Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive636

EL:Ffestiniog Railway

Resolved

 – content dispute, on 2 other boards & talk pages. No admin action needed

I am involved in both an external wiki covering the subject header and monitoring related pages online that are connected with the Festiniog Railway. This has been "on the go" for somw 5 years now. It is a very specific and narrow interest wiki covering the railway company and the area it operates in. It has access to the company files, and photos, which are not available under GFDL etc. Being specific, it only has a handful of active editors who are usually directly connected with the railway.

As an aide to any researchers from this wiki, I, and other editors, had placed links from Wikipedia to our own, which until recently was on a subsite of our voluntary Heritage Group. It has recently changed to its own site, [www.festipedia.org.uk], although the old links were still working.

We have now been accused by one "edit filter manager, administrator" of breaking Wikipedia policy in doing what has been done over the past years. Admittedly there may have been individual references within a subject, usually where our wiki is able to clarify. However, generally we had inserted a template within either the "See also", or "External Links" sections which gave option to direct to either the generic link within wikipedia, or the generic link within Festipedia. This template was specifically only used in articles which we have connection with (i.e. the railway - it was not used on basic location articles).

First of all the article was marked "Spam" in edit notice, although this was retracted later, and replaced with "promotional". I contend, "promoting" another information source is not only beneficial to Wikipedia researchers, but it is likely to be more use to them as it is a narrow band wiki.

It was then stated that external links are not allowed within the text of the articles. If they are also not allowed at the end, where the template resided, then where are external links allowed??

At various times, comments have referred to various "WP policy" pages, which I have duly read, and found them headed by comments of only guidlines and common sense". I do not find any block on the use of a template as such. There is also ref to WP:ELNO which I find is not "policy", but seems only to air administrators views, and not policy.

It is my contention that this editor has misinterpreted the policy, and by removing the external links from articles, has removed a valuable resource from researchers.

The initial page is Template:Festiniog Railway Company , and subsequently many pages (43 articles), to which this is used have also been amended to remove links.

I note that following his attentions, the links have now appeared on COIBoT reports for some reason.

There is relevant discussion on his home talk page, and at WP:RSN, WP:ELN

Per anonimity, I have not detailed any names, but if you follow this link, it becomes obvious. The other personage involved has been involved by Subst:ANI-notice. Keith (talk)14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a content issue but since you asked... 1) external links should not be placed within an article and 2) Although I'm not sure if templates strictly prohibit the use of external links, I'm sure that accepted practice is that they should only be used for internal links - to create consistency for readers and so they know that clicking on a template will not take them to some strange external site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your original comment was noted, and point 1 was agreed. Entries under that would need to be edited - no problem. The link would be moved to the external links section. This has not been done. The links have been removed completly,without an alternative being used. Point 2, as said, it is not specifically excluded in policy, and what is "accepted practice" is not policy. Given an external link has an indicator for being such, I dont see a problem. --15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've raised this at WT:UKRail. The issue may be better off by being disussed at WikiProject level rather than here. The talk page of the Festiniog Railway article may also be a better place for discussion. It may be possible to include a link to Festipedia in the External Links section of the Festioniog Railway article, subject to consensus being obtained for this. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read your [[WT:UKRail comment, and feel that you have misunderstood. The template (as was) linked generally to 20 different pages, internal and external. These covered a lot of material. It has now been reduced to linking to 10 active articles all internally. A lot of information has been lost.

To place such, on the Ffestiniog page only, would be unreasonable. Having found details of a particular station, or engine, under the old template the researcher could find the relavent Festipedia article by 2 depressions. Under the one page only link, it would require pre-knowledge and a lot more work.--15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've started this discussion in four or five places; you seem to be forum shopping since you're not getting the answer you want in your content dispute. Is there anything here that needs administrative attention? Kuru (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kuru, you have made my point entirely - please recheck your facts. "I" have raised this point in "2" locations only, this location being the second. The first was a notice board, and as such is not for disputes. The resaon for raising it here, is, I think the removals have been done without substantive reason. --16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Keith - you've raised it on at least three places now. Noticeboards are exactly the place to raise this. It is a content dispute and AN/I is for items needing admin action. There appears nothing needing admin attention here; marking resolved - take it to the noticeboards. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have said 3, the first being the talk page at the time - not by any means a general discussion, only to state what and why it was done. This is still less than the 4 or 5 that Kuru accused me of. --Keith 17:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I don't think Keith should have raised the matter here, to accuse him of forum shopping since he isn't getting the answer he wants appears to be wide of the mark. In the original noticeboard discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard the vote by my count currently stands at 5 to 2 in Keith's favour. Prh47bridge (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel Palestine articles should be watchlisted

Israel Palestine articles should be watchlisted as there seems to be a coming Palestinian offensive ("calling on Palestinian institutions to make Wikipedia pages more pro-Palestinian.") [1] --Galactic Traveller (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I sense an expansion of pending changes coverage soon....   Thorncrag  06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps place an editnotice on the Israel Palestine pages saying don't edit to make a WP:POINT. --Stickee (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't do any good. The Zionist groups are aware that what they are doing is considered disruptive, but are helping people learn how to game the system to get away with it. Their primary goal is to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see Al-Nasser's statement, rather than Haaretz's (probably misleading) interpretation of it. The quotes from Al-Nasser that I saw said things like "guard the facts in the Internet encyclopedia", which is rather different from Haaretz's paraphrasing of "make it more pro-Palestinian". It seems like he might just be pushing for people to protect Wikipedia from the large number of organized Israeli propaganda groups that are targeting Wikipedia, saying that it would be smart to make sure that people stick to a neutral presentation of the facts, instead of allowing Zionist groups to censor certain viewpoints, and push a Zionist point of view. This doesn't seem any different from what most of the editors have said here -- i.e. that we need to guard the articles against groups like the JIDF, and make sure we stick to neutral presentation of facts. This seems like it might be damage control by the Israeli propaganda groups who probably realized how completely stupid they were for running their misinformation campaign in the open. Anyhow, does anyone have an English-language translation of Al-Nasser's comments, so we can get a balanced and accurate idea of what he said? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, your comments really aren't constructive. Unfortunately, human behavior being what it is, regardless of the initial good intentions that any group might have in agenda-driven editing of Wikipedia, what will always result is that each side entrenches and ultimately it is Wikipedia's articles which are harmed. This certainly is not the forum for arguing who is right and who is wrong, and I don't think that was the purpose of this thread.   Thorncrag  07:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good god. I'll try to keep an eye on it though. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how my comments were not constructive. And you misunderstood what I was saying -- I'm not saying that agenda-driven groups are acceptable. I'm saying that it's very possible that this is not an "agenda-driven editing" group, in the same sense as the JIDF/CAMERA. (i.e. their only "agenda" might be to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:V) Would you classify all editors here who are working to make sure that neutrality and sourcing guidelines are followed in Israel-Palestine articles as "agenda-driven"? Because it seems very possible that this is all that's being said here. That is, it sounds like we might have a person saying what dozens of people here have said, namely "We've got several Zionist groups running a propaganda campaign on Wikipedia. We need to guard Israel/Palestine articles and make sure they remain factual, instead of letting them devolve into a Israeli propaganda medium." I don't know until I see what the man actually said, rather than how some journalist from an Israeli paper paraphrased him. I don't see how this is at all off-topic, or inappropriate for this thread, as you suggested. This directly pertains to the original post, and is attempting to clarify how to deal with it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a related thread here. PhilKnight (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, to be fair to Haaretz, it's difficult to think of a single newspaper more consistently, coherently and eloquently critical of various Israeli policies than Haaretz. I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough -- stricken. That was not really the main focus of what I was saying anyway. What I'm saying is that I'd like to see the full text of what he said, rather than someone's interpretation. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. A guy went on the radio and said "my organization is important for society and regarding the current situation, we're looking into it." And for good measure he noted that their action is dependent on government support.[2] I don't think we should be losing sleep over this just yet. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help

Hi admins I have been working in my native language wiki project. And recently I started an account on English Wikipedia. I got a message in my talk page from another user about a socket puppet issue. Is he an administrator? But I don't have any connections with some blocked accounts he specified. What should I do? why he is suspecting me? please help. --  Logical Thinker  05:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor who placed that notice is not an admin. You don't need to do anything, as no report has been filed at WP:SPI. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That helped me. He was wrong then. Most users in my country are using the same government run DSL ISP(BSNL Broadband). It allocates dynamic IP addresses for all users in a region. He may have misunderstood my connection with a JW user's talk page and the similarity in geographical location to be a sock puppet of recently blocked user. Thank you --  Logical Thinker  07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not file a formal CheckUser request at this stage because there is insufficient evidence at this stage. However it is unusual that three people from Kerala have all started editing JW-related articles in quick succession (though the latest has thus far only provided 'encouragement' to other pro-JW editors at their Talk pages, which would be fine in itself without the religious rhetoric). It is statistically improbable that the third account is unrelated (either sockpuppet or meatpuppet) to the other two that were confirmed as socking.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In India there is over 30,000 witnesses and about more than half are concentrated in Kerala. No wonder if another user edits JW articles from the same location. But in this case it made you doubtful as the date I joined and other socks blocked was nearby. I coped with all user interfaces here easily because I have experience in another local wiki project. The first two users are already proved to be the same. So all chances can be only two persons. Anyway Meat or sock puppet are Issues that should be considered seriously. --  Logical Thinker  08:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The other recent editor(s) (who claimed to know each other[3] and were since confirmed as socks) from Kerala also claimed to be involved in the Malayalam Wikipedia[4], and being tech-savvy ("Because I am not a fool,I know how Internet IP works.-:)", implying convenient awareness of the ambiguity)[5]. They also commented about not wanting to communicate with an "Ex-JW"[6] as did Logicalthinker33 in his 'warning' to User:Naturalpsychology. This suggests meat puppetry if not a sock. In any case, it seems unusual that just after 'two' (sock or meat puppet) JW editors from Kerala were blocked for sockpuppetting, that another JW from Kerala would provide 'encouragement' (actually religious rhetoric)[7] for other JW editors as their very first edits. That is not the action of an entirely uninvolved editor who just started editing a specific language wiki project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(The user has since revised their comments at User:Naturalpsychology's Talk page. The beginning of the comment has been altered to say, "I am a new comer in English wikipedia project and I went through some old talk pages in JW articles. I appreciate your good contributions to make JW article's bias free. I know Ex.Jw's here are doing so much discouragement." This in an obvious attempt to redress the original statement as if coming from a previously uninvolved editor, whereas it originally started with, "I appreciate your good contributions to make JW article's better. I know Ex.Jw's here are doing so much discouragement to you.") To be clear, I am not requesting that User talk:Logicalthinker33 be blocked or any other specific admin action at this time. However, I am indicating that I am rightly suspicious of the sequence of events.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro that the sudden appearance of another user from Kerala, following the blocking of three sockpuppet accounts from that region in quick succession, is highly suspicious. The number of editors at the JW pages has remained relatively stable for some time and it is unusual, to say the least, that so many edits have suddenly come from that part of the world. User:Logicalthinker33 seems remarkably confident as a novice user and has been very quick to hand out barnstars to other JW editors, whose editing has been rather low-key lately. The Indian individual who has used the sequence of usernames in a deceptive manner on the JW pages has so far been consistently dishonest and evasive and shown no embarrassment about blatantly lying, so it shouldn't be a surprise that if ... if ... Logical Thinker is the same individual, he continues to deny it. I'll watch developments with interest. BlackCab (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(Though I indicated two previous socks from Kerala, BlackCab is correct here in that there were three other recent Kerala editors identified as socks of User:Jehonathan (including himself); the other editor was User:Flowerman75.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What did I do? My edit history shows among 104 corrections I did nothing in any JW article. I only made 6 motivating corrections in two JW editor's discussion. Are you making all these things here because I just encouraged two good editors with a barnstar? I made small sentence correction in my comments here not to avoid suspicion but to make my idea clear. Also its notable all the blocked user's have always worked only with JW articles. I have been worried about this issue as the acquisitions are multiplying. Time will show then.--  Logical Thinker  14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible but improbable. Either User:Logicalthinker33 is a sock/meat puppet of the previous 3 recent users and has learned from previous behaviour to 'motivate' other JW editors and then make unrelated minor edits, instead of immediately making the same kinds of edits in JW articles as his previous psuedonyms. Or, it is entirely coincidental that he happened to immediately 'motivate' JW editors as his first edits without any prompting and without any knowledge, even though the other previous Kerala JW pseudonyms are also involved at the Malayalam Wikipedia project. If Logicalthinker33's edits are good (unlike the previous recent socks), it won't matter. Time will tell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am afraid to edit in any JW articles, because I feel I don't have enough professional English knowledge needed for editing top importance JW article. It doesn't mean I could not contribute some basic help or raise issues at talk if possible in Jw articles. That's why I encouraged other JW editors to give good contribution. If I am a tech-savy or sock why sould I mention my location in my profile ? (because recently three users are blocked from kerala for sock puppet).Also you said I motivated user:natural to be careful in talking to Ex-Jw's. But as you know its a general behavior of all JW's to keep silence with Ex-Jw's and hence doesn't shows any similarity with the socks. I went through the previous three blocked editors, I did not find any evidence that all those three are involved together in Malayalam Wikipedia. Only the one of them had mentioned it. Else they all will be the same person(becuase they have obvious similarity) but not me.--  Logical Thinker  05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You stated earlier that "The first two users are already proved to be the same", but now you claim that not all three "are involved together in Malayalam Wikipedia". So which is it? Do you concede that the other editors are socks, or that that not all three are from the other project? It can't be both. I remain unconvinced. But as stated earlier, if you make good edits, it will not matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about that. But I assure good edits.--  Logical Thinker  18:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

New administrator Amatulic possibly needs some mentoring

Both IPs blocked as sockpuppets. -- Atama頭 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious articles are notoriously subject to POV pushing. Jc3s5h has a long history of editing Gregorian calendar and an equally long history of refusing to reveal his religious affiliation. So when he edited this article and a few minutes later went to RfPP requesting permanent protection claiming the previous editor was a sockpuppet the fact that no SPI had been started should have set alarm bells ringing. Amatulic should have told him to start an SPI, saying why he thinks Doradus is a sockpuppet and who he thinks Doradus is a sockpuppet of, and provide diffs linking him to the alleged sockmaster. (no tilde on this keyboard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.177.205 (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Is TFOWR unaware of WP:COI? (S)he contributes regularly to religious project pages. 109.154.236.72 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC) WP:DUCK sock of Vote (x) For change 109.154.236.72 (talk · contribs). Can someone ban it. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC) tmorton166 edits on a platform that "religions can be harmful". TFOWR's platform is that if a Catholic bishop removes explanations of the doctrine of other denominations, deliberately destroying the neutrality of the article, he is under no obligation to disclose his position in the hierarchy. It's always the people with extreme positions who make the most noise. 109.154.236.72 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Apparently I have a position on Catholic bishops. Live and learn. Anyhoo... I've just blocked and reverted another IP as an obvious sock. TFOWR 11:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP concern

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lori Douglas|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Lori Douglas]]

{{resolved|IP blocked for 48 hours by Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)}} Careful: young readers avert your eyes.

I would like someone else to look at Lori Douglas. An IP keeps inserting salacious details into an already troubled biography (see Hans Adler's comments at Lori Douglas--I sought community input, and I further paraphrased the statement based on Hans's justified copyvio concern). They have finally relented on inserting details that seem to come from their own imagination ... details not verified by the source, though the IP editor seems to have (had) access to, ahem, the primary materials. But their latest installment came with a ridiculous edit summary, even an ironic one, since their previous details were clearly not verified by the source to which they pointed again and again. Besides, they added a hearty "fuck you" on their talk page, right below my final warning to them for vandalism: here, and they haven't even kissed me yet.

I don't know my own R-status exactly, though I do know that they went well past 3R yesterday. Moreover, there are issues here of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and even the current amount of detail is, in my opinion, excessive--we are not a newspaper, and the lady hasn't been convicted in a trial or anything. But I'm tired of this, and should probably leave it alone (which is why I haven't reported them for vandalism; I may be wrong in calling this vandalism)--so here you have it. Enjoy, and thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind: Apart from the very unfortunate hobby of the lady and her husband, there is a former convicted criminal in the story who is being discussed in detail in at least one news story but for some reason never found his way in the article, while, as Drmies noted, certain insider information did. Reading between the line, this appears to be a blackmail story. I can't help wondering if the Wikipedia side of things is also a COI story. Hans Adler 16:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruptive editing and violating the three-revert rule. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Douglas. Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please note I have trimmed this article to the essential facts required for a biography of a judge and semi-protected the article. I have also redacted a good number of the old revisions as they all contained material copied and paste from the CBC. –xeno^talk 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of protection

• Please note I have twice reverted the insertion of the words 'sex scandal' into the BLP and fully protected it. As I have been involved in editing the article in light of the ongoing BLP concerns, I invite review of this action and give permission in advance for this action to be modified if anyone feels I have erred in judgment in this instance. –xeno^talk 17:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia appoint xeno to be the censorship board of Wikipedia? The reason that I think that the wording should be "alleged sex scandal incident" is because when the censored article reads "alleged incident" it leads the reader to jump to the conclusion that the Judge has stepped down due to possibly illegal activities or judge misconduct or otherwise serious professional misconduct; incidents which would be much more serious and harmful than labeling the incident for what it is - an alleged sex scandal. This characterization is accurate and verifiable by many reliable sources including Financial Post, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Citizen, CBC Canada, and I could go on and on as this is a huge story in Canada. Verifiable information is what Wikipedia is all about, and in this case the censored content is more damaging by not stating what the "alleged incident" involved (being alleged nude pictures and alleged consensual sex - i.e. a "sex scandal"). Larkspurs (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"alleged incident" is suitably neutral and immediately followed by a citation for the reader to review and draw their own conclusions. At the present time, we should be extremely cautious and not allow Wikipedia to become a vehicle for the spread of titillating claims which are unproven allegations at this early stage. This can be revisited when the 24-hour news cycle has finished with the story and the Canadian Judicial Council is finished hearing the complaint. –xeno^talk 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have edited this article several times in the last few days to add information about the individual - but nothing about the current news story. It is a major over-reaction for an administrator to fully-protect this article for an entire month. Administrators shouldn't use their administrative authority when they are already involved in an editing conflict. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  According to WP:BLP, "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved." My only involvement in this article is promoting compliance with the BLP policy, however I do still invite review of my actions as interpretations may vary. –xeno^talk 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  There is a huge difference between a BLP violation and an editing conflict. I don't like the use of the phrase "sex scandal" either, but it's not a BLP violation particularly when the phrase is being used by a number of reputable news sources. Two editors disagreed about a particular phrase. One of those editors used his administrator powers to silence the other editor (and everybody else). Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  I didn't silence anyone. Blocking would have silenced someone. I used protection, to err on the side of caution and eliminate what seemed to be a clear BLP violation and I have invited review of my action and given explicit license to any administrator who feels I have erred to reverse my action. –xeno^talk 20:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Inserting verifiable information from reliable sources are not "clear BLP violations". I am requesting xeno to please back off. What you are doing is censorship, and that is in violation of everything that Wikipedia stands for. The article can be, and will be, cleaned-up after the 24-hour news cycle has passed. Larkspurs (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How exactly are you verifying that it is a "sex scandal"? That is clearly a heavily negative phrase and isn't appropriate for the article per WP:NPOV, at the very least (see also WP:LABEL) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sex Scandal" is verified by these sources: Financial Post, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Citizen, CBC Canada, and others. Larkspurs (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, I'm entirely willing to have another administrator review and modify my action if they feel I have erred in judgment. The essential facts for a biography of a judge are present: 1) that a complaint was filed with a judicial oversight body and 2) that the judge temporarily stepped down while the complaint was heard. Anything more affords undue weight to this emerging news story that consists entirely of unproven allegations. –xeno^talk 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Inserting verifiable information from reliable sources are not "clear BLP violations" that an admin has authority to delete. So long as the information is verifiable and from a reliable source then it should stay; albeit in a concise form so as to not violate WP:UNDUE. A single, well-referenced paragraph is all that is needed here. When an admin enforces what information will be included (and not included) in an article - that is censorship; and that is in violation of everything that Wikipedia stands for. The article can be, and will be, cleaned-up after the 24-hour news cycle has passed. It is important to bear in mind that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So long as the information is verifiable and from reliable sources we have gotten it right and the information should stay in the article. xeno has said several times that he is willing to have his judgment questioned. So then why is he so defensive? Please let others get involved in these discussions. The very defensive posture of the involved admin is impeding the discussion. Larkspurs (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed" As I indicated to you at the article talk page, I will stop responding at this point (since you feel that I am somehow impeding discussion) and allow others to clarify relevant policies and guidelines. –xeno^talk 20:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this uninvolved admin sees no problem with xeno's actions here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, with no subjects found guilty of anything, the requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, and as a minimum WP:BLP, xeno's actions are commendably polite in this case: additional blocks would have clearly been warranted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• <<EC>>>Concur w/ Toddst. First priority is to protect the subject and the encyclopedia. Concur with Xeno in seeking neutral language rather than "titillation". Dlohcierekim 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with both sides. It would be nice to have a better description of what is going on in the article (along with a general expansion of her overall biography), but simply calling it a "sex scandal" without context leaves the reader to assume far too much about what is going on. Agree with full protection so as to prevent an inevitable BLP edit war, and suggest interested parties discuss proper wording and expansion on the talk page. Resolute 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here. Note that the policy for avoiding scandal mongering specifically states, "Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard". Xeno's actions enforced that policy well. -- Atama頭 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Approve Xeno's actions. --John (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Paris Hilton article's current form contains the following referenced sentence: On August 28, 2010 she was arrested on suspicion of cocaine possession in Las Vegas. Following the logic of this discussion, that line in the Hilton article should read: On August 28, 2010 she was arrested in Las Vegas. I hope that example demonstrates that removing the context from the sentence is a detriment to the article. Please allow the "alleged incident" to be given some context. Larkspurs (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Two problems: 1) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 2) "suspicion of cocaine possession" is stating a neutral fact, that she was suspected of cocaine possession. "Sex scandal" is a negative spin, and in no way factual. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if the article read, "alleged incident involving nude photos" that it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The reference in the article itself is titled "Nude photos of judge emerge in complaint" so it wouldn't be any more harmful than what's already being presented in the article. -- Atama頭 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Similarly, if Paris Hilton said that she was involved in a "drug scandal", similar issues would arise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/ giftiger wunsch. crystal clear. Dlohcierekim 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Commment. While I generally support the action here, is there any reason it couldn't be eased down to PC2 (or whatever the admin-only version is called)? I'm not a big fan of fully protected articles at AfD, though at the moment this one appears to be headed towards keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruption and incivility at Spitsbergen

There has traditionally been trouble at this article and it's talkpage - that is now calming down since a consensus has been reached among almost all the editors involved. The problem is now Jonas Poole - he has been repeatedly warned and blocked for his foul language and disruption regarding this article. The article in question is just coming off protection, and while it was protected several of us have worked towards a compromise solution - Jonas however has stated he plans to disrupt any attempt at reaching a compromise[8] by edit warring to retain his preferred version of the article.

In addition his rants on the talkpage of the article are now beyond extreme - I've already read everything you two dipshits having been saying on your talk page you fucking moron. It hasn't added anything new. Just more talking out of your asses, as usual.[9], Yes, you're completely fucking wrong asshole.[10]. As well as being disruptive and foul-mouthed this kind of rant now litters the talkpages of articles he has edited waiting for the average Wikipedia reader to stumble upon.

This is beyond the scope of civility or edit warring and should be dealt with here. Reccommend an extended block for Mr Poole (shorter ones have had less than no effect) and the removal of his comments from the Spitsbergen talkpage. Weakopedia (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Jonas has been informed of this thread (User talk:Jonas Poole#Civility) Weakopedia (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked this account for a month with a warning that this is his last chance. I did consider that he is trolling as he surely could not expect no consequences to arise from his statements - but he seems to be making legitimate edits elsewhere. CIreland (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate AfD closure

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:DRV

Kinu (talk · contribs) has closed this Afd as delete ([11], log), after he voted for the deletion of the article. According to WP:NotEarly AfDs should be closed by "uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor". And he was cleary involved. Other concern is that this Afd was open for just 92 minutes and was snowed after just 3 delete votes (without the nomination). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that close should be overturned. Three delete results and a closure by an involved party does not SNOW make. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why has this not been discussed with Kinu, and why is it here rather than DRV? Quantpole (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That, however, is a good question. This should be taken to DRV. After discussing with the closing admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to overturning this and taking to DRV, relisting, etc. It seemed like a reasonable case of WP:IAR to me, but I suppose my own delete !vote in the discussion sours the situation a little. I'm willing to let the deletion go through process. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't see the previous content I can't see if it would have been valid as an IAR close, a speedy delete, or something similar, but the justification you gave for its deletion in the AfD didn't seem valid: 3 deletes and a listing of less than a couple of hours is hardly a valid WP:SNOW close, especially when one of those !votes was your own. DRV will be better equipped to decide if the article should remain deleted, whether the close was correct or not. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Kinu, WP:MADEUP is cited. The content was blatant self promotion for the author. Promotion for the author. Not the book, but the author. Because the book does not exist. Its not in google shopping nor amazon. Its not in any literary database, its not found searching the library catalog at the college. Process was correctly sidestepped here. -- ۩ Mask 15:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think it should be left deleted per WP:NOTBUR and WP:CHILD, and the contributor should be counseled not to post their full name on wiki again. It was an unsourced (and likely unsourceable) short introduction and lengthy plot summary about a book published by a vanity press [12]. –xeno^talk 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor war and arbitrary movements before discussion.

Having started an article September 2010 Oil Rig explosion and go on with my day, when I go back to see if some information was added that I saw on the news, I noticed it was redirected to Mariner Energy by Weaponbb7. Forgive me, but since the history is a bit scattered I had to use through the user's contributions and my first time doing it.

• [13]
• [14] I ask him to talk about it first.

He changes it reverts it once again and I revert:

• [15] and since I was having a relatively busy day, war the revision rules slipped my mind.
• [16] It was at this point he basically shut the door, was notified and tried to carry on a discussion on his terms, trying to reason with him on Talk:Mariner Energy, but saw no reason in it.

Looking at his pesonal history, he did the same thing with Vermilion 380.

• [17], which MIGHT have been the basis a ship article, once we found out the proper name of the ship.

Looking at his history, I see that he has spent some time here, so it is uncertain what outcome can attained here. My main issue is that such heavy handed and unilateral decisions made by a relatively small number of people might actually be contributing to the loss of editors. [18] The AFD request for 2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis after only a day [19] and the discussion that followed is an example of some editors just don't try to build a consensus.--Hourick (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute, no administration attention needed IMHO. I am currently engaging in disuccsion. An article on the Explosion is violation is WP:NOTNEWS, While i redirected the RIg's name earlier yesterday because there where three different names in news reports and until reports clarified which rig I redirected it to the company article. (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We can open a content dispute if you wish, but this discussion isn't about that. I can open one up on that if you wish. --Hourick (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I fail to follow what you mean. This issue you have brought here is a content dispute which is NOT an incident that requires Admin attention. When two editors disagree we go WP:3O or something simliar. If you feel my behavior is the source of the alleged mass exodus from wikipedia than you need to take it to WP:ARBCOM and the WP:CABAL and have them block me. I have explained myself both on the talk page and here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand is that you simply moved an article that was a current event without discussing it first. You agreed to discuss it AFTER you had moved the page, yet again. In fact, you berated a user on the talk page for putting his too cents in! [20] This is not simply a case of you wishing every news event to be put in Wikinews, but rather satisfying your own set of rules to apply to everyone whether its agreed upon or not. --Hourick (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont follow your accusation, there were two lines of discussions on the page at that point talking about two different topics. Thus I pointed out that out I clarified the discticntion between the two threads. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Help - Afd Twinkle fluff

Resolved

 – fixed nomination.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My markup sucks. I definitely nominated this article via Twinkle [21] but I cannot get it to appear on the page (tried purging server cache, forced reload of page etc). Could someone fix it for me. Eternal thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Think I got it for you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior by User:Degmarshall and User:4Beauties

While on my usual new pages patrol a month back, I discovered an article, David E.G. Marshall, that might not have met WP guidelines. The article was made by Degmarshall (talk · contribs), making this apparently a clear autobiography. My speedy deletion, and then a PROD, was contested by 4Beauties (talk · contribs) who has been extensively editing the article in the previous user's place.

However, after looking through both users' contributions, I discovered something very fishy is going on.

• Degmarshall has existed on Wikipedia since 2006. His edits have been nearly entirely focused on either the article about him or his band, Staggered Crossing.
• With exception to a few edits to Canadian English, 4Beauties' edit history has been devoted to either Staggered Crossing or David E.G. Marshall.
• 4Beauties had his first edit in late July, where he created a userspace draft. Here's what the page looked like: [22].
• Less than two weeks later, Degmarshall created the autobiography. Here's what that initial page looked like: [23] (Notice how the userspace draft created by 4Beauties is nearly identical to this page.)
• Degmarshall and 4Beauties have never edited at the same time. Notice Degmarshall's edit on July 2nd, and 4Beauties' first edit less than a two hours later. Most of 4Beauties' edits occured on August 4th, with exception to one which occurred today. Likewise, note how Degmarshall didn't edit from August 2 until the 12th. He also hasn't edited since the 26th of August. But 4Beauties has, as I said earlier.

Perhaps this is all a list of coincidences, but nonetheless, something fishy is going on. I don't want to open a case at WP:SPI right away as I want some feedback from other editors, as well as a reply from the editors themselves (or himself, as the case may be.) In any case, User:Degmarshall has been engaging in clear violations of WP:COI for four years, and it concerns me that no one else picked up on this until me a month ago. elektrikSHOOS 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty clear case of socking, yeah. I'll go let the users know about this thread, and let them know that if they are the same person, they should only be using one account to edit with unless they have a legitimate reason to do otherwise. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you've already informed them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see some pretty clear quacking here, though I'll give the editor in question some time to reply before doing anything as yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If these articles are not notable, deleting them may be the best option. That would remove any incentive for COI editing, inviting close colleagues to edit, or similar violations of WP policy. Jehochman ^Talk 04:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an existing Afd discussion for David E.G. Marshall which you can find here. Commenting would be lovely. elektrikSHOOS 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As for Staggered Crossing, I don't see any particular reason to immediately open an Afd for it as it appears to satisfy WP:BAND in terms of notability. However, note there is only one source on the article as of right now, and given the extensive editing by the above user I'd say the article definitely is in need of cleanup work. elektrikSHOOS 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Commenting here to temporarily stay autoarchiving while we wait for either of the above users to comment on this thread. If a response is not forthcoming, I'd recommend an admin to indef block 4Beauties as a WP:DUCK sock, and a very strong warning to Degmarshall about socking and WP:COI. And I'm definitely going to keep an eye on him. elektrikSHOOS 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, given the two days this has been up without comment from either (or just one) editor... per what I said above. elektrikSHOOS 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by B-Machine

There has been a discussion over at WP:MILHIST about what constitutes a war; one editor, B-Machine (talk · contribs), has insisted that his interpretation is correct, while a half-dozen or so other editors (including myself) have argued that he is committing OR and editing disruptively. He has become increasingly uncivil, culminating in this post, which is quite over the line. Frankly, I'd have blocked him on the spot, but I'm obviously involved. Can someone deal with this? Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And cue attack on me personally. This is far too predictable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Was heading to block but was beaten to it by Tnxman307. --Golbez (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Over the line! Mark it zero! </lebowski> TNXMan 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• This seems to be a real, long-term behaviour pattern for B-Machine; completely unjustified bouts of truly excessive incivility. See [24] and [25] for instance... ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  Not quite as bad, but something I've just had cause to caution B-Machine for is "what's your problem?" addressed to an admin who had deleted a fairly blatant copy-vio. TFOWR 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  It would probably be a wise idea to keep an eye on him for the next time this behavior presents itself. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

This banned user (nee User:Kwork and beloved by all for his meritless accusations of antisemitism etc..) has been active again in the last few days. His particular interest has been taking the side of banned user User:DavidAppletree in an ugly dispute that has involved about 10 socks so far, forged posts seeking to make an admin who enforced policy look like a raging antisemite, impassioned emails to Jimbo on high and all sorts of related fun. The current sock IP is User:173.52.126.77. Identical editing interests and rhetorical style as Malcolm/Kwork. The last sock ip was User:173.52.182.160 which is the same range, same precise geographic location, etc... That IP is currently on a one year block (after Malcolm finally got caught he admitted he was socking through that IP [26]). Ban enforcement requested.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malcolm Schosha or WP:SPI?  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that submitting this case to SPI would be worthwhile. There seems to be a nearly-endless supply of IP socks who are energized by the recent debates on Wikipedia. I think that 173.52.126.77 may not be the last one, and I could not find an appropriate rangeblock. There are probably some socks of Einsteindonut as well as Shosha still contributing on Jimbo's talk page. The best way to restore peace to this issue may be to put back the full protection on the Jewish Internet Defense Force that was in effect from 15 March to 15 June of this year. The JIDF are a group who describe Mohammed on their website as a '..genocidal pedophile false prophet..'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Without going into the bigger issues... the IP is blocked for 3 months. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody discussed this with Jimbo? He has injected himself into the David Appletree case and is editing the JIDF article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by Iqinn (talk)

I feel a little silly coming here with what started out as a petty dispute over a tag, but it seems to be escalating. The section War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Kunduz_Province_campaign contains 0 references, and I tagged it as such using template:Unreferenced section.

I added [27], he removed [28], I added [29], he removed [30]. At that point I went to his talk page to further discuss the issue [31]. He also removed that [32], claiming to be moving the discussion to Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) but omitting part of what I wrote.

Since then, he has posted a notice on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring. Well it's true, but he made the first revert, and nobody else is involved. So I added the same notice to his page, along with some new problems I had with his behavior. He has deleted all of it [33] [34].

At this point I consider this to be a personal dispute. It's not about the content of the article, except for that one tag, and I don't want to garbage-up the article's talk page with it. I have explained my position, that sources must be posted in the article (readers shouldn't have to go to a different page for WP:Verifiability). I am not currently challenging any of the material, just requesting that he and other editors add sources, using the tag as a request mechanism.

Looking through his talk page history, it appears he has had at least one similar dispute in the recent past, which he tried to solve by removing User:Geo Swan's complaint.

I'm requesting:

1. Clarification that I'm right about the tag.
2. Somebody other than me resurrect the issues I raised on his talk page, either here or there.
3. Some minor sanction, at least a fish-slap.

Thanks for your consideration. Thundermaker (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also consider this to be a personal dispute, one that doesn't require any administrator intervention at this point. Get a third opinion or take it to dispute resolution. A couple of side notes: per WP:OWNTALK, the owner of a user talk page is explicitly permitted to remove comments at their own discretion; administrators have no power to enact sanctions against any editor, only the community at large or ARBCOM can do that. Oh, also, anybody can wield the {{trout}}. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User Toekneebe

Repeatedly restores unreferenced content such as [35]; looks like ad copy, and this account has no interest in other articles. No dialog. ANI notice posted to talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No dialog is an AN/I issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Dialog had started by the time I placed the wrong venue notice, which is why I placed it. See [36]. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Rmv'd wrong venue notice. This does require administrator intervention, user is clearly editing on behalf of a company [37] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the user was, but now the user is engaging in dialog maybe we can change that. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully a productive result. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Wakey82 again

This person has been warned several times about disruptive editing, refusing to recognise consensus and being abusive to other editors. Despite all of that, he has again reverted a consensus-accepted edit in a way that amounts to edit-warring and he has produced this missive in response to complaints about his abusive comments which proves he has no intention of being civil to other editors. I had already recommended an indefinite block but the view at the time, perhaps rightly, was that a new editor should be given due warning first and a second chance. Okay, I accept that, but his attitude is now clear for all to see. He is saying that he is right, everyone else is wrong and he will report anyone who disagrees with him. Sorry, but several experienced editors have tried to reason with this person to no avail and you must now call time. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what we have dispute resolution for. There's nothing actionable at this time. In particular, I think the dispute at the Airedale General Hospital article is silly all-around; that article has no sources so everything that everyone is arguing about is original research. -- Atama頭 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point. This person resorts to ABUSE instead of trying to achieve consensus. To say that the article is original research just because no one has previously bothered to provide a source is nonsense: original research is what it says it is. I have provided a citation which shows that the hospital is in Steeton parish and another one in the Steeton with Eastburn article itself which confirms its status. Can we start again, please, and consider the question of abuse and refusal to accept the warnings of several editors? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

...And? What's so awful about mentioning "abuse" that an administrator needs to take action? I know that this editor has had problems in the recent past with personal attacks, particularly targeting you and a perceived grudge you have against Keighley. Since the last warning was given I don't see a resumption of those personal attacks. The most recent edit you've complained about, while dismissive and certainly not congenial, is a far cry from the previous attacks that accuse you of hatred and "in need of medical attention". So that could possibly be seen as improvement. Unfortunately you will run into disagreeable people from time to time, people reluctant to change their mind about a subject, and there's no easy fix for such situations. We don't block people for acting in such a way, instead we employ various methods to try to get people to come to a compromise. The dispute resolution link I posted above can help guide you through that process somewhat. -- Atama頭 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see, you're not alleging that they claimed abuse, you're claiming that the editor has performed abuse. No, this is a run-of-the-mill disagreement. And contrary to what you stated before, the lack of personal attacks in the last few days suggests that they didn't ignore the warnings after all. -- Atama頭 21:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence in the last post doesn't make sense. I think I'm wasting my time. We shall see what happens next time the person edits one of the articles he is targeting. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page of Cross Hills and I've put that article and Airedale General Hospital on my watchlist for a time. If they start to resort to their prior behavior I'll issue warnings and/or blocks as needed. I can also help facilitate some mediation if necessary. I'm not ignoring you, I just don't think there's much that has to be done right now. :) -- Atama頭 21:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Image Removal in Huguette M. Clark and William A. Clark

Resolved

 – Edit war blocks issued Toddst1 (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Main page: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard § Huguette M. Clark

Page: Huguette M. Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) William A. Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being discussed: BlackberryHacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am looking for some help with a disruptive editor. In an effort to bolster an article about Huguette M. Clark a 104-year old heiress who has been in the news recently I cleaned up the text and went out in search of a free image to include in the article. I found a 1917 photograph of the subject and her father William A. Clark. After including the image, I have faced repeated removal by User:BlackberryHacks. His contention is that the image is not in the public domain - while I am sympathetic to the issue of copyright status it was my feeling that this new user cannot simply remove the image without going through a WP:FFD and establishing consensus. I feel very comfortable that a photograph published in 1917 will survive this discussion and that the. However, the user has not done this instead he just keeps removing the image from the article and is not at all considerate of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. This has now progressed to the verge of an edit war with 1-2 reversions every 24 hours. Please see the following edits to Huguette M. Clark:[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45] and William A. Clark: [46],[47],[48],[49]. I have also received a number of frustrating responses to my attempts to resolve the issue civilly or propose an appropriate course of action to develop consensus. I posted on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard but have as yet not gotten any guidance on an appropriate course of action for dealing with this editor. I would hate to propose a block but I am struggling with a better solution as this editor seems very determined to remove this image unilaterally |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If the image these two were edit warring over is a copyright violation, then the image itself should be deleted under WP:CSD#G12. Edit warring over inserting the image is completely inappropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, according to the MSNBC source one of the three people in the photograph died in 1919, so it was clearly taken prior to 1923, however I haven't been able to establish when it was published. As there is a credible claim of being public domain, this isn't a speedy, and WP:FFD is a possible venue. In my humble opinion, blocking Urbanrenewal seems a little harsh. PhilKnight (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Shortened block. Fair point. Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

/* Protection please? */

Resolved

Someone protect Brian Posehn quickly please. Thanks. (And yes, I posted this on RPP already!) Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Dabomb, you are indeed da bomb. Thanks. Close thread! Drmies (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous Warnings by Dripping Flame

Resolved

Dripping Flame slapped me with a level 2 warning for vandalism to the talk page of User:123pizza due to 123's vandal edits on the article Minimum wage. Dripping Flame correctly reverted my revert on the page due to lag on huggle which accidentally undid Dashbot's removal of the vandalism with a 1 second difference in the edit history. Instead of noticing this issue and just undoing the mistake, Dripping flame warned me for vandalism (honest mistake) but then continued to revert my edits to the vandal's talk page. Can I have a third party discuss this overzealous reversion / warning with Dripping Flame please.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried engaging the user yourself? This doesn't look like it requires any administrator action.  Frank  |  talk  14:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It looks like his last edit was a couple of minutes before you posted on his talk page. It's very possible you just missed him. I'd consider waiting to see if he comes back on line and see if the two of you can come to an understanding.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) What Cube lurker said.  Frank  |  talk  14:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

