethnic, cultural, and nationalistic insults and attempts to vandalise the other protagonists viewpoints. I have explained on the ip editors talkpage that I consider placing the image on the article page as vandalism, as I believe it is placed there to irritate editors whose view of the PKK is somewhat caustic. I am beginning to believe, however, that it may be simple propoganda, but regardless I would like a few other opinions on this - I don't really want to be warning an editor for placing "nice pictures" in articles unless it is agreed that it is inappropriate. Please note, viewing the image may not be suitable for those of a fragile disposition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes the "PKK guerilla nurses an orphaned bear cub" picture is innapropriate for this article. I shudder to think what a nightmare of propagandaists that article must be.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the image in itself objectionable, altough I would move it lower down in the article. The image of a guerrilla in non-combat situations is not erroneous, in fact most time spent by guerrillas is not in the battle-front (although nursing orphaned bear cubs isn't the most mundane chore at hand). However, the image is likely to get deleted anyway, due to lack of proper licensing. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As Soman says, we try to keep reuse of news service photos to a minimum due to fair use being very hard to justify in those cases unless the image is in itself "iconic". So if you need an argument other than "it's too cute", there's that. --erachima talk 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ahhhh..bless. Yes the image doesn't have a valid license, it's on commons and according to this it's one of Andrea Bruce's and was in the Washington Post. So, I guess we shouldn't have it unless someone can make a valid fair use case for the small furry chap. Also leaning an AK47 against something like that is quite a serious a health and safety violation and we shouldn't be encouraging those... Someone might get hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely inappropriate as the first, principal image of what a PKK member is, unless they are principally armed bear-nursers. It's also taken from [13] with insufficient credit and no fair-use rationale, and fails NFCC#1 ("no free equivalent exists or could be created"), since there are free equivalents in the article already. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, do not delete picture. Picture is allowed for sharing and that gun in picture will not hurt anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santakari (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What is really funny is that the uploader lifted the image from a commentary about the original use of the image in which the commentary is stating the use of the image in regards to discussions about the PKK is completely inappropriate propoganda! Active Banana (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a copyvio on commons. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not the first time S has uploaded that image there, claiming to be the author! LeadSongDog come howl! 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Apki.ammi.chodu

Resolved

 – 3 users blocked

Apki.ammi.chodu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user:Apki.ammi.chodu has been blocked Yet another WP:DUCK sock of Shshsh stalker: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#User:Shshsh_ki_mako Active Banana (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Group all sixty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - here's another one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And another one: Still strong.still (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Can someone take a look at it please? Falcon8765 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Drmies

Resolved

 – poppycock Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This was archived before I even had a chance to respond! Not only are Drmies actions were pretty blatantly wikihounding, he's clearly pushing a POV. Far from "anyone who knows anything about human trafficking", there's substantial evidence that most claims of human trafficking are wildly exaggerated, particularly those related to sexual trafficking. Here's a couple of examples from a quick google search: [14] [15]. I will be updating Human Trafficking to be more balanced when I have time to do more research. But a first step in improving wikipedia is to remove/reduce the undue weight given to the topic. We can't have editors who believe everything the hear on the 11pm news during sweeps week blocking constructive edits. And to follow another user around and revert other edits with the clear intent to annoy and push POV? Unacceptable. I suggest Drmies stick to topics he's more knowledgeable about and contribute constructively to wikipedia there.

For example: Template:Violence against women was blanked and stayed that way for nearly a week before I fixed it here. Are we really to believe that it's better to have the template be blank than exist without a link to human trafficking? Even though Sexual Slavery and Forced Prostitution are already there? That may just be sloppy editing, but given his other actions it's unlikely. TJ Black (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:STICK? Protonk (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to have stopped for now, so yes, I agree it's kind of a dead issue. It's not clear why the discussion was archived before I had a chance to reply though. TJ Black (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not "poppycock" by any means, but apparently resolved through the other editor deciding to refrain from disruptive behavior. TJ Black (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I refrained from disruptive behavior? I guess I should take that as a compliment, haha. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Defamation and copyright complaint on Talk:Yolanda Soares

An anonymous IP address that previously vandalized the article is now claiming to be a publisher and on the article talk page and two other user talk pages claims to have made a report to the Swiss Authors Society. Please see Talk:Yolanda Soares#Copyrights and defamation relating to song writer Alex fan Moniz - this Wikipedia entry has been reported the the Swiss Authors Society. Fæ (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, against whom this IP has complained, asked me if I'd block the IP per WP:NLT. While blocking seems to me to be warranted in this situation, I hesitate to do it, because I'm rather inexperienced with this situation. Some time ago, I blocked someone for making legal threats; soon afterward, I brought the issue here for advice and was kindly told that blocking wasn't necessary. Since I don't want to block unless it's necessary, I don't want to block without getting input first. That all being said, I think the IP should be blocked until/unless the threats are retracted. Nyttend (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP address can be temporarily blocked for WP:NLT. As well, the apparent latest sockpuppet account User:Simongad (which appears to be related to the long list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69/Archive). The basis for this disruption dates back to the Helen Anne Petrie hoax -- info and links are provided at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. I don't want to get into a discussion of public identities and locations here. If any administrator wants further clarification, they can e-mail me. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Inflammation Diet

I can't locate a diet or nutrition Wikiproject, and I would like to ask someone familiar with those types of articles to review Anti-Inflammation Diet before trying to prune it down to size. The article has some well-referenced sections and some encyclopedic content; but a large chunk of it seems to flip between being better suited for either marketing materials or in a magazine/journal.

Can someone please help point me towards an apporpriate forum where people more familiar with articles on diets and/or nutrition could be contacted to help review this one? Thanks. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Try WT:HEALTH --erachima talk 22:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Distributed element filter

Resolved

Move Prtected.

TFA without move protection, I usually go to RFPP, nut it is backlogged. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Move protected for the day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Christopherfisherington

Resolved

 – chicken/penis uploader indeffed by CIreland. Me, I'm just waiting for the White Rabbit--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Christopherfisherington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Vandalism under pretext of "challenging convention" I'm sure. Current problem is with inclusion of a "hawkstrider" picture with a definite phallus for a head (funny sure, but inappropriate) in the Orc page. A cursory viewing of his short history and especially his User talk page will show his attitude towards wiki. --Out of Phase User (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a chicken to me? (Albeit badly drawn.) a_man_alone (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his contribs, the user seems to be purely disruptive and an obvious troll. I am amazed that he hasn't been indeffed earlier. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not making a comment on whether he should be or not, just noting (for clarity) that he hasn't been indeffed now either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean, he titled a picture after me of some weird chicken. I didn't catch it, someone else did and pulled it for copyright stuff. It's harassment, I guess, if it helps the case. --Out of Phase User (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This image, File:Outofphaseuser.jpg, may be CSD G10able. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted. Please don't delink the image, by the way; I've remarked about the ANI discussion in my deletion summary, and including a link to the page will enable someone to find the discussion easily. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account. CIreland (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I realise this is all moot, there was a lack of assumed good faith there:

• User uploaded badly drawn image of an orc on a chicken
• Another user saw not a chicken, but a penis, and complained
• Original user uploaded another badly drawn image of a chicken to show that it was a chicken, not a penis. Original uploader called second image that of second user, so second user would know that the image was an example of a badly drawn chicken, not a badly drawn penis.

For the record, I see a chicken.

a_man_alone (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicken, penis, whatever. The user's other contribs (especially deleted contribs) were more than enough justification for an indef-block. CIreland (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also regardless of it being a chicken or penis (coul dn't care less), childrens drawings are usually not accepted as informative illustrations on Wikipedia (unless it is to illustrate what children's drawings look like). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Once I saw Ron Ritzman's comment, I agreed with it: the picture and the file name together amount to calling Out of Phase User a chicken, which seems to be attack-ish enough for G10. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that what you got? Because I just thought he was being super weird, childish, and annoying. --Out of Phase User (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What base prudery. It's a moot point, but that was obviously a penis. This isn't some sort of Rorschach test-like ambiguity. Skinwalker (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we have better things to worry about than whether the drawing was of a dick or a cock. --erachima talk 04:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive sneaky vandalism of Robert Watson (scientist)

Resolved

 – Article protected Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A series of loosely organized "skeptics" are attempting to put false, defamatory content in Robert Watson (scientist). Dr. Watson said that Mars' thin atmosphere causes it not to have a greenhouse effect (while Venus' thick atmosphere causes it to have a huge greenhouse effect). This is in line with standard scientific thinking. An IP vandal attempted to insert the false inormation that this is not in line with standard scientific thinking into the article - this was reverted, but that reversion was questioned as a vandalism or not-vandalism revert.

However, users are now reinserting the false, defamatory information into the article, in violation of BLP. Please assist. Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The material may or may not be a WP:BLP violation, that is certainly a topic for debate, but to call it "vandalism" and “defamatory”? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. WVBluefield (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The material is a blatant synthesis to make defamatory accusations against a living person. Failure to understand something is no excuse for edit warring to re-add obviously poorly supported material, and a look at the article talk page would have shown you that the material was false. Not good behaviour. . dave souza, talk 20:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blatant is a judgment not neccesarraly supported by the talk page material. Given the past inconsistent treatment of "blatant" material in BLP's by editors far more experienced than myself, you can understand my skepticsim when I hear cires of "blatant" violations. Oh well, at least no one is calling it "vandlaism" anymore.WVBluefield (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your edit wasn't vandalism, it was just disruptive. The IP edit was vandalism - it was intentionally disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My intent was to insert relevant material into an article. WVBluefield (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt this forum shopping? As hipocrite has already brought an enforcement request against me? [16] mark nutley (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Mark, this is to get a bunch of admins looking at the article to block the next person who feels like defamaing a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• We have a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you know. Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

Resolved

 – Done by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I need an admin. an user moved the page Floyd Mayweather, Jr. to a nonsense target. I reverted it, but I added a dot (Floyd Mayweather, Jr..) at the end. I copy-pated (yes, my error) the content, I tried to revert it but an admin only can do it. Please revert all back, thanks. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Show text

I think these speedy's with CSD-T3 are due. Template:Show text and related (see Category:Category:Templates for speedy deletion). IMO uncontroversial. -DePiep (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Eva Grossjean

Eva Grossjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

New User:Eva Grossjean is repeatedly being abusive towards Spanish people and towards anyone whose English isn't perfect (even though hers isn't either). She is also edit-warring with a pro-Catalan and anti-Spanish POV on Catalonia, including going as far as to revert even Jimbo as a vandal. She is not listening to warnings. See WQA alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Eva Grossjean, and check our her Talk page at User talk:Eva Grossjean. I don't think anything short of admin action is going to stop this abuse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and she's also been abusive and condescending at Talk:Catalonia#Catalonia is not a nation (at least legally) but a historical nationality. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring, as nobody seems to have pointed that problem out to her yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem reverting Jimbo as a vandal is either an action that rather lacks WP:CLUE, or is an attention-seeking device. Jusdafax 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess that, as a new user, she doesn't know who Jimbo is. But she ought to know the difference between 'vandal' and 'person who disagrees with me' already. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, especially as Jimbo explained himself very clearly in his edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys, are in a sect, in a cult or what???? "including going as far as to revert even Jimbo as a vandal. She is not listening" Of course!!!! FYI, your Jimbo is not Moses: he's just another human being...

On POV, I'm not anti-Spanish at all: I'm anti-anti-Catalan, which is waaaaay different.

As I argued before, anti-Catalan bigotry had taken over Catalonia's article to the point of deleting any reference to Catalonia's Parliament from Catalonia's article. And nobody did anything (just imagine no reference to Congress in the United States' entry--would that be allowed?).

(Oh, by the way, sorry for violating California's three strikes' rule... Now I know that next time I'll be sent to the electric chair)

Eva Grossjean (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"As I argued before, anti-Catalan bigotry had taken over Catalonia's article to the point of deleting any reference to Catalonia's Parliament from Catalonia's article. And nobody did anything" - That is not what this ANI report is about. It is about your abuse, of other editors personally, and of the Spanish in general. If you see anti-Catalan bias, you are welcome to replace it with neutral POV text (see WP:NPOV), suitably referenced - but you must not be abusive to other editors in the process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• While the points you raise, Eva Grossjean, may well be valid (I have not looked into it), your manner is highly unsuited to both the forum you have been brought to and the project as a whole. You seem to be on a disruptive, name-calling binge. Since blocks are meant to be preventative, and you are insulting as many people as you can manage, I propose that, without a rapid apology and promise to maintain basic civility, a block at this point would be a good idea for all concerned. And I speak as a longtime fan of Patrick O'Brian's fictional part-Catalan Stephen Maturin. Jusdafax 16:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse I agree with Jusdafax. Eva must understand that it is his/her tone towards other editors that is the problem. It is about decorum not content. He/she can either play nice or we will ask her to move along.--Adam in MO Talk 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse They've received way too many warnings already and a WQA. There's no reason to allow this behavior to continue further. There's been no progress that I can see, therefore I think we're at the point where a block is needed. Wikipedia can be friendly and fun, or it can be serious and focused, but it should never be hostile and mean. The community shouldn't have to put up with it. Swarm^Talk 06:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Perhaps a block will convince the user to play nice. LK (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional. She's still edit-warring and re-inserting a claim that Catalunia is a "nationality". That's blatantly incorrect even in simple grammatical terms - "Catalunia" can't be a nationality any more than can "England" or "Spain" ("Catalan" perhaps, but not "Catalunia".) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A look at Eva's edit history confirms that this is a WP:SPA. The user is disruptive, proudly defiant even when commenting on this page in the face of unanimous community concerns, and shows no intention of changing an agenda-driven edit campaign. This is as clear-cut a case for a preventative block as I have ever seen, and I suggest per the above that an administrator do so after reviewing this material. Jusdafax 12:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the account because it's only been used for disruption. Should they wish to edit again, they need not apologize. They need to state with sufficient details what articles they propose to edit and what improvements they'd like to make. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and impeccable work on the conditions for an unblock. Agree that my call for an apology and promise lacks precision. Jusdafax 12:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But, no blocking (or even a warning) for Jimbo for his blatant vandalism?!? WTF? Admin bias... Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are not joking, Jimbo was not the direct subject of this ANI section. You are free to open one, of course. Jusdafax 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is also an open SPI case involving this user, see here. Not sure of the validity of the claim, but the two accounts are making pretty much the same edits, from a Catalan nationalist perspective, and often use similar phrasings in edit summaries. Although there are also subtle differences in style as well. More broadly, the Catalonia page is a disaster currently. Constant edit warring between two or three different versions, all with their own issues from a neutral bystander's point of view, not least in terms of English language and style issues. The dispute between Spanish centralists and regional nationalists is a long standing issue of course, but the latest round was sparked off mainly by a recent Spanish Constitutional Court decision on Catalonia's bid to assert more autonomy within Spain. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have noted this action (the indef block by Jehocman) at the SPI page. If Eva Grossjean is a sock, that raises the stakes again, and we should start thinking community ban. I'd ask that we not close this as resolved just yet while we await further information, thanks. Jusdafax 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke (see edit summary). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not a good subject to joke about. People who claim Jimmy Wales has vandalized a Wikimedia project almost always fall into one of the following groups: (1) totally clueless editors who don't know who he is; (2) editors who know who he is, but are here to cause trouble; & (3) established editors who are alarmed or angry over something Wales has done. In none of these cases is anyone involved in the mood for a joke about Wales being a vandal. (Note: this is simply an explanation, not a warning or a talking-to. The way Wikipedia works has gotten so complex that I doubt anyone has a full & accurate knowledge of every part of it, & misunderstandings like this are inevitable.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though they apparently know who he is, Eva Grossjean, with a very bizarre justification, reverted Jimbo as a vandal. Jauerback simply made a lighthearted, sarcastic jest about this. This doesn't place Jauerback into any of the above categories. Lighten up. Jeez. Swarm^Talk 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice my words "almost always", & my qualification at the end "this is simply an explanation"? If I wanted to rip Jauerback a fresh one, I'm perfectly capable of doing that. My intent was only to explain why this topic's not a good topic for "lighthearted, sarcastic jests" -- which has nothing to do with how anyone feels about Wales at any given time, or whether or not it's funny. Or are you of the mindset which believes city kids should learn first-hand why they shouldn't throw rocks at hornet's nests? -- llywrch (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Andreas Balart, whom it appears that the result of the SPI investigation shows to be the same user as Eva Grossjean, has resumed editing the Catalonia page today. A look at the user's edit history reveals the exact same M.O. - A single purpose account with an agenda and snide comments for those who oppose it. Suggest indef blocking there as well. I am ready to consider a community ban since the user appears intractable. I have placed notification on the Andreas Balart talk page re: this thread. Jusdafax 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have also asked for clarification at SPI. It is not confirmed the Andreas Balart account is related, though there is substantial circumstancial evidence. Jusdafax 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeffpw

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked by Courcelles. LK (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at User:JeffpwIsaac, a reference to departed User:Jeffpw and Isaac. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perma blocked the troll and deleted that user page under G3. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for the speedy action. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • My god Disgusting! We do a Fishing Expedition Checkuser on this one? Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• This is once again JIM ME BOY (talk · contribs), who has used other socks such as I Heart Jeffpw (talk · contribs), I heart Jeffpw@simplewiki, I Love Jeffpw (talk · contribs), and Jeffpw's gay lover, Isaac (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Can someone please report him to his ISP? There is no excuse for that behavior. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No. Those who are able to know who xyr ISP is aren't allowed to tell other people. Uncle G (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, we do have venues for ISP reporting; the bad news is that it is not very active at all with admins or even those willing to follow though with abuse reports with ISPs. However, that's for when we know the IPs, user agents, etc; I know CheckUsers are allowed by the WMF upon request to release CheckUser information to ISPs, but that does not mean the ISPs are going to act on them poste haste. In my experience, I can concur with this observation. Sometimes it depends on the ISP, and some are reluctant to do anything at best. –MuZemike 08:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 16

Resolved

• Anyone know how to remove the redlinked Category:Philosophies category from the bottom of the page? It doesn't show up when I try to edit the page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  You had to do this. --erachima talk 07:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested Short Summary for User Huey45 acting in "bad faith"

As evidence that huey45 is acting in bad faith, user: huey45 makes this statement that he is aware is a blatant lie.

He says… “I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. The fact is that Huey45 has been repeatedly lying with the purpose of mutilating the content of this article.

He even continued to lie in the above thread. What's worse, other users are claiming that Huey45 didn't lie, when it is clear to someone with only moderate familiarity with the previous and/or current sources that he is deliberately lying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy's behavior might need to be examined further now. this and this could be considered canvasing and Preciseaccuracy has already been asked not to refer to other editors as liars.Cptnono (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of these users were involved in the articlesfordeletion page of which seeming user collusion occurred.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not involved in the articles for deletion page. (Huey45 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

I know you were not involved in the articles for deletion page.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

...but just then, you said "Both of these users were involved in the articlesfordeletion page", presumably referring to myself and User:Mbz1. (Huey45 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

Users of user pages this and this referred to in links by cptnono. in the statement directly above my comment "'Both of these users were involved in the articlesfordeletion page'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The way it was worded is why it was a potential canvasing issue. And you really need to strike out your comments calling other editors liars before you find yourself blocked by an admin for repeated incivility (although some admins do not think that incivility is blockable)Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider this and close this thread. Preciseaccuracy already submitted an AN/I about the same issue which was opened for two days or more about 36 hours and then closed without anyone found his complaints just. I think that this additional complaint is by itslef violation, considering that he also called the user against whice he complaint "liar" (see the diff provided by me) and repeated that even after was told to stop, taken together with his general pattern of behavior, there is a place to ban him from editing in this article. --Gilisa (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Would go to WP:SPI for this but I have no idea who the sockmaster is. He's clearly not new though. Soxwon (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed sock Can I get that edit deleted? Soxwon (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Can a Checkuser please look into this? -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No useful results. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam Attack Page

User:SlimVirgin deleted another page being used by a group of trolls from groklaw and scox to harrass Jeff Merkey. My name is Gaylynn Mitchell and you can call my cell phone to verify. I would like for someone to delete this other page as well -- it is being used as an attack page to spam google search results for "Jeff Merkey" on google. These trolls link pages on wikipedia into a "link farm" somewhere then use them to post insults and harass. Please delete the following page per WP:BLP - the article it refers to no longer exists. Page is: [17] 71.213.117.104 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this page shouldn't be blanked as a courtesy, so I have done so. An old discussion about a deleted article isn't terribly important and can be blanked without harm to Wikipedia. If anyone is really interested, the content is still in the history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed, the page should probably be protected in its courtesy-blanked state. I have come to see this portion of the IP sock's argument about the page: the article to which it points has been deleted. The history of the page shows that it has been blanked (by various socks) and reverted (per "edits by a banned user" policy, and I did one of those rv's) multiple times. Protection would be appropriate to maintain the courtesy blank, as a few of the IP's in the revert history seem likely to undo the courtesy blank. Pfagerburg (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, I agree that protection seems warranted so I have indefinitely semi-protected that page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is semi-protection enough? Look at RhodiumArmpit (talk · contribs) and MeffJerkey (talk · contribs). I don't know the identity of the people (or person) behind these accounts, and I can't prove a definite connection between the IP's that were in the revert history of the page in question here. The point is that keeping IP's off the page will probably not be enough. Pfagerburg (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist now, so I will keep an eye on it. Semi-protection seems reasonable to me at this point, but if any admin wants to switch it full protection, I have no objection. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your attention to the matter. Pfagerburg (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

IP Sock / Jeff Merkey

There seems to be a long running problem going on with blocked / banned users returning for more action. I first noticed this reversion by MrOllie then followed the trail from there. I found an AN/I report for 71.213.116.225 (talk · contribs) who was blocked for one week. That block expired today.

Now it seems the same person 71.213.117.104 (talk · contribs) is back performing the same kind of edits (similar edit summary when blanking Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeff V. Merkey/1. 71.213.116.225 made this edit saying "orphan page that points to a non-existent article" on July 9 and now we have 71.213.117.104 making the same edit saying "remove search engine attack page per WP:BLP".

Dawnseeker2000 15:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

MY NAME IS GAYLYNN MITCHELL YOU CAN CALL MY CELL PHONE. DO YOU PEOPLE LIVE IN SOME FANTASY WORLD OR SOMETHING. CALL ME. 71.213.117.104 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I AM TIRED OF BEING ACCOSTED BY TROLLS AND CLAIMED TO BE SOMEONE ELSE. FOR ONE THING I AM A DIFFERENT SEX FROM JEFF AND WHETHER OR NOT I KNOW JEFF IS NONE OF YOU PEOPLES BUSINESS. GROW UP!!! 71.213.117.104 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

71.213.112.0/21 blocked for 2 weeks. This is the widest block I could find on the known range that had no apparent collateral damage. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Could an administrator please take a mop to WP:UAA as there is a substantial backlog at this time. Many thanks. Jusdafax 16:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7

Resolved

 – Moved and protected by User:Nyttend. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin please move this MfD, which is now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7/Subpagetostopbickingovervenue/respectculturalrightsofreligion back to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7 where it belongs, and change permissions to "move=sysop". Together with it's talk page. This MfD had been moved three times and changing the title of a MfD during an ongoing discussion isn't helping; it's a distraction. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Eyeroll* now its back to being about my user page than about the subpage the template was on. It was orignally about the userpage. Then people start arguing so took the userbox and put it on a subpage (instead of hardcoded on the userpage) and made the MFD about the userbox as it was intended. another user moved it back becuase he thought i was being "disruptive" and then we agreed that the sub page worked better as it the MFD about the userbox instead of the whole page. However i accdiently moved only the "talk page" for it so then had to fix it again. So can we focus on the userbox instead of my userpage! Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history, closed as delete but in fact merged with Moses

I and at least one other editor believe that the material added on June 13th here and today reverted [373962259=1&oldid=373582615 here], restored by cluebot and then reverted by me, is basically the recreation of a deleted article by the creator of the deleted article, Wikiwatcher1 (talk · contribs). The Administrator who closed the AfD isn't around or else I would have asked him first. I'd appreciate comments on this. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just ensure it stays out of the article, that's a clear end run around a deletion discussion. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic was discussed last month on the article's talk page], with suggestions and comments, along with support, to add the material after a condensation and refocus of the subject. It should be discussed on the talk page as many comments imply the material fits well within the article and should remain, especially without clear opposition. In addition, the first discussion for revising and adding a new section was opened months ago and remained open for many weeks before added. It is not some kind of "high drama" Administrator's Incident, and is clearly not an example of WP:AGF.

Today, User talk:AussieGreen&Gold deleted the material, and quickly gained support by others for the deletion and this ANI, thereby skipping the discussion. Giving a justifiction for excluding the subject, he wrote last month: "Africa was regarded as the "promised land" for African American slaves who fled racial discrimination in the US and were settled in east Africa in the early 19th century via the American Colonization Society. Regards any America-centric input from Wikiwatcher, wikipedia is meant to represent 'a worldwide view of the subject and prevent systematic bias', otherwise the content becomes skewed/unbalanced and distorted." Is this "worldwide view" of a subject a new WP requirement for articles?

As it appears now, User talk:Dougweller has only provided one rationale for repeatedly wanting this material excluded - that it is merely a merger of an earlier article. However, he chose not to respond much beyond that in the discussions a few months ago, and should not be allowed to again summarily remove the section and avoid discussing. Likewise, comments by User_talk:Black Kite, that the text is a "clear end run around of a deletion discussion" is obviously false and also violates WP:AGF. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I only had limited Internet connectivity during the June discussion and didn't see it. Looking at it now, there is you wanting to do it, another editor giving it limited support but unclear whether this was the kind of text that was deleted at AfD, and AussieGreen&Gold objecting to it. I don't see any substantial difference between what you added to the article and what was deleted at AfD. The June discussion at the Moses talk page can't override an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The original admin who deleted the article in February 2010, User:JohnCD, wrote: material here is considerably cut down from that article - maybe one third the length. I'm sorry you didn't notice any "substantial difference," but the condensation was a major revision made to comply with some of the objections to the deleted article, and included a widespread RfC. It was posted for discussion to avoid edit warring and is not an override of the AfD as you insist. User:JohnCD also stated that it should not be re-inserted unless a consensus to do so is achieved on this talk page, and this RFC is the right way to go about deciding that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

DrRevXyzzy

I've blocked user:DrRevXyzzy. From just their last 50 edits we have edit summaries like this and edits like that which leaves me thinking that this user wasn't entirely joking on their now deleted user page. ϢereSpielChequers 09:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse warranted indef just from the userpage and the first edit you evidenced. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse No place for that here. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Talk page access needs revoked. We now have this absolutely lovely rant there. Endorse indefinite block by the way. N419BH 04:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Weatherextremes

Resolved

 – Weatherextremes blocked for 24h. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Weatherextremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am under countinuos threats by this user Weatherextremes . He is continuosly changing my wikiuser page Maxcrc and in the Talk Page he is using inflamate language, insults and threats of further vandalism in my page, if i don't change my pages with the changes he would like to see. This is unaceppatble,it has been going on for long time and i am really tired to stay 24 hours reverting its changes and read his threats and insults. Would you please tell me what I have to do ?

User talk:Maxcrc

He cannot threat me that way. This is my wiki user page and my short documents are all referenced. Please block this user or tell me how i can protect my wikipage. This user has no right to destroy and vandalise this page in this way. Should i leave wikipedia because the threats of vandalism of another user ? I don't think this is fair. Please do something. Maxcrc (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified Weatherextremes. For future reference, you should notify editors when raising issues here. TFOWR 10:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. TFOWR 10:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, it looks like I'm going to have to be offline for a while. TFOWR 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This just seems to be taking place on your userpage? You can't have a content dispute on a userpage, it's not an article - as long as it doesn't violate the WP:USERPAGE or WP:BLP policy you can have whatever correct/incorrect facts on there that you want. Unless there is something else to this (please let me know) I'm going to give the user a unambiguous warning to stay off your userpage. A little tip though, try to indent your subsequent comments rather than using the horizontal lines. Cheers, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done so, also, do you want me to delete User talk:Maxcrc/Europe which he created? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See also:EAR. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank to intervene in this case. This user #Weatherextreme KEEPS VANDALISING my userpage,despite being warned !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maxcrc

He is now editing my userpage again without his username. Please, WOULD YOU STOP HIM once at all ?

Vandals have more protection than good users, that's amazing ! I have notified editors already, this is the 5th time I notify the case, but the vandals seem over-protected and all-powerful here I cannot believe my eyes. Do I have to shut my userpage and close my account ??? Just tell me. I will delete my user if vandals are given green light to destroy userpages.

Thank to intervene in this case. This user #Weatherextreme KEEPS VANDALISING my userpage,despite being warned !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maxcrc

He is now editing my userpage again without his username. Please, WOULD YOU STOP HIM once at all ? Do I have to shut my userpage and close my account ??? Vandals have more protection than good users, that's amazing ! Maxcrc (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Weatherextremes for continued disruption despite a final warning to stop. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. It's buried in the edit history. The content dispute is over pages such as List of extreme temperatures in Canada, Temperature extremes, List of weather records, and seems to span years. And Maxcrc's interactions with other people, as indeed exemplified here in this very section, are prone to hyperbole and hysteria. Some examples from article talk pages: "The problem you are an incompetent and an absulute ignorant. […] so you are a ANIMAL, GO AND GET INFORMED ,son of a bitch before tellig me anything. […] and YOU ARE GARBAGE you are just a ignorant." "Who you are dirty son of a slut ?" "please have your facts right before spreading lies in this encyclopedia." "Any other claim stating the opposite-as there are many posted by one user- is false and disregarding their weather stations is a form of insult and libel." Maxcrc in one recent edit says of someone else, with no apparent awareness of the irony, a description that could well apply to xyrself: "This user seems obsessed with something and have no respect whatsoever for anybody 's else opinion." Indeed, according to Maxcrc, other editors are "clowns" who don't know anything at all.

  There's also the array of pages that can be found at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Maxcrc/ and Special:PrefixIndex/User:Howardrford/ which is somewhat peculiar, giving the appearance of several editors trying to maintain their own, private, copies of The Truth™ in userspace.

  Maxcrc, if you'd treated your fellow editors with respect and civility for the past four years, you'd garner more sympathy. But you've interacted with other people in a way that is utterly toxic, over a span of years. Irrespective of content disputes; irrespective of what someone else may have written; this behaviour from you stops right now. Start acting like a mature adult who does not insult and abuse every other person that xe has dealings with. Uncle G (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • User talk:TFOWR#User:Weatherextreme may be of interest. I've told Maxcrc that any further discussion about the topic should be here as the discussion on my talkpage is clearly going nowhere. TFOWR 16:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, here we have a problem. I am not entering any of these discussions cited above. I virtually had not edited anything with the exception of few articles and my userpage for years. So please stop accusing me of issues i don't even know about. I just have a small wikiuser page and that's it. Just check the IPs. Besides being threated and vandalized, now you want to tell me it is my fault. Really nice. Why you don't check the IPs of these peoples ? I have no issues in the pages you are talking about. Identity forgery is a serious issue and your accusations too. Who has used these words :"son of..." ,? I never used such an expression and i have had disputes nor been warned or blocked. Tell me the IP and the date of these words and i will send you the immigration movements to see if i was where this people was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Maxcrc (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If the user is messing with your user page, you could go to WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection, to keep the IP's and new user ID's away from it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the diffs Uncle G provided, I have some serious concerns about Maxcrc's behaviour. Most of it is entirely unacceptable, and much of it is blockable. Maxcrc, you need to cool it. Behaviour such as Uncle G listed is completely unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

Xenophrenic is acting in a very un-civil manner on the Tea party movement article. There is a poll of limited scope (state of Washington) which I have removed from the article as not representative of the movement as a whole and Washington is not considered a bellweather state either. I started a talk section to discuss this poll to which Xenophrenic has joined, yet instead of waiting for any kind of resolution he has returned the information with several disingenous comments.

[18] Claims my edit was POV [19] Claims material was deleted without any explanation [20] Again claims material was deleted without explanation and also claims he has authority per talk, when it is still under discussion.

I find it very hard to work with editors that make such non-good-faith edit comments within their edits. He knows that this is under discussion. Arzel (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, there is a long standing doctrine in equity that "those seeking equity must come with clean hands." Prior to the edits you complain of above, you reverted Xenophrenics edit here and referred to it in your edit comments as an "NPOV Violation" and "boarderline vandilism" [sic]. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier I said "boarderline" since he claimed there was no reason when their clearly was. I view disengenious edit comments like those that he frequently makes to be vandalism in nature. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My very own AN/I header? (I tweaked it.) I'm not going to dignify this posting with a detailed response. Arzel's three links above provide all the evidence necessary to show that he is repeatedly removing (without a single word of explanation) the "after receiving sharp criticism from other tea party leaders" content, just as my edit summaries indicate. As noted by others, perhaps Arzel is channeling Plaxico. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

BS again. So you added a small change into the big revert which had not comments? That is even more disingenious than simply reverting claiming there was no reason. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary indicates that you referred to the addition of those 9 words as a "copyedit" here [21]. In that same edit, you referred to the contested poll as "sourced content," which you were re-inserting. I don't have to tell you during the onset of an edit war, it's best to separate your controversial edits from copyedits, do I? Also, this is not the first time an editor has questioned the accuracy, honesty, or civility of your edit summaries. Perhaps it's intentional, perhaps not. It has been a problem, nonetheless. †TE†Talk 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User user:Tbma former user user:YMB29 is vandalising the article Battle of Tali-Ihantala

Tbma (talk · contribs)

YMB29 (talk · contribs)

Battle of Tali-Ihantala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First: the user is using NPOV and DF to vandalise the article claming it battle is a hox and that it never took place. Despite the fact that the article uses sources from Finland, Sweden, Russia and US/Uk.

Second He impose as an administrator in a debate he is heavily engaged in, send personal warnings on user talk page.Posse72 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look, so apologies if I've missed something.

Tbma is adding "POV" and "Disputed" tags - they've done that three times recently (their previous edits I've not looked at in detail). On the face of it, that appears reasonable, as there's currently a discussion about POV on the talkpage. Whether Tbma is correct when they claim that the article suffers from POV is another matter, and not one we can settle here. I'd recommend raising the issue at the POV noticeboard - they should be able to resolve the dispute. In the meantime, however, I'd recommend leaving the {{POV}} and {{Disputed}} tags in place. TFOWR 17:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As regards impersonating an admin, I can't see where they've done that. They left warnings for you, which is fine, and they also replaced the warnings when you removed them - that's not fine (it's perfectly acceptable to remove warnings, and it's not OK to reinstate them). However, they have now been warned about that, so I would only be concerned if they did this again. TFOWR 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, Posse72, are you claiming Tbma (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of YMB29 (talk · contribs)? Because if that's the case, he's been breaking his Arbcom-imposed topic ban on Soviet Union articles. Can you clarify if this is what you're saying, and what evidence you have for it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO Posse72 just dislikes my edits and tries to silence me either with personal attacks, or with questioning my identity. I assure that I have nothing to do with YMB29. --Tbma (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

They are the one and same, same argumentation and language, same anti-Finnish neofascist propaganda, just look on when Tmba registered just after YMB29 left, and look in witch area of subject they argue in. And suddenly we have a new member who act and speaks the same, and despite not being member for a month know EXACTLY how WP works.Posse72 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you file a case at WP:SPI please? We'll probably need a WP:Checkuser to look into this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

-I also want him banned for 3RR violation on Battle of Tali-Ihantala puntingPosse72 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC) back tags on NPOV and dispute.Posse72 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) If there is a discussion on whether the event actually happened, shouldn't the concerned user start an AfD instead? --Soman (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Tried to file a WP:SPI but its only for administrators.Posse72 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Try again - WP:SPI is open to everyone. TFOWR 23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Wolfpussy

Resolved

 – NLT explained, not a legal threat, see here for username issue. GregJackP Boomer! 03:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the problematic username for the moment, this editor has also issued what amounts to a legal threat at User talk:GlassCobra.[22] Have fun! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a specific legal threat there (though I could be missing it). But the username could be a problem. Prodego ^talk 20:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the phrasing, "I'll be forced to subsequently act on behalf of my own legal interests toward content protection" rises to the level of a legal threat. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what does that even mean? :) He isn't threatening to take any legal action there, and since he is trying have us host content (not saying we can't), "content protection" doesn't make sense. Prodego ^talk 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(after ec w/Prodego) It's not directed at GlassCobra- it's directed at hypothetical people who have hypothetically breached his copyright elsewhere/ I think what he meant was something along the lines of "have you seen this image elsewhere, and if so, please let me know because they would be breaching my copyright". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a veiled legal threat too. There's a fair amount of talk about the username on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's just a misunderstanding- he interpreted being asked for a source as if his work was available elsewhere, which concerned him- it wasn't specifically directed at any individual, editor or the WMF so it's not really an issue. The username is a much bigger issue imho and if it weren't for the ongoing discussion, I'd be inclined to block for it given both the unsavoury connotations of "pussy" and the urban definition of the term. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is educational! I never heard of the term Wolfpussy before! An article to write? (just kidding!) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm inclined to agree with HJ Mitchell's explanation, it seems to make quite a bit of sense. It also wouldn't be a NLT problem if that is correct. Prodego ^talk 21:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all. (!)
Firstly, I am a lady, thank you...not a sir. (smile)
Secondly, many, many thanks to HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? for correctly interpreting my exact meaning.
In layman's terms...if I EXPRESSLY, EXCLUSIVELY, and EXPLICITLY chose to post my owned content to Wiki commons, and a user therein questions the merit of my ownership with the clause that it is a "media/press" photo - to which I propose to defend my GNU Free Documentation License agreement with proof of ancillary misrepresentation/false accreditation provided by said user; who by virtue of their questioning has proposed that there is, indeed, some usage elsewhere which I've not agreed to...why would that be a threat to our collective and not the party guilty of misrepresentation of content I gave to Wiki?
My image seems to have now been removed, unfortunately. Why?
Per my name, visit: Wolfpussy (talk) Regards. Wolfpussy (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I have no problem with the name. LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You cannot "exclusively" give rights to Wikipedia. Images uploaded for Wikipedia use need to be under the CC or other free use licensing. Active Banana (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is an issue. Released for "wikipedia only" can't actually be used on Wikipedia. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm quite clear that the image is not for "wikipedia only" which I agreed to in the terms of use upon posting.

