Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688

An odd request for my death

Imslimshady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has an unexplained desire to put Jimmy Hoffa's age, if alive in the infobox on his article. [1][2][3]. Since that's not how things are usually handled in an infobox, I've been deleting it. Now please take a look at the edit summary of that last diff. I hope someone can, uh, help him to understand that this is not how we do things here. The block button might get that through to him. It really asks too much of the grownups to have to put up with someone who behaves like a truculent adolescent. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The third diff should have been.[4] Mathsci (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, oops, thank you for the correction. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've indeffed. The "go and die" edit summary is unacceptable by itself, and an overall review does not reflect a user with an interest in serious editing. To any reviewing administrator, please check the deleted contributions as well as the others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I love his declaration on his talkpage - "As i am new here i am vying to become an admin, i hope to use not abuse my power as an administrator, thank you, I will do my best to be constructive, thank you" - absolutely incredible. GiantSnowman 00:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've revoked Talk page access for continuing abuse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Get ready for some socking... GiantSnowman 01:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously though, points for creativity. I mean "go die in a hole masterbating to a fuzzy caterpiller", aside from the spelling errors, is one of the funniest 'threats' I've ever seen. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It pales next to this:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm partial to [6], myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Howard Da Silva made a good Ben Franklin, didn't he? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

I do have to give him credit for a certain panache. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where a bizarre, out-of-left-field word-picture tells us more than we probably want or need to know about the guy's own private life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am astonished that this person, as the very first edit that he ever did applied for adminship. So what is his other user name? Because I do not believe that anyone does that as their first edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP user issues

I waited to do this, but I would like to report an IP user. First, let me admit that I did engage in an edit war with this person at Charlie Dent's page. However, I realize this is counter-productive, so I requested a page protect to end the war. I then sought third party mediation for the issue. The issue is over a section of the article in which the IP user has attempted to add very long information attacking the Paul Ryan budget plan (The Path to Prosperity). I attempted to inject balance into the summary (as this is an encyclopedic article and not a blog), and the user kept adding citations from editorial pages and such attacking the plan. I attempted to explain that the article is about Rep. Dent and not the bill, and I was adding the wikilink to the bill's page so that users could see more about the debate there, but the IP user has continued to engage in a partisan-fueled discourse.

The third-party mediator confirmed what I had thought. However, the IP user has refused to concede any such points. I belive the tone of the user's diatribe on the articles talk page speaks for itself--this is clearly someone who does not like the bill, nor the subject of the article. What finally pushed me to turn to administrators was the user's attempt to add the controversial language to Lou Barletta's page. I accept that the edit warring was wrong, and that is why I have followed proper channels. However, I believe it is clear that this user has no interest in maintaining neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Also, it should be noted that the user is now using multiple IP addresses to engage in heavyhanded editing for which a consensus does not exist.

Here are the IP's in question: here and here and here.

I would appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Thank you. EATC (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Interesting note...all three IPs are from the same ISP, and all three geolocate to the same area, two to the same city. Do I hear some quacking in the distance? In any case, I've taken the liberty of posting the requisite ANI notice on each of the IP's talk pages. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding requisite notices to the talk pages, Alan. That slipped my mind. Also, I believe those cities are in Rep. Dent's district (maybe Lou Barletta's), furthering my belief that this is an angry constituent venting frustrations. I'm all for democratic involvement, but not by adding weasel words and editorializing language to what should be a neutral, encyclopedic source. EATC (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated on the Talk page for Dent, I think it has been EATC who is engaging in aggressive editorializing. The tendency of his edits has been to blunt or obscure what is most remarkable about a political position taken by Dent. They clearly are partisan POV.

In fact, I document how EATC has inserted several specific Republican talking points into his edits, whose purpose when created and circulated by the GOP was to soften or deflect criticism of what is obviously a highly controversial and consequential plan to terminate Medicare. They are rhetorical, in other words, rather than factual.

My own edits have presented the relevant facts - the controversy - and as much as possible avoided the Dem vs Rep rhetorical wars. Such argumentation as I included (under pressure from EATC's insistence on inserting talking points), I have marked as argument as distinct from fact (or factual findings by CBO). EATC complains that I kept upping the ante. What I was actually doing was trying to nail down the specifics that he was working hard to obscure and palliate. My original edit to the Dent page was fairly brief. It was EATC's editorial war that gradually inflated it.

There's no point in including a mention of this vote on any congressman's page unless the discussion makes clear what is controversial or noteworthy about the plan. That is what I did.

Don't understand the reference to quacking, nor why it matters who I am and what my alleged motives are. I've provided relevant factual info that users would wish to consult. Not my problem that Republican partisans would prefer not to have this info brought forward.

If my IP addresses differ, it would be due to my internet provider. I'm using the very same computer and internet connection for these edits. This is bizarre conspiracy stuff EATC.

Fwiw, I am indeed a resident of Dent's district (with friends in Barletta's). I don't work for their opponents nor for the Dems. And I'm highly amused by EATC's repeated bloviating about "both sides", as if the only "sides" that exist are GOP and Dem talking points. For me, there are facts and then there are partisan as well as various other kinds of assertions...not just 2 sides. Thus EATC's complaints boil down to wounded partisanship. I note that he/she might have added facts about the bill or about Medicare, to help justify the GOP plan or just provide further context, but EATC preferred to insert (disputed) Republican arguments.

I think the version I put up at Barletta's page (he does claim he's proud of this vote as "courageous", so what the heck is EATC complaining about?) is somewhat better than what I posted at Dent's. Why is the second post an issue, anyway? Both men took a controversial position that users will want to know about.

I'm frankly amazed that anybody would maintain that a vote to terminate Medicare, of all things, is something so trivial that to discuss it in any detail in this encyclopedia requires special justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, EATC: Here's a measure of your blindness to your own partisanship. I didn't include a single editorial citation (despite your repeated insistence to the contrary). My cites all come from major news outlets: NPR, Bloomberg, LA Times, US News & World Report. For "balance", you cited the famously partisan Weekly Standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, much of this just makes my point for me. An unhappy constituent has decided to take to an online wiki-encyclopedia to vent frustrations by writing very one-sided diatribes. Apart from the dubious impartiality of NPR and the fact that the LA Times piece in question is an op-ed (my quote from the weekly standard was from Ryan himself, not an op-ed, that was one source of many that quotes him), the point remains that this article is about Charlie Dent. By including the wiki link to the article, any user can go to the article written exclusively about the legislation to learn about the debate. I assert that the IP user is providing undue weight to one of many controversial votes cast in the career of any member of Congress, and is attempting to stuff the summary with weasel-words and other attempts to reframe the debate, which is seen commonly on this site. At least, apperantly unlike the IP user, I will admit that edit warring (I have no idea what the referenced "editorial war" refers to) was unproductive, though, of course, it takes two to Tango. I will, however, await and will accept whatever admins prescribe. Any charges of "wounded partisanship" are, of course, unfounded. I have edited this site for over four years; I did not simply show up one day and start writing unbalanced content about my representative because they cast a vote I did not like. Nonetheless, I am happy to leave the discussion here. The IP user or users (never heard of IP addresses jumping around like that, but whatever) is/are certainly entitled to his/her/their opinion(s). I believe this content is biased, Coatracking, Undue Weight; he/she/they disagree. I'm happy to see what admins have to say about the issue. EATC (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like the outside opinion nailed it...WP:COATRACKing and giving WP:UNDUE weight to a non-neutral position. If there's more detailed discussion to be had on the Ryan Plan, direct the reader to the Ryan Plan article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I invite EATC to identify any factually inaccurate statements in my edits, rhetorical flourishes, or for that matter the claimed "weasel words". So far EATC has failed to point to anything specific that is objectionable.

And if EATC can identify balance that is lacking, why not add factual statements that provide balance - rather than deleting my factual statements and substituting his own talking points?

EATC doesn't seem to understand the difference between a columnist and an op-ed writer. Columnists typically are held the same factual standard that govern news stories.

I do have to wonder why EATC, after initially larding up Dent's page with GOP talking points, now instead is so determined to have the minimum possible info visible there. Certainly is amusing to see that his own obviously partisan motives are quite simply beyond reproach, whereas my alleged venting of frustrations as some kind of miserable constituent utterly disqualifies me from adding content (at least such content as EATC would prefer to exclude).

As for undue weight, huh? Seriously, huh? This was a vote to abolish Medicare for crying out loud. Dent positions himself as a moderate centrist who generally bucks his party on extremist positions. His page makes a huge deal of his supposed centrism. The Medicare vote is a significant counter-example. Silly to pretend otherwise...or maybe EATC doesn't actually understand much about Dent's public image.

Anyway, my original edit was only about 3 sentences long. Then EATC came lumbering in with his talking points and editorial warring, inflated the section repeatedly...and voila, ends up complaining that it's too lengthy. Ridiculous partisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the decision of the editor brought in for mediation. Here's the Cliffs Notes(tm) version: that material does NOT belong in the article. Put in a link to The Path to Prosperity if someone wants to show what the vote was on. Beyond that, it's unencyclopedic, WP:COATRACKing, and gives undue WP:WEIGHT to one side of the equation. Keep it factual and verifiable, or don't keep it. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Shame, an obviously foolish decision. No more space to be devoted to a vote to abolish Medicare, than to Dent's vote on the utterly trivial Terri Schiavo affair? Shows why wikipedia pages on politicians are generally such propagandistic drivel. I don't think you know what coatracking really is. As for your sneers, Alan, bet you can't back them up. What in my edit was either non-factual or non-verifiable? Yeah, don't knock yourself out looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise extreme caution here. You're on the ragged edge of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with your "sneers" comment above. Between that and your clear non-neutral approach to editing the article, you may be getting a bit more attention than you'd like. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What is it?

What is it?

Monopoly of Germans? Demand to be taken into account and these of views: See. Пуанкаре (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Text of articles at the English-language Wikipedia is expected to conform to the standards of the English-language Wikipedia. We have no control over the Russian-language wikipedia, and the standards for articles THERE have no bearing on the content of articles HERE. Other than that, I am not sure what you are asking administrators to do here; we have no control over what goes on at ru.wikipedia, nor does what goes on over there have any bearing on article content here. I have no idea what you want administrators to do here. --Jayron32 04:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is not neutral. Noticed that different members. I put the template {{POV}}. But clean. What should do? Take into account the need not ru.wiki, and arguments, theories listed there. Пуанкаре (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What you should do is start a discussion at the article's talk page. This isn't the place to have the discussion. You need to be detailed in your objections to the article. So far, near as I can tell, you've only left us with a diff of someone removing the POV template, and a link to a bad machine translation of the same article at ru.wikipedia. No one has any idea what your objection to the article is. Instead of coming here to complain, what you should be doing is leaving details at the article talk page about what exactly is the problem with the article. So far, no one knows why you think the article isn't neutral. If you need an outside opinion on the situation, you could also ask for help at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. But there is nothing here for administrators to do. You're going to have to work it out on the article talk page through civil discussion. --Jayron32 05:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Off-subject a bit, the Russian user's page is all in Russian, which I'm not sure is kosher on the English wikipedia. Also, his name transliterates as Poincare, should one care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP says nothing about the language in which you write on your userpage. Anyway, the source page (http://traditio.ru/wiki/Отрицание_теории_относительности) is a Mediawiki website, but it's obviously not the same as ru.wikipedia.org. Note that traditio.ru is on our blacklist for some reason. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP edit warring and with personal attacks

Resolved

 – Blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor (74.232.27.81 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)) was blocked yesterday for edit warring on Antenna TV. After the block expired today, user added speculative, unsourced info on WXIA-TV. Currently, the IP is at 3 reverts, so still technically on the "right" side of the bright line, but after being informed of the importance of sourcing, made a lovely personal attack against me on xyr talk page [7]. After being warned by me against both edit-warring and WP:NPA, the user added a second personal attack, [8]. The diff also indicates that the editor is unwilling to edit collaboratively. Could we perchance give the user some more time off to reconsider if Wikipedia is the right place for xem? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have given them a week off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet unblock review