K. Consider it closed for now. IDK, I do have an issue with getting vandal warnings on my talk, considering the bulk of my project time is vandal fighting and I always try to take the time to double-research my edits and preemptively apologize for false positives. I also agree that the first revert was a gap, but the following me to warn me for issuing warnings on the known vandal's talk page is what disturbs me about the case. Either way, as I said, I'm over my freak out and I'll consider it closed out until they respond in talk. Sorry for being hasty. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandal fighters make mistakes and if the mistake is made with Huggle or Igloo, it's entirely possible that the editor has no idea of the mistake until it's brought to their attention, but bringing it to ANI is completely unnecessary at this stage. DF (an alternative account of mono (talk · contribs)) has a dedicated page for editors to report bad reverts, so i suggest you try there first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Why is this an issue? Just ignore the warnings. No one cares about them. No one notices them except for those folks a bit too obsessed with RC patrolling. I never saw why some folks talk it up like its gods own gift that they RC patrol. I mean, its needed and all and we should all do a bit of it, but its by far the least-effort job on the encyclopedia. No content is added, no sections carefully pruned, its just mindless clicking. Hell, you can even see it on your talk page, he used one of those horrible canned vandal warnings instead of typing you out a note. This is the behavior that gets laughed at by most of us. Just ignore it. -- ۩ Mask 15:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Think of it as a friendly fire incident. Of course, no fire is friendly when it hits you. Considering the speed with which the automatic tools work, it's something that can easily happen. The thing to do when I do it is to revert myself and apologize. Dlohcierekim 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at the talk page, and I must clarify. I did not choose to use a warning; it is automatic (just like Huggle, except it's smart enough not to revert a revert).  ℳono  15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also responded on the talk page. Your tool is obviously not smart enough to know when to revert a valid warning on a vandal's page and not warn an editor for placing it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To Mono: Huggle allows you to revert an edit without leaving a templated warning; I'm not familiar with Igloo but if Igloo has that option I think you should have used it there, and if not just do it manually. —Soap— 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Igloo doesn't have such an option. This was the revert in question. It appears that Torchwoodwho reverted vandalism, but reverted back to a version that was also vandalised. It's entirely possible that Mono/DF didn't see the username or edit summary and just focused on the diff and, of course, reverted it, os confusion all round it seems. I've made similar mistakes myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I use Twinkle. I also go back and verify manually that I haven't made a mistake. I also read the user page before laying on a warning. But then, what do I know? Dlohcierekim 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Igloo doesn't work like Twinkle does. It opens up in a new window and just presents you with diff after diff for you to check. If you opt to revert the edit, there's no way to stop it issuing a warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"No way to stop it"? Then don't use it. You must remain in control of anything you post. I hate seeing that IIAD, the It Is Automatic Defence, put forward, as if it was impossible to write in your own voice. You sign the message, you take responsibility for what it says. Mask, the canned warnings may get laughed at by us clever people, but newer users may reasonably get the impression that a message left for them is a message for them. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

I thought at first that this was a reference to "IIED" as in "Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress" but I can see that we're actually talking about "Intentional Infliction of Automated Distress," a situation that is bound to occur when one insists on using automated software that drops warning templates designed for gross vandals. Eventually, the user will run across edits that were made in good faith, and drop an automated "go away, vandal" on someone who doesn't deserve that. Tools really should not allow those who use them to ignore the effect that their chosen mode of communication can cause, and those who choose to use such tools really should better consider their intentions. Steveozone (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that this thread will be archived without any real result and that therefore this comment is useless, but I have to say that I agree with Bishonen. I've chosen to edit without any scripted or automated aids—mainly because I think rather slowly, and I don't want to make any edits faster than I can think—and there's no reason to automatically post templated warnings on user's talk pages unless you really mean to (and unless you're a bot). Igloo, whatever that is, seems to need a revision. Deor (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Igloo is a work in progress. In the next revision, a "self-revert" feature will be added, along with custom warnings and other stuff.  ℳono  13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson's attacks

Chrisjnelson has made many personal attacks against me in the past few weeks. He has been warned twice, but won't quit. He's been told that it's against WP:NPA, but he still won't stop. Here are a few examples. 1, 2, 3 and 4. RevanFan (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward personal attacks, and frankly pretty childish. I'd suggest a short block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

See also: [50], [51]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The tone of some of the communications is not acceptable. He/she may disagree with someone's edits, but should do it civilly. I'd warn first, then see where it goes from there. Connormah (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He was warned a few days ago. [52]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, User:RevanFan isn't entirely faultless either; this is not acceptable behaviour. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, although I can understand his/her frustration (provided that this is the only diff) - nobody likes to be responded to in the snappy tone that Chrisjnelson is using. Connormah (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but I would urge RevanFan to rise above it and take the matter here or WP:WQA rather than responding in kind, next time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have told him that I will stop. I admit that I was being childish. If he attacks me again, I will just ignore him, or leave a warning (if only I knew how to.) RevanFan (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See {{uw-npa1}}, {{uw-npa2}}, etc. Or simply use a handwritten warning, but keep it civil. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think leaving a warning as an involved editor is a good idea - it tends to inflame the conflict. Have an outside admin look at the situation - you are welcome to contact me if it continues.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In my defense, he deserve it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The nature of the comments is just not acceptable, no matter how much you think someone "deserves" it. Please read up on WP:NPA. Connormah (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to comply with the policies, then a block may be in order - please don't continue the behavior in the diffs above. Connormah (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"He deserved it" is no defence. If you continue to be incivil and to make personal attacks, you will be blocked. Fences&Windows 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you take this discussion seriously. If the behavior continues we'll see whether this edit summary holds true. —DoRD (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Might I just jump in here and point out that I am slightly concerned about Chris's "Great moments in vandalism history" section on his userpage. In any other situation, I would AGF and think that it is just a collection of humorous vandal edits, but with the context of this discussion added in and with Chris's responses on here...I am suddenly doubtful. Silverseren^C 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeffpw and Isaac

Resolved

 – User blocked

Could somebody please block Jeffpw and Isaac (talk · contribs)? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, but the next time go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, AIV's kinda strict, and generally is for the "I warned them 4 times and they keep doing this obvious vandalism" kind of reports. Reporting something less clear than that often will just earn someone a request to bring it to this board. I don't think it was inappropriate. -- Atama頭 07:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not vandalism alone; the user should have been hardblocked under a username block; the hardblock would also catch the underlying IP as well. This is a long-term issue witb someone who has a disturbing fixation on an editor who has died. Horologium (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnj stevenson uploading copyrighted images after multiple warnings (2nd relisting)

(relisting)

Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) has uploaded about 6 copyrighted images for use at Susana Martinez, all of which he claimed as his own work even though they really came from professional sources such as the Associated Press. All images were speedily deleted. He has been warned (warning, warning, warning) but has again uploaded after these warnings. He also removes the deletion tags from his images without explanation, and has also been warned about this but persists in this behavior. How about a block on this user? Thanks. --75.211.134.137 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll try something different on this one. If he uploads another copyvio after this, then I would recommend a block. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• After Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs)'s more detailed warning against copyvio, Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) has uploaded another copyvio image. Further he deleted the speedy deletion tag from this image at least three times, after being warned about this also. How about a block on this user? --75.211.245.115 (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

1 week block imposed. Any administrator may unblock if Johnj stevenson indicates convincingly that they understand the policy and will abide by it in the future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good block but lenient as they've never responded on their talk page or elsewhere. If they continue, I'd suggest an indefinite block, which, like the week block, can be unblocked just as quickly as they can convince an Admin about their good intentions in the future. Any block like this can generally be as short as the editor wants it to be, all they have to do is comply and communicate. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Despite the remedies applied above, Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) persists in uploading copyrighted files; see File:Susana Martinez - 2009.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), File:Espanola Falls.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). How about an indefinite block on this editor? Thanks. --75.211.28.11 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for another week. Perma-blocks are frowned upon. We can only hope he'll get it at some point. --Selket ^Talk 01:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when are perma-blocks for serial copyright violators frowned on? And why wasn't the block at least longer than the first one? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to echo Dougweller (and Everard Proudfoot) above. This is a good block, but really, really lenient. He has not once responded to any of the warnings he has received, and we'll likely find ourselves here again. An indefinite block isn't a "perma-block". Once the user agrees to follow our rules on copyright it can be lifted. AniMate 01:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The block should be indef. Or, to put it another way, they should be blocked until and unless they understand policy and realise that their actions could potentially result in legal problems for the WMF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the Resolved tag from this section because of the concerns raised by multiple users. As a non-admin, if this was the wrong thing to do, please feel free to revert me. Silverseren^C 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. This case has prompted me to make this proposal to the village pump idea lab. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's all fine. I'm open to a block review from another admin on this one. I'm not going to extend it myself just so it doesn't look like I'm extending because lots of people said I should. If another admin thinks it should be longer, go ahead and extend it. --Selket ^Talk 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to extend to one month; I have done that twice recently for serial copyright violators. Neither of those blocks met with any criticism, so I'm going to assume people approve of that length; please do correct me if I'm wrong. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't approve, Blood Red Sandman and have blocked you for 6 weeks. Please dont object, per WHEEL. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for intervention against vandalism

Further information: [[:Variety Obituaries]], [[:"move wikilink"]], and [[:"NY Times obit referenced"]]

On 29 August 2010, User: Wikiwatcher1 violated the rule posted in boldface at the top of this page,
Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page
and launched a complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Spam bombardment? against my accurate, relevant and informative citations of movie reviews on pages about those movies. User: Wikiwatcher1 concocted a linkspam theory that those citations link to pages about the multi-volume reprints of Variety Film Reviews and Variety Obituaries, both of which have been discontinued and are out of print. Those pages were created by me, as I happen to own one of the world’s most complete privately-held collections of movie reference books, most of which have material not available online. My citations are the first step in adding information from the reprints to pages about movies and celebrities.

The complaint was quickly “Resolved” (with a large green check mark) against the suggestion of User: Wikiwatcher1 that my citations be deleted, at which point User: Wikiwatcher1 took it upon himself to begin systematically deleting most, not all, of my citations. These deletions are unconscionable and indefensible, with User: Wikiwatcher1 rationalizing his vandalism with excuses such as “obit already cited” or “already has valid source.”

Sometimes instead of deleting, User: Wikiwatcher1 moves my citations from a relevant place in the article to an irrelevant one. For example, User: Wikiwatcher1, moved my citation for the obituary of Charles Laughton from next to Laughton’s death date and occupation (information given in the obituary) to the statement about where Laughton was buried, even though the obituary says nothing about Laughton’s resting place.

At User talk:Wikiwatcher1#Cease your vandalism, I warned that further such meddling and/or vandalism would result in a complaint by me against such activity, and I politely explained my motives and intentions. User: Wikiwatcher1 replied in a manner that appeared conciliatory, as if the matter was settled.

But now User: Wikiwatcher1 has deleted another of my citations (the Variety obituary of Paul Muni), and has demanded User talk:Aardvarkzz#Explantion requested for wikilinking I explain why there is a link on each citation to the pages about the reprints. I do not owe User: Wikiwatcher1 such an explanation. However, I am informing Wikipedia that the links (which were the basis of the complaint by User: Wikiwatcher1 rejected by Wikipedia) take the interested user to a page explaining where the citations come from and where they are most likely to find the facsimile reprint text of the articles and reviews if one has the inclination to go to a library that has those series. Because the articles I have cited are not online, there is no better link than the ones I provide. The citations could link to Variety magazine, but the Variety website is not free and it does not have reviews and obituaries as far back as the ones I have cited.

User: Wikiwatcher1 at least needs to be informed that citations confirming information already cited is legitimate; i.e., sometimes several citations side-by-side refer to the same fact. Often my citations are the only ones about a movie or celebrity.

Please advise User: Wikiwatcher1 against further deleting or meddling with my citations.Aardvarkzz (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs which indicate where you feel inappropriate removal / relocation of citations out of context has occured? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1 seems to not understand that a reference does not need to directly link to the source used. Linking to a relevant Wikipedia page about the source is quite common. Whether these references are necessary is another matter: if the article already has references to these details, why persist in adding further references, simply because you happen to have the book? That's somewhat perverse. Fences&Windows 15:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I politely requested a "rationale" on Aardvarkzz's talk page, so I think this ANI is unnecessary. The simple solution is to just give the rationale. In any case, there was absolutely nothing resembling vandalism involved. I did move his article links where no other RS was given for an obituary, as for Ernst Lubitsch and Nunnally Johnson, and accept that something is better than nothing. If someone simply asked me for a "rationale," however, I doubt if I'd use the fact that I'm near "one of the major film reference services in the country, with more than 8,000 books and 150 journal titles," as a reason why such rationale is thereby not needed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs which indicate where you feel inappropriate removal / relocation of citations out of context has occured?
Yes. Please see Special:Contributions/Wikiwatcher1. Following your resolution (29 August 2010) against the suggestion of User: Wikiwatcher1 that my citations be deleted, User: Wikiwatcher1 on 30 August 2010 from 03:18 to 04:15 deleted (in most cases) or moved (in a few cases approximately forty of my Variety obituary citations. This destructive and disruptive activity temporarily ceased when I started a dialog at User talk:Wikiwatcher1#Cease your vandalism. However, User: Wikiwatcher1 demanded further explanation from me at User talk:Aardvarkzz#Explantion requested for wikilinking, and attempted to prod me into making such explanation by deleting (19:25, 3 September 2010) my accurate and relevant Variety citation for the obituary of Paul Muni.

When the “polite request” by User: Wikiwatcher1 is accompanied by vandalizing a citation, it is NOT polite, and amounts to vandalism. I have already wasted several hours attempting to be polite with User: Wikiwatcher1, as well as several more hours undoing his vandalism and requesting intervention against it. Whether or not User: Wikiwatcher1 personally finds my citations informative is beside the point. There is nothing deceptive or misleading about the citations, and I ask you to instruct User: Wikiwatcher1 to tolerate their presence in articles about movies and celebrities, and that User: Wikiwatcher1 cease further communication with me.Aardvarkzz (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Justa Punk

Resolved

 – User indef blocked by User:Hersfold GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Special:Contributions/Justa_Punk last day's edits are supposed to mean... It's pretty clear it's related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justa Punk/Archive - does this warrant an extended block or just revert them? - I'm really not sure on this one :? Skier Dude (talk 01:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll remain neutral in the matter, as I was the admin who blocked him 1 month for socking, which that block just expired. IMO, those redirects he created should be reverted, as we need to know that be abused with sock puppets and with what. –MuZemike 02:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The user pages of the "socks" make that clear. The talk pages make no difference to this. Besides, they are all in effect mine according to Wikipedia, so under WP:NAMESPACE I can do what I want with them. And that's been done, and it should be left that way because there's nothing being hidden. Now if I'd done the same to the user pages that indicate the "sock" issue, that would be another matter. I'm done. !! Justa Punk !! 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to recommend that it all be reverted, the standard {{sock}} template be added to those pages and the main account blocked indef for sockpuppetry, along with a new checkuser ran just to play it safe. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Under which rules are you making this recommendation? !! Justa Punk !! 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction to comment further up - I should have referenced WP:UP#OWN and not Namespace. Note again that the sock stuff on the socks is on the user page and not on the user talk page and they have not been touched. I have done nothing wrong in this instance. !! Justa Punk !! 10:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Justa's intentions are, but I think it's pretty misleading to redirect all his socks. They are socks, they are not alternate accounts. Shouldn't the sock template be put on every of the userpages confirmed to be socks in the SPI? Bejinhan talks 13:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They already are. !! Justa Punk !! 14:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So wouldn't redirecting your socks' talk pages to your userpage hide stuff like this? Bejinhan talks 14:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No - because of this, along with this, this, this.....need I go on? So what's hidden? !! Justa Punk !! 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note that I just reverted a personal attack directed at the community as a whole from this user's user page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  I also reverted the redirection of the user's talk page to his user page and issued him a npa-4im notice, as I felt this was a pretty serious breach of WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete these images and handle this vandal?

At Dago dazzler this edit [53] added two images that are a BLP violation against a professor (Michael E. Mann) who's been in the news in relation to climate change. The images need to be deleted, the account (no doubt a sock of some editor involved in Wikipedia's climate-change controversies) should be blocked. The images were put up as a joke because I created the article and I've been involved in the current ArbCom case on climate change. In about 10 minutes I'll be offline for probably the rest of the day, but I think this is all pretty straightforward and should be dealt with immediately. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The images are actually rather funny and not nasty personal attacks, as far as I can tell, but they do need to go. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The images were on Commons, so it might have been better to post there. I deleted the image and blocked the user. I think a checkuser would be useful in this case, but I don't have any idea who this might be. NW (Talk) 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, NW. The account name violates WP:USERNAME policy, since it's an offensive, derogatory term, another reason to keep it blocked. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Meher Baba

Resolved

 – It didn't stop; further steps were taken. Blocked 24h Rodhullandemu 19:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see recent history of Meher Baba. I think page protection may be needed. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a {{uw-3rr}} and directed the editor to the Talk page. If it doesn't stop, further steps will be taken. Rodhullandemu 18:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this prompt review. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Would the person who stole the stepladder kindly return it, or further steps will be taken. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Page TFA Error

Resolved

A minor correcttion on the TFA on the front page currently. The very last line should read "Stephens City celebrated its 250th anniversary on October 12, 2008." This was a mistake on my part when I wrote the blurb. If an admin could correct that line, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Yugoslav Partisans

User:LAz17 has arrived at the article in question, "denounced" published references as "BAD SOURCES", removed whole sourced paragraphs, and proceeded to alter huge chunks of text sourced by inline citations from university publications in accordance with his personal views [54]. When reverted and asked to discuss, he simply started to edit-war [55] knowing he could only be reverted three times - then left. The article is now thoroughly vandalized and the user is simply unresponsive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I was not notified of this. Hence Direktor broke a rule.

2) My only goal was to improve the article. However, Direktor has a long history of jumping on anything that is not how he likes it to be. Therefore we have been trying to hammer this out on the talk board but it is not working. Therefore the next step is to go through dispute resolution. Direktor is hoping to get me banned via this report (and notice that he did not notify me, on purpose obviously), because he does not want to have another bitter pill to swallow, as he has with the Draza Mihajlovic dispute resolution - over there things clearly did not go his one sided way. He is one sided and there is no wiggle room because his mind is set - as is mine - therefore dispute resolution mediation is absolutely necessary.

3) I did not start to edit war. Direktor did, by removing things that I added. What I added was from a scholarly pier reviewed journal, Internatinoal Security, from Harvard University. But the article has one major flaw - it has stuff that Direktor does not like. Hence he could not resist reverting and then accusing me of being the culprit. But even worse, he accused me of putting unsourced made up material on there- that is what he thinks of information that he does not like, regardless of weather or not it comes from Harvard or is indeed wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

"Peer-reviewed" and "whether" are the phrases you were looking for. This is the English WP, and we should be held to proper spelling and context (unless we're being sarcastic, of course)... Doc9871 (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

English is not everyone's first language, esp. in the balkan article space. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Doc9871 you should be ashamed of thoes remarks. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Or not. I doubt you have a self reflective bone in you body. Woe betides the encyclopedia people like you position themself in charge of. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I won't apologize for "thoes" remarks. It's nothing personal, really (sorry). The discussion should continue after the annoying spelling corrections from me. Please, carry on... Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Intimidation90

Resolved

 – Nothing left to do here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just an unstable kid admitting the use of drugs, maybe just pretending. But this: [56] might be taken for a suicide note. East of Borschov 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what he's getting at in any of his posts, but they are certainly concerning. I've blocked the account, and left this link: http://www.iasp.info/resources/Crisis_Centres/ on his talk page. It's the one from {{Suicide response}}. I'm not sure if we need to go any further as, again, I'm not clear what he's getting at. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Attempted outing

This posting by User:Darkstar1st where he provides information that he claims to be the name of another editor and a link to their alleged website would appear to be an attempted outing, which is a form of harrassment. While the editor may have a user name that resembles a person's name, it is a common name and their user page does not identify them. Furthermore, the posting is also harrassing in that it claims that the editor is editing from a personal POV and is doing this to benefit financially. Here is the text of the posting:

Conflict of interest. Is [name of personal website] using wikipedia to promote her pov for an upcoming book? Of all the wikipedians i have met, she is the 1st to use her real name. The edits she makes happen to mirror her own political pov, which is described in the synopsis of her upcoming book. does this conflict of interest compromise her ability to edit here from a npov. does her sales from the website with the exact same url as her user name benefit her financially.

TFD (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

according to wp:outing, "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not" i simply expoxed a for profit website, that is being used on wp to shape article for the website benefit. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I deleted Darkstar1st's posting, he has restored it with the notation "Undid revision 382889268 by The Four Deuces (talk)as per wp:outing, the url to a website is not included as personal information". TFD (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

carol has mentioned several times she knew murray rothbard personally, and is attempting to use this article to cash in on her book. all of her edits are focused on highlighting anarcho-capitalism in the libertarian article lede. i am trying to show this is a conflict of interest by a motivated editor who is compensated on th subject she edits. 16:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar: pardon my being blunt, but you're being a jerk. stop it. --Ludwigs2 16:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime I suggest Darkstar1st self-revert. TFD (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

please ludwig, be yourself, i take no offense. using wp to self promote is forbidden, since her edits and book have the same pov, and the article is directly related to the book, it seems clear to me this is a conflict. would you agree? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar: I don't have an opinion on the truth of the conflict, which will be handled admirably by others. I'm just telling you that (regardless of the cause or outcome), you're being a jerk. If you want to keep being pushy, keep being pushy - I don't really care. Just don't think that you're actually getting away with anything. All you're actually doing is making yourself look like a jerk, and sooner or later that's going to bite you on the ass. understood?

then please make your comments in the appropriate talk page, this section is for a ani where i may get banned. personal attacks like "jerk" are against wp:policy, Darkstar1st (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are a vexation to the spirit..." 'nough said. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In cases of perceived conflict of interest, one should follow the conflict of interest guideline. Notice that it says at "How to handle conflicts of interest", "Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest".[57] TFD (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

when a user name, is also a url, an obvious conflict of interest exist. the url is "out", on the interwebs, in google, linked to several website about the lone article being edited toward a fringe term, "anarcho-capitalism, invented by a man she has said in WP, she knew, personally. and is now writing a book advertised on an url identical to her user name. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically it can't be outing if they out themselves. HalfShadow 16:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just provide the diff where she says she knows the guy and we're done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

i will go get them now, somewhere in the libertarian talk pages, she said she used to "hang out with murray in nyc in the 80's", should be about june Darkstar1st (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

this wasn't what i was searching, ill add the other soon. :Taken from Murray Rothbard talk page, and this is a direct quote:

'Looking at the Reason article again on the controversial Ron Paul newsletters which is widely ref'd lately, I remembered - OOPS! - I was quoted in it. Some short reference to this angry period of Rothbard's life probably should be mentioned so it doesn't look like a coverup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

still not what i am look for, but a different book she sells on wp. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Carolmooredc&oldid=84876028%20first%20started Darkstar1st (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Most editors disclose some personal information about themselves at some time. User:Seb az86556 for example states on his user page that he lives in Arizona, knows various languages and is an administrator on the Navaho Wikipedia. That does not give me the write to try to figure out his identity and post information that I believe identifies him. Neither does it give me the write to circumvent the conflict of interest guideline and attack him on a talk page. TFD (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW Darkstar1st, I notice that a floating IP who claims to be a WP:SOCK of the banned editor User:Karmaisking is posting instructions on your talk page,[58] which you are using in response to this thread. I mentioned before that you should get your page self-protected in order to stop this. That fact is that you were not aware of any of what the IP posted and should not allow your talk page to be used by banned editors. TFD (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

archived talk page:

'Living in NYC before associated with Libertarians I was very pro-Israel. But hanging out with Murray 1979-82, I became very critical. However, when someone took "anti-Zionist" off his page, I did a quick search and couldn't find a self-identification as one. But his writings could be interpreted as that. Being an anarchist he had more the anarchist position there should not be such a state. Carol Moore 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc WOW you got to hang with Murray. Excellent. Thanks for the answer I hope that I wasnt putting you on the spot. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Question authority! :-) Carol Moore 16:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC Darkstar1st (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)TFD, you are right -- I wasn't excusing, I was merely asking for a substantiation of the claim, which I think could at least lead to "mitigating circumstances" -- otherwise, according to policy, Darkstar1st would have to be blocked immediately and indefinitely. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, were you aware of that discussion thread when you attempted to out User:Carolmooredc? TFD (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Carol Moore While Darkstar1st did not handle the WP:Conflict of Interest question properly, I would say this is a minor issue compared to User:Darkstar1st's ongoing disruption as reflected in more than a dozen warnings people have given him about his editing behavior in Libertarianism and other articles on his personal talk page. This includes my recent posting User_talk:Darkstar1st#Warning_on_Meat_Puppetry.2FCozying_up_to_known_sock_puppets. He still has not deleted advice on how to "fight dirty" from banned sock User:Karmaisking from his talk page and now is getting more "advice" from User:114.73.22.23 who probably is the same sock on how to attack me. Later Added:Now removed by another editor. Now that to me is a big policy violation.

Obviously I was naive when I first signed up for Wikipedia thinking that being honest about who you are and what your pov (which I proclaim on my user page) is would somehow insulate one from absurd charges. Let's face it, I could have written a whole book in 8 months of disruptive WP:SOAPBOX and WP:Personal Attacks I (and others) have had to put up with from those who want to purge all but one narrow meaning of libertarianism from the article. Editors who want to improve the article have to put up with constant disruption of the editing process by Darkstar1st, the named socks, AnonIPs (now banned), and one or two other editors whose behavior has been disruptive. Note that we have requested mediation - see Talk:Libertarianism#Request_we_go_to_formal_mediation but no explicit response to the Mediation Cabal application yet. However, the odds of such mediation being useful are limited unless the mediation has a very firm hand to deal with constant disruptions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

but i didnt out her, she has been out, and is using wp to self-promote: I'm not a radio person but http://youtube.com/carolmoore is chockful of my DC protest videos and starting to do music videos of my songs. Plus have another more anonymous YT site with (I take the fifth amendment) video put together cleverly to illustrate nuke war issues. Far more popular than my own site. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs when you allegedly quote people on wikipedia, as you failed to do a few times above. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous harassment by User:Darkstar1st, in my opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, you have just repeated what was just posted on your talk page by a probable sockpuppet of banned User:Karmaisking.[59] Were you aware of any of this information before your attempted outing of another editor? TFD (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we be clear that this is NOT attempted outing. User:Carolmooredc seems quite clear that she is the Carol Moore Darkstar1st says she is, so it can't be outing. Soapboxing, harrassing, there may be a case for either of those. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Elen of the Roads. It seems utterly absurd that Darkstar1st is being accused of outing Carolmooredc when her Wikipaedia username is, by her own admission, her real name.

Indeed, given that this thread reads like a who's-who of the left-wing faction of the Libertarianism talk page, it appears that this complaint is little more than yet another exercise in the on-going harassment of Darkstar1st which has been escalated by their obvious meat-puppetry.

Personally, I don't know how Darkstar1st remains so polite in the face of such constant abuse. He has certainly earned my respect in that regard. BlueRobe (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot

The HBCAI bot is working from an IP (71.244.112.164) again. The IP has been blocked before (see discussion here), but the block expired. The bot has used another IP before (discussion here). Maybe the block should be extended and the bots owner be contacted?--Oneiros (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot is using its proper account just now.--Oneiros (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at BON a couple days ago too.[60] Not sure if that was such a good place. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

110.20.0.0/18, 114.72.192.0/18

This vandal, who was previously discussed here, is still at large. Lately he has (as usual) inserted profanities into another user's posts ([61], [62]) and pretended to be someone he's not ([63], [64]). Please block, he is making it extremely unpleasant to visit WP:RD/math. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The first range (110.*) is still under a 2-week block by Alison which started August 26. I have blocked anonymous edits from the second range (114.*) for one month per this block history. Rangeblocks have block logs; you can see them conveniently using the 'rangelinks' template:

• 110.20.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)).
• 114.72.192.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The new block seems unlikely to have much collateral damage, per the rangecontribs results for 114.72.192.0/18. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ednhil1102 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

Blocked twice for spamming, completely unresponsive to any messages; just recreated an article that has been deleted in various versions before [65].[66]. FWIW notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Three strikes and you're indef'ed! Favonian (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Petition to "ban" Wikipedia

Feedeth not the trolls

See WT:WPSPAM#Petition to "ban" Wikipedia At best, this is canvasing. They've already crippled the link to work around the blacklist; so not sure if the best solution is XLinkBot, an edit filter, or a group using RBI to mop-up. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Added filter 360 - log only for now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Appears to be working properly. Set to disallow and auto-report to ANI AIV. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Without falling into the trap of going to whatever their website is and probably picking up some malware in the process... by what mechanism do they propose "banning" wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) The same way one accomplishes any other big political goal--by posting an online petition. It reads: Wikipedia is the single most dangerous site on the web. It is living proof that a few individuals with a sinister agenda can change the way millions of people view the world and world history. It puts itself forward as an information resource, but a quick look through any of its articles shows that it is almost 100% entirely inaccurate. Much of the 'information' is created in the minds of at best mischievous, and at worst despotic individuals or groups who seek to create chaos and spread lies throughout the world. Much of it is aimed at young people seeking knowledge, and it is thus particularly despicable and especially dangerous. The site and those that run it - and lets not forget they are paid handsomely to keep the site prominent - should be banned from the world wide web and all references to Wikipedia should be removed. While all of that is no doubt true, per our verifiability policy it can't go in Wikipedia unless suitable references are made up supplied. ;-) 67.122.211.178 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Shocking stats: signatures: 27, signature goal: 1,000,000. — Edokter • Talk • 18:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC) ...Lemme be the first to ask the usual question: Where's my "handsome" pay for my "despotic" work? ;p umrguy42 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe you only qualify as "mischievous", Umrguy...I think the consolation prize is a toaster or an iCarly mouse pad... Tiderolls 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Darn! To quote Arlo Guthrie, "I am not the threat I'd hoped to become!" ;D umrguy42 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Random side-note, all these IPs seem to be open proxies, too. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Another one. It mutates. Favonian (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC) One more 190.201.19.91 (talk · contribs). Two Vandalisms of this post. "Don't be a D***."--intelati 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Dang that was fast.--intelati 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC) So, if one million of us sign, then we start getting handsomely paid and are promoted to despots? I'm definitely in! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC) For starters, we should all demand that our current salary be doubled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I've semi'd this noticeboard for 2 hours - feel free to revert if you no longer feel it's necessary. Connormah (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I was Just about going to suggest a semi-protection. Never mind. :)--intelati 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Good move. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC) You mean you all haven't been getting the checks? I mean...not that I have, or anything...not at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Hang on, are they saying that the admins are getting PAID to do this? Sign me up then! But then again what about us normal editors, don't we get anything? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Hey, admins get paid TEN TIMES what we do. Why do you think everyone wants the job? Actually they do get paid: 10 dollars a day. Minus 10 dollars for postage and handling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC) TEN TIMES the pay? It's about time I ran an WP:RFA then ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Sure. Just be sure to cut me in on a ten percent finder's fee. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Yeah, but like Bugs said, it's ten dollars MINUS postage and handling MINUS internet user free (variable) MINUS that admin's contribution to Wikipe-tan's clothing and travel expenditures (last month, my credit card bill for this was $148.64), and whatever else the foundation's wonderfully creative accounts can somehow slip past the auditors whatever unanticipated expenses might arise. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Hey, that's nothing like a crat's pay! We get paid 1,000,000 times as much as admins do! (X! · talk)  · @862  ·  19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 10%!? What extravagence! You can't say you admins don't earn your money! Blasted Bereucrats! and I guess you have your money sent 1st class courier with a £1,000,000 handling fee? And yet us normal editors get zilch! but then Whoever said Wikipedia was fair? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) How cute. (X! · talk)  · @851  ·  19:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC) ['Zilla is inspired to do a bit of canvassing of her own. ] For mere 10,000 x regular Admin Handsome Pay, may touch hem of Zilla spiderman suit! Study trip pocket small extra charge. Major credit cards accepted. Form orderly line, please! bishzilla ROARR!! 20:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC). That's quite flattering really. I never knew we were that influential and I never thought we were the most subversive force on the internet. As yet I have not been paid handsomely but I'll happily accept premium bonds when I am. In lieu of payment I have made several expenses. A second home closer to my computer, a duck house, some hobnobs and had my moat cleaned. To be honest, until the 'prohibition of wikipedia act' is being pushed through the European Parliament I shan't really worry about this all that much. Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

African Spanish

Resolved

Sounds pretty unlikely doesn't it. African Spanish was a redirect which was deleted because it redirected to a page that didn't exist. I'm just curious to find out where it redirected to. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that exciting, African Spanish dialect. Courcelles 19:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unicorn76

Please could an admin notify User:Unicorn76 about the discretionary sanctions and log it. The user added a BLP violation and a copyvio to support the BLP violation on the George Galloway talk page (and it has been removed by Off2riorob so no further action is required there). The editor's user page statement "Unicron 76 is a person who will challenge the PC of Wikipedia Administrators and Editors who refuse to accept sources that don't conform to their world view" suggests a battlefield mentality inconsistent with the sanctions. Thanks.
(User notified about ANI posting here) Sean.hoyland - talk 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is wise here. Done.--Chaser (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

74.66.236.70

Resolved

thanks--intelati 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

74.66.236.70 (talk · contribs) Has been warned the usual four times and is still actively vandalising the talk:Debby Ryan. thanks--intelati 22:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In the future, noncontroversial block requests such as this one should be brought to WP:AIV. Thanks! elektrikSHOOS 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Attack page where even the page title is an attack?

Resolved

 – HJ Mitchell got there first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See [redacted] - anyway we can permanently remove this so we don't even have it left in any logs? Exxolon (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just saw that myself, before it got deleted, and I'd have to agree that might well qualify for oversight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I tried to do that, but HJ Mitchell was faster. Also removed the link here. Ucucha 01:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know about oversight, but I've deleted the title from the logs and removed it from the creator's talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This title wasn't so much of a BLP violation as you might think. It was someone advertising her self-published book, which she has been using other open access WWW sites to advertise. There is no doubt that the named person has been convicted of such offenses. Here's a 1999 interview with this person while in prison after conviction for obtaining property by deception:

• Julia Hartley-Brewer (1999-11-22). "Hello John, got a new motor?". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited.

This person's habit of impersonating Mick Taylor from The Rolling Stones is also recorded in Tony Jasper's 1984 biography of the Stones (ISBN 9781850510116 pp. 50). Less BLP panic is due, I think. You should be spending more time elsewhere if BLP is the concern. You should be looking at what our article on Gilad Sharon says with respect to businessman Cyril Kern. Why do I mention Cyril Kern? In case you didn't read the deleted article before panicking, see these sources:

• ""I just wanted to help a dear friend"". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. 2003-01-12.
• Mzilikazi Wa Afrika (2003-01-12). "Kern Son Wanted in US for Impersonating Racing Driver". The Sunday Times. Johannesburg: Allafrica.com.
• Yaakov Kat (2005-09-09). "Austria launches probe into Cyril Kern loan affair". Jerusalem Post. p. 1.
• Jeremy Gordin (2003-01-09). "Who is Cyril Kern?". Jerusalem Post. p. 3.

Gilad Sharon is currently a completely unsourced biography of a Ariel Sharon's son that deals heavily in the Kern loan affair. Worry about that more than about oversighting a book advertisement. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking RevDel when I typed oversight, my mistake on that... but even still, whatever the truth of it, that title was defamatory at best. I'm much looser with my take on BLP than most here (so it seems), and even I saw the really obvious issue with that title. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

problem with user and admin

I've had a problem with a couple of editors whilst doing a minor clean-up on the Jason Orange article. Recently, an over-zealous fan has included a discography table to the article which is not appropriate. Jason Orange is a member of the boyband Take That and does not have a solo discography. The only record that has been placed into the table on his page is the Helping Haiti charity record on which all of Take That appeared (along with dozens of other artists). When I removed the table, I added a comment in the edit summary making the reason clear ([67]), but my edit was reverted by User:Staffwaterboy using the IGLOO software along with a level 1 warning from him on my talk page. As a lot of non-admin users tend to use such software incorrectly, I deleted the discography table again, reiterating the reason why ([68]). Staffwaterboy then reverted my edit again (with no explanation in the summary). I deleted the table again, and I then left a message on Staffwaterboy's talk page politely asking him to refrain from reverting my edits and explained to him why the table should not be included in an article ([69]). I received no reply to my message, but he then proceeded to revert my edit yet again. Thinking this was surely vandalism, I deleted the table again, and left a stern warning in the edit summary about such conduct. I still receive no response to my message, but a few moments later, an admin (User:Hersfold) reverted my edit on behalf of Staffwaterboy, claiming that my edits were "vandalism". I didn't want to get into an edit war about the matter, so I then opened a dialogue with Hersfold on his talk page to explain the situation. This was initially met with an uncivil threat to block me ([[70]]). Later, Hersfold claimed that Staffwaterboy had come to him for advice about the matter. When I asked where such a discussion took place (there was no edit history), he said they had chatted via IRC. Whilst I am not about to start throwing accusations of sock/meat-puppetry around, I am not entirely convinced of this. Regardless, in the interests of transparency and professionalism, I believe that any such conversation should have taken place on Wikipedia itself where it can be held up to scrutiny and accountability. Administrators are placed in positions of responsibility and must deal with matters in a totally objective and professional manner - after they have made themselves aware of all of the facts. Hersfold completely failed to do this. Judging by his edit history, Staffwaterboy has gone somewhat trigger-happy with the IGLOO software and has been allowed to run riot on Wikipedia, and the worse thing is he has an administrator who is letting him do it. Accordingly, both Staffwaterboy and Hersfold have abused the trust placed in them. 88.104.23.155 (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Staffwaterboy & Hersfold on the IPs behalf. Exxolon (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:VAND, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism" - Hersfold reverted the IP here [71] with the edit summary "(Undid revision 382618905 by 88.104.30.28 (talk) knock it off. this is vandalism.)" - also both the IP and Staffwaterboy were at 3 reverts - threatening to block the IP without doing the same to Staffwaterboy smacks of prejudice against the IP editor. Poor show. Exxolon (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't look good. The IP clearly explained why they were removing the section [72]. Staffwaterboy then reverted this as vandalism, with no explanation [73]. The IP then undid it, again with explanation [74], which was again reverted Staffwaterboy. They then edit warred, until Staffwaterboy ran off to IRC and got Hersfold to revert on their behalf [75], with Hersfold just saying that it 'appears' to be vandalism and that section blanking is a 'red flag' [76]. Hersfold and Staffwaterboy say that the IP hasn't discussed the issue despite the explanation in edit summary and trying to discuss it directly with Staffwaterboy [77] to which they didn't receive a response. As they were both edit warring Hersfold should have told them both to stop, and advised both of them that they are liable to be blocked if they continue. He certainly shouldn't have reverted to Staffwaterboy's preferred state and then only warned the IP. I also don't like running off to IRC to complain about someone without them knowing. Quantpole (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, a quick look through Staffwaterboys contributions shows that they seem to be misusing rollback pretty regularly. These are all in their last few contributions: [78], [79], [80] - note that they did revert themselves after the last on e[81], but really, reverting to a reversion where the person was being called a rapist is particularly poor use of the tool. I don't know whether this is a regular occurrence or if they were just having a bad day, but either way it needs to be sorted out. Quantpole (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed; the IP made a clear edit summary. He maybe should have used WP:BRD after the first revert but that revert was bitey and incorrect anyway. I think a reminder to Hersfold & Staffwaterboy and a request to strike the warnings on IP's talk page is appropriate. (Quantpole - that looks like a common ec mistake, happens a lot.) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise that that wasn't their intention but it still isn't good. I've never used igloo but in huggle that doesn't happen (or I can't remember it happening to me). If the tool doesn't work, don't use it as you are responsible for the edits you make with it. Quantpole (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Further - I don't see that any of these are clear vandalism: [82], [83], [84]. Looks like some re-education is needed over rollback use. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The removal of the discography was correct as the addition, 3 edits prior to the first removal, was unsourced. All the sources provided were for some other artist, so it looks like it was simply copy-pasted from the other artist's article. The IP could have gone to Staffwaterboy's talk sooner, but it doesn't appear that Staffwaterboy tried to respond to any of the edit summaries or the message on his talk. As we have no idea what he communicated to Hersfold, I don't have any conclusions there. —DoRD (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

About the IRC issue. I was on #wikipedia-en (but asleep) when Staffwaterboy was asking for help on this issue. I don't post IRC conversations on-wiki but I can say this. The only thing I see from the backlog is Staffwaterboy being clearly told that the IP's edits were not vandalism. I see no evidence of any admin agreeing to intervene. (could have been done by PM but that wouldn't be on the public channel log) From the history of the article in question I would have to agree. Edit summaries were being used from jumpstreet so there's no way this was vandalism. This was just your plain garden variety edit war. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the edit, it looked like simple section-blanking vandalism and/or edit warring. When I attempted to explain the situation to the IP editor, I was met with more hostility and bad faith. The IP didn't make any attempt to discuss the edit and explain to us why it wasn't vandalism, he simply went straight here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summaries? On the surrface that just seems incorrect.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tons of respect for you Hersfold but you really seemed to goof on this one. The IP continuously explained their edits in edit summaries, so I don't see how you could interpret that as "simple section-blanking". Your attempt to explain the situation was initially "what you're doing is vandalism, stop" without listening to the substance of what the IP was trying to explain. Also, I'm dumbfounded why you had told the IP, "If you show a willingness to civilly discuss this, rather than threatening to report people, you might get a constructive reply in return." Yet the IP tried to explain in three places; edit summaries, Staffwaterboy's talk page, and your talk page, and was responded to with threats. The ideal reaction from the IP would have been to take matters to the article talk page after the first time they were reverted, but while their edit warring was against policy it was still more constructive than the response it received. I have to totally side with the IP on this one. -- Atama頭 16:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I was more then willing to open a conversation with this person as i did respond to them on Hersfolds page asking were if they were able to show the source in which they believe for the information being removed . And as per [85] I ended up removing that paragraph since it was witting in a opinionated manner. If you would like to see the revert i did make please see my contribution page you will also see that some of them were rolled backed after a notice of mistake was made. I do feel that it was possible that the 3RR did apply in this situation and for that reason seeked help with this situation, Please feel free to contact me for anything further is needed Cheers -- Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 16:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you copied from the wrong page, but the diff above has nothing to do with the article and edits in question. Also, you're asking the IP to provide a source for something that they claim doesn't exist rather than looking at the unsourced material they were removing. —DoRD (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A) You can't prove a negative with a source. That's asinine. B) If you were more than willing to have a conversation with them, then why didn't you respond when they messaged you on your talk page? --Smashville^talk 16:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Smashville, I didn't respond right away because i was seeking help to see what should have been done. I feel i made the correct choice of doing this so there was any further editwar .And the link that i provided was in response to a above post Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me}

The comment on Hersfold's talk page from you is confusing, you ask for sources but the IP is quite explicit in explaining this is a content removal because the information is unsourced and incorrect - which is a reasonable point for discussion. More importantly you understand why the original edit you reverted is not vandalism? Reverting is purely for bad faith vandalism - good faith additions, even if wrong, are not vandalism and should not be dealt with in that way. There was a very detailed edit summary which should have flagged this as not vandalism - maybe take it a bit slower in future and double check that you are reverting the right things :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I admitted to the IP, as can be seen on my talk page, that I am more than willing to admit myself in error here should that be the case. When I was shown a diff, it was one of the later ones where the edit summary was something along the lines of "stop or I'll report you", so yes, it looked like vandalism. I rollbacked it. I'm a little curious why it's myself and SWB under fire here as well; the IP was clearly edit warring, and their conduct is deserving of review as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As an admin and expierienced user you're expected to understand what vandalism is not as well as WP:BITE. The whole incident began with clear non vandalism being reverted as vandalism, followed by biting and poor showing by two who should have known better.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the IP shouldn't have edit warred. However, SWB shouldn't have accused them of vandalism, shouldn't have used rollback, should have replied to the IP on their talkpage instead of going off to IRC, shouldn't have edit warred. You should have looked at the whole situation not just one edit, you certainly shouldn't have only threatened to block the IP when you didn't warn SWB at all, you kept on telling the IP that they needed to discuss the issue when they had already tried to in edit summaries and on both of your talk pages. To top it all both you and SWB are coming on here making excuses rather than just holding your hands up to say you messed up. You say that if you are in the wrong then you would apologise. You are in the wrong, so I suggest you do exactly that. Quantpole (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The responses from you on your talk page are extremely bad, and it's apparent Staffwaterboy doesn't seem to know how to properly use rollback. Rollback privileges should be removed and if you're going to run around threatening to block IPs for trying to discuss something, your conduct as an admin should be heavily examined. you claimed above that your discussion with the IP resulted in more hostility and bad faith, and yet the only thing I can see from your talk page is increasing hostility and bad faith from you, not from the IP. I can see a brand new IP trying to rationally explain what they were doing and you increasing the threats and accusations without understanding the situation. Stillwater's comments make absolutely no sense given the situation. And given those comments, and the fact that he's linking to diffs from the entirely wrong page, it seems he has some serious trouble keeping track of what is going on with his edits. Maybe he needs to take a bit of a break and reevaluate what he's doing. if you can't keep your edits straight that's a sign of a problem.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to stand up for Hersfold's capabilities as an administrator. I don't at all question his overall conduct. I just think he screwed up this time, like any admin does (I do sometimes). My intention was to give him a nudge, saying be more careful next time. I'll also address Hersfold's statement before, that the IP's conduct is deserving of review as well. The IP did edit war, but didn't break 3RR, and seemed more willing to communicate and do so early (from the very beginning, actually, if you count the edit summaries). It's not often that I'll defend an IP against an established editor and a respected administrator but I'll definitely do so right now. -- Atama頭 07:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1 mistake, I might brush off, the second mistake of coming here and trying to justify treating an IP like dirt by doing a poor job of handling the situation on top of that, no. Its a single incident, but it now involves multiple mistakes. The IP was all over themselves trying to communicate and getting shut out by a couple of users who were so busy the only thing they had time to do was revert and threaten the IP rather than properly handle the situation. The IPs conduct was quite clear. They were more than happy to provide full explanations for what they were doing, they started conversations on both users talk pages and you saw what they were met with.--Crossmr (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Igloo

Out of curiosity, I fired up igloo to see how it works. Basically it's "huggle lite" but one thing it does is "give its opinion" on whether or not an edit is vandalism and most of its "red flags" are for section blanking. A lot of the ones I noticed such as this one which igloo flagged as "possible vandalism" were most likely good faith edits. The use of such tools should always be in conjunction with the Gray Cray.