My issue is if the user who questioned the validity of my ownership with the point that it was a "press/media" release has been made aware of an entity claiming ownership beyond the free usage of Wiki space...if that is the case, then very clearly, my decision to upload to commons is unjustly being adulterated. (!)

No press or media entity has the right to present my content given to Wiki as their own.

Thank you, Bill the Cat 7 (talk) for your support in my title debacle. (meow)

Wolfpussy (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a nonwatermarked version of my owned image to Wiki commons...but I'm having difficulty posting to Yung Berg page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BERGNEW.JPG. Some assistance would be much appreciated. (!) The original file which was nominated for deletion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YUNGBERG2010.JPG
Hopefully, this will clear the confusion as to my ownership of said image, finally. Wolfpussy (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• A Request for comment has been filed concerning the username "Wolfpussy". All are welcome to comment in the discussion here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:217.113.228.42

Resolved

 – Rollbacked by Salvio NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP was reported over at AIV; seems this may have been an unauthorized bot. Would someone with Twinkle please roll back the edits? Too many to do one at a time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 Doing.... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I'm about to drop a note on his talk page; however, I'm not certain he was operating an illegal bot. What's certain is that he kept on removing budgets from infoboxes without an explanation and introducing unsourced material. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User: 74.226.70.231

This guy has been acting in a disruptive manner, [23], including comparing Wikipedia editors to the Gestapo: [24]. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So why didn't you warn them for making personal attacks? I have now. This seems like a simple content dispute otherwise. Fences&Windows 04:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Asin.jpg

Somebody just overwrote the file with a clear copyvio. I reverted. Will the revision that contains the copyvio (22:57, 17 July 2010) have to be oversighted/revdel-ed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. The first version looks a lot like these, but it's not actually among those shown. Fences&Windows 04:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlogged

AIV is backlogged and we have some sockpuppets actively running around at the moment. Community banned 100110100 (talk · contribs) is back on the same IP blocked 2 weeks about 2 weeks ago, and is finally making the leap to named socks, with Hyperpiper (talk · contribs) being so obviously his sock it isn't even funny. Running around doing the exact same edits to remove his usual hated templates and styles (like quotes, otherusers4, etc), posting the same "questions" the IP did that were removed, etc. Doing reverts, but needs blocking as he is active now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done! -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:LevenBoy

Resolved

 – Added to General Sanctions by User:Ncmvocalist as below

Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log.

Discussion should continue at relevant venue WT:GS/BI.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. LevenBoy (talk · contribs) This user constantly stalks my edits and reverts them, without discussion, and often with ad hominen edit summaries. Has been warned several times in the past. Yesterday, was edit warring over numerous articles with another editor. This morning has reverted 27 of my edits, with an edit summary of Revert systematic removal of British Isles. I can provide diffs, but the contributions list is easier to access. Disclosure, I've previously provided evidence to an SPI report against this editor, which is still inconclusive/open. --HighKing (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Controversial edits will get controversial responses. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I can provide a diff too, this is a good edit. The British Isles is correct in the context it is used in. Such buildings can be found across the United Kingdom, and the island of Ireland, and may well exist on the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I disagree, and it's not supported by the reference. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Far from stalking HighKing he is, arguably, stalking me. I raised an SPI against him, and in response he raised one against me (where I was cleared but he still won't give up on it). Most of his edits involve the removal of British Isles as an incidental part of other editing, amd the edit summaries make no mention of this. It is clear POV pushing, with an agenda of removing the words "British Isles" from Wikipedia. This has been going on for two years now and recently HighKing claimed this fact as a success on his part. I have reverted all his recent edits which are agenda-driven POV. LevenBoy (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Eh, no I didn't raise an SPI against you. And you have not been "cleared". But perhaps that is the reason you've (re)started your mass reversions. And if I'm the one doing the stalking, how come you hadn't edited any of those articles before reverting me, hmmm? --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Levenboy has also stalked my edits and has been removed reference material in order to insert BI, an example of this is at the article List of mythological places. Maybe he's just another sock of the BI POV pushers that seem to everywhere these days.Bjmullan (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Are you also involved in the project wide removal of the expression , British Isles? I notice you were also edit warring to remove the phrase yesterday. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Systematic removal sounds spot on to me, there is a campaign page somewhere where this is all organised and rubber stamped, but the level of participation and intellectual rgiour that that page provides is seriously deficient. I know of three specific incidents where articles were 'fixed' to adhere to HighKing's rather obscure POV of the term's acceptable usage on WP (namely that BI is wholly disputed by anyone and everyone, and cannot and should not be used in any manner except as a geographic term and then specifically only when also mentioned in a source), but the edits produced content that was just utter garbage, because the only reason he had arrived at those articles was for the conducting of this campaign, and not out of any interest in producing accurate content. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Feel free to join in discussions at the "campaign" page. Better than the disruptive edit warring by LevenBoy. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC) And give it some legitimacy so you can make the ludicrous claim it is the expression of site wide consensus? Hell no. If you get your Founding Principles into something resembling reality, and on specific example cases actually start to listen to people who disagree with you, I might reconsider, but as it is framed now, and how it operates now, particularly and inseperably related to how you choose to contribute to it, and some of the nonsense garbage edits it does produce, that page is just a rubber stamping exercise for an illegitimate campaign of POV editing on a massive scale. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) What you describe is highly disruptive behavior that seriously degrades the quality of our articles. Can you provide diffs of this? If HighKing has indeed done this, he should be warned and/or blocked. LK (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I'll continue to raise ANI requests against disruptive behaviour until this disruptive behaviour is dealt with properly. We have a discussion page at WP:BISE where everybody is welcome to discuss usage and help develop guidelines. If one rogue editor decides to mass revert over content issues, without discussion, then it puts a mirror up to those who ignore it. We've already uncovered a mass of socks used by the previous disruptive editor, who had been reported here many times and nothing was ever done. How long before this disruption is dealt with I wonder? --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Watch out for the boomerang. Why am I being reverted constantly is always a good question to ask yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Enough of this - proposal That (1) User:HighKing User:Bjmullan and User:LevenBoy be topic-banned from adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Wikipedia-wide basis. That (2) any other editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to this list. This wasting of multiple editors time across many years really has to finally stop. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I'd suggest a modification to that. Systematic removal or addition without engaging the community is disruptive, but if you are going to make a rule such as that above other editors might have to be added in. We have got a process where proposals to change the term in articles are discussed and where progress has been made when we don't have a spate of sock puppets. In practice the term has been deployed incorrectly and illegitimately and there is no consistency. Basically I think we need something a lot simpler which requires no changes to be made without them first being proposed and agreed on the special projects page. We also need a couple of admins prepared to review that say weekly and get rid of log jams. If we institute the process above all will happen is new socks will emerge on both sides (and there have been plenty) and we will have even more disruption. --Snowded TALK 15:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I agree (not sure - are we allowed to !vote on here any more). This has led to some truly lame edit wars of the "you can't say that weather in the British Isles during the Iron Age featured severe droughts, because the term wasn't invented until 1791, and the source only mentions England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man, not British Isles" kind. We should be using the widely understood generic term unless there is sourcing and justification to use a more precise terminology for geopolitical or other reasons - in which case, a mechanism to review the sources would seem to be required, due to the problems described by Snowded. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Level of involvement. I believe I once edited an article in which this came up - it concerned an 18th century traveller and whether he could be said to have travelled "through the British Isles" or something similar (you'll see it made a great impression), in the course of which I became aware that there was some kind of issue with the term 'British Isles'. In the case of the traveller, as he had travelled only on the mainland island and had never put to sea, the argument against the term seemed reasonable in context, and I never engaged in any further debate*. Since there is an argument that nationalist POVs are involved, I can confirm that I'm entitled to both British and Irish citizenship.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)*ETA - but like everyone, I've seen all the reports at ANI, the arguments at Black Kite's talkpage etc. Strong support. Article protection is not very effective for this brand of disruption (though, of course, there are some cases where these British Isles discussions are civil and productive), as there are a vast number of articles that mention that general geographic area. I also support Snowded's concerns that this ban should be extended to other relevant editors (Mister Flash (talk · contribs) is the first who comes to mind, though he has been blocked, I see now) and that careful monitoring for sockpuppetry should be the norm. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Disclosure of my involvement in this series of issues: I closed a report at the edit warring noticeboard some months ago, and have since issued a few blocks and page protections and otherwise acted as an occasional uninvolved administrator. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC) support - Black kites enough is enough solution. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I have been asked to declare any involvement. My involvment in the issue is related to my attempting to stop the disruption and edit warring, as it has occured through this issue at multiple articles as mystified users reinserted the expression and were directed to some obscure discussion page with which a consensus claim was asserted if anyone objected. I have no personal involvement one way or the other about the actual British Isles inclusion or exclusion. I have recently suggested to stop the endless warring and disruption that we allow User:HighKing to remove all instances of the British Isles in the hope that the disruption and warring would stop. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Support - A perennial problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Level of involvement: While it's certainly possible that I've edited to include "British Isles" at some point in my Wiki-career, as far as I know I've never been involved with any dispute or controversy in this area except as a casual observer. I'd say that I am totally uninvolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Just topic ban HighKing. He is the instigator of all this drama, without him there would be no mass reverting. The special projects page is not, and never will be, evidence of community consensus, not if it carries on the way it has been, and it only existed in the first place as far as I can see, to stop HighKing making mass reverts. Anybody wanting to dispute the term in specific instances can do the normal thing and use that specific article's actual talk page, which will probably avoid the many screw ups I've seen over this issue by actually involving people who can see the issue beyond the narrow point of this campaign, and can give expert topic based advice in situations where it has been sorely lacking, and people have been just winging it in a pseudo discussion each time, just to appease HK. People are free to carry on developing a BI usage guideline to help this, but it's current draft content hasn't got a hope in hell as far as I can see, based as it is on some fantasy viewpoints. Frankly, with HK topic banned and no longer allowed to dispute its usage across any and every article, it's hard to see if a guideline would even be needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Support. I wouldn't say no to Snowded's suggestion that we institute a site wide ban on undiscussed changes, either. TFOWR 15:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Level of involvement: none, as far as I know. My view is that (a) editors adding British Isles and edit warring to keep BI should be sanctioned, and that (b) editors removing BI and edit warring to keep out BI should be sanctioned. TFOWR 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Support topic ban for Highking and others if it is needed. Highking is the one on an endless quest to remove British Isles from articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (I Have been involved in the dispute, questioning Highking and some others for their removal of British isles, have not been involved in edit warring or inserting British Isles on articles) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Support Black Kite's proposal; and agree on his "enough is enough" remark. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Asked to clarify my level of involvement in this matter, I gladly oblige: I'm entirely uninvolved. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Support Black Kite's proposal (as an uninvolved admin: I have never done a BI edit although FWIW asome years ago I have to make a version selection for the Schools Wikipedia between edit warring versions and chose the one without "BI" in it. ) --BozMo talk 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose. The 'Support' by one of the sources of this long-term disruption is very telling. How will this topic-ban address the wider problem of sock puppetry, as highlighted by Snowded? Seems like a hammer to crack some nuts, while ignoring the fact that the term is being introduced and deleted by other 'nuts', some familiar with this long term dispute and others probably not. A MOS of some kind is required per WP:DERRY, or else the appropriateness or otherwise of the term will continue to be a source of edit warring. Topic banning a few editors will not address that fundamental problem. RashersTierney (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Level of involvement. I have had a few interactions with other eds. on this issue in the past. I have deliberately sought to avoid getting any more involved because of the high level of socking and general assumptions of bad faith wrt POV pushing. My contribs. at this page today were prompted by a recent edit of a hitherto uninvolved contributor who applied the term at Angloromani and purported to back it up by references that 'failed verification'. I have been on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romani people for a considerable and take a particular interest in ensuring correct referencing on Romani related topics. The 'offending' edits [25] were not by the leading protagonists, but 2 subsequently became involved. That is why I believe a MOS to be the only long term solution, while this proposed topic ban only skirts the main issue. RashersTierney (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose as stated, it will just take a position which is coming under some control, with some general guidelines for use emerging and instead create a license for socks and for multiple edits across many articles. It is also the case that there is a strong POV position which wants BI maintained even when its not appropriate and its interesting to see several editors in that camp rushing to support this proposal because as stated it would allow them to achieve their position by default. Wikipedia needs to run on facts and evidence. That means if BI is being used incorrectly it should be changed, if correctly it should be kept or put in place. I do think that HighKing should stop running to ANI all the time and I'd support a ban on him doing that (for his own sake), other editors can be asked to take things up if they are serious. Equally he did a lot of work to identify one sock farm. Gut feel responses like this proposal can appear attractive but just create further problems downstream. It will not stop the problem, just make it worse. Black Kite - when you engaged on the discussion some months ago we got a lot of questions resolved. You might want to look back over some of those discussions and see which editors co-operated and who assumed extreme positions. --Snowded TALK 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Most of the other editors who assumed extreme positions are now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry or other reasons. But from the examples given above, the problem is clearly not "coming under control", because here it is at ANI yet again. So what else do you suggest? We've tried a lot of other ideas, as far as I can see the only two methods of stopping this never-ending time sink is either a topic ban or blocks. Which is better? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC) What I have already suggested - a total ban on changing BI without prior agreement on the project page, and admin mediation of that page. When you were involved in doing that we had a period of stability, when you left and no one took your place it said that the community did not really care. What I do feel frustrated about is that a very small number of us have been patiently working on this stuff article by article trying to get a balanced and fact based position and we have been asking for help from the community. Now we may get "help" but in its current form its "help" that could well make the problem worst. Its noticeable that those editors with involvement in those pages who are not pro-BI activists are all either opposed or expressing reluctant support. I think that comes from bitter experience. The Midnightblue socks were preventing any progress on individual articles and on guidelines; we have only just cleared them out . One of the reasons it will get worst is that a lot of editors supporting this proposal simply want to have the problem go away. As James points out the BI words are highly symbolic for historical reasons to a group of editors, those problems don't go away with draconian action they simply pop out in new forms in new places.--Snowded TALK 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The current project page is a complete mess. Highking finds dozens and dozens examples of British Isles. Demands their removal, then forces us to have endless conversations on sources and its uses and in many cases there is no agreement. If the project page was restricted to ONLY inaccurate content, rather than places where it "could" say something else as happens now, may be it would be worth continuing. I have shown an example above, about the Footballer of the year. It was clearly not inaccurate to use the term British Isles there. Highking wants BI gone if any other term can be used instead, i am pretty sure you have said if there is a valid alternative it should be used. (sorry if im wrong, seem to recall it from a debate on the BI article or somewhere). Only use of BI that without any doubt are wrong should be put forward for alteration to a panel or on the project page. This "oh that would be a nicer term to use there", "oh lets use that instead of this" has to stop. Because it will get us nowhere. A ban on all removals / additions for certain editors, a panel / project page for submission of genuine incorrect uses would do more than carrying on as we are. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC) I was thinking about a conversation on the Republic of Ireland use rather than on BI use sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Its a complete mess due to the socks BW. If you check the evidence you will see that HighKing, while he argues his case will accept a compromise. If I look at resolved cases (where I have a roughly 50-50 record of agreeing with removal) they are not drawn out arguments they have been resolved. My view is that BI is a valid geographical term but not a valid political one and most things get sorted out if you take that approach. I'm afraid the blanket statements you make above, while I am sure they are heartfelt, don't match up to the facts if someone goes to the bother of going through the discussions in detail. --Snowded TALK 05:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Its not just the socks, but its the number of cases that are introduced in a short period of time there by highking. There should be some form of monthly cap on the number of cases that can be considered at a time if such a project is continued so it does not take up too much of peoples time on this single issue. You say it is a valid geographical term but not a political one. Yet you supported the case i mentioned above about the Footballer of the year award where highking wanted BI changed to Home nations. There was nothing political about that case. British Isles was used as a geographical location just like Europe would have been if it was possible to say the person was the first from outside of Europe to win it. These are the sorts of unnecessary changes by highking i oppose. He should not be going to every single article that links to BI and thinking "i wonder what term could be used there instead". If he wants to search through every BI linked article then he should only request removal of clearly inaccurate uses. For example "The British Isles declared war on Germany". That is clearly incorrect usage. "The man was the first to win something from outside of the British Isles" is not incorrect. There may be alternative terms that some think are better, but there is a big difference between removing an inaccurate use of British Isles and replacing the term with something else because of Highkings clear anti-BI campaign. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) The normal phrase in use for sports at that time was Home Nations, check the references.--Snowded TALK 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Snowded, feel free to put a proposed guideline forward for approval that defines what is and is not 'correct' usage of the term on Wikipedia, using facts and evidence, if they exist and are credible. Put it forward, allow it's assertions to be examined by the whole community, and then we will see whether the default position is or is not a problem, and what the nature of any current stability in the dispute is, whether it is avoidance of HK and his deeply flawed campaign page process accompanied by some deft sock-killing, or something far more sustainable from a DR perspective. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) If you check back on the project page Mick you will see I have been trying to to that. I gave up while some of the sock problems were sorted as they simply refused to accept anything. I also argued that the project page was necessary to create a case based approach to those guidelines as attempts to create them in abstract have generally failed. --Snowded TALK 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Comment: The purpose of the 'guidelines' is to limit usage, not to ensure correct usage. They are a device to enable POV pushing to continue and if brought to fruition would result in mass deletion of the term; and that would cause renewed conflict. Comment I do not see how an agreement like the compromise on Derry is possible in this case. In that case one side got what they wanted for the city, the other got what they wanted for the county. When to include British Isles and when not to is far more complex and harder to define. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I agree that it is difficult but not intractable. The SE page is a good starting point for teasing out where usage may be applicable or not if eds. are prepared to engage there. RashersTierney (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Sadly support I've been involved in "British Isles"-related issues for several years. I am more willing to assume good faith on the part of HighKing than on the part of LevenBoy in this instance. A large(r) portion of HighKing's edits have stuck me as being motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia whereas LevenBoy's (and others listed in this thread) edits struck me as being motivated by a desire to defend use of "British Isles" where ever HighKing removed it. However, regardless of the rights or wrongs of their edits, the activity that both HighKing and LevenBoy engaged in was unwise. Regardless of whether HighKing or LevenBoy believe that what they were doing was in the benefit on the encyclopedia, it caused disruption across a large number of article. I'll add that I firmly believe that a MOS entry needs to exist for use of the term British Isles to head off conflict like this. --RA (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Support as we've got to save HighKing & LevenBoy from themselves. Both (for better or worse) have an obsession with the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC) It's the edit warring that stinks, along with the lack of trust created by confessed & unconfessed socks. I've tried (in the past) to discourage the edit warring, but exhausted my efforts. My involvement has decreased in the last few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Support. Reluctantly. I do feel reluctant, partly because it won't work well (see below) but also reluctantly have realised after reading all the material here and elsewhere that this is a sensible step after trying other things. I came to this a little while ago as a relatively new user and was somewhat confused to start with. I saw a battle under way in the obscure (to most I suspect) waters of the Canterbury–York dispute, where an 11th Century Archbishop used the term "British Isles" in a letter to his King - HighKing apparently found this unnacceptable (perhaps Archbishop Lanfranc would have disagreed!) sparking a silly and lengthy debate. Eventually I was forced to go back to texts and add in the relevant reference. End of dispute. I realised at this time that HK was involved in a sort of "campaign" (for want of a better word - he doesn't like the term to be fair) to delete "British Isles" everywhere he sees it. The vast dialogue on the subject then opened up to me. After a period of over-reaction on my part, I have tried to get down to detail with HK and see if he will accept a structured approach. He claims he will. A good percentage of the deletes he does make sense. Others visibly don't. The ones that don't, he (and some others) fiercely defend. He seems to me to be part of a group that wish to delete the term Wikipedia-wide. This doesn't seem to be openly acknowledged. There seems to be gaming and manouverism on both "sides". The 'campaign' seems to trade on the confusion and inability of local article editors to become easily involved in a wide and apparently complex dispute, even though their local expertise would score. It seems to me that: (1) The term is highly charged for a significant number of Irish and other people in Ireland and the UK. I suspect US'ers and others probably would find it hard to get into how charged it is. For many other people in these islands, it is much less charged - English editors in particular are often to my mind quite relaxed about such matters. These things matter more to those who feel offended by the term than they do to everyone else. However, a small faction of "anti-delete" editors are equally determined - this issue is particularly strongly felt in Northern Ireland. (2) It is a symbolic term and deleting it is a symbolic act. If routine deleting of British Isles is banned, I suspect the "campaign" will simply move on to British, Britain or something similar. (3) HighKing is not working alone and I don't mean in the sense of sockpuppeting, although he does freely admit he's done a bit of that in the past too. I imagine others will step in if he is forced to desist. I don't think it's likely that stopping one small batch of editors will stop the campaigning. (4) Those who wish to delete the term appear tireless - I am very sceptical that any ban will really work or last. The "delete the BI from Wikipedia" campaign are far, far more determined and vigorous than the "keep it" campaign. In fact, I doubt there really is much of the latter apart from a few sockpuppets and extremists. It also looks to me like a number highly skilled, long-running and (to me) powerful-seeming editors support the campaign, either openly or via gaming/manouverism. I don't hate them for this - it's a powerfully held POV and (particularly in Ireland) loathed by some people. Discussing it "objectively" and in a "spirit of NPOV" is therefore very difficult and possibly rather unrealistic. (5) Many of subjects of the local articles where the change is made are of no interest whatever to the campaigners and they have (as in Canterbury-York) precious little local expertise. This works in favour of the bulk-article-delete approach. So I am reluctant, because for the above reasons, I doubt this will really "work" in the long run, but it may help calm things down and create a slightly more constructive approach. I have joined in to try to make it more constructive but it is a frustrating process when the blizzard of deletes continues in parallel. This seems to be one of those intractable disputes involving bitterly opposed factions that Wikipedian approaches do not seem so far to work very well at resolving. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Strong Support I had not heard of this British Isles controversy until yesterday, but it seems obvious that it is highly disruptive to go through the encyclopedia articles to do a mass removal of a commonly used term. Doing a mass insertion is also highly disruptive. Anyone doing so should be sanctioned and restricted. LK (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by the subject of the sanction proposal are in the section below, and the section below that contains enforcement details that apply to this proposal. Can each user please state their level of involvement (if any) next to their comment like others have done above? This will help clarify the community consensus from one that is local among involved users (and save me or anyone else having to chase up new commentators for this info). It might seem obvious, but it is often not so obvious to an outsider who will close the discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Response by subject of the sanction proposal - Bjmullan (since removed), HighKing & Levenboy This is great. An ANI is brought against one user and it looks like someone wants to punish me. Have a broken any rules? Am I a SPA? Am I a sock? NO NO NO If you want to do anything against ME then please use the correct procedures to do so and do not lump me in with this disruptive BI POV pusher. Bjmullan (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC) If you're not pushing a POV, surely this won't affect you? For what it's worth, I'd be happy to be added to the list... but then I wouldn't be affected by the proposal... TFOWR 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I too would submit to a ban on adding / removing British Isles from articles. I have better things to do than go around adding BI to articles, but what i can not stand is the attempts by some editors to remove British Isles from articles across wikipedia in attempt to pretend the term does not exist and where its use is not inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Your recent contributions say otherwise. I have only included editors who have repeatedly edit-warred over BI. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Support Balck Kite's proposal. Despite being the subject of this thread I am more than happy to abide by a topic ban on British Isles deletions and additions. MickMacNee is spot on when he says that HK is the instigator of all this drama; he absolutely is, 100%. In many cases inacuracies are introduced as a result of the desire to remove the term. HighKing been pushing this POV for two years. His agenda is to severely limit use of British Isles throughout Wikipedia and he's even tried to develop usage standards which would do just that. This issue causes aggravation and mayhem across the encyclopedia and editors with a genuine knowledge of articles that are affected by it are totally bemused. The whole issue brings this project into disrepute, and the whole issue is caused by HighKing - recently joined by User:Bjmullan. I move, a topic ban for all concerned. LevenBoy (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Strongly Oppose This will do nothing but make the problem worst. What is needed is strong guideline in a MOS just as RashersTierney has indicated above when dealing with the Derry/Londonderry issue. Bjmullan (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, and it's also worth pointing out that, so far as I know, there are no editors trying to insert British Isles. All so-called insertions are merely attempts to recover the position before HighKing, and now others, targetted an article. Don't get me wrong, I accept that in some small number of cases use of British Isles is wrong, but they are few in number and one would hope they would be cleared up by editors with a genuine interest in the article subject. In the vast majority of cases the use of British Isles is subjective. Just to provide an example of the British Isles-related POV that's going on here; in the United Kingdom children are taught in primary school that the River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles - you try and find that fact in Wikipedia article space. It is a fact, but not one that Wikipedia reports. HighKing's efforts are a similar POV. LevenBoy (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose Obviously. Funny, but way back, I asked Black Kite to intervene previously and was ignored (and he "retired" - no stomach). Since then, Black Kite has demonstrated that he is not capable of being fair and honest in these issues - last time I filed an ANI and was blocked by BlackKite for edit warring - I had performed a total of 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 different articles - compare that to LevenBoy's behaviour. Back then, I was told I should bring it to ANI instead of edit warring. So I just did. Now, when I file an ANI Black Kite can't blocl me so instead he threatens with a topic ban - ridiculous! Bigger picture though - I brought LevenBoy's mass reversion to attention, and everyone is comfortable to ignore it and divert it to a discussion of a topic ban. Black Kite's proposals are based on what exactly? Disruption? By who??? Breach of policies? By who??? If I've breached policies or edit warred, I would have been blocked in an instant - see above for history of being blocked even when I haven't breached policy. So why is this? Why is it that LevenBoy's behaviour is being tacitly approved? Finally, I'd also like to point out that the previous ANI reports I've filed were to do with, what has turned out, to be an extensive sock farm. Ask yourselves why this sock was able to act in such an obviously disruptive manner, and get away with it. Perhaps if, as a group of admins, you'd looked at this topic a little more objectively, and honestly, and blocked the disruptive editor (as in this case), the disruption would have been avoided. To date (and an SPI has been filed against LevenBoy to join this illustrious group) the sock farm shows some disturbing far sightedness and cooperation where a lot of sleeper socks were used: User:MidnightBlueMan - Account created 30/09/2008 User:AlcatrazBirdman - Account created 10/07/2008 User:Blue Bugle - Account created 25/07/2008 User:Mister Flash - Account created 25/07/2008 User:Dangerous Temujin - Account created 04/11/2008 User:Dragley - Account created 10/05/2008 User:FootballPhil - Account created 25/06/2008 SpongerJack - Account created 09/07/2010 CarbonNumbers - Account created 11/07/2010 Sure, some editors don't agree with examination of the term British Isles - it's easy to mock and belittle. I note the example above about "weather in the Iron Age" - but has anyone bothered to look at the examples at WT:BISE? We look for references, and we're (barring the socks) civil. Some examples might seem silly - many others are complex, some are straight-forward. But to request a topic ban is downright wrong and a disgraceful example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and a total disregard for the efforts of all the contributors at WT:BISE. --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Trouble is you do not just bring matters where there is a clear error (Which i accept there is in some cases). You bring up cases where British Isles is not inaccurate in the context in question, you then get into an endless fight about what individual sources say or dont say until the other side backs down. I think a process to report clear incorrect uses of British Isles would be a good idea, but we can not go on with having to deal with pages and pages of BI usage you hunt for and seek to remove. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) And how, exactly, are we to differentiate between "clear incorrect uses" and other uses? Which, BTW, is exactly what the WT:BISE page is trying to do. --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Because you bring things you would like to see changed but that are not inaccurate. So one of ur examples, you said... FWA Footballer of the Year "Another sporting article. It states that a footballer was First winner of the award from outside the British Isles. I suggest that in keeping with other sporting articles, it would be better to use Home Nations. Use of British Isles was not inaccurate in that case. If someone was the first winner of the award outside of Europe, there would be no problem with europe being used. British Isles must not be treated differently, it is a geographical location. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Great, so why not link to the WT:BISE discussion here, where a very clear consensus emerged that Home Nations should be used for football. So you're bringing this up here as an example of what exactly? I didn't edit war, the article was noted at a central place, the edit was discussed, a consensus was agreed, and a change was made. Fine - in your opinion, you don't agree, and you believe there's nothing wrong with British Isles for this edit. That's what WT:BISE is for. The idea that you are currently trying to go over all my edits and cherry pick an example where you believe you'll show what a horribly against-consensus POV editor I am has just backfired. Poor form on your part. Shall I comb through your edit history, hmmm??? --HighKing (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC) It is an example of British Isles being removed from an article where its use was not incorrect, i never said you edit warred or removed it without discussion. It was an example of where British Isles remaining in the article would not have been a problem. These are the sorts of cases you should not be allowed to bring to a project in your campaign to rid wikipedia of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC) "some editors don't agree with examination of the term British Isles". Sure. I am confident that, even discounting socks, if you took a straw poll of all the special example page contributors with more than ten edits to the page, I'm pretty sure it would conclude the majority view is that the page is just a thinly disguised exercise in legitimising a POV push. That is frankly, not IDONTLIKEIT, but good sense of what is and isn't reality. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, whatever; I had a brief break because I couldn't be bothered to waste my time negotiating between you and others, and another group of editors, neither of whom could see that they were being disruptive - because the definition of disruption is wasting large amounts of other editor's time on trivial edit-wars. Call that "no stomach" if you want - I prefer to call it "running out of patience completely with people who aren't here to improve the encyclopedia but only to push their own random POVs". Your raison d'etre is to remove all references to BI that you think you can get away with; sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong, but you can't distinguish between the two. And you're still doing it, as are both the other editors I mentioned. Of your list of "other" editors, most are blocked because they were socks, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. But I'm fairly sure (and it looks like most people agree) that I'm not the only person who's fed up with you removing references to BI on the flimsiest of excuses and then running off to ANI when someone disagrees with you. And that applies equally to editors on the "other side". This rather pointless WP:BATTLE over a fairly trivial matter of terminology is an utter waste of time for all the editors involved, and more pertinently wastes many other editor's time as well. It needs to stop now. We've tried everything else - what else do you suggest? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Let's see. I volunteer to participate at WT:BISE. I discuss changes, I provide references, I remain civil. All in the face of an extensive sock farm which has only recently been uncovered (thanks, me), and masses amounts of abuse. By the sounds of it, you appear to agree with the sock farm. You're happy to ignore the discussions and the work to develop MOS guidelines. If you believe that this battle, over a trivial matter of terminology, is a waste of time, fine. But then how is it that everytime I report disruption you stick the boot in and do absolutely nothing to help to limit the disruption? At the end of your disgracefully unfounded character assassination above, you ask what else do I suggest. Glad you asked. How about an admin who can recognize an editor who is respecting policies and collaborative processes, using the available structures and policies when asking for support to limit disruption, and then take action against the editor who is breaching policies, mass reverting, not providing references, not discussing reversions, and refusing to collaborate. Compare that to the admin who takes a position based on their own personal views of the topic (therefore ignoring behaviour), and regardless of policies and references, ends up attempting to block and topic ban an editor in good standing who has bent over backwards to volunteer to register changes, only edits articles by providing references (as requested), works hard on developing MOS guidelines, and discusses and explains any edits that are questioned. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, and - [26] [27] - I don't remember you complaining about these blocks...? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC) That just proves my point. The first block is when you punished me for "daring" to file an ANI report, blocked for edit warring for 5 reverts over 3 articles over 3 days - a block which to this day you've not apologized for or even hinted that you were totally and utterly in the wrong. In fact, it highlights your severe lack of objectivity in this matter, and your total bias. The 2nd block has nothing to do with me, somebody else reported as a sock and was blocked. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Again Black Kite you have accused me of doing wrong and pushing a random POV. If you have some evident of wrong doing by me can you please take it through the correct channels otherwise I suggest that you go away and read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC) As I said - your contribution history speaks for itself. If HK and Leven are topic-banned, what guarantee could we have that you would not continue your editing pattern? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Not sure that my contribution history does speak for itself. What are you trying to imply with your comment? Did you not read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please do not try and tar me with the same brush as Levenboy. If you have specific allegation about me take them to the proper place or find yourself the subject of a complaint. Bjmullan (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I'll ask it again - even taking into account WP:AGF, given the large amounts of reverts of BI-related material in your past contribs, what guarantee do we have that you would not continue to push this POV? I admit that you are not the main problematic editor here, but it would be pointless to engage a topic-ban only for someone else to carry it on. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Black Kite I am not the problem and never have been. The problem has always come from the pro BI POV pushers/socks which have not been addressed here effectively. I edit in many areas within WP (including the articles involving the contentious Derry/Londonderry term and I abide by the rules and consensus and would never remove a reference to anything (including BI) if it is backed up by RS. Bjmullan (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC) To be fair, I think the "pro-BI" sockfarm has been effectively dealt with, as you'll see if you look at how many of HK's list are indefinitely blocked. If you can guarantee that you will not unilaterally remove BI from articles without a very solid rationale for it then I think we can remove you from the list of editors above. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I agree and I'm sure that you will keep tabs on me ;-) Bjmullan (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) OK, thanks, done. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) BlackKite, I for one don't believe the sock farm has been completely dealt with yet. --HighKing (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose - a few more bodies watching the BI Specific Examples page to provide a better consensus would be a more appropriate response. That would be about engagement and discussion, not disengagement and banning. Fmph (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Support – Black Kite's proposal seems reasonable enough to prevent more disruption between the users. Enough is enough. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Totally Oppose - the relentless attack on Irish editors by British Nationalists and their allies continues. This place is getting more like Stalin's Russia with every passing month. Time to call a halt. Are Arbcom aware of the ongoing purge of Irish editors? If so - what are they doing about it? Sarah777 (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC) ...but this will apply to editors adding and edit warring to retain "British Isles" as well. TFOWR 09:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC) OK - I'll accept a compromise; this will apply only to editors adding and edit warring to retain "British Isles" as well. After all, numerically speaking, that is where the problem lies. High King is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide of British Nationalism with his little fork. Sarah777 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Comment I am against a topic ban for anyone and I believe that the good work that is happening at the MOS may in fact be the solution to this problem. I believe that if we have a set of agreed guidelines then HK would gladly stick to them (as will I). Bjmullan (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Related comment: would it help if we removed all names from the current proposal? i.e. the proposal becomes Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to a list of topic-banned editors. I see one current stumbling block as being the perception that this proposal unduly affects "one side" (I don't necessarily agree with that perception, as I feel it should - and does - apply equally to "both sides", but I can see how the current proposal could be seen in that way). TFOWR 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC) This sounds right. Despite all the talk, it isn't really about a specific individual or individuals. It's about general policies regarding discussing and consensus-building on the issue rather than going at articles en-masse with attack attitudes. It is also true that there has been more of a move towards consensus building from the individuals concerned in this ANI since sock-puppeting has been reduced and the current MOS discussion, at least for now, bode well. It would also be useful if admins (or whoever it is who does these things - sorry if I get terms wrong, still fairly new here) could help on occassion if tempers flare and insults fly, as does sometimes happen in such a fraught issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with the above. --HighKing (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I don't think that's correct (because there is one editor from each "side" on the list, and I've even warned another "BI-includer" today), but if that's what it takes to get this passed, will someone please close it as that, because if we don't do anything we'll just be back here again very very soon. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) The present proposal should stand which has got the support of most who have replied. If others continue to engage in the battle then they should simply be swiftly added to the list as the proposal clearly states. No reason for making an alteration to the proposal after there has been support for it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Enforcement of above proposal If the above proposal is supported, how exactly will it be enforced and managed. It mentions the individuals will not be allowed to Add / Remove the term. Will they be able to go somewhere if they spot BI being added / removed to report an alteration by an IP or other editor and request it be undone? And what is considered a recent enough change by someone else they could kick up a fuss about it and demand be changed? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I would interpret this as a "keep out" proposal. Ignore the topic, in toto. If there is obvious vandalism, someone else will pick it up eventually. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I think this is the sort of thing that would be tracked under a 'general probation/sanction' notice board and that violations would get the typical 24 hr escalating block regime. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Such as the Wikipedia:General sanctions community imposed sanction sort of thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Sort of, yes. It is pretty much an Obama probation, except the terms are much narrower. I'd suggest that the following terms be added to Black Kite's proposal "For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log". Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, that pretty much covers all bases, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC) As someone totally uninvolved, I'll happily volunteer to monitor the British Isles Probation Board to prevent any additions or removals of "British Isles" from any article under the probation without fullsome consensus. I suggest that merely gathering a large number of uninvolved users who are willing to maintain status-quo via reversion and kicking up frequent violators on both sides to adminstrators for blocking would make it so that the probation was hardly used. Let's set a "british isles" starting-state of 00:00 UTC July 4, 2010, and just ban it goring forward like changing articles from british to real english is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC) As I spouted off before, such articles should've been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But nobody would heed my wisdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC) In light of the above topic bans and the on-going dispute, I have opened a straw poll on proposed guidelines for use of British Isles in the encyclopedia. I would envision it as an accompaniment to the topic-band sanction above. The poll is here. Comments, not merely votes, are invited. --RA (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I mentioned above that the "campaign" for deletion would simply move on if sitewide deletion of one phrase is restricted to a similar phrase - this appears to have started and the target is "Great Britain". I think we can expect a refocusing there. Really, this is so time-wasting and what a distraction from serious editing. However, in the interests of an NPOV encyclopedia, I daresay we will be spending the next year or two discussing Great Britain (uses thereof). Or something very, very similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC) In case I am being lumped in with all this, I have taken no position against the inclusion of Great Britain. It was being added by a disruptive new editor, and the FAQ says there is a consensus against inclusion. My edits were merely to revert to the status quo according to the FAQ, I have no position either way regarding whether it should be included or not, only to revert IPs ignoring the attempt to find a consensus in that discussion. O Fenian (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC) To clarify a point; will the topic ban include all article talk pages and other WP: pages? I'm quite happy to accept the topic ban in connection with British Isles in articles but I'd be less happy if I was excluded from general discussions on the matter, although if that's the case, then so be it. LevenBoy (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) If the word "topic" is removed from the restriction, you'd simply be banned from the act of adding or removing the term anywhere on Wikipedia (including discussions), but you could still participate in relevant discussions and edit relevant articles, so long as you do not engage in that act. If the word "topic" remains, it would be broadly construed that you would not be able to participate in (or edit) anything (be it a discussion, poll, article) that relates to adding or removing of the term. Does that make sense? (You'll need to ask the proposer about which was meant so that you can be sure). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Unlike many topic bans, almost all the disruption has been on article pages, so I don't think a talkpage restriction would be necessary here. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Tweaked accordingly. Noting that when this is logged, it would still be listed as an editing restriction and have the effect of a topic ban that does not extend beyond the 'act' itself (which generally only occurs on articles). Due to this effect, when editing articles, any attempts to skirt around the restriction would be greeted with an appropriate enforcement response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Are you not getting a little ahead of yourself there? What do you mean "when" this is logged? There's no community consensus on a topic ban. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a !vote. So far, the only thing I've actually been loosely accused of is wasting time on a trivial matter (which is odd, considering if it's so trivial, why so many people have commented, and why there's been a flurry of activity at the MOS page these last few days). I've broken no policies, restrained from simple tit-for-tat edit warring with LevenBoy, and had even agreed with JamesD to not change any articles to give him a chance to review. --HighKing (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC) There is a clear community consensus in support of the measures proposed by Black Kite, and should you not comply with the restriction upon being officially notified on your talk and this officially being logged, you will be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC) There is no consensus. What we have is so many Irish editors blocked/banned that only one side of the WP:NPOV argument remains - those opposed to WP:NPOV in relation to "Ireland related" articles. Sarah777 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose Oppose topic ban for HighKing, whom I've reviewed a few of his edits. The other person, I haven't (too busy). Suggest that we stop hounding HighKing, have HighKing voluntarily take a few days to enjoy the summer (and for others not to hound him while he is away). People can prove their good faith by not hounding him while he is away. After 2-3 days, let's all try to work together. Topic bans are just a thorn on one's side day in and day out. Why not everyone try to start fresh? Such effort won't hurt and may actually help. Everyone should take the first step and stop hounding Mr. King in order for this to work. If Mr. King is required to start first, that would be like a punitive block or cool down block, both not permitted in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC) The proposal covers that: adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Wikipedia-wide basis. That (2) any other editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to this list. The "unblocked side" is just as affected by this proposal as t'other side. TFOWR 09:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC) How soon will this rule come into force? The proposals clearly have support of the majority here. I am still rather unclear about how it will be enforced on highking though. Will he still be able to present an endless list of articles he wants British isles removed from on the specific examples page? Some restrictions on that are needed if he is allowed to do that to limit the number of cases a month hes allowed to put forward for alterations. Coz at present we get dozens of examples, which we then have to spend a very long time debating and that stirs up tensions. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I'd imagine as soon as an uninvolved party closes this thread, but Ncmvocalist should be able to clarify. I don't see the problem with HighKing - or, indeed, anyone - proposing articles for consideration (for either removal or addition of "British Isles"). I'd become concerned if it appeared that an editor was dumping a huge amount of articles in an attempt to disrupt the process, but dozens of examples would seem to me OK at this point - the issue does affect a large number of articles. Contrary to popular opinion, there's no WP:DEADLINE; my primary concern is to stop the disruption, not prevent discussion - even if that discussion stirs up tensions. It's an emotive topic. TFOWR 10:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC) TFOWR is correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC) If the concern is the volume of articles proposed, I'd be happy to agree to a remedy to limit the discussions and proposals to a particular type of usage, and to only present representative examples to assist discussions. That way, the discussions wouldn't become fragmented over a range of issues. --HighKing (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with BritishWatcher. I'm starting to see no end to this. If users are allowed to bring an endless list of proposals for deletion then we are no further forward - and that is exactly what's going to happen unless meaningful restrictions are applied. LevenBoy (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC) At the end of the day, the community is telling involved editors to collaborate properly. If involved editors respond to this by opening many different proposals on multiple pages at any single time, those involved editors (whether they appear as single individuals or as a group/concert) could be subjected to further sanctions because they have not been listening. The aim of this IS to force editors to engage in proper conduct and fully embrace the concept of effective collaboration; it needs to starts happening. It does NOT exist to stifle discussion or to censor positions or any other nonsense that some people will come up with. I imagine involved editors don't want to be subject to (more) layers of restrictions, be it blocks or bans, or for their articles to be layered with multiple probation terms. Similarly, the community doesn't want to be in a position where it has to impose layers upon layers of restrictions. But if editors are not editing collaboratively, chances are that the community (or even ArbCom) will be forced to do that which it prefers not to. Therefore, it is imperative that editors collaborate and/or learn to do so. Involved editors need to note that they have the luxury of reasonable flexibility at present and that this luxury is a privillege. If collaboration is lacking, then a separate system will probably be set up - eg; editors will be required to put proposals (or requests for discussion about adding/removing the term) into a queue; the top 3-5 proposals will be discussed, and until those have been closed either due to resolution or expiry date, all other proposals/discussions will be shut down and put into the queue until it is time for their turn. Note that if the community imposes such a system because conduct is not acceptable, flexibility and convenience will not be the main concern. Collaboration is key; work it out. If it means borrowing a few ideas, nutting out the details of a separate system, and coming to an agreement on the method of moving forward, so be it - just don't let the cycle (that occurred just prior to this ANI) to repeat itself again because the community is saying that it is disruptive and not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I think we are heading towards stalemate here, so see you all again this time next year, the year after that and so on. Judging by the way this discussion is going the problem is not going to be dealt with and I can see it is just going to continue ad-infinitum; edit wars, arguments, time wasting and general aggravation. Until the main protagonists (and I include myself) are barred completely from British Isles-related matters this problem will not be resolved. I thought I might try to maintain access to Talk pages rather than a full topic ban, but on reflection that won't work, it just puts the problem on another level. I would walk away from this debacle completely, and start editing articles on another uncontoversial subject if HighKing and a few others of lesser persuasion (Bjmullan, Fmph, Sarah777) would do the same, but there's no chance of that, so on we go. LevenBoy (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC) It's a choice of lesser evils. Either this passes (with the caveat of no starting editors that I've mentioned above), or we just start handing out blocks. I know which would be the better result. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not seeing a stalemate, to be honest. I'm seeing the editors who are going to be affected by this disagreeing with the proposal, and nearly everyone else agreeing. Frankly, I think the reason this proposal has so much support is precisely because of the "other editors are edit warring so I have to as well" concept expressed so eloquently by LevenBoy: I would walk away from this debacle completely, and start editing articles on another uncontoversial subject if ... others ... would do the same. Per BlackKite, I'd prefer this to work, because the alternative will be much less pleasant. TFOWR 18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC) "and everyone else agreeing" → "and nearly everyone else agreeing" TFOWR 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Not really a fair summary TFOWR. I wouldn't be affected by this and I oppose any restrictions on High King's efforts to uphold WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Point taken, apologies. I've amended my comment. TFOWR 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) And this from LevenBoy: "Until the main protagonists (and I include myself) are barred completely from British Isles-related matters". But, per the British Nationalists who dominate this corner of Wiki the 'British Isles' include sovereign Ireland, my country! The "final solution" to the problem of Irish editors, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Comment I would be prepared to change my 'Oppose' to 'Support' if both remaining nominees were allowed a clean slate start as given to BJM, provided they were prepared to make a similar commitment. I'm more than a little skeptical of mothers demanding half a baby, as it appears in this case. RashersTierney (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Strongely support - sorry for my late involvement but i strongely support the sanctions against HighKing etc. and those who are trying to remove the term British Isles from Wikipedia. British Isles is a term that goes beyond politics and is recognised world-wide as a geographical term. The only trouble with it are people who you can safely assume follow a particular political viewpoint. Widespread inclusion were its not needed should also be checked on as well. My involvement in this exact issue is just comments on the talk page stating its wide-spread and generally accepted usage above terms that haven't caught, and disputing some of Snowdeds claims - but not in any style that would be considered troublesome. I have done no editing of articles in relation to the terms as far as i can tell in my four years here. Mabuska (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Support topic/issue ban of HighKing for attempting politicise at a nationalist level a non-political issue. The whole smacks of "personal issues" and is causing an unreasonable reaction. Take him out the game and see if matters quieten down to a nomarl level of discussion. The others are being forced into appearing unreasonable by having to oppose the unreasonable. The issues needs to be referred to a neutral expert not a partisan force. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Can someone please close this, please? There's clearly enough community support for a motion here, so could someone please close this? Otherwise it'll die a slow death and we'll be here again very shortly. Either That (1) User:HighKing and User:LevenBoy be banned from adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Wikipedia-wide basis. That (2) any other editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to this list. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (a) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (b) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log". or That any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to a list of editors banned from doing so. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (a) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (b) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log". Both have support, it is up to the closing admin to decide which would be most useful. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed support for this was clear yet still no action. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Support for this among Irish editors is non-existent (nearly). So Wiki is truly a place of Majority Nationalist POV rather than NPOV per you folk? No wonder it is coming under such fire for bias outside the Anglosphere. Sarah777 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC) By which I mean; outside the Anglosphere it (Wiki) is coming under increasing fire for bias. Towards Anglo-American interests. English is so studded with ambiguity, innit? Sarah777 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC) In the absence of any closure of this I have used the only alternative and started blocking users, the first one being User:Triton Rocker for persistent insertion of "British Isles" without any real justification on Northern Ireland (after being previously warned). Black Kite (t) (c) 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) There is support for it. I think you can close it. The editors involved in this dispute are working on common guidelines around it. User:HighKing has been contributing constructively to those efforts. To the point where he/she even supports these sanctions being a part of it. I suggest that, as a expression of good faith, if the editors involved are successful in agreeing guidelines on this subject that User:HighKing be removed from the list of users listed under this sanction. --RA (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Of course HighKing is working on the (British Isles limiting) guidelines. Whenever the pressure is on he starts to work on guidelines, but when everyone else moves on he quietly reverts to his relentless campaign of removals, and I expect he'll do so again. Are you suggesting that HighKing's name is removed, leaving just mine? I hope not, because I still maintain that HighKing is the only problem here. If he is banned from British Isles related topics there would no longer be a problem. LevenBoy (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC) If you're blocked you'll be able to use the "other editors forced me to do it" excuse and see how far that gets you. You're a very real part of the problem, and blaming other editors rather than accepting responsibility for your own actions leaves me with little hope that you understand why this issue was raised here, nor understand the depth of the community's feelings towards the disruption caused. TFOWR 08:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I see its not taken long for Sarah to start banging on about Irish oppression again. Why has this still not been "closed" yet. Are we waiting for Christmas? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I`m irish and support this, the british isles is a geographical location and from what i have read above there has been massive disruption caused by those removing the term mark nutley (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC) ...and by those adding the term. The concern here is the disruption caused by the edit warring to add or remove the term. See LevenBoy (talk · contribs) for example - the user whose conduct initiated this ANI report. TFOWR 08:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I'm just going to butt in here as I'm surprised that I can say: "I agree with Mark. Stop removing the term". Verbal chat 09:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The BI term is rarely added, but usually re-added. The deletion of the BI term, is what starts each squabble. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed. It's not usually added to existing articles, although new articles using it can always be written. The arguments starts when one of a small group of editors removes the term for no apparent reason (or because they are convinced it is a massive plot against the Irish to say that the island of Ireland is part of the British Isles - as Sarah777 makes abundantly clear). An editor altering the term because the Lesser spotted wikipedian is not found anywhere in Scotland, therefore saying the critter is distributed through the British Isles is less than accurate, is not the problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I suspect in general you're both correct. However, note that the subject of this report was inserting the term "British Isles", and another editor has already been blocked for disruptively inserting the term (to date, the only editor blocked for adding/removing the term). The issue, to my mind, isn't it being added (or removed) once: it's the inevitable disruption that follows. If we can get both sides to stop and discuss I'll regard it as a win. TFOWR 14:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I'll probably regret this intervention, however... In my opinion the BI term is rarely appropriate, except in an historical sense. This issue is rarely a problem in the real world. Its only here for those who lament the passing of the Empire. The claim that there is "community support" means that there are few Irish editors, and of that few many (including myself) rarely get involved in this unencyclopedic exercise. We just don't have the patience of HK and LB. Many editors have simply left after involvement in his and similar (such as RoI) exercises which are more appropriate to usenet. This attempt to silence HK and LB is an admission that arguments for using the BI term in individual instances could not be justified. It is: "If you can't kick the ball - then kick the man" - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 'Tis also an admission that the community's patients are exhausted. Thankfully, a similar dispute hasn't arisen over the term Irish Sea. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Health system isn't what it used to be. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Err, make that the community's patience. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Uh, HighKing and LevenBoy are on opposite sides. The proposal wasn't an attempt to silence one side: it was an attempt to get both sides to edit war less and discuss more. TFOWR 15:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I'm all for that. Always have been. My record at WT:BISE speaks for itself in terms of discussions and consensus. Can't say the same for others though... --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) No, the record of BISE acting as a venue that produces garbage edits, has little or no participation and as such is not and never will be an expression of consensus or policy cluefulness, and little or no awareness of what NPOV actually is or how it works, is what is already established. I don't know why, with this generic phrasing, that anyone is pretending that if HighKing were not simply topic banned from trying to systematically on his own 'right the wrongs' of the usage of British Isles, there simply would be no edit warring, full stop. NObody seems to see the irony of the total asymetry in this supposed mass incorrect usage of a term, where hundreds of editors are all wrong, and HK is just going about doing the right thing, correcting their 'mistakes'. It's a POV pushing campaign, pure and simple. Pursuit of guidelines is all very well, but they seem to be doomed to never see the light of day so that the actual wider community which has a clue what NPOV is through experience of applying it through all issues, not just the wierd Irish microcosm, can assess them for actual policy compliance. Until then, Sarah's views frankly don't look so ludicrous compared to what is frequently asserted as fact in this arena of dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks - just shows the attention I pay to these "exercises" - ClemMcGann (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Just ban them both from removing or inserting the phrase (and any other involved) problem solved mark nutley (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC) That is what has been proposed ;-) TFOWR 16:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC) As an uninvolved user (and one who enacted the Obama probation back when it was in this same phase in 2008), I've logged the probation remedy that is written at the top of the thread. I have not noted the LevenBoy/HighKing restriction because that is for someone else to decide, seeing it would arguably be the first enforcement action. The thread hasn't been closed in case that issue is still not resolved. If any editor adds or removes "British Isles" on Wikipedia in contravention of the terms of the probation, the probation will likely be enforced against them. Administrators have the option regarding how they warn users, but clearly, special warnings are not required as this is a much narrower probation (and presumably, such bans are synonymous to warning a user before blocking). To admins, when notifying the user that they are banned (and especially where they have not been warned previously), other than saying "you are banned from X Y and Z", the message should probably contain more information (education/reminders on how to engage in proper conduct, warning that they will be blocked if the ban is not adhered to, and notes about how to appeal which are contained in the probation text anyway). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles - Sanction is logged here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The problem with the wording of the probation/sanction is that it's far too woolly. The current wording of Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors sounds like it's really a reminder of WP:V and WP:RS. But what exactly is "systematic"? Can we clarify when edits become "systematic"? I'm not sure I fully understand the term. Also, if an editor removes/adds a term over multiple articles *with* clear sourcing and justification, is that OK? Based on the current wording, why is my behaviour being called into question exactly? --HighKing (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC) If someone had an edit pattern like yours, that would be the systemic removal of the expression British Isles. Your systemmatic removal of this expression has been disruptive and got you a few blocks as well and created numerous edit wars. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not commenting on any specific individuals behavior (I haven't throughout this thread). But to the other part of HighKing's comment; don't focus on the wrong part - instead, note the wording "Any editor...who edit wars over such addition or removal"; that is where the focus is always going to shift back to as it is not ok, be it direct participation or indirect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I never received a block for systematic removal and there's no policy for that. Unless it adds up to edit-warring which might make sense if it was done without sourcing and justification. But then I tended to have sourcing and justification - and I listed the edits at WT:BISE. In this recent case, all of my edits were reverted with a summary of "Revert systematic removal of British Isles" without any other reasons, or an attempt to discuss. Is that what is meant by "removing without clear sourcing and justification"? I didn't revert any - so I didn't edit war, just reported it here. So from the current wording, I still don't get it for this particular instance. It's not clear. Perhaps as a suggestion, the wording should reflect a little more of what's being discussed as the MOS discussions? I'd prefer, and I believe the community does too, to make it crystal clear what precise behaviour is not tolerated any more. --HighKing (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC) You just called GoodDay an American because he said he lives in North America. That is what you are doing wrong - taking this sort of POV warped logic, assuming it is The Truth, ignoring everyone else who tells you a million times it isn't, and then systematically changing articles because of it, and then wondering why people mass-revert your changes as pure bollocks. Removing you from the topic unless or until there is a neutral resolution of the dispute that actually satisfies NPOV, removes the disruption problem as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC) That's twisting what was said, but your motivation to do so is clear. --HighKing (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) How's that then? And like GoodDay, I have never edit warred to add or remove this term. Although your motivation for slurring me is also quite clear. You have a total perception void on this whole issue frankly, and your responses to feedback on what your problems are, from many many people, are becoming formulaic, a sure sign that you need a time out from the whole thing. Based on the various reactions as you wander around like a little boy lost asking anyone and everyone who has supported this sanction 'what have I done wrong?', your capacity for self-behavioural analysis seems as limited as your capacity for seeing a dispute from any POV but your own, let alone for writing from the neutral POV. Never mind this BI erradication and marginalisation campaign, I don't think I've ever seen you refer to the ROI in article text as anything but Ireland as you go around on your correction activities, even when the text you produce would read as nonsensical and confusing garbage to anybody other than a 'citizen of Ireland'. That is pretty clear evidence you have absolutely no idea how to edit from the NPOV, not by a lightyear. MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Boy, you've a bee in your bonnet. Do you really hate Irish people this much? At least I try to ask what I've done wrong so as to try to avoid making mistakes. If you're so sure you know the answers, how come everytime I ask for someone to point out what *policy* I've breached, all I get is this POV-laden anti-AGF abuse? Hmmmm? --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Please cease; this is not a battleground. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I can't recall how often (if at all), I've removed or added British Isles to articles. Anyways, I'm volunteering not to do so (add/delete) for the duration of HK/LB's sanctions (if they are so sanctioned). GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Umm so the sanctions are in place against everyone who may add / remove British isles from multiple articles. What about the ban on Highking removing BI from anywhere? Why has that not been noted. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Goodday you hardly ever add or subtract anything from any content, mostly you contribute to these types of discussion on talk pages, taking a stance (and often a provocative one), then suddenly changing that stance it or withdrawing it. That is as disruptive as editors removing (or now adding) BI without a reason. BritishWatcher, hounding HighKing adds no value here, the sanction in place would mean that a ban would come into effect if anything is removed without agreement; given that your political position is "rampantly" displayed on your user page your advocacy of a ban is clearly sectarian in nature. . I looked back on the period where Black Kite was prepared to intervene and as far as I can see s/he supported removal as often as s/he supported reinstatement, its a similar record to those other editors who have tried to shift this to a factual basis. If we can use the project page to resolve nominated uses(or non uses) on an objective basis and if admins are prepared to resolve road blocks and not give up when the going gets tough/frustrating (no real blame here Black Kite, I understand why you withdrew last time, but to be honest starting but not finishing made matters worse) then we might make progress. --Snowded TALK 23:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC) This is not about my advocacy for a ban. The community above voted for High King to be banned from removing British isles from any article. The separate point about nobody else being allowed to remove/add British isles from multiple articles is rightly now enforce. But that is only one thing people voted for. Highking must not be allowed to remove British Isles from a single article, across the whole of the English wikipedia. I want to know why that point (point 1) which people voted on is not yet in force, whilst the rest of us who are innocent in this conflict are now under threat of sanctions if we add or remove BI from a couple of articles. Im happy for that examples project page to continue, aslong as all of the old stuff is cleared out quickly so we can start a fresh, and there is a limit on the number of cases any editor can bring forward. The trouble is highking has flooded us with dozens of articles where he wants BI removed from, its impossible to keep up. Only clear misuses of British Isles should be taken to there, not something where someone says "oh this term could be used instead". But that is another matter, i want clarification on what is actually happening with highkings ban on removing British Isles. Why has only point 2 (ban on anyone adding/removing BI from multiple articles) been introduced, when its clear from peoples comments they also voted for point 1 (ban on highking removing British Isles)? Clarification is needed please BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Based on community consensus HighKing has been correct in about half of his proposed removals and has respected agreements to retain it when they have been made in the forum. He has also agreed to accept some limit on the number of cases being brought forward. Its pretty obvious from the above that people want the constant disputes to stop and to be very direct BW, I think that will mean you taking a less polemical position. It would also help if you stopped demonizing HighKing, most of the recent real grief has come from the Midnight and Flash socks. --Snowded TALK 12:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC) You can't claim that at all. The disruption is on the part of Highkings removal of the term British Isles, people revert as they don't agree and it goes on and on, it is all Highking does here at wikipedia, suggesting it is the people that disagree with highkings edits that are the problem is back to front. His continual and systematic removal on the term British Isles is the actual problem. There is support here to take action against him and that action should be implemented. He shows no sign of understanding on his own..so....Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I can claim it because its true. Check out the project page. When people have discussed articles HighKing has made his arguments but accepted decisions. In contrast we just had blind reverts and refusal to discuss from the socks - that is the reason progress was not made. --Snowded TALK 12:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC) What i want at the moment is just clarification about what is actually happening. Only half of the proposal above has been implemented which seeks to restrict everyones actions and places no tougher restrictions on an editor like highking who is partly to blame for all of this . Midnight and his socks are banned and if he gets new socks will be automatically banned as well or just fall foul of the new sanctions in place for all editors. As for my involvement, i am fine with BI being replaced in articles where its use is clearly incorrect, but highking either making changes himself or providing long lists of places BI is used he would like changed is simply unworkable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pmanderson persistent breaking of WP:CIVIL.