On 8 March, I blocked Mjs2010 for incompetence, copyright violation, and personal attacks. Sandstein declined and unblock request later that day. On 13 March, the account B.Davis2003 was created, and edited until 15 April, when MuZemike blocked it as a confirmed sockpuppet of Mjs2010 (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjs2010) Later that day, JamesBWatson declined an unblock request. Today there was another unblock request, that at best, only superficially addressed the reasons for the original block, and failed to discuss at all the copyright violations. Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) granted this unblock request without consulting any of the four previously involved admins, and when asked about this unblock, and asked to reverse his unblock for discussion, has declined. I'd like to see this unblock reviewed by other parties. Courcelles 03:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Despite the fact that I had declined an earlier unblock request, I do see that there is an arguable case for unblocking. However, I do not see that there is a case for unilateral unblocking without consultation or discussion. In fact I think that the blocking administrator should almost always be informed of an unblock, and in most cases consulted in advance, rather than just informed. There is no way that this unblock could be seen as clear cut and uncontroversial, and for one admin to take unilateral action against the clear consensus of several other admins without even an attempt to discuss it was not appropriate in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If any of this person's accounts were to be unblocked it would only be the original one: Mjs2010. That said, the English composition and comprehension skills of the editor are not at encyclopedia level. There is no compelling reason to bring this editor back after socking. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Courcelles for notifying me of this (though I would add to his or her chronology of events that I also declined an unblock request from this editor yesterday, explaining the conditions they needed to meet to be unblocked). As I stated on my talk page, when reviewing this editor's actions (in both accounts) I came to the view that the problems with their editing were being driven by youth and inexperience rather than outright malice. As they had nominated the account they wished to use and given a reasonably detailed commitment to stick to the rules I couldn't see any grounds to continue the block. When agreeing to the unblock I told the editor that they would probably be re-blocked without warning if they broke their commitment, however, and watchlisted their talk page so that I could respond to any further complaints the editor received. As such, I think that the unblock is justified on the grounds that the editor deserves a final chance, though I wouldn't be at all bothered if other admins come to a different conclusion. I'm also happy to take a trout for not discussing this with Courcelles first as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this getting all so confusing, if you want me to use my old account and then appeal for an unblock on that account, I will, I just need to find my password for the old account, as I have misplaced it. Courcelles, I repeat, I have noted and expressed my remorse now for the issues surrounding both my accounts on my copyright warnings and personal attacks, and have complied with everything i've been told since. Please admin, if you could tell me what would be preferred, and If you could please, take time look at my contributes to wikipedia on my new account, and know that I have supplied sources and remained calm in edit wars. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unarchived, as someone moved this from AN without retimestamping two hours ago. Courcelles 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is as follows: Unilaterally undoing an administrator action, without prior discussion with (and, normally, consent of) the blocking administrator is not only impolite and uncollegial, but also a misuse of administrator tools, because it arbitrarily substitutes one's own judgment for that of the blocking administrator, disrupts administrative processes and (in the case of unblocks) may enable continued disruption of Wikipedia. We need to recognize that our own judgment is just as likely to be wrong as that of our colleagues. Administrators should therefore respect the decisions of other administrators, even if they themselves would have made a different decision. They should only undo the admin actions of others with their consent, or after a community discussion that resulted in consensus to overturn the action. Administrators who unilateraterally undo admin actions for no compelling reason, as Nick-D did here, should be desysopped for disruption if they do so repeatedly. Conversely, and for the same reasons, administrators should not normally take unilateral administrator actions after a colleague has already reviewed the matter and come to the conclusion that no action is necessary.  Sandstein  11:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I have already criticised the unblock, I actually think that Sandstein is being too harsh. Nick-D did not simply arbitrarily undo another administrator's action, as the situation had changed. The issue had been discussed on B.Davis2003's talk page, and B.Davis2003 had made undertakings not to do the same again. Consequently Nick-D was not retrying the same case as Courcelles had already judged, but assessing a different question from the question that Courcelles had already assessed, and even from the ones that I and Nick-D himself had assessed in considering previous unblock requests. Consequently I see "arbitrarily substitutes one's own judgment for that of the blocking administrator" as an unfair description, as it was one's own judgement of a different question than the blocking administrator had judged. I do think that, in a case where several admins had supported a block (on one or other of the user's accounts) it is usually a mistake to unilaterally make the decision that the situation has changed enough to justify a change in judgement, but I cannot agree with the very strong terms in which Sandstein has condemned it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur with JamesBWatson. If nobody is able to act on an unblock except with the blocking admin's permission, why even have unblock requests that go into a queue at all? I am certainly no soft heart when it comes to reviewing unblock requests, and at the same time I trust the rest of you to unblock people that I have blocked. I am not infallible. Syrthiss (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, all administrators are able to unblock users. The question is under which circumstances they should do so. The reason we have an unblock request system is that it allows uninvolved users to voice their opinion on the block, and if they come to a consensus conclusion that the block is wrong, the blocking admin (or if need be another admin) will lift the block. There are also some circumstances where unilateral unblocks are unproblematic, such as when the blocker is no longer active or if there has been a very obvious error. But where unblocking is a matter of judgment, the unblocker's judgment is just as likely to be wrong as the blocker's. For this reason, and also out of simple collegiality, other admins should defer to the judgment of the first admin who has examined a case, unless consensus tells us that this judgment is wrong.  Sandstein  15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think than if the situation changes, and it arguably did in this case, then there is no need to wait on the unblock. I don't think this unblock was a case of the unblocking admin disagreeing with your call (in fact his first unblock decline says he agreed with it). I think waiting for the blocking admin could, in many cases, delay an unblock where unblocking is clearly acceptable. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's comments are rather over the top. I agree with James' summation and Syrthiss' comments. As I've said above, if other admins disagree with my judgement to unblock here I've got no problems at all with it being overturned - I welcome scrutiny of my blocks and unblocks (and, from memory, I've had one block overturned and this is my first unblock which might be overturned in three and a bit years as a reasonably active admin, which I think is a pretty good record and hardly warrants the kind of comments Sandstein has posted here). Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be fair to Sandstein he is currently involved in a case where an issue of this nature is being evaluated. I do not know what the norms are here for admins and blocking but I'm usually impressed with Sandstein's judgment and hope all parties can reduce this event to a non-issue. Lambanog (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's view here is thankfully not in accordance with current practice or policy. Admins do not require consensus to revert an admin action, wheel-warring is considered to begin when a revert is reverted without discussion. We have to allow some degree of flexibility in these matters. Fences&Windows 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• On the "abuse of admin tools" issue: Sandstein's take on this seems far more aggressive than current practice. It would cause a certain amount of paralysis if gaining consensus or permission from the blocking admin were required in order to avoid threats of desysopping. I realize Sandstein qualified this with "...if they do so repeatedly", but since there's no reason to think it is a recurring pattern, mentioning this seems about as collegial as, well, unblocking without discussion.
• On not checking with the blocking admin or previous admins who declined to unblock: That probably would have been wise, if for no other reason than to avoid causing others to feel slighted, and also because they might have more knowledge that the unblocking admin doesn't know about. Borderline trout-worthy, but since Nick offered to self-trout, that seems a reasonable response.
• On unilaterally unblocking after previous unblocks are declined (in general): I think this can be OK, but depends on the particular circumstances. If circumstances change, or conditions are set and agreed to, it seems reasonable not to require agreement, even if it is recommended. If the user is unblocked and there is consensus to reblock, that can be determined here. Reblocks are easy.
• On this particular unblock: Seems OK. Nick-D engaged with the editor, set some conditions, and will watch the editor for any further trouble. If he'd checked with Courcelles first, I imagine Nick might have mentioned the copyright issue too, but it's been made clear to the editor now. Reblocks are easy.

I suggest allowing the user to remain unblocked, on whichever account they prefer, making it clear this is a last chance.--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with Floquenbeam, though I would personally go for "trout-worthy" rather than "borderline trout-worthy". Since Nick-D has accepted the troutworthiness of the incident, and since there seems to be a general consensus that consultation would have been a good idea, but no support for Sandstein's more uncompromising position, I suggest we consider the incident closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can compromise, and say that it was on the borderline between borderline trout-worthy and trout-worthy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm not sure whether it quite reaches that borderline. I think it may be only borderline for doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Self Promotion by Spurkait

Hi, I would like to bring into notice the Additions and Contributions by the User Spurkait (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please check all the Contributions by the User [9]. All are Aimed at promoting a company called Nettech.

1) The Page of this Company Nettech [10] looks like a Marketing brochure thanks to all his his contributions to the page [11].

2) Many general keyword based Pages are being redirected to this company's page, thanks to the user. Example: Summer Training [12], Winter Training [13], Certificate in Network Management [14]

3) He has modified the Pages of Premiere Educational Colleges/Universities of India and made references to the company. Example: [15], [16], [17], [18]

Kindly look into the matter.

Sonakshi87 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to communicate with Spurkait, give warnings, etc? I see nothing on their Talk page since 2007. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No I did not. Considering he was blocked previously for Advertisement and he is doing it again. -- Sonakshi87 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And a closer look shows that Spurkait hasn't edited since January, and the changes to the Nettech article seem reasonable. The redirects, redirecting unspecific English phrases (eg "Winter training" and "Summer training") were promotional, so I've removed hose - alll you needed to done here was tag the redirects for speedy deletion, rather than report them here. You are free to remove the material that you consider to be promotional from the colleges/education articles yourself (which were added as long ago as 2009) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Information added on the Page is added by Spurkait. I am quite sure he is an employee/owner of the company [Refer to all the images uploaded. Different locations and time, mentioned as own work]. Wouldn't this be a problem against Wikipedia's NPOV Policy? I understand I can modify most of the stuff. The reason why I am reporting it is to see if the user can be blocked since he has been editing other articles and promoted his company multiple times. Check some of the articles I have linked above, his additions have been removed a few times and he adds them again. [19] -- Sonakshi87 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, seeing as he hasn't edited since January, a preventative block would be pretty hard to justify now, 3 months on. And the additions to those educational articles are from as long ago as October 2009. I'd think the best approach now is to revert his additions, and then keep an eye on him - and we can take further action if he comes back and does it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up and shortened Nettech some. But the entire timeline and photo gallery should probably go too, really, and most of the references. There is still some promotional bloat. At least there isn't a "we" telling the story now... Bishonen | talk 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Thanks you Bishonen & Boing! said Zebedee! - Sonakshi87 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:CORP anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple non-English essay articles on same topic—I smell a class assignment

• Wikitagalog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PANGKASARIANG PAGKAKAKILANLAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've stumbled across these two articles this morning, created by separate new accounts, both written in Tagalog. Running the text through Google Translate, they both appear to be essays on the topic of gender identity.

My hunch is that there's a class assignment (possibly at Southern Miss, based on this version of the first article), and essays are getting posted to Wikipedia. I think the creators of these two pages are acting in good faith but just posting to the wrong place. I hope the instructor hasn't told the class to post the essays here (though I can't rule that out).

My hunch is also that there will be more of these today. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you find the teacher out and contact him? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left messages on the two article creators' talk pages (plus a Google Translation to Tagalog of the message) but haven't gotten a reply. —C.Fred (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The version of Wikitagalog ([20]) pointed out by C.Fred is specifically a translation of http://voicelab9.wordpress.com/non-western-cultural-norms/gender-roles-within-the-philippines/ . -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the remainder of the situation, I deleted it as copyvio. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits

• 75.194.32.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (29-30 March)
• 75.194.206.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (30 March)
• 75.213.146.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (30-31 March)
• 75.194.217.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (31 March)
• 75.213.164.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (6 April)
• 75.194.159.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (8-9 April)
• 75.213.152.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (9 April)
• 69.98.84.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (14 April)
• 75.251.6.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (18 April)

An IP-hopping editor has been making what seem to be problematic edits involving voice-cast credits for animated films and TV programs. The edits may or may not rise to the level of vandalism, but any one of them that I've looked into I've been unable to verify using standard sources such as IMDB. I've left messages on the talk pages of several of the IPs, but either because they don't see the messages (because of the dynamic IP address) or because they are ignoring them, there's been no response. Articles involved include Pat Buttram, Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), Shining Time Station, Thomas and Friends and the articles of other actors involved, and they have been reverted by numerous editors, including myself.