A few years ago when using huggle I noticed a very large section of text being removed from an article. IP user, no edit summary, must have been vandalism so I hit the big red button. Turns out what the IP was repeatedly trying to remove was a blatant BLP violation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Users are responsible for the tools they use. And even if it is limited, it doesn't excuse the repeated bad faith revisions, nominations, escalating hostility on the part of an admin who didn't bother to properly look at a situation before threatening block, and then 2 users who are tripping over themselves trying to excuse away their behaviour rather than take responsibility for what they've done.--Crossmr (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the comment of personal responsibility. However, even as a user of these tools, I think the situation of various antivandalism tools is escalating to the point where the tools themselves are ALSO to blame, just as much as the users are to blame. Triona (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then the tools need to be dropped. And the tools don't excuse the behaviour after the fact. If users are not in control of the tools and what they're doing they can't be using them, which is why I made my request before. I've never seen an editor so out of touch with a disruptive situation before, and I've been kicking around here a few years. Even if we believe staffwaterboy made a mistake with his tool once, it doesn't excuse the repeated mistakes, nor does it excuse how Hersfold reacted, nor how both experienced users failed to engage in an IP desperate for communication. They should both be ashamed, and the fact that neither one can offer a satisfactory explanation for their behaviour and seemingly have walked away from the discussion leaves me little hope that this won't be repeated. As such I think they should both be blocked to prevent any further disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait, so now we're going from simply removing the tools to an outright request for a ban? Perhaps it's me, but it seems you are getting angrier and angrier personally by every post. Why don't you take a step back and settle down a little bit? –MuZemike 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm settled just fine. I'm suggesting what I feel is best for the enyclopedia. The reason I went from suggesting removal of tools to an outright block was an escalation of the behaviour. They went from making excuses for their behaviour to simply walking away from the discussion. Maybe everyone else thinks it's okay to stomp all over an IP because they're an IP, but that doesn't jive with me. Neither user has done anything indicate they understood what they did was wrong, nor give any reassurances that this behaviour won't be continued. They then walked away from the discussion with several open questions left hanging. They've been given ample time and opportunity to properly respond to this situation and they've both failed to do so. Having two experienced users, one of whom is an admin, walk all over an ip and then walk away from the discussion and pretend nothing happened does not benefit this encyclopedia. It is disruptive. so until we're satisfied that the disruption won't continue, they should be blocked. That's the way it works. We basically have hersfold telling boldfaced lies up above to try and excuse their conduct "The IP didn't make any attempt to discuss the edit and explain to us why it wasn't vandalism, he simply went straight here" That is completely false and the IP made several attempts to explain their edits. Hersfold was called on that and didn't respond to it. That's part of the disruption--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Request Removal of any automated tools from Staffwaterboy

given the responses on hersfold's talk page, and up above it is very apparent that he can't even keep track of this situation. His responses make it seem like he's talking about an entirely different situation, and even above the diff he linked to had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing. Since he's continued to edit, I guess it's safe to assume that he's going to offer no further explanation for his edits, or even what it was he was talking about. As such, I think it's apparent that this user is in over his head and should be back to editing the old fashion way sans any kind of automated tools until he can demonstrate that he can properly keep track of what he's editing and with whom.--Crossmr (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment on Staffwaterboy's talk echoing this point. I've asked him to cool off his tool use for a while, with a note that if it happens again his tool use might be revoked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this series of edits [86] I don't even know exactly what was going on there?--Crossmr (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a standard speedy-prod-AfD cycle, with the complication that for some reason SWB started the AfD manually before the prod. "Was told", I am assuming, means "was told on IRC". One could argue that it's further evidence that SWB isn't experienced enough to be using Twinkle for deletions, but it's fairly innocuous compared to rollbacking good edits. We'll see what happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If i may add i was told to remove the Prod tag since a AFD was already open on the article, i would think it would have better to use Prod in this situation however i didn't and i choose to go with a AFD. Please keep in mind if you check that articles deleteion log it has been deleted before and was recreated.-- Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 16:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't really answer the questions that still exist from above. This little confusion on the article is nothing compared to that. You still haven't explained your edits, and you still have a diff up above pointing to a completely different article and you haven't explained why that is even there.--Crossmr (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I also noticed a problem with this that I had to clean up as well. :-( [87] [88]. At the time I had just assumed they were edit conflicts. I don't know about anyone else, but I tried Igloo and can see why this stuff happens. Still, more caution is in order.   Thorncrag  05:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps igloo needs to be removed then. I had an admin earlier stating that the reason for them reverting to a vandalized version of a page (not reverting all the vandalism, just some) was due to igloo. If people can't properly edit with it, I think it doesn't need to be here. But the tool problem isn't really the problem here, the problem is personal responsibility which I've seen none of from Staffwaterboy or Hersfold.--Crossmr (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gender equality edit war

User 212.253.32.195 has been including statements in Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that he does not believe in gender equality. Myself and two other editors believe this is being taken out of context. The sources I have see are in Turkish which I don't read. However, a Google translation shows that the editor is definitely pushing a POV which can be seen on the talk page discussion and in his article edits. There is more context to the issue and the editor is just placing what they want in a BLP article. I reverted the IP twice and they have re-reverted or re-added the information 3x, in violation of WP:3RR. I explained my reverts on the talk page and have been trying to work with the IP. I am requesting that this IP be blocked temporarily to prevent further edit warring to a BLP article.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction, not a violation of 3RR with 3 edits. --NortyNort (Holla) 03:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction again, edits were reverted and re-added 9x, see below.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I demand a correction. There is no original research in the added context, and no POV either. The added passage is a verbatim translation of neutral and verifiable sources, and cites the PM's own words. (This is important, since NortyNort is deleting the words that the person is question has expressed himself.) I see no reason why the passage should be deleted, and I see the reverts as a violation of NPOV policy. NortyNort relies on Google translation, which is a self-admittedly imperfect tool, but I know advanced Turkish. Please correct this mistake. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted a request for further eyes at the WP:BLPN page. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you quoted him but preceded it with the statement "Recently, Erdoğan stated that he does not believe in gender equality" which I could not remotely see in the one press report. That portion is WP:OR and analysis and is taken out of context. There are many ways to twist and analyze his words and that is not an editor's job, we quote reliable sources not ourselves. That statement if in the article or significant enough to be in the article must be in context. Otherwise, with your references, you are implying something that is not true and defamatory to a living person.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I quoted whom, where? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I re-indented, my response was to the IP.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The TITLE of the newspaper article says exactly that: Erdoğan does not believe in gender equality. These are his own words, there is no twist. The title reads: "Erdoğan says it is impossible for men and women to be equal." The subtitle reads: "Women are women, men are men. Is it possible for them to be equal? They complete/complement each other." Pretty clear, no? Using your logic we would have to discard every single newspaper article in Wikipedia. I also added two more references just to demonstrate that his words were not out of context and that women's rights activists condemned his statements. They were also deleted in what I consider pure vandalism. Again, these are not my words but verbatim translations from reliable and neutral mainstream newspapers. Sorry, none of this is considered POV and you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You added one reference on the first statement. Here is what title I see translated "Women and men are equal is not possible." If you are going to back a statement up like that on a BLP article, it requires more than one reference. The statement has to satisfy WP:GNG and use reliable sources. I do not know how reliable Turkish press sources are but there is bias in media everywhere. In the United States for example, certain media outlets say bad things about Barack Obama a lot but not every negative statement is notable enough to be in his article. Also, a lot of statements are taken out of context and are very controversial. They also have to be cited, referenced and provide due weight. For example: "Erdogan said 'THIS' which was largely criticized by women's rights activist groups such as THIS." And if applicable: "Others believe he probably meant THIS." As far as the interpretation, I am not the only editor who saw problems with what you included and how it was included.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The title is not citable or a reliable source, that piece should be removed, it does look like the comments have been reported with a little added weight for effect. Off2riorob (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This all boils down to your inability to understand Turkish. I have provided a word-by-word translation in the Biographies/noticeboard page. The expression that "it is impossible for men and women" is not just in the title but also explained in the article. Anyway, I've added more references and updated the section. Please do not vandalise the passage (again) without providing a clear rationale. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I found ONE English source and you left out part of what he said and did not include the fact that there was no serious condemnation or protest from female politicians or activists. With that, I don't see how the statement is significant enough to be in his BLP article. I am removing it, for the third time, and the fifth time including other editors.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I've carefully read your reference, and guess what? Your article condemns Erdogan's viewpoint, so if you're going to add that reference you're WELCOME to do so. I certainly agree with the author that there should have been more condemnation, but she is incorrect in saying that there was no condemnation at all. Please notice that she is just expressing her POV. As such, both the statements and the scientific reports still count. Please do not revert the edit and include THIS reference to the passage instead, otherwise you'd be still vandalising the page. Note: I did some changes, created a new subsection, included your reference and the phrase "he believes in equal opportunities." Also, after you deleted the beginning of the passage, the rest was nonsensical. Please edit more carefully and read what you write. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing the page, just removing content that editors aside from myself have reverted before and have argued against in the article's talk page. If there was condemnation, then where are your sources citing that? Further, why is it significant and notable to be in his article? Yes, she is expressing her POV in a liberal source, so how does that make it viable to support your inclusion? At this point, I am not reverting your edit anymore, although I believe that it violates WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. I believe this is getting out of hand and will leave this issue to further consensus. --NortyNort (Holla) 04:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: the IP has reverted or re-added his disputed text 9x since September 3 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Yet, I am the one in "3RR land" and getting warned on my talk page.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're being pedantic. First of all, define "liberal" and why it's relevant at all to this discussion. The word has a very different meaning in Turkish political discourse, and refers to right-wing parties like AKP, Erdogan's party. The Cumhuriyet newspaper in which this article appeared is centre-left and social-democratic, not "liberal." Also, not all of my edits were simple reverts. Unlike you, I'm not just interested in censoring information but I've developed and expanded it, and also did a few minor grammar edits. I also included the "equal opportunities" phrase because you accused me of cherry-picking. As for controversy, the references include precisely that: there was a scientific report published specifically to counter his claims, there were some protests in the hall when he made these statements, and he attracted criticism because of his words, both for "three children" policy and "equal opportunities" policy. YOUR reference is merely an intellectual's POV who laments that there wasn't "enough" criticism of Erdogan's way of thinking. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not censoring the article, and my problem is not with the three children issue but with the his statements on equality; in the first sentences of your edits. Edits are welcome on Wikipedia, but they must be of significance, reliably sourced, within context and have a neutral point of view. Not every newspaper headline can make it into an article on a living person. It may seem pedantic but BLP articles are especially sensitive. Just because one liberal (left-wing) news outlet in the U.S has an opinion piece on her interpretation of statement, doesn't make it significant or reliable. Also, the author herself said there was no harsh criticism, but in here POV, there should have been. Maybe there was a reason it wasn't significant? If there was no major controversy over that particular statement and it could be interpreted in different ways, it bears no significance. Other editors believe it can be misinterpreted. Your continual addition of that information after it was reverted 9x and after other editors disputed is disruptive to Wikipedia. Also, in your edit summaries, you called the removal of that information "vandalism" which is not true. If editors have legitimate qualms with something you put into the article and it is removed until consensus is reached, that is not vandalism. I have no problem with you wanting to edit an article and I have no ideological attachment to Erdogan but if the inclusion needs to be removed, reworded or changed, work with editors please.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

user:NortyNort has gone into 3RR land. They really need to take this to dispute resolution. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Was placing my user page into the discussion necessary? Don't forget the IP has reinserted the information 5x as well and on my last removal, I only took out the portion on gender equality with policy-based reasoning. I don't think there is consensus for that addition as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he may have done a {{subst:User:NortyNort}} by accident --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

used {{ instead of [[, which achieves that effect. Easy mistake. Should be fixed nowElen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I figured that, I didn't mean have an appearance of not AGF.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888's Request for Rollback

Resolved

 – Good Decline. Inka 888 should wait a reasonable length of time before reasking for Rollback. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 6 September 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.

---

Hi all. I recently declined one of User:Inka 888's requests for rollback for the third time. My rationale for declining the request has been the same each time:

• The user has limited experience reverting actual vandalism (as in, many of the reverts are either self-reverts or reverts of good faith edits). This is evidenced by a quick glance at Inka 888's contributions
• The user has asked many trivial questions via the {{helpme}} template (most of the answers can be found by doing a quick search in the Wikipedia namespace - e.g. [89], [90], [91], [92]),
• The user has used the reviewer right without fully knowing what it does (and subsequently received a complaint: 1)
• The user is susceptible to brusque outbreaks when things do not go his way: [93] (as a result of Eagles247 reverting this)

I've expressed my concerns with granting rollback to Inka 888 several times (1, 2, 3, 4), explained my standards for granting rollback (minimum 50+ reverts of legitimate vandalism and no complaints), and instructed him to go to Special:RecentChanges for an easy way to identify vandalism in need of reverting. Now of course, all this is not to say that Inka 888 is a disruptive editor; frankly, I think it's just the opposite. He is a newbie determined to fit into the community and learn the rules of the encyclopedia, all while working to make the project a better place. I believe Inka 888 needs some more time and experience on Wikipedia before rollback is granted to him. That being said, I'm requesting a community review of my decision to decline Inka's third rollback request. And, everyone, please be candid; if you believe Inka 888 deserves rollback, please say so. I'll happily overturn my decision if consensus mandates it. Sincerely, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, Inka is a very enthusiastical user, but just wants too much to have the real rollback. Give it some time. Endorse request declining. --Diego Grez (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• I endorse the decline but I give Inka strong moral support in the future to get it. If he has any questions about it he's more than welcome to ping me. I'm an experienced roll backer to an extent and could help him out in reverting vandalism the "old school way".--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• As a user who has been helping Inka 888, I agree with the decline. I believe the user needs a mentor (any takers?) who can lead the user in the right direction. I have been acting as the "sorta-kinda" mentor trying to encourage the user to edit articles instead of getting a flashy signature (which was requested), but I don't think I am doing a good job. I think the user is unclear on what they should be doing here at the project and a mentor could help them along. I personally think with that, they would make a good editor, they just need that push in the right direction. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Taker? possibly? Me.--intelati 17:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't lie, you did give me a flashy signature and you gave no advice whatsoever. Next time i am called a newcomer i will bring it up at WP:WQA due to the fact that it is false. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 05:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are being called a "newcomer" because you have been here for less than two months, and have less than 1000 edits. Please assume good faith when other users consider you new based on their encounters with you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka, I never said I did or didn't give you a signature. I also didn't call you are newcome, but Eagles247 is right, you are a newcomer. You have been here a short time and need to focus on things associated with editing, not getting all the neat tools. This isn't a competition or a game, it's an encyclopedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone needs to read the statement Inka made before the one above. Not helpful. I recommend the user clarify what they mean by that statement. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I thought I read somewhere that everybody is a newcomer :) –MuZemike 14:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I endorse the decline because of this edit which reverted several editors at once, all of whom had made good faith constructive edits, without any explanation. I think edit summaries are enormously important for reversions unless there is no doubt the material is vandalism, and rollback seems to do little aside from making it easier to not provide meaningful edit summaries, so I think a key prerequisite for rollback should be that the editor has demonstrated the judgment to make this decision or at least err on the side of making meaningful edit summaries anyway. It's not a huge deal either way, though, I think, but I would encourage him to ask again after establishing a good track record of correctly calling these. ErikHaugen (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse decline, especially in light of subject's above retort. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse decline. Use of the vandalism flag when he's reverting his own edits isn't an encouraging sign. David Biddulph (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse decline. Agree with all of the above and at the risk of the pot calling the kettle black, an attitude adjustment is in order. Been there. As an aside, thank goodness for my patient admins! DocOfSoc (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse decline. I appreciate the enthusiasm, and in a couple of years they may be one of those great editors. Right now, I'm seeing the continuation of far too many significant (although usually minor) mistakes that Rollback would just compound. Give it another 1000 mainspace edits, or at least 50 to 75 proper undoing of clear vandalism reasonably error-free. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse decline. I believe Inka has expressed an interest in using Huggle. Frankly, that scares me. I've seen experienced editors and even admins (including myself) make a mess with similar tools and someone with less experience could very easily end up making a very big mess very quickly. Inka, you shouldn't think of rollback as a rite of passage or a reward. I think you'd enjoy your time here a lot more if you focused on writing articles and making yourself useful rather than trying to acquire advanced permissions that you don't really need and which can cause a lot of damage if used incorrectly (even if you mean well, and I'm sure you do). As for the newcomer thing, I'm an admin with 27,000 edits who's been here for 16 months and there are still a lot of things I don't know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse decline. As I stated at Fastily's talk page, the fact that there seems to be a rush to get rollback rights as soon as possible concerns me. Why the rush? If someone really wants to make this place better, they do what they can and let their actions speak for themself. The editor also does not seem to understand the purpose of Fastily's 50 vandalism revert standard in that it's not so much hitting a magic number but demonstrating consistency and comprehesion of a critical Wikipedia concept. Even this taking offense at being called a "newbie" or "newcomer" is troubling. No one is doing that to insult; it's stating a reality of having an account that is not even 2 months old. Frankly, as another editor said, I'm also surprised this editor has reviewer rights this early on. The desire and enthusiasm are there, but that does not remove the importance of adequate learning time. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is still a difference between me and a "newcomer" i am more experienced than a newcomer an less experienced than a lot of users, i will give you that. Can we handle this like adults, the whole reason this thread is here is because fastily is angry with me because he thinks i went behind his back to get rollback, i would really appreciate if you look at the situation. thanks, Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

this is nothing about that. Well, a small part of this. The point of this converstation is for fastily to get a second, third fourth... opinion on his actions. Thank you and please ponder your comments before posting.--intelati 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Being a newcomer (newbie, n00b, beginner) is not a bad thing. It means that you started recently and possibly don't have as much experience as other users, such as those who started in 2004. This is not something to get worked up about. Using {{helpme}} is okay for things that can't be found out by doing a quick search. It's not okay for obvious stuff or getting someone's attention. As for Rollback, you just aren't ready. You don't appear to understand our policies well enough. Also asking for rollback at two different places in such a short amount of time is not okay either as it's just asking a user to contradict another user in authority. @Fastily: Endorse Decline. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fastily said give him a "day" aka. 24 hours to "sit on it" aka. think about it i gave fastily a day actually over a day to respond before requesting it at requests for rollback. The only reason i did that was because fastily was not responding. I believe i am beyond a newcomer. When i think of newcomer i think of new users having no idea what they are doing and not understanding much about wikipedia at all. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 20:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion Inka 888 refers to be may be found here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888, can I recommend that you use Twinkle for a while. It does make it easier to revert vandalism (leaves an edit summary and opens the editor's talkpage so you can leave a message), but it also offers the option to show that you know the edit you are reverting was good faith (perhaps it messed up the formatting or something), and to leave an edit summary if you revert an edit because you disagree with it - rather than it being vandalism. If you make a good go with Twinkle, you'll get your Rollbacker rights in a couple of months. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively just stick with Twinkle and ignore this most useless of all "rights". Even when I had it I hardly ever used it, because Twinkle is so much more convenient. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That Twinkle has an entirely separate rollback feature which doesn't require the actual rollback privilege is a problem to be fixed, not a handy workaround. It's bad enough that the admin bit is all-or-nothing without one of the few rights which is genuinely granular being ignored because you can get an upgraded version through ticking a box in your user prefs. I've seen two users misusing Twinkle rollback in a weekend when I've hardly been on here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Twinkle doesn't rollback (it reverts one edit at a time unless the user has made several in a row on that article, and it only allows reversion of the latest edit). I thought the three options might encourage Inka 888 to figure out the difference between vandalism, disagreement, and having to revert an edit because the other editor has made a mistake. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who can't take being declined for rollback (oh noes, the world is going to end!) and tries to defend xyrself instead of just letting it go and working with Twinkle should not have rollback. This sort of attitude is extremely indicative of a flag-collecting mentality, and should never be allowed to flourish by giving the user rights. Obviously, being so impatient and arguing about petty things like the definition of newcomer (uh, experienced users don't need rollback, see Malleus' comment above) also gives off the feeling of impatience while reverting using tools like Huggle, which means more bad reverts and careless patrolling. Endorse decline, and the next request should not come sooner than two months of at least 200 complaint-free manual reverts. —fetch·comms 22:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

...that's okay, he'll have self-nom'd for WP:RFA before then. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Most experienced editor's use rollback or huggle. The reason i defend myself not being a newcomer is because i hear it so much. I think i can handle using rollback i have used twinkle for a while i am pretty sure i have made about 50 complaint free reverts with twinkle i have slow internet twinkle is a little bit of a waste of time for me. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can handle rollback now, you can also handle your impatience and wait two months to handle rollback then. Huggle makes your internet even slower because you just queue up a ton of edits, half of which will have been reverted by others already. If you continue to persist in asking for rollback now, that just shows you can't handle it because you're not mature enough to see things from the admin's point of view in declining your request and telling you to wait. —fetch·comms 03:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse decline. Please see comments I left on user talk page. User persistently requesting rollback, has only done 6 (that I counted) reverts in last 48 hours out of 100 edits (most of the rest of which constitute requests for rollback or related conversation). RobertMfromLI | User Talk 04:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed this whole thread and everyone is in agreement..."endorse decline" and "relax" seem to be the two views in abundunce here. I see no one saying "oppose decline". As such, I am going to close this thread as "good decline" and Inka 888 should "wait a reasonable length of time before reasking". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User Vrghs jacob vs minor edits

This user is still marking all edits as minor - and still having the vast majority reverted as other editors on his pages disagree with his revisions. His pages & mine don't overlap, so I can't say whether they really are accurate or not, but he seems to be in the minority. His contribs are here: [94]

He was discussed last month as well[95] - was anything done?

User informed. a_man_alone (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I left a note on this user's talk page yesterday asking to stop and just discuss edits before making them. I really don't know where he comes up with his edits, a good chunk of them introduce factual inaccuracies. e.g. Changing the official name of India from Republic of India to Federal Republic of India and so on. It appears that he reads something somewhere and decides to put it up on wiki. Being that, not all of his edits are bad, sometimes he reads something in a reliable source and it finds its way here. However, he refuses to discuss, and quite often repeats the same edits to the same article after being reverted with clear edit summary notes or talk page discussions on the topic. If someone can't get through to him (and I see a lot of people have tried), it might be time for a more drastic measure. —SpacemanSpiff 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be active right now. I'm going to slap a more direct warning on his talk page. Someone should probably give him a timeout if he resumes. I'll try to keep an eye on it. --Selket ^Talk 18:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see his user page? "Welcome - My name is Varghese Jacob. This is my only official and the only standing wiki website that I inherently control and is of my control. If there are others associated in my name - I do not belong to them and plase do dis-regard those." Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's very odd. I'm not sure it's a policy violation though. Or am I missing something? -Selket ^Talk 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just odd, but what's even odder is the only contribution to any Talk namespace by this editor. —SpacemanSpiff 20:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I expect he's referring to his user page rather than Wikipedia as a whole. :) I suspect that his first language is not English so he is not understanding the norms in Wikipedia very well. 81.145.247.158 (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with anon from my own experience in dealing with speakers/contributors that English is a second language for. It really sounds much like the auto-tag that appears on various user pages written with the wrong selection of English wording (such as the one I use on my page): "This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself."

Perhaps a more explained explanation may help the user? RobertMfromLI | User Talk 22:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of the similarity, interesting and thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ludwigs2 / refdesk

Resolved

 – IP blocked Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, User:Ludwigs2 encourages another user to commit rape. The comment was reverted later by an admin, but I feel this requires further action than a simple revert. Encouraging other users to commit illegal acts cannot be allowed on Wikipedia, and should not be dismissed with a simple revert as if it was a minor incident. 203.165.240.242 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, not on the basis of encouraging illegal acts, but on the basis of a personal attack. A scan of his talk page history shows that this is not a first offence. I was about to block him for it, when I saw that another admin was dealing wiht t, though more generously than I think was appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, and may in this case have constituted a NPA (which is why the admin removed it, and which may yet have some consequence for Ludwigs2 as it was rather a nasty thing to say; but it does not feature high in the incitement stakes. If I told you to go away and play on the motorway, would I be advocating Jaywalking?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: All concerned parties notified of this thread as the IP neglected to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with HJ Mitchell: (edit conflict) clearly not actually encouraging rape, but it's a pretty severe personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 lost it while dealing with banned editor Light current, a pernicious years-long presence at the RefDesks. Lc is quite good at goading other editors. Their comment was quite unacceptable for any number of reasons but I thought quiet removal was the better course. I didn't look back through their history though, to see if it's an ongoing problem, having never seen problems with the editor myself. Hopefully they will respond to quiet counselling. Franamax (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Im VERY goad at goading. 8-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuspiciousUser (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion was collapsed. I was offended by this comment. Even if he meant this to be humorous, jokes about rape are not funny. It was out of line and uncalled for regardless of who it was directed to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't mean it to be humorous.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he certainly wasn't serious about it. Let's ban the trolls, not the people who say something people get in a huff about. So you were offended, get over yourself. The real issue is the people constantly abusing the site. DreamGuy (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't give editors carte blanche to make comments like that, which are frankly vile. Nor is it the first time Ludqigs has made such comments—Two weeks ago he was warned for similar conduct and he has two previous blocks for personal attacks. I don;t think this outbusrt should just be shrugged off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, whatever. All I can say right now is that the IP who reported this here won't be editing for a while. –MuZemike 00:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but being a troll doesn't necessarily make their complaint invalid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a valid complaint, but I dealt with it on sight before the complaint was made. What are we going to do, enact a punitive block? If it happens again I can bring out Wonder Bat but I rather suspect it won't happen again. What more is there to do here? Franamax (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a tacky edit on Ludwig's part, but "be more sensitive next time" seems like enough of a response. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All: I acknowledge that the comment was tactless and in bad taste, and that I would have been wiser to have refrained. My apologies to anyone offended by it; I have an acid tongue that gets away from me sometimes, to my own detriment. However, it wasn't what has been suggested here, which is evident to anyone who reads the comment. I'll swallow the rude implication in the original thread header as just desserts for the rude implication I tossed at the IP, which strikes me as a fair balance, and (with your kind permission) we can all call this a day. If anyone would like to discuss the matter with me further, feel free to leave a note on my talk page; as I said, I was simply being acerbic, not aiming to offend anyone particularly, and I'm happy to make any necessary amends. --Ludwigs2 01:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, before my Internet went down, I was just going to say that the IP was blocked as a Tor node, which I can verify. –MuZemike 01:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh grow up, will ya? It was a joke in bad taste, it reeks of sarcasm. LiteralKa (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Rekordronny

User appears to be extremely biased to IRevo, Inc., as he created 2 pages extremely biased towards them (see also: Digital Door Lock. Is a block in order?  A p3rson ‽ 02:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not until you have a nice sit-down with them explaining WP:BFAQ. Unless they understand having a COI and writing about something they are affiliated with on Wikipedia, it's not nice to block them. Now, if they fail to heed warnings and continue to spam, a block is in order. But they haven't edited in months. So, I'd just leave it alone. —fetch·comms 03:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified them of this discussion? It is required.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Iqbal_Theba

Resolved

 – No admin attention required

1. In the Iqbal_Theba article it should be noted that he is Muslim. He is Muslim accodring to this article:http://www.currybear.com/wordpress/?p=3566 please put in as a reference. 2. Would could someone clean up my references on The Seventh Coin page? Could you help to see which references should go under production and which references should under Reception? I have the references of production and Reception mixed up thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these seem to need Administrator attention--you can make the edits yourself to the Theba article, although, before you do so, please check the article's talk page, as I'm about to leave you a message there. For The Seventh Coin, it's not up to administrators to fix your references; there appear to be problems with them, and I'll try to help if I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 08:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you feel a change should be made, you should simply make the change yourself; the article isn't protected, you can edit it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

xenophobic postings

Unresolved

 – user is misusing Twinkle in disputes with D of P. Keeping this open for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A little bit ago I blocked DinDraithou (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing.[96] He sent me email telling me that he knew I was Scottish, and that this was why I blocked him (never seen him before). He's since been targeting articles in my interest, making fringe, highly ideological edits to medieval Scotttish articles and making offensive comments on talk pages designed to offend Scottish people.[97][98] I'm not sure if he's trying to get some kind of "revenge" by trying to stir up bad feeling, or if he genuinely believes this kind of stuff, but since he has already told me not to come to his page, I thought I'd let some other admin deal with this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

These are some pretty blatant racially-motivated personal attacks; I believe an indef block may be in order until the user understands and abides by WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I think I've been rather misrepresented by Deacon, and absolutely nothing has been racially motivated. From my point of view it is Deacon who has now been targeting articles in my interest, and without the proper background. The accusation is incredibly vague. Examples? Btw that addition to the talk page of Clann Somhairle was made before Deacon ever visited the article. By some coincidence (or not?) I posted the half-humorous musing last night, and he visited the article today. Misrepresentation at the very least.

In the case of Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone, he was later over-ruled by a vote of respectable editors and eventually another administrator. See Talk:Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone#Requested move. DinDraithou (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the comments were directed at this user or not, they were clearly directed at an individual, and comments like "He comes from nation with an extremely limited tradition of scholarship" and "I think it's tragic that most of the Clann Somhairle now have to suffer being Scottish" in the above diffs are totally unacceptable. How you can claim these aren't racially motivated, I'll never know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It certainly looks racist and soapboxy to me, and I'll be happy to block for any repetition of this type of behavior. --John (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. If you knew anything about this little region of the world you would know that Irish, Picts, Welsh, and Scots all share pretty much the same genetics and ultimately lineages. So it's like heaping scorn on your first cousins! Yes we get to do that, just like the Swedes and the Danes. DinDraithou (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, no one has the right to make racial attacks on other editors or individuals. I suggest reading up on WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, they are not racial. They can't be. You just don't get it. DinDraithou (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that those are certainly violations of our rule against personal attacks. Since he has been blocked before, and since he is responding to correction by insisting that his edits are appropriate, I have no problem with a block. I would tend to support a one-week block rather than an indefinite one, to give him the opportunity to embrace a higher standard of civility in the future, but I haven't extensively reviewed his contribution history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

People tend to get angry when they have been unfairly blocked. After that happened, Deacon arrived at my talk page trying to force me to back down over the title of another article, where there was no move warring, by using his status as an administrator. I thought this was against the rules? To me he is clearly trying to force his POV this way. And recall he was eventually over-ruled about the form of that other title. DinDraithou (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

None of those excuse what you have said. If those are issues worthy of investigation please bring them up seperately. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only say I'll stop. I'll stop. But I've been guilty of rather less than Deacon. Believe it or not I'm a pretty excellent editor for the most part, and he has lost my confidence. DinDraithou (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou was move-warring with Mcferran (talk · contribs), daring him to revert.[99] I protected the page , moved the page back to its stable name and blocked him. If he's claiming he believes I was part of that revert war, he's talking in bad faith since previous posts indicate that he understood this wasn't the case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately you blocked me without giving any warning and restored the incorrect, unlearned form of the name. Then you tried to intimidate me concerning another title. Now here you're essentially making a few things up to have me banned so that you can have your way with those articles. I see an admission above and think you should step down. DinDraithou (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

These diffs [100][101] were not made up by Deacon, but by you. This diff and the edit summary here confirm Deacon's concerns. A person who obviously has a problem with Scots should at the very least be banned from editing articles relating to Scotland, broadly construed. To me, it is further questionable how this editor is capable to edit any article related to "Gaeldom" with respect to NPOV. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry DinDraithou. But having looked through the events of what happened it does not at all match what you accused above. Which is concerning. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages, most of it on mine. Talk pages, all three or four of them, one of which I own and another the article for which I am the creator. User:Angusmclellan is someone I know, although if he is a little disappointed with me now for going after the Picts a little hard that is understandable. Back to Deacon, I'm not surprised to see administrators defending another administrator and ignoring his failings. He is kind of like a Wiki-Peer and must be given the benefit of the doubt, right? What about the editor who had never been blocked before he showed up on an Irish subject page?

Now he's using that block primarily as evidence of a behavior I am not guilty of, namely following him around and messing things up. In fact he's the one guilty of that. But go ahead and ignore these misrepresentations and focus on anything you can find which might be interpreted as evidence of intra-Insular Celtic racism. It is laughable.

Clarification: "using as evidence", meaning it's the first thing he mentioned. Nice trick. DinDraithou (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT; DinDraithou is still referring to concerns about personal attacks as "laughable" and attempting to divert attention to the actions of another editor, giving fuzzy evidence which doesn't stand up to closer analysis. I'm still of the opinion that a block may be necessary until the user understands why his comments were not appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I heard that. I'm not stupid and have no intention of getting blocked. I am addressing the charges, which are mostly false. Do you think I have no rights now that you are convinced I am guilty of "blatant racially-motivated personal attacks"? You made your decision immediately and obviously didn't look into things. DinDraithou (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether they are racial or not is beside the point - they are disruptive personal attacks and frtankly beyond the pale. I will not hesitate to block you if you continue in that rut. This and its equivalent on your talkpage is the only warning I will give you. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to leave anything on my talk page. I use it for research and also don't like to be embarrassed, so it will be removed again and again. But I see your resolve.

Now back to the actual charges? DinDraithou (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to embarass you - but in that way an admin can see in the page history that you have received this warning. You are in your right to remove warnings - that is simply a sign that you have read them. The charges have been sufficiently explained to you and enough editors have agreed that you behaviour was unacceptable that for you to keep arguing details instead of accepting the criticism seems unproductive. As for the notion that people can make ethnically or religiously based attacks claim that "this is not racism (because its not biological)" that is a lost cause - race is not biology and racism in clude non race-based kinds of discrimination. I don't know about Ireland but in Denmark people have tried to make this argument in court after disparaging muslims and being charged after the racism paragraphs - and they have lost.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think I deserved this official warning, having said little that was actually disparaging. It was, if angry, only an academic argument. Sporrans? Cultural abyss? No, the ultimate problem here was a poorly behaving administrator still trying to justify a remarkably hasty block. Maybe he saw a report eventually coming attached to some other things. Sure what I've said was a little demeaning, and to some of my own ancestors, but I've read much worse in respectable published sources. If Wikipedia can't take it then it can't take it and as I've said I'll stop, whatever it actually was. Getting hot or being right? Again see Talk:Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone#Requested move. Embarrassing for Wikipedia. DinDraithou (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no additional context you can provide which makes it acceptable to leave blatantly racially-offensive comments; the matter you appear to be trying to drag up to divert attention is a completely separate matter, and so far there's no indication that your accusations have any basis either. Moreover, continuing to refer to the concerns of several editors over your personal attacks as "laughable" clearly indicates that you're not taking WP:NPA seriously. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you are being unfair. You were the first to allege genuine racism and are just sticking by that charge. Even Deacon I think understands a little better.