Resolved

 – It is clear that no immediate or admin-requiring action will be taken on this matter. Long-term or widespread complaints about a user's patterns of behavior are best directed to the user conduct Request for Comment forum, where they can benefit from permanency, an official place in the Dispute Resolution process, and better discussion formatting. --erachima talk 07:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pmanderson is consistently rude with plenty of personal attacks. I made an WQA which got no responses, and made no changes in his behavior. I was recommended to file an ANI instead of a WQA, so here I am.

The first I saw of Pmanderson was him making a massive revert of many changes calling it "Vandalism", [28], implying that all those behind the consensus, which included me, was vandals. He continued to call me a vandal [29], [30], [31], [32], while generally refusing to engage in constructive debate. Lastly he calls me a liar, [33] and a POV-pusher, [34], because I want his sources to support his edits, and don't want WP:OR or WP:SYN. When he doesn't engage in direct attacks, he is rude and claims that I have "pet definitions" or particular political views and that I edit based on POV, and not on wikipedia policies. [35]. His abuses has continued despite warnings and the above mentioned WQA: [36], [37] and lastly today: [38].

I'm not the only target either: [39], [40]. I'm not interested in wasting time looking through all his edits, this is only the ones I've seen because it's concerning another article we both are interested in. It's quite possible he is rude to many more people, I wouldn't know.

I have tried to be patient, but my patience with his attacks and rudeness and general refusal to engage in serious debate (it's possible, but only after repeating my criticism several times, he will ignore it the first few times, and then he will still ignore all argumentation), and this situation is not just not acceptable any more.

I've tried to notify him of his breaches of policy on his talk page, but his response was to brush that off with "keep off my talk page". So I have not notified him of this ANI, as I can't do that. I assume somebody else can notify him instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Pmanderson. --erachima talk 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me see. OpenFuture (talk · contribs) and marknutley (talk · contribs) edit the same articles; share the same opinions; and have the same style: neither of them has mastered the possessive apostrophe, and both of them use singular verbs with plural subjects, like was vandals above.

I responded by calling one of them a sock puppet, and the other turns up here.

Baseless suspicion, doubtless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to Agree baseless wikistalk shows only two pages of Overlap in thier histories and a look under thier contributions are Diverse It'd be elaborate Socking to back each other p on only two articles Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If they're not, they're not. Nice to know that there is such a tool. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Next time, look for Evidence before you make accusations. These are fairly common tools used in a lot in preliminary SPI investigation. You owe an apology to certain individuals. I have seen people banned for far less. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment I walked in due to a WP:3O request. found this lovely accusation. I have withdrawn my offer of a WP:3O. If editors can move pass this and go back to content not conduct i will be watching the page

• Comment I can testify that Pmanderson is a consistently uncivil editor. I find the fact that he is calling his accuser's credibility into question to be par for the course for him. First of all, calling people's credibility into question is bad for Wikipedia in the long term. We should be cultivating a culture that is mutually edifying. Second, it is irrelevant to the actual question at hand. Do you know what type of people do this sort of thing (manipulative rhetoric)? People who are doing something wrong. You can't ban him soon enough for me.Greg Bard (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Not sufficient to take to ANI. OpenFuture himself uses much stronger language than this:

Your revert is still against the consensus, as I previously explained. As such it is vandalism....

You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy....

Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong.

Yet you apparently pretend....

Then of course, your willingness to misinterpret sources...

And much, more which can be read here. About which OpenFuture says, "I repeat: There is nothing for me to explain. It is obvious, even out of context, that most quotes above does not represent any abuse." One last quote, "I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses. You are after all the one that insults everyone who does not agree with you."

TFD (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I too can testify about Pmanderson's incivility. He seems to be unable to respect another editor or work collaboratively, as seen here 1 and here 2. His persistent incivility makes it extremely difficult to work with him on any project whatsoever, and has gotten him into numerous conflicts. I've not taken a look at the current dispute, but it wouldn't be surprising if Pmanderson's ways have upset another editor.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• But, in any case, can somebody do something about rhia massive removal of sourced assertions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How about having a civil and constructive debate about it, as per WP:POLICY? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I had as civil a discussion with one revert-warring editor called OpenFuture as his attacks would permit (quoted above at length; this is a partial list of his removals of sourced material: 16:43 18 June, 17:21, 17:43, 21 June 04:13, 09:14, 10:18, 23 June 16:23, 24 June 07:42, 27 June 05:42, 28 June 04:23); it didn't do any good. Now another blanker comes along. Enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

one revert-warring editor called OpenFuture - said the guy who has been blocked multiple times for revert warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Within the last hour this user has called me a sockpuppet, a vandal and a liar [41] in edit summary [42] in edit summary [43] In edit summary and on talkpage . mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also he called you "ignorant". Don't forget that. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would happily substitute a more parliamentary word suitable to someone who says the Greeks didn't have democracys [sic]; can someone suggest one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment - People need to keep in mind that this is a very contentious topic and the arguments can get quite heated at times. Basically, everyone needs to be told to CALM THE FREAKIN' HELL DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop insulting each other, stop making baseless accusations and also stop filing these reports on each other. Close the AfD, take a breath, wipe the slate clean and start over at trying to reach a consensus on the article.radek (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong article Radek :) List of wars between democracies mark nutley (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, this has nothing to do with the AfD in question. Pmanderson started insulting me at List of wars between democracies months ago. The reason it comes up now is simply because I tired of his insults, as a large part since they increased once he got involved in Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion; most of this list of rudeness by OpenFuture is from the Talk:List of wars between democracies, starting before I got there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Except of course, its not a list of rudeness at all, and it also hardly has anything to do with "who started", which in any case you did. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't care to look into the details here, but the complainant is unlikely to be coming into this with clean hands. Of course, this would not excuse any misdeeds on the part of the alleged offender listed, but I have had some interaction with OpenFuture. My impression is that OpenFuture is certainly able to be civil and contribute thoughtful commentary to work towards consensus, though there also have been some questionable comments [44] [45]. He has also been informed numerous times about objections presented to him that have been dismissed or disregarded. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] and there's been a very good amount of claiming "victory" (or "case closed") quite prematurely [51] [52] [53] [54]

All in all, I just wanted to point out that the complainant here may not be blameless, (though I repeat that, for the large part, his responses are helpful for the project). If there is action though, I think it'd be fair to make sure that the circumstances are checked. BigK HeX (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the circumstances. Wrong article, again. This has *nothing* to do with Mass killings under Communist regimes and stop trying to make it part of that conflict. If you feel I have done something wrong, use the standard procedures for that, which starts with telling me about it on my talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sme editors; same tactics; different article. No surprise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What the heck difference does it make if I am referring to my observations at the "Mass killings" article .. especially when that is one of the places where there has been interaction between you two?? This ANI is about civility, and you have levied a noticeable portion of incivility yourself over this past week. BigK HeX (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So start an ANI or a WQA about it, but stop coming with vague baseless accusations here. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. WP:DR.--Chaser (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a content dispute as well, but it is impossible to go forward with that with Pmanderson as he refuses to engage in civil, constructive debate. And if you look at WP:DR for uncivil editors, you get recommended to go to WQA. There I was recommended to go here. So I am following WP:DR. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your needling each other is incidental to the content dispute. Pursue those channels.--Chaser (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "needling" is, but if you are referring to his personal attacks, then I am not needling him. What channels should I pursue? According to WP:DR I should go to WQA. There nothing happened and I was told to go here. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Chaser, yes there is a content dispute this however does not excuse such a gross breach of wp:civil calling people liars, ignorant, and a vandal. I would like User:Pmanderson to be reminded that such incivility is not tolerated on wikipedia mark nutley (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully we are producing a dictionary, too. Pursue those steps in the dispute resolution process, other than WQA, that you have not yet tried.--Chaser (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, the only step I haven't tried is WP:RFCC. That's an informal non-binding process, meaning that the outcome is likely to be useless, but it's my understanding that I have to do it before going to actual mediation. I have to say that I'm very surprised that it must take so long to get an administrator to make any form of action towards somebody who persistently attacks others with absolutely no provocation. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You've already tried informal mediation? If not, pursue this with the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. A user RFC is not what I meant.--Chaser (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that it is not for conduct disputes, which this is. The content dispute is still moving forward, albeit very slowly, and two other editors joined the discussions recently. I see no reason to bring that to mediation yet. This is about Pmandersons personal attacks, nothing else. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was going to put it to informal mediation anyway per your recommendation, but it says "Add the name of the main article after the last forward slash in the text box below" and there isn't an article, this is about a user, so that's clearly wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And an RfC requires two users to have tried to resolve the same conflict, which I'm not sure is the case here, so I can't make an RfC either. I don't know what to do now. The dispute resolution process has failed. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment User:Pmanderson is a capable editor and not prone to incivility. He is a blunt editor and will state the facts without sugar-coating, but that is different than incivility. If someone is expecting "please" and "thank you" and "by your leave" in Wikipedia editing, then their expectations are unreasonable. If Pmanderson suspects that either User:OpenFuture or User:marknutley is a sock of the other, then I would judge that to be the case. Pmanderson is experienced enough to know what socks look and act like. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck.... There isn't any incivility here on Pmanderson's part. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have checked above before posting, look at the wikistalk. Please redact your accusation of sockpuppetry. And if you think calling people liars, and ignorant is civil i`m glad i don`t live in your neighbourhood mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

More attacks: [55] --OpenFuture (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting your 13:41, 15 July 2010 post, Taivo: He is a blunt editor and will state the facts without sugar-coating, but that is different than incivility. You know what, Taivo? I have no problem with plain-speak. I too have a distaste for how so many editors try to exploit and game the system by going to Wikiquettes and ANIs and whine about what is essentially nothing but non-sugar-coated, civil plain-speak that is true. So… bring on straight talk. But…

  I can tell you that I receive e-mails from people who go (*sigh*) “Awwwwe craaaaap” whenever PMA shows up—not because the words he speaks are so irrefutably true and powerful, but because of his persistent behavior of attacking others using his well equipped quiver of wiki‑wedgies; no one relishes such abuse. I note User:nutley, above, who wrote Within the last hour this user has called me a sockpuppet, a vandal and a liar. And then User:OpenFuture reminded him that PMA called nutley “ignorant.” This is the same old dance we always get out of PMA; just a different tune.

  People are just sick and tired of PMA’s highly practices stunts of abusing other editors via his strategy of slapping articles others are working on with {factual} tags accompanied by edit-summary accusations of their edits constituting “vandalism.” Is he hoping others will respond with a “G*d dammit” (*sound of audience gasp*) so he can then take them to ANI? That really gets editors goats as they get dragged through the mud for not drinking the Kool‑Aid of civility when they lash back in exasperation over his abuse. His style is toxic to the project and its collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Pmanderson has demonstrated (for years now) that he is unsuited to contributing in a collaborative environment. In my experience, he cannot admit when he is wrong, and it is only a short trip to his making accusations of lying and vandalism when he encounters dissent. His block log only demonstrates the cases where he has pushed too hard, but he constantly treads the line of being uncivil. Every editor has the responsibility to encourage others (we need all the editors we can get), however Pmanderson's editing sytle (and lack of consensus-building) does nothing to encourage other editors to remain on the project.  HWV258.  01:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yet another example: And, fresh off of my above post, I find that PMA wrote a post intended to provoke just minutes ago at (∆ here). He wrote (of a group of like-minded editors) with this: …and the children of Robespierre still wish to improve us, whatever we may want. Robespierre is the architect of the Reign of Terror and was executed in a coup d'etat. Calling others “children of Robespierre” was designed to diminishing, insulting, and was intended to provoke. Pure and simple. No one likes being called “children”; particularly of someone responsible for a rein of terror. PMA certainly seems to be up to his standard, poor form everywhere he goes today. It is so exceedingly typical of his clever style of belittling others. Greg L (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg L, HWV258: Although I agree with your description of his behavior, the only thing that would actually help are lists of his personal attacks, and earlier efforts to get him to stop the abuse. Just explaining how he behaves doesn't help, that just shows your standpoint, you need to show that you are correct as well. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• You’re the one who started this, right? For the last bullet point in your list, you can add PMA’s “children of Robespierre” comment; he was just trying to provoke in a venue where good manners are required and he did so with clever wording. No one fell for the ploy and I called him on it. As for the rest of your list of bullet points, I suggest you collaborate with HWV258 to gather facts of the matter; he’s been a long-term sufferer at the hand of PMA and seems in the mood to finally deal with this. Perhaps too, it appears, for User:Greg Bard. And so too for User:nutley, who has already enumerated and linked a handful of violations, above.

  I note that PMA wrote above (22:04 post) about a “rhia massive removal of sourced assertions. So I do hope that everyone here can successfully ride herd on PMA as he tries to derail this from a discussion on how the community is finally going to deal with his chronic incivility and provocation.

  And finally, there is no need to dig all that far back; PMA’s block log shows he was last blocked for incivility on 26 May 2010, which is only 49 days before you came here and filed this ANI. That was a 48-hour-long block that was later cut in half, all of which appears to have not *impressed* PMA much. I suggest you and the others just focus on documenting his conduct between then and now. Good luck. Greg L (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Are IPs allowed to edit here?

I was participating in a discussion at the administrators noticeboard when suddenly I was called various names, and had my posts refactored. Than another user mocked me on the talk page of another. Is it ok for people to participate in discussions here as an IP, or does that automatically make me some kind of wiki-criminal? I fail to see how my initial posts were those of a "troll". Also, for some reason this post will not go through as it says "edit filtered". I don't know why. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still being called a troll and other names at the talk page for LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I am leaving as its obvious you have to register an account and make lots of edits here before anyone will hear the content of your statements without attacking you. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FWIW, I've notified LAEG of this incident complaint. As well, I am the person who encouraged others to DFT when she popped up in conversation (oddly enough, her first three edits were in AN. How very...convenient). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that it's very unusual for a brand new user to even realize that WP:AN exists- in general, new users are interested in the encyclopedia, and only discover the other parts of Wikipedia later. By discovering WP:AN before any other part of the encyclopedia, you're giving the impression that you're not a new user. Anonymous editors are welcome here, but if your ip changes frequently, it might be better for you to use an account, just so others will know that it's you editing, and not have to wonder why your contribution history doesn't match the edits you're making. Have you had an account at Wikipedia before? Or have you used other ips? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That does not justify both Jack and LAEG's falure to AGF and attempts to silence criticism by attacking the editor rather than the argument. The irony of that thread is that the IP user has a better understanding of WP:AGF than they do. Resolute 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid point; the anon's contributions at WP:AN seem entirely reasonable to me, unless there's some context I'm missing here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Agree 100% with Resolute. There are a couple of people at that thread who don't understand AGF, and it ain't the IP editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolute, I have been trying to help the new user, particularly on my Talk page. There's no lack of AGF on my behalf. And as to Jack, the IP came out of the box swinging and Jack was playfully responding. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, particularly for a possible sock. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me add the IP was not complaining about me, and I do not know how I got involved in this, other than suggesting AGF adherence. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor I. Like LAEG said, she came out swinging, and others suggested the she wash's as she appeared. As the commentary wasn't particularly useful to the discussion, I felt it best if we simply continued on beyond the IP's remarks. Last time i checked, DFT is not the equivalent of a failure of AGF. An IP showing up on the Admin Noticeboard, dropping acronyms like what-what? Please. LAEG was right to suspect something sideways. If it quacks like a duck... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you realize that you deleted one of their comments, or was it an accident? It's possible you just don't understand how to handle an edit conflict. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I kinda do know how to address edit-conflicts. I am unsure where I deleted someone's statements here Oops, found it. Nope, I don't think it was an ec, seeing that there was some minutes between posts. It might have been net connection hiccup. I've been advised about refactoring. Is anyone else noticing the wiki adding a bit wobbly today? :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[56] --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, am I missing something that's happening in the real world? I seem to be running across a lot more pro&anti Israel rhetoric on wikipedia than I usually do. Could just be coincidence... --Ludwigs2 23:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Summer vacation. Many people are off from work and have more time and energy to waste on arguing about politics. Count Iblis (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Almost makes me appreciate the value of hard work. Almost. --Ludwigs2 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This happening recently might have been the tipping point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And this, more recently, although it hasn't seen much attention yet. I suspect it's just a flareup of the same old, same old. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for that, Throwaway. The fit will hit the shan once that comes to a larger audience. Yanks just love to know they can be manipulated... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G has made a very good comment about this on WP:AN. [57] 217.44.70.103 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible spam attack about to happen or...?