I'm not sure how to proceed. I turn to the admin corps for assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All the above IPs notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also left notices for other editors who have interacted (or attempted to interact) with the above IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start on dealing with this problem, but much more remains to be done. I have semiprotected Shining Time Station, Pat Buttram and Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series) for three weeks. I am reluctant to do the same to Thomas and Friends because there is a huge amount of IP editing to that article, and I would not like the amount of collateral damage. That is assuming that there is not a large proportion of vandalism in the IP editing. If that is so then the article should be semiprotected. I have not checked for lack of time, so someone else may like to look at it. There are numerous other articles affected, but I have not checked them all to see how much of a problem there is on each one (again because of lack of time), so perhaps someone else would like to do that too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Given this edit, brought to my attention by Doc9871, I've added 75.213.146.101 to the list above, and The Little Engine That Could (2011 film) and Firebreather (film) should also be added to the list of articles affected which should be semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Added another IP based on the diff above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Notified the two new IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Other articles: Adventures from the Book of Virtues, Michael Dorn Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Given edits such as this, it's now clear to me that this editor's contributions are essentially creative vandalism. They should probably be reverted on sight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I wiped out the "Additional Cast" lists from AFTBOV as completely unsourced. It is vandalism, it's certainly "creative" and it causes massive headaches when they "cross-reference" these fake roles onto living actor's filmographies (as well as onto actors' who have been dead far longer than even possible for them to have lent their voices). Aside from you, me and a few others who have helped: this looks like a cricket-chirper of a thread. Annoying and childish behavior from a budding young troll/trolls. Doc talk 09:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have now looked back at Thomas and Friends in more detail. It is clear that all or nearly all of the IP editing is either vandalism or at least highly questionable unsourced editing, so I no longer have such concerns about collateral damage, and I have semiprotected it after all. I have also done the same to The Little Engine That Could (2011 film), Firebreather (film), Adventures from the Book of Virtues and Michael Dorn. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added various related articles to my watch list, as I'm sure others have, so hopefully we'll see the next attack as it happens and be able to revert the edits before they get too embedded in the articles. Thanks much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you James and BMK! MarnetteD (talk · contribs) also helped ferret out some of the bad edits from the earlier incident, and I see that BMK has made them aware of this thread. Several others have helped a lot as well, and it's good to know there's a handle on this. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Duck of someone banned/blocked?

Resolved

 – Blocked by Iridescent for abusing multiple accounts

Temporaire1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• If any Admins is reading this, please take note that the abovementioned user has made 26 tendentious edits within the span of 10 minutes, all done without any explanation given whatsoever. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil rollbacker

Fieldday-sunday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fieldday-sunday has been very uncivil. He blatantly attacked User talk:82.41.247.200. In addition he has made some very uncivil edit summerys such as [21][22] and [23]. Looking at his talk page it seems that others have had issues with him. I have given him a only warning for the personal attack, what should we do about his other uncivil behavior though? Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Uhhh ... talk it over with him instead of a template warning? Vandalism, especially some that targets a specific group, is quite frustrating and he probably just was overexcited for a bit. No action needed currently, IMO. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (editconflict) I'm sorry, I disagree. This is a totally uncalled for and uncivil attack that to be honest I'm a bit surprised he wasn't blocked for when the edit was deleted. The attack is WAY overboard (not just a bit overboard)and even the vandalism itself is questionable. The edit he removed from this ip was this which while you I can totally understand why the rent boy part would appear to be vandalism I'm not actually sure it is given that the same ip made 4 subsequent edits right after ( here ) which all appear to be relatively good and good faith. Given that it's a possibility it was just a nick name done either as a joke or in good faith. Even if it WAS vandalism the edit was done in MAY 2010 and the IP has not edited since November 2010. An only warning is not only called for I'd seriously consider blocking (I'd take rollback away but it doesn't really appear he uses it much.. so of little use). His vulgar edit comments just make it worse. James of UR (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you might misunderstand. The last edit made by that IP was in November 2010; there is no recent vandalism. Even if Fieldday-sunday was frustrated, such vitriol isn't acceptable on any page, certainly not on an IP talk page, and absolutely not for an edit made months ago. In fact, it is a blockworthy action in almost all cases. Risker (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (Note: Admin-only link to the edit referred to in this report[24])
    • (edit conflict) Hm, I did indeed somehow miss the tirade on the IP for an edit made a long time ago. Fortunately, however, it seems he's stopped now, and I don't know what effect a block would have other than to anger him any more. Some discussing the issue wouldn't hurt, I think, but if he attacks someone again, a block is definitely in order. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

      Have you looked at his other edits (and edit summaries)? This doesn't seem to be someone who got upset once—it's a persistent pattern. "Who cares, you narcissistic shithead?" is never a reasonable edit summary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The contents of the deleted revision (linked by Risker, above, a small portion of which includes "What kind of a fucking shiteared twatwanking spastic retarded cretinous mong spastic cunt are you?") and an ongoing pattern of needless unpleasantness for unpleasantness' sake are worrying, to say the least. His most recent edit here includes the gem "...Sadly, it would appear that university rugby lads live up to their reputation for thickness and homophobia, and so there is a good chance they will keep coming back with their metaphorical crate of cheap lager until they eventually get banned....". This is part of a comment on a rugby article's talk page where he is proudly announcing that he has removed vandalism–and is declaring (with a complete lack of self-awareness) that we need to take action against immature and obnoxious behavior more promptly in the future. This isn't a bit of garden-variety frustration with vandals; he's waaaay over the line of acceptable conduct. A block would certainly not be out of place here for the egregious personal attacks and battleground approach. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What a tirade. But he forgot to say, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Smelt". Smelt of elderberries. Get the accent right, will ya? Sheesh... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

But how do you get a bad French accent right? -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I know he said "smelt". I was translating from a British English parody of a French accent to an American English parody of a French accent. Besides, if you say "the smelt smelt fishy", that sounds fishy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wee wee. -- llywrch (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that deleted revision was way over the top, as was his most recent tirade noted by TOAT. I am presently blocking him for one week for gross personal attacks. He's been warned before about this behavior. This is simply over the top. As always, I assume that any action I take is always wrong, so feel free to unblock him if anyone feels that his comments were appropriate for making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Jayron32 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that you put it that way ... heh. Definitely not making WP any nicer, and I still and trying to figure out how I missed the diffs with the egregious attacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, the abuse is all over the place - here's another gem -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, more F's than my average report card. Is he still editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• On further inspection of his Talk page, this editor appears to have a history of misusing Rollback - I propose the removal of Rollback -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This won't move the encyclopaedia forward. Can someone analyse the editor's abuse and see if it is topic constrained? If the editor has a particular topic based problem, then a community topic ban may prevent the core problem without being punitive. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He's editing on all sorts of topics. It looks more like general Recent Changes and Vandalism patrol to me rather than anything specific -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Yes, most vandals are miserable so-&-sos who need to get a life. But handling both Recent Changes & Vandalism requires a certain minimal level of tact & social skill, which this individual has failed to demonstrate. (A well-known fact is that vandals enjoy the vulgar diatribes this Fieldday-sunday has been shovelling out, while it drives away the well-meaning newbies who simply make a mistake.) Anyone object to BsZ's suggestion of removing the Rollback bit from his account? -- llywrch (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I support removal of rollback, given the circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This user doesn't appear to have had rollback since 2009 - maybe it's WP:TWINKLE? --Rschen7754 20:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see what he has to say before jumping in and removing privileges.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's not a rollbacker, he had that tool removed almost a year and a half ago for, um, "repeated hasty usage of the rollback tool when reverting good-faith edits". We can't remove a tool he doesn't have. What we can do is scrupulously watch his behavior from now on, and be prepared to enact further measures to insure that this behavior stops. Including stopping the behavior ourselves if he decides that is better than stopping it himself. --Jayron32 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is possible to forcefully remove Twinkle from a user's account. --Rschen7754 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, he is using Twinkle - my mistake, sorry. But yes, Twinkle can be forcibly removed - there is a blacklist that prevents listed users using it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Twinkle. Never touched the stuff myself. Have to let someone who knows how to fix that problem, fix that problem. --Jayron32 20:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Added to the blacklist. --Rschen7754 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Man, my statement above is the second time today I've managed to come across as half-cocked. I blame it on rushing to click on the "Save page" button before a certain three-year-old runs up to me & announces it's "rough-house time". (Yeah, I have obstacles to contributing that few of the rest of you face. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As the father of a 2 and a 5 year old, I feel your pain... --Jayron32 23:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jasper Deng and COI

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.

---

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

User:Jasper Deng apparently misunderstands WP:COI, and in trying to explain to him the policy, he keeps reverting my messages to his talk page with comments in his edit summaries that illustrate a lack of regard for the policy.

Here's the background: Vrsti (talk · contribs) joins Wikipedia as a new user. Vrsti inquires about the "systematic" removal of hundreds of links to a website s/he is associated with on Wikipedian2's talk page here. Jasper Deng leaves a message on Vrsti's talk page about Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest (here), which is per policy, but then leaves a, IMO, bite-y message on Wikipedian2's talk page under Vrsti's comment, "This user has a conflict of interest and should refrain from editing Wikipedia." Vrsti leaves a civil message on Jasper's talk page regarding the COI notification left on his/her talk page, [25], to which Jasper replies, "You still have a conflict of interest regardless of whether you've edited or not." User:Buttercrumbs commented on Jasper's talk page that he believed Jasper bit the new user and clarified WP:COI(here), and Jasper responded with an undo of this message and "Still COI" in the edit summary. Clearly Jasper still misunderstands COI.

Feeling that Jasper still does not understand that he is the wrong, I left a "don't bite the newbies" message on his talk page (here). He removed my message, and in the edit summary, responded with res. @Eagles247: Did not intend to bite. Please AGF before doing something like this again. I tried again by leaving him a message explaining that he is hypocritical to ask that I assume good faith, when he himself did not assume good faith with Vrsti. Jasper undid my message with an edit summary of ... I did AGF. Since it appeared he did not want the messages to stay on his talk page, I tried again to get through to him, this time via edit summary: "Telling an editor to "refrain from editing Wikipedia" completely is NOT acting in good faith". He responded with "Was per COI - do not want to continue this discussion." Obviously this was not per COI, but yet Jasper still refuses to discuss this. Finally, I made one last attempt to make him understand (here). In this diff I fully explained how Wikipedia treats users with conflicts of interest, and a word of advice for him regarding his behavior (admit you are wrong and re-read COI). Jasper removed my message with the edit summary "If I delete your comment it means I acknowledge it. If you continue, you will be reported at ANI for harassment."

Lastly, User:28bytes attempted to make known to Jasper that his behavior is not very efficient and that discussions should be kept on talk pages (here). To which, Jasper responded "I acknowledge them by deleting the comments." (here).