This is a pretty serious charge. Do you make it commonly? Who is part Scottish here? (I am: Maclachlan, Petrie, Oliphant, etc.) DinDraithou (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a productive line of discussion, and I see that the thread's now been marked resolved. You have promised to discontinue the personal attacks, so we'll WP:AGF that you'll do so. Take heed that at least two sysops have made it clear that they're willing to exercise a block if you make any further attacks, and knock it off. I'd also suggest that you review WP:NPA to ensure that you properly understand what constitutes a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that we're resolved how about you knock it off? I was hoping Angus or someone who might remember my old user page, or had looked through my talk archives or once talked with me, would chime in that I am in fact part Scottish on the mother's side. Through her I actually descend from one the older Scottish families in the United States (Claflin < Maclachlan), arrived 1651, and also from Scottish Canadians (Oliphant and Petrie). But I was worried it might look like a lie, and I got distracted. And I mistakenly thought I could make you see some other things first. Principle. DinDraithou (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to go on and on and realize this is over, but I would like to point out something I was not aware of throughout the discussion. While it was certainly his right to comment, it would appear that User:Giftiger_wunsch is not actually an administrator, and has only been around since April. Here I ended up defending mostly against him and just assumed he was one. But now I see that his behavior was too aggressive for one, and think his persistent charges of racism show he is unsuited for the position, although he claims to want it on his user page. And rather badly it would seem, or he wouldn't be here. If ever he is up for that I would love to be notified. I can't remember the word for what I have seen but I think most know what I'm talking about. In any case, I offer a limited apology to the real administrators, excluding one, for calling their behavior laughable. The debate was poisoned from the start. It happens. Also please note my last response to User:Maunus above if you have not read it. DinDraithou (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou, why don't you quit while your ahead....he claims to want it on his user page. And rather badly it would seem, or he wouldn't be here really isn't helpful, imho. --Threeafterthree (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GiftigerWunsch may not be an admin but he conducted himself as well as one would be expected to here. I'm an admin and I followed this exchange and I felt you were in the wrong this whole time. Let me warn you, the "I can insult you because I'm one too" doesn't work on Wikipedia, it's no immunity against accusation of personal attacks. For one thing, we're all mostly anonymous here and it's nearly impossible to verify anyone's personal claims about themselves. For another, sometimes even hearing an insult about your race or nationality from someone who shares it can be offensive. So knock it off. Please. Thanks. -- Atama頭 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GW doesn't belong here, and it looks like you don't either. What are you talking about? DinDraithou (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... what do you mean they "don't belong here", exactly? Doc9871 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They share an inappropriate behavior. I need no lecture at all from the second. This is long resolved. DinDraithou (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what the "inappropriate behaviour" we share is? The fact that we disagree that you should be exempted from WP:NPA? If you have an accusation to make, you're in the right venue, you could simply start a new thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll go far. End of this discussion for me. Unwatchlisted. (And don't show up on my talk page.) DinDraithou (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

An I'm not an admin either. But it is well accepted that non-admins are welcome to contribute an opinion here. We can do clerk like work and help with resolving issues that need no admin tools. In fact it is almost a pre-requisite for passing an RFA to have AN/I activity :) But now your using another avenue to undermine those who have told you that you made unacceptable comments. Honestly; just drop it. And Giftiger; I recommend not rising to it ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of Twinkle

This caught my eye today. As a blatant misus of Twinkle's rollback in a content dispute with the same user above, I've issued a single warning to DD regarding his Twinkle privileges. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As DD has stated that he has unwatched this page, and the issue is now again marked "unresolved" I'll comment here. DD acknowledged having read the warning concerning misuse of Twinkle with the following edit summary: What? I was unaware of it... and don't even need whatever it is[102] I guess this part of the issue could be marked as "resolved" again either by removing the Twinkle-access or consider DD warned and remove the access id further misuse should occur. If, for some reason, it is felt by someone that this is still "unresolved" DD should be notified about that. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by DeeMusil

Resolved

 – User warned; most appear to agree that a warning will suffice and further action will result in a block, and no one has gone ahead and blocked the user, so it seems we have consensus to wait for a repeat of the behaviour before a block is appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of attacking me. The last tim he compare me to the pedosexuals and zoosexuals and alleged me of wanting the special rights. It's outrageous and startling. I expect the radical approach here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_orientation&diff=382759804&oldid=382624002 --Destinero (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Warned.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I don't agree with the sentiments, the diff you provided doesn't strike me as a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He does comment on individual editors and make generalising remarks about "you homosexuals" instead of just argue his point. That is why I warned him. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

True, it certainly wasn't necessary to address other editors, but since he doesn't seem to actually be attacking homosexuals, I don't think this is a violation of WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I am uncertain, he does say that there is nothing different between Homosexual behaviour and behaviour that is illegal in most countries.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, neither pedophilia nor zoophilia are illegal in most countries; the terms refer to the psychological states, i.e. being sexually attracted to children or animals, not the practice of sexually abusing them. It's a valid point to compare psychology of different sexual attractions, even if it could have been better phrased. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be talking about pedosexuals and zoosexuals which implies acting on the desire - actions which are illegal in most countries. Anyway I agree it is not a strong personal attack. Also the fact that he is personalising the comparison is an aggravating fact imo.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger, are you really trying to say that comparing people who self-identify as homosexual to pedophiles and zoophiles is not in violation of Wikipedia rules? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on the context; the comment didn't seem to actually attack homosexuals, just stated an opinion that the psychology of homosexuality is similar to that of pedophilia and zoophilia; though I'm not happy with the way it was phrased as "you homosexuals", the following comment appeared to partly clarify the context to be referring to the psychology. As such, I don't think this is a personal attack, no. We don't have to agree with the sentiment to acknowledge that it is a valid opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I can really not see how you can possibly not interpret "you homosexuals are the same as pedophiles and zoophiles" as anything other than a personal attack. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not what quite was said, the user was criticising homosexuals for not extending their own rights to "zoosexuals and pedosexuals", in response to comments about pedophilia and zoophilia above, in the same thread. The user stated that pedophiles and zoophiles can make the same psychology argument as homosexuals. I fail to see where there was a personal attack here simply because the user expressed their opinion on the comparative psychology. Referring to other editors as "you homosexuals" is incivil perhaps, but that's the "personal" part; where's the attack? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"What I wonder is that you, homosexuals, want your special rights, but you don't want to share the same rights with others, "pedosexuals and zoosexuals". What is the difference? I do not see any. Why you do not support the real diversity in your agenda?" 1. The user clearly tagged me as a homosexual (who I am). 2. Immediately after he stated there is no difference between a homosexuality and a pedophilia and a zoophilia. 3. And that we homosexuals want special right. I have to say it is much outrageous mainly since in a imediately preceding paragraph on the Talk Page I've explain that pedophilia is connected to the age (= age orientation) of the person and zoophilia to the animals (spiece orientation), not to the people and that sexual orientation connected to the sex of the object (either the same or the opposite, perhaps none - asexuality). If somebody can't understand such a simple things and make those personall connections of me to pedophilia and zoophilia it is my opinion he is clearly not mentally and morally qualified to edit Wikipedia. --Destinero (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WTH? Of course this is not only a personal attack and an outrageously offensive one. Goes in the same bin with 'You Jews" and "You coloreds" of people who will bring the project into disrepute, and who should just be indeffed at the beginning to save everyone extra work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic. Saying something like "you Jews" isn't a personal attack unless you add additional context or offensive claims about Jewish people. "You Jews have been around for thousands of years and were the subject of genocide under Hitler's rule in Nazi Germany", for example, isn't a personal attack. Similarly, discussing the psychology of homosexuality isn't a personal attack unless an offensive remark is also made. I don't think it's civil to address people as "you homosexuals", but it's hardly a personal attack in itself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty important distinction to note that the comment diffed above is in the context of a discussion about sexual orientation, and that the author of the comment made it (relatively) clear that they were discussing the rights and psychologies of homosexuals, and what he termed "pedosexuals" and "zoosexuals". But I don't see anything disparaging in the comments, the closest perhaps being "Someone can say that both is bad, I personally do see pedophiles just more behind the line of normality.", but I still think that's borderline. The user then follows it up with "Pedophiles claim, that term "sexual orientation" includes their type of sexuality as well.", which makes it fairly clear that they are discussing the psychology, in the context of sexual orientation. I understand the urge to see homosexuality being compared to pedophilia and shout "personal attack", but I honestly don't think there's grounds to do so, given the context. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. The user is simply parroting the attacks against homosexuals made by our enemies- that homosexuality is morally equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. I am gay, and I can confirm that I have no problem identifying this person as someone who hates me and wishes to harm me based on this comment. I'm a little puzzled about why you don't see that, but I hope the fact that a number of others have disagreed with you will prompt you to consider the possibility that this user is being insulting in a way that you didn't pick up on. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I can see why some people might find it offensive, but I don't think this is a blatant personal attack, and would personally give the user the benefit of the doubt as they do appear to be discussing the psychology. I don't see any mention of "morality" being discussed here, and I strongly agree that attempting to claim that homosexuality is "morally unjustified" is a blatant personal attack. It's entirely possible that the user carefully phrased these comments to make it potentially ambiguous as something other than an attack, they certainly seem to have some sort of prejudice against homosexuals, but I haven't looked into their other edits. On the basis of this comment alone, however, I don't feel that a block would be warranted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that the preferred outcome is that the user strike the disruptive comment and rephrase it so as not to refer to other editors, and if they are referring to the psychological aspects, they should be clearer on that. If it's not, then perhaps I am assuming good faith which isn't there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(x2) I'm not gay, but this reads like a homophobic rant to me, too. And it is personalized to boot: "you, homosexuals". Besides the comparison to pedophiles and zoophiles, there's the lesser direct accusation that homosexuals have a sense of entitlement, wanting exclusive "special" privileges. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been misinterpreting this; I read this as "pedophiles and zoophiles have the right to defend their sexuality too", not "homosexuals don't have the right any more than pedophiles or zoophiles". I felt that this was a statement that pedophilia or zoophilia mentality isn't a choice any more than homosexuality, rather than stating that all three are equally invalid. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, if the consensus is that I'm taking WP:AGF a bit too far and that the comment is unambiguously a personal attack, then fair enough. At the very least I agree that it's uncivil and very poorly worded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, I just informed the user of this thread since they hadn't previously been informed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Some of us are probably a little bit involved here just because it's about homosexuality and I know I am as well, being a homosexual, but I also view this as a personal attack. If not against the OP, then against homosexuals in general. The "pedophiles and zoosexuals" argument is one that has been used by most detractors to homosexuality and it is extremely offensive to all of us. Using it in any context, really, can be construed as an attack on homosexuality. Silverseren^C 14:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Well the user has been warned, in no uncertain terms, by Maunus. Since I'm not convinced it was an outright personal attack I don't think a block is appropriate right now, but given Maunus' clear warning, and the fact that several users here are clearly offended by the user's comments (whether intentional or not, and despite assuming good faith, I'm certainly not 100% convinced that they're not), any repeat of this type of comment should result in a block. Any comments on that? If others are in agreement about that, I think an uninvolved admin should close this thread. (Though clearly at least a couple of users support a block already, so we should clarify consensus first). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Clarify consensus"? Have I missed something? Or is consensus perfectly clear, with only Giftiger wunsch persisting with an idiosyncratic point of view? The remark was clearly intended to be an attack. The fact that a strict reading of the logical content of the remark can take it as a neutral statement does not alter the fact that the whole tone and intention of it indicated an attack. In addition, the remark has to be taken in context. Destinero started this section by saying "This editor has a long history of attacking me ". Personally I think that is something of an overstatement, but an astonishingly high proportion of DeeMusil's edits are contradicting, criticising, or attempting to discredit, Destinero. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson; yes, you've missed something. Most users who have discussed this matter seem to agree that any further comments will warrant a block (including myself), a couple have expressed that an immediate block is warranted. I'm not asking for consensus on whether this is a personal attack, clearly consensus says that it is. I'm asking for consensus on whether the warning will suffice for now, or if a block is deemed appropriate regardless. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

GiftigerWunsch, you missed something. The fact you are the only one in this discussion who don't want to block DeeMusil right now. Next time, he would know what is encyclopedia and cooperation about. --Destinero (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent consensus. Attempting to misrepresent a discussion on ANI to get your own way is foolish at best. Please note that I moved your comment to be below my comment which you were apparently answering. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd block for that comment, given that DeeMusil seems to have broken four months silence (he wasn't blocked, I checked) just to say it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I alrady have said in the first comment I expect the block of the DeeMusil right now as the majority of people who discuss it here. DeeMusil obviously broke up months of silence just to made the personal attack and nobody can dispute this fact. It was framed as a personall attack and it was a personal attack. --Destinero (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't block punitively, he has been warned that such behaviour will not be tolerated. If he repeats the offense then a block is in order.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, blocking for that comment would be ridiculous. If the user in question continues to make similar remarks, then blocking can be discussed. Buddy431 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

RussBot Problem

User:R'n'B's RussBot has been going through to hatlinks on any number of pages that link to a disambiguation page and adding "(disambiguation)" whether it is in the name of the page or not. This essentially creates a redirect to the already exsisting page. I noticed it when the bot made this edit to WTOP-FM earlier. I posted a question about it, thinking it is a goof and received this answer that in fact R'n'B has set the bot to deliberately go around and create nothing more than redirects. The explanation for all this is the edit summary: "Editing intentional link to disambiguation page in hatnote per WP:INTDABLINK (explanation)". I read the mumbo-jumbo explanation and the best I can bring out of it so things can be "readily identified" in "what links here" reports. This is just silly in my opinion and not necessary in the least. I would like this mess reverted by bot (probably the only way it can be done) and things reviewed so this doesn't happen again. Creating a redirect so "what links here" reports can be easy to read is just stupid and misuse of a bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the user of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying me. This task has been discussed ad nauseum and approved at every review. Most recently, it was advertised on both WP:CENT and WP:RFC for a full 30 days, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Redirects in hatnotes, and closed by an uninvolved admin who found a clear consensus in favor of the bot's operation. What else do I have to do???? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  Has this been approved by BAG? RussBot 5 seems to only approved the creation of the redirect pages, not purposely linking to them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RussBot 4 is the one that covers this task. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  Great, thanks :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Showing how this will improve things rather than just create needless redirects for "what links here" would be nice. I am sorry you had to go through so much to get this approved but I just don't feel it is helpful to the project to have countless redirects floating around out there, when most people go out of their way (at least I hope they do) to remove redirects so you get a direct link to the page in question and not go around Jake's barn. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, there is no reason to go around bypassing redirects. WP:R2D addresses that specifically. I'm sorry if you've been laboring under a misconception. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, there's not much point purposely not bypassing the redirects. The reason given in the BRfA seems to be it shows if linking to a disambiguation was intentional or not, but having a bot do this seems to defeat the object, since the bot just presumes that every single one is intentional... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See, to me, I would rather go to WTOP, then the redirect WTOP (disambiguation). You are getting the same information, but the redirect (while slightly unnecessary) just takes up space. Plus who is really going to type all that out when they can just type in "WTOP"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:R2D seems to be brought up a lot by people who create redirects to bypass perfectly good direct links. The essence of R2D is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and that applies in both directions. I think JaGa was spot on when he/she said, "Well, it is a bit confusing; you click a hatnote for XXX (disambiguation) and get redirected to XXX, and think, "Why didn't they just link directly to the dab?" I know there's nothing wrong with the policy, that redirects do not need to be "fixed", but all the same, the answer is not immediately obvious and we will have to explain why we do it this way again and again to the many future perfectly-good-faith-but-confused-and-thus-a-little-annoyed editors."[103] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up with him the other day as well but I didn't have the time. It seems ridiculous to be changing a direct link to an indirect link. And it is very much counter to WP:NOTBROKEN. This is definitely not an appropriate bot task. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Let me give you a thorough explanation, then, of why this is necessary. Links to disambiguation pages are generally wrong; they are intended to go to some page with a more specific title that can be found on the disambig page. For example, where an editor writes "[[Jeff Jorgenson]] was considered to be a great baseball player", he doesn't intend to create a link to the disambiguation page for "Jeff Jorgenson", but to the article "[[Jeff Jorgenson (baseball player)]]". There are approximately 925,000 of these ambiguous links today - down from 1.35 million a year ago, thanks to the efforts of disambiguators. In order to fix these links, we have programs that generate lists of all of the links to disambig pages. These programs can not tell if the author intended to point to a particular article, or to the disambig page, so if the sentence is "There are many people named [[Jeff Jorgenson]]", there's no way to know that this is actually intended to point to the disambig page unless a pair of human eyes fall on it and make that determination. However, we have many editors going over these lists all the time, and every time a disambig page is intentionally linked, every one of the editors going through that list will have to take the time to independently review that link and determine that it is intentional. In order to make it clear to the list-making programs (and editors running through the lists by hand) that these links are intentional, we pipe them so that they read "There are many people named [[Jeff Jorgenson (disambiguation)|Jeff Jorgenson]]". Look at the "What links here" list for the disambiguation page, James Smith. We can tell right away that all of the articles that are shown on that page to redirect to "James Smith" through James Smith (disambiguation) are intentional links to that page, and don't need to be checked. Multiply that time savings by the fifteen-thousand or so disambiguation pages (that we know of so far) that have, collectively, hundreds of thousands of intentional incoming links. If the link was set up as [[James Smith|James Smith (disambiguation)]], it would only appear to be fixed, but would still show up on the lists as needing to be fixed, and therefore waste thousands of hours of disambiguator time. bd2412 T 18:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• • [Kingpin13] - you said the bot is just indiscriminately assuming that all links to disambiguation pages are intentional; no, that is not what it is doing. It is only changing links in specific parameter positions in specific hatnote templates, which I selected based on the wording of the templates, because the context in which these templates are used (such as "For other uses see FOO") is such that any references to disambiguation pages can be presumed to be intentional. The particular templates and parameters to be changed were specified in the bot request for approval. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • [BD2412] - your description suggests that the links will be piped so that the word "(disambiguation)" is not displayed to the reader, but the consensus on WT:D was that the links should not be piped, because it may be helpful to the reader to give them this signal that the link will take them to a disambiguation page. I would have been happy to do it either way, with or without piping, but I followed the consensus. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were doing that. I was just making the case for piping through the redirect, and not merely creating the appearance of it (which some have suggested as a 'solution' in the past). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The fact they aren't piped is what probably is getting most people upset, as the unpiped versions look horrible at the top of the page. People know they are going to a disambiguation page because the sentence tells them they are. Adding the bracketed words is just repetitive. -DJSasso (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • [all] - I may not be able to respond to any further comments immediately, as I am trying to enjoy a relaxing weekend at the beach with my family and being on the computer all the time is not conducive to that. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just a couple of points from above:

• "Multiply that time savings by the fifteen-thousand or so disambiguation pages (that we know of so far) that have, collectively, hundreds of thousands of intentional incoming links." - Of course you're trading off some of that saving by creating umpteen thousand "[[Foo (disambiguation)]]" redirects that are not absolutely necessary. One could argue that the spirit of WP:R2D applies to disambiguation pages; There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects, so what's inherently wrong with linking to a disambiguation page? Having to click through a disambiguation page is no big deal. If anything it's likely to educate the reader to the fact that there are more than one uses for the term. As with anything else on Wikipedia, if the link is unintentional, somebody will pick it up and fix it. I know I do.
• "it may be helpful to the reader to give them this signal that the link will take them to a disambiguation page." - As per Djsasso's comment, when you see something like "For other rivers named Avon, see River Avon", it's a pretty clear indication that it's a link to a disambiguation page, not that many readers probably understand what disambiguation actually is. And then there are instances like Main North railway line, New South Wales where use of "(disambiguation)" results in a messy looking hatnote, at browser widths below 1280px, which is still about 25% of the computers in the world. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• On the first point, linking to a disambiguation page is much different than linking to a redirect. Clicking on a redirect link takes you immediately to the selected article; in fact, you have to look carefully to even notice that you went through a redirect. Clicking on a disambiguation page link takes you to a page that, in effect, says, "What did you mean by FOO? Did you mean John Foo, or Foo City, or ..."? That's very noticeable and affects the reader's experience in a way that redirects don't. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Does anyone find it a little dishearting that the user can't respond to comments due to a "relaxing weekend at the beach" yet can continue to operate his bot while on that same "relaxing weekend"? I recommend the bot be stopped pending the outcome of this thread or until R'n'B can get back from his weekend to respond to posts. If you can operate a bot (which has to be watched all the time) you can respond to this thread. -iting the it Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I can watch the bot and respond to comments; just not as quickly as I usually would. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• We don't expect operators to watch their bots all the time, just to respond to inquiries with in a reasonable amount of time (well, the word we use in policy is "promptly"). I don't really see a problem with the bot running while R'n'B is spending a weekend at a beach (where he apparently does have internet access). Although running the bot while users are discussing concerns might not be such a good idea, I normally expect bots to be paused while they're being discussed. Anyway, I think I've just about got my head around the point of this bot :D, it makes it much easier for users to find and think unintentional links to the disambiguation pages, since there are less intentional links getting in the way on the whatlinkshere page, seems clever to me. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can mark this resolved and closed. I've stopped the bot and don't plan to restart it. Somewhat embarrassingly and belatedly, I've realised that the same goal can be accomplished by editing the hatnnote templates, and won't require a bot to make changes to 20,000 articles. Sorry for wasting your time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that did occur to me, I notice that someone mentioned at least one of the templates already does this in one of the discussions about this bot. Will it be possible to make the templates do this even if some of the links have (disambiguation) at the end already, or will the bot have to go through the articles taking these out? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The template approach did not work, so I'm not doing anything at this point until I can come up with a better solution to the problem. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

encyc: namespace

Resolved

In Cause 4 Concern I found several links of the form [[:encyc:Raiden|Raiden]. Clicking on the link takes the reader to http://encyc.org/wiki/Raiden. Encyc.org claims to be an "encyclopedia that you can edit. It is free for everyone to use and distribute. If you know something, then you can share it here. Encyc is a kinder, gentler wiki encyclopedia, with a close-knit group of writers and a family-friendly atmosphere."

Did someone sneak-in a custom namespace on us? There doesn't seem to be a way to show the actual namespaces in use by the software. The links are clearly inappropriate and I'll remove them as soon as I learn what weirdness is taking place in the software. --UncleDouggie (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a true namespace; it's just an abbreviation for an external link. Such abbreviations have to be approved by people on meta.wikimedia.org (see meta:Interwiki_map), so that means that it must have been judged a worthy site at one time, but even that doesnt mean that every such link there is appropriate. It also may not even be the same website that was there when it was added to the interwiki map. —Soap— 12:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• m:Talk:Interwiki map is where you want to be. Please take such technical issues with the software and its configuration to the Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) next time. Administrators don't control the servers or the software. Developers monitor the Pump, and generally don't monitor here. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• I didn't realize that we had so many external shortcuts to non-WMF projects. I now see the ref buried at the bottom of Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links, but it's not very obvious. Thanks. --UncleDouggie (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha again

Banned user socking with IP. Most recent discussion here [104]. IP sock on same range blocked as consequence. Starting to edit one of the same articles Islamic pottery as previous sock. Current IP is User:173.52.181.113.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I have blocked the IP for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits & inserting problematic material into a BLP at Linda McMahon

User Screwball23 is persistently reintroducing large blocks of material that several other editors have agreed should be removed. He has done this at least 8 times in the past 4 days. The material is particularly problematic as this is a BLP, and the content attempts to tie the subject to acts such as the sexual abuse of minors and illegal steroid drug sales in an extremely tangential manner.

UPDATED at 20:53 5 September 2010: Adding latest reversions

Direct revisions in the last 24 hours alone, at Linda McMahon, and Linda McMahon, 2010 Senate Campaign:

• [105]
• [106] (five reversions in series)
• [107] (two reversions in series)
• [108] (two reversions in series)
• [109]

Other reversions in last few days, again at Linda McMahon:

• [110] (Reverted user Discospinster)
• [111] (Reverted user Collect)
• [112] (Reverted user Off2RioRob)
• [113]
• [114]

Several of these reversions were done immediately after Screwball23 was given a 3RR/edit warring warning by Admin Everard Proudfoot. The editor is also making abusive remarks on the article's talk page.

Latest example of reinserting unsourced contentious material into the BLP:

• [115]

Note: Screwball attached a source link to the content -- but nowhere in that source is the claim actually supported. This is a common theme.

Besides myself, editors Collect, Off2riorob, and Nikki311 have either attempted to remove this material or posted objections to talk. User has also been warned repeatedly at his talk page about 3RR and overriding consensus:

• [116]

Fell Gleaming^talk 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never edited either article about Linda McMahon, and that I have no strong personal interest in this. But I promised diffs re FellGleaming's part in the edit war she's engaged in. I haven't bothered to look for more 3RR violations; this isn't my fight. I actually saw what I'm now taking the time to document below several days ago, but didn't really want to get involved in a feud. I did inform Screwball on his talk page, that I thought, at that time, based on a cursory look, that he was at 2RR and that FellGleaming was at 3RR. ( Btw, I've positioned this post immediately after FellGleaming's diffs accusing Screwball23 as per the rules documented at wp:indent designed to keep related posts in a thread together. )

FellGleaming saw my comments on 2RR and 3RR and took offense. She asked me to look more closely at her reverts, and so I did:

• [117] 10:09 30 August 2010

• [118] 11:08 30 August 2010

• [119] 02:48 31 August 2010

• [120] 03:48 31 August 2010

• [121] 10:44 01 September 2010 User Collect stepped in at this point and made the same revert, his second edit to the article. Not comprised in the 3RR+ count, of course.

Some of the edits above are embedded in a stream of multiple consecutive edits by FellGleaming, but the ones I've listed here all have intervening edits by other users between them. I found these reverts especially troubling because, while they do revert some inappropriate material, the overall effect of her edits really is to whitewash this public figure, just as Screwball has claimed, presumably for the purpose of improving her chance of gaining the Senate seat she's spending $50 million of her own fortune to try to obtain. The reversions, for example, removed the $50M spending plan from the lede and, more troubling, well-sourced evidence of the candidate's having obstructed a Federal investigation.

FellGleaming, at least, is not really focused on simply trying to improve the encyclopedia in her editing on this She's focused instead on trying to get her preferred candidate into the Senate, imo. Screwball may be a little less sophisticated in the way he's pursuing this edit war ( there's been no one to step in on his side when he's been at 3RR ) but FellGleaming is at least as culpable in the battle as he is. Perhaps she's more culpable, actually: I find her edits to exhibit a more extreme POV tendency than Screwball's do in the opposite direction, although Screwball's not going to win any NPOV prizes here, either. Btw, FellGleaming, I'd appreciate it if you'd use boldface more sparingly, perhaps using italics or limited underlining, instead. It's distracting, and we can all read regularly-entered text every bit as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OhioStandard, I ask you again to stop making false claims. Of your five links posted above, the first two aren't reversions at all, they're simply two edits of material that wasn't previously under any sort of dispute, and the "intervening edit" by user Collect didn't conflict in any way. The three following that are reverts -- however that's only 3, and the last is more than 24 hours after the first, meaning I didn't even go over 2RR, much less 3RR. It was at this point that I stopped reverting, and began seeking conflict resolution. User Screwball, however, has continued the mass reversions, against not only myself but two other editors. When you first made this accusation on talk, I attempted to explain it to you there, but you didn't bother to answer me. Also, could you please stop mislabelling me as female as well?

As for the content removed, when I began editing the article, there was a vast emount of contentious negative material, much of it either unsupported by sources, misrepresenting the source, or using an attack blog or other nonreliable source as the citation. When reliable sources were cited, all positive references were scrubbed from the source. As one example, there was a very lengthy section on a disgruntled ex employee who threatened a sexual harrassment suit against a company McMahon headed. The entry, however, misrepresented that as sexual molestation, made no mention that the accusation was made by a former employee who only came forward years later and who never filed a criminal complaint. The entry contains speculation and loaded language to portray McMahon in the worst possible light, and leaves out the fact that the cited source says the accuser praised McMahon for her handling of the situation. It also presents as facts uncited statements such as McMahon "repeatedly challenged Cole (the accuser) in unemployment hearings with a company lawyer". This is the type of material we were working with in the initial article -- several paragraphs of misleading, biased innuendo, near the very top of the article itself, for material only tangentially related to McMahon. A much shorter and neutral version of these events now appears in the article; it is vastly improved, and I stand by my work 100% here. I challenge ANY uninvolved editor to look at the before and after versions and not support me here: [122].

Yikes! I'm terribly sorry for mistaking your gender! I thought I saw you addressed previously as female, but evidently not since I can't find that now. I think it must have been a mental connection between the prominent photo of McMahon on her page and your very frequent presence there. It was a dumb mistake, but a good-faith one, I assure you. You have my sincere apology for having addressed you incorrectly.

I won't respond to your assertions about content; we obviously have differing opinions as to the effect of your edits, and this isn't the venue to discuss content at length anyway. I will say, though, that you'd do better to stop suggesting that I've been telling "lies", "falsehoods", or that I've been making false claims. You're perfectly free to disagree with me as vehemently as you like, and to dispute the accuracy of anything I might say. But to consistently say or imply (you've done both) that I might not believe the statements I've made here to be true is ... well, rubbish, not to mention snide. I'd appreciate it if you'd address the content without casting aspersions on my veracity or motives.

As to the 3RR documentation diffs, it's possible that we have a different understanding as to what kind of edits are covered under the 3RR rules. It's not my impression from what I read in the docs that it matters whether text is under dispute or not, for example. The policy says, "A 'revert' in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." The way I understand that, when you delete something another editor added, whether in whole or in part, you've made a reversion that counts toward 3RR. I'd welcome clarification from uninvolved users who are familiar with the policy on this point, since I've never had occasion to notice the rule until now.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we not discuss anything but 3RR at this page location, though, please? It was okay for me to post the diffs I did after yours, under talk page rules for keeping like with like (paraphrasing wp:indent), but if this goes on much longer here it will tend to obscure Screwball's reply, below. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On the talk page, I lay my position very clear. It is not tangential, and her involvement in the tipoff memo is well-documented, as is her interaction with Tom Cole during the Ring Boy Affair. It is unfair to say that there is consensus when the only arguments that have been leveled against the material is that it might not be good for her image. It want to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored, and Fell Gleaming's accusations that I am tying the subject, Linda McMahon, to abuse of minors or steroid sales is absurd. She was an executive in the company who took positions on handling these issues within her company. They are very notable, are well-referenced, and have been repeatedly been raised during the last year. Also, please keep in mind that the subject, Linda McMahon, is currently in a Senate campaign, and there are multiple editors who are eager to whitewash this article for political motives.--Screwball23 talk 17:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23 seems intent on acting when the consensus on the talk page is clear - it is not proper per WP:BLP and per JW [123]. The accusation of "whitewash" is untrue, and poisons discussions. [124] demonstrates that the sole reason for the scurrilous material is political " I know this article is being searched by people who are more familiar with her political run than her WWE career, and I believe it is short-sighted and a bit narrow-minded to assume people will know what the Monday Night Wars or the Ring boy affair are." is quite clear as to Screwball's motivation. The accusation that this is all bout deletionism is raised "Again, to engage in a productive discussion, avoid personal attacks, please cite the individual paragraph you wish to discuss, and above all else, remember that deletionists are always the last people to learn things on Wikipedia." by the same editor. Also "This is complete BS, the editor in question is blatantly whitewashing the article, and this is damaging to any future readers of the page. Remember that Linda's senate campaign article has links to the Tip-off memo, and if it can't be posted here, no one will be able to read about it." making even more clear that the motives are not to include material, but to specifically include political campaign charges. I submit that such is an intrinsic misue of the project. Collect (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I did have a look and thought the content tangential and undue as to her part in the issue, I also thought his insistence on inserting a picture of an off shore oil rig was excessive, just because the huffington post and some opinionated CBS blog and tpmdc whoever they are say she supports it is a bit undue, are we to have a picture of all the things she supports or just the off shore oil rig. User has also contributed most of this article Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010which also seems a bit of a negative portrayal. Repeatedly inserting content disputed by multiple users is never going to be a long term solution. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither User:Screwball23 nor User:FellGleaming has been editing appropriately here, the former reinserting material going against consensus, and the latter claiming consensus by attributing his own beliefs to other editors, myself included. For example, with the "ring boy" material, I and other editors thought the material should be trimmed to focus on Linda's clear involvement, and I produced an edited version which saw no immediate objection when run on the Talk page, including a basic approval from Screwball23 (he wanted a fine-tune). The entire section was then deleted without consensus, then restored to its former extended state without consensus; the closest I came to approving either was undoing a restoration of the extended version at a time when I didn't have the time to go back and dig out the shortened version. McMahon's involvement in the ring boy situation speaks to what sort of actions she took as WWE President; the steroid situation speaks to the situation which surrounded her rise to president. That the WWE can be lurid in various ways is not irrelevant to her life and her position in it; the luridness of the organization has been a factor in her entire political career (as the sourced comments about those who considered her for her position on the education board attest.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nat, this edit of yours here [125] reverts out Screwball's reinsertion of the content under dispute. I took that to mean you were one of the editors who supported its removal. My apologies if that wasn't correct. I'll let Off2riorob and Collect speak to their own positions. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I would like to remind everyone on this one that with regards to biographies of living people, our policy stance (as evidenced in WP:BLP) shifts to precautionary exclusion rather than our normal generally inclusionistic if sourced approach. That can be overturned by community consensus that BLP isn't an issue with a particular item, but if there's a doubt and a dispute, leave it out until and unless a consensus evolves that it should be in.

This is particularly important with high visibility people and people running for political office, as there's a strong tendency by opponents to want to tar and feather people on Wikipedia as a cheap campaign tactic.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball23 should not continue to insert text when the consensus is against it. He should either work to change consensus with the other editors on the talk page and, since that avenue has appeared to be exhausted, use content dispute resolution, e.g., post to the BLP notice board or set up a content RfC. However the correct place for to complain about edit-warring is the edit-warring noticeboard.

It is not clear to me that the content violates BLP and in any case there is no evidence that the complainant has taken the issue to the BLP noticeboard. The subject is a Republican Party candidate for the U. S. Senate, and all editors must be careful that their political viewpoints do not influence their decision about what to include or what weight it deserves. Whether or not the text added should be there or what weight it deserves depends on the degree of coverage it has received. The article should neither draw readers attention to something that the media has neglected or omit something that has received media coverage. TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I did in fact take this issue to the BLP noticeboard, which brought at least one uninvolved editor who Screwball is overriding with his edit reversions. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for the reminder: participants in this conflict need to keep your final sentence more firmly in mind. FellGleaming did indeed post to BLPN, and I'm one of the people that her post attracted. I've never edited the article, though, but I did add a comment to its talk page in response to her BLPN entry. I said, in summary, that I thought she was overreacting by trying to present a legitimate content dispute as a BLP violation. If I had been as familiar then with the specific issues ( e.g. the candidate's memo to tip off her company's steroid-dispensing consulting physician about an impending federal investigation ) as I have since become, I would have been more forceful in stating my belief that bringing the matter to BLPN was unwarranted, at least. For example, FellGleaming wrote at BLPN:

McMahon's only connection to the (physician) appears to be that he worked previously for a company she took control of after he had already been fired and convicted. Given no source even claims she was involved in any way, this appears to be a simple "smear by association"...

It's hard for me to understand how she comes to make these assertions despite her extensive familiarity with the facts and sources. See, for example, this report of the candidate's involvement, from one of the papers in Connecticut, the state McMahon wants to represent in the Senate. Screwball wanted the topic and the references to support it kept in the article, and FellGleaming wanted them out. To be fair, FellGleaming has also objected, rightly, to the inclusion of poorly-sourced material that doesn't belong in the article. But I'm far from being convinced that she's the consensus-driven NPOV editor she presents herself to be, or that her imlicit claim to the moral high ground in this conflict has any merit. Rather, it's my impression that FellGleaming has demonstrated a strongly partisan bias with respect to this article, and that she has persistently fought to exclude any content at all that might reflect unflatteringly on Linda McMahon.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, just reading the edits that Screwball made in the three links that introduced this section were enough for me. Screw is definitely pushing an agenda. While some of the eidts might be ok, if trimmed, there are whole sections that simply do not belong in there, and your edits are in every case attempting to paint a negatie, not neutral image. Screwball, you need to revisit BLP and POV. Your edits are POV to the extreme and in many cases cross over BLP---often in regards to other people (you basically declare that Hulk Hogan, British Bulldogs, Lex Luger, etc left the WWE to join the WCW because they were using steroids.) You also made a number of edits which were pov laden. Also if something a debut, then you don't need "first debut" not only is that redundant, but it doesn't make sense.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I've never edited this article, although I posted once to its talk page. The "sigh" is because I'd hoped I wouldn't have to take the time and trouble to get involved in this, or to document it, but FellGleaming who brought this to ANI is herself over 3RR. Further, she and Collect, along with another editor I can't recall at the moment – and no time to look-up, again, just now – have repeatedly removed the candidate's well-sourced statement that she intends to spend $50 million of her own money on her campaign for the Senate. ( If that's not worthy of inclusion in a candidate's article then I don't what is. But the statement is back in the article at the moment, I see. ) Also, FellGleaming presented this matter in her opening paragraph here in a way that gives the very false impression that Screwball attempted some kind of BLP/smear violation. He didn't. I don't have time to add more or to document FellGleaming's 3RR+ violation right now: I've made this post mostly to ask admins to refrain from closing this thread prematurely, as sometimes occurs. But I'll be back with supporting diffs within 24 hours.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting claim about my edits - I did not seek to remove a claim as to amount of money in any revert or edit on this article - [126] was my first edit here - and was specifically on the lengthy "ring boy" BLP violation and the extensive material which might belong under WWE, but which is not in any way "biographical". [127] second edit was a revert of Screwball's total reinsertion if everything under the sun. I made no other edits on this article that I can find, I ask that the false claims above as to how many edits I have mde to Linda McMahon and the nature of those edits be corrected as soon as possible. Charges made here which are inaccurate, as these are, do not help anyone at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you'll scroll down ten or twenty lines in your second diff, depending on the size of the browser window you have open, you'll see that you deleted the following, a statement and its corresponding ref that FellGleaming and another editor had deleted three times in the preceding two days:

McMahon has stated a willingness to spend $50 million in the race.^[10]

10. ^ Altimari, Daniela (2009-08-15). "Wrestling CEO weighs Senate Run". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2009-08-21.

I'm sure you just missed your deletion of this, just as I missed the fact that the same statement occurs again in a section of the article that's not represented in the diffs, and that therefore requires a very long scroll downwards, and a careful reading of that version of the article, to discover. Were you aware of the statement's presence there, in the body of the quickly-changing article, across multiple versions, I wonder? If so, and you were focused on the occurence of the statement in the body of the article, unaware of the same statement on the "left" side near the top of all the deletion diffs, while I was conversely focused on the same statement occuring in the "left" side of the deletion diffs and had similarly overlooked its duplicatation in the body of the article, well that would explain a great deal. ( Fyi, that sentence took a long time to write intelligibly! )

If that's what happened, I can well-understand your vexation, and will certainly say that I regret that so complex a confusion should have put us on the wrong foot with one another. Your objection to my having lumped you in with FellGleaming in the reference I made above to deletions of the candidate's $50 million spending plan statement having been made "repeatedly" is also quite understandable. I was operating from fallible memory and had the mistaken impression that you'd echoed her reversions of what you call, with some justification, Screwball's "everything under the sun" material more than just the one time you did. I didn't intend to imply that you had greater involvement than you actually did have with just your one reversion that included the $50 million spending plan, and only one instance of its two occurences in the article, at that. Sorry if it seemed otherwise; I should have been more clear.

It's a little funny in retrospect, but by reviewing this in such great detail, I found that you would have had some justification for intentionally deleting the cited reference for the first instance of the claim, if not the actual claim itself. The ref for its first instance was rubbish, a broken link. Either when it was created, or via successive editing, it became confounded with one or more other refs. Its url pointed to the Chicago Tribune, when this Hartford Courant article, which doesn't even mention the $50 million figure, may have been the intended target. Or it may have been the intended target at some point in the article's evolution, at least. At the moment I write this, however, the statement in the body of the article that McMahon plans to spend $50 million to win the Senate seat is completely unreferenced... No, that does not mean that you or any of McMahon's supporters can remove it. It means that as a good, NPOV editor whose primary interest is in improving the article rather than in promoting any political agenda with respect to Ms. McManon, you need to find a valid reference for it in a reliable source. :-)

Anway, if it makes you feel better knowing it, I'll disclose that you've certainly had your revenge for my part in the confusion around this: it has taken me literally hours to sort what probably happened here. I wish there were a way to step through article versions much more quickly, and a more efficient way to note the changes that occur across versions. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement that I violated 3RR at any point is a flat-out lie, which the diffs will show. When Screwball began mass reverting the changes of myself, Collect, and Off2Riorob, I sought resolution at the BLP noticeboard, then here. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohio, you've made two false statements here I ask you to retract. The statement that I violated 3RR at any point is flatly incorrect, which the diffs will show. When Screwball began mass reverting the changes of myself, Collect, and Off2Riorob, I sought resolution. The second falsehood is regards the statement that McMahon intended to spend $50M on her campaign. In fact, I left it in the lede of her Senate campaign article, and in the body of her main article. I simply removed it from the lede of her main article. It has no place in a five-sentence lede. Ohio, please do the right thing and correct your statements. Fell Gleamingtalk 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FallGleaming: I've restored the initial address you made to me, and presumably thought better of subsequently, since you deleted it and added the one immediatlely above a couple hours later, even though you knew from my quick wp:indent cleanup that I'd already seen it. It's not that I appreciated your initial comment so very much, but you're demanding a very public retraction from me here, urging me from that moral high-ground you appear to favor to "do the right thing", as if I had done the wrong thing previously. It just seems a little odd that you wouldn't enjoy having the same opportunity yourself and would prefer to make a retraction on the quiet.