Just noticed a very disturbing similarity in a number of new accounts. The newest so far is User:Raju.saini10. There are several other accounts with names separated by a period. No edits yet, but my spidey sense is really ringing out. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here's another: User:Gatut.soerjono. I'm going to block each of these and if I may, request an emergency CU on these accounts to try and find sleepers. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked twelve and counting. They're still coming in. Please, anyone with CU rights check my edit history for the socks and block the IP responsible for this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Up to fifteen and I have to go soon. Is there anyone out there who can run an emergency CU? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this something a regular user can do? --*Kat* (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Checked the two accounts. Only one on the IP, no sleepers underneath or anything like that. SirFozzie (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

there have been three more recently:

• D.umesh111 (talk | contribs) new user account ‎
• Vigneswari.m (talk | contribs) new user account ‎
• Sh.ayoubzadeh (talk | contribs) account created automatically ‎

I may not be an admin here, but I do have admin experience on other sites and these accounts would set my alarms off there. --*Kat* (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Two more in past minute:

• 08:34, 18 July 2010 Ambi.sasitharan
• 08:35, 18 July 2010 Malusi.xalabile

Since I'm not an admin, I'll make this my last post here. Take care! --*Kat* (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Pranjal.kumar (talk · contribs)
• Nekkanti.rajesh (talk · contribs)
• Chennai.damo (talk · contribs)
• Ajjavier.delafuente (talk · contribs)
• Tshego.sehlapelo (talk · contribs)
• Cynthia.buhain (talk · contribs)
• Hungary.angelbari (talk · contribs)
• Githu.kurian (talk · contribs)
• Priya.jagannath (talk · contribs)
• Dnomde.putuhena (talk · contribs)
• Viraj.chaturvedi (talk · contribs)

Try checking the range in /16s -- IPs in this part of the world tend to be highly dynamic to the point every new edit comes from a different IP address. MER-C 13:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:The_Four_Deuces

Resolved

^{Consensus that no admin attention is required. S.G.(GH) _ping! 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)}

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

User:The_Four_Deuces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) He persists in implying that people are stupid, ignorant or narrowminded despite multiple requests to stop.

[58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

If it had been once or twice it could be ascribed to the heat of the battle, or mistakes, but this is a persistent behavior. The diffs above is only when he crosses the line from implying and making up straw men to actual outright attacks. He should try to engage in constructive debate instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

They all look perfectly reasonable to me, and in general have provided good advice in respect of sources which has not been taken. --Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

disagreebot openfuture, you know i am at least a neutral party here. lets try a different tack with tfd. he is obviously a smart guy with much to add to wp. his zeal is laudable, no matter his pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

They look fine to me, none seem to be "implying that people are stupid, ignorant or narrowminded despite multiple requests to stop." Mauler90 _talk 07:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st: What "tack" do you suggest? It's getting very tiresome that his main argument is that I don't read things outside what he imagines is my political standpoint is. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Any offense taken here appears to be the result of things read into these posts. User:OpenFuture, I suggest focusing less on other editors and more on content. --erachima talk 08:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, how is "You might also find it useful to widen your reading beyond writings that validate your opinions" being ad hominem something I "read into" that statement? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• You may also want to look at TFD's statement in arbitration amendment requests, which is breathtaking for lies and nonsense per-line density. See response for analysis. --Sander Säde 08:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't allow personal attacks, however we also know what does and does not constitute a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a place for banditry but it is not a fairytale land either. If we did not keep our policies for actual attacks then they would be blunted on a never ending series of less-than-pure comments and would loose all potency, not to mention alienate good contributors. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So name calling is not allowed, but ad hominemns are? Even when persisting for a long time? This does at least demonstrate clearly why articles like Mass killings under Communist regimes are permanent battlegrounds when this kind of behavior is permitted. I'm disappointed. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Asking you to widen your reading is not an ad hominemn, its a perfectly reasonable request, and having looked at the page in question I think its advise that a fair amount of editors would give you. This is a trivial issue, it should not be an ANI. --Snowded ^TALK 10:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a perfectly reasonable request when it's done repeatedly instead of argumentation, and also considering that he has absolutely no idea how wide my reading is. He basically implies I don't read Marxist literature, which happens to be completely wrong. This goes in conjunction with him repeatedly calling me neoconservative (which could not be more wrong), etc. It's all part of pattern of ad hominems instead of arguments. But fine, now I know that apparently is acceptable behavior. It's ironic that he made a WQA against me on much weaker grounds, and since then has used that as arguments for it being OK to behave badly. Well, I have to give him right on that. I guess his WQA against me was a way to show me that his behavior (which I had complained about before) was accepted. Sorry, TFD, I didn't get it. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's already been said by other people, but I see nothing wrong with those edits (they're definitely not personal attacks); I suggest this thread be closed as it doesn't require admin attention. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a good deal easier to take the claims of personal attacks more seriously if they didn't come from an editor who increasingly comes across as a bit 'precious' and, frankly, a bit of a hypocrite when his own contributions to the user pages of others is examined. A lot of this seems to be attention seeking behaviour and, like the user above, I agree that it's not worthy of serious discussion here. --89.211.177.132 (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

67.81.190.76

67.81.190.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be banned user Hetoum I (talk · contribs) evading his block. See for details Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. The IP edit wars across multiple pages, making racist insults of Azerbaijani people (referring to them as baboons, etc), [64] [65] [66] same as Hetoum does, check for instance contribs of 67.85.7.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), blocked as a likely sock of the banned user, or Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), sock of Hetoum. I think SPI request is pointless here, the conribs make it necessary to take administrative actions against the IP. Also, it might be helpful to semiprotect the pages Hetoum edit wars at the most. Grandmaster 09:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's most likely User:Urvakan, well in fact it is almost certainly. As for Urvakan being a sock of someone else I don't know. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a month for being a sock of Urvakan (talk · contribs · count). I suggest adding him to an SPI on Hetoum I or Azerbaboon if you think they are also connected. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already requested a CU on Urvakan, and the result was that according to technical evidence he was not related to Hetoum: [67] However their editing manner is identical, so Hetoum could have changed his location, or Urvakan is his meatpuppet. Grandmaster 11:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Return of longtime disruptive user under another new sockpuppet user account (Filmcracker) registered for the purpose of Wikistalking

Filmcracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Techwriter2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sift&Winnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
64.252.0.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.2.209.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Filmcracker, who is a sockpuppet for Techwriter2B, Sift&Winnow, 64.252.0.159, 75.2.209.226, and many other anonymous IPs, has returned for the purpose of Wikistalking and other activities (See [68], [69], and [70]) for which he/she has been the subject of complaints from many editors over a period of more then three years. (While this user has been the subject of many complaints, I am only aware of one blocking—as User:Techwriter2B—as he/she generally edits under a great many anonymous IPs which he/she changes frequently to avoid being blocked or otherwise disciplined. On occasions like this one when he/she actually registers a sock account, he/she does so in order to disguise him/herself by hiding his/her location as being in SW Connecticut where all the anonymous IPs he/she uses resolve to.) A full AN/I discussion of the well documented history of repeated patterns of these attempts to hide his/her identity as well as engaging in disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and overt Wikistalking by the this editor, as well as an accounting of many of the anonymous IPs he/she has used for this purpose, can be found here. Centpacrr (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly the same disruptive editor who was given an indefinite block (still in effect) under his/her Techwriter2B sock (link to AN/I thread from June:[71]). He’s continuing to wikihound Centpacrr (the editor that he’s most persistently stalked). He’s evading the block, using both a newly registered username (Filmcracker) and IP 64.252.0.159. The IP 64.252.0.159 maps to the exact same area of CT [72] as his other IPs (as documented in the prior AN/I thread)and he used this same IP previously while disruptively editing Stephen Ambrose. He also recently posted a false claim that the IP belongs to an organization [73], to try to keep administrators from blocking it (or to at most use a soft rather than hard block). This disruptive editor has a long history of such “clever” maneuvers (e.g. forging an admin signature to try to terminate a prior sockpuppet investigation, etc.). Expeditious blocking of Filmcracker and IP 64.252.0.159 appears to be needed. Eurytemora (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a full investigation leading to a community ban - As I stated at the last time this character was brought up at ANI, my encounters with him have been unpleasant in the extreme. After I banned him (twice!) from my talk page he started stalking my edits. This is the worst kind of moral cancer Wikipedia can have - a disruptive multiple sock who violates every rule in the book and makes a mockery of attempts to stop him. Will use any trick or lie to get what he wants. Must be stopped for good asap using every power at community command. Jusdafax 08:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Have placed an ANI-notice on the two talk pages involved. Jusdafax 08:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*NOTE: Not unexpectedly, "Filmcracker" has summarily deleted the AN/I notice from his/her talk page with the comment "No clue what this is all about", an action which is another hallmark practice of this user. Centpacrr (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Ban- We've banned for less... --Rockstonetalk to me! 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Some examples of prior administrative involvement relating to disruptive editing by this user are: [74], [75], [76] The user has received multiple prior warnings including Wikiquette Alert.[77]. Some (but certainly not all) of the IP accounts he/she has been identified as using to engage in disruptive tactics on Wikipedia are: [78], [79], [80], various IPs in range 64.252.*.* ([81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]), various IPs in range 12.76.*.*([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]). Also in a period of just three weeks in May, this user (as anonymous IP 75.2.209.226) also started and perpetuated 16 separate threads in various Wikipedia boards and talk pages (See [99],[100], [101],[102], [103],[104], [105],[106], [107],[108],[109], [110],[111], [112], [113],[114]) in a pattern of Wikistalking of both me and a number of other editors who had deigned to disagree in any way with his/her personal views of how Wikipedia should be edited. His/her campaign to that end consisted mostly of posting dozens of universally condescending and demeaning comments apparently designed to intimidate, questioning the motives of other editors, disruptive editing (including making blanket reversions of other editors' contributions either without edit summaries or with demeaning ones), making blanket accusations of "vandalism" and "spamming", and demonstrating an unremitting lack of any assumption of good faith on the part of any other editor while he/she repeatedly demands in edit summaries and postings that all of those whom he/she was criticizing blindly owed him/her an unconditional assumption of good faith on his/her part. See here for the latest example of his/her "style" which I found posted on my talk page this morning. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban. Generally I’m a bleeding heart, but given this editor’s history of behavior and attitude of contempt (toward other editors and toward process), I think the chances of successful "reform" are essentially nill.

Also, will confirm Centpacrr’s observation that this user has a history of blanking his talk pages (to remove comments/notices posted by others - this has been commented on by other editors in the past). Eurytemora (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought I should add – I have no personal history of conflict with this user (have always treated him with kid gloves, not wanting to become one of his targets myself, and have always tried to be fair/evenhanded/supportive), but recognizing the severity of the problem, I brought the issue to AN/I in June (which resulted in the indefinite block). Eurytemora (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban This user has sucked hundreds of hours out of other editors with his contempt for the rules. That time could have gone to improving the encyclopedia. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet editor "Filmcracker" is continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus to The High and the Mighty (film) (see [115], [116]). While his/her edits may look "reasonable" on their face, the purpose for which those were made certainly are not, and this is another well documented pattern of his/her past behavior on Wikipedia over more than three years. He/she will make what appear to be a few good faith edits to convince another editor whose support he/she is soliciting that he/she is only interested in making positive contributions. This, however, is actually a smokescreen he/she has used many times before. By feigning good faith and then seeking the "advice and support" of otherwise uninvolved editors (See [117]) for his/her "reasonable" edits, he/she is really just attempting to "use" those editors to then advance his/her real agendas of misconduct, disruptive editing, Wikistalking, etc. This sockpuppet needs to be banned immediately. Centpacrr (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how long it'll take before someone DOES but I agree. No one should be blocked for violating 3RR trying to stop him... --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm following his edits and reverting them- I'm currently treating him like any other sock puppet- he's not welcome. If you disagree, let me know on my talk page. Thanks! --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in support of a ban as well. The evidence speaks for itself here; the user in question has been given ample opportunities to clean up, but hasn't shown any desire to do so. – ClockworkSoul 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban; sadly, this appears to be the only solution left to deal with the constant conduct issues with this user, and it's time to deny recognition. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, per above. This is the only route now. —fetch·comms 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for an administrative decision & action

• Sockpuppet user Filmcracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to make edits to other film articles. While these edits may also appear to be innocuous on their face, their purpose is not. These edits are instead being made by the sockpuppet to establish an "edit history" to make the user appear to be a good faith editor. This is another well known pattern that this user engages in when he/she becomes the subject of AN/I complaint or other disciplinary attention. Please do not be fooled by this practice. This sockpuppet is already the subject of an indefinite blocking as Techwriter2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has an extensive record of disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, wikistalking, and other misconduct over a period of at least three years mostly using dozens of anonymous IP accounts.

• No matter how his/her edit history is being developed to appear "reasonable" as "Filmcracker", his/her documented history of disruptive editing and wantonly violating WP policies and guidelines has long ago demonstrated that nothing this user ever does on Wikipedia under any account (registered or anonymous) should ever be assumed to having been done in good faith or to benefit the Wikipedia Project.
• This thread has now been open for four days with eight editors commenting all of whom support a community ban of this sockpuppet user. Please advise what (if any) further evidence or comments are needed to obtain the necessary administrative action. Centpacrr (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Centpacrr, time for a decision - the evidence has been presented, the jury has decided unanimously and an admin needs to make the ruling here. The subject refuses to comment despite notification, which should be the final nail. Jusdafax 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: "Filmcracker's" only response to not one, but two AN/I notices placed by both myself (on July 13) and Jusdafax (on July 14) on his/her Talk page was to promptly and summarily delete both (See [118] and [119]) notices with no edit summary on the first (but instead posting a message on my Talk page calling me a "crank", "kook" and "crackpot"), and an edit summary of "No clue what this is all about" when deleting the second notice posted by Justdafax. (The blanking of talk pages is another hallmark practice of this user.) However he/she has posted nothing whatsoever here in response to the comments of other editors in this discussion, or in defense of his/her actions. Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• NOTICE- I have currently undid his currents edits with the summary "Undid edit by sockpuppet" IF you think I am misguided let me know- but I see no reason to let his distruptive edits stay. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this community service Rockstone. Eurytemora (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome lol! --Rockstonetalk to me! 20:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to summarize - documented conduct problems for this user include (but are not limited to) severe wikihounding of multiple editors, abusive sockpuppetry, block evasion, uncivil (in the extreme – perpetual demeaning language), trolling (e.g. attempting to instigate edit wars among other editors, etc.), vandalism, and miscellaneous covert maneuvers to thwart administrative action (e.g. forging admin signature). And, as noted by ClockworkSoul above, the user has shown no desire to reform despite being given ample opportunities. Eurytemora (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• ADMIN: Please advise what (if any) further evidence or material is required to close out this matter. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked the named accounts, and will investigate whether an edit-filter can be written. I'll leave it to an admin more familiar with the process to enter the account into the "banned editors" list.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This user truly deserves a broad community ban. Without such, as before he/she will simply return under more sockpuppet accounts and/or anonymous IPs (his/her more usual practice) and continue to disruptively edit, wikistalk, troll, vandalize, and waste the time of many legitimate editors to undo his/her damage. Centpacrr (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Kww's actions. While I declined to take administrative action due to my earlier involvement in this (although I was quite neutral), these IPs and socks have been harassing Centpacrr all over the project and it's time to put an end to this. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt. While I have been the main target of this user's wikistalking since May, a review of his/her record reveals that I am certainly not the only editor who has been harassed by him/her over the past three years during which his/her misconduct has been pervasive and increasingly egregious. This user's hounding of me has probably been more intense and obvious than his/her stalking of many others only because I have not been willing to put up with it, but have instead always "called out" this user (with the help of others) as opposed to allowing him/her to drive me away from editing and contributing to Wikipedia in disgust. Fortunately such users as this one are relatively rare on WP, but the damage they can do to the project is considerable if they are not eliminated from the community. I hope that I (and the many other editors whose time he/she has wasted) will not have to deal with this issue again, and that a broad, effective, and permanent solution to this now three year old issue can finally be achieved. Centpacrr (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank Kww, Centpacrr and all others who helped to make this ban possible. Let's follow up and make sure he gets added to that 'banned editor' list that Kww mentioned, and hopefully that will be a final end to this sad affair. Jusdafax 17:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I notice the IP 75.2.209.226 remains unblocked/unbanned. Please don't forget to, thanks! Jusdafax 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A very unusual request

Resolved

 – No problems. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am quite aware that this is not a standard ANI matter, but it's the most practical method that sprung to mind to accomplish this, so here goes.

I would like to request a quick evaluation of two of my own recent comments on civility grounds: [120] and [121]. I don't see anything wrong with them (or I wouldn't have made them) but I would appreciate a sanity check on the matter. --erachima talk 05:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The tone and content of both comments looks all right to me, although I can see how their bluntness could be taken as an affront. (That's reviewing them as standalone comments.) sonia^♫♪ 05:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no connection between the two comments. --erachima talk 05:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK. You didn't call anyone names or accused them of eating raped babies. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, good thing we're at ANI--I'm going to ask for an indef block for incivility. Just kidding. You're nicer than I am on a good day, and this community has tolerated me so far. Drmies (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• First, I absolutely agree that the comments are not a violation of civility rules. That said, I think there were better responses. Having seen my own proposals go down in flames, I think I can safely put myself in the mindset of an editor identifying an issue with WP, coming up with a proposal to improve the encyclopedia, and proposing that idea without fully thinking through all the issues, perhaps thinking that the forum is the right place to have that discussion. I suggest a better response would have been something like "you've identified a legitimate concern. However, before we simply accept or reject your proposal, perhaps it would be good to have a discussion of the issues, to see if this, or some other proposal might be a better way to address the issue. In fact, WP:VPI was created specifically to have those sorts of brainstorming discussions, so I suggest we move the discussion there, and talk this through." Were I the editor proposing the idea, I think I would take that response much more positively than being told I hadn't thought the issue through.--SPhilbrickT 16:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

personal attack by user:HalfShadow

Resolved

 – Unblocked, and a stern warning given about the personal attack. (X! · talk)  · @071  ·  00:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Here: [122] "More than a dozen people have explained this to you; given as you don't 'get it' yet, I can only assume your intelligence is damaged. Do your parents know you're here?". Just because he does not agree with me he should it does not mean that WP:civil does not apply anymore. I request administrative action.  Dr. Loosmark  17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've redacted the latter portion of remark. @HalfShadow, you recently were unblocked after being blocked indefinitely for personal attacks - I think you would do well to avoid making comments like this again. –xeno^talk 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whereas if someone else had said the same thing you'd have just overlooked it because 'they're really useful'. You guys can spend all day seeing who has the longest one; I'll even give you a tape measure. Meanwhile, I have actual work to do. HalfShadow 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have re-instated the indefinite block of HalfShadow, and advised them accordingly. I did so on the assumption that the lifting of the previous sanction was on the basis that they would refrain from further attacks; and not so much for the resumption of insults but the cavalier attitude toward the complaint and possible response. Any admin who feels that my action is too harsh, or that HalfShadow is now properly cognizant of the need to maintain decorum in their dealings with other editors, may lift or vary the sanction without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

actually.....if you look at the previous block and unblock discussion [123] there was no particular mention of personal attacks, and indeed the move from two weeks to indef seems to have been because he was unrepentantly gobby with those admonishing him, rather than for personal attacks. I would not have thought that the comments to Loosmark would have been worthy of administrator action (certainly not for an indef) were it not for the perception by LHvU that it related to the previous block/unblock. If it were me, I'd cut him loose after 24h, other views may vary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let's all be simply realistic and just unblock. It will happen anyway sooner or later. FWIW I didn't see that comment as particularly blockable in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef is out of proportion. Reduce to 24 hours and be done with it.--Chaser (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Indef completely wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a lot worse that resulted in almost nothing. And for what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with the OP about the flag issue. But I wouldn't have come here to complain about mild insults. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as incivility goes that's a pretty mild case and in my opinion didn't warrant an indef block. I don't even think it warranted a thread at ANI. Insulting another editor's intelligence is rude and not exactly productive but, as far as responses go, that's overkill. I'd agree with reducing the block to 24hr at least. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 23:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That was not a mild insult. It was probably not blockable as a single case for someone without a history, and it's not clear that HalfShadow's history justifies a long block. But it was not a mild insult. LessHeard VanU is correct that it was not ok behavior. WP:OTHERSTUFF and all, on letting others get away with it when nobody notices. With all of that said - I recommend someone with a bit of bandwidth talk to HalfShadow on their user talk page before unblocking or reducing. I don't currently have the time/bandwidth, for the next few hours, but if nobody else acts I will get to it later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you, please? It was indefinite as in, "for as long as is needed". As soon as HalfShadow recognises that the best reaction to a complaint is not to try and engage in a pissing contest with reviewing admins then I have no problem with the block being reduced to time served (or lifted, if that is the preferred terms). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's gone 24 hours, and HalfShadow is still blocked. Any admin offering an opinion other than someone else should deal with it? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow was indef. blocked before for incivility and unblocked based on his claims of having reformed, this isn't the same thing as somebody who's just having a bad day, this is part of a pattern. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Half, a sincere apology seems in order here. More importantly, this kind of interaction between yourself and other editors needs to stop. If you can commit to that, I have no problem with an unblock. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's time to unblock. Sure, it was a rude remark, but it wasn't that bad, and in even less so in the context it was in. I'd like it if HalfShadow were nicer (hell, I'd like it if I were nicer), but let's not keep this block going and going and going for such little cause. Drmies (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not? Wikipedia is clearly an experiment in the behavioural modification of human beings by operant conditioning, so punishment is clearly appropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Matt Sanchez image issue

I served as an informal 'guide' for lack of a better word for Matt (User:Bluemarine) on issues relating to his editing, and what he saw as problems with his BLP. This turned out fairly well, and there hasn't been any problem with either for a while. I got a personal email from him earlier, noting that the image has been removed from the infobox. It turns out the image, File:Matt_Sanchez_3_by_David_Shankbone.jpg is no longer present, but i seem unable to find out deletion information about it (which shouldnt really exist, it's freely licensed). It's also missing, leaving only an empty link, from User:David_Shankbone/PoliticiansActivistsMedia a gallery of similar photos taken by the author, an amazing asset to the project. I'm about to head out to go get wildly drunk (it being a friday evening and all) but would someone mind finding out what happened here? If the image was deleted for acceptable reasons, a substitute should be placed in there, it's currently displaying an ugly red '200 px', the size parameter, instead. -- ۩ Mask 01:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It was on Commons, deleted because

13:15, 20 June 2010 ABF (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Matt Sanchez 3 by David Shankbone.jpg" ‎ (In category Media missing permission as of 1 June 2010; no permission) (global usage; delinker log)

If a Commons admin could check this out, thanks. —fetch·comms 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is back again. There is this problem when the uploader is not the same as the author than it needs some indication that the author has agreed to the upload and licence. As this was not clearly stated, a user (who probably does not know the name Shankbone) tagged it as "missing permission", which is a rather huge category where images get dealed with rather bot-like, meaning that if there was no visible change it gets deleted. I restored it now and changed the description to better show that the author agrees. -- Cecil (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who tagged knew the name Shankbone, but was unfamiliar with their sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can attest to DC's statement as it was his harassing of Shankbone that drove Shankbone to use other accounts. DC is a master at this looking at their contributions, likely his only skill (with this account at least) is the only real asset they have to offer Wikipedia. Much like pedophiles they can sniff each other and are happy to throw others under the bus, right DC? Nuclearised Bucolic (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Benji Nuclearised Bucolic! Except the part about me harrasing David Shankbone, the reasons for his use of alternate accounts (which predate any involvement I had with Wikipedia), the part about my having sockpuppets, and ... wait, did you just imply that I was a pedophile? But you are right in that I don't have many skills or much to offer to Wikipedia. Perhaps this would be useful reading for those unfamiliar with the background. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content introduction in the, 2006 Lebanon War

Some editors in the 2006 Lebanon War page have decided to change the longstanding results section of the Infobox to one that makes a general mention of some sort of Hezbollah retreat from South Lebanon. The problem with that edit, apart from the change from the consensus version not having been discussed, is that there are no sources included that mention anything of the sort so it very much is Original Research.

It’s also worth mentioning that some of the most authoritative and objective sources on the events, like UNOSAT, indicate the opposite (according to UNOSAT’s map "Situation Along the Border of Lebanon and Israel - Version 2.2 (14 August 2006)"[124] Hezbollah only had been driven from positions that formed a salient near the Shebaa farms and perpendicular to the Litiani), the version that is being introduced through what is essentially edit warring seems to be more of what some editors would like to see, than information based on recognized events and has no source that mentions anything of a route, retreat or breakthrough during the war; that seems to damage the article’s status as an objective and neutral authority on the topic. If possible would a moderator be able to examine the issue and sources (or lack of thereof)in this content dispute? -Freepsbane (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide differences for us and notify the editors involved? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes certainly: the older consensus Infobox result, which had been the accepted over the past three years, can be seen here[125]; the revision the editors want to introduce is here[126](the linked sources mention nothing on the point of contention), and the UNOSAT revision I've edited in can be seen here[127]. I'll notify the other editors:Jiujitsuguy, Marokwitz and Mikrobølgeovnright now, I don't think anyone else is has been involved with the infobox editing, sorry if I've messed up procedure. As far as the infobox goes, I think the older consensus revision should be used, but if the other editors insist on including the tactical/positional situation at the end of the conflict I think it should follow what sources say, preferably objective ones like UNOSAT.--Freepsbane (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism; IP 195.50.69.30

The IP 195.50.69.30 (talk) has been vandalizing the articles Halamish, Ateret and Beit El inserting slanderous information against these localities, some of which are incoherent. I am reporting this here and not at WP:AIV because at least one other editor also reverted to that version and it's a slightly more complicated case involving more than 1 article. The anonymous user has not reacted in any way to talk page notices. I request that either action is taken against the editor or the articles are semi-protected. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the "slander" or "vandalism" in those edits? The IP has been edit-warring, and the "confiscated land" bit should be more properly sourced or removed, but most of the material being changed is accurate and can be backed to hundreds of sources. nableezy - 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, changing "it was home to about eighty families" to "it was home to about eighty settler families" seems like slander to me. Moreover, while adding the word "settlement" or "settler" once or twice to an article with 2–3 total paragraphs is often fine, adding it 8–10 times, sometimes in the same sentence, is not. The main problem is that the user persisted in making the edits even after he was notified that they were inappropriate, and also did not reply to the notices on his talk page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In what way can describing the occupants as 'settlers' be remotely slanderous. Firstly, slander relates to spoken offences, secondly slander and libel apply to accusations that are in some way defamatory (theif or adulterer for example) and thirdly, given that this is a settlement established in 1977, it can be no more than factual to describe those who moved there at the time as settlers. If the issue is that some lived there before 1977, the statement still would struggle to be slanderous, as he does not identify which ones did and which didn't. It is better not to throw such words around, and instead to define the actual problem. I see the last entry on the talk page was in 2008.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Truly. It cannot be considered slander to describe Israeli settlers as "settlers", indeed most reliable sources do so. And you called this vandalism and slander, not a case where a user is making "inappropriate" edits repeatedly. If you would like to request full protection so that the users the IP has been edit-warring with (yourself and Shuki) do not have an unfair advantage that might be acceptable. But right now you are attempting to block one party of an edit war from participating by first calling the edits "vandalism" and "slander" and now by saying the problem is that the repeated "inappropriate" edits. nableezy - 16:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads, are we looking at the same IP? The talk page has few entries for July 2010.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@Nableezy, I assume that IP does not know, I assume that Elen of the Roads does not know, but you should have known better.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Know about what? That an admin doesnt think there was consensus there? Why would that matter? The edits here are not "vandalism" or "libel", Israeli settlers are Israeli settlers, there is nothing libelous about calling them settlers. And I believe Elen's comment about talk pages was about the articles. The comments on the IP's talk page just "warnings" for vandalism, which these edits were not. Ynhockey should not be characterizing such edits as "vandalism" and instead should have attempted to discuss this on the article talk pages. Instead he came here looking to block the IP from making edits. nableezy - 22:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if it is actually "vandalism" is not that important. It is disruptive. Edit warring of controversial material is not the right way to do it. So we can notify the IP of the sanctions, open up an edit warring report, or simply seek a block to encourage a quicker understanding of the policies if he continues to do it. Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is no less controversial than the repeated removal of such material. nableezy - 22:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It was based on some of the terminology and edit summaries making it clear that there was no attempt at writing in a neutral tone.Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The user Ynhockey has been vandalizing the articles Halamish, Ateret and Beit El inserting slanderous information against these localities, some of which are incoherent. I am reporting this here and not at WP:AIV because at least one other editor also reverted to that version and it's a slightly more complicated case involving more than 1 article. I request that either action is taken against the editor or the articles are semi-protected. He is also adding misleading and biased information that is violating the wikipedias terms of use and the international law as well--195.50.69.30 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC) talk:195.50.69.30|talk]]) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC) -

• Clearly controversial disruptive edit warring by the single purpose IP. Not appropriate behavior. Elen is of course correct in distinguishing slander from libel. I would simply call it controversial edit warring in an area subject to sanctions meant to chill the interest of editors (whether editing as IPs or under accounts). Odd, of course, that this IP seems so wiki-savvy. But we see that (all too often) in the P-I area. I would expect the editor supporting the IP who has himself been blocked for such disruptive editing in this area to know better than to try to wikilawyer in this thread.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

172 Vandal (now using Bell?) back at it.

I've got a strong suspicion that this vandal is back, but under Bell this time. My RfA got hit twice until it was semi'd, then when the semi expired, it got hit again, same for the talk page (it was indeffed). I then observed that Michael Ignatieff was lifted from the 1 year semi that came out of the last thread about this vandal on here, but Ignatieff has been hit 5 times in the last couple days, along with a random bunch of pages, such as Presidential transition of Barack Obama, FIFA World Cup 2010, etc. Connormah^talk 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Note - I've put in requests at RFPP for the pages already hit by this vandal to hopefully bar the pages off before the vandal can vandalize more. Connormah^talk 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I can confirm it's the same vandal. It seems a much more blockable range this time. I'll look into doing that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully we can sort this out this time. Connormah^talk 18:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

70.27.72.0/21 (talk · contribs · block log) (that's 70.27.72.* - 70.27.79.*) blocked for four months. As far as I can tell that range is used exclusively by the vandal. Let me know if I've missed any. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I'll raise it again here if the vandal starts to use another range (wouldn't be surprised if it happens, but you never know) Connormah^talk 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Now back (presumably) as 174.94.37.0, see history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McKinley, Sr.. Connormah^talk 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:A Nobody returned?

It seems possible that he is currently socking under two IP addresses, 86.132.227.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now 88.106.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (or someone who supports him is doing so in a style similar to his). The first IP has been causing some disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology, making off topic and uncivil remarks, then today after an editor notes that he sounds like A Nobody,[128] a new IP that geolocates to the same area makes states "A Nobody was a good man. I'm sad to see that the Wiki-Mafia have made him disappear for challenging the infallible will of the Deletionists. Wikipedia could use more like him. But hey, who cares about creating when you can destroy?".[129] It seems to clearly indicate that the IP is either a blocked editor evading the block, or an established editor inappropriately using their IP to make personal attacks. Not sure what steps would be appropriate to check this, though, as I know SPI won't deal with an SPI request that has only an IP and not a named sock to go with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not A Nobody, as both geolocate to the UK. Might be someone else editing without logging in, though. Since the AfD seems headed for a consensus to delete, it's perhaps best just to ignore him. Deor (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. Wasn't sure where he was located at, so no idea if UK made sense or not. Not the first time I've seen an IP from that range trying to disrupt AfDs or making similar remarks, as well, which also had me curious. I am pretty much ignoring him, myself, but after the concern was expressed and the IP made such a remark, it seemed appropriate to bring it to attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There's at least one anon IP who's in the habit of making disruptive edits to Fiction-related AfDs. I've seen a variety of AfDs where the article was tagged with {{rescue}}, without an edit summary, somewhere intentionally "below the fold" of the article, often down around by the references section. Likewise, there've been a few oddball partisan IP requests, e.g. when Ikip was blocked. I'm not sure whether this sort of behavior is some uber-inclusionist guerilla, or some agent provocateur, but the IP hopping has been characteristic: only one edit, from an IP address which has never edited before. So far, there's been no measurable effect that I've seen, but I agree there's something suspicious in the waters you and I both patrol. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's a BT dynamic, it might well be User:Dalejenkins having a bit of a laugh and a joke. Nothing to be done except WP:DENY though, it's a stupidly big range - I know, I'm on it myself. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect this person is deliberately making stupid arguments to try to paint the inclusionist side (and the ARS in particular) as stupid and unreasonable by association. Reyk _YO! 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Reyk has the right read on it. Is the relevant ranged blocked already? If s/he starts up again might be useful to block it for a few hours just to let them get bored, though it would have to be two ranges, obviously. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have been blocked and my page deleted..

I read all the guidelines so I have no idea why I have beeb blocked as I'm sure everything was ok. Would appreciate advice on what I need to correct page and remove the block. Thanks Emma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.85.13 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but rather than letting you just wait: without knowing which account you refer to, Emma, it's hard to do much more specific than link this, sorry. Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks  Begoon^talk 03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Emma", what you need to do is go back to the account blocked and use the {{unblock}} template and request unblock. What you are doing now could be considered evading a block. Like Begoon said above, do read the Guide to appealing blocks. Once you post your unblock notice, wait. An admin will be around shortly (not immediately) to address it and decide what to do. They may discuss it with you first. Be open and available for discussion on the account blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Neutralhomer's advice is spot on, you should follow that. There's also Appealing a block which might be a more straightforward explanation of the procedure if you're still confused.  Begoon^talk 03:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

72.100.174.159

The above IP is going around to a couple mainspace pages and userpages with the same "[insert name here] is a JEW" crap. IP needs to meet Mr. Banhammer. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Warned user. Will actively monitor user. --Chris (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Huljich brothers (User:Independentobservernz)

Resolved

 – discussion continuing on talk page Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute in that article. User:Independentobservernz is constantly removing information he believes is unsourced, see Special:Contributions/Independentobservernz. He also claims he has reported this, but does not specfiy exactly where, like WP:AN or WP:ANI (here). The article is currently sysop-protected to July 25, 2010 evening. What should we do? The user was first indef blocked, but was just a few minutes later unblocked on request. /HeyMid (contributions) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor User:Independentobservernz has being repeatedly removing material (some negative) s/he claims are untrue and libellous about a living person. The material is cited, however. I have protected the article, and per WP:DOLT am trying to initiate a discussion on the user's talkpage and on the article talkpage about what is problematic about the material. I wonder if a complaint is in an WP:OTRS queue, for example. So the answer, Heymid, is that let's wait and see what Independentobservernz has to say. There's no rush. If the choice is between having the information out of the article for a day or two, and getting it wrong about a living person, then the choice is clear. --Slp1 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is I get a feeling this is a case of trolling, but I don't know if it actually is or not. Good news, hovewer, he has replied on Toodst1's talk page without signing (only username is signed in the post). But let's see what will happen in the aftermath. Currently, the text is removed, so I think the user got what he wanted to. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jrfoldes Back At it Yet Again

Resolved

 – Blocked by Shell --LK (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#User:Jrfoldes_Reverting_Again and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link for the previous two reports. Last time he was blocked 3 days for his continued disruption at the You Can't Do That On Television articles, including reverting consensus based redirects and merges, restoring inappropriate fansite "references" that violate WP:COPYRIGHT, and continuing to add unsourced, BLP violations to articles. He has been warned numerous times on his talk page, and after the second ANI report, he got the three day block. In his request to be unblocked, which was declined, he falsely claimed that he was being "harrassed" by not being allowed to do his actions, falsely claiming I deliberately deleted references then removed the content they supported (illegal sites are not "references" it is spam which was submitted for blacklisting), and flat out lied by claiming he asked to work "together" with anyone as his only responses to the clean up of the articles has been to continue to try to restore his preferred versions over numerous opposing voices.[130] A few days ago, he again reverted the redirecting of Amyas Godfrey to the series article[131], which was redirected as a BLP violation per the results of other AfDs of similar actors in the series, and per consensus of multiple other editors. Thus far, only Jrfoldes has "disagreed" by his continued reverts. I left him a final warning, to which he responded with his usual complants of harrassment. A neutral editor, User:J Greb, also warned him to stop, but instead decided to interpret it as a warning against me.[132] Today, he again redid ALL of the inappropriate edits he has been warned for numerous times before, including restoring articles redirected by consensus in AfD and restoring links to a copyright violating site.[133][134][135][136] He clearly has absolutely no intention of stopping this disruptive behavior even after being blocked last time. I think strong action, and an official topic ban, may be necessary as he refuses to accept any responsibility nor admit to his continued wrong doing, falsely claiming no one has told him what he did wrong (two ANIs and the numerous warnings on his page aren't enough?). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Immediately after my reverting his edits again and reporting him, he redid them[137][138][139] (which I have reverted as vandalism for his continue use of an copyright violating link, BLP violations, and previous blocks for the same edits). He also left a pseudo ANI notice on my page again making his frankly bullshit claims of harrassment and distrorting J Greb's words to claim that consensus is needed to REMOVE his violations, and other random made up remarks[140] and when I removed it (per my right) he restored it[141] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor had a long history of warnings over the same kinds of behavior and just came off a block for identical behavior, I've upped the block to 2 weeks this time. While I'm all for letting people figure things out as they go, continued copyright violations after warnings and explanation is a serious problem to say nothing of the persistent edit warring and personal attacks. Shell ^babelfish 06:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism from 95.133.226.150

Resolved

 – Various editors have now reverted all articles and talkpages back to the pre-spam state. TFOWR 10:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone help to revert the edits from 95.133.226.150 (now blocked) please. Most of the edits were automatically signed by sinebot, so rollback isn't an option. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

uh-oh

Resolved

 – Nothing requiring intervention here. If you have an issue with a user's userpage, please talk to them directly. --erachima talk 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sex, this is up for deletion, and has been nominated for speedy a a possible violation of (what used to be) WP:PED, but I wonder if it should be RevDel'd and the author dealt with in some manner. Herostratus (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly, is a picture of a shaven vagina a danger to the welfare of children? I would imagine that most children have had up-close, personal experience with at least one in their lives. While the userbox itself is a bit lacking in taste, I would have hoped you, being an obviously righteous man, would have done due diligence by checking the upload details of the aforementioned image before whipping out the stale and tired moralistic "think of the children" stuff. Wikipedia is not censored. As far as the user is concerned... yeesh, a lot of Userspace edits and sparing mainspace edits, but what little mainspace edits there are seem to all be good faith contributions. Badger Drink (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK fine, whatever. I just thought I'd point it out. I don't know if it's shaven or what. It's up to you guys. I know what I would do if I was an admin, but I'm not, so, as you wish. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Badger Drink removed the CSD tag. If user Badger Drink is not an admin -- I'll check in a sec, but how many admins have blank user pages? -- should he be hanging around this page and making decisions on requests here? Is this permitted, or encouraged? I was trying to get the attention of an admin. Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If Badger Drink is an admin, it doesn't say so here. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

When the admins are on vacation, lunch break, coffee break, smoke break, union break, joint break (RIP George Carlin), bathroom break, or just out of the office, you are likely to get help from a non-admin. Happens all the time, from ALOT of non-admins and the help (with the exception of blocks and such) is just as a good as something an admin can do. Gives them a break and gives us a chance to help. By the way, I am also not an admin. Oh and JzG (Guy) doesn't have a userpage and he is an admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The vast majority of what's brought up on ANI does not require an admin, just a guy with a WP:CLUE. --erachima talk 03:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but... the person's response was not helpful. It was just a jejune screed. I can get that anywhere. Why even have ANI if this is going to be the response? Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a diatribe is necessary and needed at times. Hell, you get those from admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing unhelpful about it. He gave the right answer, he cited the right standard. Certainly, "stop being puritanical" isn't the reply you wanted, but it is the reply that's appropriate to the situation. --erachima talk 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer (and, post-edit conflict, erachima) said it better than I could ever hope to. I'd just like to add that it seems you're confusing "help" with "do exactly what I want done", which in this case is histrionic and utterly, completely, without-a-doubt over-the-top. (of course, during the edit conflict erachima beat me to that point as well, once again saying it more succinctly (and probably politely) than I ever could - but whatever, I'll rip a page from WP:DGAF. :)) At most, a friendly WP:MYSPACE mention might be made on Antigrandiose's talk page. The fact that you would immediately speedy delete something like this means it's probably for the best that you're no longer a part of the Wikipedia admin corps. Badger Drink (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the little dig Badger Drink. I sure needed that when I came here with a good faith headsup. Why don't you or some of you other guys apply to be admins then if you like doing this? We have a shortage of new admin applicants, you know. Now look at this -- erachima closed the discussion, and he's not an admin either (at least, it says here). So as far as I know no admin has even looked at this. So non-admins can resolve discussions here? OK whatever, if that's how the admins want to run it. If the admins are so busy though, maybe we could have a separate board WP:GET_SOME_ABUSE_FROM_SOME_RANDOM_YAHOOS or something and cut out the middleman. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorely, sorely tempted to make that a redirect right back here. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done N419BH 03:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, I am Neutralhomer, Random Yahoo...how may I be of assistance? :D LOL That is awesome right there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect deleted. Re the ubx, does it assist in our primary task of building an encyclopedia? Does it portray Wikipedia in a positive light? No and no. We're not Craigslist. However, the MfD should run its course. EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

For information, the Arbitration Committee has just put out a statement advising administrators how to handle disputes concerning Checkuser blocks. The full text is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And you can Discuss this Statement here. EdChem (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bband11th

I've been having issues with User:Bband11th over the course of the past few months. Just recently however, the disagreements have spread to other articles over issues that are pretty straightforward. The most recent example is on the article Larry Farmer (basketball). There is a dubious statement on that article and I added a {{fact}} tag to it. He added a reference that did not support the statement, so I reverted and tried to start a discussion on the article talk page ([142]). He continued to revert ([143]) so I brought it up on his talk page, ([144]) but he merely removed the notice. ([145])

I believe this stems from another dispute we've had on various college bowl game articles. You can see the discussion here: [146]. The gist of the discussion is there was no consensus on how to treat the odds, so we should just leave the stylistic debate as what the article originally used. The user is having difficulty accepting that. He continues to change the articles to

The last part of my "complaint" is that he has been WP:HOUNDing me on various pages that I've edited that he never has. See: [147] and [148].