As a last resort, I have come to ANI to maybe ask someone to get through the Jasper on everything he did wrong in this situation and the ensuing aftermath. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly, I've seen nothing but a track record of unhelpful, unclueful, and incompetent edits by Jasper Deng since he first joined. I support a one month competence block and mentorship. Because if he doesn't clue up fast, the next block will be indef. I don't have tolerance for editors that act like children. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't a full view of my edits. Other users would not agree. I seriously ask you to reconsider or refactor that comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Here's a thread that may interest some commenters here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Wow. The "This user acts like he/she is an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't" box pretty much sums it up. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper is correct that he is permitted to delete comments from his own talk page, and such deletion indicates that he acknowledges having read them. If he's now finished biting newbies, it's not ongoing disruption. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is correct to remove messages per WP:BLANKING, but his failure to acknowledge his blatant misunderstanding of policy is what troubles me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2) Right, but the priority is not making sure that any editor that "still does not understand that he is wrong" is made to understand that he is wrong. Lots of people are wrong on the internet all the time. If they're not disrupting the encyclopedia, then "making sure they know they were wrong" is irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I do it by accident all the time, and I meant to include "related to that user." I was being frustrated by Eagles247 trying to tell me of something I know, and he could've refactored my comment instead. But repeatedly telling me about this is something that frustrates me and led to those edit summary. It does not warrant a block though.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It was simple frustration. If I delete a comment, try not to talk to me about it until much later. I thought I could do this because of what Ohnoitsjamie did regardng an SPA content dispute comment.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"try not to talk to me about it until much later" - what? Why would other editors need these special instructions for how they must deal with you on your talk page? "what Ohnoitsjamie did" - have you informed them that you've just mentioned them here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No. This is in relation to an old WQA thread. I learn from what other users do. I did not notify because he is not involved in this. That habit I wrote seems to be the norm here.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone is not involved in an issue here, then it's much easier just not to mention them here. As for whatever habit you consider to be the norm, it's not clear what you mean. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"try not to talk to me about it until much later"Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs that should clarify my above comment: "Wikipedia may remove at its discretion anything on its site and you cannot have a say in that." to a new user who obviously did not understand the inclusion guidelines, misunderstanding of CSD#A7, "strong oppose because MediaWiki's edit conflict handling is shit???? WTF???, refusal to discuss calmly; terse attitude, calling "lmfao" a personal attack, and updating edit count almost every day. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

lmfao is a personal attack if you expand it. I would also like you to see WP:Civility out of you. If a user thinks we have no right to delete something, I give them the same thing, especially for repeat offenders. In no way do these diffs constitute a full review of my edits.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One, this thread is about you, not me. Not sure why I'm now being discussed. Two, lmfao means, "Laughing My Fucking Ass Off". There is no personal attack in there. It's my ass and I'm laughing. It's not that hard to understand. In addition, your comment perplexes me: "If a user thinks we have no right to delete something, I give them the same thing, especially for repeat offenders" – please clarify; they are new users who do not understand our policies, why the hell aren't you explaining it nicely to them? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the lmfao was me. Sometimes users have bad faith. As I was told in an earlier incident, judging faith is hard, and, I normally feel a template message is fine for new users. And Boing! Said Zebedee (the commenter below), is right.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How on earth does that even make sense? The subject of the lmfao is me. I am laughing my fucking ass off. My ass! And not at you, either—at your hilarious comment. And re template messages ... oh heavens. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are doing the action, because you seem to be amused at me. You are the one doing the action, but I'm the one you are doing the action at.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you even read my last post? I said I was laughing at your edit, not you. You're not funny, but your edits sure can be! ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoever the subject is, it's aimed at me. I want you to stop making fun of me.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making fun of you. You, however, are covering your eyes up and pretending not to have read my last two posts. I was not laughing at you—therefore, it was not aimed at you. For the last time, I was laughing at what you wrote. It was funny, OK? No one is making fun of you. (Btw, the sense of humor store is thataway.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is anyone actually asking for any admin action here? (I see perhaps some weaknesses in communication, and perhaps a few misunderstandings and a little over-sensitivity, but I don't see any call for any admin actions) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• A block may potentially be necessary. I thought that this thread might wake Jasper up, but he is still stubborn to believe he was wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I called for a block above. But if we let this thread go on, I might get a few extra laughs out of it :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

http://xkcd.com/386/ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

@Eagles247:By deleting your comments I acknowledged them, and do not dispute them, but, you repeatedly adding them to my talk page frustrated me, causing those edit summaries.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse the edit summaries. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. If I remove his comment, I acknowledge it, and him readding them frustrates me, and I had to tell him to stop.

Jasper, I kept sending you messages because in your edit summary replies (such as [26]), it appeared you still did not understand what COI meant and you failed to acknowledge your mistakes. That's fine if you merely acknowledge them, but when you include in the edit summary something that makes no sense, I had to continue the discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledged I was wrong by the 2nd-to-last deletion of your comment, but was not in a mood to say it out.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

...and that makes it alright? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain:I refused to believe you for the first few edits, explaining the first few deletions' summaries, and then, when I agreed with your comment, you kept adding it back, explaining the summaries of the last two.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask for clarification here, Jasper? Re COI: If I have a COI, I am not allowed to edit at all. True or false, and why? That was the original issue raised here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Depends. If the user represents a publicity company, then yes. If the user is like that behind MyWikiBiz, then yes, but otherwise, no. In the end, this was a simple accident, and, I am not used to being talked to like this for an accident on WP.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, at the risk of making your head explode (and that is a risk I'm perfectly willing to take), allow me to point you to Alex Konanykhin, former Russian *cough* "oligarch" *cough* and now owner of a company formerly called WikipediaExperts (and now called something else). User:Eclipsed works for him, as do several other editors. You should note that your interpretation of WP:COI does not reflect either what it says or current policy. WP:COI is a "behavioural guideline", not a policy. It does not prohibit paid editing, it simply suggests that it is "discouraged". There is no policy which prevents paid editing. The owner of MyWikiBiz is banned for reasons other than paid editing. Perhaps you should read the guideline over again, slowly... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Jasper, what Eagles and others are saying here is that even if an editor has a conflict of interest regarding a particular article, that doesn't mean we can't be friendly and helpful as we inform them of our policies. For example, in this false positive report, the editor in question (someone associated with a museum) gave a well-written explanation of what they were trying to do, and you just brushed them off with a "You have a conflict of interest" statement. Maybe they do, but that's not a super-helpful response to an apparently good-faith edit attempt from a new user. When they were then (correctly) blocked for a username violation, they apologized and offered to change their username, and you offered another fairly terse, if not hostile, statement on their talk page. That's what Eagles and Fetchcomms are talking about when they are asking you to assume good faith and not bite newbies. This is a new user, and all you seem to want to do with them is inform them they're breaking policy, without actually trying to help them. 28bytes (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You're being much more helpful than them. It just shows that I ABF more than usual.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper. I appreciate that you're trying to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia from spammers; that's a very good thing to do! But as you say, you do ABF quite a bit; but recognizing that is a great start towards fixing it. Showing less ABF and more AGF to new users will make things go a lot smoother for both you and them. 28bytes (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to pester, but do you think mentoring would be a good idea? I'm sure 28bytes here would be glad to help out. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, my door is always open. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know of mentoring. Explain please (perhaps move to my own talk page as we've solved the original issue but not my overall behavior).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:MENTOR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Meh, just posting here for the sake of keeping a conversation together: Wikipedia:Mentorship. Basically, another user would review your edits regularly, and work with you to improve any instances where he/she thinks you were ABFing instead of AGFing. When he/she thinks you're improved sufficiently, then the mentoring is over. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully ready to agree to that though. I'm stuck.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK ... how do you plan to ABF less and AGF more, then? (I realize you've acknowledged the issue already—great!—but how will you go about fixing it? etc.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I was told, if in doubt, do not act.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am concerned about this user's ability to AGF. About a month ago (I don't remember the exact diffs/article), somebody posted something about the theology of Jeremiah Wright that was technically correct, but the user was ranting against Obama. Rather than remind the user that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Jasper Deng called the user's posts "racist" (they dealt with the issue of race but persented factual content), and the user got riled up and continued ranting until they got blocked. I remember discussing this with Jasper, who simply insisted they were racist. Maybe the user was racist, maybe they weren't, but jumping to that conclusion violates AGF. I bring this up here not to pile on or "get him into trouble", but as an examlpe of the type of thing that might be discussed should this user eventually agree to mentorship (which I highly encourage). Kansan (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Referring to this? Jasper has his faults, but I don't fault anyone for how they handled yet another old and tired "I know the truth about Obama and it must go into the article!" type of POV-pusher in that discussion. AGF is straight out the window with that type of person. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think saying "AGF is straight out the window" is not the message we want to be sending given the past AGF concerns. Yes, this particular case probably was inevitably heading for an indef, but what of the more borderline cases? My concern isn't with this particular editor, who no doubt had a major axe to grind, but with how he handles new editors in general. My main concern in this case was that Jasper said the specific "racist" comment was "but a kind of black identity religion, based on the collective guilt of the white race and the destruction of America as the tool of the white oppressor, which according to the doctrine will bring on the millennial Utopia" about Jeremiah Wright. I really do think that could have been a good faith (but misguided) effort to try to describe Wright's theology, and dismissing it as "racist" isn't the way to go about it. Kansan (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • "collective guilt of the white race"-there has to be something wrong with that.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You're right, it wasn't a correct edit. However, that isn't my point. This was an incredibly racially charged issue and many people did mischaracterize Wright as having beliefs like that, so it was not correct to jump to calling somebody a racist. Even if you think somebody is a racist, it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt after one edit if there's any doubt. (i.e. if somebody is posting racial slurs, or saying "____ people are bad/smell/etc.", yes, you can call that racist.) This cuts to the core of AGF. Assume good faith even if you're not sure it's worth it. Kansan (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • How about this then? In too much of a rush to revert (without evaluating the content of an edit), Jasper edit-warred to keep BLP violations in an article. When the situation was explained to him, he responded with a frivolous SPI case and well dug-in heels. While the now-departed Lar (talk · contribs) could have been more straightforward to start with, he did nothing wrong and Jasper's non-apology that closed out the SPI and admission that he hadn't even considered AGF in that whole saga seem to be examples of a mindset within Jasper Deng at odds with Wikipedia policies and community norms requiring significant shifting. The case presented here suggests that the twelve days since this last example hasn't brought that adjustment. Mentorship is reasonable, and should occur posthaste. — Scientizzle 15:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have gotten over this, and at the time, was a rather new editor in the sense that I did not know of BLP. I will not post the link per WP:DENY, but, I now immediately remove BLP violations, which I usually ABF on if the info is negative.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, there's a distinction between bad faith BLP violations and good faith, unintended BLP violations (they don't know the RS or BLP policies, for example). Unless the edit is like "[X] raped his children multiple times and then murdered them" when it's unsourced, then we need to take some time to explain WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. to them—and not just by tossing them links, but by carefully explaining. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasper, to add to Fetchcomms' comment: if you have trouble explaining a policy to someone (for example, you've told them they have a conflict of interest and they disagree or don't seem to understand what you mean by it), a good idea is to ask another editor to help explain it. For example, a few days ago an editor was adding poorly sourced contentious statements to an article I was watching, but she seemed to be doing it in good faith. I was having difficulty getting her to understand why the sourcing wasn't sufficient for the addition she wanted to make, so I asked the other editors at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to help. After all, there's never any shame in saying "I'm not explaining this policy well, maybe these other experienced editors can help." 28bytes (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yes indeed, it is vital to always start with an assumption of good faith. Bad faith must never be assumed - it always needs to be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. For BLP, there are plenty of valid reasons why people can add unsourced negative material in good faith - for example, they might simply be unfamiliar with our sourcing rules - and the material might actually be true! We absolutely must not assume all newcomers are fully conversant with all our rules, and we should always give them friendly and helpful assistance unless bad faith becomes incontrovertible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think, at this point in time, there is probably no need for immediate administrator intervention, but the above conversation would be good to continue with a mentor. Jasper is a good editor who seems open to changing his editing styles to better match up with the community guidelines, and I think mentorship would go a long way toward helping him. Kansan (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, this really only seems to be an issue of understanding and communication - I don't think there was ever any justification for admin action at this stage -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Things seem to be coming to a close since Jasper looks to be seeing how his actions were not the best. Perhaps the remainder of the discussion re mentoring and other things be taken to his talk page rather than on a high visibility board. --Blackmane (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

He would first need to agree to mentorship, of course - he earlier stated he was reluctant to do so (but several of us have urged him to change his mind, as it wouldn't have to be a permanent thing at all and would only be about helping him.) Kansan (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Still, it would be better to discuss on my own talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Oversighter needed

I have just emailed the oversighter list about a problematic userpage. Anyone on duty tonight?