I am glad to learn that I've been demoted from being a liar to just telling "falsehoods", in your view, though: it takes a lot of energy to be very wicked, you know. More to the point, wp:redact recommends against simply removing your comments from a shared talk page, and I'd say that applies doubly in any quasi-judicial forum like this one. You can also consult wp:redact for the correct method to indicate that you wish to retract a statement, btw. ( Hint: <del></del>. )

Responding thus far as carefully and as fully as the occasion has called for has consumed much more time than I budgeted for or expected, however. I don't have leisure to continue with this right now, FellGleaming. I'll give you the balance of my follow-up as soon as possible.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, but I can't follow your drift with all this. I do know, however, that you accused me of (a) violating 3RR when I did not, and (b) removing material from the article when I simply removed it from the lede, leaving it in the body. You're complaining about me "calling you out publicly" on this, but I first asked you politely on your talk page. And you STILL have not corrected this falsehood. Further, you complained my objections about the steroid trial section were misplaced, when the version you reviewed was already the massively edited version that I and Collect had edited, not the problematic original copy. Fell Gleaming^talk 04:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now posted the relevant diffs showing your 3RR+ above, per wp:indent, just after the ones you posted accusing Screwball. Since you say you can't understand what you call "my drift", I'll be more explicit: You tried to quietly retract your having called me a liar and substitute a softer version just accusing me of telling "falsehoods", which I certainly haven't done, either. You're not allowed to remove comments from this page, even your own. I pointed you to wp:indent for the proper method to issue your retraction, since you seem so keen on others making them. You use the "del" tag to strike through the text you're retracting, you don't just delete the text. The rules are less strict about that re your own talk page, btw, but they must be followed here. So this would be the time to strike through your "flat-out lie" accusation, if you really are concerned with "doing the right thing" yourself, as you like to urge others to do.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what, FellGleaming? I'm going to drop my defensiveness for a moment, at least, and say that I don't need a retraction of your having given me the lie; that's generally a bad policy, imo, and anyway, my dignity isn't so fragile that it can't weather such a charge. I will say, though, that your having made it, having called an editor who hasn't been previously involved a liar, tells me you really could use some time away from editing controversial articles. In my first communication with you I stated that impression, and from what I've seen subsequently, you'd be doing yourself a favor to take at least a few days off. The world won't crumble in the meantime, and other editors will continue the work you've been doing on these two articles anyway. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your defensiveness doesn't bother me, your inaccurate statements do. You've included edits that were in no manner "reverts" to support your claim I violated 3RR in the article (see my reply above). You also chose not to support your claim that I removed funding data from article (I simply removed it from the lede, leaving it in the body). I ask you once again to stop making false accusations. It really isn't helpful. Fell Gleaming^talk 12:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your "not 3RR" statements above, in context. As to your pointing up "my defensiveness" that I mentioned, you'll find that people do become just the teensiest bit defensive when you say they're liars. But if you want to keep characterizing me as "making false accusations" and the like, then you'll soon find that's a pretty little game that two can play. So far I've refrained from responding in kind, but I can start saying "you're making false statements", saying you should retract, and generally characterizing your position in legitimately disputed points as "false", "falsehoods", "flat-out lies", and the like, to borrow from your language. Those kinds of "meta-statments" just throw fuel on the fire, especially when coupled with the condescending tone you favor in statements like "please do the right thing" and "it really isn't helpful". So I'll ask you one last time to stop using such rhetorical devices before I resort to the same tools you keep using to discredit my position.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that the article is too long. The natural choice would be to split of sections into separate article, as was already done here when Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010‎ was separated. Looking at the article history, it is clear that Screwball23 is not introducing new material, he is objecting to the removal of sourced material from the article, without a clear consensus to do so. Apparently some editors would like the article to focus more on her current political career and less on her former professional wrestling career (especially the steroid issues that come with the territory). This is understandable during a campaign season, but may be resentist and unencyclopedic in the long run. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthy may also be the fact, that Screwball23's Wikipedia interest starting from June 2006 seems to have focused on World Wrestling Entertainment, while at least two of the people mentioned as his "opponents" seem to be involved in every resent campaign related dispute. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside time? Note Screwball23 accounts for about half of ALL edits here. Compared to my two edits. And [128] wherein Jimbo affirms my position regarding political BLP edits. Do I follow BLPs? Yep. Including proposals for "pending changes" on them etc. I edited on Alex Sink, Huey Long and more. WP:BLP policy must be strictly enforced on WP, per WMF as well. There is no escuse at all for violating WP:BLP. None. Collect (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I ask you retract this false statement. What other "resent campaign related dispute" have I been involved in? This is, in fact, the only article of someone campaigning at ANY level I've edited in at least half a year, if not longer. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you keep saying Jimmy supports your position. Maybe, maybe not. But you should know that you're making an argumentum ad Jimbonem , which he advises against. And @FellGleaming: Is it really necessary to quote someone's spelling error back at them? We've all made them, aftre all. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish to highlight a pattern in that FellGleeming has a track record for wishing BLPs to be whitewashed or puff pieces along political lines. I fully agree with Ohiostandard and Petri Krohn's evidence and go further to suggest that FellGleaming has gamed rules on sourcing to the limit in attempts to make BLPs conform to her prefered POV. FellGleaming withdrew from the climate change area of wikipedia a few months ago, in my opinion just in time to avoid a certain ban. I had a conflict with her as I tried to clean up the BLP J. Scott Armstrong to make it less of a puff piece based around his own publications. Now it seems that she is employing very similar tactics to remove any negative criticism of McMahon. This appears to be political POV pushing and not a genuine concern for wikipedia rules. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User Reqluse

User Reqluse is going through fashion-related articles (mostly in Asia or Oceania) at a wild clip, asking for Deletion for many of them. I have been following him, reverting most of his requests. This is not productive. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Reqluce. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've only noticed his edits to Nico Didonna, but that certainly seems like a valid request for deletion on that article. He did restore a PROD tag after it had been removed, I've explained to him that the next step is AfD, not re-adding the PROD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you have not notified Reqluse of this discussion, which is required. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Everard Proudfoot for notifying me, and for informing me of the next step for AfD. Much appreciated. Reverting my edits simply because one has a belief that the subject 'is a successful businessman/woman "at the very least"' while being unable to provide any verifiable 3rd party references is not productive either. And no, just because the subject's name appears on a google search does not make it verifiable as in the case of Agnimitra Paul, where you accused me of not clicking the link you supplied. When in fact if you had gone through your supplied link, you would have discovered that 2 of the 4 mentions were dead links, one was a press release and the last an unreliable IMDB source. Hardly successful, nor notable.Reqluce (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to actually go to the Fashion wikiproject and expect the drawn out wait for any other editors to actually offer their opinion - it is clear the sense of purpose in this mission to sustain a view of notability is not patient enough to wait to see what others might think - and this is what we get - I only hope if there are active fashion project members - that they get a glimpse of what is happening - so that they might end up going to what appear to be inevitable AFD discussions - lets hope whoever does the AFD preparations - they remember to include the Fashion project and any closely related projects to go beyond 2 warring editors notion of resolving issues SatuSuro 04:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am another editor who has requested Reqluse's approach slows down, allows for more input from other editors, is more communicative and less combative, and accepts that patience may be required as it is clear that others want more time to be spent on the process than he would like. He does however seem to be taking some of this on board which is good. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Where else would you discuss a deletion nomination BUT at AfD? And that gives you 7 days to answer how the articles meet policy, so I dont know why you're asking for patience and discussion, because he is providing exactly that. -- ۩ Mask 07:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty textbook case of an editor not reading the templates he's using (that clearly state they can be contested for any/no reason and should not be re-added). Rehevkor ✉ 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To echo AKMask, I don't understand why an editor needs to "slow down" and request Project assistance in tagging articles for AfD (I'm assuming s/he now understands the need to switch from PROD to AfD when contested). If an article doesn't meet guidelines and policies, it can rightly be nominated for deletion. No editor, group of editors, or Wikiproject should be able to exempt articles from complying with policy simply because they haven't gotten around to making the articles compliant yet. Requesting an article be deleted is not combative, it's keeping the quality of Wikipedia articles at a certain level. 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of wikiprojects have forgotten their purpose and think they have some special authority over articles in their area. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. WP:OWN applies to projects as much as it does to individuals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:LGBT parenting

User:Destinero seems to be removing fact with factual bias over on the article and is acting as the talk page's self-appointed protector. Based on the recently archived discussions he has been uncooperative with other users and is strongly asserting his opinions despite how factually incorrect they may be. The edit war has simmered down but I think that it is still present in some manner. I'm requesting an admin's opinion on the matter. Thanks Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that collegial discussion is better than edit warring. Was that the opinion you were looking for? ;-) If not, could you perhaps be a bit more specific (diffs?) as to the current problems and your desired administrator intervention? Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

User notified Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the MedCab request I checked the article's history, there has been a lot of edit-warring between Tobit2 and Destinero, given the long discussions in Archive 5 I gathered that Destinero was fighting a losing battle. His points were factually incorrect and one sided.

"Destinero, stop to use false arguments about others identity as "Perhaps since you are a Catholic...". this is inadequate, as somebody else can raise an issue, that "Perhaps you are a gay... (actually no doubts as you publicly point to your blog full of expressions that -you are- on Czech Wikipedia) and every your argument is based on liberal propaganda", and therefore you are removing all the content, which can possible harm the propaganda itself. So read please WP:NPOV, part "simple formulation" should be enough. You can't simply suppress facts about opinions, which have major support in States, and spread your bias only. Did you ever tried to "write for the enemy"?--83.208.153.249 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)" "Destinero, you can't commandeer a page like this. You have to allow opposing view points, especially valid ones such as these. Your responses to tobit have not been adequate - all you do is go on about how proven lgbt parenting is, and I agree that it is. It doesn't mean that opposing viewpoints should not be taken into account. You are too emotionally tied to this topic. -Javsav (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)"

As you can clearly establish Destinero is preventing the positive contributions on others and is asserting his biased opinions, like the IP user says this could be due to his religion. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 10:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You do know this has been to AN/I before and lots of people are now "eyes on" that topic. Why are you dragging up weeks old issues that have not repeated themselves? More to the point you seem to be very confused on the issue - due to his religion? I think even after a quick reading it should have been obvious that such a statement is pretty much the opposite of the issue that arose. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who rolled into the article space on the last ANI thread about this user and page I've attempted to moderate some of the more radical viewpoints and "standing on the rock of policy" ultimatiums that have occured. It essentially comes down to a self appointed guardian taking ownership of the page and using their interpertation of WP policy to keep the page in their prefered version. Hasteur (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with an unregistered user editing the Porter-Cable article.

An unregistered user with the IP of 184.100.1.135 has edited the Porter-Cable article four times over the last two days adding vague and unsourced information. I've reverted the edits, with comments as to why they shouldn't be included as is, put a comment explaining my reasoning in the article's discussion page and even added a hidden comment in the place where the information is being added trying to get this person to talk about why their edits keep being reverted. I don't believe the editor is malicious, just uninformed about how Wikipedia works and I've exhausted all the means of resolving this I know of. I've never encountered this problem before and I don't know where to go from here. What is the proper procedure from this point on? Thank you for your time. --Lando242 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the best approach is to just keep at it. If the problem persists try WP:RFPP. I watchlisted the article to help out :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalled SPI/block-evading user

My request for CU here was declined, and I'm not certain whether the banner at the top indicates the SPI is all done and over with, or whether there's just an admin. backlog on making this a non-RFCU sockpuppet look-see (cats at the bottom suggest the latter, but previous SPIs haven't had so long a lull in my experience). Meanwhile, the pretty obvious sock (205.211.213.218 (talk · contribs · 205.211.213.218 WHOIS) continues to edit despite an indef. block on the registered account. Should I refile as a non-RFCU SPI case, or just STFU and wait for an admin. to have time to agree with me that this fellow is evading a block? :-) --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As it says at the top, "the case is now awaiting administration" and your case should still be listed at WP:SPI. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Continual Recreation of Article under different titles

At one time there was an article Fledgling Jason Steed concerning a self-published book (Now apparently with a publisher and just about published by now). This was delted via AFD on two ocassions. The original author of that User:Beehold was never very pleased with that and kept a copy on their user page. At MFD it was determined that this content be moved to a user subpage. Earlier this year the user went dormant, however numerous other users have popped up and recreated the article at the original location, Jason_Steed_(Book_Series) and now at Jason Steed (Young adult novels). I've tagged this latest incarnation as CSD G4, though it is currently an unattributed copyvio of the User:Beehold user space draft. (Either that or the many users creating this are socks of the original author). The article has also been posted in a similar way on many other user pages (all since delted as copyvio's.

This seems a clear abuse of wikipedia, rather than getting the suitable references and getting the article reviewed, the continued recreation at different titles in order to avoid scrutiny is surely disruptive? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am User:Beehold that User:82.7.40.7 makes reference to. Except I can't remember my log-on password and have had to create a new account. (My password was stored on my computer and, when the hard drive crashed and had to be replaced, none of the remembered passwords could be recovered. (As you can see by the editing history, I haven't been able to edit under that name for several months).

As far as I can tell, User:82.7.40.7 is trying to make two complaints:

1. . That I have recreated the Jason Steed page, despite it being deleted in the past. True - but, now the book has been published, reviews and stories are slowly filtering through from recognised publications. See here for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cooperbook.jp. I am adding these as I find them, to ensure the article is as authoritive and informative as possible.
2. . User:82.7.40.7 claims that it is a "copy violation" to recreate this article. Hardly. Articles for Wikipedia are created under a free Creative Commons licence - CC-BY-SA 3.0 - which means they are available for anyone, and everyone to use. This arguement simply does not hold water.

Thirdly, and this is a complaint against User:82.7.40.7, it clearly states at the top of this page that "You must notify any user that you discuss." talk did not, and I only stumbled across this. Perhaps this is uncharitable of me to think this may have been deliberate, to keep me from presenting any defence to their claims.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the G4 nomination doesn't apply, as the deletion discussion was 14 months ago. That is not to say I think the article belongs, but such a discussion should happen at WP:AFD, not here. Having said that, User:Itshayfevertime removing the G4 tag from the article was also out of process.  Frank  |  talk  10:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP is correct. At the time the article Jason Steed (Young adult novels) was posted it violated Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text. Wikipedia uses Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The standard instructions at Help:Moving a page#Before moving a page apply. I've moved the version from Beehold over and restored the latest version. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching and fixing that, CambridgeBayWeather. The specific guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Steed (Young adult novels), if anyone's interested one way or the other. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: also recreated on Beehold/HayFever's userpage. Again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  That I know of was previously at User:Onthemap (creator of one of the previous reincarnations), User:BonfireCharlie, User:Many A Flower and User_talk:Many A Flower. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have followed this subject closely. I am now certian that User SarekOfVulcan has a personal, shall we say 'interest' in this. Can anyone other than this one person tell me why every Joe Craig book is listed, many I have helped edit. Yet this one title has been rejected despite it being more popular in both the UK and the US. I can't find a single news story of a Joe Craig book in the US. If we look further, many books are given a page on wikipedia, some have even been set up by SarekOfVulcan yet they don't come anywhere close to meeting the guidlines Fledgling Jason Steed has. I enjoy editing on here and know much about YA novels. I am stunned that this single book with newspaper articles in the UK and US, reviews from authors, published by a major publishers and is constantly voted as the best YA book on almost every book website across the world is turned down? How can newspapers in different parts of the world write a story on this and yet it's called un-notible.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

Oliver, it's against Wikipedia rules to post in a discussion with multiple accounts in an attempt to sway consensus. If you aren't Beehold/ItsHayFeverTime, I'll eat my hat. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just on my way here to post the same thing - has anyone opened a SPI ? Because the quacking is distracting... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarek: "If you aren't Beehold/ItsHayFeverTime, I'll eat my hat." Go on then - I'd love to watch that on a webcam. I've already explained I was Beehold during the Jason Steed deletion discussion, but haven't edited under that name in months cos my compuer hard-drive died and left me without my password memories. I am now writing under Itshayfevertime. Sooooo - I watch this space with bated breath for a very big apology to Oliver0071, who is most certainly not me. If i went round making accusations like that, like sying User: 82.7.40.7 and Sarek are most definitely, certainly and undeniably the same person, that I'm sure i would be warned, if not banned. --Itshayfevertime (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the boat on that, I've already been accused of being various people including several admins, no one has been warned or banned for it (that I know of). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin threatening to block for removing prods

Resolved

 – Djsasso correctly issued a warning to a disruptive editor, who was later blocked by an uninvolved admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Djsasso (an administrator) appears to be "threatening" to block a fellow user who removed some prods that Djsasso placed, and just as bad (if not worse), Djsasso appears to be deliberately giving the user false information concerning Wikipedia policy. The following is the exchange that took place on User:Macpl's talk page:

• Djsasso writes: Removing prod's just because there was no edit summary is considered disruptive editing. Continuing to do so will result in a block.
• Macpl responds: Prods can be removed for any reason, but the person nominating the article for deletion MUST leave an edit summary. It is written in the policy. *Note: It actually says “Make sure to provide an edit summary that clearly indicates that the article has been proposed for deletion.”
• Djsasso writes: Actually prods should only be removed for notability reasons. And you are supposed to discuss them on the talk page before removing them. Edit summaries are not required but are suggested.
• Djsasso explanation of wiki-policy appears to conflict with WP:PROD.

I am a non-involved editor who came across this because of the resulting AfDs. Moorsmur (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a cursory look at recent activity and would have to say Djsasso needs to take a step back and recollect himself. Comments like these, to people whom are simply trying to help out, are unnecessary as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Threatening a user with a block for removing a prod you placed is a seriously bad move. Djsasso needs to be reminded never to do something like this. There is no shortage of ArbCom or community decisions indicating an admin needs to refrain from such chilling effect. Basket of Puppies 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

SPI @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz → strong suspicion of socking. –MuZemike 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna say, Djsasso's diplomacy and policy knowledge could use some work, but the serial de-prods called for some kind of reaction. Looks like the SPI explains the situation. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to block the socks. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, however I should note that the comment I made earlier still stands. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are basically right about the earlier comment. Admins should be more skilled at that sort of dialogue. Look at Heymid's user talk for some of the back story though. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (edited)

• I don't really see why I am somewhat involved in this. But when I went back to Djsasso's talk page, I didn't appreciate this answer by h*m, especially using the word "ridiculous". Something seems to be wrong from h*s side right now. Seems I should keep myself away from h*m, at least for now.
• Djsasso has been an administrator since January 2008 (see the RFA). H*s recent edit summaries in this and this give me the impression that (s)he is not taking this project seriously. Although I have to admit that my comment at h*s user talk page was a little stupid, and that I should've probably kept it to myself, I still don't appreciate h*s comments./HeyMid (contributions) 07:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not too worried about those two edit summaries but the stuff on Djsasso's user talk isn't a good sign. Some admin coaching might be advisable. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree, not sure I see the issue with those edit summaries. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Also, Djsasso deleted two useful redirects created by me, as speedy deletion R3 criteria. Also, this unblocking comment was IMO not serious either. Also, (s)he seems to be watching my contribs log pretty often. Finally, remember that these are only my opinions, you have the absolute right to disagree with anybody, including me. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Heymid, that you are in some kind of conflict with Risker on your usertalk is itself a sign of not-very-good judgment on your part. One routine way admins help keep things running is by monitoring users with histories of poor judgment, since those are the users likeliest to do silly things that call for admin involvement. Djsasso is definitely making errors that need attention in their own right, but that doesn't change the general situation. If you provoke drama, you should expect onlookers. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree. Also, I think that (s)he is either currently in bad humor or my poor history at EnWp (and possibly my comment at h*s user talk page) have contributed to make h*m angry, or, if already, even more angrier. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • For clarification's sake, I'm pretty sure Djsasso is male. sonia♫ 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • The magic MediaWiki 8-Ball says … rattle, rattle … "xe"/"xem"/"xyr". Uncle G (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I had a similar situation with Djsasso recently (which I ultimately chose to drop) involving mis-stating policy on BLP PRODs. Djsasso claimed that a BLP PROD must be removed when any reference has been added to the article, regardless of whether or not the source could be a considered reliable. They cited a discussion at WT:BLPPROD which had been going for one day, and had three participants, to support that and to go against the explicit word of WP:BLPPROD, as well as the wording on the prodblp template; they edit-warred to remove the template until I decided it wasn't worth pursuing. This admin seems to dig in their heels when it comes to their own idea of what the policy should be, and ignore actual consensus. Not exactly productive, when new editors may trust djsasso, as an admin, to correctly explain policy to them. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've brought up the issue of this admin issuing threats of block for removing his PRODs on his talk page. He did not reply respectfully or coolly and is only digging in his heels. This seems to be on par for his behavior- to dig in and make the issue escalate and elevate to a point where it should have never gotten to. I have to admit- I am seriously uncomfortable with an admin who threatens blocks when involved and then digs in when he's called out on it. It doesn't appear that he's willing to see it any other way, tho I hope he will. What should be done? Basket of Puppies 18:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  I just said I did not threaten him. You accused me of threatening him in a less than civil way. I simply stated it was not a threat it was a warning. Your tone with me was inappropriate if you thought you were trying to coolly discuss something with me. I am more than willing to accept that possibly I used less than ideal wording, but it was clear that it was a sockpuppet who was serial prod remover. Someone needed to say something to him. I would not have been the one to actually take action against him as you seem to imply. I would have put it to SPI which someone else ended up doing and another admin blocked him. In the end, exactly what I was warning him about happened. Did I use the best language no perhaps not, but I did not use my tools inappropriately and take great offense at you suggesting that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Umm, BoP, he did "coolly" reply to your initial comment, explaining his viewpoint that his warning was valid. In fact, both of his responses to you were perfectly civil. The only issue with that entire discussion thread was HeyMid choosing to stick his nose where it doesn't belong, yet again, and going out of his way to try and escalate a situation with an implied threat of taking DJ to ArbCom for nothing more than issuing a warning. Resolute 19:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I guess we will have to agree to disagree. :) Basket of Puppies 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Djsasso's comments seem fine - the user removing PROD's was a) a serial de-prodded (I believe) and b) was deliberately mis-interpreting the PROD guidelines (the rationale was on the page, just not in the edit summary). A warning in that context with the advice that continuing the disruption might result in a block is fair and correct. It's fairly clear Djsasso was not threatening to block directly at that stage --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dj issued a warning & nothing more. This case should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes this thread ought to be closed with a very noodle like slap to Dj about being involved and cautioning use of admin tools. Basket of Puppies 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am very much struggling to see what he did wrong here in the slightest. The editor removed lots of prods and was cearly disruptive per WP:SPADE. If he said I will block you then, yes, you'd have a point. Otherwise I don't see why this is still an issue. :( --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read here, the worst Djsasso has done is slightly misrepresented the PROD policy. However, the warning was warranted (as confirmed by the later block, as had been warned), and there was no misuse of admin tools or "threats" made. I'm going to mark this as resolved now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Selinker - WP:3P violation

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_29#Category:Transport What to do with blatant WP:3P violations? TruckCard (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting yourself, TruckCard. Are you aware that it's highly irregular to empty a category and populate an identical new one without discussion? Without proper process, we don't have too much chance of getting a good product; renaming major categories without discussion is very much out of process and in violation of policy. As well, you failed to observe the policy marker just above the edit window: "You must notify any user that you discuss"; Mike Selinker had no way of knowing about this discussion until I left him a note just now. Finally, I'm rather surprised that your very first edit used HotCat; typical new users take quite a while to discover such tools. Nyttend (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure you know that, but HotCat can be found in the settings area under gadgets. The transport categories were a mess (e.g. "Category:Something transport of A" existing at the same time as "Category:Something transportation of A" ). Per WP:BOLD I cleaned the mess. If Mike wants a revert he violates WP:3P. He wanted to broker deals with me on my talk, I can support your POV under this or that condition. This is attempted corruption. @"must notify" - didn't see that. Thanks for doing it for me. TruckCard (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that; however, new users don't often find specialised gadgets such as this one before they start editing. Please understand that there's no single proper way to name categories such as this — categories are an internal Wikipedia process, and the only real way that NPOV is applicable to categories is that they mustn't be POV-based or applied in a POV manner. British-American spelling differences aren't a matter of POV; it's only reasonable to attempt to engage in discussion about their proper forms. You must not make such changes without engaging in discussion, and agreements such as Mike has attempted to make are a natural part of that discussion. Kindly stop attacking him for following standard procedure. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a Am vs Brit Spelling. There was inconsistency and duplicate categories. I cleaned that up. Sometimes higher level categories used "transportation" while all subcategories used "transport". Also it is WP:Transport, Portal:Transport. Mike attempted to talk with me? Well, I was offline, see his threat of getting me blogged on my talk, his request to not change more names. Since I was offline, I didn't change anymore. But then I see I attempted to reach out to User:TruckCard on his talk page. That attempt failed. Since I don't want to support this behavior, I'm changing my vote to Speedily revert all out-of-process changes.' [129] - This is blatant WP:3P violation. Only because I was offline he changes his vote on a CONTENT issue. TruckCard (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:3P - the product matters:
  • 12,000+ categories use "transport" [130]
  • 3,900+ categories use "transportation" [131]

TruckCard (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I've never been the subject of an WP:ANI discussion before, so I don't know what the protocol is. I guess I'll explain what happened. TruckCard had a thought that we should have both "Transport" and "Transportation" categories (Edit: I meant to say he thought we should not have both). So he started depopulating and overwriting categories en masse towards that end. Some other editors did not like that, because the central tenet of WP:CFD is that we discuss before we reorganize categories. Since some debates over nationality-specific English words have been highly contentious, I suggested a compromise: we could discuss the out of process changes he was making, as long as he agreed to stop temporarily. And then this exchange occurred: User_talk:TruckCard#Inconsistency. I also changed my comment on the CfD page because it seemed that TruckCard was uninterested in listening to me. Regardless, he has stopped making the changes that concerned people. So, I thought the matter was done until I was notified by Nyttend that TruckCard had started this discussion over here—and that TruckCard was asking for my help with his Transportation->Transport changes. So for now I'm not going to weigh in on the merits of the category changes. Obviously, if consensus is that I stepped out of line, I would definitely change my behavior in the future.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record: The category searches above clearly show that I did NOT "decide(d) to have both "Transport" and "Transportation" categories." as Mike suggests. I only cleaned up some inconsistencies and improved the PRODUCT. Mike agreed that inconsistency is not good. And only because I have been offline Mike Selinker changed his vote for a speedily revert. The only reason given was "out-of-process". This is WP:3P violation. TruckCard (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You did notice that WP:3P is just an essay and not an actual policy. Though it could easily be said that you have ignored the second P. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a typo above: I meant to say that TruckCard thought we should not have both Transport and Transportation in categories. I should also clarify that the behavior I didn't want to support was the unrepentant desire to make sweeping changes without listening to others' opinions, and I felt that trumped any personal opinions I had about the content. Without respecting the validity of each other's opinions, the product is unlikely to improve.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Exactly any rational validity was missing from the other side. TruckCard (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Please stop putting words in my mouth, TruckCard. I was not agreeing with you. I was pointing out that your actions make any opinions irrelevant. You violated every principle of CfD, and have shown absolutely no remorse for doing so. But I'm happy to see you're modifying your behavior on CfD, if not your attitude.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ignore this ruse, otherwise we will have WP:3P violations ad infinitum. This is a novel but clumsy attempt to draw attention away from TruckCard's out-of-process emptying of categories. (We have plenty of categories with different spellings at different levels. There is Category:Organizations for instance.) The way to improve the product in such cases is via consensus following cfd. Occuli (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

74.110.195.50

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks

74.110.195.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making a massive mess of List of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan episodes and I and others are getting tired of cleaning up after him roughly every few hours. The guy edits like he's six, warnings have no effect, and I sincerely doubt even notifying him of this discussion will accomplish anything. I'd rather not have the page SPed, as a fair amount of the IP edits actually are helpful

Could someone drop a house on him, please? HalfShadow 19:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• 2 weeks. Might possibly be clueless rather than malicious editing, but in the end the result is indistinguishable, WP:COMPETENCE applies and the IP hasn't acknowledged and of their 3 previous blocks. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathewignash

I believe that this is an unreasonable editing of Optimus Prime (Transformers) as I clearly wanna avoid an edit war but I have outlined my reasons to others [132]. 82.25.105.18 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For this sort of content issue, AN/I won't help you avoid an edit war. What will help is this principle, and a nice discussion on the article's talk page. Perhaps it is Scarlett's page that is in the wrong. In any case, there's nothing an admin can help with here. —fetch·comms 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the talk page approach, and wish that 82.25.105.18 would have used it before trying to completely rewrite a big article. The current format is the accepted format for the Transformera articles story section, but if the user has an alternative, please, suggest it for us to talk. Mathewignash (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding, but the thing about you and discussions in the talk page is you never respond to any ideas that approach improving any Transformers article. On at least two occasions I asked for your thoughts on the proposed suggestions to improve both the Starscream and Megatron articles, and you failed to respond. It was only when I attempted to make an unnotified drastic edit on both that you decided to respond. This gives the impression that you're only interested editing the article how you see them rather than how the guidelines dictate. So this wishing that 82.25.105.18 come to a discussion would be fruitless when you won't even respond back. I'm sorry if I'm sounding harsh. Sarujo (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:94tf11

Resolved

 – 23:50, 6 September 2010 Soap blocked 94tf11 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account)

Can someone indef this editor. Entire contribution history consists of attack pages and BLP violations. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done —Soap— 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In future it's probably easier just to warn the user and then take them to AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting. Exxolon (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User Talk page protection review

I just locked User talk:Dago Dazzler. The material he's been introducing wasn't that bad, but he got blocked for it once and then stuck it on his talk page. Anyway, just wanted someone else to take a look since I had already been involved in closing the unblock request. --Selket ^Talk 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection looks good. Knowledge of Wikipedia acronyms by a brand-new account (who persists in adding nonsense) does suggest socking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Anti-Laser Relisting

Resolved

 – No action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to take a look at the AfD of Anti-laser [133] to see if a consensus has been reached. User:JForget has relisted the AfD for further debate, but I feel a consensus had been reached prior to this. After the relisting another editor commented on the AfD bolstering what I feel was the consensus to keep. If an uninvolved admin could look this over to see if should be closed before the full cycle of the relist it would be appreciated.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to close it early: the extra week will probably make the eventual keep more secure. Also, you previously asked for a speedy keep, but it's clear that this wasn't a bad-faith nomination, which is the main reason for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At the time I had wondered if the nomination was related to the conversation "Anti-Lasar" at [134] where Y is a bit snarky. This combined with the flood of sources made me consider a speedy keep. Knowing Y better now he seems to be snarky in general and the comments are distinct from the issues raised, I just never went back to edit my original !vote language, although I should have. Thanks for taking a look, User:Chrisrus was having a wiki fit over the relist and I wanted to get another editor to look it over because of both my own concerns and a desire to cool him down before he acted out further.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Justa Punk

Resolved

 – Pages reverted and userpage semiprotected indef.

This IP has been editing Justa Punk's userpage after JP was blocked.[135] It's contributions also indicates it has been redirecting confirmed JP socks to the userpage. Can anything be done about it? Bejinhan talks 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pages reverted & semiprotected indef. Blocking the IP is probably moot at this point, but if this reoccurs, could be blocked as a Justa Punk sock. If any admins think the IP should be blocked at this point, please feel free. Skier Dude (talk 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A geolocation check reveals the IP's isp to be the State Library of Victoria. Bejinhan talks 06:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary BLP violation by user:RolandR

user:RolandR writes about Steven Plaut in edit summaries:

1. "Removed BLP smear sourced to known libeller and extremist agitator"
2. "It is still an unacceptable smear from a known libeller"

Even, if we are to assume that the reverted edits were BLP violation, user:RolandR has no right to revert them with BLP violations on his own most of all in the edit summaries. It is anyway as reverting vandalism with vandalism or even worse. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How, praytell, are those BLP violations? Plaut has been found guilty of libel by a court of law, and a review of his biography indicates that he is an extremist agitator. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article states: "in February 2008 the court overturned all but one count relating to a publication in which Plaut had called Gordon "Judenrat Wannabe"". There's no single word in the article that names Steven Plaut "an extremist" or a "part of the extremist lunatic fringe" for that matter. I am not saying that the edits should not have been reverted because I did not look in that matter. I am only saying that the edit summaries they were reverted with are BLP violation.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"U.S.-born professor guilty of libeling colleague"; "Israeli Appeals Court Upholds Libel Judgment Against Academic but Reduces Damages". RolandR (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer this complaint more directly: Steven Plaut has been convicted by an Israeli court of libelling Israeli academic Neve Gordon. There has been constant sockpuppet vandalism on the Gordon article, with attempts to introduce not only the original libellous material, but further defamation of the judge in the case and of others. Sand has not (yet?) sued Plaut for libel, but we see the same pattern beginning to repeat itself -- make wild allegations of Nazi sympathies, then use Wikipedia, which has a much larger readership than Plaut's own mucksheets, to spread this defamation far and wide. We should not allow Wikipedia to become an accomplice in this campaign of defamation and abuse against those Plaut seeks to vilify. RolandR (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Convicted of libel otherwise, it's a violation of BLP to write contentious material about living persons, true or otherwise, without also providing reliable sources. As such, the edit summaries are a BLP violation and should be revdelled. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: regardless of the truth of the edit summary claim, it is both unnecessary and unhelpful. Edit summaries should avoid unnecessarily contentious statements because they cannot be revised, replied to or contextualised (although with RevDelete they can now be struck, but that requires admin action). Basically, make the point neutrally (eg "not a reliable source") and point to the talk page if you want to go into detail. Rd232 ^talk 09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that the latest edit summary, which the 2 uninvolved editors here (Giftiger_wunsch, Rd232) found to be an unnecessary and unhelpful BLP violation, came AFTER I had already raised this issue on WP:BLPN - here, had a consensus of people there agree that this was inappropriate behavior, and suggest that I politely ask him to stop. That I did, three times, on his Talk page ([136], [137], [138]). The response, by both RolandR and Malik (who also wrote nearly identical BLP-violating edit summaries at the same page) was defiance, refusing to even acknowledge they did anything wrong, and now the behavior continues. I think this calls for some administrative action at this point, as it is obvious the behavior will not change without one. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The first admin action necessary is to remove the inappropriate edit summaries. As it no longer takes an oversighter for this, I have done it. I don;t intend this to rule out other appropriate action DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for oversighting the summaries.

  I believe it is about time to deal user:RolandR somehow.His edit summaries is only a continuation of his POV pushing in any place he could find. His contributions are all rings of the same chain. For example he is using his user page to promote his political views, and simply ignores a few requests to remove soapboxing from his user page:

1. [139]
2. [140]
3. [141]

--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The edit summaries were wrong and the oversighting is appropriate. But I'm concerned that there's more worry about a potentially libelous edit summary, that few non-wikipedia editors were likely ever to see, than there is about content added to an article that says someone is a peddler of "antisemitic myths" popularized by "Neo-nazis," cited to an oped written by an economics professor who's (apparently -- going on what i read here) been found guilty of libel in an israeli court for similiar claims made against someone else. Those claims, in the body of an article, are likely to be seen by far more people and do far more harm to the reputation of someone than a nasty edit summary. Not saying the edit summaries get a free pass, but dealing with the insertion of such stuff into article text is the bigger of the two problems. (There is plenty of trenchant criticism of the book in question in the article -- Hastings, Schama, Halkin etc... -- from people both more qualified to criticize and without the particularly inflammatory talk of antisemitism and implication of association with neo-nazis.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  Please note this thread is not about content of the article, in editing of which you are very involved. This thread is about the conduct of the user User:RolandR.User:RolandR has problems that should be dealt with at last not to punish but to prevent them from happening over and over again.

  Here is one more of the user contributions: Here's a talk page of the user, who used language like that: "When did this version turn into Nazipedia? And why are you ... behaving like an totalitarian asshole?" "Are people really supporting his kind of fascistoid bullshit?" "Answer my questions instead of behaving like an Nazi asshole!" So what User:RolandR does to that user? Well, he gives him so called The Kafka Award desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer, and posting the image of Kafka next to the racist rant. Wikipedia is not censored, but as we see at the example of User:RolandR he will stop at nothing including BLP violation to promote his views.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Where on earth did this fantasy come from Mbz? Please note this thread is not about content of the article, in editing of which you are very involved. I've never edited that article. I'd never heard of the book in question, the author of the book, or the economist who called the author an antisemite until today, when i saw this thread. That's a patently false assertion -- so why did you make it Mbz?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my bad. I did strike my comment out, but the thread is still about User:RolandR's conduct.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Am I on trial for a comment I left on another editor's talk page three month's ago? Or even for a comment by another edoitor? What on earth is the relevance of this? RolandR (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the comments that Mbz objects to were added after I commented on the page. RolandR (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are 'on trial', but when a complaint has been lodged against you for violating wikipdia's BLP policy, it is reasonable to examine if this was a singular occurrence, or if it is part of a pattern of behavior which indicates a general lack of concern for BLPs. In that context, a BLP-violating comment made on a user's Talk page , even if made 3 months ago,is very relevant, as is your continued intransigence and refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing, as demonstrated by your editing at Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are on trial for presenting a Kafka award. Marvelous. You can't make this stuff up. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The smear by association wasn't even in the ballpark (that is, the guy you gave the award to -- "desecrating the name of the great Jewish writer", made the offensive comments after you'd given him the award)? Wow. I guess Mbz has some more striking to do.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how there can be any BLP issue involved here. Even if Kafka were still alive (unfortunately, he died 86 years ago), it would be extremely hard to explain how invoking his name on another editor's talk page was a breach of the policy. RolandR (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to invoke the American football player whose name may not be spoken? A certain somebody can't deal with issues even remotely related to Israel and Palestine without becoming irrational. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, there's nothing more for me to strike out. I hardly edit in I/P conflict area, and you know that. When I comment on the subject I am always rational. I simply despise all anti-Semites and antisemitic Jews in particular. Yes, I asked to remove that hate propaganda "a classic symbol from Nazi iconography" cartoon, as Jimbo put it, from the user page, and it hurt me enormously to see the picture of Kafka added to that user talk page as an award. If you believe it is "irrational" so it be.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Off topic comment...I've said before and I'm going to say it again, Wikipedia really ought to have an article about the visual propaganda of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal:

all involved agree

1. that edit summaries are a place to be careful, and to avoid writing contentious things which require more discussion and potentially contextualisation. Use the talk page as necessary to fully justify and source contentious BLP claims - whether it's about the subject of the article or someone else.
2. that people shouldn't edit war contentious BLP claims into articles. Go to the talk page, talk it out, allow a clear consensus to be reached (or existing consensus to be properly overturned).
3. Everything else in this thread is irrelevant here. WP:RFCU is that way.