I've tried to contact the user to resolve these disputes, but he is not responding and there have been no discussions. I think he's a good Wikipedia user, but I don't know what to do anymore. I'll gladly avoid the articles he edits. In fact, I'll check the history of an article prior to editing it if it has something to do with UCLA (the types of articles he tends to edit). If he's made an edit to it, I will not (he hadn't edited the Larry Farmer article prior to when I did. Farmer crosses our WMU and UCLA paths. If he had edited it, I probably would not have). — X96lee15 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Larry Farmer (basketball) article, I attempted a rephrase that should hopefully address both of your concerns. See this revision of the page. –Grondemar 04:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that change. It amazing how simple a change can be when you take a step back :) — X96lee15 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

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

---

After a period of calm since the Ireland naming poll concluded, Sarah777 (talk · contribs) has decided to get back into Troubles issues, and resume labeling anyone and everyone who doesn't interpret the goals and methods of WP:NPOV the way she does, as a British nationalist. See this for example, just one of a series of shotgun one line comments to that page with little or no value except to inflame and attack. It's tiresome, and based on experience, she won't quit, and will probably even get worse, without some serious feedback. It needs nipping in the bud, or you will be seeing her name pop up here regularly for the next few months, if this latest venture back into the field is not just a one night thing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the same sentiments in your posts here and here. Pot. Kettle? --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More like Shakespeare and the Telly Tubbies. I'll freely defend any part of those long and considered posts in detail and with evidence, if you've found any part of them to be as inflammatory and unconstructive as one of Sarah's little buckets of sunshine. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fraught area. I suggest both of you moderate your tone. Isn't there still an ArbCom probation on these articles? --John (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction on certain tagged articles is all I'm aware of. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's 1RR on all Troubles-related articles, tagged or not, broadly defined. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't edit any "troubles-related" article. But for "inflammatory and unconstructive" comments please have a leisurely read of the record of MickMac! It was his extreme British Nationalism and agressive negative characterisation of Irish editors that drew me to engage in the "British" Isles debate yesterday. I could not sit back and watch WP:NPOV being trashed by the usual suspects. Nor will I in the future. Sarah777 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

coming from the person that wanted the British Isles article completely renamed its funny to hear you talk of WP:NPOV BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I still want the "British Isles" article to be restricted to the British Isles. I'm unclear as to why that makes my comment above humorous. Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, "I want" doesn't get. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. "British Isles" is a phrase that includes the island of Ireland and nothing you can say here will change that. I know you don't like this, but you're going to have accept that this is a general usage in English. And yes, I am British, and no, I'm not a "British nationalist". Continue your activism against the term "British Isles" off Wikipedia, please. Fences&Windows 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I want the loaded term "British" Isles removed from the title of the article that includes sovereign Ireland in order to uphold the principles of WP:NPOV. The phrase is not used to include Ireland in the most common collective descriptions of the islands. Wiki should reflect this - not British Nationalist pov. I see, despite your protestations, that you support British Nationalist pov in this instance. Maybe you should take your nationalism elsewhere? Sarah777 (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of Greek editors don't want the term "Republic of Macedonia" is Greece-related articles, either, but it's there. Sometimes standard English terminology isn't what you'd like it to be, but we follow common usage, not what people like or dislike. And really, discussion of the content doesn't really belong on this noticeboard anyway, but on the appropriate talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I love the hypocrisy a nationalist accusing others of nationalism. FWIW, as a Canadian who could care less about either Ireland or England, the "British Isles" has always meant both the islands of Great Britain and Ireland to me. IMNSHO, arguing otherwise would be about as NPOV as a Canadian complaining that Canada isn't part of North America because they don't like the United States. Resolute 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada? And your "head of state" is.......? A British Queen I believe. I love the hypocrisy of a British subject claiming non-Britishness. Get back to me when Canada is free of it's colonial subjugation. Btw, I've nothing against nationalism except for the self-denying British and American sorts. It's pushing nationalist POV on Wiki I abhor. I have written an essay on the topic you'd do well to read. You'd find it educational. Sarah777 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada has a British Queen? Are you trying to give Miesianiacal a heart attack? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See also [149] (French - Îles Britanniques) and [150] (German - Britische Inseln) - I presume the French and German language Wikipedias are not fanatically imbued with "British nationalist POV". A quick google search shows that the direct translated phrase is used thousands of times in those two Wikipedias alone. The position that the rest of the world uses a term widely, but that it should be deleted from En-Wikipedia because it offends a segment of Irish opinion is clearly absurdist. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Folks, this board isn't part of our dispute resolution procedure, at least as it comes to content, and I don't see any sign of any admins being ready to take action for conduct issues. There's nothing more to do here. Can we archive this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, one admin warned her [151], but got the usual reaction, and she's carried on with her nonsense. [152][153][154]. Not a single one of these comments is designed to do anything except inflame and attack. She has masses of form for this, and will likely never change her ways, she just departs the arena for a bit to presumably let the sands of time help her cause. But yes, you are right, it appears no admin is willing to do anything about it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've posted before about Mick's rants. Pot. Kettle? Black? Mick, maybe this might "clue you in"? --HighKing (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And it obviously hasn't clued you in, because you clearly still can't differentiate between apples and oranges. You asked for feedback, you got it. Nobody asked for, or needs, Sarah's 'input' to this arena. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Besides one intemperate post is there anything we actually need to be concerned with here? If not, I'd suggest that John's response is enough. TFOWR 10:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There might be a case for an additional sanction to prevent the use of ANI by either sides of this particular argument to attempt to sanction or remove editors. --Snowded ^TALK 23:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Clayton College of Natural Health discussion page

I started a discussion on external links on Talk:Clayton_College_of_Natural_Health. I have attempted to provide sources to support my argument. However, another user (Ronz) keeps deleting my posts and is threatening me on my personal talk page [[155]]. I am attempting to reference a court case, which is still considered valid law. As an attorney, I know that the definition of libel. Referencing court cases is not libel. Statements of fact are not libel. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavery94 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronz (talk · contribs) notified, as is conventional for this page. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my understanding of the issue: The article in question is Clayton College of Natural Health which starts "The Clayton College of Natural Health is a non-accredited American distance-learning natural health college based in Birmingham, Alabama, offering classes on natural health." An external link points to a criticism of the college by a living person. On the talk page of the article, Mavery94 has claimed that the person was found to lack credibility in a certain legal case. Ronz has removed the claim per WP:BLP and has posted on Mavery94's talk page that the person has been misrepresented on Wikipedia for years, and that editors who have done so after being warned have been blocked. I have no knowledge of this, but from past performance, I would be astonished if Ronz's statement were inaccurate. Accordingly, I can see no need for administrative action at this time, unless someone wants to confirm or deny my summary.

@Mavery94: To make a negative statement about a living person, you need a good secondary source (preferably multiple such sources). It is not adequate to cite a primary source as if that is the end of the matter (a reliable secondary source would include an overall analysis of the entire situation which undoubtedly involves more than a single legal case). Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my lack of faith in Wikipedia and why there are so many places that site it as being a poor source. Mavery94 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, these attacks don't come from simply citing a court ruling as editors assert. They come from deliberate attacks on Barrett, some based upon the misrepresentation of a court ruling. The attacking editors are quoting from off-Wiki attacks pages rather than from the court ruling.

These recent attacks against Barrett mirror the ones that have been going on for at least four years now by such editors as Ilena (talk · contribs) (banned), TimBolen (talk · contribs) (banned), and their sockpuppets. While Clayton College of Natural Health is already protected because of the related vandalism, we may need to protect Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett as well if the attacks continue. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think an adminstrator might be useful over at the Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch articles. An editor is trying to revert war the same kind of edits that are being discussed here. Maybe Ronz is correct and protection for these articles might be considered. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

uh-oh

Resolved

 – Nothing requiring intervention here. If you have an issue with a user's userpage, please talk to them directly. --erachima talk 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sex, this is up for deletion, and has been nominated for speedy a a possible violation of (what used to be) WP:PED, but I wonder if it should be RevDel'd and the author dealt with in some manner. Herostratus (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly, is a picture of a shaven vagina a danger to the welfare of children? I would imagine that most children have had up-close, personal experience with at least one in their lives. While the userbox itself is a bit lacking in taste, I would have hoped you, being an obviously righteous man, would have done due diligence by checking the upload details of the aforementioned image before whipping out the stale and tired moralistic "think of the children" stuff. Wikipedia is not censored. As far as the user is concerned... yeesh, a lot of Userspace edits and sparing mainspace edits, but what little mainspace edits there are seem to all be good faith contributions. Badger Drink (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK fine, whatever. I just thought I'd point it out. I don't know if it's shaven or what. It's up to you guys. I know what I would do if I was an admin, but I'm not, so, as you wish. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Badger Drink removed the CSD tag. If user Badger Drink is not an admin -- I'll check in a sec, but how many admins have blank user pages? -- should he be hanging around this page and making decisions on requests here? Is this permitted, or encouraged? I was trying to get the attention of an admin. Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If Badger Drink is an admin, it doesn't say so here. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

When the admins are on vacation, lunch break, coffee break, smoke break, union break, joint break (RIP George Carlin), bathroom break, or just out of the office, you are likely to get help from a non-admin. Happens all the time, from ALOT of non-admins and the help (with the exception of blocks and such) is just as a good as something an admin can do. Gives them a break and gives us a chance to help. By the way, I am also not an admin. Oh and JzG (Guy) doesn't have a userpage and he is an admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The vast majority of what's brought up on ANI does not require an admin, just a guy with a WP:CLUE. --erachima talk 03:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but... the person's response was not helpful. It was just a jejune screed. I can get that anywhere. Why even have ANI if this is going to be the response? Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a diatribe is necessary and needed at times. Hell, you get those from admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing unhelpful about it. He gave the right answer, he cited the right standard. Certainly, "stop being puritanical" isn't the reply you wanted, but it is the reply that's appropriate to the situation. --erachima talk 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer (and, post-edit conflict, erachima) said it better than I could ever hope to. I'd just like to add that it seems you're confusing "help" with "do exactly what I want done", which in this case is histrionic and utterly, completely, without-a-doubt over-the-top. (of course, during the edit conflict erachima beat me to that point as well, once again saying it more succinctly (and probably politely) than I ever could - but whatever, I'll rip a page from WP:DGAF. :)) At most, a friendly WP:MYSPACE mention might be made on Antigrandiose's talk page. The fact that you would immediately speedy delete something like this means it's probably for the best that you're no longer a part of the Wikipedia admin corps. Badger Drink (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the little dig Badger Drink. I sure needed that when I came here with a good faith headsup. Why don't you or some of you other guys apply to be admins then if you like doing this? We have a shortage of new admin applicants, you know. Now look at this -- erachima closed the discussion, and he's not an admin either (at least, it says here). So as far as I know no admin has even looked at this. So non-admins can resolve discussions here? OK whatever, if that's how the admins want to run it. If the admins are so busy though, maybe we could have a separate board WP:GET_SOME_ABUSE_FROM_SOME_RANDOM_YAHOOS or something and cut out the middleman. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorely, sorely tempted to make that a redirect right back here. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done N419BH 03:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, I am Neutralhomer, Random Yahoo...how may I be of assistance? :D LOL That is awesome right there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect deleted. Re the ubx, does it assist in our primary task of building an encyclopedia? Does it portray Wikipedia in a positive light? No and no. We're not Craigslist. However, the MfD should run its course. EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

For information, the Arbitration Committee has just put out a statement advising administrators how to handle disputes concerning Checkuser blocks. The full text is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And you can Discuss this Statement here. EdChem (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bband11th

I've been having issues with User:Bband11th over the course of the past few months. Just recently however, the disagreements have spread to other articles over issues that are pretty straightforward. The most recent example is on the article Larry Farmer (basketball). There is a dubious statement on that article and I added a {{fact}} tag to it. He added a reference that did not support the statement, so I reverted and tried to start a discussion on the article talk page ([156]). He continued to revert ([157]) so I brought it up on his talk page, ([158]) but he merely removed the notice. ([159])

I believe this stems from another dispute we've had on various college bowl game articles. You can see the discussion here: [160]. The gist of the discussion is there was no consensus on how to treat the odds, so we should just leave the stylistic debate as what the article originally used. The user is having difficulty accepting that. He continues to change the articles to

The last part of my "complaint" is that he has been WP:HOUNDing me on various pages that I've edited that he never has. See: [161] and [162].

I've tried to contact the user to resolve these disputes, but he is not responding and there have been no discussions. I think he's a good Wikipedia user, but I don't know what to do anymore. I'll gladly avoid the articles he edits. In fact, I'll check the history of an article prior to editing it if it has something to do with UCLA (the types of articles he tends to edit). If he's made an edit to it, I will not (he hadn't edited the Larry Farmer article prior to when I did. Farmer crosses our WMU and UCLA paths. If he had edited it, I probably would not have). — X96lee15 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Larry Farmer (basketball) article, I attempted a rephrase that should hopefully address both of your concerns. See this revision of the page. –Grondemar 04:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that change. It amazing how simple a change can be when you take a step back :) — X96lee15 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

99.238.167.207

I would like to report that 99.238.167.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock puppet of user:Vedant but I'm unsure how to post a sock puppet case. 88.106.103.83 (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry and make a judgment about whether there is enough evidence of sock puppetry. Go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case to submit a case if you believe that you have enough evidence. Keep in mind that it is perfectly alright to edit without logging in, as long as one does not do so to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. LK (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have notified the users in question of this thread. Mauler90 _talk 09:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so that everyone here is clear, the user making this claim is a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Yattum. This SPI case should shed more light on the situation. It's also worth noting that Yattum here has in the past, accused me of sockpuppetry, a claim which has been refuted by a CheckUser. I actually did advocate a range block of 88.106.00.00/16 but it was not implemented as a look at the range contributions reveals that other edits were made that don't fit his MO.

Anyways, I have no intention of replying or responding to these accusations. If the admins here feel a CU and block is necessary, then by all means perform one and actually determine if I've engaged in sockpuppetry. I'm just going to let the moron above babble like a fool and spit more accusations out. Vedant (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An as some additional food for thought, here are the contributions of another IP from the 88.106 range who has re-instated claims made by Yattum's sockpuppets (claims which I removed). Perhaps it just made him upset and motivated him to launch a frivolous investigation... Ofcourse this time I can't be accused of furthering Indian nationalism... shame. Vedant (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions

The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Odd behaviour from OhanaUnited

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

---

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a couple of troubling edits over the last few days. The first one was a huge bunch of original research he inserted into an article page supported by forums and blog posts. This alone was way out of left-field for an administrator as far as I was concerned at the time. I reverted it[163] and left him a note on his talk page. I didn't get a response right away and kind of forgot about it. I went back to his talk page to see if he'd ever replied and found this [164] a silent removal by a guy who seemingly archives everything. No explanation for the extremely poor edit. While I was there I noticed an odd discussion with Elekhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I went to their talk page to get the whole story and found some rather disgusting comments from Ohana leveled at Elekhh. User_talk:Elekhh#Portal:Contents.2FPortals. Elekhh sums it up best in their final comment. But calling my edits on the Portals Contents page as "unilateral", "undiscussed", "reckless" and implying incompetence and bad faith, topped up with a "stern warning" of blocking.... what do you think of that? An admin ignoring all the evidence about his missinterpretations and refusing to engage in a WP:CIVIL dialogue?. Another user points out his "warning" was over the top and unwarranted as well. But calling a user incompetent because you disagree with them and not explaining those kinds of edits to articles isn't really appropriate administrator behaviour, and for some users that kind of personal attack would either get a strong warning or possibly even a block. Interestingly enough in this one post to a talk page a month ago he warns a user for all of these things [165], and should really know better on all fronts. The second is clearly more egregious than the first, but taken together they show some emerging hypocritical un-admin like behaviour that is bordering on disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Elekhh tried to use this silver star to represent featured process

(one-sentence summary provided at the end in case someone wants to read my response quickly without going through a textblock) Well, let's see, has anyone seen a featured process use a silver star? (image provided on the right side) I'm pretty sure most, if not all of you, have never seen a silver star like that. What's more worrying is that according to a userbox on Elekhh's talk page, Elekhh found and nominated 2 pictures to featured status. If he actually take a look at the userbox he uses, then he would realize how all our featured process use gold star yet he still went ahead and add silver stars to these 10 pages (diffs provided) [166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175] Is this an honest mistake? If it's done on a few pages and not familiar with any featured process then yes. But on a grand scale like this? He probably knows what he's doing (or at least think he knows). Next thing, for many of the diffs shown, Elekhh added comments like this "<!-- for featured portals use ^{[[File:Cscr-featured2.png|11px]]} --> ". Yet when he told me which venue did such discussion takes place, he shown me to Portal_talk:Contents#Icons. Take a read at the discussion, did you see him mentioning *anything* about switching featured star from gold to silver? No. Others, later on Elekhh's talk page, also agreed that featured content should be in gold and not in silver.[176] If switching featured contents from gold to silver is not considered to be "unilateral" or "reckless", then what is? (For example, if someone tries to change FA star on featured articles from gold to silver, watch how fast the edit will get reverted). And never did Elekhh post notice on any featured portal process. I seriously believe that his notice was posted to the wrong crowd and missed the intended recipients that will otherwise benefit the discussion. In summary, Elekhh changed featured portals' star from gold to silver without any discussion, posted a notice for comments on changes to a page unrelated to any featured portal process that did not reach any intended audience to facilitate meaningful discussion, plus the discussion itself did not tell anyone that the star will change its colour. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're just completely ignoring all previous explanations. What you present above is your missinterpretation of my edits, determined by your continued assumption of me being of bad faith. I reiterate: I did not propose to change the colour of featured portal stars. I did change the representation of featured portals on the portals contents pages from bold italic text to a star symbol, as discussed on the relevant talk page in January. What you perceive as "grand scale" is nothing more than the complete set of separate chapter-templates which together compose Portal:Contents/Portals. I used a small star symbol of 11px not 50px as you indicate. Both the image you added to this discussion and its caption are missrepresentations. I explained to you why I used that symbol, and also that I have nothing against the other symbol. Note that Featured content is represented with different symbol in Template:Link FA as well, assumably for the same reason that it appears at a very different size than the one on the top of portal pages. Please be carefull with your conclusions. At this stage, as you again accuse me of bad faith, and noting that you added a new accusation by questioning my honesty, I must agree with Crossmr's listing of this issue on this noticeboard. --Elekhh (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet you still don't address what you're doing running around trying to insert original research in an article supported by citations that don't remotely meet WP:RS and WP:V. Someone of your position should be well aware of those things and as I indicated you seemed aware of all of these things a month ago, and then continue to duck the issue. this isn't adminly behaviour. This is the behaviour of someone in the first few days or weeks on wikipedia. There are more editors that have commented that don't support your over the top warning and accusations of bad faith than do. WP:COMPETENCE is reserved for people who are so bad that they can't effectively communicate and work with the community. Frankly you're now giving me that impression with your utter lack of ability to address your inappropriate addition to that article and your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to what you said on Elekhh's talk page. You might disagree with what they did, but the way you said it would be inappropriate for a new user let alone a "trusted" admin.--Crossmr (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Crossmr: I didn't add any info back after your revert and considered it as "case closed", so you still consider this as "duck[ing] the issue"? It appears that you're the party unwilling to let this matter rest. @Elekhh: I didn't accuse you of dishonest, I was only wondering why you requested for feedbacks on Portal_talk:Contents#Icons rather than on Portal talk:Featured portals or Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates when it indicating a featured portal is part of the featured portal process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider an admin walking into an article and adding original research supported by forums, blogs and other conjecture to be "case closed". As I said, you should know better. The fact that you haven't, or can't, explain why you made that edit is what makes it a problem. You also went far beyond "wondering" at what Elekhh did by bring WP:COMPETENCE into the discussion as you did, along with your "stern" warning. We don't "wonder" with a banhammer, threats and insults. Which is why I brought it here. Both of those things are disruptive. Administrators making bad edits and threatening people doesn't help the community and only causes issues. Even if you considered it case closed, why didn't you archive it like everything else on your talk? you've got plenty of other talk on your page that is "case closed" Like a several months old GA sweeps update, a several months old notification for an event that has already passed, etc. No, you quietly removed that comment, and now 3 proddings in, still have failed to defend or explain what you were thinking adding that kind of content to an article.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look at WP:OWNTALK? It means I read your comments and understand your concern so I stopped further pursue in this matter. The timeline nor the logic fits if I do it the other way around. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. But you just told me you removed it because you felt the case was closed. Why haven't you removed other things, inconsistency doesn't help you defend your actions. It looks pure and simple like you were ducking the issue and the fact that you still won't explain why you made those edits makes it look even more like that. You demonstrated the month before that you understood WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Since you're continuing to duck the issue yet again let me blunt: What were you doing, a supposed trusted administrator with so much experience, adding that kind of content to an article? For someone of your position, it is frankly disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding OhanaUnited's messages to Elekhh: As easily verified, and as explained above and many times at Elekhh's talkpage, Elekhh did not change gold stars to silver stars, ever. Elekhh simply picked the wrong icon to use, when replacing the bold italic that the portals had been using up until then (see example prior to Elekhh's edit). Continuing to assert that he did replace gold stars with silver stars, and insulting the user with suggestions of recklessness and incompetence, is blatantly uncivil. I'm concerned about the lack of admittance and/or apology for a proven mistaken interpretation - you cannot just abandon a thread where you've made strong accusations and then had core-assumptions proven wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how you handle the mistake that matters. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is the problem. It's the same way he's acting about the original research he added to the article. Trying to pretend it didn't happen, nor admit fault, nor explain why he added it. this is not good behavour for an administrator. It is disruptive and not conducive to a community.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard the input and comments and will try to take this to heart. I would like to step back from this incident and take some time to think it over and reevaluate my actions. Thanks for all your feedback and I hope I can continue to serve the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

An 11th hour apology isn't exactly sufficient here. Through several messages you've shown no indication that you realize you've done anything wrong and even with this you show no actual understanding of what you did wrong. You've gone out and made entirely inappropriate edits to an article and continued to avoid answering questions about why you made that edit. Even now, when I put the question directly to you, you've ignored it. You've gone out and threatened and insulted a user through several messages, even when told your interpretation of what happened was off by a mile. Now through an AN/I thread, you've showed an utter failure of ability to understand what you did is wrong, and your apology sounds like you're running for office and contains nothing that actually addresses what you did.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr give it a rest. OhanaUnited has apologized and said that he is going to reevaluate his actions. What are you suggesting, that he be desysopped for this mistake? Do you think you might perhaps have a chip on your shoulder about this? LK (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No actually he hasn't apologized. that is the problem. An apology would mean that he's shown that he knows what he did was wrong and is sorry for doing it. Can you show me where he's indicated anywhere that he knows what he did was wrong? Neither"I have heard the input...and will try to take this to heart" or "I would like to step back from this incident and take some time to think about reevaluate my actions" says "I know what I did was wrong". It just isn't there. Both of those sentences are business speak for "not really saying anything at all or committing to anything". The fact that I've asked him 4 times to explain his edit and the fact that he flat-out refuses to shows a much larger problem. Someone with utter disregard for those around him. It's one thing to ignore an issue, it is another thing when the question is put directly to you to just pretend it was never asked. As for what I'm suggesting, I haven't made a suggestion at this point. What I did was brought a user who was acting disruptively in two separate incidents in a very close time frame here. Why do you think I have a chip on my shoulder, because I insist on matters actually being full discussed, or that I don't put up with people trying to sweep things under the rug? Are you perhaps assuming a little bad faith?--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I'm not sure that you have provided evidence that OhanaUnited's actions on this one edit "shows a much larger problem". Having read this, it seems a pretty small problem to me. I'm here because I know - I think we all know - that OhanaUnited makes a huge contribution to Wikipedia. Yet it's entirely possible that he owes you an apology Crossmr - so my question to you is, under what circumstances would you be prepared to let this drop?Travelplanner (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it is far more likely that he owes Elekhh an apology. His response to them was clearly inappropriate, uncivil, and disruptive. It is his response here that shows a bigger problem. Were he to come here and say "Yes I know my actions were wrong I'll improve" it would be one thing. Instead he spent several messages denying he did anything wrong, only to follow it up with a nothing apology which says nothing. Nowhere in any message has he acknowledged fault with what he did. He's only used double-talk to make it look like he's given an apology when in reality he's admitted no fault and given no indication that he understands what he did was wrong. If he can't do that, then the matter is far from closed. That gives me zero hope that the disruption wouldn't continue in the future. He's an administrator he is supposed to be held to a higher standard. There are no exemptions in any of the policies which state "if you do a lot of good edits you can break them". Both of these series of edits were clearly wrong and entirely inappropriate for an administrator to be making. The fact that he flat-out refuses to explain them is disruptive and not becoming of an administrator. So if he can neither admit fault, nor explain his actions, we have no guarantee that the disruption won't continue.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also believe that an appology is outstanding, and from my part I would expect a withdrawal of the smear words thrown at me. Indeed this could have stayed as a small incident, but he himself agravated it. I was used to and still expect collaboration on Wikipedia. His row of standing accusations at my address demotivate me. I've never been treated in such a way, neighter on Wikipedia nor in real life. I'm not sure if any editor would like to be called (among others) dishonest, reckless, and incompetent, while trying to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. --Elekhh (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "smear words." OhanaUnited assumed that you were attempting to change the colour of the stars for FAs. He said that this was "beyond bold and on the verge of reckless." He also asked you to read an essay on competence (suggesting that he did not consider your actions as having the required competence). This seems to have been based on a misunderstanding. Moreover, threatening blocking seems to me to be an overreaction. IMO OhanaU made a mistake. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see it being part of a pattern. BTW, your comment about his "violent attitude" also seems to me to be a breach of civility. OhanaU has responded to Crossmr (and that matter seems, mercifully, closed). Perhaps he would be willing to comment on the interaction with you now. Sunray (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I acted with good will and in self defence. I did my best to clarify the situation. The use of the words "violence" and "smear" were reflecting my perception, but I acknowledge that I might have been overly sensitive when describing the effect of his words on me. If OhanaUnited feels offended by any of these I retract and apologise. For my part I remain deeply saddened. --Elekhh (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The pattern is inappropriate behaviour for an admin. Making amateur edits to an article, making personal attacks and threatening blocking just because they disagreed with someone, and now failure to take responsibility for his actions, and even discuss them appropriately. After spending several messages denying he did anything wrong he finally admitted nothing and walked away. This is not admin behaviour. And since he's continued to edit and based on his last message he doesn't plan to return to this conversation, he's leaving us very few options. He has neither indicated he knows what he did was wrong nor that he intends not to do it anymore. These are the two things we typically look for on Wikipedia to ensure that disruption will not continue. At this point I have to say that OhanaUnited has no business being an admin if this is how he conducts himself. These are three clear situations where he should clearly know better if he's going to have the tools and he is clearly demonstrating that he doesn't know how to behave on wikipedia and interact with the community. That might seem strong, but as far as I know this is my first interaction with him, and I'm hardly seeing any of this good work people were speaking of. All I've seen is someone who warned others not to do the things he did, and is incapable of carrying on a productive conversation with the community over any disagreement with what he believes. and no Ohana hasn't responded to me, even after a straight request he refused to explain his poor edit to that article. That is all part of the pattern of inappropriate behaviour that is shaping up here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no pattern. I see two incidents. No amount of wikilawyering will make this into a Federal Court case. Crossmr continually refers to the fact that OhanaUnited is an administrator. He needs to bear in mind that admins are NOT PERFECT. As the policy states: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." These two incidents hardly constitute "sustained or serious disruption." So with respect, I think Crossmr should take the advice already offered and let this go. Sunray (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sunray (talk · contribs), and Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs). At this point in time, this is beating a dead horse. Further dragging out of this issue is not constructive. -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect him to be perfect. I do expect him to properly address problems if they come up which he has failed to do. Here is the pattern:

1. Very poor edit to an article. Disagreement is met with silence and a very quiet redaction of the comment by a user who seemingly archives everything else and an explanation for its removal that makes zero sense

2. Disagreement with an editor is met with insults, personal attacks and threats, even when other users step in and correct him. He walks away with no apology nor retraction of his over the top statements.

3. Further discussion of both issues is met with outright denial and refusal to discuss or explain his actions.

That is the pattern of a disruptive user. Not an administrator. No user is expected to be perfect, but they are expected to explain their edits if called on them, and administrators are expected to be held to a higher standard, they get tools of trust, he has abused that trust through his edit to that article, his attack on the other user and his non-response here. He has failed to do so. And no one here can demonstrate where he has indicated that he knows what he did was wrong. If anyone can, I'll happily drop it. But I expect an unambiguous statement taking responsibility for his actions, otherwise why does he have access to those tools if he cannot explain nor take responsibility when called to task?--Crossmr (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't engage in that much talk, not compared to other users, but here is another assumption of bad faith over a disagreement over a tag. [177]. He assumes the user hasn't read the article and accuses him of "screaming". I read the article at that time and it isn't remotely clear what he's referring to which is further pointed out [178]. Asking for refs and clarification on unsourced articles isn't untoward, nor something that requires an assumption of bad faith and mischaracterization of someone's edits.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was seeking administrative action, so your closing summary is false. It's also very clear that of the 6 people who commented (besides Ohana) 3 think he's done something wrong and 3 don't. Hardly a consensus that no action will be taken. I'd also just added a third incident where he acted inappropriately towards a user. For someone with such a low volume of talk, that's not good. While I haven't found many disputes, what I have found is that of the ones that generated user talk in the last year he's handled inappropriately. That is not encouraging.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[179] here he is essentially taunting a user he disagrees with. Even another user at the time thought it was insulting [180]. That's 5 clear incidents of him inappropriately handling interactions with users, seeing the pattern yet?--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going to lead to a block of OhamaUnited, isn't going to lead to a desysop, and isn't going to lead to any actions by administrators acting as administrators. Even if people think that OU has done something wrong, there's nothing for ANI to do here. ANI isn't for forcing explanations or apologies out of editors, even administrators. You still seem to be confusing ANI with WP:RFC/U or WP:DR or WP:ARBCOM. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators", as it says at the top of the page. I note that two of the people who have commented in this thread have already said that this has been discussed enough here, hence my closure.

Having said that, if any other passing admin thinks that there is life in the horse that would be benefited from further beating at this location, feel free to reopen this thread once more. (And, for goodness's sake, some of your latest diffs are from July 2009 and September 2009 - hardly recent incidents requiring action from administrators, are they?!) Bencherlite^Talk 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a request made to show a pattern. In order to show a pattern, we must go back to friend previous incidents. We have 3 very recent incidents. His terrible edit to the article, his completely inappropriate personal attacks, and unwarranted block threats against a user, and his utter non-response to this thread. This is a guy who within 150 contribs on user talk and talk space you're back well into the middle of next year and in those few amount of contribs (which include the normal things like routine taggings, block notices, and other such non-talk, we've got 5 problems. Per capita that isn't good for a regular user, let alone an administrator. Now, if he'd managed to take responsibility for his actions, it'd be dropped but he's failed to do so. Last I checked out around here, when we have a disruptive user, the requirement was that they acknowledged what they did was wrong and indicate that the behaviour won't continue. he's done neither. Until he's done either of those, what assurance do we have that his disruptive interaction with users won't continue? I believe that is what AN/I is for. to handle disruptive users. He just happens to be an admin this time.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:Apology applies here. Yes, what OhanaUnited said wasn't much of an acknowledgement, but it was better than nothing, and demanding more is non-helpful at this time. Ohana will hopefully be writing with more self-awareness, and others will be watching him more closely, which is the best outcome that is likely, all things considered. Endorse thread closure. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Where did it go?

I attempted to weigh in on the discussion,

• 13 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history, closed as delete but in fact merged with Moses

It was obviously there so where did it go? Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Try the archive? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something. I am fairly new but a section can be archived, especially in the middle of action, with no warning? Maybe I went through a twilight zone or something. I tried to save an edit after clicking on a section link in the index then it would not save and I realized it was not listed in the index anymore. I am not familiar with navigating the archives yet. Otr500 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is archived after 24 hours with no posts - unless a user deleted/reverted it for some reason. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a big search box at the top of this page that searches the ANI archives. Entering 'moses' gives this result. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:EmiruTheKnight

This user was created about a couple of minutes ago. He is advertising on his page about his YouTube account. I did request speedy deletion but he took it off, and seeing Wikipedia says not to edit war, I am not going to do it. What do I do? I am new here( sort of, was using IPS) so can someone help me? Thank you. AboundingHinata (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My question is whether links to YouTube videos of games might be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like his only edits were to make his user page, and blank yours (which has the same thing, advertising your YouTube account). Why did you feel justified in blanking his user page and trying to have it speedied when you are doing the same thing yourself? Also, can you explain this edit[181] in which you seem to be taunting another editor by indicating you are an IP who reported him for something (though there is no record of his being reported for anything, blocked, nor even warned). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

the one user page was advertising, and proposing speedy deletion was reasonable. The other case was blanking for no stated reason, apparently in revenge. The two are very different. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying Emiru is right, I just find it odd that the reporter in essence was doing the same thing, even without a hard link. That to me was odd and would at least make his reaction at least mildly understandable if inappropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't. Not that it matters. I was just patrolling the recent users page. I will delete my user page if it bothers you. I just think him advertising is wrong. And for Tom, I can't really answer that. Sorry. I don't know how to answer, explain please. AboundingHinata (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, just that Tom was making Seagate Technology disputed... that's it. AboundingHinata (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I did request speedy deletion but he took it off, and seeing Wikipedia says not to edit war, I am not going to do it" Actually, the creator of a page is not supposed to remove speedy tags from it (see WP:CSD) so restoring it would be fine (though if they kept on restoring, I agree finding an admin would be better than pointlessly revert-warring over it). Olaf Davis (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging by User:Sfan00 IMG

Resolved

 – discussion started at policy page.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contribs)

Sfan00 IMG, a bot owned by SharkespearFan00, is mass tagging images for speedy deletion under F2 that are Commons images, but which have a category at en. His response to my question about a discussion authorizing this deletion was unsatisfactory [182].

There are a number of categories of free images on Wikipedia (see Category:Images by country, Category:Image galleries, Category:Wikipedia images by subject). Unless there has been a decision somewhere to delete these, their members should not be unilaterally deleted without discussion. --B (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly Sfan00_IMG, is not a bot, as has been explained on countless previous occasions.