The matter is quite pressing, I don't wish to disclose anymore on-Wiki. Pol430 talk to me 22:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Without giving specifics, let's just say an e-mail to the Oversight address makes a lot more noise in the right ears than an ANI posting. If you've emailed the address on WP:RFO an ANI thread is quite unlikely to make things any faster. Courcelles 23:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed you with some further info Pol430 talk to me 23:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The fastest way is supposed to be "Wikipedia's quick form", see [27] Bishonen | talk 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Check your email. My experience has been that Oversight emails sent using the quick form get a response within 15-20 minutes, and I've sent more than a few. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing Archived RFC

A recent RFC on the village pump was archived by a bot without being closed. Are bus routes Encyclopaedic? I'm not sure what policy is on how to go about closing something like this do we Unarchive close then leave to rearchive or just close in situ? I was hoping an admin here can sort it out - the situation is complicated by another editor commenting on the RFC today whilst archived; this may require some sort of history merge to preserve their contribution and it may require to remain open to allow comment on their contribution. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

At User talk:Vugar 1981, has been waiting for two days now and the editor seems to be getting a little impatient - anyone able to help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Note the block occured because the user showed up 4 months from absence [28] to simply make reverts on Azerbaijani people (check history) without any discussion to the version by Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs). He appears after 4 months absent after the day a call went out for meatpuppeting in the Azerbaijan wikipedia: [29] by Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs) (an SPA account which simply added unreliable numbers to demographics which he claims to belong to in the talkpage) for blind reverts on the particular article Azerbaijani people. Both users failed to discuss any of their edits (where a discussion was opened on the talkpage about the random authorless self-published websites) and the reliability of their sources (which they actually manipulated by attributing false numbers to it). Given that there have been two Azeri-Armenian arbcomms in the area, I think admin took the correct action. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, you're an administrator. What prevents you from reviewing the request? On the merits, I believe that the editor should explain why he suddenly made these unexplained reverts before we decide to believe his claim that he is not a meatpuppet.  Sandstein  18:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been an admin long and I don't feel experienced enough to deal with this one - I'm really just observing unblock requests as an educational exercise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto here. My work is mostly in "deletion" and I have little experience playing "wikicop" so I'll just give my opinion. A true "meatpuppet" is someone who creates an account for the sole purpose of participating in an edit war, AFD discussion etc and has no editing history prior to that. The user in question here has previous edits. I didn't examine them in detail but most of them look gnomish. It's possible that his only mistake was answering a "call for help" at the Azerbaijan Wikipedia and he might not have even realized he was doing anything wrong. (I'm not sure how close the rules about canvassing/EW/3RR etc. over there match the ones here) He received no warnings about his reverts, as a matter of fact his talk page wasn't even created until he requested an unblock. Unless someone provides evedence that he's a problem editor on his home wiki, I would support an unblock or a shortening of his block duration here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

sulutil:Vugar 1981 rather makes the meatpuppet claim questionable. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Declined. See my reasoning there. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

For the record; just three minutes after this personal attack was posted on Talk:Jim Hawkins, from a BBC IP address, BBC presenter Jim Hawkins said on Twitter "I must not tease the Wikipedians. It's not their fault". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably down to you insisting against the advice of WP:DOB for many months that we must include his d.o.b. You should drop the stick and stop antagonising the subject of an article. Fences&Windows 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Grow up and get a life, Mabbett" is not much of an insult anyway, certainly not without the smell of elderberries. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Jim Hawkins does not want an article to exist at all. The article has been to AfD twice and consensus is that he is notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia - basically, it's a control issue. Jim Hawkins has a Wikipedia account (Jimhawkins64 (talk · contribs)) so the use of the BBC IP to post an insult may be straying into sockpuppet territory. Personal attacks on Wikipedia are not acceptable per WP:CIVIL, although this is at the lower end of the scale. Off-Wiki attacks are not acceptable either, but these need to be addressed off-Wiki. In response to Fences and Windows, Andy Mabbet has not edited the article since December 2010, and that was only to update Hawkins' Twitter address. Consensus is that his Twitter posts are not to be used to reference his birthday, and that consensus has been accepted by those editors who disagree with it (including myself). Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Can we now drop the pretence that his birthday isn't known publicly, known at his instigation and discussed by him? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 7:29 pm, 19 March 2011, Saturday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC+0)". That post on the talk page was what prompted Hawkins' reaction. So he hasn't let it go. I get the impression that Andy is enjoying sparring with Hawkins too much and should leave that BLP well alone. Fences&Windows 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of issues on the talk page is what the talk page is for. The question was asked, and it remained unanswered for a month. The information was not added to the article (which would be "not letting it go") against the prevailing consensus that a WP:RS must be provided for this, which a Twitter post is not. I am aware that Andy also has a Twitter account. Should it be found that he has been taunting JH via Twitter re the Wikipedia article, then I would not look upon it favourably. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica Drama

Encylopedia Dramatica dropped its role as home of the /B/tards and is now "Oh Internet" which more akin to Know Your Meme than the old NSFW stuff. So We have a slow motion edit war between various "just auto-confirmed"/new accounts/trolls and Genuine Wikipedians over including EncyclopediaDramatica.ch A fork of ED. Genuine Wikipedians have removed it at least 5 times since I started watching this afternoon. However genunine content contribution is high enough so Page protection would be silly and harm the Wikipedia's coverage.... So can we black list "EncyclopediaDramatica.ch" or create an "edit filter" or what? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I requested semi protection the other day. LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On not I think I am found one good faith Genuine Wikipedian who has added it in. Also ED was considered a WP:ATTACKSITE The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully Wikipedia:Attack sites no longer has consensus. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats actually totally unrelated here. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED and WP:NPA#Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the NPA policy page refers to links which are disruptive or problematic while the failed policy "attack sites" refers to sites which where characterized as inherently naughty. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very hesitant to make a broad distinction between editors and "real" wikipedians. But if the article needs to be protected in order for this dispute to be settled on the talk page I'll protect it. Protonk (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, consensus is against them. LiteralKa (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine. My question is simple. Is this something liable to be solved by normal discussion and would that discussion be moved along by a page protection? Protonk (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to use that distinction but the reality is these largely our drive by hits by people who are upset OhInternet has replaced ED. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since encyclopediadramatica.com is on the meta-wikimedia.org blacklist already, shouldn't websites that duplicate its content be added to it too? I've mentioned it at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#encyclopediadramatica.com, so I haven't received a response yet. Blacklisting the website is preferable to continually having to lock the article from any revisions, including improvements. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ED being on the blacklist is a tangential topic. You can feel free to add ED mirrors to the blacklist but that doesn't really have anything to do w/ this dispute. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont know what else to do here but bring it here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already taken the .ch domain to the local spam-blacklist's TP after a user spammed MONGO's talk page with it. While it was there, another user reported two more forks of the same material, but I'm not sure if they're actively being used as of yet. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely ED is a caricature of Wikipedia, not an attack-site? It doesn't call for violent action to be taken against Wikipedia, it only makes fun of Wikipedia and its editors. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We had a whole Arbcom case over it actually which is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

take note of the age of that case. At the time of the case the article was "permanently deleted" and no one envisioned that a real article would ever be created. Its bearing 5 years hence on any discussion which doesn't involve spamming someone's talk page w/ links to ED is minimal. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The remedy stands just the same that why its been black listed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and an arbitration decision made clear that the recreation of the article about ED was no longer completely ruled out, but did not change the ruling regarding its status as an attack site. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And still the arb case has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct or content issue before us, nor does the blacklist. This is the same as any other site which is forked. We have difficulty determining whether the article should describe a particular fork, the old site, or all of them. See WoWWiki for a similar dispute (with no blacklist or arb case involved). Protonk (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WoWWiki&limit=500&action=history – I wouldn't say the WoWWiki article was significantly disrupted or spammed, and there was more discussing than reverting. I don't see the two events as comparable. Wowpedia also has sources. At the moment, ed.ch proponents are basing their arguments solely on their ideology rather than Wikipedia policy, precedents, practices, or sources. At the moment, ed.ch proponents are using come-and-go accounts to revert because they have the ability to revert without participating in the discussion. Their goal is to keep reverting until their opposition grows tired. They could afford having cheap throwaway accounts tarnished in image or banned. They could always call upon a friend to replace them. By adding ed.ch to the blacklist, they'll realize that they must obtain consensus before being permitted to add the link to the article. ed.ch proponents are going to avoid the negotiating table as long as it's as easy as clicking the "Save page" button to add the link back in. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "it exists, so we must include it." WP:NOTLINK. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ok? The article is currently protected. I have absolutely no objection to putting any ED mirrors on the blacklist. And I have no objection to keeping the article at the status quo until one of the mirrors garners some attention from some reliable sources. My point in this whole thread is to point out that the nature of the article subject itself has no bearing on the conduct of people pushing for one site over another. Nor does a 5 year old arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

To broach a content question, how likely is it that the ED page will ever be updated with a link to a fork should that fork remain consistent (and be mentioned in some sources)? Protonk (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

doubtful We can white list a single edit if It become prominent in RS to warrant as such. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I found it likely. The media loves Internet drama; they feel that it makes them sound trendy. Unfortunately, I can't predict the future, so it's wait and see for me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• In a related question, someone ought to take "Oh Internet" to RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Can you please clarify? ohinternet.com isn't a reliable source. It's an user-generated wiki that's only a few month old and has less than a thousand articles. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any here trying to push ohinternet.com as a reliable source, and I don't see a point in a pre-emptive RS/N discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression by the 90 seconds I spent looking at it when the drama llama came to town, that Oh Internet had an editorial and fact checking process prior to publication of content. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • And I was wrong they just canned the severe NSFW/legal stuff rather than instituting an editorial process. Oh well, that just leaves the relatively pathetic KYM until the internet culture studies people start grinding journal articles to get positions in New Media Studies or the latest name for the discipline. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration cases are binding unless there is a subsequent case that "overthrows" it...least that is what I had always thought was policy here.--MONGO 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• But the case doesn't have any bearing on the topic of discussion!!! Protonk (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IN other words, you don't think there is anything disruptive or problematic?--MONGO 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh. No? This is a pretty simple naming dispute. Naming and Necessity gets at the core of our problem. The article on ED semantically pointed to an object in the real world that no longer exists. Now there is a dispute over whether or not it should point to a copy of that object. Obviously we have obnoxious people trying to insert the link to the mirror or beseiging the talk page. But none of that has anything to so w/ ED in itself. So whatever fervor has been whipped up in this thread over your eponymous arbcom case or some subsection of NPA is kinda beside the point. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking to a mirror is the same as linking to the original website.   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. My point in wikilinking naming and necessity was to hint at the reasons why site revamps are problematic for a living encyclopedia. We had a link to ED in the article but ED as it was when the article was (mostly) written no longer exists as a distinct object. Someone has forked it and put a mirror up so linking to that mirror is not the same as linking to the original because the original has changed in a fundamental way. Again, this is largely a content issue (the semantic dispute). Protonk (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So one group of morons is arguing with another...not surprising.--MONGO 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. ed.ch is founded by the ED audience, so it believes in the myth of ED, including its supposed invincibility and lack of accountability. They've restored articles deleted by DMCA and legal requests (eg. the "Madeleine McCann" article), and they have fewer qualms about including personal information. ed.ch is run by those who believe in the legend of ED – ED as the unflinching hate machine. The original ED sysops didn't believe in the myths and legends; we were more pragmatic and realistic, but the new site is run by the ideological. ed.ch is going to end up being fundamentally different from the original ED. Since ed.ch is editable, I wouldn't call it a mirror image. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way, thats some bored screwed up people that participate in that mess.--MONGO 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep EB as a source and prior Wikipedia / ED conflicts out of this. If ED is changing or forked then normal content policy, including edit warring prohibitions etc, applies to the article(s) on it (or its forks). Period. If we need to warn, block, or protect, we should do so to end the edit warring. Talk pages are for talk and consensus building, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like they don't yet know which ED will be the real ED...oh the drama.--MONGO 04:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, .. our drama's daddy can beat up their drama's daddy any day of the week. — Ched :  ?  08:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement analysis again [Moved from WP:FTN]

COI linkspammer Fugitivehunter (talk · contribs) making some rather sweeping POV changes there, including a legal claim in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

UH I am posting to Ani since its including legal threats The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone should inform him that Revocation of our licensing is not permitted, which it looks like he may be doing by placing that Trademark sign on the article. If he persists, then block for WP:NLT, as continued attempts to revoke licensing is an implicit challenge to our content licenses, which is in effect a legal threat. –MuZemike 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I don't see any legal threats, I do see he's put a "Trademark" symbol next to "System Analysis", the gentleman's website says the same (I didn't check it for reliability), but that's about it. NO legal threats, no revolking our license, nor is there any prohibition against using the trademark symbol. Just my .02 KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 11:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of Raintheone towards the G.I. Joe WikiProject articles