Rd232 ^talk 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes³--intelati^(Call) 23:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, but I believe that the users should be at least warned about repeated BLP violations in edit summaries and reminded about the need to assume good faith too Disusing who is whose sock with no evidences at the talk pages has to stop.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"users should be at least warned about repeated BLP violations in edit summaries": that's covered by the first point, is it not? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I accept this, and will endeavour to exclude contentious assertions from edit summaries. ( do not agree with Mbz's rider, and note that she is again attempting to havbe me penalised for another editor's comment). RolandR (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Extreme and unrelenting personal attacks

Resolved

 – Warned, should probably be blocked if it recurs

Blackworm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on posting [142], and reposting [143] comments accusing editors of paedophilia, even after multiple warnings [144] [145]. Blocking his account may be the only way to stop this highly inappropriate activity. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I deny accusing any editors of pedophilia. This dispute has had a lot of reason for administrative eyes on it for quite some time, and I invite anyone to read the discussions here and here, and the arguments brought to the NPOV noticeboard here. Blackworm (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Insinuating that editors are supporters of paedophilia is equally as bad as directly stating it. I have removed the statements and warned the editor. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with removal of my comments. I wholeheartedly disagree that merits a warning, and contest the warning. Is "insinuating" that editors are antisemitic as bad as directly stating it?[146] Apparently not. Blackworm (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackiestud/Archive

As you can see, the SPI I raised concerning 187.21.128.77 (talk · contribs) was closed as the IP hadn't edited for 3 days. However, this is a static IP and is back again today. The IP is clearly a sock of Jackiestud. I've been involved which is why I've not used my tools, but as the Admin who archived it is offline, can someone else please act on this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 187.21.128.77 IP comes from the same ISP as an IP previously confirmed as being Jackiestud (namely 201.6.43.204). Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the section heading, I've fixed it. It's clearly Jackiestud, and was blocked earlier for block evasion. So far as I can see the only reason it wasn't blocked this time was that the IP hadn't edited for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mir Haven

I request that User:Mir Harven be blocked or topic banned per WP:ARBMAC. (Or should I make the request on that page?) Other than wild accusations, the only use of the account is to push the nationalist POV that Croatian is not Serbo-Croatian. I'd do it myself if I hadn't gotten into arguments with him. — kwami (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

When I went back to notify him, I found that in the interim he had been reported here. — kwami (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are going to withdraw the notice here, remember that "you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility of User:BlueRobe at RfC

This is shaping up to be Torchwood goes to ANI day. Can an admin please look into the incivility of this recent edit at RfC [147]? When combined with the behavior that initiated the RfC it seems to go too far over the line to let go.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never once advocated a block outside of blatant vandalism or suggestion of self-blocking for cool down, but I feel this user needs some time off wiki to get their head on straight.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the comments by User:BlueRobe really indicate that collaborative editing is not something the person is interested in (and he also has been asked directly). An indef seems warranted, and indeed, even prudent, given the egregious incivility he has continued to dish out through at least 4 forms of dispute resolution (from simple talk page pleas, to article RfCs, WQA, and RFC/USER). BigK HeX (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an indef block is necessarily warranted. I agree with Torchwoodwho, that for now, a cool-off block would be better. If the behavior persists after that, then we could look at longer-term or permanent blocks. I agree with you that the behavior doesn't show any signs of improving, but I think we should give him a chance. One thing I would note though: if BlueRobe is blocked, it might be a good idea to require that as a prerequisite for being unblocked, he must acknowledge that he has understood the reason for the block, and will explain how he plans to improve his conduct. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. -- I just realized that we might be saying the same thing ... I suppose the type of cool-down block I was suggesting would technically be "indefinite", since we don't know how long it will be until BlueRobe understands the reasons for the block, and details how he will resolve them. I guess I automatically interpreted "indefinite" as "permanent", which is not correct. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd guess that requiring him to basically apologize and admit wrongdoing would amount to an permanent block, given his level of hostility to the vague "leftist meatpuppet Cabal" that he seems to be "battling". I think an indef is prudent for a user who is harboring so much contempt for the Wikipedia process, so I'd certainly be able to endorse a long-term block coupled with a stipulation as you've described. I don't think I'd be comfortable interacting with him again for at least 4 months, though. So, allowing him to return in no less than 4 months and explain how he would approach the collaborative editing process would be fine with me. BigK HeX (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a minimum of 4 months is too long. He probably won't come back, and I don't want to lose a potential contributor to the project. I would suggest a week or two minimum, and allow him to edit again once he's met the stipulations I laid out above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you arseholes shower together, too? BlueRobe (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of weeks may certainly work to resolve the matter, but I'm skeptical (and, I feel, reasonably so). Given the non-productive nature of our disputes, I personally would not feel comfortable interacting with the user in 2 weeks. However, if he is willing to assure of us civility, then I'd gladly endorse the idea that we could forego any blocking, but I would want to request other sanctions of no less than 2 months in duration. Something like a topic ban from articles on political subjects and topics related to New Zealand, as well as a voluntary agreement to cease unproductive soapboxing on talk pages or accept a temporary block upon findings of soapboxing. Something like this would allow him to become more familiar with collaborative editing, while possibly letting him build up to the point of contributing productively in the areas that seem to have drawn his ire in the past [see: his comment, ""In every Wikipaedia page where I have deep knowledge on the subject I have seen petty politics undermining the integrity of Wikipaedia pages""]. BigK HeX (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

mitigating circumstances @jr, how civil indeed. this guy had been ridiculed at every edit util he finally lashes out, then you speak up for a shortened ban, bravo. i hope before you vote here, please take a minute to view his intelligent, civil, even friendly edits in the beginning. then notice how after a stream of insults, he breaks down and speaks his mind. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Provide a diff of even ONE insult that precedes his incivility please. Three or more diffs would be very helpful. I find it fairly hard to believe that complaints about this single editor are coming in from 6 largely unrelated articles by pure chance --- the common factor seems to be User:BlueRobe and he certainly seems to jump at every chance to reinforce that notion. BigK HeX (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested in searching for "insults" can easily look through the conversations listed in the RFC/U and WQAs. The only "insults" were that he was asked to provide reliable sources and be civil, and that a !vote didn't turn out the way he wanted. I'd say that considering his tone and flagrant personal attacks, most editors involved did an exceptionally good job keeping their cool. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, your ENTIRE LIFE has been out on hold for 2 days so you can obsess over me in WIkipaedia. I've said it before and I'll say it again: get counseling. Seriously. SEEK HELP. BlueRobe (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even in spite of spending several hours dealing with your incivility, over the past two days I've managed to make hundreds of productive edits in article space and upload quite a few photos; so it is hardly the case that my entire life has been dedicated to dealing with you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jr you are unable to see that your comment is only baiting blue. by replying, you are dragging out this debate. you had made your point, further comments directed at blue may be un-productive, as your last comment was. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "baiting" him. I'm responding to (another) false claim that he has made regarding myself (namely, that my entire life over the past 2 days has been spent "obsessing" over him). I'm not "dragging out" anything, either. At this point, all that's happening here is a countdown until an admin comes along and blocks him. What I say in response to him has no bearing on how long this discussion will take. I also don't believe that the comment was unproductive. As I've said above, I would like BlueRobe to stay on Wikipedia and learn to be a productive editor. I feel like pointing out how productive one can be in two days might give him ideas about what he could be doing instead of arguing and berating editors on talk pages. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

let an admin look at this. Blue clearly has a long running problem with civility (when I interacted with him on an entirely unrelated matter and asked him to source some contentious material he bit my head right off) and an admin will, hopefully, make it very clear that even under duress this is not acceptable. As to whether Wiki-hounding of Blue is going on by the others I don't know - it looks to me as if BigK and the others are getting frustrated by Blue's attitude and civility issues and so are pressing to get someone to pay attention to this. Perhaps they are being a little excessive in that - but a clear and present issue exists. Let an admin take a look. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do -- as far as the "hounding/stalking" charge, by the way, I'd be totally fine if an admin wants to look into that and determine if I did something wrong. I've edited 3 pages that BlueRobe is on; I was already involved with two these before he even started editing, and the other one I came to via an RFC link from an article I watch closely). I feel that this is hardly grounds for a claim of "stalking" or "hounding", but if an admin disagrees, I'd be fine with having them point out what I did wrong, so I can fix it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. Let's step back. Darkstar1st, could you please provide some diffs for what you're referring to, and could anyone in response provide similar diffs. I think most editors understand how unfair treatment can lead to edits that, in isolation, would seem uncivil, but in context seem, if not restrained, understandable. But please provide those diffs so we can understand what's going on, and not take everyone at their word. Shadowjams (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, ShadowJams -- if you'd like to see more context, I'd recommend taking a look at the RFC/U. The diff at the beginning of this ANI is not an isolated incident -- there are plenty of diffs, and a much fuller context at the RFC. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair answer. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that, IMO, User:BlueRobe has dropped any pretense of contributing productively, and seems to have decided to dedicate any efforts here to pure disruption. His latest comment is here: [148]. BigK HeX (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, baiting or not (which I have actually yet to find), although the actions of others may explain your own incivility, it will never excuse it. Calling others "arseholes" above and suggesting they get counseling is never an appropriate response to any form of dispute. Regardless of the theoretical baiting, I'm been 1/4" away from the block button already on BlueRobe. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's be careful that we're basing our judgment on overall behavior and not keywords. I am not convinced that an edit or editor is at fault because they swear...(I actually like it, in the right context). In fact, I think it's a useful part of normal speech. I'd be reticent to see it censored. I'm much more interested in the underlying issues, as I think we all should. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A quick look over at BlueRobe's talk page shows a history of incivility that is not restrained to the liberterian articles the editor references in his rant. Looking at this [149] you see the user interacting in an uncivil and hostile manner to editors on the New Zealand and Jersey Shore TV Show articles by openly refusing to supply sources to controversial edits.

The vast majority of BlueRobe's edits are to talk pages. In fact, 90.2% of all BlueRobe's contribs are in the article and user talk spaces [150]. This shows why it is so important that Blue be able to communicate with others. If the bulk of his work on the project is centered around collaboration and debate in talk space it is paramount that those conversations be useful and don't slowly slip toward out-right paranoid accusations and incivility.

This edit to Gulag's talk page [151] seems to be among the first instances of incivility on the fairly new account. BlueRobe polices another user's grammar. Although taken alone it is completely fine, but it shows a root of behavior which will escalate.

In March we see here [152] that BlueRobe is beginning to POV push for unsourced material to remain in an article, an underpinning of the core argument that BigK has with BlueRobe. BlueRobe then follows that up with this edit which includes a seemingly out of left field accusation of "left-wing" conspiracy in mainstream media [153]. This statement is a follow up to the editor User:TheRedPenOfDoom calling for reliable sources, a common theme of this user's belief that WP:OR should not apply to him. Neither BigK or Jr have been involved with this editor at this point. On the 26th he makes a soap box POV statement regarding his distaste for the Milwaukee Wisconsin police depart here [154]. On the 27th of the same month BlueRobe visits the talk page of Celasson to berate the editor over use of semi-colon [155] in an accusing / attacking manner. (I have up to now not seen one single article space contribution by the editor, that is why I am focusing chronologically on talk space edits).

This pattern continues for the bulk of the user's approx. 400 edits from March on to current.

BlueRobe, from examining his contribs, appears to be using wikipedia as a forum WP:NOT for discussing his political views, and even within the sphere of that he has managed to edit war, make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry [156], and litter the project with conspiracy laced rants. After going over Blue's edit history I'm in support of an indef ban. The user seems to delight in causing controversy across a variety of topics without any positive contributions to the project. When other editors disagree with him they are accused of hounding and worse.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe is currently on 31 hour block by Gadfium and one week listed by SarekofVulcan on his talk page. Not sure which is accurate.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Gadfium's block is 2 weeks old; mine is the active one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the conclusion that User:BlueRobe treats Wikipedia as a forum to advocate his self-described "intelligent, albeit politically incorrect, contributions". When disputed -- because his contributions are invariably unsourced -- he's launched into hostile actions, including: talk page vandalism, accusations of a "leftist meatpuppet" Cabal, and personal attacks. I think that BlueRobe's misuse of talk pages (in violation of WP:NOT#FORUM) and his failure to support his statements with WP:RS (in violation of WP:NOR) are the key issues which quickly lead to the incivility problems. I would also add that very little tolerance should be accorded, should User:BlueRobe return from the block with the same forum/WP:OR/incivility approach. BigK HeX (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Danielwork - ignoring consensus & others' talk

Resolved

Since my flagging this user up, events have taken their turn. The user has been indefinitely blocked. Nice to see the wheels of WP properly turning! Trafford09 (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem user = Danielwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pie-chart of his edits: here

Suggest community ban, until such time as the user responds to the concerns that others have raised.

[issue raised by User:Trafford09 (talk)].

User User:Danielwork continues daily to ignore any concerns that others have raised on his/her Talk page. His modus operandi is to take articles from other wikis, and add them, without regard for whether their titles need translating, or for whether they have incorrect date linking. As you'll see from the pie-chart of his edits: here, he has never talked on any talk page, even his own when asked to. My fear is that he's not an English-speaker, and hence shuns consensus, communicating, collaboration, user pages & talk pages (including his own).

We have raised the above concerns on the user's talk page, but he has ignored them, and continued to flout guidelines regardless, without giving us any reason to believe he's even read his own talk page. Repeatedly notifying the user about our concerns, and correcting the user's edits is time-consuming, and hence his behaviour is seen as disruptive. Trafford09 (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

May I ask for a clarification? Looking at the pie-chart of Danielwork's edits, it looks like all of Danielwork's edits are on the main article pages without any notifications or consensus building before those edits on the talk pages of those articles. Is this the case? BlueRobe (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is right - all his edits are to article main-space, so he's never contributed to any talk page - even his own. Trafford09 (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Such conduct is clearly inappropriate. He sounds like a bull in a china shop. I've encountered this before - they are either 1) well-meaning, but simply ignorant of the appropriate procedures (manynew users are not even aware that the talk pages exist, or that they have a User talk page of their own), or 2) they are a zealous moron who is hell-bent on charging full-steam ahead regardless of all attempts at compromise.

If he refuses to acknowledge all good faith attempts to address his unilateral editorial changes, that he initiates without issuing notifications or obtaining consensus in the talk pages, then some form of coercion is probably necessary. BlueRobe (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a mix up here in terminology. A ban is a community imposed sanction that's more or less permanent, although somewhat amorphous. A block is a technical limitation. A case like this would almost never lead to a ban unless you could link it to another editor. This is a block discussion, and frankly not particularly egregious. Providing diffs would be extremely helpful in this case. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

...and I have always believed that whoever brings the issue here should not recommend a sanction as it looks like they're seeking "punishment" instead of prevention. State the case, leave evidence, let the community decide the best course of action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I take your point re not recommending a sanction - guess that was a possible mistake. But I thought an admin. may think the case was weak for an admin. block, whereas a temporary community ban forces the user to either respect or defy it, with a block surely following the latter. And if he respects it, he'll surely be forced (if he can communicate in English) to talk and argue his case (which you'll observe he's so far avoided).

Also, if I gave the impression that I was seeking punishment instead of prevention, that was another mistake on my part. I merely want the user to prove he can read & write English, and him to understand he should address others' concerns. The problem of course, if we do nothing, is that the user will carry on regardless with his disruptive editing. I'll seek sample wp:diffs, and see if user continues tomorrow to edit & ignore us. Trafford09 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor request

Resolved

I thought I would have time to take care of this request today, but the movers just showed up and are packing up my computer, router, etc. and I will have very limited access for the next week. If you can handle it, you can just respond to the thread on my talk page under the thread User talk:Plastikspork#A request. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Selket ^Talk 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay

Can I have some other editors have a look at the actions of Humaliwalay (talk · contribs), He first came to my attention when he bulked tagged a number of articles with tags he had copied from other articles with out explaining his rational (see warning here, he then cam to my attention again when he removed a source from Shi'a Islam in Pakistan with this claiming that "claim as it's highly dubious and citation is not reliable and refuted by multiple authentic and reliable sources." the source was Library of Congress Country Studies, I suggested that if he felt the source was not good then he should take it to WP:RS/N (see here).

He has continued to remove the Library of Congress Country Studies, and to refer to attempts to reinstate it as vandalism.

Also of concerns is the article Criticism of Sunni Islam which I felt has some issue that need addressing and tagged it {{expert}}, {{pov-check}} and {{synthesis}}(with this edit) and commented on the talk page, to which Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) reverted with "all references are proper" - see here.

One final point is that Humaliwalay (talk · contribs) has applied for the Reviewer right @ Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Codf1977 (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Notified Humaliwalay here

Please refer actions of Codf1977 for his repeated disruption of articles, geting into discussions and leaving it without reaching a consensus after multiple Warnings, this user even removes warnings from his talk page and is engaged in business of threatening and accusing, repeated request and Warnings have been deleted by this user like this [157] and this [158] from his talk page. All edits of this user are more or less based on no logical reasoning and without notifying the reason on talk page. This user is engaged in all these behavior leave no signs of discussion on talk page and then threatens to block me rather than discussing politely.

This user accuses others for lack of knowledge and when asked to justify quits discussion and deletes all discussed matter like this one [159]

Please review my request and take an action.

- Humaliwalay (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So how come Toddy1 also warned you about you calling other users edits vandalism here. Codf1977 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay: It is perfectly acceptable for users to remove warnings from their own talk page. Especially so in this case, where you obviously misuse the term vandalism in a content dispute. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Toddy was engaged in discussion with me , user did not warn me as such, it was just a discussion which was agreed by me. Humaliwalay (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you could elaborate? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama - Please refer the entire discussion again and then derive at the conclusion who uses inappropriately the term vandalism so often. Humaliwalay (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have and it is the same conclusion. You are the only one that have used the term "vandalism" in this dispute, specifically in the two "warnings" that you gave Codf1977. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid to mention but have to that your continuous biased judgment and siding with Codf1977 forced me to think if you are a sock-puppet of this user as you can see I provided you the link here [160] in which Codf1977 clearly used word vandalism first then I replied of not doing so and then discussion was on. Hope you visit that link and have review now. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your wanton use of allegations like this one in content disputes does not exactly help your case. Normally removing maintenance templates, without correcting the problem they are pointing out, is considered vandalism, however this stems from a content dispute and seems to be part of a larger scale edit war in the article. The dispute seems to be over the reliability of the Library of Congress Country Studies. But the conclusion at the RS/N-discussion seems to be that it is a reliable source, although since it disagrees with other reliable sources it should be so stated in the article. Thus it seems the dispute in this particular case is over. I am a bit worried about your readiness to categorise content disputes as vandalism and your allegations about sock-puppetry when editors does not take your side in a particular dispute. It might be a good idea in the future, if you again end up in these kind of situations, that you step away from the keyboard when tempers flare up, take a breather and relax before writing your answer. I assure you it will do wonders in resolving tense situations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you keep composing lengthy messages with no sense at all not a good Editor's and reader's etiquette, and I am not dependent on you to side with me. The only thing which does matter here is your biased judgment, so you please practice you advice and relax for some time so that your mind rejuvenates and refreshes and it will do wonders then. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this is an editor beyond reach. As he seems unwilling engage in constructive criticism or even admit having at least partly erred in this case, there seems to be nothing more to do here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama I welcome criticisms and Solutions, if rendered in polite and unoffensive way. However when it was noticed that you sided with an Editor who generalizes others on basis of Sect so it was not appreciated. You are welcome to proceed ahead with discussion in neutrality. Just have a look at the history of AllahLovesYou's edits no matter whether they are sectarian based or not matter is most of the place references are distorted with those ones cited. But if still you don't understand I am afraid I can't help it. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to begin, Humaliwalay, do you understand that placing tags like this one are incorrect? I'd like to discuss that particular issue before proceeding to the other incidents here. -- Atama頭 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TheiGuard's odd behavior

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

This user made a very explicit and controversial edit here. I gave an only warning with a brief explanation on his talk page. The user decided to attack me by leaving the same message on my talk page, the delete the warning on his page. I will notify this user of this discussion, and leave it to the administrators to decide. Keeping in mind that September 11th articles are subject to Sanctions.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You attacked me. I made an edit you didn't like so now your trying to punish me. I don't like several edits you make, but you don't see me posting messages to you. I think you should be blocked. TheiGuard (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:Fringe and downright insulting. But it's the former that concerns me the most. Editors are free to remove messages from their talk pages, but the warning to Jojhutton was completely unwarranted. If there's further disruption I think it should lead to a temporary block. Shadowjams (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although I think he deserves a permanent block for his unwarranted judgment. I'll keep a lookout on his account and if I notice him attacking any other users I'll report back. TheiGuard (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood. You, TheiGuard, made the problem edit; jojhutton's response was appropriate.

I'll add, from a brief review, TheiGuard has productively (from my brief review) (not my subject) edited professional wresting articles.

But there are other problematic edits in the same form: [161] [162] [163]. Shadowjams (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you provided as well as the one posted by Jojhutton reek of WP:POINT. TheiGuard, that's disruptive, and you can and will be blocked if you continue. Airplaneman ✈ 03:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He should be punished not me. TheiGuard (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He gave you a heads-up for edits that you made (as evidenced by the four diffs above) that were inappropriate. Please don't take that personally; he certainly did not mean to attack you, only notify you of the consequences of making those types of edits. If you keep making those kinds of edits, you will be blocked for disrupting. If you'd like, please explain how those edits were not disruption. Airplaneman ✈ 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TheiGuard, please understand that we aren't interested in "punishing" anyone, our intention is to prevent disruption. That might seem trite but it really is true. The reason why we block anyone is to stop that person from causing problems. Everyone is reaching out to you right now to try to help you work with others to avoid the necessity of a block, but you aren't being receptive. Please listen to others' requests and take them to heart. -- Atama頭 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Help...

I am having trouble with a user that does not understand Wikipedia policy on sources. He categorically and in an apologetic manner refuses to accept my source. Here is the reference in detail:

Cohen, Philip J.; Riesman, David (1996). Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Texas A&M University Press. p. 94. ISBN 0890967601

"The majority of Partisans in Croatia were Croats.⁶¹ By the end of 1943, Croatia proper - which contained about 24 percent of the total Yugoslav population - had provided more Partisans than Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Macedonia, which, combined, made up 59 percent of Yugoslavia's population.⁶² Overall, the Partisans from Croatia were 61 percent Croat and 28 percent Serb, the rest comprising Slovenes, Muslims, Montenegrins, Italians, Hungarians, Czechs, Jews and Volksdeutsche.⁶³"

• Note 61: From 1941 through 1945, there were a total of 228,474 Partisans in Croatia, of which 140,124 were ethnic Croats and 63,710 were ethnic Serbs. See Yugoslav state records, Jelic (1978), p. 304.
• Note 62: Irvine (1993), p. 171.
• Note 63: Đuro Zatezalo, "Četvrta konferencija Komunističke partije za okrug Karlovca, 1945" (Karlovac, 1985), pp. 53-55, cited in Irvine (1993), pp. 171-72. Most of the Serbian defectors returned in response to an offer of amnesty. Of more than one dozen prominent defectors brought to trial in mid-July, 1944, five were executed and the rest received long prison sentences.

He removed it from the article because he demanded I show the primary sources to him personally. I actually went out and bought the book, and posted the primary sources. He then called the notes "bullshit" [164], called me a "communist" [165], a greater Croat nationalist [166] (something like a Nazi) and continued to keep the source out by edit-warring. The most vexing of all is that he continuously accuses me of "not knowing how to source material".

Another perplexing thing of all is that, all the while he's rejecting the above source and demanding I show him the primary sources, he's replacing the content with some article he Googled which lists no primary sources at all [167] (he's calling it an "original source"). If I restore the source, he will simply revert and I'll likely end up getting blocked or something for repairing the damage. In short, I'm asking for 10 minutes Admin attention on this, and comments regarding the validity of the quoted source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, you are trying to put just one version of history into the article. All the sources conflict, and the article should tell the reader the differences. For instance, U.S. Director of Balkan Affairs Danielle S. Sremac wrote that "Modern-day myths about Yugoslav history stemmed from Communist indoctrination designed to suppress nationalism. The Communist version of events during World War II was that Yugoslavia's Partisans were the sole liberators against Nazi occupation." At the Yugoslav Partisans, you must not try to decide which version of history is correct, you must instead tell the reader that the Communist version is one way, and the non-Communist version is another way. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Um... Binksternet, I don't know what you think we're disputing here, but this whole thing has nothing even remotely to do with communism or the communist point of view. And incidentally, I am NOT a communist. (We're discussing the ethnicity of the Partisans with respect to them being mostly Serbs or Croats, a communist POV would be it does not matter/they were all Yugoslavs, certainly not what I'm saying). I would appreciate it if you 1) did not pay much attention to LAz's "ideological labeling", and 2) get more acquainted with these Balkans WWII issues before attacking my integrity in such a rash way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the sources or the content, but I have blocked LAz17 (talk · contribs) for violating his/her topic ban. Toddst1 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Direktor, I did not call you a Communist or attack your integrity; I said that you were trying to tell one version of history when there is more than one version. What I am directing your attention to is that the difference between the non-Communist and the Communist point of view is exactly the point of Danielle S. Sremac. She is a recognized expert on the historiography of the Yugoslav Partisans, and she contradicts much of what you have been putting into the article. For instance, she writes that the memory of General Draža Mihailović was subject to historical revisionism in the 1990s—that he was accused of collaborating with the Nazis. Sremac notes that the General was posthumously awarded the Legion of Merit in 1948 by U.S. President Harry S. Truman for his instrumental role "in obtaining a final Allied victory" and for rescuing and returning downed U.S. airmen. You have insisted upon just one version of history, one which identifies Mihailović as a Nazi collaborator, when what the reader needs to know is how and why there is more than one interpretation, and what those interpretations are. All notable versions of the history of the Yugoslav Partisans need to be represented. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have studied a large number of sources and discussed that issue at enormous length. The only reason the text says "Mihailović collaborated" is that - Mihailović collaborated. Sourced accounts of Mihailović's collaboration with the Axis Nedić regime are particularly abundant, as are those confirming that he gave his assent to the large-scale inclusion of thousands of Chetniks into the Axis military structure as the MVAC. I assure you, this is not about personal views or favoritism, but exclusively about COLD HARD FACTS. The medal is utterly irrelevant, as for the Allied airmen:

"For example, the safe evacuation of 417 Allied pilots including 343 Americans from Chetnik-held territories in Serbia during the latter half of 1944 [note: this is Operation Halyard] has often been cited as "evidence" of the Chetniks' strong pro-Allied sympathies. Indeed, with the Allied Support shifted from Mihailović to Tito, Mihailović's Chetniks were courting renewed Allied support and made great efforts to demonstrate their willingness to assist the Allies. However, none of these sources mentiones that the Chetniks rescued German aviators as well as indicated in a Nedić government report of February 1944, and still, on other occasions, Mihailović's men hunted down Allied aviators on behalf of the Germans."

You've gotten the wrong idea about me: I form my position according to sources, not vice versa (as the ethnicity thing might've shown). But this is not the place... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue looks to me like it belongs at RS/N rather than here. For what it's worth, though, the sourcing looks sound and I fail to see where Communist-POV comes into this. The fact that we have a source saying that there is such a thing as a Communist POV in realtion to the topic, I don't see how this can be used to object to factual statements made by mainstream academics. --FormerIP (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet is talking about something completely different than the rest of the post, while I would like to discuss it with him at length, this is not the place. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The City of London Migraine Clinic

I came across this puff piece of an article a few months ago: [168]. I considered nominating for deletion but instead tried to make it more neutral and subsantially shorter, removing long lists of irrelevant publications/attempts at duplicating that org's website, arriving at this: [169] The author of the article has spent the last couple of months slowly reverting this and insisting that changes should be 'discussed with the clinic', 'by telephone', etc. (see [170] and [171])

I am tired of reverting him, and have explained that what this is inappropriate, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through. I don't like the idea of reverting this in perpetuity.

Any ideas? Sumbuddi (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is completely unsourced and I do not think it establishes the notability of the organisation, even though I have to admit that I think the set-up of the organisation is interesting. Although "research" is mentioned, it appears to be a essentially voluntary sector specialist doctors' surgery. Through a cursory google, I can't find any secondary RS about the clinic, the nearest thing being its inclusion as a "useful link" at the bottom of the description of a BBC radio programme. --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few references in Google News, but most seem to relate to its lead doctor. There are some interesting sources such as [172], but I'm not quite sure the notability threshold for medical facilities anyway. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes! That was exactly the source we needed to ref that final sentence in the article. Now everything's covered, yay! Thanks! Silverseren^C 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given the user and IP WP:COI warnings, since they haven't already received them. Hut 8.5 17:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Has anybody thought about SPIng the the IP to the User? It makes the foundation's job a lot easier when we string all the changes the identities have made so that we can use WP:BRD as a reason for disallowing changes that add the PR fluf back into the article Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Article is referenced now. Silverseren^C 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888 misusing TWINKLE

Resolved

 – Twinkle access removed by User:DGG. –xeno^talk 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe User:Inka 888‎ is misusing TWINKLE. The user has previously marked himself for vandalism. He has on three seperate requested talk pages be speedied (and they were shockingly) for instances that weren't happening. The last was for patent nonsense, where there was none (I know, I declined the CSD). The user has gone so far as to revert and warn someone for updating templates (those being {{cn}}) and removing unsourced information...though they could have done without the edit summary. It shows the user isn't paying attention to what they are reverting.

This user was previously the subject of the far above thread Inka 888's Request for Rollback where the user showed they are not ready for Rollbackers access. I believe with the points stated above, they are not ready for TWINKLE either and it should be removed until the user matures just a tad. TWINKLE is not necessary to revert vandalism or place warnings.

I did try to speak to the user about this, but they never replied, hence I bring this to ANI's attention. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the user of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If i was not supposed to put those pages up for speedy deletion, then WHY would the deleting admin 1. go ahead and delete it 2. Not tell me that i should not put those pages up for speedy deletion. And G1 can apply to talk pages and if i remember correctly that is the criteria it fit under when put them up for speedy deletion. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is misusing it. People make mistakes... 2 hours to reply to a talk page post probably isn't long enough either, people need to sleep, and it's Labor Day in US, so Inka may have been doing something for that. All of those CSD taggings were valid, as the page itself was deleted. The admin can reject it if they want. As for the warning of user, I think that a warning may have been valid, but {{uw-agf1}} would've probably been more appropriate because saying "bullshit" as an edit summary 1.) Probably isn't Assuming Good Faith, and 2.) doesn't explain what they're changing... Pilif12p :  Yo  23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Give it a bit more time for a reply from the user. Then we can go from there as necessary. Jmlk17 23:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion can apply to talk pages correct? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#G8 I believe.--intelati^(Call) 23:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Other general criteria can also apply, but for other criteria (such as nonsense, vandalism, etc.) it's usually preferrable to blank the page (if that's the only content) instead, unless the only thing in the talk page's history is a personal attack or BLP violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The pages said things such as "EAT MY SHORTS" as the only thing on the page, and the other pages had things similar to that if that helps. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the almost universal practice to delete talk pages when the article is deleted, unless they contain important information about the reasons for deletion or possibilities for improvement--and , as mentioned, G8 was designed for just this purpose, & the talk p. deletion is built as an option into the deletion pages the admins use. Sometimes when there is potentially useful information, I copy it into the talk p. of the editor who submitted the article, especially when it contains a challenge to the deletion, to which I have replied with an explanation.

But in this case, the deletion reasons given were not the right one, but a variety of inapplicable reasons, indicating careless use of Twinkle. I'd suggest removing it if there are further errors. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also what you said on my talk page was not a warning, i took it as a suggestion what was i supposed to respond to? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The misuse continues. Inka 888 templated another talk page as CSD A1 ("No Context") and just as quickly removed it, but didn't remove the warning the template created. This is clear the user is either misusing TWINKLE or just hasn't a clue how to use it. I have directed them to the documentation on how to use it, but with a mistake like that, it is clear they haven't read it. Per DGG above, I again suggest TWINKLE be removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DGG's view on this matter. And seeing how more misuse has occurred, I believe that this user's twinkle should be removed for some time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to add that this is not blatant vandalism and should not have been reverted as such. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka: as has been recommended a few dozen times over the last few weeks: slow down and do things right the first time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fastily's example was incorrect a section was blanked a.with no edit summary b. the subject was indefinite it was clearly vandalism. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

the edit that was deleted was an unsourced single sentence added to a BLP. As it was not negative, I would have asked for a cite before removing i9t, but removing it was not vandalism. "Vandalism" is a term to be used very carefully--it is not equivalent to error or carelessness or even rashness; it is defined as " a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. " I think it is clear at this point that your editing would behelped by going slower and checking policy pages before you make accusations about people violating them, I have removed Twinkle. Please also do not use any other automated or semi-automated editing tools. You need to think what you;re doing. And please realize that it remains possible to make the same inappropriate actions manually, but if you do , you will be blocked. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To blank a section is very intentional i don't think even brand new users could do that by accident. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

They intentionally blanked the section and it was arguably an appropriate action from an editorial standpoint (it's still uncited and at the improper header level). I concur with DGG above - slow down. –xeno^talk 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User AnonMoos personal attacks

I removed this talk page edit per WP:NPA policy:

Hey Harlan, your ranting tirade well displays your rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases, but it has no real direct relevance to the actual issues under discussion here. [173]

User AnonMoos restored it with and edit summary that says:

Harlan, if you can indulge yourself in raw hatemongering, I can point out your raw hatemongering [174]

I'd appreciate it if that could be removed and the user in question blocked. harlan (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Per WP:RPA, "Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I don't think this qualifies.
2. A quick glance at Harlan wilkerson (talk · contribs · count)'s contribs shows WP:CPUSH and other conflict over standard Israel-Palestine crap. So the complaint and block request look dubious to me on those grounds as well. Maybe someone else knows more, or is masochistic enough to look for longer than the 15 seconds that I did. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can look at my contributions all that you want. You won't find any "religious-based hatred" or "hatemongering". My posts in the thread in question are civil and represent the published views of reliable sources. harlan (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I see in your contribs is a conflict-prone editor. If you're not hatemongering (and I'm not saying you are), then someone alleging that you are hatemongering is at worst making an invalid criticism whose wikiquette/civility level is also less than ideal. Invalid and less-than-polite criticism doesn't rise to the level of personal attack described at WP:NPA, and so your bringing it here and calling it one appears to be POINTty. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bring it here initially. I removed the comment and it was reverted by AnonMoos with a vitriolic edit summary that asserted his right to make those sort of comments. All I'm asking is that the remark be removed and the editor blocked. harlan (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see a comment alleging that you have rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases. That's not a friendly thing for anyone to say, but I look at WP:NPA#whatis and I don't see AnonMoos's comment reaching the level it describes. Your complaint is overblown. At most I'd remind AnonMoos to stay civil. If you insist on complaining about it to a noticeboard, try a Wikiquette alert instead of going around asking for blocks. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a long-term pattern of harrasment. It is far-fetched to claim that editors are repeating "Arab propaganda", "making the Jews look bad", or that they are "beating up on the Jews" when they quote or cite mainstream government officials, historians, sociologists, lawyers, journalists, and organizations such as David Ben Gurion, Benny Morris, Amitzur Ilan, Avraham Sela, Simha Flapan, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Gershon Shafir, Uri Ram, Ilan Pappe, Israel Shahak, Aharon Klieman, Zeev Sternhell, Baruch Kimmerling Hersh Lauterpacht, Jacob Robinson, Raphael Lemkin, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Lucien Wolf, Carol Fink, Oscar Janowsky, Ann Mosley Lesch, Stephen Krasner, Henry Steiner, Max Laserson. Nehemiah Robinson, Marc Vichniak, the Institute of Jewish Affairs, the American Jewish Congress, and the World Jewish Congress. Here he removes well-sourced material and labels it "beat-up-on-the-Jews material"[175]. I believe that behavior is an example of both WP:Battle and WP:TEDIOUS that violates WP:NPA. harlan (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of an attack in that reversion--I see a removal of some material based on an assertion (correct or otherwise) that it's irrelevant to the article topic (the edit summary claims the reverted material is about something that happened in 1937 while the article is about a 1947 event). I looked at the article talk page and it's clear that you're a persistent content dispute with several other editors (I don't know and don't care who else is on either side). I do believe AnonMoos's debating style could use improvement (the enlarged-font all-caps shouting in the talk page hurt my eyes) but your complaint here at ANI comes across as classic WP:SOUP. Aren't there some I/P discretionary sanctions that the article should be under? Maybe both of you should be topic-banned from it for a while. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

67.122.211.178, you don't consider "your rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases" directed towards an editor a personal attack ? That seems very odd to me. What exactly is the hatred being referred to I wonder ? This kind of behavior is not even close to being acceptable under the discretionary sanctions. AnonMoos, please give it a rest. There is enough of a shitstorm in the I-P topic area already without you making it worse. Frankly, editors should just be blocked on the spot for 24 hours for this kind of disruptive crap in talk page discussions and keep getting blocked over and over and over again until they get a clue. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Clarification: When I say "I don't see much of an attack in that reversion", I mean this reversion in Harlan's message that I was replying to, not the original one complained about). It's the type of thing one sees in heated talkpage discussions. I see a level of content disagreement on that talkpage that calls for some kind of DR, but the issues under dispute are the usual byzantine mess, and I don't like when someone in that kind of dispute tries to use NPA as a bludgeon. I look at WP:NPA#whatis and it seems to me that it's addressed at quite a bit worse attacks than what we're seeing these diffs (despite the open-ended stuff at the bottom saying any insult at all is an attack). Also, under WP:NPA#Recurring_attacks, initial remedies suggested include mediation, wikiquette alerts, etc. I do see recurring hostility from AnonMoos but also well-articulated underlying complaints (whether they're valid or not) directed at Harlan. And I'm (purposely) ignorant of I/P issues but I've been around enough WP:CPUSH in other areas to see that pattern in Harlan's editing. I'd suggest formally cautioning AnonMoos against more of that type of invective, and advising him/her (and also Harlan) to seek mediation or open an RFC about the content dispute. If the insults continue, then yeah, do some blocks, and tell the recipients that they're self-inflicted injuries. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough and as is often the case, my comment missed the point of the comment being made and addressed a completely different point not actually made by the person I addressed. Brilliant. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a final warning AnonMoos was given by an Admin after another incident: [176] So, 67.122.211.178 the insults have certainly continued. harlan (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For some bizarre reason, I wasn't allowed to mention that a front-page Jerusalem Post article clearly referred to you, even though in fact it did (but not by name) -- I wonder why it is that you didn't glory in your "15 minutes of fame", instead of trying to actively suppress all mention of the article on Wikipedia...? AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I often get a little snippy with Harlan, because 1) It's really getting rather tiresome and tedious that hundreds of kilobytes of often somewhat circular discussions on Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine and its archives still hasn't resolved any issues, or hindered Harlan from advocating for his innovative personal legal theories or blatant flagrant historical revisionism. 2) Being argumentative with Harlan is the only method I've found which consistently works to some degree from inhibiting Harlan from going wild with adding the aforesaid personal legal theories and historical revisionism to Wikipedia articles. But however exasperated I am with Harlan, I generally keep to a line -- not the line of strict Wikipedia civil discussions, maybe, but a line of somewhat rough and tumble debate (on both sides) without pointless and irrelevant personal attacks (which would actually interfere and distract from a discussion of the issues themselves). In the past, Harlan has actually gone over that line more than I have (trying to smear and slur me with irrelevant out-of-the-blue accusations of being a so-called "racist" on three separate occasions). I only went over that line on this occasion because Harlan chose to go off into an attack on Judaism (for what reason, he can tell you much better than I can). AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos, thank you for acknowledging that you went over the line on this occasion. It does sound like you've calmed down, which is good. You really have to remember to tone it down in general, since your civility offenses (while not that severe taken individually from what I've seen so far) do make a recurring pattern that's easy to verify, while the OR issues you're raising against Harlan can't be checked without a pile of diffs and mind-numbing source analysis. If you want to spend hours or days grovelling through edit histories looking for diffs and writing it all up, then feel free to file an RFC or arb enforcement request under the discretionary sanctions. I can't say that it's likely to be worth the headache. Has there been any mediation attempt? Maybe that's worth a try. I do feel for what you're saying (WP:SOUP) whether or not you're right about the content dispute. It's like a Wagner opera, with different costumes for each new production, but the same music every time. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos demands that other editors provide lengthy explanations and then complains about the sourced material when it is provided in good faith.

He has been over the line for quite a while. He has repeatedly been asked to drop the personal attacks by both myself, other editors, and Admins. He has not deleted the offending comments himself and has stalked me across multiple articles making the same accusations of antisemitism. He has restored those comments, claims that he has a right to make them, and continues to repeat them here at AN/I in the replies above. He is still claiming that I am part of a movement and that I am attacking Judaism. That is not a content dispute. This completely unacceptable behavior needs to be stopped and addressed right now. harlan (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, considering that in the past you've been quick to try to smear and slur other users with irrelevant out-of-the blue accusations of "racism"[sic], and that the goal of all your efforts is to add your innovative personal legal theories and blatant historical revisionism to Wikipedia articles, you're really in no position to criticize other people's behavior. And ever since I wasted half an hour of my life reading through the Walid Khalidi PDF ranting tirade, only to discover that it did NOT in fact state what you had clearly implied that it would state, my degree of patience with your perpetual cloud of alleged "citations"[sic] to alleged "sources"[sic] — that somehow never seem to support any of your more controversial assertions when examined closely — has finally and definitely come to an end. If you want to make a good faith gesture that will defuse much of the antagonism, then you can finally fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan. This is your most flagrant example of historical revisionism and denialism of what are solidly established and well accepted facts among the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars in the field — and also what has generated most of the hundreds of kilobytes of semi-pointless discussions at Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine. Doing a "a-ha, gotcha!" pounce and dragging the matter here because things didn't go your way over at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Israel.2C_Palestine.2C_and_the_United_Nations.E2.80.8E is not likely the way to settle any contentious issue in any meaningful manner... AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) We are discussing your violation of WP:NPA WP:AGF and other policies, not a content dispute. The discussion at I/P Collaboration highlighted the fact that: articles already contain the point of view you outline above;[177] that you are upset by attempts to cite and add opposing viewpoints from mainstream textbooks; [178] that no one is trying to remove your viewpoint from the article, just trying to add the published opposing views that it was a myth that the Jewish leadership accepted the plan and that it was a myth that the Arabs rejected the plan and prepared for war. [179] [180] I don't have to accept any viewpoint, but WP:ARBPIA requires that the significant published views of all the interested parties to the conflict be included and fairly represented. I'll be happy to discuss that in the appropriate forum, but you need to seriously address the topic under discussion here. harlan (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Background: User:Harlan_wilkerson is always trying to insert his innovative personal legal theories (sometimes flagrantly historically revisionist) into many modern middle-eastern history articles. He brings in a cloud of alleged sources to his support his assertions, but when looked at in detail such "sources" never seem to support his more controversial assertions. The conversations frequently get snippy. In the past Harlan has tried to slur me several times as being a so-called "racist".