Secondly, It was my understanding that images that were now on Commons whould be categorised on that site, and the local page removed. I therefore request evidence of the claims the aforementioned user is making. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - I'd like to see evidence that the response wasn't satisfactory... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, this account was blocked just last week after an issue with images, since resolved. Could you provide a link to the relevant policy page on these mass deletions? I don't want to go searching for it. Assuming there is a policy on this, I don't see a problem. N419BH 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#G8 covers this as well as WP:CSD#F2. WP:CSD is policy, and I fail to see any reason not to delete these image description pages for non-existent images. The images are hosted on Commons. If you want to categorize them, do so there. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) (1) I assumed it was a bot, I apologize for my assumption. In any event, it's irrelevant - my concern is the edits themselves, not whether it was an approved bot action. (2) I gave you three big image categories with lots of subcategories. The fact that innumerable commons images are categorized means you shouldn't just delete them unilaterally without some rule or discussion affirming the deletion. You're asking me to prove a negative - that no such discussion exists. That's illogical. I'm asking you what your authority is for tagging these images - is there a discussion wherein you proposed tagging them? Is there a rule that you are relying on? F2 is for empty description pages. A page with a categorization is not empty. We don't just mass delete stuff without some kind of discussion. --B (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is a rule. G8: "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. such as ... image pages without a corresponding image". I don't see how this could be construed as controversial. It's covered by well established policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this only applies to somebody creating File:XYZ w/o uploading an image anywhere -- which would obviously result in an empty page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see where it says that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what "image-page without corresponding image" means. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bingo - there is a corresponding image. That corresponding image just happens to be on Commons. In any event, this alleged "long standing policy" is clearly out of line with our current practices. --B (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(I don't have any stance here either way, I'm just showing how the policy/rule referred to here is ambiguous; maybe it should include "...and and pages for images hosted at commons")Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's what you believe it means. That's not what it says. The pages Sfan's been tagging lack a corresponding image. That fits G8 perfectly. If someone wants to categorize the images, they can do so on Commons. In fact, such work is quite welcome on Commons where categorization is often lax. It doesn't need to be replicated here on en.wiki. If a given project wishes to categorize images, they can do so on Commons and place a link from their project to that category. There's plenty of articles on the project that have links to Commons categories. That's why we have {{Commons category}}, which is structured to direct a person to Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested, maybe that should be clarified at the policy-page, e.g. this discussion should be continued there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know. The policy does say "This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: ... image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." Seems very counterintuitive to me. What could we include here that shouldn't be included on Commons??? Maybe if there was a deletion discussion here. But, using a local page to categorize something on another project? That doesn't make sense to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current efforts have been halted, until there is a CLEAR and SPECFIC CSD for 'local page for image now at commons'. Do you want me to start reverting F2 tags per B's logic that there needs to be a 'justification' disscussion? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#.22image_pages_without_a_corresponding_image.22. Hope that helps. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please roll them back until there is text added to the deletion criterion to support their deletion. --B (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that this situation is covered by CSD G8 and F2. {{Db-imagepage}} (G8) says that it applies when "the image is on the commons and the page has no Wikipedia-specific information." F2 says "This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images." In the cases at hand, the image pages that have been CSD'd do have Wikipedia-specific information (categories, in particular). It may be that G8/F2 are intended to cover this case as well, but it sounds like it needs to be clarified. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

War

At List of wars 2003–current, I added 2010 Kingston conflict to the article because it was an armed conflict between the Jamaican military and the Shower Posse drug cartel, similar to the Mexican Drug War. A few individuals keep removing it because, according to them, it's not a war. I provided sources at the article's discussion page where media outlets called it a war, ye these folks keep removing it. It's becoming annoying. B-Machine (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Neither should be included - those are more law enforcement actions than wars. GregJackP Boomer! 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the debate, just because a few reliable sources say something doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Sometimes, they intentionally (or not) use sloppy language; if it's an obvious mischaracterization, don't try to force it into the article and hide behind "verifiability, not truth" (I swear that truþ is a 4 letter word here). Look at the events themselves, and try to determine if the sources are giving a rational definition, or it's just hysteria. If the former, then try to find consensus; if the latter, then find a better term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I suspect that the media is not the best source to decide is something is a war (but then does perception maketh war?) but if this is just a content dispute try the talk page? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem - the media loves phrases like 'drug war', but that doesn't make it a war. But this is a content dispute. Wikipedia:Content noticeboard? Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people have gotten killed in the "drug wars". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and in gang wars also, but are those wars? Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "war", I reckon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who remembers the War on Poverty? PhGustaf (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember that war. So who won? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody. Something distracting happened, and everybody forgot about the WoP. PhGustaf (talk)

So, you're involved in a slow-burning edit war, and rather than engaging in dispute resolution, you instead escalate the dispute here? Do mind the WP:BOOMERANGs, they can give one a nasty clout. I'd suggest that you don't come to ANI unless there's a clear need for admin tools to be used. You losing a debate is not a good reason. If you continue to edit war, you might find yourself blocked. Fences&Windows 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Specialkjamie

Resolved

 – Facepalm –MuZemike 19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure PapaDrom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Specialkjamie due to this edit. I made an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PapaDrom. Jamiecocopops (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats him and so are you? Frostiesjamie (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Et tu? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there an old song that goes, "Jamie, Jamie, Cocoa Pops"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal IP 123.49.60.50

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This ip is involved with vandalism in the article Avro Keyboard. Check here----Cool BD (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in these cases, you should issue a level 1 warning ({{uw-vandalism1}}) and then, if they continue, escalate, until you reach a level 4 warning ({{uw-vandalism4}}); at that point, if they continue notwithstanding, report them to WP:AIV. For the moment, there's nothing for an admin to do here. -- Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified IP. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan kirkpatrick back again...again?

Per my recent post on this noticeboard, barely a week ago: looks like he's back again, editing as User:Belfast 19. (A quick glance at his only article to date, Thai Airways International Flight 601, suggests that it might be the same person, given the style of the article.) Should this be taken to WP:SPI? Sorry to be so naive, but I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to ANI. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we just closed his SPI an hour ago so he could be going around the rangeblock. If you do do an SPI, make sure that you request a checkuser check so we can figure this out for good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Right - it's late here, and I may be busy tomorrow morning, but I'll look into it sometime later in the day. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no rangeblocks for Ryan kirkpatrick, due to many rangeblocks needing to block virtually everyone on British Telecom being needed. O Fenian (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe nothing but take a look at 81.92.19.146

While on recent changes patrol I came across an edit for this user because it was tagged for removing references. The edit summary was pretty rude; "revert vandalism by crazy aristocratic useless user." The editor he was referring to, User:Bkonrad, seems to be offline at the moment but refers to this IP user as a sock of a banned in his edit summaries. Not knowing what the background is or who the IP might be a sock of, it seemed a good idea to bring it here. The IP is quickly racking up a ton of edits that have been reverted before and I don't know enough about the topics in question to have a clue what is going on. I don't know if this is a content dispute, an actual sock, or some other issue (or all of the above). But it seems obvious to me it's going to boil over into something nasty with a quickness. I'm off to drop the ANI notice now. Millahnna (mouse)talk 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock IP's on William Gallas page

I'd like to request a rangeblock for a few IP's. Many different IP's have added this same vandalism to William Gallas. Now I cannot believe that all the IP's who do that are all different people who have the lucky coincedence in adding the same vandalism as many others. I cannot really mention all the names here because unfortunatly I don't have time but if you look down the history at the IP edits that either me or others have tagged as vandalism and have added Panithinakos without a source being delibertaly disruptive then you'll have the ones who ought to be given a rangeblock. It's quite a problem so much so that despite it having PCP, it's required 2 periods of Semi-protection to stop it. I fear that once this current protection is lifted, they will continue to be disruptive. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Might be worth using pending changes instead. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned that it's already under pending changes and that doesn't seem to deter him/them. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Doh, that'll teach me to scan read. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. So, what's going to happen with the problem then? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no chance of rangeblocking all those dynamic ranges, unfortunately; they're far too wide. Most are in Greece, but not all. Unfortunately this sort of thing is fairly common given newspaper speculation over transfers in the summer. I would suggest keeping the semi-protection up until Gallas does decide where he's going to play next year, at which point the disruption will stop anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

• Sodomite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Onereydick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Looks to be a self-admitted block evading sockpuppet[183] of indef'd User:Sodomite. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No doubt about it; professes as much here, too (see specifically [184]). That said, the first block was for username violation. "Trolling" was brought into the block log later. I think the current username is probably okay. He seems to have been spurred by dislike of our username policy, initially, but I've explained how to contest policies and help change them. Maybe we should give him a chance to show he's interested in being a good contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That[185][186] was definitely trolling and I think that last edit fully explains the block summary. In any event, using a sock account to evade a block is not an acceptable solution. An admin willing to deal with this may restore, at least temporarily, talk page access on the master account, and the user can make his case for unblocking, name change and whatever there. Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite the same class as the usual block evasion, even though I pointed out the issue to the contributor myself at the conversation I linked above. He hasn't made any effort to hide his new identity (indeed, has disclosed it in all subsequent conversations) and seems to have had reason to believe, as he indicates here, that registering under a new username was what was expected of him. It's what he was first told to do here, after all. No doubt, this is a rocky follow up to that, but, again, I think a chance is warranted here. If he continues in the same vein, he can easily be blocked again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It still strikes me as improper, at least procedurally, to allow the sock account to continue editing while the master account remains blocked. I also have more than a sneaking suspicion that the Sodomite/Onereydick account and the Wolfpussy accounts may be related. The very first edit[187] made by User:Sodomite was to Wolfpussy's username RfC - a very unusual place for a new user to start editing. Plus later there was this request[188] to upload a Wolf puppy picture, reiterated from the Onereydick account[189]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there may very well be other issues here. No arguments there. There may be some sock issues; certainly his behavior is a bit unusual for a new contributor. As to his being blocked for block evasion, though, I think it depends ultimately on whether User:Sodomite created a new account in good faith. His block was a softblock, and he was given instructions to choose a new username. He didn't cover himself with glory with his unblock request and the new username was almost certainly chosen in part to wave the flag for freedom, but his behavior as a new account does suggest good faith in respect to block evasion at least. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the second account (as well as being the admin who blocked the initial account). As most of the editor's posts were pointless disruption and all were made in obscure Wikipedia-space I don't think that they're at all likely to become a productive contributer. I've adjusted the new block to allow the editor to edit their talk page in case they wish to appeal this. As the editing is juvenile trolling I wouldn't be too fussed if this is the block is removed on appeal (though I'd strongly suggest that they first explain what their editing interests are). Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll see if he bothers appealing. As Nsk92 noted above, he's almost certainly somebody else anyway. Just to note, it was actually User:Jmlk17 who blocked the initial account; you changed the settings to block talk page editing, and quite properly given his use of it. But "block evasion" does seem an odd rationale for a contributor who was told "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below)". You might want to explain why that no longer applies at User talk:Onereydick. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion - I've just added a note to that effect at User talk:Onereydick. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) May reduce confusion all around. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari89: Repeated bad faith, personal remarks, etc.

This person is essentially edit warring by reverting a pretty minor edit of mine, while making personal comments in every exchange on the Talk page. It has become impossible for me to assume good faith. There are strong religious overtones here. Ari89 self-identifies as almost exclusively interested in the Bible, and is a member of the Orthodox Church [190]. The basic gist is that I wanted to identify some sources for factual claims about Jesus scholarship as Christian theolgians, since I think it is relevant to our readers to know when religious sources are used for factual claims on religious topics. This has been reverted and met with a incessant stream of accusations of prejudice, POV, etc. My edit in question: [191] Comments from User:Ari89 directed toward me:[192]

"You seem to bring everything back to your personal point of view as you attempted on the main Jesus article. Wikipedia is not your personal outlet for what you think scholars should believe. "

"Noloop's attribution is not impartial, and it is part of their personal pov. On a number of Jesus related articles Noloop attempts to bring everything back, without citation, to his own personal hypothesis..... Noloop wishes to bring this back to the fringe theory that Jesus did not exist." (For the record, I have repeatedly said I don't doubt the existence of a historic Jesus, and have made no edits intended to suggest otherwise.)

"unless all of a sudden the mainstream of academia is going to claim that reliable sources by Christian scholars at leading secular universities cannot be trusted because Noloop sees a "conflict of interest" there is no need to force our own prejudices in."

"Noting that you are advocating a personal prejudice against sources is not a personal attack. Appealing to personal attacks to force consensus isn't very useful."

"In light of some POV pushing and attempts to redefine the whole historical Jesus field of scholarship on the basis of personal preferences,"

"On the rest of your comment, I have stopped reading. You can constantly accuse me of personal attacks until the cows come home, but that will not make them materialise out of nothing. Find a new game. "

Ari also left this unexplained warning/threat to block me for vandalism: [193]

I'm not calling for a block or punishment. I think some sort of feedback would be appropriate. The person is obviously unwilling to work collaboratively with me.

Noloop (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another attack on my motives, on a Noticeboard: [194] Noloop (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You argue that I was not assuming good faith in noting systematic POV pushing, and in this report you open by claiming I am bias because I identify as "a member of the Orthodox Church". Of course, you are yet to show me demonstrating a bias in this regard, but it seems it hasn't stopped attempts at poisoning the well.

Furthermore, accusing me of personal attacks on this noticeboard is not the place for content disputes. I have outlined the numerous reasons for reverting your edit - especially as they entirely modified the meaning of the sentence contrary to the attached citations. Multiple editors have also questioned these edits on the NPOV noticeboard.

Standard WP policies continue - verifiable mainstream dominates, editorial comments and personal opinions have no place. I also don't understand how those comments are meant to be personal attacks.

Finally, you modified my comment on the historical Jesus talk page. Do not modify people's comments. I also do not see how me giving you the heads up on not to modify other people's comments is a personal attack.

In essence, we discuss content disputes - not cry wolf. --Ari (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Having interacted with both editors on the issue, I can say that both have a point. Noloop is taking quite standard comments too personally, and this is not an issue that should have been brought at ANI or even at WP:WQA. On the other hand, it would really help if Ari89 could be more collaborative and less on the defensive, trying to assume good faith. --Cyclopia^talk 17:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Noloop has some rather clear POV motivations around the fringe theory that questions the historicity of Jesus and has been wasting everyone's time at numerous talk pages and message boards he forum shops at because he doesn't like the answers he gets. Please see Talk:Jesus and Talk:Historical Jesus. See also ...

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#If a majority (or all) of the sources for factual claims about Jesus are Christian, is it proper to mention that?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#If a majority (or all) of the sources for factual claims about Jesus are Christian, is it proper to mention that?
• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Are there guidelines for conflict of interest among sources?

Noloop needs to realize that he's being very disruptive and completely refusing to listen to reason. This makes people justifiably upset.Griswaldo (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify where do Noloop "clear POV motivations" come out? On Talk:Jesus he explained very clearly his concerns/viewpoint, but he repeated very clearly that he does not question the historicity of Jesus, so you are doing a pretty bad straw man argument against him. --Cyclopia^talk 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about WP:WQA, or I would have brought it up there. The comment of Griswaldo is pretty typical of this whole thing. I do believe some Christian topics are not sufficiently neutral, but my basis for saying so is straightforward. Conflicts of interest and cultural bias should be brought to the attention of the reader. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of Christianity, or the Good News, or anything like that. These concerns are being met with a constant stream of accusations of being anti-Christian. I feel like I am being hated in the name of Christ...bleh. Noloop (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are being opposed by people (like me) who are not Christian. Please don't play this kind of victim game here. My concern is with your perspective vis-a-vis scholarship in the area of religion and not anyone's religious faith.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. Here you go -- one quote from Noloop and one from the second sentence of Christ myth theory.

Noloop

• That figure is a legend, mythic in the same sense that Odysseus or Rama are mythic. They may very well be based on individuals who really existed, but those real individuals didn't battle cyclops or winged monkeys. We could not say scholars agree that they did. This article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine: from a secular perspective, Jesus (as Messiah) is a legendary, mythic figure.

Christ myth theory

• Some proponents of the hypothesis argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity.

If you don't see the similarity in these perspectives then I cannot help you.Griswaldo (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Noloop has stated, at some point or another, that two plus two equals four. Does this disqualify him from working on math or related articles? Badger Drink (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Question for impartial folks: Is it legit to remove canvassing and mild personal attacks from a Talk page? Specifically, I removed this comment by Ari89 from the Jesus Talk page.[195] It is 1) about a different (Jesus-related) article, 2) recruiting editors from Jesus to go oppose me on the other page, and 3) makes personal comments about me. I am sick and tired of dealing with this editor. Can I remove those comments from the Talk page or should I leave them in the record? Noloop (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable canvassing. It asks for all input in a directly related article (Historical Jesus and Jesus) where the exact same thing is happening. For all those interested, this is what it states:

"For those interested, we are also having very similar problems on the Historical Jesus article with certain editors from above. For example, most recently, the lead was changed to:

"Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus: “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all"[9] Scholars Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy share the view, and argue that Jesus is just a derivative of pagan gods like Dionysus. The renowned scholar Joseph Campbell also compared the Jesus myth to the myth of Osiris.[10]" (emph. mine)

It seems that only sources of certain religious persuasion are being selectively prejudiced with epithets. All input appreciated. --Ari (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lodging false complains about me doesn't achieve anything and it is quite boring by this stage. I am sick of finding an abusive comment by you every time I visit Wikipedia. --Ari (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I reverted Noloop's addition of the word 'legendary' as an epithet of Jesus in one place in the Jesus article, and he started a discussion on the talkpage in which it seemed to me that valid points were raised over (a) the purpose of the Jesus article compared to other articles on Jesus and (b) the importance of separating the historical components, from those parts of the account that are key but essentially belief-based. I am presuming there is back-history or interaction elsewhere with Ari89 and other contributors, as the dialogue turned tetchy quite quickly. For reference, I am religious but not of an Abrahamic faith, and believe there is rather better evidence for a historical Jesus than for a historical King Arthur, although there is no historical evidence that either ever walked on water:) Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing unsourced content introduction in the, 2006 Lebanon War

As I said in a recent ANI post[196], there is an ongoing issue with editors trying to change the Results section of the 2006 Lebanon War without discussions or any corroborating sources. The UNOSAT sources cited show a situational map that differs sharply with the revision being pushed, and none of the other editors chose to show up to discuss the issue in the ANI despite my notifying all of them. This makes me doubt that they have any interest whatsoever in discussing the content issue, utilizing objective sources like the UN publications or commision reports, or being impartial.

I would strongly request that moderators/administrators examine the information and attempted changes that seriously compromise the article's neutrality and verifiability. The unsourced changes away from the older version are being accomplished at the moment by a group of three editors who seem to be forcing the change through due to the lack of anyone else's regular editing in the article, and due to the politically charged nature of the topic so that attracts partisans who occupy the page as it's defacto owner(s).

All the Relevant information is still in the just archived page right here[197], and the situation has remained essentially unchanged, with my requests for the other editors to discus the issue being unanswered, so I belive that administrators looking at the issue might be the only viable option. Thank you, and appologies in advance for my formating and or protocol errors - Freepsbane (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like a problem brewing. I've left a message on the talk page in a possibly futile attempt to start discussions. The article is covered by the discretionary sanctions (although that isn't apparent from the header..I'll fix that) so people should know better than to edit war and add policy non-compliant material. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my prattling on sir, I would suggest that since whatever mention of the tactical/operational situation at the close of the conflict is so contentious to place in the infobox, that the consensus version that doesn't mention(The mention of UN forces moving in should still stay) such be used and whatever information constructed around sources(hopefully from reports linked to mostly impartial groups) be placed in the lower sections of the article. Also would discretionary sanctions mean that reverting is restricted? -Freepsbane (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's a question for the talk page but since you asked, I agree, these infobox 'result' attributes are prone to pointless edit wars and advocacy in the Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles. It should just say 'Ceasefire, provisioned by UNSC Resolution 1701.' and leave it at that, a fact over which there is no dispute. Everything else can go in the article body where it doesn't have to be crushed down to a soundbite. You can read about what is expected of editors editing articles covered by the sanctions here. I'm not an admin so you'll still need admin assistance if the behavior continues. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BHG is greatly improving Boleyn's work. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Amalthea's block of User:Grey eclipse

Resolved

 – Unblock requests declined; users were socks of previously banned user.

I'll ask this here since I don't know where else to go. User:Amalthea blocked User:Grey eclipse with a block message of ""Block evasion: Please don't" and without a comment on their talk page. Amalthea currently has a notice that they're busy in real life, and hasn't edited in almost a week. Going through his edits (and there's a lot of edits), looking at the exact time of the block, I don't see this editor mentioned here, here or here. Does a checkuser or someone know what the issue was? I don't want to unblock an editor without the blocking admin's support but in my opinion, this is a terrible way to ensure other people know what in the world is going on. I would email and ask but I have issues with how the block was performed as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the immediately preceding block made by Amalthea on 9 June was made with an identical block summary: India brown (talk · contribs) which suggests the two blocks are related. Doesn't make the situation any clearer though... CIreland (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to ask Amalthea. As he is a checkuser, I'd presume it was related to an SPI. I know I've seen CUs forget to list all sleepers found in an SPI report or to mark who the parent was on the blocked editors page. I do agree though, that neither edit summary is particularly useful, and should have, at min, included who the blocked editor was who was evading. I can't think of any valid reason not to indicate that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You should have emailed and asked. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a dick move for you to whine here in favor of some sock and you should the bit for being a deletionist jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.190.162.233 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a verb, but good for you nonetheless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it may be a {{checkuserblock}}, but perhaps Amalthea should clarify (doesn't have to go into any detail) so that admins know not to consider unblocking themselves as persuant to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Statement on checkuser blocks? –MuZemike 07:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Both accounts are Mk5384 (talk · contribs). They were created during an earlier block, when he threatened to sock. He only created the two accounts but didn't actually evade his block, and I was still hopeful that Mk5384 might try to edit within community norms, be so I didn't feel it was necessary or constructive to publicize the relation at the time. We're past that point now, obviously, so I've tagged them. And I'll be more explicit next time with blocks based on checkuser evidence.
Amalthea 07:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Declined the unblock request. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

For reference: I've double checked and the evidence is conclusive. --Deskana (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Jakezing requesting unblock

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

I have recently declined Jakezing's request for unblock, but want to offer my decision for review. It is now more than a year since the last block. My own opinion is that a mere request is not enough; we should have more prospect of improvement before lifting the block. For instance, a record of contribution at some other Wikimedia project. Since the block was imposed due to an ANI thread in June 2009, it needs consensus to lift it. If you have an opinion, please comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If this user agreed, we could try something along the lines of Diego Grez' former sanction, to make sure he's really reformed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—I would really like to oppose his unblock request, because his behaviour while an editor was so dreadful, but I am really struggling to find any substantive reasons to do so. Therefore, I feel obliged to say give him another chance; if he messes up again he can easily be re-blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: A lot can change in a year. I'm inclined to say give the guy a chance. If he screws up what's the damage? Another block and maybe 5 minutes of rollback. If he's ready to be a positive contributor the Wiki will be better for it. N419BH 13:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Notified - I've notified Jakezing about this thread so they can follow it. I've suggested to them that they post anything they wish to say on their talkpage and it can be copied here if relevant. Exxolon (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Normally I'd support these, but someone who's been indeffed four times (twice as User:Cody6, twice as this unsername)? WP:AGF and all that, but I'm not convinced. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Question It's unclear from the thread EdJohnston linked to whether this user was blocked indefinitely (which means an Admin could unblock him) or banned by the community (which means he can only be unblocked by consensus -- or an appeal to the ArbCom). IMHO, if Jakezing was only indefinitely banned, then any Admin could unblock him, but then that Admin -- or a designated mentor -- would need to keep an eye on this editor to make sure he plays nice with others. -- llywrch (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  It was a consensus block; see this. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. A year is a long time to move on from four (yes, four) indefinite blocks, and it's quite possible someone could turn their personality around in that period. I would perhaps be more convinced if the unblock message wasn't platitudes which rely only on our belief that he might have changed. AGF only goes so far; after four indefinite blocks, there needs to be something more convincing than "I promise I won't be rude most of the time". I'd suggest editing on another project and keeping his nose clean; that way we have some actual evidence of a shift. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• His comment "I can't guarantee I will always be civil" is not altogether promising. If he wants to edit that badly, maybe he could propose some edits to articles, within his talk page, and demonstrate the extent of his sincerity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Everyone deserves another chance. However, required evidence of helpful contributions on a related project and/or proposed changes channeled through his talk page for awhile are both very reasonable (perhaps even minimal) prerequisites to unblocking. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I prefer substantial, physical evidence, diffs and all, that show he has changed his ways, preferably from his work on other WM projects; otherwise, he can stay blocked. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Satesclop

Resolved

 – User blocked by Toddst1 for a week for continued WP:CIVIL issues and edit warring. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am here to complain about the conduct of User:Satesclop. I first came across this user when he removed the mention of the Catalonia national football team from Gerard Piqué's article. It then became apparent that this user has a problem not only with the Catalan football team, but also with the Catalan language and its naming customs, as he redirected Template:Catalan name to Template:Spanish name without any form of discussion. I think it's fairly obvious that this user is some sort of Spanish supremacist and refuses to recognise the autonomy of Catalonia. Could someone please deal with him? – PeeJay 15:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are really ignorant about this. Catalonia doesn't have "national" team, it doesn't play official games. In Castilian (Spanish), Catalan, Galician, Basque or Asturian there are two surnames: paternal surname first, second mother's surname. This is the same exactly. Satesclop 15:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can all see, this user has a severe attitude problem. – PeeJay 15:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. But for me it is very frustrating to see ignorant users who edit but they do not know. I know much better than you about it. Satesclop 15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your 'tribs, but your two edits here show a serious lack of WP:CIVILITY. And to say that another user is ignorant is a violation of WP:NPA. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is a very arrogant thing to say. You may know better than me, you may not, but it's not your place to say one way or another. Regardless, Template:Catalan name has existed for about 18 months and it remained unchanged until you decided to come along and redirect it to Template:Spanish name. You didn't discuss the change, and when someone objected, you simply reverted them straight back, again without discussion! You need to realise that this is not the way we do things around here. – PeeJay 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the previous warnings and blocks for disruption including edit warring, I have blocked Satesclop for 1 week for continued WP:CIVIL issues and edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) has been warned about edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mickey Darwin has returned

Nicky Carwin (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Is it likely he created Jble17 (talk · contribs) and Lindaknoll (talk · contribs) whose talk pages he created? Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems likely. Add Mickerswiki (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mickey Darwin preys on newly registeredfemale users. Mickerswiki (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Are IP addresses allowed to close RFA's?

Resolved

 – answer is "yes, within the limits stipulated by policy." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Recently an IP address closed this RFA. Is that allowed? ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking as to whether there is a policy on that as well. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Such that the user was going to withdraw, the question seems academic at this point and probably something that should be discussed at WT:RFA (if needed). As they've done the relevant mundane paperwork, I have no concerns with respect to the present case. –xeno^talk 18:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) From WP:CRAT, "Requests for adminship can be closed by non-bureaucrats in certain cases; for example if the user has withdrawn the request or the outcome is very unlikely to be positive." 67.136.117.132 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#Closure Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@67. That doesn't really answer the initial question. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The question was whether an IP can close an RFA. I haven't found anything yet that affirms directly that IPs can do it, but non-bureaucrats certainly can, and an IP is included in the term "non-bureaucrat." 67.136.117.132 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Guess that's right. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting posts from other users' talk pages

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Meletian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 81.159.32.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jc3s5h has just wiped a message I posted to User talk:Samhastings. He has been warned about this before: [198]. Can someone block him so that he knows not to do it again? 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. Blocking shouldn't be necessary here IMO. Connormahtalk 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC) So are you a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change? S.G.(GH) ping! 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC) No, I am not a sock of Vote (X) for Change. I have been an IP editor for three years now. I'll add the message back and see how it goes. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SPI has been started: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Putting it at its highest, a judge might decide (wrongly in my opinion) that I am a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change, but that isn't relevant, because other editors are only allowed to remove talk page posts of editors who are banned. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, your response falls into the "non-denial denial" category. Your best option would be to go to the SPI and answer the specifics of the complaint, if you have not already done so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The message has been removed a second time. That's why I think a block is appropriate because it prevents the action being repeated. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The user will be alerted to the activity on his talk page, will read your comments, and if he wishes the post to be present, he can restore it himself. This is a non-issue. --erachima talk 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) It's not exactly a non-issue. It's true that a user can manage his own talk page the way he wants. But when another user starts messing around with your talk page on the suspicion that the poster is a sock, then he's crossing the boundary into "nannyism". However, if the posting itself is a violation of the rules (e.g. a personal attack or BLP violation) then theoretically its subject to deletion by anyone. Did the OP's posting violate any rules? Has the IP been demonstrated to be a block-evading sock? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The removed post appears to be some form of WP:SOAPBOXing. Removal of such comments is always a gray area, but it's definitely not actionable. --erachima talk 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC) It's the prerogative of the user himself. Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here. Meanwhile, I agree that 81's bringing this here is excessive and could boomerang, as there appears to be no real justification for blocking Jc3s5h. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Can you explain to me what a "non - denial denial" is? Also the gentleman I wrote to is 91 years old and shouldn't be expected to check his talk page revision history every day. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Something that kind of sounds like a denial but really isn't. See Watergate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC) What does his age have to do with anything? --erachima talk 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC) It does appear that Sam only edits sporadically, and has only about a dozen edits since February. But unless he's asked Jc3s5h to delete "possible" sock entries from his page, Jc3s5h is getting a bit carried away. (Of course, if 81 does prove to be a block evading sock, that will be another story.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC) But isn't it always up to the prosecutor to prove his case? The defendant doesn't have to say anything. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC) At what point did you get the idea that wikipedia is a court of law or is subject to the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC) You don't have to do anything if you don't want to. Wikipedia is not a court, nor a democracy, there is not a legal thing. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC) He soon won't be able to, as SG pointed out that 81 gave the game away in this diff[199] where he identified himself as a sockpuppet (Meletian) of the indef'd user Vote X. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Another term popularized by Watergate was "smoking gun". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Also, this particular IP on 81's subnet just appeared today, after a 4-year silence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Blocked as an obvious and self-admitted sock. London based IP prattling on about esoteric calendaring issues and self-identifiying as a previously blocked sock. Am I missing something? Kuru (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Only maybe the question of whether he has other IP's. But if he does, we can probably expect to hear from them. And if not, everything's peachy. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. No disrespect intended. The office manager wanted to call it a day. When I entered the office the IP was 86.174.115.50, when I left it was 81.159.32.4. In that time nobody came in to tinker with the machine, so the responsibility must lie with the operators of 81's and 86's subnets. Baseball Bugs hits it right on the head when (s)he says Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here.188.220.41.240 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC) The above IP has also been involved in that same calendar dispute. It seems odd that an office would have such a dynamic IP, but maybe it depends on the office. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I'm mystified why Baseball Bugs and Kuru are contemplating closing down entire Internet Service Providers in this country. Given that nobody has ever alleged that my edits are disruptive or illegal I am sure this would result in the ISPs affected making formal complaints to the WMF. After all, if a vandal is using a network there is a mechanism for notifying the operator of same. WMF might then enquire why Chris Bennett has been allowed to vilify me on a daily basis over 2 1/2 years all over WP with no action being taken despite numerous requests - for example "all pretence of reason is cast aside to reveal the pitiful, naked troll beneath" and "thank you for confirming that you are our hydra - headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool". Actually, that's not totally correct - the second comment, after having been removed many times from Talk:Julian calendar has now been locked in. Bennett is "active" on the SPI according to Jc3s5h, who responded to a message with the words "THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST". Slightly higher up this page (at least till last night) was a discussion of a comparatively anodyne personal attack by HalfShadow, which resulted in an immediate indefinite block. This contributor is regularly in trouble, and became known to me when (s)he reverted a correction I made to the SPI and then attempted to get SlimVirgin to censor my contributions. Nobody has queried the content of edits from Vote (X) for Change, which was used for two weeks back in March to promote a particular option in a ballot and then closed down with the "Former Account" template. On these facts, I fail to see how Kuru can conclude "Painfully obvious and self - admitted sock; blocked as such" 80.229.81.66 (talk) Shutting down an entire ISP would simply be an experiment - as wikipedia itself is. It would be interesting to respond to all the complaints with, "It's because of this one guy. Find him and deal with him!" That approach is probably against policy. But it's a good fantasy. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC) To which the reply would likely be "She's not causing any trouble, so leave her alone". Do you realise that the "Former Account" tag which I added means I'm not "Vote (X)" any more? So those tags added to 80.229.81.66, 81.159.32.4 and 188.220.41.240 are incorrect. And a better wording would be "one contributor who harbours a grudge against one of our IP contributors has expressed concern etc. but 74,999 haven't". 78.151.221.225 (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Are you the person who formerly used the "Vote (X) for Change" account? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Why do you ask? Anonymous editing is just that - anonymous. 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Another non-denial denial, so that's a "Yes". Thank you for owning up to being a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC) You're very good at putting words into people's mouths. The woman says I don't know how many times "I am not a sock" and you come back with "self - admitted sock". 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC) About 30 minutes ago, you posted for the 1st time on Wikipedia, knew where the ANI page was, knew how to sign your post. Looks very sockery to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia users, like Facebook users, don't operate in a vacuum. There are other Facebook/Wikipedia users around. 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ed Wood's Wig

Ed Wood's Wig (talk · contribs) has been having problems over at Rasmussen Reports and he appropriately filed a RS/N and a RfC on 4 July to try to deal with it. Ed showed some good initiative and he was off to a fine start. Shortly thereafter, several users asked Ed to rewrite his initial RfC statement for neutrality per the RfC instructions and he refused. On the RS/N, he was asked to cite specific examples per the instructions posted at the top, and he again refused. On the same day, an interested user contacted him on his talk page, and for two weeks, nothing happened. On 18 July, I saw Rasmussen Reports listed at RS/N and I made two brief comments and then contacted Ed Wood's Wig to see if I could be of some assistance. As you can see from the subsequent discussion, Ed wasn't interested in helping resolve the dispute. After this dead end, I began making a series of non-controversial edits to see if I could at least lay a foundation for taking a stab at the problem. I cleaned up some section headings per MOS, removed a dead link, and tagged a reference as needing verification. I also rewrote a tiny bit for clarity, but I did not make any major changes in tone or content other than moving text into more useful sections.[200] Ed, who had refused to work with other editors on either the RS/N, RFC, and with me on his talk page, then waltzed over to the article and reverted the changes I had made and those of User:Kenosis and restored his personal version from 17 July which was complete with bad links, MOS issues, and poor grammar.[201] He was reverted by another user, and then reverted to his personal version yet again.[202] So, to conclude this report, we have a user who refuses to participate in both a RS/N and an RFC he himself filed, refuses to work towards resolution about these issues on either the article talk page or his user page, and who continues to edit disruptively on the article itself. Other eyes on this issue would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correctly stated. Seems there's a POV issue here. The article is far from perfect, even though Viriditas did an excellent job of cleaning uo the article. The Wig has been told numerous times that the article could be balanced better, and has been asked to discuss his concerns, but he simply refuses to. I really would like to AGF but I'm sensing an agenda in the edits the wig makes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera!

Well, this is just a lot of false stuff right here. I rewrote the article back on 1 July. After some edit warring back and forth, I took the discussion to the talk page, beginning here, where I noted which blogs where the problems. People then...asked me what blogs were the problem. When I pointed out the policy, they then told me I was wrong about the policy on blogs, which didn't really make a lot of sense, and I was accused of a "mass deletion" (which one can judge for themselves content-wise here - note that Kenosis thinks that this is "well-sourced"). That was going nowhere, so I opened an RfC regarding the blog sources. While one person did ask me to rewrite the RfC, which I did, it still wasn't enough for some people who felt the issue wasn't about the blog sources. Of course, that's exactly what I was requesting comment on - the use of self-published sources on the article. Kenosis and I eventually had a good conversation and made some headway, which he then abandoned. So I made the changes that he requested, restored the rewritten version with his changes since no one else had commented, edited, or made any note at talk for over a week, and here we are back at square one. Kenosis in particular has not edited the talk page of the article in well over a week, even with multiple requests for him to do so. Veriditas claims I'm not interested in helping resolve the dispute, but I'm more not interested in trying to make the RfC into something its not.