Withdrawn, being taken to RfC/U
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per discussion below, this AN/I has been withdrawn and taken to WP:RfC/U instead. Just waiting for 24 hours of inactivity to pass for the bot to auto-archive this thread. Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Introduction The purpose of this Incident notice, is to report the disruptive behaviours of Raintheone vis-à-vis articles falling under the purview of the G.I. Joe WikiProject. At some point Raintheone became the WikiProject's self-appointed content supervisor, and his actions have quickly escalated from simply providing comments on the WikiProject and various article talk pages, to an active campaign of harassment including an Article for Deletion nomination (result: keep) on one of the most notable characters in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero franchise, and culminating in a Good article reassessment on one of our two GA-rated articles. I don't know what the source is of his enmity, and although I must assume that he was acting in good faith at the outset, it has become readily apparent that he's moved well beyond that. I also won't be addressing the specific points of the content dispute, as that has been discussed at length elsewhere, but will instead focus solely on Raintheone's conduct in this matter. I'm hoping that by bringing this to AN/I (as was suggested by an admin in the course of discussing the GAR) that we can resolve this situation and be allowed to edit the articles to the standard they deserve, rather than having to expend time and effort on administrative matters. AfD and Merge requests AFAIK, the earliest appearance of Raintheone in the "G.I. Joe space" was 24 February 2011. On that date in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters/Archive 1#Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe Concern thread, he posted "can anyone do a mass AFD on the non notable characters" and displayed an utter lack of courtesy by doing so with actually discussing it with the G.I. Joe editors first. Although it is not strictly required, the AfD guideline does recommend the notification of supporting WikiProjects and substantial contributors. This is a pattern he repeated with the Zartan AFD, and again with the G.I. Joe: A Real American hero (Marvel Comics) GAR, where both went up without any notification to interested parties. At one point, Raintheone made a post [30] where he suggested that "I think it may be best if you merge many character articles into a list of characters because they are not properley [sic] sourced. Some are fine, most are not. You also need to assess them on your own WP quality sclae [sic] and WP Fictional Character's". I would note that since then: over a period of about a week in mid-late March, one of our editors did in fact perform a quality assessment on every article in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero space, and a significant amount of merging of the G.I. Joe articles has in fact occurred, as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and here [31]. And while his attention may initially have been focused on the character articles it has since drifted onto the non-character articles (which in no way impacts the Fictional Characters WikiProject). Lack of Manpower Despite the fact that the G.I. Joe WikiProject has at most three active editors - including myself (who only became a regular/active Wikipedia editor since early March 2011, having posted perhaps 3-dozen edits maximum in the preceding two years) and another editor Cerebellum (who has been inactive for almost a month now, due to RL commitments) - we've still managed to accomplish much in a very short time frame (less than a month), including the aforementioned merges (kudos to Fortdj33) as well as our recent work to continue improving the article G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) in the hopes of nominating it to FAC at some point. This despite that fact that we all have other interests and commitments both within Wikipedia, and of course in RL. Given our manpower shortages, especially when compared to the overall size of the WikiProject (at one point well in excess of 300 articles, now a somewhat more manageable 238 articles, as of 19 April 2011, and still shrinking), I would have expected some consideration, but Raintheone appears to be working to some internal deadline that he's failed to inform the rest of us about: Here [32], right off the bat his first statement is "So the merging has halted" (which I must emphasize, occurred shortly after the start of Cerebellum's inactivity, and my own increasing involvement in several other non-G.I. Joe articles) indicating on Raintheone's part, impatience with the WikiProject, despite our trying to explain to him on several occasions that claims of WP:NOEFFORT aren't particularly helpful, and the fact that in Wikipedia, there is no deadline. and in the AfD discussion [33] where he states that "At least something good came of this and it has had a little work done top it and some sources added", a further indicator that he was simply gaming the system in order to make us work faster (i.e. force us to work to his own timeline). Claims of trying to help Raintheone has also repeatedly claimed that he wants to help us out by finding better (i.e. more reliable sources) but other than a few half-hearted attempts, his default action has been to delete (for example [34]) when it became too difficult for him to actually find a better source rather than taking a less extreme action such as: redoubling efforts to help find an alternate source to back up the claim, or to delete the reference, but keep the claim, and let the claim be challenged independently, perhaps add a {{citation needed}} tag instead In fact, despite claiming to be searching for better sources, he later admitted that "anyway I always said you could find info on the net for the "pre net era" but I didn't look really" [emphasis added] ([35] near the bottom). When I challenged him on the fact that he hasn’t been helping us to find better sources, he came up with stuff like this: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41]. And while I'll readily admit it may be useful somewhere in the universe of G.I. Joe articles (probably in one of the backbone pieces such as G.I. Joe), it's less useful in the context of the content dispute over the G.I. Joe character articles, and absolutely useless in supporting the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) article. GAR On the subject of the current GAR, I would note that the guidelines themselves state that "requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment". The article in question was only passed into GA on 2 March 2011, and yet Raintheone feels that it has already drifted sufficiently in barely a month for GAR to be required. While I can see the value of a GAR when an article has been worked on by many editors over a protracted period, and with many random/unrelated edits, in this case of this article the vast majority (probably > 95%) of edits in the past month have been by Fortdj33 and myself, and with the concerted purpose of bringing the article to a standard that can withstand FAC nomination at some point hopefully not too far into the future (so in other words: hardly a series of random edits). And while I agree that the article isn't currently ready for FAC, it's unreasonable to put the article through GAR when it's still being worked on. Furthermore, the article recently underwent a thorough peer review at the end of March, so a significant amount of additional editing has been done over the past few weeks to address the deficiencies raised. It's interesting to note that Raintheone here [42] accused me of “You have just had a peer review and not started working on it, rather contesting the content to be okay. I just see complaining about the guidelines and no real indication of willingness to change” when in fact Fortdj33 and I have been working diligently to address those very points, and an examination of the article’s talk page and edit history would bear that out. Additionally, we lost a week of GAR working time waiting for Raintheone to properly enumerate the deficiencies he has found in the article. Although the GAR was posted on April 11, it was not until April 19 that Raintheone finally responded to my request for a specific detailing of all deficiencies which in his opinion needed to be addressed. On April 12, I posted the following: "Per the GA Reassessment instructions, you are required to "leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page." As such, the burden of proof is yours. The rationale given at the top of this page is nothing more than a generalization of what you perceive the problems to be, and is lacking in specific details and the comparison to GA criteria as specified. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" To which he responded: "That is individual reassessment not community. Rain the 1 BAM 02:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" And to which I replied: "Community assessment: "If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises." Have you done actually done that individual reassessment, and if so, where is it? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)" Raintheone finally responded to my request this morning, and although I’ve been working throughout the day to address his review points, he has since added additional points to the list. I ask you: when will this end, as it seems that nothing can ever be done to his satisfaction? He's currently hiding behind the fact that it's a community reassessment to avoid taking responsibility over the final outcome of the GAR, but I contend that since he's the instigator, that he's responsible for it proceeding in an equitable manner, and should set a reasonable benchmark for the GAR to be closed. Conclusion The irony has not been lost on me, that if not for having to deal with Raintheone’s constant harassment of the G.I. Joe articles and its WikiProject editors, considerably more work - including researching more and better sources - could have been accomplished during this time. In conclusion, I think that he needs to remember that the editors are volunteers who freely give of their time and energy, and not some other editor’s slaves, and we'd appreciate some Administrator support in warning him off so that we can actually get to the work of improving the articles, rather than having to deal with matters like AfDs and GARs. Thanks for your time. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC) So, what do you want administrators to do here? Hmmm? --Jayron32 04:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Ideally, get him to back off the WikiProject in general, and the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics) article in particular. Granted that he has a valid point over the reliability of some of the sources we've utilised, but that doesn't excuse the constant harassment we've suffered for the past month-and-a-half. I'd much rather be editing and improving article content, than be wasting my time fighting off AfDs and GARs. Since my goal is to get the latter article to FAC at some point, I'm sure that if the sources cited are inadequate (both qualitatively and quantitatively) the FAC reviewers will stop the nomination cold anyways. (P.S. I wasn't 100% sure if this was the right forum to post this to, but it was suggested by one of your fellow administrators). -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC) How do we get him to "back off"? Have you attempted any of the steps listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Have you brought in outside editors to analyze the situation via a request for a third opinion or a request for comment? Have you attempted any mediation, such as WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM? Admins can do three things, and three things only: We can protect articles, we can delete articles, and we can block users. We don't, however, hold any special "super editor" powers that make our opinions or decisions regarding user behavior or article content any more weighty than that of everyone else at Wikipedia. So, I state it again, what do you want us to do about this? I'm not sure there's anything blockable that's been done yet, and there's nothing that needs deleting or protecting. --Jayron32 04:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Per one of your admin colleagues, "Jake: if you have a problem with Rain's behaviour, take it to WP:RFC/U or WP:AN/I. - Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)". So that's what I'm doing. RFC/U didn't seem quite right in my opinion, as there has already been more than enough back-and-forth for many weeks now on the user and article talk pages. Also, this is a problem over user conduct, rather than over the content dispute (for which, I agree that Dispute Resolution would be more appropriate), which we are actually making some headway on. Rather than an outright edit block on him, aren't Admins also empowered to prohibit editors from editing specific articles? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC) No, such bans require a community discussion or ArbCom ruling. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban. Admins do not have the unilateral power to enact a ban solely because someone asks for it. You are free to propose a specific ban, and ask the community at large (i.e. non admins too!) to discuss it, but admins have no special power in creating such bans out of thin air. Admins may enforce previously established bans which are being violated by users, but unless and until we have something to enforce, there is still nothing for admins to do here. --Jayron32 05:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Isn't his use of AfD and GAR as a blunt force instrument enough to warrant at least a temporary block? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC) RfC/U would make more sense to me. After all, the format you've used here is basically how you would present evidence at RfC/U. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Hm, very well. I'll need some time to reformat the submission, as the RfC/U template seems to be quite structured. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviving a discussion about a disruptive editor(s)

Users and dates active:

• 173.8.57.46 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 8 September 2010 13:29 until present, with gaps
• 98.82.234.45 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 21 March 23:42 until 17 April 18:26
• 98.82.167.40 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) 6 March 20:08 until 21 March 14:05

There may be more IP's that need to be collected here; I'm going to ask another two editors.

This is a followup to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Unsourced Content Added by Anon, which was archived without final decision. To recap, this user or users is/are adding significant amounts of dubious, unsourced information to TV station articles. The vast majority of these involve changing information about the station slogans. A large portion of those are to add "localized versions of national slogans". See, for example, this diff.

Another subset of these edits is to change decades from the correct (per WP:MOS) version without an apostraphe (e.g. 1960s) to a version with an apostraphe (e.g., 1960's), as in this diff.

The first two IP addresses have been told on their talk page about the importance of verification, and 173... has been told that the "apostrope-ing" is against MOS. User(s) have never once responded to any communication.

These stations are all over the US, so this person is definitely not adding based on their own personal knowledge. My guess is that the person decided that since some stations used localized versions of a national slogan, then, automatically, all of them did, and thus is trying to systematically correct all of the entries.