In the current discussion, he changed the word "caste" to mean something completely different from what it meant when I first introduced it into the discussion, in order to launch some kind of attack on Judaism. Harlan's idea of "civil" discussion is apparently that he is allowed to attack Judaism, but if I point out that he's attacking Judaism, then I'm personally attacking him. AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to conflate a well sourced discussion about Zionism with criticism of Judaism. Nobody has been attacking Judaism. harlan (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I would say that that part of the comment is definitely close to WP:NPA, and considering that Harlan only removed that part and left the rest of the comment, I see his edit as perfectly fine. AnonMoos's reversion of that edit and related edit summary were clearly out of line. Silverseren^C 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The comment was ill-advised but I'd put it in "wikiquette alert" territory at most. Creating NPA drama is a favorite tactic of disruptive editors, so shouldn't be taken seriously unless there's a recurring pattern (need a lot more diffs to show that) or the attack is quite severe. AnonMoos, the reversion was also ill-advised. Better to just let such stuff go and get on with editing. If AnonMoos and Harlan have a persistent dispute that they can't work out themselves, try mediation or RFC, not this tangential stuff. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If you don't mind me asking, who are you? You just started editing five days ago and yet you seem to know quite a bit about Wikipedia policy and Wikiquette alerts (of which I still disagree with you). Silverseren^C 02:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Check 67.122.211.0/24. There're a few other IPs in the range with a similar page makeup; could easily be an IP-exclusive editor that's on a dynamic IP. Doesn't seem like a sock at a glance. Shadowjams (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes. My address has been jumping around a lot lately because of ISP instability that I'm trying to get fixed. It usually stays stable for longer than this. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to these parts so pardon any etiquette mistakes, but I saw thisand don't like seeing a group of people disparaged. There looks to be a recurring pattern but you can judge for yourself. I'd just like the talk page to calm down so we could get back on track. Sol Goldstone (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- is there a reason you can't tone down the vitriol? It's not helping the situation. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a new situation. Here is a final warning AnonMoos was given by an Admin after another incident: [181]

The current discussion started after an involved Admin applied the POV tag to the article [182] and was reverted. I reapplied the tag and posted the issue at the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues page [183]

AnonMoos went into WP:Battle mode on the article talk page. He did not discuss the sources that I cited or any of his own, he simply launched a personal attack that hasn't really stopped since, e.g. "Harlan, this article isn't a legitimate field for your innovative personal abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculative legal theories -- or your really somewhat strange beliefs." [184] Here I pointed out that he had deliberately been generating editorial conflict across multiple articles and that he had admitted his arguments had not been based upon any published sources. [185] I mentioned that I've been citing and quoting standard university textbooks on International Law and Middle East Studies [186] Instead of discussing that content, AnonMoos continued to discuss me, did not mention any published sources to support his viewpoint, and suggested that I not edit any more 20th Century articles about the Middle East because my views aren't mainstream [187] AnonMoos has been making WP:Synth claims and citing an Encyclopaedia Britannica Palestine article. [188] I pointed out that my views on that passage can't be too far out of the mainstream, since I'm credited as a contributor to that portion of the Encyclopedia Britannica Palestine article (scroll down in the diff) [189] harlan (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In that "final warning", it looks like AnonMoos linked to a Jerusalem Post article saying there is a multi-way I/P content dispute on Wikipedia (which is not exactly news), and if I understand the "attack", he indicated (by referring to that article) that he thinks you have engaged in off-wiki coordination to POV-push. That kind of thing has happened other times (e.g. EEML arb case) and he has the right to voice such a suspicion if he thinks it's well-founded. So the block threat from Malik Shabazz seems like a bit much (at least out of context, like now) and anyway doesn't really resemble the current complaint, in addition to which it's months old. The NPOV noticeboard thread you started[190] didn't seem to get you any support (both you and AnonMoos got criticized). And I'm unimpressed by the Britannica thing since it looks like anyone can enroll an account there and contribute to articles (with a little more checking than we have here). So your even citing it as evidence of anything sounds like further grasping at straws, not a good sign. As for which of you is using better sources, RFC is that way. He's snarling a lot, you're wikilawyering, neither one of you is conducting yourself well. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious you are attempting to do the wikilawyering here. I don't need to coordinate off wiki. I'm very well versed on the subject, make my own edits, and I'm citing third-party verifiable content sourced from standard academic works and college textbooks on the subject of the Middle East and International Law. In most cases I also supply links to government archive materials that those textbooks cite and analyze. AnonMoos has not responded with reliably sourced opposing points of view. He has gone into WP:Battle mode and is resorting to near constant discussions about me instead of the articles. He has ignored warnings and claims that he has the right to engage in that behavior.

I think someone should close this with a civility reminder to AnonMoos, based on AnonMoos's acknowledging having gone overboard in a heated discussion but calmed down (but also having done this sort of thing before). Harlan's complaint (in the middle of a long-running content dispute with AnonMoos) has some elements of validity and some elements of trying to game the system. AnonMoos may have a legitimate OR or tendentious editing complaint against Harlan, but s/he will have to document it to make the case, and ANI isn't the right venue for that either way. FWIW, I'm going offline til tomorrow, no more responses from me (I hope). 67.122.211.178 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not discussing a content dispute here. The fact is that I have taken part in lengthy discussions, RFCs, and I/P Collaboration posts regarding the exclusion of views found in mainstream scholarly works and college level textbooks regarding "the founding myths of Zionism", e.g. [191] I didn't bring that issue here and there is no WP:OR or WP:TEDIOUS editing going on. I have always entered into good faith discussions of my edits and the sources that they are based upon with the community.

I will let you know if I ever drop my formal objections to the use of Wikipedia by AnonMoos to publish false material which says that I'm an antisemite who is attacking Judaism or that I'm part of a coordinated political movement to do that. See WP:BLP. I'm still asking nicely that those comments be deleted and that the responsible editor be blocked. Several warnings have gone unheeded and there have been multiple violations of well-known policies. harlan (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't insert words into my mouth. I didn't say you were an "antisemite" -- I said that you chose to use the word "caste" in a completely different meaning from how I had previously used the word in the discussion, in order to launch some kind of attack on Judaism. You can explain why you chose to do so much better than anyone else... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay this is getting ridiculous. I'm still politely asking an admin to put a stop to these repeated posts which insinuate that I've launched attacks on Judaism and to delete the comments and edit summaries about "rampant raging hatreds and flagrant biases", "raw hatemongering", and etc. It is very obvious that AnonMoos is going to continue violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA, since he is still continuing to do it here at AN/I. harlan (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review violations: Encantadia

• Apparently, I have reverted these pages that are clearly violating WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA and most of all, WP: REF. All pages barely have any references to provide that the characters from a television show are notable enough to have their own page. They are clearly fan-created pages. There are over 50 pages created by these fanatics, and I, took the liberty of my time to redirect them to one page, however, this user: User:WayKurat, decided to revert the violating pages back again, and accused me to be a sockpuppet of my very own IP address, I know its ridiculous. He's probably a fanatic of the show and might be angry to the fact that the pages violate Wikipedia rules.. As the matter of fact, if there arent so much of these pages, they shouldn't be redirected to the show, Encantadia. They must be deleted. User:WayKurat seem to be engaging me into an edits war.

Here are the pages created in related to the show. And I don't see anything that provides enough information to prove that they are notable enough to have their own pages, plus most of them are unreferenced. The pages were tagged to provide references over 3-4 years ago, and yet till now, nothing. This pages really ought to be deleted. It's like creating a page for every characters in World of Warcraft., ridiculous. Ornia, Memen, Naar (Encantadia) ,Lira (Encantadia), Ignis, Helena (Encantadia), Evades, Ether (Encantadia deity), Emre (Encantadia deity), Cassandra (Encantadia), Barkus, Bagwis, Odessa (Encantadia), Hagorn, Muyak, Kahlil, Armeo, Cassiopea (Encantadia), Aquil, Asval, Hitano, Anthony (Encantadia), Gurna, Avria, Enchanta, Raquim, Encantadia: Pag-ibig Hanggang Wakas, Amihan (Encantadia), Danaya, Pirena, Alena (Encantadia), List of places in Encantadia, Ybrahim, Flamara, Hathoria, Lireo, Sapiro, Jewels and Spirit-Guides, Genealogy of Encantadia, Timeline of Encantadia, Amarro, Andora (Encantadia), Pyr (Encantadia),Arman (Encantadia), Armea, Animus (Encantadia) --Beckerich (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember that "you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow there is some serious fancruft going on on that page. Unfortunately it's not an administrative issues unless someone is violating something like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP or something like that. Right now it's a content dispute. The user might want to use the article's talk page to discuss notability or take it to the notability noticeboard, but if all they have is that one yahoo article, it isn't enough to justify the article on the series let alone any characters. If they persist look at making a batch nomination at WP:AFD of all character related articles.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kauffner

I have warned Kauffner (talk · contribs) about BLP violations before (and removed a post of his [192])and he reacted negatively. Yesterday it was brought to my attention that there were problems at Talk:Elena Kagan. I decided after reading it to revert most of the content (same type of subject, lesbianism), retitled the section heading and asked that no one post. I also posted to Kauffner's talk page. He posted again on the article talk page, and on his talk page replied "Let me get this straight. You are leaving lies about me on the page, and asking me not to respond?". I'd like others to review my actions and his. I've left him an ANI notice. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh I asked him to remove the allegations the other day, I note I was called a "troll" for doing so, how nice. I collapsed/archived the thread to stop any more posting. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit on the jumping-to-conclusions side going on it seems. Let's see if they'll come and respond here. Jmlk17 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your actions, Dougweller. That was really over the line as far as BLP violations go. I can understand Kauffner's frustration about having only a portion of the thread available, so that nobody can review all of their arguments to determine the validity of their claims, but we really can't allow that kind of stuff on Wikipedia, even on a talk page. -- Atama頭 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Dougweller's actions. Jmlk17, I'm not sure whether you are saying that Kauffner might be jumping to conclusions. If you are, I agree. He jumped to conclusions on the Kagan talk page, and jumped to conclusions about other editors who tried to reason with him. At the very least, Kauffner is combative. If he will stop making inflammatory remarks on the Kagan talk page and stop attacking other editors, this might resolve with no further incidents. I hope so. Cresix (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

 – Block applied Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY
User:DavidAppletree18 Someone Wanna play "whack a Sock?" Block evasion and Community ban evasion Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Found a sleeper

I'll just list them as I find them. I'll only list ones that aren't already blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• DavidAppletreeApology (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Blocked --Selket ^Talk 00:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to add these to his sock drawer. Going to bed, I'll be off Wikipedia Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Many inappropriate CSD F2 nominations by Avicennasis

Avicennasis has been marking multiple inappropriate speedy nominations under WP:CSD#F2 for images on Commons that have non-empty description pages. I first came across this on Abu Ghraib-related images such as File:Abu Ghraib 53.jpg and File:Abu Ghraib 39.jpg where he nominated under F2 description pages with Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. I declined these and explained why on his talk page and he mentioned he's been doing this hundreds of times already. Since I'm about to go offline, can someone with a little more time review his deleted file-space edits and restore those file description pages inappropriately nominated as CSD F2? Thanks in advance. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. This is a fine example of F2 — it is a file description page for a file on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

F2 doesn't require all Commons images to have no description page here. Only empty (0 bytes) file pages for Commons images are deletable under F2. "Files that the MediaWiki software is unable to read or generate resized thumbnails of, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images. " Kimchi.sg (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Includes, but not limited to. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK)

In that case, why does F2 bother to differentiate between empty and non-empty file pages for such images? Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not related to this issue but I just noticed that tabs appear to be disabled on his main user page, at least when viewed using Firefox and the monobook skin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Some bad formatting on my toolbar I never bothered to fix. Didn't really disable them, just covered them up. Hopefully fixed now. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 13:00, 28 Elul 5770 / 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Langston Bonasera - Image issues

Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a troublesome editor who just doesn't seem to get the message about uploading non-free images. As of right now, I have counted 47 unheeded warnings that have been posted to his talk page, most about images that he's uploaded. He has also been involved in several content disputes but the main issue here is images. Editors have tried to provide advice over that provided in warning templates,[193][194][195][196] but he has ignored the advice, going so far as to place a warning on his talk page to other editors, telling them not to complain about the pictures he's uploaded.[197] Most recently, he uploaded a new version of File:Homicide life on the Street.jpg without updating the source information for the file. I reverted the change and warned him.[198] Instead of following my advice, he simply reverted the to the image he'd uploaded, still without updating source information.[199] With so many similar warnings over the seven months that he's been editing here, he should have gotten the message now but hasn't. It seems that he needs a more firm advice push in the right direction than I can give him. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed their contributions, I'm seeing a general lack of willingness to communicate overall, despite being warned multiple times that this isn't appropriate. If Langston continues to be unresponsive to discussion about the issue (including this thread), I think a block may be in order, but I'll leave some time for them to weigh in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing over 10 uploads of images without providing any source - CSI NY & CSI Miami. I'll work at reverting and deleting them under F4 (no source). My opinion is that a block would be in order given the ongoing response to the multiple warnings. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dance-pop is back

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

Dance-pop is back (talk · contribs) Somebody want to do the obvious with this self-confessed sock? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Many inappropriate CSD F2 nominations by Avicennasis

Avicennasis has been marking multiple inappropriate speedy nominations under WP:CSD#F2 for images on Commons that have non-empty description pages. I first came across this on Abu Ghraib-related images such as File:Abu Ghraib 53.jpg and File:Abu Ghraib 39.jpg where he nominated under F2 description pages with Category:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. I declined these and explained why on his talk page and he mentioned he's been doing this hundreds of times already. Since I'm about to go offline, can someone with a little more time review his deleted file-space edits and restore those file description pages inappropriately nominated as CSD F2? Thanks in advance. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. This is a fine example of F2 — it is a file description page for a file on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

F2 doesn't require all Commons images to have no description page here. Only empty (0 bytes) file pages for Commons images are deletable under F2. "Files that the MediaWiki software is unable to read or generate resized thumbnails of, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images. " Kimchi.sg (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Includes, but not limited to. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK)

In that case, why does F2 bother to differentiate between empty and non-empty file pages for such images? Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not related to this issue but I just noticed that tabs appear to be disabled on his main user page, at least when viewed using Firefox and the monobook skin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Some bad formatting on my toolbar I never bothered to fix. Didn't really disable them, just covered them up. Hopefully fixed now. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 13:00, 28 Elul 5770 / 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Langston Bonasera - Image issues

Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a troublesome editor who just doesn't seem to get the message about uploading non-free images. As of right now, I have counted 47 unheeded warnings that have been posted to his talk page, most about images that he's uploaded. He has also been involved in several content disputes but the main issue here is images. Editors have tried to provide advice over that provided in warning templates,[200][201][202][203] but he has ignored the advice, going so far as to place a warning on his talk page to other editors, telling them not to complain about the pictures he's uploaded.[204] Most recently, he uploaded a new version of File:Homicide life on the Street.jpg without updating the source information for the file. I reverted the change and warned him.[205] Instead of following my advice, he simply reverted the to the image he'd uploaded, still without updating source information.[206] With so many similar warnings over the seven months that he's been editing here, he should have gotten the message now but hasn't. It seems that he needs a more firm advice push in the right direction than I can give him. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed their contributions, I'm seeing a general lack of willingness to communicate overall, despite being warned multiple times that this isn't appropriate. If Langston continues to be unresponsive to discussion about the issue (including this thread), I think a block may be in order, but I'll leave some time for them to weigh in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing over 10 uploads of images without providing any source - CSI NY & CSI Miami. I'll work at reverting and deleting them under F4 (no source). My opinion is that a block would be in order given the ongoing response to the multiple warnings. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dance-pop is back

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

Dance-pop is back (talk · contribs) Somebody want to do the obvious with this self-confessed sock? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Threats of Violence + Vandalism: Dynamic Pittsburgh Area ISP's

Dynamic IP addresses in the Pittsburgh area have been vandaliaing the polling results in the PA gubernatorial election here, and adding misquotes, unsourced and undo material to the candidate's website (see here). Tonight, it escalated to the comment: "I ddn't, you fucking piece of garbage. I hope you get shot in the face." I would appreciate it if this would be dealt with, and with an appropriate level of seriousness - given the threat of extreme violence. Thanks John2510 (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Tom Corbett for a month and semi-protected Talk:Tom Corbett for a week. Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, 2010 was fully-protected by Toddst1 for three days. I think that should solve the problem. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

24.23.213.172 posting offensive text in BLP

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

I'm not 100% sure of the proper place to post this, but this seemed like the best option. Here is the offensive text. I have reverted the edit but I think that it would be best to delete it. HumphreyW (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the guy was convicted, and the IP was making run-of-the-mill vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's just simple vandalism. Next time something like this happens, report it to WP:AIV. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Heymid

Heymid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I just blocked Heymid for one week for various unhelpful and uncivil comments. Heymid has been asked, advised and warned to stop meddling in dramas that don't concern him and I very recently warned him that his presence on the English Wikipedia would be untenable if he continued. The other day, he re-involved himself in the Marksell/Timothymarkell drama that he was advised by several admins to stay out of, resulting in yet more warnings, but today, he told an administrator that they would end up in front of ArbCom and [... lose their admin privileges]. I believe the block is justified based on the pattern of behaviour, the same pattern which lead to him being banned from the Swedish Wikipedia.

However, before anybody accuses me of being out to get Heymid, I have spent a lot of time trying to help him over the last few weeks, to the extent that I convinced another admin who was considering blocking Heymid that he should be given another chance. I am still willing to do everything I can to help Heymid, but I believe that the block is necessary to prevent further disruption in the form of fanning the flames of dramas in which Heymid is not a part. All comments are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also related discussion at User talk:Heymid#Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. HeyMid's comments were completely unnecessary and unhelpful, and a threat such as that could serve only to escalate what was at that point a fairly civil discussion between two other users of which HeyMid was not a party. HeyMid's archives for July and August are littered with warnings from many other users cautioning him against these very same things. Obviously warnings aren't enough, thus a block becomes the next logical step. Resolute 21:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I endorse the block, but FWIW, I'm not an admin and don't make a practice of following blocking policy. This editor has been so obtuse, disruptive and persistent in the "I just don't understand" responses, that I've given thought to whether s/he might be a Mattisse sock, but can't convince myself that's the case. In any case, it doesn't appear anything short of a block would end the disruptive comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the punishment fit the crime? I submit for your review that a week long block is mildly excessive and does not fit the crime. I suggest a shorter block along with a very stern final warning. Basket of Puppies 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid has had more than his fair share of warnings, stern and friendly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, but a week-long block seems a bit excessive. Basket of Puppies 21:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Eep. Maybe the long-term pattern is worse than I currently perceive, but on the face of it, this appears to be an atrocious block. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merit of the block, I really wish admins would ask for review here before making such blocks, not after. If you're really not sure about a block, so much that you need endorsement, do it beforehand. That way, if you were totally wrong at least the user won't have a spoiled block log. I otherwise don't understand the purposes of such threads - they're either a "Yep, good block" (which you thought anyway), or "Nope, bad block, why did you not check here first...". Please come here first before making blocks you feel you need support for. Aiken Drum 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The blocked user and another editor requested he make this thread. I don't think he doubts the validity of his block. -DJSasso (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but HeyMid initially accepted the block: "Last, but not least, thank you for the block. I believe it is needed, and I need to calm down." It was only after BoP challenged the block that HeyMid changed his mind on it. HJ posted the review here as a courtesty to HeyMid. Resolute 22:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't challenge the block- I asked for a review of the evidence and a review of the length of time of the block. Basket of Puppies 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is just a general comment - too often I'm seeing block first, check after threads on here. We should be getting consensus for blocks of established editors before making them, not after. Aiken Drum 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, Heymid has been singularly unhelpful in the last few weeks, inserting himself in various disagreements and dramas that he has not taken the time to understand. No individual action warrants a block on its own, but the continuing pattern certainly does given the warnings he's received. ~ mazca ^talk 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Heymid has been a pain to several users and across the project recently. Their snide remarks and comments to established users has been received with nothing but patience across the board. Heymid has received everything from polite reminders, to stern warnings, to users outright stating that they wish to be left alone. All of this to seemingly no avail. This isn't just an issue with certain recent comments, but an overall collective of issues that Heymid simply refuses to acknowledge, nor pay attention to. A week will hopefulyl give Heymid an opportunity to realize that they are just like every other user: held to the same standards, the same accountability, and the same opportunities. I previously thought an issue with language and translations were at fault, but it has become apparent in recent days that is not the issue at hand. Fully endorse. Jmlk17 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I watchlisted Heymid's talk a few weeks ago after some incident or another and am surprised that the block took this long to happen. After a thorough reading of his talk history, I'm convinced that this is a good block and that the duration isn't at all excessive. I believe that Heymid could one day become a productive contributor, but he may need to mature a bit before that happens. (Not posting his stated age here.) —DoRD (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I think heymid should stop jumping to conclusions about situations that he was not involved in. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I was on the verge of implementing a similar block no more than a week ago, but HJ convinced me not to. There are walls of text consisting of everything from friendly advice to stern warnings in his archives, none of which has been taken to heart. A week will give him time to actually read through it and hopefully reflect on what needs to change if he is to continue contributing to the project. decltype (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have found Heymid quite frustrating to deal with. This in particular was very troubling. He simply would not accept what I was saying to him. Then, in a somewhat extraordinary move, he struck through a portion of one of my comments in the request for rollback. A break will do him some good. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have had a few dealings now with Heymid, and as much as I like to go out of my way to help younger users to become productive participants on the project, I feel that this individual lacks the level of maturity necessary to be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. He does make some good contributions to articlespace, I wouldn't deny that. However, he seems almost incapable of making a post to projectspace that isn't disruptive. I'm HUGE on the idea of giving second chances (and third, and forth, and fifth) to users whose presence is a benefit to the project as a whole, even if they have behavioral issues that cause problems behind the scenes. In the case of Heymid, however, the good edits that he makes do not mitigate his problematic nature. Trusilver 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Heymid

Endorse HJ's block isn't incorrect at all; he has done everything he can in order to prevent further disruption from me. I wrote two bad messages yesterday which led to this block. The events that led to this block mean I will not accept, support, propose nor request an unblock.

Combining HJ's 2nd RFA and his prev contrib's log shows that HJ is probably an inexperienced administrator with little to no knowledge on how to handle problematic users like me. Therefore, it would be gladly appreciated with more feedback from more experienced administrators who have been at Wikipedia (and even an administrator here) for years. It would probably be greatly appreciated by HJ to recieve some good feedback on how to handle users like me in the future. Also some feedback regarding how I can solve my behavior would be gladly appreciated by me.

HJ, I would like to point out to you that I haven't ignored the advices you've written to me. I have read and tried to follow them. Like you (and other users) have adviced me, I have since completely ignored Tournesol and WP:SPI, which at least is a step forward.

Regarding my meddling with Djsasso, please note that Shirik somewhat triggered me to join the discussions regarding Djsasso, by (as seen in the diff) putting up a courtesy notice with the WP:ANI-discussion, because I was probably somewhat involved in the Djsasso case. When I wrote at his (Djsasso's) user talk page, I didn't understand that BoP was talking to him, not me. Thus, it became a case of misunderstanding each other. It's basically my history of messages that don't supply anything to the discussions that is the reason as to why I am currently blocked.

Probation terms

I have come to a few final points which I believe are worth covering. The terms are the following:

1. I am banned from editing any page in the user space, except for my own user page. However, IMO, this shouldn't include fixing of obvious typo errors. However, if I want to add or modify material or other sorts of controversial edits, which may be reverted, I have to be absolutely sure I have the permission to do so by asking for permission at the user in question's user talk page.
2. I am banned from adding or modifying material at user's user talk page. As written above, I have to ask for permission from the user in question before doing it.
3. I am not allowed to join discussions which I am not involved in anyhow. However, I think I should be allowed to post a message saying for example that the user in question has been blocked, etc. Basically, something that does supply something to the discussion.
4. I am not allowed to refactor (modify) someone else's comments.
5. Any violation of these probation terms and I'll be indefinitely blocked. Those probation terms will be instated immediately after the block has expired, and for an indefinite period.

If somebody says that they want too see more restrictions (such as a complete ban of editing any user page except for my own) I will accept it, if required. Finally, if someone decides to file in a report of me at WP:RESTRICT, I will not be angry. Thanks. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Heymid per request.

I welcome Heymid's statement, above, and broadly accept it: I'd be willing to see Heymid unblocked early, contingent upon sticking to the above promises. However... I'd like to see the above points "wiggled" slightly:

1. Userspace is sensitive. Some editors really don't like anyone editing "their" userpage. Me, I don't care. I'd like to amend the first item thusly... no typo fixing. No userpage editing ever. Except where editors have indicated it's OK (Heymid, you can edit any page in my userspace).
2. I understand where the prohibition on adding to user talk pages comes from, but I'm not sure it's healthy - Heymid will need to talk to other editors. I'd accept the prohibition on modifying user talk pages, and I'd accept a restriction on posting, but not a blanket prohibition.
3. I'd suggest that any post to discussions in which Heymid is not involved should be avoided, or should be run past someone else first (yes, I'll volunteer, but I'd suggest a number of editors should be available).
4. Refactoring other editors' comments: agree, don't do it. It's usually problematic whoever does it.
5. Agree, though note that I'm happy to see Heymid's current block lifted immediately given these commitments.

TFOWR 15:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I make something of a further recommendation. Heymid should not be refactoring user comments on talkpages etc obviously, but could I suggest that he take all project space noticeboards (AN, ANI, WQA etc) off his watchlist, and not come here unless he himself has a problem he wishes to report, or is asked to come here by another editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection here, though wouldn't it be covered by #3? TFOWR 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not satisfied with these probation terms, as they're overly specific in certain cases and overly vague in other areas. TFOWR has pretty much hit the nail on the head for me, except I don't think he should be unblocked early. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep the block instated, and we can see how Heymid does after it expires in regards to keeping up with their own set terms. Jmlk17 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• FYI user has put forth an unblock request. –xeno^talk 18:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Kind of odd, considering they were seemingly thankful for the block yesterday and actually agreed with it. Curious to see what happens now. Jmlk17 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to the whole community for all of my disruptive actions; I have completely understood why I am currently blocked and I am absolutely sure I already know how I'm going to resolve these problems. Also, please note that I've never requested an unblock; in fact, I Endorsed the block in the first word of my first statement. Thank you for your time. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Heymid per request Bejinhan talks 10:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So if you've never requested an unblock, whose edit was this? David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Toa Nidhiki05

There is a somewhat contentious RFC on BlueRobe starting up and User:Toa Nidhiki05 appears a bit upset by it. He has posted what looks to me like a PA on one of the users opening the rfc. I asked him to consider removing it but he has refused. Might be worth keeping an eye on the whole thing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of "left-wing meatpuppets" referring to established editors does seem to indicate a problem here. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The left-wingers are on an unholy crusade against anyone (particularly BlueRobe and Darkstar1st) that disagrees with them; yeah, I'm upset and angry at this whole thing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the large number of potentially contentious userboxes you've created and display on your user page. Typically we discourage political position userboxes. Yworo (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when is that policy? I can display my opinions here, and if that means ticking someone off, so be it. FYI, I've seen 'established editors' with userboxes. Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See here for content restrictions related to userboxes. They don't help collaboration on Wikipedia. In fact, they are divisive and your comment "if that means ticking someone off, so be it" displays a divisive attitude. I have no problem with the use of standard Wikiboxes available at WP:USERBOX, but self-created "issue" userboxes aren't appropriate. Yworo (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...And Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to political userboxes. Yeah, I don't think that quite fits your opinion there. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa, please read WP:BATTLE - this is not what we do here. Exxolon (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am currently involved in this RfC and feel the use of WP:Meat to be an attack. I have no relationship with the editors in question and do not edit within their wheelhouse. I became involved after monitoring a discussion at a related notice board, but did not comment until the RfC was opened. I saw another accusation of meatpuppetry by Nidhiki at BlueRobe's talk page here [207]. Some of these editors seem to feel there is a far-reaching conspiracy against them and it is disruptive to the project as their paranoia grows to every user who so much as says a word they disagree with.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I, too, do not appreciate the baseless accusations of "meatpuppetry" from User:Toa Nidhiki05. His accusations that I am "trolling" are also not appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole userbox issue was a sidetrack from the real problem here. Toa Nidhiki05, please note that per WP:NPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" can be considered personal attacks. That most definitely applies here. You can't throw out accusations without cause just to inflame a discussion, and the fact that your only response to others' concerns is to throw out more attacks is very troubling. -- Atama頭 21:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You claim I'm 'attacking' and 'battling', but I'm not; I'm stating fact, that is, that constant baiting/trolling by left-wing contributors has resulted in the block of one member and a baseless Meatpuppetry accusation against another. Check BlueRobe or Darkstar1st's talk pages, and you will see what I mean; they follow they around eveywhere. I'm angry that these members try to act like staff and make frequent threats against anyone that disagrees with their ideas, and then accuse the other side of making bad faith edits and disrupting the page (which is actually doublespeak code for 'disrupting their plans'). In conclusion, yes, I am pissed, and rightfully so. Toa Nidhiki05 00:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll point anybody interested in seeing context here to the RFC/U for BlueRobe, where they can see diffs, instead of empty accusations. I've been repeatedly accused of "stalking" or "hounding" BlueRobe due to my involvement with him on three pages I've been working on since before BlueRobe even registered as an editor, or showed up at the articles in question. A certain group of editors -- which includes ToaNidhiki, North8000, and Darkstar1st -- is repeatedly attempting to frame the issue as one of "lashing out in response to hounding/stalking". But they are essentially using the terms "hounding" or "stalking" as a misleading shorthand for "citing Wikipedia policy to an editor who is disrupting multiple talk pages, making flagrant personal attacks, and refusing to provide suggestions for article improvement which are based on reliable sources". Multiple experienced editors, including several sysops, saw User:BlueRobe's conduct as an egregious violation of all sorts of Wikipedia policy. They were also unable to find any evidence of "hounding" or "stalking", and the group listed above has not provided any evidence of it, even though asked repeatedly. I am hoping that BlueRobes recent block (which resulted from the RFC/U), will serve as an illustration to these editors (who have yet to acknowledge that they understand why BlueRobe was blocked) of what is and is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia discussion pages and articles. Again, just look at the diffs, rather than the empty accusations. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, you claim that what you are stating is based on fact. Generally on Wikipedia we use diffs as evidence when we want to establish the basis for a complaint. You have repeatedly failed to do so, and that is especially problematic when you use such charged language. It is difficult for anyone to give your complaints any credence when you can't back them up. As has been said before, continuing to accuse people without evidence is against policy. If you continue to do so you risk being sanctioned. -- Atama頭 20:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone actually read Toa Nidhiki05's user page and noted that this editor is a 15 year old youth with Asperger syndrome. Before you wear yourself out you may find it worthwhile reading this snippet of information:- #Asperger syndrome and interpersonal relationships. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it, but I don't feel that being an aspie editor should be a pass for disruption. The editor has had the chance for civil conversation in a myriad of venues and refuses to stop making accusations. When new editors enter the discussion to attempt mediation they are lumped in with the conspiracy. If there is an editor who has experience mediating disputes with Aspergers users I'd love to see them try to step in to cool this editor off. A block would likely just inflame the feelings of isolation. Maybe impose an interaction ban between some of the editors on Toa Nidhiki05's list of alleged abusers and himself.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

JIDF sock redux

From the JIDF's Twitter feed[208]:

• HELP THE JIDF: Create accounts on Wikipedia, make 10 simple edits over a few days' time and send login details to: [email protected] #tcot about 5 hours ago via web

It seems we're going to have to enact stricter restrictions on the articles. Maybe an edit filter or two. Admins are also going to have to watch the article and block any suspicious accounts on sight.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol. This is worse than the time Stephen Colbert encouraged viewers to vandalize Elephant :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, considering that he has over 53,000 followers, that is something to think about. Besides, we wouldn't know which pages they're targeting. Bejinhan talks 10:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defence Force & (I suppose) other Israel related articles (maybe Muslim articles), this is an ongoing problem. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Previous experience with sockpuppets from this source indicates that there will probably be activity at the JIDF article, but not much elsewhere. This activity seems intended to generate attention; the JIDF got press coverage back in 2008 but is now old news. The content disputes in the JIDF article are trivial. WP:DRAMA applies. --John Nagle (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think their focus is just on the article about them this time. This seems to be much larger and may involve much more than just the JIDF. However, I note what is happening on their fan page on Facebook here (37,800+ "likes") and on this big (160,000+ likes) "Jews" page here. This seems to be a widespread mass canvassing effort by Zionists to try to get their POV into this project. Is there a way we can protect all Israel/Jewish/Islam related material from them? --91.210.105.30 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And note the JIDF/Appletree's latest comment on the Facebook thread: "We're asking people who aren't already involved with Wikipedia to create accounts for us to use, as necessary." This suggests that they are building up a reserve of sleeping socks, without using the same IP more than once. Is there any way we can check/tag all new account creations, so that we can quickly spot when they are misused? RolandR (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Protect if from "them?" Content in these wikipedia articles is already largely driven by ideological gangs. The Jets are currently seeking new recruits for a gang war. I suspect he'll probably get 10-15 meatpuppets/sockpuppets out of it when it's all said and done.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't panic. The "JIDF" appears to be one person with a web site, some Facebook pages, a Twitter feed, and a "blog radio" account. He has little backing from the larger Jewish organizations. (He complains about that on his blog radio feed.[209]) This isn't a major organization like the ADL or AIPAC. Two years on, JIDF has no organization, no meetings, no legal existence, and no "members" other than Facebook and Twitter followers. So just watch for new accounts that edit the JIDF article and read like the previous batch of sockpuppets. And remember it's all a bid for attention; the content issues are minor. WP:TROLL and WP:DENY are useful here. This is a nuisance, not a conspiracy. --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(I think Appletree knows this, so WP:BEANS need not apply) Until he starts actually using said accounts, they would be coming from all over the place, making them impossible to check. –MuZemike 18:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We are probably gonna use a strict WP:DUCK and take these puppets on a case by case basis. Appletree's voice is distinct, so i aint to worried as i highly doubt any established editors are going to turn over their usernames and passwords. So account created after today (especially the first 48 hors after the post.) editing JIDF are pretty easy to deal with. We block POV pushers on political and religous topics all the time so I doubt this is much an issue as we think. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Dr.Mukesh111 sock

Resolved

 – Indef blocked GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fightiznt over (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The now banned user [210] Dr.Mukesh111 is back with yet another sock. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as duck. A CU seeing this thread may need to run a sleeper check, but I doubt a separate SPI is needed. —fetch·comms 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And another one

Crossingover now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mumble. I had seen Fightiznt over while doing RC patrolling and was wondering whose sock that was. Crossingover now blocked. CU requested. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fully protected Zeba and Playback singer for a week due to his collection autoconfirmed sleepers. If a rangeblock is feasible, a CU needs to do it. —fetch·comms 15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed

• Fightiznt over (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = ProudandRapid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Zedoxxx (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Crossingover now (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

However, a rangeblock isn't very feasible - it's a wide range and there are quite a few legitimate accounts that would be caught up in it. TNXMan 16:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. —fetch·comms 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I think this is now resolved, for here, for the moment anyway. Restoring the hidden comment Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

My understanding is that pending changes has now been turned off. Is this correct? Articles have been being semi-protected to preserve the PC functionality, for example here. Is this the correct course? I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. --Selket ^Talk 18:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear in my log entry. I meant to say that PC was exhibiting limited effectiveness at preventing vandalism at Israel. Now of course, if there is consensus to use PC on Israel, I'll gladly revert. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is still forming to whether to expand the trial or stop using PC. However, Fastily's change seems appropriate given the article's history. —fetch·comms 22:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pfagerburg Topic Ban Indefinite Block

Resolved

 – Submitting user blocked under WP:NLT and WP:SOCK. --WGFinley (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Fagerburg was topic banned from editing or taking action against any sockpuppets of Jeff Merkey. Yesterday, yet again, Paul Fagerburg went after an article which mentions my work in Linux MDB (Linux), tagged it as speedy delete with false allegations claiming it was a sockpuppet of me. It was not. The article was written by John Noorda, Ray Noorda's son who was writing about Novell stuff. The Ip Address resolves to John Noorda's home and is attached to a gateway called "WizNet". Fagerburg need to be be indef blocked. John can write about what he wants. Ownership of his IP address can be verified. I note Fagerburg also went and reverted all John's edits on MDB. Paul Fagerburg filed a lawsuit against me in 2009 and lost and since he has been involved in legal proceedings, he is simply here on vendetta. WP:COI applies here and he has already been blocked once by the ARBCOM for stalking and now continues. Paul Fagerburg ran a website called "Pagan Savage" which I had shutdown by the Courts in 2005 for online harassment and death threats. He is simply continuing his psychotic vicious pattern of personal revenge. Restore John's article and follow the rules guys and stop catering to people with vendettas. Thanks Jeff Merkey. 71.219.58.113 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that RestoreJohnArticle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just recreated this article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

...and now it's been deleted under both G4 (AFD recreation) and G5 (Banned user). I've notified Pfagerburg that this was posted here, as the IP copied it to the user's talk page without actually saying "this is at ANI". UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP user all of his edits were related to legal threats and outing of another user. This isn't the proper venue for this type of thing, it should go to the WP:OFFICE. --WGFinley (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Turns out this user is indefinitely blocked and the IP was used to circumvent it. Case closed and IP blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin evaluation requested please

Resolved

 – No admin action required. –xeno^talk 20:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has a moment, could they read User:Herostratus's comments at Talk:Gokkun#RFC_on_Image_Inclusion - I feel they cross the line. Exxolon (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Herostratus is no longer an administrator. Tiptoety ^talk 19:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Herostratus's comments are pointed, but they are perfectly appropriate under the right circumstances. Not being familiar with the subject matter, I have no idea if these are the right circumstances, but I see nothing which on its face crosses the line. I would not make a habit of expressing myself so strongly, though, but limit its use. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling other editors "useful idiots" is now acceptable?!? Exxolon (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't, he called them catspaws and linked to our article on the concept. If you're deeply offended for yourself that's your privilege, and if you are deeply offended on other people's behalf that's very empathic of you, but either way this is not the complaints department. What is that article for anyway? Apart from the cachet of using a Japanese word, ooh!, it's surely covered in fellatio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

user:TechnoFaye user page - possible image violation?