The problem here is simple - we have users who want to restore a version with poor, unreliable sources that have significant undue weight. Does this need administrator intervention? Maybe. I don't know if it will help or hurt the situation, but be sure to do your own research on the issue first before you take the word of Viriditas - or myself, for that matter. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not listen to the repeated requests of multiple editors asking you to fix both the RS/N and the RfC you filed. And, when other users attempt to engage you in discussion, you refuse to address the topic. Instead, we are left with you continuing to edit war, restoring your own personal pet versions of articles that have significant problems. What do you suggest we do about it? From what I can tell there also appears to be some ownership issues. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we solve the content dispute using reliable, not blog, sources. It's all I'm looking for. If you want me to assume good faith, don't give me evidence to the contrary. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no content dispute, and your bad behavior appears to span multiple articles, as I've just discovered. How do you propose we solve your behavioral problems? Do you agree to use the talk page to resolve matters and to stop edit warring with other users? Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough dishonesty. The issue is solely this content dispute. When the people who are causing the problem want to play ball, it will be resolved. Will you help or continue to stand in the way? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please retract your personal attack. There is not now and there never has been a content dispute between you and I. What there is, and there continues to be, is disruptive behavior by you on the talk page and in the article. For just the latest, ongoing examples, see Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#Excessive_tagging. You won't respond to repeated requests for discussion or for explaining your edits, yet you persist. This needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors and administrators who wish to see who has been disruptive and who is not explaining their edits are free to go to the talk page and see for themselves. Here's a hint - it's not the person who started the section on blog sources, nor is it the person who request the RfC. Otherwise, this is a waste of time and space in this forum at this point, although some people want to make it one. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please suggest a solution. Any solution. You are basically saying "there is no problem". Is that accurate? Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Using reliable, accurate sources 2) getting the people who are reverting blindly without regard for quality or discussion to do so. It's all I've looked for from the start. The issue with you and how you talk to other users is a separate issue. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I share your concern about sources, however, this incident report is about your behavior and more specifically, about your inability to respond to multiple discussions about the topic. There are open threads on multiple talk pages where you are having trouble communicating with other editors about your edits. This includes Talk:Rasmussen Reports, Talk:Jane Akre, and the reliable source noticeboard discussion linked above which has probably been superseded by the RFC discussion. The problem here isn't the sources or other editors. It's about your refusal to discuss your edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I never refused to discuss my edits. Be honest - most of the discussion is from me. You can distract from the issue by making it about me if you wish, but my behavior is angry, but not problematic. Your continued condescension toward me, however, must stop. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at your "discussion" on the talk page right now. It's typical battleground evasion tactics. You are repeatedly asked specific questions about your edits but you avoid them, only to return with attacks upon the editors questioning you. My attention was spurred by your answers in the RS/N discussion. I honestly thought you misunderstood what was being asked of you, so I contacted you on your talk page, only to find that you were engaging in deliberate obstructionism. I admit, I was surprised, as I did not expect to find this. Now, as I look at your contributions, the pattern becomes very clear. This has been going on for some time. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is frankly ridiculous. Quite the character assassination you're engaging in - if you think my over the top cooperation with people who are uninterested in discussion or collaboration is "deliberate obstructionism," I don't know what else to say. This is a waste of my time. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not "ridiculous". The obstructionism is a continuing problem. User:Jim62sch, User:Kenosis, and User:The Four Deuces have tried to discuss the topic with you on Talk:Rasmussen Reports and attempted to work with you on the RfC, but it hasn't gotten anywhere due to your obstructionism. User:Drono, User:24.41.28.120, and User:67.163.161.27 were concerned about your "viewpoint advocacy" on Talk:Jane Akre. As for the RS/N discussion, the same thing happened when User:Dlabtot, User:ElKevbo, and User:76.22.25.102 tried to get you to address the topic of reliable sources. More recently, you did the same exact thing with me, when I came to your talk page to ask you about the RfC and when I entered into several talk page discussions. When is the obstructionism going to end? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If engaging these people in discussion is obstruction, then yes, I'm the most obstructionist person here. I don't think the word means what you think it does, though. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're using a different definition of the word "discussion", particularly how it relates to Wikipedia talk pages. We work towards resolution, meaning that our goal is not debate in and of itself, but improving the article. With that said, is there any particular article you are trying to improve at this moment? Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The same article I've been working on for a month against the desires of a few people who refuse discussion. You know this. Stop acting. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is wrong, and you are the only editor who knows the truth. Is this an accurate representation of your view? Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As no one else has presented an argument in favor of their edits, I couldn't say for sure. I know I believe I am speaking the truth. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody "speaks the truth", as the "truth" is not attainable. From what I can tell on the talk page, you are speaking complete nonsense and you are doing it on purpose. For only one of many examples, I recently asked you to verify that a statement appears in a final published report as opposed to a statement that appears in an unpublished version of the report. Another editor checked and said he couldn't find it in the published version or that the data had changed prior to or after publication. You replied with, "The link is above for your perusal".[203] But, clearly, there is no link to the published version I asked for "above for my persual". There is only a link to the unpublished paper that I clearly did not ask for. So, you either don't understand what is being said, or you are being purposefully obstructive as I have claimed. Which is it? Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now, you are lying. That is obstructive. Perhaps purposefully so. I will not engage in this nonsense further if you are not willing to remain honest, period. Make an effort, and then you'll have met me halfway. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you capable of understanding that when two people have different opinions, it does not mean that one of them is lying? From my experience with you, there seems to be either a reading comprehension problem or a deliberate attempt to obstruct multiple discussions. I am not certain which is correct. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations toward me are not ones of opinion, but accusations of things I factually have done that you claim I have not. Now, I am done with this charade. You'll win whatever points you want to win here, and that'll be that. No sweat off my back. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That contradicts what you wrote exactly four minutes later, where you write, "this battle will continue".[204] So, at 01:35 you claim you are "done with this charade", and yet at 01:39 you claim "the battle will continue". Is that a lie or a difference of opinion? Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, he appears to be WP:BOLD. AboundingHinata (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ri) Guys, pick an indent and stick to it...this is very hard to read. OK? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'd not say bold, as "bold" mentions "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems" (emphasis mine). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this user after a lengthy review of their contributions and some of the sources that were being argued over. There's a longer explanation on the user's Talk page, but the short version is that their conduct must improve. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Quest VI board

Resolved

 – Textbook WP:BOOMERANG. -- Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently posted news about dragon quest vi with a source, and just because people dont like me or my entry people are taking it down without justification.

I would like them to stop. and or have my entry locked into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth20k (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:EDITWAR. While you're at it, read WP:BOOMERANG as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR per a certain football player who shall not be named. --Smashville^talk 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Zinedine Zidane? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

*cough cough* I wonder why so many pages link to this redlinked page? And oh my, that's a large and convoluted deletion log. Cough. -- ۩ Mask 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would call it "BLP panic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, was being rhetorical, I took from your Zidane comment in small type (to make it an aside) that you were actually confused by what it references. -- ۩ Mask 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, in fact I was among the first here to start using it. :) But the issue basically is that the guy's in prison and it's not funny anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Still funny. Still apt. In good taste? Debatable, and I suppose they chose to err on the side of caution. -- ۩ Mask 02:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Boomerang" is safer and doesn't have to be explained to most folks. Unless some guy named Walter Perry Boomerang thinks he's being maligned and sues us. Well, ya takes yer chances. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Only 24 hours for that? That user has had an extensive history of edit warring on multiple video game articles. IMO it should have been a longer block. –MuZemike 22:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But oddly no block history. Granted...if he comes out of the block and goes right back to edit warring, I'll knock him with a longer one, since based on his comments while blocked, he doesn't appear to want to get it. --Smashville^talk 21:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Black-magic1234

Resolved

 – Nothing to look at here.

My old account blackmagic1234 before I had a identity change got hit by my ex friend a few days ago

(cur | prev) 21:51, 15 July 2010 Higgys1987 (talk | contribs) (empty) (Removed template) (undo)

(cur | prev) 09:52, 2 April 2010 Blackmagic1234 (talk | contribs) (11 bytes) (←Created page with '{retired}')

And I figure my ex friend would deny this and say a friend did it and all that other bla bla stuff.

But I figure 142.162.21.46 would be a match to that account that edited my old account.

I'm only saying.. anyways bye

--Moukity (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The account in question has made exccatly 2 edits, to blackmagic1234's user and talk page. They haven't done anything since. There's really nothing for an administrator to do here. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jaimalleshk - Threat of Legal Action against Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Jaimalleshk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to proposed action of changing the name of article Sri Sri Ravi Shankar the editor posted a legal threat against Wikipedia. See edit [205]. ttonyb (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have imposed an indefinite block. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

He might be socking with 59.92.176.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – diff. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment by IPs

In the period December 2007 to March 2008 there was a user who added and reinstated original research to the Games Workshop article after it was duely removed. They then objected to this removal on two occassions and claimed I was involved in "abuse of admin power" (approximately 9 months before I was nominated at RFA), that I was alone in objecting to the materials inclusion and then proceeded to personally attack me. For clarity I made one serious edit to that article in December 2007[206] and none since (excepting 2 minor and obvious vandal reverts[207][208]) The user in question was RichSatan [209][210]. They were blocked as a sockpuppeteer following this RFCU in 2008[211].

Following this block an IP user claiming NOT to be RichSatan continued the same arguments on Talk:Games Workshop in March 2008[212]. I opened an ANI thread then in March 2008 which resulted in the IPs being blocked[213]. However they returned again in July 2008.[214][215]

And to reiterate I had not edited that article in any serious way since December 2007. Also a consensus on the talk page rejected the material[216] in the Winter of 2007 and again in March 2008.

This month another 2 IPs User:82.152.164.81 and User:82.152.165.79 popped up claiming not to be RichSatan making the exact same claims.[217][218][219][220]

I tagged these 2 new users as a suspected RichSatan socks and after 2 days User:MuZemike dropped me a message saying: "I just had the person behind the IP right now talk to me on IRC saying that he/she is not RichSatan. I strongly recommend that if you wish to further pursue this that you start an WP:SPI case and allow the accused IP to presume his/her innocence." Now let me preface this by saying MuZemike did the right thing but as I understood it this case is closed - RichSatan is a confirmed sock-puppeteer and these IPs are replicating the same behaviour.

82.152.165.79 dropped a note on my talk page claiming I vandalized the Games Workshop page by removing the material.[221] That they never had contact with Wikipedia admins before and that they were not RichSatan ("I am not RichStan [...] Prior to this conversation I had no idea what an "ANi" was, since I've never had any previous contact with Wikipedia's administrators.") As I understand it they are claiming not only that they are not RichSatan, but also, not the user who was involved at ANi in March 2008.

Now, if this not RichSatan I'm happy to remove the tags - but these IPs are behaving in the exact same manner and seem to be restricting their onsite involvement to this single purpose. Other than claim I made an improper edit and make attacks on me these IPs have made very few other edits to WP.

It appears this user/these users has/have a vendetta against me but since my judgement here has apparently been questioned I'm submitting this to ANI for outside review. Any help would be appreciated. And as normal I submit my own behaviour and action to the scrutiny of my peers--Cailil ^talk 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For ease of viewing I'm presenting previous behaviour by other IPs whom this new user claims not to be:

IPs March 2008

• [222] by 91.84.95.68
• [223] by 82.152.179.208
• [224] by 82.152.177.104
• [225][226] by 82.153.198.246
• [227] by 82.152.178.70

Current IPs

• [228] by 82.152.164.81
• [229][230][231] by 82.152.165.79

Also if you read through the old ANi thread you will see that person using IPs 91.84.95.68 and 82.152.176.98 denies being RichSatan in the same manner[232] that the new user 82.152.165.79 does. Also it's worth noting that on the post to talk page they claim to be "This is (one of) the users" I have accused of being RichSatan (therefore saying 82.152.165.79 and 82.152.164.81 are different people involved in the same discussion, making the same points, and also sharing the same IP range)--Cailil ^talk 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, look, this is getting silly. Here's the facts: some (possibly all or maybe just a couple, I haven't checked) of the IPs in question are assigned by Eclipse Internet in Exeter. This is a reasonably popular UK ISP and it is, according to them, feasible for large blocks of their users to be assigned any of a fairly wide range of addresses any time they connect. Cailil's assumption that anyone using an IP in their range is the same person is just simply wrong from a network technology standpoint, quite apart from anything else. I have edited dozens of articles on wikipedia (most recently SMPTE Timecode and Betacam because it reflects what I do for a living) and the fact that Cailil seems to be blisfully unaware of this puts another hole in his argument.

For the record, despite Cailil's stating that I or other people am claiming various things, all I can tell you is that I have never held the user ID "Richsatan" and that there is at least one other person, presumably an Eclipse client, involved in this discussion.

I should point out that I have had absolutely no involvement with either the Games Workshop article or Cailil (or any wikipedia administrator) before my talk page comment beginning "Further to the above...". I was drawn to visit the page upon receiving a message indicating that I was suspected of being a clone of a user called Richsatan. Looking into this led me to the Games Workshop article and Cailil's involvement. For what it's worth I tend to agree with the criticism of Cailil's content position as some of the material he or she is campaigning against was entirely well sourced and properly written, but that no longer seems to be at the core of this matter. This now seems to be more about Cailil running around bashing Eclipse users and I think it is clear he (she?) has broken some rules. I certainly feel unduly attacked.

I think it's obvious that this has created an entirely circular situation whereby Eclipse users receive rude messages from Cailil about being Richsatan "sockpuppets" and are drawn into the argument. Please, someone, think of the children! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.165.79 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the immediately preceding IP address with RIPE. It is indeed as claimed part of a DHCP block for an ISP's customers, as indeed are the whole of 82.152.164.0/22 and the whole of 82.152.176.0/22. This should help in the future. Feel free to mark the other IP address talk pages above that are in those ranges in the same way, and check further addresses with RIPE. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G. I need to address some of the very interesting remarks made by the person using IP 82.152.165.79. They do in fact claim not be the same person as the user who made the same (verbatim) points at Talk:games Workshop and on ANI in March 2008. Interesting that user also claimed to be new to wikipedia then but in fact these IP users pre-date RichSatan as illustrated at the RFCU and the previous ANI. Also it's worth remarking this IP and that IP in March 2008 made their first posts criticizing me for the December 2007 deletion and claiming to be a new independent user. I'm going to drop a note to the other users who had experience of this case in 2008 and will present further diffs for examination shortly. I want to address the behavioural issues here (primarily an IP or group of IPs harrassing a user about an edit made over 30 months ago on a page they haven't editted since then)--Cailil ^talk 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So hang on, we have an independent third party telling you what's going on technically, and you're still desperately trying to sling mud? Of course everyone is making the same complaints about you, you're doing exactly the same thing to all comers. This "harrassment" line is preposterous to the point of absolute laughability; before this time yesterday I'd never heard of anyone called Cailil, yet now I'm harrassing you? You came to me, if you recall!
I think my response to this has been absolutely impeccable in the face of the most outrageous arrogance and discourtesy (and so, as far as I can tell has that of several other people, if they're to be taken at face value). If I cared this much about the Games Workshop article, really, I would have edited it.
I really have run out of things to say on this topic. As I understand it the same technological issues that created this situation also make it impossible for Cailil to censure me personally, at least with any reliability, so really this is all just hot air in any case. As such all I'll say is this: I don't know what the procedure is for complaining about an administrator, but I get any more unpleasant messages, I will do my best to find out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.72.1 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2010

Thre is the problem with your remark that "before this time yesterday I'd never heard of anyone called Cailil, yet now I'm harrassing you? You came to me, if you recall!". You see I tagged Ip 82.152.164.81 on the 11th of July 2010[233], one week after it made this post to Talk:Games Workshop[234]. That July 4th post mentions me by name. Then on the 15 July 2010 at 14:10 (UTC) after the IP 82.152.165.79 replied to a different IP user (who IS a different user the IP is in a totally separate range and location) who responded to the comment by 82.152.164.81. Now MuZemike was contacted by 82.152.165.79 on July 16th. The above posted was made on July 19th by user who was using 82.152.165.79. So it is fair to say you've been involved in this, making comments about me since July 4th not July 18th. Remember we have experience of dealing with anon editors here on WP and we have public records.
Also THIS is the venue to complain about administrators but I caution you I wasn't an admin when I made those edits and I have not used admin privelages in any contact with you but feel free to ask for outside input--Cailil ^talk 16:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read the post by "Uncle G" above but does explain how random assignment of IPs works. In case you haven't, I'll make it clear: an IP address does not uniquely identify a computer (even if a computer uniquely identified a person, which isn't a factor in my case but could be in others). If you are using, for instance, an ADSL modem, every time you connect that modem to an exchange it will (or may, or probably will) be given a different IP address. Sometimes this happens to me even when I don't explicitly ask it to. This is all entirely normal. I'm not sure I quite follow the chain of events that you describe above because I'm not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia's administrative process, but in light of this I think it's more than adequately explained. The only comment I wrote on the Games Workshop talk page is the one beginning "Further to..."

You don't know what you're talking about, and you're making serious mistakes. I don't know you, I have never heard of you, and yet you are going out of your way to wind me up. Do you not see how this causes a problem? Do you not understand the potential negative impact of accusing effectively random people of things they clearly and obviously didn't do?

But at the end of the day I can't stop you doing what you're doing, and you can't stop me doing what I'm doing. Let's get a disinterested administrator involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.168 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not "trying to wind you up" - I am trying to sort out a serious problem. Wikipedia prohibits the kind of personal remarks made by these IPs on talk pages and I am wholly within my rights to pursue this.
Also I do understand the situation with IPs and have dealt with far more complex ones than this. The shifting of IP address is precisely my point. There is only one constant in this situation - users from your IP range harassing me about an edit I made in December 2007, and then claiming to never have used wikipedia before and to have never edited Talk:Games Workshop before. What the diffs show is the same behaviour, the same area of interest, the same attacks on me, the same single point of content and the same IP range. Now I've posted this here for outside input but if none comes I'll bring this straight to SSPI--Cailil ^talk 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also to clarify something it may not be YOU, the person who has just written here, that is the person replicating RichSatan's behaviour but somebody using the same IPs range is. The best course of practice for YOU to avoid being confused with a sock-puppeteer is register an account with wikipedia. This would stop you from getting messages left on IP accounts meant for other users. Also it would be good for you to acquaint yourself with our policies on civility and talk page usage and also the three core pirnicples of Wikipedia, WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR--Cailil ^talk 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So... either Cailil is dealing with one or two editors who are abusing an ISP that allocates random IPs, in order to attempt to create a false consensus, or every user of that ISP who has been tagged or contacted by Cailil feels so strongly that Cailil's position in the content dispute is wrong that they just have to join the discussion. I think it's safe to say that, if Cailil is really wrong on this issue, established editors with account names, and/or IP editors using different ISPs, will step forward and say so. In fact, that's pretty much the basis of our dispute resolution guidelines - getting more opinions from a wider user base in order to more clearly establish consensus - so this issue shouldn't be too difficult to resolve. I'll be adding Games Workshop to my watchlist, and I'll be happy to help arbitrate any disputes that arise there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SheffieldSteel. That's good enough for me. As regards the page I (to labour a point) haven't edited since December 2007 (and have no plans to edit it any tiem soon), also a consensus was formed there on the talk page not to re-include the section as it was OR in March 2008. Really it's just a case of these Eclipse IPs using that page to attack me about a LONG dead issue. That said I'd consider this thread resolved now that there are extra eyes on it--Cailil ^talk 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stepping in on this, I was asked a couple years ago to look over the GW article (you can find my thoughts in the archive). I have to agree with SheffieldSteel, that while we cannot be 100% sure that this is a returning user trying to re-litigate a fight over and over again, it certainly is suggestive and worth monitoring. SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've long since lost interest in this as it seems it was never actually aimed at me personally in the first place, but I have to point out: "There is only one constant in this situation - users from your IP range harassing me about an edit I made in December 2007". Well, yes, Cailil, of course we're all from the same IP range, because you have specifically gone out of your way to contact people using this IP range. I hate to point out the blazingly obvious but this is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy, and as such you would do well to take a much more cautious tone when talking to people in situations like this. In any case, has anyone actually looked at the Games Workshop article recently? There's far less well-cited critical stuff in there than there ever was involved in the 2007 edit war, which makes this whole conversation seem slightly ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.119.63 (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct by JRHammond

Resolved

 – Already warned by admin Mauler90 _talk 02:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

After being blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, JRHammond (talk · contribs) calls the blocking admin "ignorant, lazy and dishonest" and further states "you'll never admit your incompetence." [235] There should be zero tolerance for this behavior on any forum.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User notified[236]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that falls under the "ignorable venting after block" category. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Striking the above -- it wasn't clear that this was after the block expired. Still not actionable, imho, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone ignorant, lazy, dishonest and incompetent constitute vile personal attacks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure User:Enigmaman is a big boy and can deal with being insulted without you running to ANI for him. In fact, he already did.--Atlan (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good response, concise and unyielding yet leaves little scope for retort or escalation. I approve. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why I try to block people for edit warring rather than breaking 3RR. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Not a big deal. I've been called far worse. However, there does reach a point when my patience is exhausted, and if he does continue edit-warring and name-calling after the warnings, I will block him again. Enigma^msg 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Louise Porter

Resolved

 – Article has been properly deleted. LK (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion as its original title Dr Louise Porter and the result was delete (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Louise Porter). However in the process someone changed its name to Louise Porter so it wasn't deleted properly. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, but I think you could have just informed User:Cirt, the closing admin. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. Thanks though. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I had half a mind to just post a message on his talk page starting with "You dun goofed". ;) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, Template:Db-xfd can be used to reach the same result without an ANI discussion, as G6 applies if an admin (and only an admin; no non-admin closures) closes an XfD as delete but somehow doesn't delete the page. In this case, the common script used for closing AfD's isn't smart enough to follow redirects, so if the admin doesn't notice the page has moved, s/he will delete the redirect dropped after the move without any indication the actual page is still there. Courcelles (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Penalty shootout (football) unilateral move

Wrong venue. Please move to the article's talk page or to WP:RM. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to draw the attention of the above page to this noticeboard as it has been unilaterally moved by an Adminstartor after being stable for well over two years. If there was an apetitie to change the name again then I believe that there should be a discussion again. While I agree the original user acted unilaterally that was well over two years ago. Can the page please be moved back over the redircts to the original pages and allow for a discussion to take place which can then have a change of title if desired. If this is not reverted it will aloow admins carteblanche to do what they like to stable articles without any oversight. There are also now a large volume of reditects to correct due to this unilateral move of the page, which are unecessary and only due to the selfish actions of one administrator. if the Admin had come along two years ago or someone else had noticed two years ago then fine, but no one said a word so the original user in effect got away with it, but just becasue one user did so two years ago dosent mean another user and specifcally not an admin should be getting away with it.--Somali123 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To request a page move, you should go to WP:RM. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have bough it here to complain about the nature of the admin who moved the page please can you comment on the substance of what i have written above and not just the move request.--Somali123 (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

The complaint would seem to relate to this move [237]. Exxolon (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified User:Jan Hofmann about this discussion, assuming this is the issue being brought up. Exxolon (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I can only assume the user moved the page over preious redirects because they preferred the title

It seems like an uncontroversial move, so it can be done prior to discussion. The page was moved almost a month ago by User:Jan Hofmann, who is not an administrator, so you're both wrong and really late to the party. Characterizing the move as "selfish" is really unnecessary and I see no indication that this was indeed a selfish act besides it being a unilateral one.--Atlan (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I also ask how a non admin moved pages over redirects then as I was under the impression only admins could do that. Also so what if it is nearly a month it is not the two years the preious title was maintained for after it was changed. That two year peropd appears to make that title alot more stable than this one.--Somali123 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-admins being able to move over redirects is now stupid as it allows for a whole can of worms to be created which is messy and resultant in discussions like this.--Somali123 (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Article history relating to this. Created in March 2004 under title Penalty shootout (football). Moved April 2008 to Penalty shootout (association football). Moved back in June 2010 to Penalty shootout (football). Talk:Penalty_shootout_(football)#Requested_move back in 2008 does not seem to support the original 2008 move. So it can be argued Jan Hofmann undid an against consensus move, albeit over 2 years after the event. Exxolon (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is because for over two years no one says a word about the title and then along comes this user and just moves it. At least the first user attempted some form of discussion, even if they did ignore it. This user was purly selfish and unilateral.--Somali123 (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can you stop calling the user "selfish" until they've had a chance to see this discussion and comment. As our No Personal Attacks policy states, "Comment on the content, not the contributor" - we don't know Jan's motives for this move, let's wait and see what he/she says. Calm down - this is not a big deal. Exxolon (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pages can only be moved over redirects if the redirect has exactly one revision and currently points to the page that is being moved over it. This is deliberate and helps to ensure that mistaken page moves can be corrected without fuss. As for the move in question, there's nothing wrong with it: Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) incorrectly moved the page despite there being no consensus to do that, and whether this was reverted two minutes or two years after the fact doesn't really matter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree and think this thread should be closed. If you disagree with another user, Somali, you should discuss with them, first. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for another user could take months at least here i got a quick discussion going.--Somali123 (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This summarizes my reasons for the move. It was hardly controversial and if you wish to have it moved to association football you should request a new poll in order to see whether the consensus has changed... I have nothing further to add. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jan's editing seems extremely sporadic so they are unlikely to see this. (No edits since the June 23rd ones including this move and the previous were in March). Suggest we close this as a justified move as the original move was against concensus. Somali123 should start a new discussion on the talkpage or at requested moves about moving it to Penalty shootout (association football) again. Personally I would suggest Penalty shootout (soccer) - avoids all problems about which type of football the article relates to. Exxolon (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They'll never agree to that here in Europe. I'm too lazy to find a place where this was discussed, but there's probably consensus or a style guide somewhere that says we should use "association football" when referring to soccer. If true, the article should probably be moved back to conform to that consensus, but I have no preference either way, or a desire to look into this any further.--Atlan (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We've pretty strong consensus now that for articles about footy which aren't explicitly "soccerish" the term "association football" should be used if there's ambiguity in the title, but that's not the case here as penalty shootouts aren't a feature of other football codes. It's fine where it is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, rugby union (a code of football) recently adopted a form of penalty shootout as a method of deciding ties in the Heineken Cup, but since someone looking for the rugby union penalty shootout would more likely search for "penalty shootout (rugby)" or "penalty shootout (rugby union)", I agree with Chris that the article should stay where it is. – PeeJay 14:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

This user has twice removed AFD templates from the article List of wars between democracies The first removal was here [238] with the edit summary two more references which i reverted to restore the template with the edit summary rv please do not remove AFD tags. The second was [239] here with the edit summary revert persistent vandalism which i have now reverted to restore the template. Could someone please tell this user not to remove AFD tags, and not to call people vandels mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given this edit, the AfD template appears to have been an accidental casualty of Pmanderson's reversion of content blanking. --erachima talk 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not content blanking, just editing. Once may be an accident, he did it twice. And there is noway he could have missed my edit summary mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How would it be an accidental casualty of that? The template was not added in that edit, an undo would not remove the template. But fine, if Pmanderson says it was an accident... --OpenFuture (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he restored it himself, after restoring his edits[240], so not sure it was done on purpose (though his edit summary calling your revert vandalism does not appear to be extending good faith). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the definition, blanking referenced content without an explanation or obviously identifiable reason is a form of vandalism. Edits should not be referred to as vandalism in content disputes, however, and calling established editors vandals is a bad idea in general. --erachima talk 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the validity of the sources cited in the content you removed, Mark, you are either vandalizing the page by blanking referenced content or this is an edit war. In the latter case, ANI will not endorse a side in this edit war due to an accidental template removal, and it will certainly not censure a user for reverting vandalism if it is the former. --erachima talk 21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a content dispute (when is`nt there) The removal of content was due to OR and Synth issues. But that is an aside, he has removed the tag twice, once may be a mistake, but twice? mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, twice. Pmanderson understands the deletion process, claiming he would intentionally remove AfD tags is simply absurd. --erachima talk 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

An accident, now fixed, while restoring mark nutley's persistent blanking of sourced material.

Blankings from July 14:

• 21:17 14 July,
• 21:19,
• 21:21,
• 21:36

At this point the page was protected. Mark Nutley then put the article up for AfD; he has a somewhat idiosyncratic understanding of the subject: Greeks had no democracys [sic] and that the United States had no elections before 1789. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I had already reverted you to restore the tag, what you actually did was insert disputed text under the guise of restoring the AFD template. Content issues aside as this is not the place, why did you do it twice? mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And you were removing disputed text under the guise of restoring the AfD template. --erachima talk 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And this means what exactly? mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It means you need to stop edit warring, and stop making frivolous ANI reports. --erachima talk 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• 09:28 17 July
• 12;27
• 12:29
• 12:30
• 21:11

The first and the last use twinkle. Will someone have a word with this user, or shall I go on the Twinkle page? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with comparing versions and restoring a previous one? mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is when you do so in place of discussion. --erachima talk 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been discussing it, it is difficult to discuss with an editor who does not respond [241] And i refute your allegation that i am edit warring mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson appears to have made a full dozen posts in the topic you linked, hardly unresponsive of him. And no you don't. Refutation implies making an argument, you've just made an assertion. --erachima talk 22:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes while the page was protected, as soon as it was lifted he stops talking and reinserts disputed content as i obvious from the fact he has not responded in there, why not just mark this as resolved. I can`t be bothered to argue with you over it anymore mark nutley (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Pmandersons talk about "blanking" is not in accordance with the facts, and neither his statement that his text is "sourced". Just FYI. What is happening here is removal of POV statements that is not supported by the sources given. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in accordance with the facts? The diffs are above; all of them show blankings of sourced assertions. While there have been some other edits by these editors, the only other effect they have had is to replace the AFD coupled with a massive blanking reversion (the first of mark nutley's edits on the 17th).

But unsourced claims seem to be their stock in trade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again: The sources do not support the assertions, so many, if not most of the assertions that Pmanderson claims have been "blanked" are not in actual fact sourced at all. Pmanderson knows this. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a deliberate lie. But at this point we diverge into OpenFuture's preferences on content, which depend upon his choosing to read the sources in ways he has invented, and which are contrary to the readings of other reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with preference, and Pmanderson knows this. His sources does frequently not support the assertions he adds. Which he also knows. This is exacerbated by his constant personal attacks making constructive discussion impossible, which undoubtedly is the intention. The "ways I have invented" are called following WP:SYN and WP:OR nothing else. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, based on a single verbal quibble: that Dean Babst, the founder of democratic peace theory, writing his papers before there was any literature on the subject, chose to call his subject matter freely elective governments (he has an extensive definition of them including secret ballot and civil liberties); AFAICS, every source that discusses these papers describes them as making assertions about democracy.

It is not germane here; it is not involved in most of the blankings listed above; and it is based on Open Future's own Original Research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This *is* involved in the edits above. Why Pmanderson is wrong here has been explained multiple times on the talk page. The problem is that he refuses to accept or even discuss it and instead engages in personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• A "deliberate lie" as opposed to an accidental lie? This is the inflammatory approach that is unlikely to settle things down at the article. Soon there will need to be a named archive at ANI for Pmanderson sections.Tony (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly; and what happened to my previous post indicating Pmanderson's proclivity for accusing others of lying?  HWV258.  10:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I thought AfD tags could only be removed by admins. Is PMA an admin? If so, then he is an involved admin so far as these articles. In which case, isn’t he supposed to get an uninvolved admin to remove the tags? Greg L (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, Pmanderson apparently deleted the tags by accident when reverting, and later restored them. So, this point is moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Дунгане and questionable edits

I reverted User:Дунгане's edits to Second Sino-Japanese War entirely, as I couldn't tell if there were any good ones mixed in with the bad ones. User:Дунгане added a doctored photo which had been removed as it is a phony. User:Дунгане regularly accuses other longterm editors of vandalism. User:Дунгане removes citations; all of which makes User:Дунгане's edits look very suspicious. I notified this user, instead of modifying their behavior, they continue to cry "vandalism" and accuse me of bias on my talkpage. I request an admin to have a look.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Diffs would probable ensure a faster response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and if in five years I could have figured that diff coding mess out, I would have included them. As I am not a tech guy, I left them out.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As to the photo, did you mean File:Japanese soldiers pow.jpg? If so, I think it's prudent to wait on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese soldiers pow.jpg before making accusations that's forged especially since Дунгане doesn't seem to have anything to do with that image and especially when your explanation is just "clearly doctored" without anything more specific. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only one to have removed it as doctored (another editor just eloquently answered that one on my talkpage), just the most recent. User:Дунгане does have something to do with that image, especially as repeatedly putting it back.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw this discussion, and since I deal with digital images 10 hours a day as a professional, my interest was piqued. I looked at the image, and offered the opinion Chris referred to above, on his talk page. I've also commented in the deletion thread at commons as a result of that. I hold no opinion on the rest of this.  Begoon^talk 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Its awfully strange on how i only put the image back on the article ONCE and Kintetsbuffalo claims i "repeatedly" put it back.

Equally strange is how he calls anonymous ip addreses "Long term aditors". i remove citations because the information that was used had NOTHING to do with the specific citations that were used.

I have nothing to do with the making of the photo, the reason i put it back was because i suspected that Kintetsbuffalo, as a self professed japanophile, was trying to tilt the article toward a Pro japanese POV, and there was absolutely no concensus from other editors on removing the photo. He just took it upon himself to do it.Дунгане (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if you don't stop the name-calling right now, I'm blocking you. Read WP:CIVIL and knock off the commentary here. Ignoring the picture, there's some questionable stuff here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting on editors to actually provide diffs. Personally, I'm not in the mood to look over the edit war and see who was the first to be disruptive. Chris, if you make accusations, it would be nice for you to provide the evidence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The source he used is questionable. Here is the website he used to provide the KIA numbers-San.beck.orgIt says "Dear President Obama,

Please stop killing people and get US out of Afghanistan now! Negotiate disarmament and reduce military spending to eliminate the deficit."

I seriously doubt that this can be classified as a reliable source. I have provided my own source for casualty numbers.Дунгане (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So? Dispute the source following dispute resolution including WP:RSN if you want. That doesn't allow you to name-call. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

About the alleged long term editors, the guy who removed the doctored photo here [242] had only ten edits and has edited for only two months

The guy who added the KIA numbers fro the san beck website here [243] was an anonymous ip addrese

Kintetsbuffalo claims that these two were long term editors....Дунгане (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is a disaster. Has there been any indication anyone has supported his arguments in this thread? Do you think anyone will care about whether those two were "long-term" editors or not? Will you acknowledge the name-calling is inappropriate? If the photo was doctored, do you support its removal (regardless of who removes it)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that name calling is innapropiate. The reason i pointed out that they were not longterm editors, was beucase Kintetsbuffalo either lied, or he didnt even bother to check out the edit history before making accusations against me, which shows lack of credibility on his part. I support the removal if consensus is reached by different editors.Дунгане (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Im fixing the article to add both the Chinese and Japanese estimate for casualties, and note that they were respectively "claimed" by both parties, meanwhile, im leaving the western estimate, 1.1 million dead, as the neutral claim.

As for the photo, i really don't care about it.Дунгане (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't pick and choose which claim is "neutral" and only include that. If there are differing claims (by reliable sources), then the range should be listed with the different ones in detail explained (i.e. Biographer BLAH says this, biographer BLAH2 says that) [and we can avoid labeling people purely on their nationality]. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ricky, as I said, if I could figure out how to do diffs, which I can't, I would be happy to provide them. Best I can do is copy-paste the history, and bold my points:

1. (cur | prev) 13:43, July 16, 2010 Дунгане (talk | contribs) (99,080 bytes) (Undid revision 373220971 by Sinophile21992 (talk) reverting vandalism and unexplained deletion) (undo) (Chris' comment: it was in fact an explained deletion, which led me to nom the photo at Commons after seeing for myself.)
2. (cur | prev) 04:00, July 13, 2010 Sinophile21992 (talk | contribs) (99,083 bytes) (→End of Pacific War and surrender of Japanese troops in China: This is a doctored photo.) (undo)

1. (cur | prev) 05:28, July 17, 2010 Kintetsubuffalo (talk | contribs) m (99,083 bytes) (Reverted edits by Дунгане (talk) to last version by Sinophile21992) (undo) (Chris' comment: this is where I stepped in. Users who consistently cry "vandalism" set my bells-and-whistles off, and I am right more often than not.)
2. (cur | prev) 13:49, July 16, 2010 Дунгане (talk | contribs) (99,009 bytes) (→Japanese casualties: changing section to what it was like before a pro japanese editor vandalized it, using a source that doesn't even support what he said!) (undo)

The other things I reverted en masse were, as I said above, nothing to do with the source validity or lack thereof, but that User:Дунгане consistently mixes good edits in with the bad ones, and regularly accuses other editors of vandalism smacks of POV. If a "Sinophile" is a vandal, and a self-proclaimed "Japanophile" (me, also a five-year editor and not blind to the facts) is a vandal, it would seem we are all vandals if we don't want to sift through Дунгане's piles of edits for the small truths mixed therein. That's my single edit to the article for a month, and for it I got http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKintetsubuffalo&action=historysubmit&diff=374344817&oldid=374339234 dripping with POV, paranoia and venom, that's why I brought this here.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry about the odd placement, I was replying to the thread by Ricky81682 only, others were editing at the same time it seems)--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In order. Regarding 1, I don't think this is really explanatory but again, you need to assume good faith. Editors normally don't randomly remove images saying they're doctored and never edit again. That's just strange on its face. However, I don't see any suggestion that he knew that it was doctored and even after you've listed the image for deletion, it's still being currently used on a number of other pages. Is every editor who inserted it guilty of vandalism? As to 2, it's inappropriate and as I noted above, more name-calling will result in blocks. I've put a clear warning on his page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason i sent Kintetsubuffalo that message was because he flat out lied to my face on my talk page [244], claiming the anon ip and the editor with ten edits were "long term" editors. and He blamed me for for "removing citations".

THe citations he was talking about was san.beck.org, which was an unreliable source. i saw it as such, and sought to remove it was restore the article as to it was before the anon ip added san beck.

but kintetsbuffalo, instead of looking for the edit history, and actually looking at the san.beck source, fibbed and tries to make it seem as though i was removing a reliable source contributed by a "long term" editor.Дунгане (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, I don't care about who's right. You need to respond with remaining civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsbuffalo, show me my "bad edits"? All i did was remove the unreliable source san.beck.org and try to restore it to the previous version, and remove the photo because no concensus was reached, but you use the confusion over the removal of the photo and my edit summaries to try to make it seem as though the content of my edits were bad.Дунгане (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it is possible for an IP editor to be a "long term editor." Not all IPs are shared, some are fixed to a specific person's computer. Trying to harp on this point isn't going to help. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

THe point is that the Ip editor messed up the article by adding an unreliable source, which i removed, but which kintetsubuffalo put back.