Note that this editor, especially 173... is often making up to 20 edits a day on these subjects (and no other). Some of the edits may be legitimate. Given their breadth and the lack of communication, I am no longer able to assume good faith. I tried an AIV report this morning, but it was (properly, I think) declined, since this isn't obviously vandalism. I would ask that an admin block these three accounts for now, and then myself and other editors who are monitoring these pages will watch for any other IPs with similar editing patterns, possibly requesting a rangeblock at a later date if necessary. AGF is fine, but we have to have collaboration, which, of course, requires communication, or it's impossible to figure out the authenticity of these sweeping changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my tone, but I just looked over the previous AN/I discussion and I'm having a difficult time buying into why, minimally, this isn't simply being treated as a straight forward case of disruptive editing, I'm speaking specifically about [43] and [44]. What's the present count all-told in terms of the number of editors who have tried to even get this editor(s) to simply respond and failed in the attempt? Approaching a half dozen? Even leaving aside for a moment whether or not this is a sock in action; isn't it reasonable to expect that if an editor decides to continue to add material to the encyclopedia; whether it's referenced or not, and a half dozen other editors are asking for ANY form of discussion and being totally ignored that we need to do something to get that editors attention? Maybe they do have reliable source for all of this material; maybe they don't. One thing for sure; we'll have a difficult time making a determination about anything if they simply ignore other editors completely and carry on like the rest of us don't exist. Also; I'm not buying the argument implied in the AN/I that somehow we should abandon policy, guidelines and consensus for a particular type of article, just because a lot of articles in that particular class are full of crap. Lots of the edits that this editor is making are unreferenced statistical changes; since when have we abandoned the principle that those kind of potentially insidious alterations can be passed over in the hope that 'one day' maybe one of us will come across a reliable source to support them? In my opinion that's just lazy dereliction, and if that's the kind of attitude we continue to hold when it comes to 'certain types' of article subjects, we get the crappy encyclopedia we deserve. I say, if six editors want a discussion about sourcing with a single other editor and that editor ignores all attempts at communication and continues to add unreferenced material for months on end; it's time to put a 'halting mechanism' in place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Zombie433 evading ban

Resolved

 – he gone. --Jayron32 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just two days ago, after a discussion here at ANI, Zombie433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was banned from Wikipedia for continual block evasion and disruptive edits. He's taken no notice, and is now back with yet another new IP - we are now up to 48 IPs that we have found and tagged, plus God-knows how many more we haven't yet come across. Can stronger action be taken please? Regards, GiantSnowman 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken that new IP would have been stopped by the proposed rangeblock. 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have, yes. But no rangeblock was ever instigated, due to concerns over 'collateral damage' - good-faith editors caught up by it. GiantSnowman 16:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to our world (say the administrators). Due to the nature of how this user (and the hundreds of thousands of others that also use the same ISP) accesses the internet, there is literally nothing we can do except play whack-a-mole with him regarding stopping him at that end. If his disruption were limited to a few select articles, we could semiprotect those; but it turns out that his spectrum of target articles is too huge; there's no way to pre-emptively semiprotect everything we think he is going to edit. So, back to whack-a-mole. Just a lot of revert block and ignore is all we have. Frustrating, yes, but given the limitations of this system, short of getting his ISP to cut off his service (chance of that happening before the heat death of the universe = nil) there's literally nothing more we can do than what we are already doing. So, revert his edits, report the IP and let an admin block it. --Jayron32 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the "pending changes" thing that would prevent IPs from making direct edits? Count Iblis (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It didn't go over well. See [45]. --Jayron32 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That said, this may be the kind of user that can be stopped via an WP:EDITFILTER. That entire process is something akin to black magic for me. Perhaps an administrator who knows how to cast the right spells can make that happen... --Jayron32 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Zombie433 still vandalising

I'd like to point out that blocked vandal User:Zombie433 is still putting false informations into the articles. He hasn't got a new usermane but now he is using a dynamic IPs, list here:[46] So now it's even harder to track him to revert his edits. Could you do a range block to finally prevent him from faking wikipedia? I already removed false information from hundreds of articles faked by Zombie433. I can't watch them all, and this cheater keep putting fake number of matches and goals to the articles I previously cleaned from his cheats like there:[47].--Wrwr1 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See several discussions above, where this is already an ongoing issue. It is not technically feasible, given the ISP he is using, to institute a rangeblock without knocking out an unacceptable number of positive contributors as well. Given that, we just need to be vigilant and revert and block him as he appears. Just report him at WP:AIV each time he shows up, reference the sockpuppet list for a comparison of IP addresses and behaviors, and revert all of his edits from that range. --Jayron32 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have run a CU again, and this vandal is the only person who has edited behind 79.213.64.0/18 for the past month at least. Why some people think this construes collateral damage is beyond me. But perhaps I forgot to read my daily dose of Dianetics this morning... –MuZemike 02:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. I can second MuZemike's findings for anon parts. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I was only passing on information above where people claimed there was collateral damage; being that I am not a checkuser I have to take prior claims to such as true. Thanks to MuZemike for doing the actual checkuser and to Elockid for doing the rangeblock. Shall we consider the matter closed? --Jayron32 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help guys! GiantSnowman 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts? Two previous closures include Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Welcome new users and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow IP editors to create articles. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

swearing, disruptive edits

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.

---

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

check his contributions where this user Orangemarlin he swears for no reason, and does disruptive biased edits, just a small list of examples:

"22:00, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Martha Beck ‎ (→Leaving the Saints: Fixed citations. Please review the quality of WP:RS and citations here. Don't fuck them up.)" 22:30, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Talk:Homosexuality ‎ (→Comment left at GA2 nomination, closed months ago: I'm glad we keep this crap out of the article.) 18:28, 19 April 2011 (diff | hist) Orthopathy ‎ (→See also: Orthomolecular medicine is a higher level of bullshit than Orthopathy. Prove that they're related.) much more swearing, bias and abuse to be found his edits!! he gets no warnings whatsoever?

He is also abusing the Periannan Senapathy article:

These are some of his edits on the senapathy article, check history of the article:

"Failed reliable source. Nevertheless his denialist opinion is disgusting" - The reliable source was not "failed", and here the user Orangemarlin is saying senapathys theory is disgusting. - This is clear bias.

"Fixed citation. Got nauseous looking up this crap book" - Here again he deleted a reference then he calims he got "naseous" by reading senapathys book which he calls "crap". 86.10.119.131 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the orange warning when you edited this page? Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Swearing is not a blockable offense. He's not swearing at someone, so it's not a personal attack. And his opinion on the sources is not blockable either. Just because you disagree with him, it does not follow that he deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He has recieved no warnings at all. Secondly he has been swearing at people. Also he has been lieing about what edits he has been making, for example on the Senapathy article, there was a source which was a 1995 newspaper article which was called "Dissin Darwin a lone biologists challenges darwins theory" but OrnageMarlin just deleted it and makes no reference to that in his edits, he has this agenda. Hes a fundamentalist, not neutral i dont think he should be editing scientists who have different positions on origins, also on the senapathy talk page and related his comments are extreme and just mocking and laughing at senapathy. See his contributions. This is unaceptable behaviour, now let's say it was the other way round and a user headed over to an evolutionist scientist's article and deleted stuff just becuase he opposes it and in the edit section swears and calls authors book crap, he would be banned or blocked wouldn't he? It's all one way on here. Please keep wikipedia neutral 86.10.119.131 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP, along with the editor "Rahulr7" who re-appeared after a 4 1/2 year absence in order to initiate the article, seem to be the primary author or authors, so it looks like he/they are getting a tad defensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An admin needs to look at this issue, also please look at the Senapathy article. His edits are not neutral as mentioned, he is calling senapathys books crap, attacking senapathy, deleting and lieing about edits, removing sources, just becuase he doesn't like senapathys theories. This is bias and against wikipedia policy. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you the editor Rahulr? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am nothing to do with Rahulr. He appears to be living in India. He created the article. I did a bit of work on it, but then i noticed two other users deleting material on the page, one of them orangemarlin abusing the page and deleting the material and sources apparenetly becuase he finds senapathys book "crap" and his theory is "disgusting". Not neutral editing, the user is a fundimentalist who swears alot and deletes material which disagree with his own opinion. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing really to add, except the article is poorly written and filled with unsourced claims. Like "other scientists" agree or support, when I can't find a single one that does. I'm guessing the IP has COI with this [redacted] Senapathy who's reputation is not even notable enough to be quoted by anyone but creationists. I still can't find a high profile evolutionary biologist (think Dawkins, Myers, anyone) who even mentions him. Again, google hits on the Senapathy just brings back creationist blogs and websites. Furthermore, my comments are colorful when I'm passionate about something. I try not to attack editors, even ones that are highly annoying. Just how many times do I write "reply" before I decide a bit of humor and "colorful language" makes it a bit more fun. Oh, one more thing anonymous IP. I don't have to be "neutral", I just have to either find sources, dispute sources, or bring sources to the article. I did not write "Senapathy is a nutjob" in the article, because that violates all kinds of things. But in the talkspace, he's not only [redacted]. He's so non-notable (unnotable is not a work, so what is it? But I digress) that we're wasting bandwidth discussing him. One last thing anonymous IP.....call me a liar again, and my civility, such as it is, will go flying out the fucking window. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed insults against the article subject, per WP:BLP, which applies to all parts of Wikipedia and not just talk pages. The comments were defamatory. If they are restored I will block the restorer. Fences&Windows 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment on the original dispute, but Orangemarlin's most recent edit – the one above – does seem to include elements of being needlessly unpleasant and disruptive to prove a point. I can't see any other purpose to the rather unhelpful edit summary: "Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fucking fuck. Yawn.". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering the mental picture it paints, it's definitely TMI. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The concept posed by the article's subject seems interesting. One would think that if the guy had something unique and worth a deeper look, that he could have gotten someone in the scientific community interested enough to at least comment on it, i.e. to say why it's worth a look and/or to discuss flaws in the theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The scientific community's lack of interest makes perfect sense once you assume that they are all biased atheist evolutionist fundamentalists. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I can think of several more "-ists" you could list. :) Is it true that 90 percent of animals' DNA is the same for all species? Or did I dream that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I'm not sure anyone cares but you and I, but yeah, it's a huge amount of similarity. I interpret that as the efficiency of evolution, in that small changes, mere percentage points, gives us birds and humans. It's little control mechanisms that make the big difference. Certain researchers, who obviously cannot be named, interpret that as either an intelligent design or something. I don't.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The swearing of Orangemarlin has got out of hand, this is immoral behaviour, offensive and not what i expect to see by a wikipedia editor. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor I, but it's really a smoke screen on your part. Focus on the problems with the article, not on someone's words. By the way, calling OM's behavior "immoral" is worse than any of OM's colorful metaphors. Don't do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok man, well with your logic, then this means right now i can head over to Darwins article and delete a source and in the edit section say his book is "disgusting" or "crap" just becuase my personal reasons say so and after i have done my edits i can say the f word as many times as i want and i can use any other offensive swear words and attack people in any article i edit from now on in the edit section, and also i can swear as much as i like and be biased and delete material on purpose. - This would not be classified as "immoral" behaviour by wikipedia standards or yourself, and it is all perfectly normal, and i get no warning for doing it whatsoever. Thanks for letting me know!! Thanks for updating me on how wikpedia really works. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well...immediately following this brilliant comment was this edit. I've given the IP a 3-hour timeout for a clear WP:POINT violation. — Scientizzle 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I caught that and reverted it...I did add a comment via Twinkle to his page, gently advising him that this was a bad idea. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that i've asked a question on the talk page of Periannan Senapathy about his h-index. If someone could reply there, that might settle the notability question. Silverseren^C 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So where is everyone that was appalled at Giano's language and calling for Giano's head? Lambanog (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Spring break. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• What purpose does the swearing serve, other than annoying fellow editors who are obviously sensitive to it? GiantSnowman 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly notable. A good deal of perfectly normal gene sequencing work. One of his papers, in a leading journal, has over 1800 Google scholar citations. Others have 86, 74, 68 ... Even his book has 13 citations in G Scholar-- most are in sources such as the Discovery institute,Lazlo, et al. but there's a serious reference to it in a very few papers. I shall rewrite the article according to NPOV by the end of the day. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• As for the dispute itself, Senapathy is apparently an example of a reasonable scientist who has drawn extremely unlikely conclusions in his own field based on a personal reinterpretation of long-known material. There have been prior examples of people--even molecular biologists--going on such unfortunate bypaths. His current theory is an ingenious attempt to integrate creationism with molecular biology--personally, I think it absurd, , but I also know that to use the terms being used above by OrangeMarlin -- "But in the talkspace, he's not only a nutjob, but I think he's demented." is a clear and outrageous BLP violation, and unless he apologizes forthwith, I shall block him to prevent his entering any further insults into this discussion. (I want to make it clear I think he's about as wrong as a scientist can be, but there is no evidence for either epithet, and even in WP or talk pace, that's improper language.As for the edit summary, I leave it to the community. We have often tolerated such from editors whom we know and like; I think its a mistake to do so. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed the edit summary and the attack on Senapathy, and I've warned Orangemarlin for incivility. People seem to forget what WP:CIVIL says, so please go read it if you think that Orangemarlin's behaviour and comments here have been within policy, as they're plainly not OK. Fences&Windows 20:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I seem to remember a list of users who are personally exempt from following the Civility policy... Isn't Orangemarlin's name on that list? --Jayron32 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

we can deal with that if it continues. I would hope the comments here are enough to prevent that from happening. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Can we be honest here? Whether OrangeMarling crossed the line or not (I don't know if he did, this is a general statement), nothing is really going to happen. Everyone knows by now that if you're a prolific enough content creator, you can get away with much, much, much more than anyone else. We tolerate a staggering amount of incivility and sometimes outright disrpuption by people with dozens or more articles, while new users are assumed to be POV pushing trolls. Now I am not going to name names here, I'm sure everyone has their own list, but let's not pretend that there isn't a double standard here. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously, if anyone restores comments attacking a living person again I will block them. "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved"; "administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." Fences&Windows 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DGG, whether Senapathy is notable or not, we could argue, but his notability seems almost exclusively for the creationist crowd. If the article was written like that, I'd have moved on. I do apologize for insulting Senapathy, but honestly, if he were standing right here, I'd say it to his face, but I guess that's a different situation. His science isn't what is suspect and unworthy of discussions. It's the conclusions. And as best as I can tell, his articles in peer-reviewed journals do not make the conclusions that his book does.