User blocked indefintely - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by Kingpin13. Please do not modify it.
Does her user page violate our guideline (scroll down to the second image)? I left her a message on her talk page and she responded to me that she rectified the problem. I rectified the problem by removing the [| third pic] (a collage), which DID violate a policy/guideline I knew nothing about. If you have further problems, tell me and I'll address them. TechnoFaye Kane 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) We are dealing with a guideline, not a policy, and this is I suppose subjective, thus, a gray area perhaps? I would appreciate another opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Meh, just delete the whole page methinks, far too inappropriate, and not relevant to Wikipedia - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1. There is nothing wrong with the image; even going by the ridiculous and puritanical guideline, the intent here is clearly to act as a visual depiction of the editor and not as gratuitously "sexually provocative". 2. The material on the editor's userpage concerning non-consensual sex is inflammatory, and it would be irresponsible for us as a project to continue to host it as presented, even in userspace as one individual's opinions. Skomorokh 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC) (user notified) To be perfectly honest, I can't actually make out the second image. But agree with point number two, and have deleted the page for now. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1) I am damned by God with the loathsome disease of autism, and that means I am INCAPABLE of detecting social impropriety "automatically". I MUST rely on published standards. That's the main reason I do Wikipedia, because it's rule-based, and (supoposedly), people's opinions are transparent here. If you'd care to ask, as so many others have, "How can someone so smart be so stupid?", the answer is: I JUST AM. IT'S NOT A CHOICE. I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER AND IT SCREWS UP MY LIFE. 2) When Rubinstein told me that this image on my user page violated WP guidelines: File:Fayekanepics1.jpg <--- DON'T ARBITRARILY DELETE THIS FILE AGAIN WITH NO REQ FOR SPEEDY DELETION OR EXPLANATION WHILE IT IS THE TOPIC OF A DISCUSSION HERE AT ANB!! I read the guideline, observed that he was correct, and removed the image immediately . I even apologized to him graciously, politely, and self-effacingly. If you don't like something I added to my page a few hours ago, then tell me what and why, and if you're correct, I'll delete or modify that too. Do NOT wholesale-delete an entire user's page without giving the user a chance to either defend the page or correct the problem, or worse, without even telling them you have a problem with it. And PARTICULARLY do not do that with a user who has a biological disability that prevents them from having the heuristics normal people use and call "common sense". If WP were a workplace, this would be an EEOC issue I'd take to HR. The ad-hoc, contradictory social rules you normals make are not "common" to me; they are very difficult and complex, and that is specifically because they do not make "sense". 3) I restored my user page with hacker magic. I'd point out that I have "toned it down" since apparantly I talk too muchg about sex. At least, that's my best-guess estimate. I can't know for sure because no one has told me what's wrong with the text. Tell me what on it violates which policy and if you are not lying to me as so many other people do because they think it's funny, I will alter it to be consistent with policy. file:Fayepic2.jpg Now as far, as the other image is concerned, I respectfully chose to defend this one. a) it is not even remotely obscene. Not that there'd be anything WRONG with that. b) where and how I live is an integral part of who I am, and I refer to it on my user page. The pic is relevant. c) It is critical in preventing something I am plagued with without the pic, which is people angrily informing me that I'm fake, an internet hoax, a man, multiple people, someone's master's thesis, a sociology research project (and once, even an AI program). I have NO IDEA why people can't accept me for how I am. But when they see my pic, they realize that I'm just a person. d) The guideline states: "activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories." I have well over 1,000 edits and have done more than edit, I was a very active participant in the arbitration of the R/I article (the cabal version of the arbitration). TechnoFaye Kane 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I have changed both the pictures to links. We all do not need to see the content if we do not want to. Please only link them, instead of transcluding them.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Fine, no problem! Another issue now: someone just DELETED the first pic from wikimedia, without an speedy RFD, even though IT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION. Don't you admins police each other? Or do you just let the other admins do whatever the hell they want to any user without discussing it first, saying why, or even telling anybody they're doing i? I am restoring it (as a link). TechnoFaye Kane 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I asked for the deletion, because the image was clearly out of Common's and Wikipedia's scope. There is no purpose what-so-ever to have a picture of you on your bed naked with the text whip me under it. Wikipedia is not a free web host. A picture of your face would be fine; it would show us you're a person, but a pornographic image, with text to boot that demonstrates it is porno, is completely outside of this project's scope.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Comment. A cursory look at TechnoFaye's contributions seem to indicate at a minimum, questionable edits insofar as their constructiveness, and at worst, a pattern of rather disruptive editing. Particularly these: [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218].   Thorncrag  05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hi, Faye. While I appreciate that your autism may make it difficult for you to comply to social norms, this does not mean that we are going to effectivly let you run wild. As you say we have many policies which make it easier to detect "social impropriety", however, you claimed to have read through the USERPAGE guideline, and still can not see how your userpage violates it? Very well, I'll try to make it more clear. Your user page (before "toning down") seemed to support the idea of tortured and rape (support of grossly improper behaviors) and still seems to advocate rape. It's also completely unrelated to Wikipedia (excessive unrelated content), really your userpage should only be about things directly related to Wikipedia. Your entire userpage (except maybe the email address) seems inappropriate to me, which is why I deleted the whole thing (as well as to get it out of the history). Rubinstein actually pointed you towards the policy page, which also mentions that text can be a problem too, not just the image. I notice that you have restored your userpage, and have re-deleted it, I told you on your talk page not to restore it, and you seem to have ignored me, if you continue to restore inappropriate content, the userpage may be protected or you may be blocked, - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Has this user ever added any referenced content? Looking at the edits above this looks like a lot of simple vandalism. Are we sure this is not just someone playing a joke on Wikipedia? Testing how much the community is willing to put up with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Reading through Thorn's diffs, I'm starting to think this person is not editing here in good-faith.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I have been unable to find any referenced content that has been added by this user. Thus a minimum of a warning is required. BTW this is not the writing of someone who isautistic. Autism leads to an extreme indepth focus usually on a single topic. This user edits many different and unrelated pages with no great detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Honestly the first thing I thought of when the user claimed autism was that this was a repeat of User:Sven70   Thorncrag  05:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Faye, as you have unilaterially restored(re: re-uploaded) the image, after I have clearly told you it violates WP:NOT, I have again asked for it to be deleted. Do not restore it. Under discussion or not, there is no reason for it to stay. I would suggest you not upload it again. Take this as a warning, that I will report you to the commons admins if you do.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Any further violation should result in a ban of some duration.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC) They've been blocked indef on commons. They say that there were no warnings or logs of why the images were deleted, despite the clear message box at the top of the page stating 04:55, 6 September 2010 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Fayekanepics.jpg" ‎ (Commons is not an amateur porn site) (global usage; delinker log). Hopefully they'll take it to heart now, that the image is not allowed, and refrain from re-uploading it.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Interesting development Here, Faye not only deletes my above post, but they call an admin a coward for deleting their userpage, and refactor another user's post. I'm quickly losing any good-faith I have with this user. If they do it again, I would suggest a block.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I reckon that was an edit conflict (not a good excuse anyway). Nevertheless, I made the mistake of making a check of this user's so-called "blog", and parlayed that it might shed some light on their mentality, and I was, let's just say, enlightened. While usually loathed to hold off-wiki activities against someone when it comes to their editing, coupled with this user's editing history, it seems patently obvious to me now that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.   Thorncrag  05:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC) An edit conflict doesn't explain how they edited someone else's post to remove an at.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I was informed the above was actually the result of the owner of the post doing the editing. So I guess it was an edit conflict.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (I replied to the part of that deleted message directed at me here) - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC) It's clear that with the selective links Thorncrag posted above, and the irrelevant comment here about her blog, Thorncrag is letting his personal distaste for TechnoFaye influence his judgement. It's fairly absurd that she is being punished for violating vague rules and expressing unpopular opinions. I realize Faye tends to push things to the limit, but I would recommend that people focus on actual rules she has violated, and not let this whole mess get muddled because of your revulsion at her opinions about rape and race-based intelligence.—Chowbok ☠ 07:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I think we're dealing with a "Wikipedia is not therapy" situation here. And the idea that WP is rules-based is an artifact of well-meaning but misguided fringe philosophy influencing WP's early policy-makers. (They are great people but had some funny ideas, just like all of us do). WP operates by good judgment and editors who try to make it operate by rules get into endless drama and conflict. Faye, my best advice if you want to keep editing Wikipedia is to cultivate a neutral, fact-based writing style (including in talk and project pages); avoid personality displays or bringing your personal life into Wikipedia in any way; and avoid topics and areas (in article as well as project space) that tend to attract conflict between users. Art, science, and technology tend to be peaceful subjects and are (with exceptions) usually good choices. Anything connceted to religious or political tensions in the outside world (including scientific subjects with political implications, like "Race and intelligence" which you have been involved with) is probably not a good choice. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) It's either a crazy person or an eleborate troll. The self-professed beliefs make the following clear: 1. User is not capable of improving content in any important area and is likely to degrade it. 2. The pro-rape activism and general demeanor is so creepy that this editor is likely to drive away other more competent editors. 3. At some point, someone who babbles about the comparitive brain sizes of "black" vs. "white" embroyos needs to be tossed out on their ear. Doing the right thing here "shouldn't" be hard, but somehow it is for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I’ve seen TechnoFaye make some useful contributions, although not recently. (Although I also haven’t been paying attention recently.) When she was involved in the race and intelligence article this spring, she added some content to it that was well-sourced, but also kind of opinionated. The content that she added had to be cleaned up by other editors in order to make it satisfy NPOV policy, but several of the sources she added to that article are still part of it. I agree that she can be abrasive, but I’m definitely able to assume good faith about her. What her behavior looks like to me is the result of a lot of ignorance about what sort of behavior is expected from her here, combined with some amount of laziness about looking up policies before someone tells her that she’s violating one of them. I also agree with Chowbok that we should be focusing on actual policies she’s violated, rather than her opinions. If this is the first time she’s gotten in trouble for putting an inappropriate image here, I think a warning would be sufficient. As far as I know, this would be the first time she’s been blocked or warned by an admin for anything in over three years. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Would you be so kind as to provide diffs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Agree with Bali Ultimate (strongly favouring the latter hypothesis). Recommend indef ban. --JN466 16:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think I'm reluctantly with JN466. Not everyone is capable of being a productive editor. The community does not need to tolerate people who do not, or cannot, work collaboratively, no matter what reason is put forward for that collegial failure. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY, and we are not required to permit people to disrupt the project just because they have a valid medical excuse (or claim to). Captain, it's not an issue of good faith: A good-faith disruption is every bit as disruptive as a bad-faith disruption. The only difference is that most good-faith people eventually learn how not to be disruptive. There's no reason to expect this disruption to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Woah, Indeff ban? its still a bit early, She is unfamiliar with our rules and has misjudged them which is typical Austistic behavior. I dont see anything here that is irredemable in this user yet. (questionable behavior to be sure but not to the point of banning)Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I seem to fallen into a "AGF trap" per some googling searching at a JN466 suggestion I am inclined to think we should probably pass the information she has provided to VA Law enforcement. This individual is sick and needs help that wikipedia can not assist with.Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Oh come on. Now you're just being ridiculous. —Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Chow I tried to AGF especially being autistic myself, This person already has some notoriety on line for this type of behavior this appear to be just one instance on a wider trend of this person's disruption. If some one is doing this disruption for fun as a hoax thats cause for concern, if we take everything she has said at face value thats also cause for concern Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC) While I have no point of reference as the userpage has been deleted, I did have a look through her image uploads, and, via some searching, her blog. I will say that I find nothing particularly offensive about her image uploads. One is a very fuzzy one (apparently of herself) barely showing a nipple. The other is a collage that mostly seems to have pictures of her face, with a couple "nudie" photos that may be considered offensive. What I have not seen are any polite requests asking her to edit the photos, or to warn that they may be deleted if she does not revise them. And then there is a bar graph she created based on research apparently from a scholarly journal. Finally, her personal life (most notably her blog), whether or not she chooses to share details of it in public, is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia and has no bearing on her edits or whether or not she should be blocked. It is also nobody's business to file reports with law enforcement! What law has she broken? Writing a blog that shares her apparent enjoyment of bog-standard S&M activities? Her edit history does not indicate, to me, this this is a person here to damage the encyclopedia or play games, but someone simply volunteering their time as they see fit. There is no vandalism. I see nothing destructive or malicious, and I see a lot of bad faith being assumed of her. I really wish people would attempt to discuss and explain their issues to other users before immediately going to AN/I and creating a lot of drama. In any case, I do not think WP:COMPETENCY applies, as nobody has really taken the time to tell her specifically which photos she should not upload, and what she should and should not place on her userpage. She has shown plenty of willingness to make modifications if people will simply ask her politely and explain which rules she is breaking. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I am not basing my arguement on what she said off-wiki. I am basing off the pattern I see a pattern off-wiki that we are only the latest to fall for. Block her and hide this Thread per WP:DENY. Her edit are questionable not to mention she has already danced with ARBCOM? Now a substaitial block log? I see less and less worth keeping. If she is willing to got to WP:MENTOR we might hold out some hope. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC) This makes me think of lonelygirl15 as a point of reference. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, I'll bite. What on earth has she done that makes you say she should be arrested?—Chowbok ☠ 22:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Whoah, I see now where you get confused my statement above. contacting VA law as more for Health and safety purpose of this individual. A} she is appears to be mentally ill enough to need some help. B} If she is in the area she is in a tent the way she makes it sound then mostly likely she rigged up something that is not up to code and is likely siphoning off the grid in a less than safe way. Now that is assuming everything she says is true. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I don't think she's in that cave anymore. And none of this is relevant to the issue anyway.—Chowbok ☠ 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Exactly, I am not reading to in depth about this person only off the now deleted page, why Some of her views are revolting to me that is not the issue to me. The issue to me is this person's statements if they are true.... raise concerns to me about the safety of the editor in question. These combined statement are not a kink and some weird things to say but rather eivdence of severe mental problems. The same way if some one posted they were talking about killing themselve I think here we should be concerned about the health and safety of this person's habitation and mental state. The health safety of those around here campsite also is valid question due to the possibility of forest fire from the aforementioned electrial issues. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC) it would be really helpful if people would actually stop and think, then look at this user's edit history, then consider whether overall this user is editing constructively or is just editing disruptively overall, instead of lingering on content issues. As a completely un-involved editor, I took a look over the first two pages of this user's contributions and saw nothing solidly constructive, but instead mostly disruption. I have never heard of the topics of race-based intelligence, nor this other pro-rape business. While admittedly naive to these and other topics the user frequents, they strike me very much as either fringe or downright hoaxacious. The users personal web site only buttresses what I and other reasonable editors have come to discern as an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing (that is, using Wikipedia as an extension to their own activities). Seems to me there may be, at best a real competency issue here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a personal web blog, nor therapy, and not a place to socialize and this user has a history of violating those rules. A block log substantiates this hypothesis. Perhaps an administrator can just issue a strong final warning and we can all move on.   Thorncrag  21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC) The idea that there are race-based differences in intelligence, while certainly controversial, is hardly "fringe". There are many legitimate scientists arguing that there is, in fact, something to that. It really sounds to me that people are ganging up on Faye due to her advocacy of an unpopular, but hardly unsupported, theory. It's also hardly fair to judge an editor who has been here for several years on only the "first two pages" of contributions. She's been here several years, it's not too much to ask that people to go back more than a few weeks in her history before making a judgement.—Chowbok ☠ 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC) And again, Thorncrag isn't even trying to hide that this is based largely on his personal revulsion at opinions she holds, hardly a legitimate reason to ask for a block, much less a permanent ban (!) or, as somebody else suggested, that she be turned over to the police (?!).—Chowbok ☠ 22:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Pardon me Chowbok, but you are not even reading my posts. My concern is founded upon the user's disruptive editing history, but buttressed by the user's other activities. I beg you to please stop and think before continuing to post your seemingly wild assertions.   Thorncrag  22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Way to not address anything I said. If I'm arguing with you, how could I not be reading what you wrote? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. By your own admission you only looked at her last couple pages of contributions. There have been lots of points of time when I would hate to have been judged on that. You have an obligation to look at more than two pages of contributions of a long-time editor before arguing she be banned. And I'll bet if everything was exactly the same except that she was arguing that there isn't a race component to intelligence, you would not be taking such a hard line.—Chowbok ☠ 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Plus you keep bringing up her blog, which shouldn't even be under consideration. It's hard to believe you're being even remotely objective about this.—Chowbok ☠ 22:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, I do apologize if I gave the impression that I only looked at the recent edit history, I did look further. I was only trying to explain how I produced the series of diffs that I posted above which you seem to think was so unjust and prejudicial.   Thorncrag  22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) It is hard to believe you are being objective yourself, Chow, given your history with this user.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "My history with this user" before this ANI, in its entirety: 1) I complained to an admin about an inappropriate personal comment she made; 2) I told her I liked her setup in a cave. You can judge if that makes me hopelessly compromised.—Chowbok ☠ 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC) It definitely makes you involved, and you shouldn't be saying the opposite of others when you are.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC) From having spent a bit of time looking into this off-site, along with others, I am absolutely positive that Faye Kane is a sockpuppet persona, and here for other purposes than building an encyclopedia. It is an interesting story, but I have neither the desire, nor the option, of outing the puppeteer here. As far as WP is concerned, the editor should be treated as a troll. --JN466 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I really dont think so, "Faye Kane" with or without "Homeless Bumstress""into google and you'll see how elaborate this would be for someone just to sock here. this person has profiles across the web spouting similiar stuff. If its a sock is a dang elaborate one. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I don't mean a sock of another WP editor. I mean an online persona created by someone interested in creative writing, online identities, and a whole lot of other things besides. --JN466 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC) That I can believe, so can we end this now this now? Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with other people that this person is not really helpful on Wikipedia (as one of the identified edits [219] shows). We need an encyclopedia which is not written by clearly crazy people. I would recommend a ban. II | (t - c) 05:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I would strongly object to a "no crazy people" rule on Wikipedia. There's no reason crazy people can't be valuable contributors. See William Chester Minor.—Chowbok ☠ 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC) What do you think of the above edit, where less than a month ago she added "but all the men would die with a big smile on their face like the guy in that TV ad for fraudulant herbal viagra" to the gamma-ray burst article? II | (t - c) 07:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I agree that edit was pretty ridiculous. But has an admin actually warned her about this? I still think there’s a good chance she’s genuinely unaware there’s a danger of her being blocked or banned if she continues this sort of thing, and she ought to be given a chance to reform her behavior first. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC) IF one needs telling that that edit is not appropriate then there bigger issues here, based on the various edits come constructive, some not. this editor is clearly aware of what we expect from people here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A summary Okay, to summarize the points that have been made here about TechnoFaye: She thinks women want to be raped. She thinks there is a link between race and intelligence. She's homeless. She's crazy. Can somebody please tell me how any of these are violations of Wikipedia policies?—Chowbok ☠ 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV WP:SOCIAL... and if the user really is homeless how is she editing Wikipedia? WP:COMPETENCE ...just for starters. Now would you please stop waving your red herring arguments, and address the substance of the issue, which is the user's disruptive editing history NOT the personal challenges the user alleges?   Thorncrag  00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC) WP:FRINGE only applies to the mainspace, she does not own a home or pay rent, she stays with friends (what does that have to do with WP:SOCIAL?) WP:COMPETENCE is not a policy. Therefore, only WP:NPOV remains. LiteralKa (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I love how you're the one bringing up all this personal information about her, like talking about her blog, and I'm the one going off-topic. Fine, whatever. I think a couple of the edits you link to were inappropriate of her, and she should be warned about them. Some of them were legitimate arguments and you're wrong to describe them as disruptive. I don't see any of it as block-worthy, much less ban-worthy. Does that address "the substance of the issue" however you're defining it currently? Your links are inappropriate. Race-based IQ difference theories are not fringe, although they are a minority opinion, and just because you're clearly not familiar with the latest research in the area doesn't make it fringe. I don't see an NPOV violation in your links above, as the arguments she's making are on talk pages, not in article space (her inappropriate edits in article space are a matter of tone, not POV). WP:SOCIAL? Well, she probably did have too much personal stuff on her page, but that seems like a pretty arbitrarily-enforced rule, and I feel confident that she wouldn't be having problems if she had less controversial views. But yeah, she should trim that down. She did ask what would be appropriate and what wouldn't above, and nobody responded, which is unfair. Maybe somebody could just edit her page to something acceptable instead of just deleting the whole thing next time. WP:COMPETENCE is not even a policy.—Chowbok ☠ 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Faye isn’t homeless anymore. Her blog entries from before a few months ago talk about her living in the cave, but some of her more recent entries (I’m not sure if they’re still accessible, since they were at [220], which doesn’t exist anymore) say that she’s now living with a psychologist named Tony Roberts. Race and intelligence also isn’t completely a “fringe” topic, although there are definitely fringe theories about it. As an example of a non-fringe commentary about this topic, it was one of the main subjects of a report published by the American Psychological Association in 1995. Among other things, their report states that there’s a difference of around 1 standard deviation between the average IQs of blacks and whites, and that nobody knows what’s causing it. I don’t think the American Psychological Association could be considered “fringe” by any standard. Now, I suppose one could claim that Faye has been advocating fringe theories about race and intelligence, although that hasn’t yet been demonstrated. But if this topic is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it, there’s nothing wrong with her having been involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Just a quick thought, not really in reply to anything, if this was a man supporting rape, and every time a female editor tried to speak to him he accused them of attempting to butter him up for sex, wouldn't we have dealt with it a while ago? - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Per this edit I would say she doesn't really seem to have much interest in addressing the concerns raised here. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A few months ago I raised some concerns about TechnoFaye. The discussions are found in this WQA archive and this ANI archive. Interestingly I was ridiculed by a number of editors for raising concerns about the user. I began to have doubts myself. I started to wonder whether I had my head screwed on correctly since many in the community didn't seem to think there was anything problematic with the user. The user then posted this comment on my page with a link to her blog in which she refers to me as her "simian friend", among a number of other unpleasantries . I have previously expressed my opinion that sometimes Wikipedia seems too tolerant of problematic editors. These editors take advantage of this tolerance by continuing with their pattern of abuse. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Yes Wapondaponda, you were "ridiculed by a number of editors" for your shopping around a made-up charge against me which 6 different admins thought was ridiculous to the point of literally laughing in your face. And let's make sure to show everyone here at wikipedia what I say on my blog, even though doing that is a direct violation of WP policy. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) The Tony Roberts with whom Faye is allegedly staying also says he is a "high-functioning autistic", "fascinated with the arts as means of knowing and becoming and with the creation and maintenance of identity under conditions of media saturation", writing "experimental fiction that occupies the boundary between qualitative research and literature." About his writing, he has said, I at times like to think of myself as a writer. On those rare occasions when I write something decent, I am writing in the spirit of Thompson, inserting myself fully into the situation, making myself a character, laughing at myself and kidding the life out of the people around me. Here the same Dr. Roberts argues that it is necessary to erect straw men that make people aware of others' and their own bigoted attitudes. And so forth. This is all laudable, interesting and very well, and Faye will no doubt continue on her blog forever, insisting that she is who she is, and that we are bigoted assholes, because that is the game that is being played here, but use Occam's razor, and ask yourself whether what is happening around this user account actually serves Wikipedia. --JN466 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC) "Faye is Dr. Roberts" again. `Somehow this escaped the dozens of regulars at my blog who've known me for five years, including several who have spoken to both of us and two who have met both of us. I have posted pix of him and pix of me. If I take a picture of me standing next to him, would that help? Probably not, no. Not to arrogant people who insist in the face of evidence things that aren't true. You wanna talk about Occam's razor? SOMEONE, a woman, posted naked pictures of herself including when she was homeless. At very least, some woman lived in a tent in the woods and is currently a friend of Tony Roberts. Why does she have to BE tony roberts? On facebook, you'll see that he has a friend who's met me. She needs to be in on this conspiracy too, and so do the other two people I live with who are also on facebook. What's wrong with the homeless woman being Faye? What's wrong with me just being me? Am I SO weird that I can't even exist? And WTF does any of this, including who I live with, have to do with Wikipedia? Yet this kind of bull shit is being used to BAN ME PERMANENTLY. This is not just a demonstration of the abuse of power, it's also a demonstration of the banality of evil and how people only abuse power when no one's looking. That is, you'd NEVER ban someone and give as a reason "she's homeless" if you thought Jimbo was looking over your shoulder. But in the crowded, fast-paced ANI, nobody really pays attention to injustice, so fuck this crazy Faye chick, let's just wiki-assassinate her, and the hell with it. You wanna know where I got my crazy idea that blacks have average lower IQs than Asians and whites? FROM A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON RACE AND INTELLIGENCE. I never knew it until then, and I looked up the ref used in the article. It turns out that the statement that blacks have lower average IQs comes from a report published by the American Psychological Association. Yet along with being homeless, that "crazy belief" is being given here by WP admins as a reason to throw me out of wikipedia. I haven't been responding to this sham, rigged, preordained-conclusion process much, but before you ban me for being homeless, my political opinions, who I live with, and things I say outside wikipedia; you need to read my reply to this whole thing here. I put it someplace where I can intersperse your statements here with my comments in yellow, and where you can't just delete it on a whim, like you have so much else I've had to say. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) The account that says all women want to be brutally raped, that all women are lying when they say the don't want to be raped; that says the brains of black fetuses at two weeks old are smaller than white fetuses; that isn't so much interested in the question of race and intelligence as in spewing a bunch of pseudo-scientific garbage "proving" black inferiority; that treats wikipedia as a cross-between an x-rated myspace and a social experiment is... actually controlled by a racist white guy who likes to troll and play games on the internet? Woulda thunka it.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Because of my user page? That's the only place in wikipedia where I talk about my sexual activity. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) WELL THUNK HARDER, BALI; I GOT THAT PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GARBAGE THIS REPORT BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, and I never once said, ANYWHERE that anyone was "inferior", nor do I believe it. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Faye, firstly, your way of responding to comments (i.e. starting in a seemingly random place and then cutting others comments up and surrounding them), makes it rather difficult to reply to you, please see WP:INDENT for a neater way to respond. Also, shouting (bold + uppercase) makes it rather painful to read through your messages, please tone them down a bit. Anyway, you seem to be under the impression you've already been banned, and are accusing us of having unfairly banned you, since you're not banned this doesn't really make much sense. You don't really seem to be understanding the reasons why it's being suggested you be blocked, I don't think anybody is saying that you being homeless would be a reason, except maybe Chowbok, who seems to be misunderstanding as well. You are very clearly either misrepresenting, or misunderstanding us, the only reason your other post was removed is because it was removing other users posts itself (as well as attacking another user). If you want to re-add it properly without the personal attacks, I doubt there would be objections. Also, don't use the fact that most of your social-activity as in the userspace as a defence, since even the userspace is not meant to be used for socialising, or pretty much anything unrelated to Wikipedia, as you should understand if you'd read WP:USERPAGE. Wikipedia is not a social site, and it's certainly not the right place to be looking for people to have rape you, because you seem to be using it for this purpose, it's being suggested you should perhaps be blocked, unless you actually accept Wikipedia is not the place to bring your sex-life. If you kept it off Wikipedia I doubt any of us would be the least bit interested in blocking you for it. Also, your common vandalism to articles, is again something it's been suggested needs to be dealt with, something you've so far ignored, instead you seem to make up the reasons people are saying you should be blocked, and then respond to those (admittedly poor) reasons. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) It may be worth pointing out that this is not a "report by the American Psychological Association", as TechnoFaye states, but an article by Rushton and Jensen in this peer-reviewed journal published by the APA. The same journal also published these responses profoundly disagreeing with Rushton and Jensen's evidence and conclusions. Any academic journal will feature and discuss different opinions; that's academic discourse. Neither article represents the position of the APA. --JN466 02:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Guys, someone can write on their user-page that they are the reincarnation of Siddarcha Guatama himself, back to bring enlightenment to all, filled with good karma and the ability to edit with utter detachment and equanimity. All we can say is, "okay, but when it comes down to it all you really have to do is comply with our policies and be a good collaborator." Someone can say they are a professor at a small private university, and have doctorates in theology and canon law and you know what? Our only response ought to be, "okay, but when it comes down to it all you really have to do is comply with our policies and be a good collaborator." Based on my editing patterns and what I have written on my user page you can make some reasonable inferences about my intersts, but if you think you know who I really am or what my real expertise is in, you are fools. I can say anything I want to on my user page and when it comes to dropping clues about hwo I really am honestly, it is not that hard to game people. No one should ever have believed Essjay's claims about himself. Did he comply with policy? To the extent that any of his edits were verifiable, did h deserve respect as a knowledgable editor? Did he work in a collegial way? If so, he should have been respected for that. There are other editors - Tim Vickers, DGG, who tell us who they are. I have tremendous respect for them, but not because of who they say they are on their user pages - if I believed their user pages I am just a mark, a sucker. The point is not that user pages are always lies. In any good con some people win. It is why people keep going back to the slots at Vegas. Of course some people are who you believe they are. But the fact remains: I respect DGG and Tim because of the wuality of their edits. TechnoFaye's user page makes claims about herself. Often times when she (or he) edits, she makes claims about herself. So what? We have no way of knowing whether she is telling the truth about herself, whether those are photos of her, etc. None of it matters. When I called attention to her user page I was NOT inviting ANYONE to judge her personally. My only question was, to what extend was the user-page complying with our userpage guidelines, and also given that they are guidelines and not policy (and also that our first policy is to ignore all policies) should we really be concerned about her userpage. TechnoFaye could be an autistic nuclear engineer. He could be a priest who likes having a secret. She could be a psychiatrist combining a hobby with an experiment. He could be a famous free-lance writer with a PhD and three MAs who realy really realy does not want anyone to be able to guess who he really is. We do not know, we cannot know, and we shouldn't want to know. I just raised a question about the applicability of our guidelines to the user page. Some of you have looked at her recent edits and believe that there are other concerns. Whatever. But you will get nowhere if you make any assumptions that you know anything about her. TechnoFaye has been editing here a long time. S/he knows how everyone else edits and s/he knows our policies and guidelines. She is not a newbie, so we can assume that she has the knowledge of how Wikipedia works that we expect. As far as i see the only task is to use our policies and guidelines as points of reference to judge whether she is a valuable contributor or a disruptive editor. But you have to decide this based on her actions at WP not her identity. I called attention to her userpage NOT because it is at all revealing about who she really is, but simply because it is an action at WP and thus reflects on the encyclopedia. That is all we should care about: actions at the encyclopedia and their contribution to or detraction from the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Good points, SLR. We should only be concerned about use pages if they are offensive, creepy, or used primarily or exclusively to promote some fringe POV that the Wikipedia community does not believe is notable. (I feel we should make an exception for quality writing, but only on a case-by-case basis.) We should sanction or ban editors who aren't productive contributors &/or who don't play nice. As for the persona Wikipedians present, we shouldn't be overly concerned about that unless it is needlessly distracting. (By that, an example would be for one to claim to be a specific important politician without providing some kind of verification.) What I saw happen was that a number of people felt TechnoFaye's userpage was unnecessarily creepy, & it was deleted. (She could have presented the same information with a couple of links to her other web pages.) As for discussing the persona of TechnoFaye . . . well, IMHO it's human nature to want to gossip about other people, but doing it on WP:AN/I really doesn't contribute to writing an encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Slr, specifically brought up the issue of the image, which is what this thread should address. But, because of this thread, TechnoFaye's conduct in other places has also attracted attention. I think most Wikipedians are quite open minded when it comes to editors with some eccentricities. There are times when we even appreciate their idiosyncrasies. It seems likely that TF does have some condition that predisposes her to make anti-social remarks, whatever it is I empathize with her. But I also feel that her disruptive pattern of editing has shown no sign of getting better. When I raised the issue of TF a few months ago, I got the impression that many admins were too afraid to deal with the issue because of TFs self-diagnosed condition. Realistically, I don't see a voluntary end to this disruption. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision was recently closed with a number of topic bans issued out. TF had been involved in the controversy from early on, but following a bout of disruption, stopped editing for a while, I think this was based on advice from Tony Roberts as indicated in this thread Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 5#Why_the_changes_today.2C_and_the_end_of_this_mediation. Therefore TF was not a subject in the Arbitration proceedings, however had her drama continued, she most definitely would have. Her conduct may even have been more egregious than the conduct of some of the users who were sanctioned. So it is somewhat disappointing that shortly after the arbitration ended TF reappeared with her drama. It may be a coincidence, but I don't know. Nonetheless discretionary sanctions were authorized by Arbcom. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Slr, are you saying that any editor should feel free to do what Essjay did, that the only one at fault in the Essjay saga was the community, not Essjay, and that Essjay's behaviour should only have been judged by his content and talkpage edits? --JN466 17:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I was making a general point. This is not the place to get into a tangent about Essjay. If that is what you want to discuss take it to my user talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Editing only - problematic or acceptable? Per Slrubenstein's observations above - New section to focus on TechnoFaye's edits (only). Are they productive, a mixture, largely disruptive? Are they within the range we tolerate, or outside it? I will be reviewing the edit history in depth. I invite others to do so as well (and where done above in the other-focused discussions, restate their opinions on this topic, narrowly focused...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not really sure another section is needed for this, since users are already looking at Faye's edits above. Whatever Slrubenstein's reasons for creating this thread were, that does not mean we can't look at other possible problems with the user. However, while looking through Faye's contributions, I came across another edit, which were it from a new user, would, I expect, be considered vandalism (not in the mainspace, but file space): here - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) As I've tried to state many times, taken separately, all of the factors regarding this user independently may not warrant this kind of attention, but taken altogether strongly portray a history of disruptive editing. That's really all that matters, the disruption being caused.   Thorncrag  22:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC) You've failed to cite anything but WP:NPOV that was relevant. LiteralKa (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC) That comment went with a chart that I uploaded. I don't know what happened to the chart, as only the comment remains. I just uploaded it again HERE. I made the joke description because the chart is self-explanatory and doesn't need a description. The chart went into in the race and intelligence article but was deleted by those trying to Bowlderize it. In short, the "evidence" you just provided was NOT vandalism, it was a humorous(?) dummy description that I assumed would never be seen by anyone--and wouldn't have been if you guys weren't digging for dirt on me. I'd also like to point out that there would be no point in adding a nonexistent gif merely to include the description field as it would be impossible to ever use in an article. No one would ever know it's there. Since (I assume) it's impossible to upload a GIF with a description, but not upload the GIF, I'd like someone to explain to me what happened to my chart. My best guess: shortly after april 7 when I uploaded it, one of you admins fucked up my cited, legitimate, professional, relevant chart because they didn't want it known that blacks, on average, score 80 on IQ tests (70 in Africa). Basically, you're not only trying to prevent people from looking through Galileo's telescope, but you're preventing people from understanding why black kids fail, and that allows horrible things to continue, like the white man calling black kids "failures" even when they diligently work to their full potential, or all the dedicated inner-city teachers in a Rhode Island school fired for being "incompetent" which was assumed because no matter what innovations they tried, the black kids never scored very high. That's MY motivation for being involved, BTW. it's not racism. As I remember, I added the chart to the R/I article, but someone reverted it, claiming that a chart of IQ by race is not relevant to an article specifically about IQ by race. I'd like to point out that that's the kind of biased BULL shit that rubenstein and wanaponda have been doing to the R/I article. When 3 others complained about their tactics, rubenstein had his admin buddies ban them from editing the article so they can continue methodically dismantling it unimpeded. Look at it now. It's a shameful collection of lame, disproven excuses explaining away for the IQ gap, with near nothing about the gap itself and exactly nothing about the evolutionary-biology reasons scientists believe the gap exists. THAT'S the kind of thing that happens at wikipedia. It's exactly the kind of crap that made me abandon the bizarre nightmare "real" world you non-autistic people have created and go live in a cave in the woods for three years. Oh, and I'm not "self diagnosed", BTW. ALSO: you guys seem to be looking at only my edits of the past few months, most of which involve the arbitration of the R/I article. To see what I've actually been doing for the project in the past five years, look further back, like HERE. That should end the talk about me being a troll. Oh, one more thing. Mike Roberts is WAY pissed off that you guys claimed he was me. It seems that since you called me all kinds of horrible bad names and then assert that it's really him you're talking about, that you are maligning him professionally, since he teaches research design and his students all use Wikipedia. For example, you publish--for the whole world, his friends, and all his students to see--that: [Dr. Roberts] is spewing a bunch of pseudo-scientific garbage "proving" black inferiority. [He] treats wikipedia as a cross-between an x-rated myspace and a social experiment. [Dr. Roberts] is actually by a racist white guy who likes to troll and play games on the internet. I talked him out of going to his lawyer (I'm sure I'll be profusely thanked by you guys for that) and he's now writing a furious addition to this conversation. I'm telling you about it ahead of time so you can be sure to arrogantly ignore it. TechnoFaye Kane 01:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Faye, that is completely out of context, and even further, not even close to what was said. Bali's post never even mentioned him, or even used the words you put there yourself, making it as if the post targetted him, when in fact it was aimed at you. Bali never even addressed Roberts. If you think we're going to thank you, because you posted your blp violation to him, and talked him out of suing us for something that didn't even happen, something you mischaracterized to him, you have another thing coming. And I do need to ask, why bring up the possibility of a legal suit at all?— Dædαlus Contribs 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I gotta say, although TF wrote a very long comment in this thread, her much shorter edit summary which Kingpin13 referenced made more of an effect on my opinion about this. It's also left me at a loss for words. I sincerely hope it is a unique edit summary. For her, at least. -- llywrch (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (in reply to Faye) The chart is still there, no admin deleted it, you can see it at File:Flkrace.gif. I was just linking to the comment rather than the whole graph, since that was what I saw to be the problem. Saying it was meant to be a joke, isn't really a justification, as a lot of vandal are just vandalising because they think it's funny. I think you need to spend a lot more time trying to understand the community here, and our social norms. If you read through WP:VAND you'd see that crude humour is considered to be vandalism: "Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor". So it IS in fact vandalism. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Selection of problematic edits [221] Edit summary: "Hey Ben: FUCK YOU!" [222] Edit summary: "revert fucking vandalism" [223] Edit summary: "THAT'S who, smartass" [224]...""let's hassle faye because we don't like her 'I'll fuck anybody' sexuality""... [225] Edit summary: "jettison bull shit" [226] "... I dearly wish it were white men who had the largest dicks--particularly in circumference. ..." Edit summary: "Enough bull shit. Enough!" [227] Using Wikipedia as a reference (note ref to Hunter S. Thompson in preceding line) [228] "... You're right ... I don't want to fuck Chowbuk. I want Chowbuk to fuck ME. " [229] Talk page commentary -- no source in sight, except Faye's blog on Roberts' website: "UHH... EXCUSE ME, I HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS BIASED, POV PART damn capslock! part of the article" First of all, Professor Camille Paglia (a REAL feminist) would strongly disagree with all of this. Read her writings. Secondly, At risk of being shouted down, [http://www.drtonymroberts.com/faye/phasedaze.htm I was gang-raped in 2002] and I LOVED it--it was the closest thing I'll ever have to a religious revelation. "A woman's physiological response to sexual contact is involuntary and in no way implies consent. Women can become aroused, their body can produce natural lubrication, and they can even orgasm against their will while being raped. " Yeah, I can just see the girl, lying there, cumming and cumming and trying to remind herself "oh, yeah, this is supposed to be bad...fuck it... UNNGH! UNNGH! DON'T STOP...." Now the anti-sex "feminists" dig themselves in further: Furthermore, even if the victims orgasm is intensely pleasurable, ...Which I'll just bet it is, since orgasms ALWAYS are...! it can lead to great stress, remorse, and self loathing, or perhaps feelings of guilt because they enjoyed the orgasm while being raped. All typical sick/puritan/american teachings. I can just see the catholic teenage former-virgin trying hard to convince herself that the thing shen loved so much was "bad". Here's the icing on the bullshit cake: Also .it can cause emotional difficulties if the victim begins to associate orgasmic pleasure with the trauma of being raped. !!! Yeah, she lies in bed every night, cumming intensely while remembering the magical experience she was so lucky to have. WHAT'S PREVERTED HERE IS THE DOUBLE TALK AND DENIAL OF THE OBVIOUS: SOME WOMEN **LIKED** BEING RAPED. OKAY? GET OVER IT. I'm not going to repair this section to make it more objective because it would just be reverted. But I want the Bowdlerizing brownshirts to explain, here, WHY they would revert the truth fromm Wikipedia. [230] Deletion of sourced material from Sexual fantasy; edit summary: "rm politically correct bull shit" [231] Deletion of sourced material from Rape; edit summary: "none of this has anything to do with rape." --JN466 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Also note that there is a largely inactive Dr.TMRoberts (talk · contribs) account; [232][233] --JN466 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC) JN466, did you have to quote all of that talk page edit? Now I have to go and boil my eyes in Dettol for 20 minutes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Well, the question is should Wikipedia continue to tolerate this drama. At this stage I think a firm yes or no is appropriate. Any waffling will simply encourage further disruption. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC) It's tolerated this, so to speak, because her low edit count (less than 1400 edits in 4 years) has kept her under the radar. There's ample evidence that her inability to empathize with other people makes her problematic; if you think it's enough -- or can provide more examples to the list JN466 has provided -- then the next step is to propose a community ban. I believe that's done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. And if that account JN466 mentions can be proven to be related, it should experience the same fate. -- llywrch (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) As I said previously, I think the issue that really matters here is that she hasn’t been given any warning or a temporary block for anything since 2007. An indefinite block or ban is supposed to be the last recourse for someone who’s refusing to change their behavior in response to any lesser sanction, warning, or any other form of dispute resolution. It isn’t supposed to be the first recourse, which is what’s being proposed in this case. How does anyone know that she wouldn’t change anything about her behavior if an admin were to warn her about it in her user talk, block her for 24 hours, or file a WQA or RFC/U about her? Nothing like that has even been tried. And I wasn’t aware that it’s consistent with Wikipedia policy to even consider a ban for someone about whom this hasn’t been tried yet. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Ermm... Have you taken a proper look through her talk page for warnings? There's one on there at the moment from fences and windows (User_talk:TechnoFaye#WQA), there's more warnings in the history as well, but a small numbers of edits over a very large amount of time, as mentioned by llywrch, could contribute to them being few and difficult to find. Also, she appears to be canvassing on her blog, (Campaigning and Votestacking) although that doesn't seem to be working. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (outdent) JN466 - thanks for all that. I had been focusing on more recent edits, but the history is useful. With that said - Some of those are stale or not actionable. I don't think that blocking the user for actions in 2008 and 2009, or edit summaries to vandals that were rude and abusive, are called for. Dropping that type of incident, and looking at recent edits, we are left with a core of very problematic edits, which do concern me greatly. I will post a few diffs later today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Some problematic recent edits: on Gamma-ray burst - grossly off topic on Barbarism (linguistics) - apparently incorrect and was shortly removed This on Talk:Vagina [234] ...followed by these on Talk:Vulva [235] [236] [237] Approximately half their content edits since the beginning of July were either problematic in some way (described here or above) or were reverted by people as unsourced or otherwise improper, but don't rise to the level of justifying a sanction. That reversion by others is typical, however, is a strong indication of problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I recall Mikemikev had only one prior block before he was indefinitely blocked according to the user's block log. Don't mean to be gratuitous, but here are some more comments. From the user's blog entitled AT WIKIPEDIA, FAYE GETS HOUNDED BY A CLUELESS, ANGRY, LYING BUFFOON! "But our simian friend doesn't want to join the discussion about crazy naked women. Instead, he wants to beat this to death" "And there, this tale told by an idiot comes to an end, as Wapondaponda struts and frets his way across the stage and is heard no more.The sound and fury, however, have just begun. For, as The Foole exits, God enters--and They are not amused". SO anyway, Ludwig beseeched his Lord God to ass-fuck him privately instead of in front of all his sheep. But He is a stern God: All this was said AFTER the threads and warnings from Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive84#User:TechnoFaye and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Incivility_by_User:TechnoFaye. So this is clearly a deliberate attempt to personally attack certain individuals and the user posted the link on my user page specifically so that I could read her attacks [238]. A few others include, As to the discussion itself, see below, after wapanamonda and rubenstein's bullshit. [239] Excuse me, but that's A.Prock of sh*t[240] It has gotten to the point where whenever I see a TechnoFaye post, I try to avoid reading it because many of her comments are unpleasant. Old incidents may be stale, but if they constitute a pattern that persists into the present, which is the case, then I think they are still relevant. It is clearly unfair for editors who have never personally attacked TechnoFaye to continue to be at the receiving end of such vitriol. We seem to be focusing on TF trying to see if there is some way that the user can come around and be productive, but we should not forget the unnecessary drama and stress that the user places on many other volunteer editors. It is not our responsibility to put up with this level of drama. For the good of the community, I believe it would be best to bring an end to this predictable pattern of drama. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Closing comment: The consensus which seems to have formed here is that TechnoFaye's edits are disruptive, and not a net-benefit for the encyclopedia. She has violated multiple policies and guidelines, and despite having been warned and blocked in the past, her behaviour continues to be problematic, as shown by the more recent diffs provided above. Nor does she seem to be keen to change her behaviour, based on her edits at this ANI thread. Having read this thread, as well as discussions in other on-wiki venues, there appears to be a consensus that TechnoFaye's contributions are overall not beneficial, and I have therefore indefinitely blocked TechnoFaye. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)