And the point to that point, is that Kintetsubaffulo has absolutely no proof that i added vandalism or "Bad edits" to the article, which is why he cant pick out exact edits of mine from the edit summary, not because he cant (somehow i was able to go back into the history past several months and pick out the anon ips edits, but kintetsubuffalo claims that he is unable to look into my 4 edits before he reverted them)

Its quite strange, since the ip's edits whom i reverted called kintetsubuffalo an "idiot" on his talk page [245] that kintetsubaffolo feels the need to defend him.Дунгане (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

and i want to clarify that the anon ip called him an idiot, not me.Дунгане (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Waterflame96 and CopyVio

This newer editor, Waterflame96 (talk · contribs) appears to have some serious issues with creating articles that violate WP:COPYVIO and adding copyrighted material to other articles, primarily revolving around Jennifer Love Hewitt's roles in films and Ghost Whisperer. I noticed him through his twice created The Client List article after he accidentally wrote it first at Category 7: The End of the World[246] that contained copyrighted material. His talk page is full of warnings, including automated, templates, and personal, asking him to cease his copyright violations, which he has primarily ignored, or dealt with by removing Coren notices[247] or logging out and using an IP to make minor modifications to remove the templates. His episode articles for Ghost Whisperer are clear copyvios combining plots taken from other sites such as SpreadIT.Org, IMDB, TV.com, CBS, blogs, etc[248][249][250][251][252][253] As editor continues to ignore all warnings and is consistently and blatantly violating basic copyright laws, it seems prudent to get some administration intervention at this point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While I was writing the report, he is now claiming he wrote it all[254] despite clear evidence to the contrary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right on the copyvio. The Client List could be salvaged as an article. Waterflame96 is a newbie that can contribute if he/she learns the rules. Waterflame96, listen and read WP:CITE, WP:RS, etc. Please comment here and let us know your questions about what is appropriate. RJ (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the film itself appears to be notable, but almost think it would be better to delete again just to remove the taint of the copyvio's from it, and let it be recreated by an editor who will properly do so without the issues. As it is now, on the article's talk page, Waterflame seems to be trying to justify his actions or brush them aside. I have advised him to respond here to the overall issue instead of focusing on this one article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As a note, a non-admin (and inexperienced though longer time editor) removed the CSD for copyright infringing, despite it being a word-for-word lifting from TV By the Numbers. I have since reworked the article completely to remove all remaining copyvio, clean up the creators bad use of HTML coding, etc. However, this does not solve the far bigger issue as this is not the first nor second time this particular editor has done this, and he has thus far continued to disregard all warnings and attempts to help him see the problem with what he is doing. I have again reminded him of this discussion and left him the "laws" welcome. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 07:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've explained that he really has to communicate and that he needs to respond here. And that I will, if he doesn't respond, reluctantly block him. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am waterflame96, I just found this, so I'm sorry I didn't respond untill now. Particulary for The Client List - at first I copied the plot from the official site, but then when it got deleted I created it again and corrected the problem by writing my own plot. Then the source for the ratings - I knew it was unreliable but it was the only source at that time and I did not copy directy, I perifrased most of it.
About Ghost Whisperer episodes - yes, for some of them I did copy some parts of the plot, other parts I've written myself and now I realize my mistake and I will make sure I correct all of the articles. Patriculary for the series finale I want to note that there's nothing wrong in the article, I wrote the summary myself.
So, in conclusion, I am apologizing for copying some plots for Ghot Whisperer and The Client List. I have corrected the problem with The Client List and I will make sure that the plots for some Ghost Whisperer episodes are going to be re-wrtitten soon. 79.100.138.158 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting posts from other users' talk pages

Resolved

 – WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Meletian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.159.32.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jc3s5h has just wiped a message I posted to User talk:Samhastings. He has been warned about this before: [255]. Can someone block him so that he knows not to do it again? 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. Blocking shouldn't be necessary here IMO. Connormah^talk 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Vote (X) for Change. I have been an IP editor for three years now. I'll add the message back and see how it goes. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been started: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting it at its highest, a judge might decide (wrongly in my opinion) that I am a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change, but that isn't relevant, because other editors are only allowed to remove talk page posts of editors who are banned. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your response falls into the "non-denial denial" category. Your best option would be to go to the SPI and answer the specifics of the complaint, if you have not already done so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The message has been removed a second time. That's why I think a block is appropriate because it prevents the action being repeated. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The user will be alerted to the activity on his talk page, will read your comments, and if he wishes the post to be present, he can restore it himself. This is a non-issue. --erachima talk 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly a non-issue. It's true that a user can manage his own talk page the way he wants. But when another user starts messing around with your talk page on the suspicion that the poster is a sock, then he's crossing the boundary into "nannyism". However, if the posting itself is a violation of the rules (e.g. a personal attack or BLP violation) then theoretically its subject to deletion by anyone. Did the OP's posting violate any rules? Has the IP been demonstrated to be a block-evading sock? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The removed post appears to be some form of WP:SOAPBOXing. Removal of such comments is always a gray area, but it's definitely not actionable. --erachima talk 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the prerogative of the user himself. Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here. Meanwhile, I agree that 81's bringing this here is excessive and could boomerang, as there appears to be no real justification for blocking Jc3s5h. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what a "non - denial denial" is? Also the gentleman I wrote to is 91 years old and shouldn't be expected to check his talk page revision history every day. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Something that kind of sounds like a denial but really isn't. See Watergate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What does his age have to do with anything? --erachima talk 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that Sam only edits sporadically, and has only about a dozen edits since February. But unless he's asked Jc3s5h to delete "possible" sock entries from his page, Jc3s5h is getting a bit carried away. (Of course, if 81 does prove to be a block evading sock, that will be another story.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But isn't it always up to the prosecutor to prove his case? The defendant doesn't have to say anything. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

At what point did you get the idea that wikipedia is a court of law or is subject to the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything if you don't want to. Wikipedia is not a court, nor a democracy, there is not a legal thing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He soon won't be able to, as SG pointed out that 81 gave the game away in this diff[256] where he identified himself as a sockpuppet (Meletian) of the indef'd user Vote X. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Another term popularized by Watergate was "smoking gun". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, this particular IP on 81's subnet just appeared today, after a 4-year silence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious and self-admitted sock. London based IP prattling on about esoteric calendaring issues and self-identifiying as a previously blocked sock. Am I missing something? Kuru (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Only maybe the question of whether he has other IP's. But if he does, we can probably expect to hear from them. And if not, everything's peachy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. No disrespect intended. The office manager wanted to call it a day. When I entered the office the IP was 86.174.115.50, when I left it was 81.159.32.4. In that time nobody came in to tinker with the machine, so the responsibility must lie with the operators of 81's and 86's subnets. Baseball Bugs hits it right on the head when (s)he says

Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here.188.220.41.240 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The above IP has also been involved in that same calendar dispute. It seems odd that an office would have such a dynamic IP, but maybe it depends on the office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm mystified why Baseball Bugs and Kuru are contemplating closing down entire Internet Service Providers in this country. Given that nobody has ever alleged that my edits are disruptive or illegal I am sure this would result in the ISPs affected making formal complaints to the WMF. After all, if a vandal is using a network there is a mechanism for notifying the operator of same.

WMF might then enquire why Chris Bennett has been allowed to vilify me on a daily basis over 2 1/2 years all over WP with no action being taken despite numerous requests - for example "all pretence of reason is cast aside to reveal the pitiful, naked troll beneath" and "thank you for confirming that you are our hydra - headed IP friend the Intercalary Fool". Actually, that's not totally correct - the second comment, after having been removed many times from Talk:Julian calendar has now been locked in. Bennett is "active" on the SPI according to Jc3s5h, who responded to a message with the words "THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST".

Slightly higher up this page (at least till last night) was a discussion of a comparatively anodyne personal attack by HalfShadow, which resulted in an immediate indefinite block. This contributor is regularly in trouble, and became known to me when (s)he reverted a correction I made to the SPI and then attempted to get SlimVirgin to censor my contributions. Nobody has queried the content of edits from Vote (X) for Change, which was used for two weeks back in March to promote a particular option in a ballot and then closed down with the "Former Account" template. On these facts, I fail to see how Kuru can conclude "Painfully obvious and self - admitted sock; blocked as such" 80.229.81.66 (talk)

Shutting down an entire ISP would simply be an experiment - as wikipedia itself is. It would be interesting to respond to all the complaints with, "It's because of this one guy. Find him and deal with him!" That approach is probably against policy. But it's a good fantasy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To which the reply would likely be "She's not causing any trouble, so leave her alone". Do you realise that the "Former Account" tag which I added means I'm not "Vote (X)" any more? So those tags added to 80.229.81.66, 81.159.32.4 and 188.220.41.240 are incorrect. And a better wording would be "one contributor who harbours a grudge against one of our IP contributors has expressed concern etc. but 74,999 haven't". 78.151.221.225 (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you the person who formerly used the "Vote (X) for Change" account? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Anonymous editing is just that - anonymous. 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Another non-denial denial, so that's a "Yes". Thank you for owning up to being a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're very good at putting words into people's mouths. The woman says I don't know how many times "I am not a sock" and you come back with "self - admitted sock". 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

About 30 minutes ago, you posted for the 1st time on Wikipedia, knew where the ANI page was, knew how to sign your post. Looks very sockery to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia users, like Facebook users, don't operate in a vacuum. There are other Facebook/Wikipedia users around. 78.151.221.225 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit early to close this discussion (1 hour 12 minutes left on the clock). Given that the guidance says it's not illegal to close an account and resume editing under a different name I would say there is a great deal left to discuss. Can someone explain why Chris Bennett has not been penalised for continuing WP:NPA violations? He can't be that useful to the project - there are a fair number of contributions on his record but they're nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. 86.162.183.87 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles debate closure

In an unusual turn of events, this will be the second time in a week I have used AN/I to report my own controversial actions.

There has been a discussion on WP:AT about a proposed rewrite of the policy by User:Gavin.collins, proposed on the 9th of June in the section Descriptive & segmented article titles. Approximately one hour ago, I concluded that the proposal had been soundly rejected for over a week, and that the discussion was being held open solely by the proposer's tendentious refusal to listen to any of the other editors on the page. I informed him of this conclusion, and then collapse-archived the discussion with the summary "proposal rejected".[257][258] This is an obviously controversial action, and has met with the expected complaints (and a WP:WQA[259]) from User:Gavin.collins. I am requesting a review of my assessment of the consensus present in the debate, as well as my action to personally announce the discussion closed.

User:Gavin.collins has been notified of this posting, of course.[260] --erachima talk 16:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I am clearly not an uninvolved participant in these discussions, I was pleased to see Erachima make the move he did. It was entirely appropriate as the Flogging a dead horse was getting a bit tedious.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins doesn't get what Gavin Collins wants, quickly posts an inappropriate Wikiqutte alert. Looking over it, you weren't wrong in your actions. Vodello (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The ongoing promotion of "descriptive & segmented article titles" is in opposition to fundamental policy. Fundamental policy endorses sourcing. "Descriptive & segmented article titles" are at bottom workarounds to compliance with policy calling for sourcing at all levels. Article titles indicate article scope and/or article topic, which should be adequately sourced. Adequate sourcing means that the overarching theme of an article should be found in sources, or it is debatable whether that article should exist or not. I have acknowledged that in many instances inadequately sourced article topics can be allowed to stand. But this should only be the case if no one objects to them. In the instance in which voiced opposition is heard, and if inadequate sourcing can be determined to be the case, appeals to such novel concepts as "descriptive & segmented article titles" should be deemed illegitimate excuses. Fundamental policy should reassert itself in such instances. In essence, "descriptive & segmented article titles" should be regarded as tentative descriptions of a certain type of article title type. But when controversy arises, they should have diminished standing. The concept of "descriptive & segmented article titles" can have the effect of weakening Wikipedia under certain circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the fact that Bus stop's post immediately above is carrying on the debate is fair evidence that the discussion wasn't actually ended by either proponents or opponents of the proposed change. I suggest relaxing a bit, rather than looking for "End of discussion!" as a solution. The problem of non-neutrality in article topics as people break apart one-sided sub-topics of an overall subject, which this discussion touched upon multiple times, is one that has been discussed on and off for years. Here's a proposal from 2005, for example, which I am positive isn't the first. (I vaguely recall that Ed Poor had one at one point, for example, but I don't remember off the top of my head where it is. There have been mailing list discussions, too.) And this wasn't, looking at the recent edit history of Wikipedia:Article titles an edit war that had to be stamped out. It was a proposal, boldly enacted, reverted, and put forward on a talk page in line with Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, and discussed. So it was discussed for 10 days. So what? The overall issue has been discussed for more than six years. Relax. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed the debate, that's over the top. I've left it archived. Fences&Windows 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I collapsed the discussion because it was 60 pages long, as an alternative to moving it to an archive sub-page, because I know moving discussions to subpages is often viewed as attempting to obscure the discussion. Apparently, it didn't have quite the effect I intended. --erachima talk 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Uncle G. I am well aware that the underlying issue of how to properly divide up articles and still satisfy NPOV has been a subject of debate since the Wikipaleozoic, it was in no way my intent to suppress discussion of that crucial issue, and it was in large part due to that knowledge that I closed the proposal.
You mention BRD, but remember, as the page itself says, it's Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, not Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, discuss, and further that the cycle only works so long as the discussion is moving forward (emphasis mine). When the larger debate has been going on for six years, and it has become apparent that the wheels are just spinning in place in the current discussion (particularly when the wheels appear to be spinning because one of the participants has jacked the van off the ground), it's time to label the attempt a failure, archive it for future participants to learn from, and wait for the next person with a clever idea to come along. Interminable discussion of specific proposals just encourages mental entrenchment, which is not how problems are solved. And again, I appreciate your perspective. --erachima talk 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It was an interesting debate, it's been thrashed to death, and your close was correct. Bus stop and Gavin Collins beating the dead horse doesn't mean there's any life in the debate. Fences&Windows 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Amendment to general sanction on British Isles

A general sanction was approved at the weekend to topic ban any editor found to be systematically adding or removing the term British Isles to the encyclopedia. The sanction itself can be seen here.

Since then, the spirit of this sanction appears to be being broken at a page called the Specific Examples page. Some of the concerns have been raised and discussed at Black Kites talk page. With specific relation to the sanctions from last week, the page appears to be being used as a device for a small number of editors to continue to make systematic addition/removal of term in contrary to the spirit of the sanction.

The request to amend the general sanction as follows:

Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or systematically initiates discussions to add or remove the term, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of this sanction, "systematically" will be broadly interpreted. ...

And the following an additional topic ban to add to the list of possible topic bans under the sanction:

TB02 (Topic ban two): User is banned from adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia wide basis. The user may not initiate related discussions but may still participate in related discussions so long as they engage in appropriate conduct, and do not add or remove the term.

The purpose of this change would be to close off the "back door" of the Specific Examples page as a means to make systematic changes. It would also prevent the systematic activities of the Specific Examples page from spilling out onto general talk pages. The proposed change received broad-ish support at Black Kites talk page from editors contributing to/observing the Specific Examples page. --RA (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue needs to have a location for centralised discussion. 'Specific Examples' is not a 'back door'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Centralised discussion, good. Systematic changes, bad. Superficially, the SE page looks fine. Good even. Beneath the surface, it's just another way to play out the disruption that the community said 'no more' to last weekend. --RA (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't ban someone from proposing changes to Wikipedia if they discuss them and don't edit war. The previous sanction has only been given a few days to run and aside from one quickly corrected failure on each side to comply has stood. Nothing has spilled over to general talk pages The proposed ban is so general it will just initiate multiple debates about what is or is not systematic. What is needed for editors to engage with the content issues and not come running to ANI every time they find life difficult. A sanction to band SPAs would be a different proposition, not to mention a ban on bringing the issue to ANI come to think of it--Snowded ^TALK 03:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where it's appropriate to ban reasonable discussions. But maybe they keep bringing up the same stuff - like the birthers who kept turning up and raising the same old discussion points, an endless loop. Conentious discussion could be targeted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have engaged from time to time in the discussions about the use of the terminology, but not recently, so I'm not up to speed about where the alleged problems lie with Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples.

However, I am very concerned about the principle of banning centralised discussion of a contentious issue. I guess that there may be some cases where it is appropriate, but I don't yet see the grounds for applying such a sanction here. AIUI, the concern appears to be that the specific examples page is being abused by repeatedly proposing the same changes. Is that correct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you go through the various tortuous threads you will see that suggestions have been made (and accepted) of a limit on the number of changes that can be proposed in a given time period. That is much more sensible and there could be an argument for amending the ruling to formalise it. We have had old resolved cases raised since the last ANI ruling which is a pain, but the discussions have been interesting and good tempered on that. At the moment I haven't seen monitoring admins intervene to resolve polarised debates which are going no where - that would help considerably --Snowded ^TALK 04:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BHG, Centralised discussion is good. I don't want to see an end to discussion of any sort. The problem with the page is not the discussion, it is the changes.

Last week, we banned systematic changes on this topic. The disruption that led to the general sanction of last week originated with this page. Since then, we've had threads opened on this page making changes to topics as diverse as Angloromani to The Complete Peerage to BS 1363 to Keith Floyd to Artemisia vulgaris to Celtic Christianity to Atlases of the flora and fauna of Britain and Ireland ... there is just no end to it!

Those who are involved have entrenched views on this issue. I don't believe their views are reflective of consensus in the community on this issue. They are making changes (or want to make changes) to a large number of articles from the perspective of those entrenched view but without any substantial knowledge of the topics that they are changing. To make matters worse, it now appears that the editors involved have taken it upon themselves to decide that any addition/removal of this term (by anyone, anywhere on the 'pedia) must pass through them on this page for approval i.e. it has turned into a cabal.

If the page was a go-to point with questions on individual examples that would be fine but that is not how it is being used. The sanction last week was to stop systematic changes being made across the 'pedia on this issue. This page is a way around that sanction by wrapping it up in a tissue of "consensus" among a small cadre of editors involved in this issue over the heads of the rest of the community.

Individual problems with use/non-use of this term on individual pages can be resolved at individual pages in the normal wiki fashion. The editors involved need to stop making systematic changes on this issue, per last week's sanction. That does not preclude them from discussing the topic or agreeing to common guidelines. But, please, no more systematic changes on this issue. --RA (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that fully, RA. I see the problem, and have no objection to amending the sanction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal, although it would probably be easy for us to do this on a voluntary basis if its not possible to get support for sanctions to be changed here. If that is not possible then voluntary agreement from "Involved editors" on the BISE page should restrict the number of cases each editor may bring forward. If one involved editor refuses to obey the limit, then rather than a sanction being imposed on that editor for raising it, all other involved editors who are prepared to follow the rule could simply dismiss and oppose the persons additional proposals beyond the agreed limit. No sanctions for "discussions" would then have to be enforced which some clearly have concerns about. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually RA, the proposal stops anyone proposing a change to the use of BI, or it shifts it back to the talk page of the articles concerned (and that was a disaster in the past resulting in multiple long running edit wars). As has been established there are clear cases where BI has been used improperly, and cases where it is illegitimate. There are lots of wikipedia issues where there is no end to the topics, none of those has been resolved by preventing people raising the issues. They have been solved, or disruption has been minimised by content based discussion using evidence. Here rationing the number of cases overcomes the issue of volume. Enforcing a process by which any central discussion is notified on the talk page of the article (something I proposed months ago) prevents discussions not involving the wider community. Calling people a cabal is name calling and not helpful. Making general accusations against groups of editors without being specific is unhelpful. Running back to ANI a few days after a ruling without trying to get things to work is also unhelpful. Just for the record I have not initiated a single proposal for change, but I have been prepared to work away at individual cases, we need more people doing that review process--Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Snowded - the proposal does stop anyone from proposing a change to the use/non-use of British Isles in any article. What it does is propose to stop those who "systematically initiates discussions to add or remove the term". No-one has any problem with anyone opening a discussion on changing use of this term or that in any article or any central location. Just not one-article-after-another-after-another-after-another-after-another-after-.... The community said 'no more' to this kind of behaviour last week.

@BW - a voluntary basis would be infinitely better - but how long do you think the editors involved would be able to stick to their promise? I wouldn't like to see anybody sanctioned under this proposal but a stick is needed IMO to remind editors to abide by their promise.

--RA (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Define systematic --Snowded ^TALK 11:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well [261] and [262] come to mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RA, i think a voluntary agreement would work and it would be alot easier to get agreement on because some do seem worried about limits on the right to propose changes. Most people we consider "involved editors" never go around adding, removing or even asking for a change, we simply join in with the debates one way or another. There for if we were all prepared to agree that everyone has a limit to how many cases they can bring. The few editors that do seek to have lots of changes be it to add/remove, would be vetoed if they exceeding their limit by the clear majority of us. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the limit? Five a day? So there'll be a hundred request in twenty days? Or five a week? And there'll be a hundred requests in twenty weeks? --RA (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)A limit won't work. The proposals for deletion would still keep coming, but at a slower rate. Ultimately there's just one solution to this problem. LevenBoy (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

lol i was thinking more like 5 a month per editor, or say that each editor is only allowed about 2 open cases at a time. That way we dont have to debate lots of different topics, we wait and see if its closed because there is support or opposition to a change, or if the editor in question wants to withdraw the request so they can bring something else forward they can. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

systematic: Proceeding according to system, or regular method;. Regularly checking Special:WhatLinksHere/British_Isles for 'violations' would seem to me to meet the definition of systematic. MickMacNee (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to separate political topics from non-political topics and stop non-political topics from being dragged into what for some is obviously a politically motivated campaign.

If you search at Google Scholar (click here) for British Isles, over 201,000 papers arise (probably only a fraction of the total). Basically, none of them are political in nature. They are geographical, biological, ecological, health-based, oceanographic etc. Political conflicts just do not come into it. It took me until about page 15 until I found one that just about did. British Isles is a convenient, widely used academic terms for a geographic region.

The author above is correct. There will be no end of it unless we separate the non-political and non-nationalistic topics out of the debate --- except to stop those editors like the Irish nationalist HighKing or the Welsh nationalist Snowded from carrying Wikipedia wide campaigns or making needless and deliberately provocative full revisions.

For any one focused purely on geographical, biological, ecological, health-based or oceanographic topics, it is an unfair burden to insist they pass through the gauntlet of nationalistically inspired editors for every damned weed or cottage on the Wikipedia. This is what is happening now. OK. Agreed. Political topics require sensitivity and neutrality. But that is all.

Do the Scandinavians having the same bickering matches? It is a shame those on the fringes of the British Isles cannot adopt the same mature attitude. --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting really fed up with personal attacks from this editor (its part of the overall problem). He was warned for personal attacks here and yet we get name calling again above. On the BI question I am one of the few editors who can show a balanced approach on both support and removal of BI. --Snowded ^TALK 14:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on the personal attacks Snowded, if you make a change to remove BI or resist it's insertion you are accused of being a nationalist extremist. Please please please comment on the edits and not the editors. WP:FIVE Bjmullan (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Those of us who simply seek to prevent the continued campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia get called a few things too, this aint all one way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that removers are also gaming to remove editors and this is what Snowded is doing here (again). Bjmullan has previous worked in cahoots with HighKing on this.

Personally, I am not the snitching type so I am not going to make any personal issue out of it. So, instead, can we pleae return conversation to the serious focus of 'separating political issues from non-political issues' such as those relating to geographical, biological, ecological, health-based, oceanographic --- or even mythic --- topics mentioned above.

Or is that what you are trying to distract from by engineering an personal attack or block against me? --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just address content issues and stop making accusations against other editors and you will have few problems. I am not gaming to remove you, I was (and am now) responding to yet another personal attack and speculation on your part as to motives of other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of Snowded gaming again (WP:3RR) over a tiny British Isles related edit regarding to references he has obviously not even read, here.

I am sorry, I cannot accept this. I am doing the work digging out the references --- which in the case include the oldest and one of the most well regarded in the field --- and all he is doing is repeat reverting. --Triton Rocker (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An edit you have made has been questioned. WP:BRD applies and you should discuss the change not simply reinsert it. You were bold, I reverted when you did not respond to the talk page question but simply used the edit summary to assert your position. After that the idea is you DISCUSS. This is nothing to do with British Isles, its about the location of Avalon. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue

I previously expressed my concern about the "general sanction" being discussed and implemented on ANI, and I am again concerned about the "amendment to the general sanction" again being discussed at ANI. ANI is a triage, a place where incidents requiring immediate administrator attention are handled, and in that respect many users do not watch it very closely or expect wide-ranging general sanctions to be implemented here. I think this really belongs at WP:AN and the discussion should be publicized at relevant locations. –xeno^talk 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Outing

User:Commator is obsessed with outing one of our editors (see User talk:Commator). I've given him a one-week block, but his method of "appealing" the block is to repeat the same outing information over and over, with the assertion that it's okay because the editor once admitted that this was his real-world name. Would somebody not previously involved take a look at this, especially since (full disclosure) the outed editor is somebody with whom I share some real-world contacts? I'm tempted to blank everything outing-related and take away Commator's right to edit the talk page; but I want the judgement of other editors to supplement or correct my own inclinations and make sure I'm not biting the nube. (For one thing, his native language is not English.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Er, if this person has outed themself on WP already, how is this a violation? If the person in question has asked to not be referred to in that fashion, then it's trolling, not outing. Jtrainor (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• The allegation is that the editor has outed themselves elsewhere, not here (if I understand Commator's broken English correctly). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • They outed themself on your talk page yesterday. Calling someone by their real name can be disruptive, but so can editing an article about yourself without acknowledging your COI. Fences&Windows 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, someone should put a notice on the talk page or something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • He plainly told OM who he is,[263] so I don't see how blocking Commator for "outing" is appropriate. There might be other reasons to block him, but not that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It might be worth reviewing the deleted versions of User:TheRealFennShysa, which contain biographical information that stood from 2004 to 2007, as well as this edit from 2006. Uncle G (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This said, harrassing someone over their real life identity because Commator clashed with them on another article (3D modeling) and saying to an admin that "I can't take seriously the arguments of human who is a kind of odd person (feminist, lesbian)" does make me think we would be better off without their input. Fences&Windows 18:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, one could easily argue for a block that's based on personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • FisherQueen was laudably calm about that. It's one of the things that comes with the territory of trying to explain things to people, unfortunately. People get the oddest of wrong ideas into their heads, sometimes. And language barriers don't help matters. But as reactions to blocking go, it's not the worst by a long chalk. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement regarding User:Mk5384

Resolved

 – Ban enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

---

• Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is on an indefinite civility restriction, where if after four blocks, starting at a week in length, the user still persists, the block may be upped to indefinite.

If the community would please check his block log, they would find not only has he been blocked for edit warring, this block has been changed to revoke talk page access for incivility/personal attacks, and was then upped to 2 weeks for gross incivility. After all of this, the user still would not stop, and chose to evade his block just to vandalize the original blocking administrator's userpage. If there are any doubts the IP is them, simply check the IP's contributions.

This user just can't seem to abide by our rules, and frankly doesn't seem to get it that their behavior is unacceptable here. Per their most recent 4 changes, today in their block log, starting for edit warring and being upped for personal attacks, I propose this user's block be upped to indefinite.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) User notified, not that it matters since they cannot comment here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I upped it to 6 months before I saw this, because I suspected that "indefinite" would be "infinite" given past contributions. YMMV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order, the block was changed to revoke talk page access for gross incivility, but this was done at the same time as someone increased the block to two weeks for the same (see the timestamps). So that should really be read as an enforcement of one action, but with differing opinions on how to enforce. With Mk5384's actions today, I'm throwing my hands up. –xeno^talk 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just more of the same. Those (Kww, for instance) that weren't happy that the ban proposal didn't carry have returned to finish the job. 6 months, 6 minutes, or 6 years-it makes no difference. Sarek had the opportunity to show some integrity, and tell Kww he had no right to block me. Instead, he chose to join this kangaroo court. If I'm blocked for 6 months, then that will simply mean 6 months of making trouble, instead of makijg productive edits. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysheeba (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The block could have probably been lifted if it was talked out, instead you chose to resort to gross incivility and logging out to vandalize. Please start taking ownership of your own actions. –xeno^talk 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

Since the editor has above threatened merely to vandalise whilst blocked (I have just had to revdelete a pretty vile comment from User:Kww's talkpage), I propose that the block be raised to a community ban. I think this is fairly straightforward and standard here. Note: I have altered the block from 6 months to indefinite. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism, threats of vandalism and socking, and socking.. Not a net plus to the project. It would be a plus, to ban them however.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Today's actions were unacceptable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - He's not doing us or this site any good while he's around. Simon^KSK 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Move to Support: What good will a full ban do? He's already suggested he will resort to sockpuppetry. Keep him indefinitely blocked and if he wants to reform later we can let him back in. N419BH 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • What good a ban would do is to take away the possibility of a sympathetic admin unilaterally unblocking him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Indefinite is not forever, an indef block has the possibility of being over-turned much sooner than a ban, which requires community consensus to overturn.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Why would we kick someone out forever? Indefinite ban them. If they sock, tag, and more reason not to unblock. I'm inclined to chalk this up as immaturity. Let them figure it out and then we can go from there. I don't think an admin would be dumb enough to unblock unilaterally with THAT log and those tagged socks. N419BH 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We wouldn't need to do it, if it hasn't happened before, and it has happened before. A ban is the only way to ensure this user stays blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • As Daedalus969 said above, he does not seem to get it. He continuously cycles between being blocked and being disruptive, all the while wasting hour, after hour, of other peoples time. --GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Moving to Support, a more detailed history check shows he's been given more than enough WP:ROPE and proceeded to hang himself with it. N419BH 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - again so soon for the exact same stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The user has been mostly engaged in battles of one kind or another since he started about 6 months ago - many of them over single sentences or single words in an article - followed up by vulgarity and persecution fantasies. Plainly, he does not understand the basic concepts here. And socking is the final straw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - looking at his actions today, the attacks on KWW (hate to imagine how made the revdev one might be considering the ones still viewable in the history), the overall history, and his immediate jumping to socking again (including above) it would seem he has made it clear that he is not going to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies nor does it reflect any willingness/ability to work in a cooperative system; his reaction to his most recent block just seals the deal. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  FWIW, Kww has thick skin and is an admin so can view the attack anyway, I don't see a pressing need to keep it revision deleted. –xeno^talk 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oh, I know, but why give him the satisfaction of seeing his unpleasantness on show for all to see? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 5)Support indefinite ban per all above; he definitely isn't here to improve the 'pedia. -- Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support This place isn't for everybody and I think the evidence is out there that this editor is not compatible with our project. Sad to see as I know he had lots to contribute, but the ability to work with others is fundamental and he just doesn't seem to have it. --John (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above (all). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - He's done enough today for a community ban. If he wants to explain himself, he can do so at a higher level, we should be done wasting time with him after today's actions. Dayewalker (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Mk5384 continues to disrupt Wiki articles [264] [265] by refusing to use the discussion page to gain consensus and by deleting or otherwise changing content without regard to sources. Hk5384 is not cut out for editing, as the vast majority of his actions do little more than waste an enormous amount off time for other editors. He has been given numerous chances by several editors and admins who did their very best to include, and mentor him. I can think of no other editor more deserving of an indefinate ban from the Wiki project. --GabeMc (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately. I'm sorry to say it, but it seems that Mk has let his anger get the better of him again, and so soon after the interaction ban; until he can exhibit some self-control and maturity he's better off spending his time somewhere else. — e. ripley\^talk 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per threats to sock if not unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly here to disrupt, not help. Mauler90 _talk 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support The patience shown by so many admins has been truly impressive. But, look at the total time expended by dozens of editors over one editor that simply will not or cannot abide by the rules, no matter how many chances he gets and how many people try to help. And look at how he treats people that attempt to help him. At some point, the cost expended is simply too high.Objective3000 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. We're all working here as adults and nobody should need that much supervision and "one more chances" from admins to edit. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Burpelson. Pilif12p :  Yo  22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised, since I predicted this outcome a while ago. It's really too bad that MK seemingly cannot control himself. The ban has the advantage that, being difficult to rescind, if MK makes the effort some months down the line to convince the community to overturn it, it might be a good indication that he's serious about being a productive contributor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support this behaviour is beyond unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. I agree with Beyond My Ken if MK makes the effort in the future (at least 6 months) to convince the community that they've reformed it would be a positive step--86.42.129.84 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment One of those IPs that voted, should that be OK? AboundingHinata (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • About as OK as an editor whose account was created two days ago, with not a single articlespace edit to their credit, pointing it out.[266] And, BTW, this is trolling. Don't do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support – We do not need more disruption by this user here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I placed the banned notice on the user's userpage. Grandmasterka 02:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Ban not in place, discussion is still ongoing.

Reopened

• Temporary support A long time ago, this user was better. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Todd_Lincoln&diff=prev&oldid=339695702 Would encourage the person to return to Wikipedia only when she/he is willing to help out. Given the number of bad edits, I would recommend no less than a few months. RIPGC (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a single diff, where the user doesn't even use an edit summary, shows how they were 'better'. They were banned for edit warring, gross personal attacks, sockpuppeting, and socking just to vandalize. A diff in the past that has no edit summary does not demonstrate how this user was 'good with others'.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban too fast

I object. This is WAY too quick. So make this a community ban enacted after a rush job. The editor is bad but this is way too rushed. [redacted inappropriate analogy] RIPGC (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted your inappropriate analogy. –xeno^talk 13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad wrote on 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I agree that 24 hours should be a presumptive minimum for community-ban discussions, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, and that the discussion should go on longer if there is useful dialog still taking place (i.e., input from new commenters and/or people making new points, as opposed to the same small group of people making their points more and more stridently). ...Administrators are told that "blocking is a serious matter," and of course banning is as well, even more so.

I've never seen a ban discussion (including topic bans) that I thought went according to a fair, open, and reasonable process was written by II | (t - c) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (ImperfectlyInformed).

As you can see, less than two months ago and on ANI. RIPGC (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved this comment to the bottom, where new comments go. As to the content of your comment, I have no comment on it, for the moment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted my close and reopened per request. We can afford to wait 18 hours more or so... but I can pretty much guarantee it won't change anything. If consensus somehow magically changes, I'll... I'll... well, be astounded, for starters. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, then vote "keep" in the AFD of Presidential election of 2084 (citing "I can pretty much guarantee that the election will take place!"! Others may vote "delete" citing WP:Crystal ball. Good work, Jc. RIPGC (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My main idea is that if we railroad someone so quickly, even if they are very bad, it makes us bad. In protest, I will quit Wikipedia for a minimum of 48 hours. Others might use this as an opportunity to criticize me thinking that I am away from Wikipedia but that just makes them look bad. Guys, let's get this right! (paraphrasing Jimbo Wales). RIPGC (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jclemens. Let the guy respond then ban him tomorrow (but have an open mind and don't just do it for show). RIPGC (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Too fast indeed - Extensive WP:AN discussions regarding community bans established a standard of 24 hrs bare minimum for community ban discussions, with a strong community urging towards 48 or more hours duration. We must allow time for discussion including those who are not logged in at the time. SNOW and SPEEDY are specifically not applicable to community ban discussions - admins may close early to truncate abuse of proposed banees, or due to other cases under normal admin discretion - but not to speed up the process absent other abuse.

I have requested that Grandmasterka revert the closure and ban notification and allow at least the requested time period.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of not appearing too bureuacratic or limited by red tape in this case, I don't think there will be much use in removing the notice now as of this time stamp (nothing has changed) - the discussion should be kept open for another 24 hours but based on the current direction fo the discussion, it appears that the outcome is not going to change in this case either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The user in question (and his known socks) are currently choked off from further disruption, so I don't see any harm in leaving the discussion open longer. However, if a bunch of redlinks start voting "Oppose", someone might want to look into those. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia at its worse. Basically the action that Bugs (who admits he is subject to an interaction ban for bad behavior) recommends is that if you don't like what you hear, you accuse people of sockpuppetry. Why not checkuser all the supports because there may be socks there? Wikipedia should be a discussion of rational ideas. If the oppose votes have rational ideas, we should consider them, not accuse them of sockpuppetry. Likewise, the flood of ban votes should not be subject to sock accusations but rather each one with rational ideas should be considered. This discussion is important even if the banned user is as bad as Hitler.

The value of this discussion in this case is that we must do bans correctly so that we maintain our integrity. The second value is that the ban of this person is now completely valid. RIPGC (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw what was happening after it initially closed, and was disturbed by it. We should not be banning people in less time than it takes to watch a sitcom, and I don't care how many people voted in favor of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This ban, in my observation, has been a long time coming, based on the previous escalations, sanctions, and whatnot that have gone on before. Six hours, twenty four hours, forty eight hours... whatever the community wants to assure itself of its own impartiality and fairness is fine, but the fact remains that the extra time has resulted in no real change to the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to sincerely apologize for my actions. I should have allowed the user to speak on their behalf before I did that, and I was unaware of any minimum time a ban discussion had to be open, as long as it was clear where it was headed. I'm sorry for this, and it won't happen again. Grandmasterka 01:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note...

The user is now abusing their email. I suggest it be revoked. They basically emailed me a threat, warning me 'not to fuck with them, or else'. If you want the exact email, I can easily send it to you, simply email me in kind and I'll forward it to you from there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've communicated with Daedalus969 privately, and we've come to a conclusion that, for right now, we should leave email enabled. There needs to be a more severe and persistent pattern of disruption which there hasn't been, and that email is currently the only way for Mk5384 to appeal the imminent ban. Moreover, if we yank email at this point, it's likely that many will forget the email revocation (as most indef-blocks, talk page revocations, etc. are basically "set it and forget it") as a result. –MuZemike 07:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who like to assume bad faith.. sorry, but this is indeed the case here. I am in agreement with Mu.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I also received a very amusing email calling me all names under the sun (Mk does appear to have a scatological bent) which I couldn't care less about, but more importantly included the following - "As I have explained to others, via e-mail, I have a new username, and will be making no further edits from my Mk5384 account, whether or nor it's ever unblocked ... I have no plans to sock. (Of course, you probably consider starting a new account to make productive edits "socking", but you're an asshole anyway, so I don't really care.)" Black Kite (t) (c) 12:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering User:Alysheeba above said "If I'm blocked for 6 months, then that will simply mean 6 months of making trouble, instead of makijg productive edits.", I think we know what the alternative account is (and can block it accordingly). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been blocked. I have a feeling it isn't the last one we'll see. Get your WP:DUCK alarms tuned. N419BH 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I had already blocked his e-mail access before seeing this discussion, upon receipt of a little gem from him myself. As for MuzeMike's comment, I don't see why anyone would ever reinstate e-mail access for this account. Because of the socking threats, I've initiated an SPI to see if there are underlying IPs we can block to nullify the threats.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Interaction Ban

I would like to ask the community if this total ban on MK nullifies the interaction ban which was previously placed between MK and myself. I hope my question itself is not a violation of that same ban, but I was not sure who to approach about this. It would seem the point has lost itself since MK is now completely banned from the site. I have no problem, however, if the community wants the IB to be continued. -OberRanks (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see why it would necessarily do so (though presumably it would be somewhat moot), and yes, this is probably a violation. In future, please use the EmailUser function to ask questions such as these. –xeno^talk 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see this as a request to review the restriction based on the last 2 sentences (so probably not a violation). That said, I'd note that bans are never permanent, and in the event that the ban is lifted at any point, the interaction ban and Mk's civility parole would still remain in force. Standard practice has been to keep restrictions in force even where an editor is banned so that these clearly form as absolute minimum conditions if the editor returns (though usually more conditions are attached on top of this). But all those procedural notes aside, to be very clear, I make no comment on whether it should be lifted in this case or whether it should stay in force in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am currently on an interaction ban with a particular user who is currently generally banned from wikipedia. Once someone is banned, there is no need for any interaction, so the interaction ban becomes irrelevant... unless they get un-banned, in which case the interaction ban should still be there, unless they have mutually agreed to get along. That's mine opinion, anyways. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for clarifying. No problem at all adhering to this and I will make no further posts on this issue except to report direct attacks or abuse. I haven't checked my private e-mail yet, but I would put some money down that I have probably recieved some kind of e-mail by this point based on my history with this user.I did have one final question, though, and that is that MKs page has been restored with a notice "revert ban". Is he no longer banned? Thanks again and I'm out of this now. -OberRanks (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is explained above (users felt that it was closed to quickly) and has nothing at all to do with your interaction ban, and thus, the above is a violation of it. Please leave the administrative sundries to other users who are not under an interaction ban. –xeno^talk 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you told him that discussing this was a violation of his ban, and he still felt compelled to get in one last swipe at Mk, blocked for 31 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock drawer

Anyone mind doing a CU on this guy? He just sent me another email, saying that he's created another account. He says it will be impossible to find... but with his knack for insults and edit warring, I don't think so. To the end of the CU, it would be best to quell the disruption before it starts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)