But, I really think you admins prefer sweet-talking POV pushers than those who actually do real work around here. Seriously, prove to me otherwise. But to threaten me with a block, because you disagree with my conclusions, and how I write them. Really, is that useful? Check my edits. Do I not create articles, remove vandalism, and such? I noticed something. Articles around here are in really bad shape since I was gone. That does not mean I cleaned them all up. It means you've lost tons of decent editors. I get frustrated beyond all belief with the absolute intolerable level of junk that I see in this place. There are out and out lies. There are editors who think that autism is caused vaccines, and push and push and push. Maybe they don't use the word "fuck", but who cares? It's worse than anything I would write to put in fabrications into an article. So the best you can do is threaten a block? I use the word "fuck" because it is just a word that's used all the time around my world. So, I'll stop using it, will it mean that life is beautiful? Is everyone going to dance in fields of wildflowers?

One minor/major point. Editor called me a liar. That's a real personal attack. I used the word "fuck", which is not. Don't get it DGG and Fences. I just don't get it.

I knew it was a mistake to stay around here. You guys seriously care about the silly issues and not the real ones: the poor quality of your medical and science articles. Seriously, it's clear you don't. You'd rather just cruise this arena, someone whines a bit, and you jump all over my ass. It makes no sense whatsoever. Now you're threatening to block as a PUNISHMENT. How helpful is that going to be? You think I'm going to stop saying fuck? Probably not.

So that you'll be happy DGG, I'll never use "fuck" again on Wikipedia. Anywhere. I'll stay away from the Senapathy article. I'll find other places to be happy. Are you satisfied? Because this feels wrong on so many levels. But I want to make you happy DGG, because you seriously should be blocking other editors who are ruining articles. But you won't, because they won't say "f***".

Please tell me this satisfies you, so that you will remove your threat of blocking/banning/whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility is not a "silly issue". If you don't want to abide by the civility policy try Wiktionary. Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility is not a silly issue, but the way civility is interpreted and "enforced" around here is frequently silly. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't it uncivil for a user to keep reverting edits, claim that there's a consensus, and not get DGG threatening them with blocks? Just because they don't write "f***"? I won't use that word any more, and I'll put on the sweet words. The POV pushers will still win, because I don't have their patience. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is nuts. Scientists working in the field of climate change are accused of fraud and misrepresentation on a regular basis, and no one does a damn thing (unless they are contrarians). Now all of a sudden people have their knickers in a twist because someone has made a comment about a scientist with, er, a "highly novel and imaginative" view. I call [reference to bovine excrement redacted for the protection of those with a pretense of delicate sensitivities]. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And this kind of thing too. [48] Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Moving my post; the edit conflict system seems to be on the fritz.) Agree with OrangeMarlin. "Civil POV-pushers" get cut far too much slack and are given far too many "one last chances" (I'll refrain from giving examples, as needlessly disagreeable to users who have nothing to do with this thread, but ask and I'll e-mail some). And they harm articles infinitely more than cussing on talkpages does. "Fuck" is not "disruptive", it's normal language in some contexts in some cultures, though possibly not usually in creationist circles or 19th-century Swiss finishing schools for young ladies. "Fuck off", on the other hand, as spoken to a particular user, would be offensive. See the distinction? Bishonen | talk 21:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

Yes. And if someone tells me that the word 'hyena' offends them and I start using that word as often as possible (even though it is completely unnecessary), I'm not being very civil. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

However, a user being defamatory and cussing about the subject of a BLP kinda shows that that editor is also a "civil POV-pusher", just in the opposite direction. Silverseren^C 21:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Silver, I appreciate your rude commentary on my talk page. But, I guess you get to get away with that. If I went over to your page, DGG would block me. Have you read anything about the topic? Have you read the papers? The POV pushing IP guy just is making stuff up. Like "lots of researchers" support it. So, please, spare me your high and mighty thoughts. I'm going to have to disagree. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"However, a user being defamatory and cussing about the subject of a BLP kinda shows that that editor is also a "civil POV-pusher", just in the opposite direction." (emphasis mine). So now white is black and black is white and we always were at war with Eastasia? Is it 1984 again? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am archiving this - there is no policy violation here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Weird ip activity

Special:Contributions/81.164.209.246

This ip is going around removing and placing sockpuppet notices on various pages. Looks extremely odd. Please check it out. Ocaasi ^c 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post here on the same point. The IP 81.164.209.246 looks to be either the banned user Editor XXV (talk · contribs) or is pretending to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All three of us came to this page at the same time with the same question. I was wondering which drawer he fit in. He is currently edit warring with several users over the use of sockpuppet templates on other editors. Anyone with a checkuser bit care to take care of this? --Jayron32 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It passes the duck test. I'd rather not say anything more specific than that. Once it gets blocked, its work can be repaired. (P.S. I am not a checkuser. I'm going strictly by behavior.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this to, he keeps removing tags from Copyedeye, i notified NuclearWarfare who originally tagged the sock--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. I don't see any connections to previously blocked accounts (yet), but if there is more activity, please let me know and I'll investigate. My spidey-sense says the IP is a proxy, but I can't confirm it. TNXMan 12:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The higher-ups seem to think we should be more welcoming to our newest users. : / Ocaasi ^c 12:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Someone should post a "welcome wagon" banner just ahead of the block notification. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We should be more welcoming, agreed. But when an editor's first edits (on this IP, granted) are removing a sock tag from a user's page, and when they have such intimate knowledge of the editor in question as to say categorically that they aren't a sock (quack), then they're clearly not a new user. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, would it be considered disruptive to post a legitimate but implictly sarcastic "welcome" template on their talk page? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly? I've seen lots of IPs who get not a "Welcome please register" message but a "So what's your username" message. As for the sarcasm - it's always really, really helpful, as we know. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can be helpful, as it can sometimes aid in exposing the truth of a situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the ip is correct that Copyedeye is not blocked. They were unblocked back in 2010, so whether or not they are a sock they are not an indefinitely blocked sock. Syrthiss (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

However, NW had tagged him as a "suspected" sock of the banned user Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs). Why he was unblocked but the tag remained, is up to NW and Bwilkins to explain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why he was unblocked to begin with; Alison labeled him a highly likely sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note with the unblocking admin, User talk:Bwilkins, asking for his opinion on this situation. --Jayron32 14:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it appears I unblocked him. As can be seen from their talkpage, I had extensive interactions over a few unblock requests, and I think I even had their talkpage on my watchlist for a brief period of time. I believe that the unblock was based on WP:ROPE, at least as far as I can remember. I cannot speak to any possible relationship between the IP and this userid. If they have reached the end of their rope, feel free to tie the noose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears he's trying to tell us that Mantanmoreland and Editor XXV are the same guy. That could be true or it could be a red herring. Socks, either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If the editor was unblocked, they could remove the template themselves. There's no reason this other person needed to be removing such templates, and doing so is a tad suspicious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Snakefan55

• Snakefan55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eastern brown snake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been nothing but disruptive, and clearly shows no intent to stop. The user has been doing lots of edit warring on snake topics like Eastern brown snake and doesn't show any intent to compromise or reach WP:CONSENSUS.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While his edit warring is not wanted, yes, I must question the people reverting him when the changes he is making are correct. For example, on Eastern brown snake, he was changing it to say that the LD50 test is done on mice and not just on animals in general. Saying mice specifically is important, because it defines the specifics of the test and also the downfalls. "Animals" could mean anything. See this for one, though there's many other sources for the statement from a search. Silverseren^C 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

He inserts them without complying to MOS, and doesn't put his sources into the article, and insists on edit warring and other disruptive editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly violated MOS in changing animals to mice? And do any of you guys that are reverting him actually check for the accuracy of the information before reverting his edits? If it's MOS problems, then explain those to him and fix the MOS issues, but I think I would also get extremely frustrated if I was adding in obviously proper information and was getting reverted for it. Especially since, from what I can tell, the source that was already there in the first place specified mice and not animals as it was, so the information in the article was already incorrect as it was. Silverseren^C 02:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fully involved in this dispute. I commented on this, trying to settle it as a neutral 3rd party. If you'd like to know what the problems are, contact Materialscientist or another involved editor besides the user in question. I was just trying to make this user stop the edit warring, though I like the fact that Snakefan55 has stopped personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to note: you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion here (that's what the big orange notice on the edit page tells you). I have done this for you here; please remember to do so for any other threads you start here in the future. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Joe - please take a second look at Snakefan's talk page., JD did notify [49] him of this discussion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and you prevented my posting of that (see below) with an edit conflict. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's really hard to avoid ec's on this page as it is quite active. :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Not a problem, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I just noticed that you actually did, though you did not sign your notification or make it really all that visible. It's best to place it in a new section, and always sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ so the casual viewer will know who made the comment, and when. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I offered to debate people on numerous occasions... I have evidence that supports my claims..Jasper don has no idea what he is talking about and quite frankly he is a terrible moderator( or whatever he is). The only point I am trying to make is that the title of most venomous etc is extremely misleading as the tests are only conducted on mice...and ALL animals react differently to different venom's... Their is NO such thing as "the most venomous snake" or "2nd most venomous snake"...only the most venomous or 2nd most venomous to a particular animal.. Since we have never tested snake venoms on humans( or closely related primates) their is absolutely no proof that any snake is the most venomous to humans. So the title is extremely misleading.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakefan55 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is no excuse for edit warring.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but why exactly are you offering to debate people? This is the English wikipedia not some debate forum. Also note that Jasper Deng is not a moderator. There is no such thing on wikipedia. He? is just another editor like you. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What he means is that other editors have refused to discuss his idea. Materialscientist (who I have notified already) supports this user's actual idea, but, refused to discuss it on his talk page, which led to this user complaining that no-one wants his idea accepted. If he had done it according to WP:MOS and WP:CONSENSUS, then his idea would surely be accepted. However, he outright edit wars a lot, and that comment (in the diff I provided in the original post) was the one that prompted this thread.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• @Jasper Deng: Bringing Snakefan55 to ANI and proclaiming "edit war" is a grave overreaction. Snakefan55 has a total of 41 edits, with the first being under four weeks ago. What is needed is someone sufficiently patient and with an adequate grasp of procedures to explain how things are done here. It looks like Snakefan55 could be a very helpful editor, but that's not going to happen with the current approach from onlookers. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The comment worries me. The edit warring accusation was a result of his reverts on Eastern brown snake. However, I think if he learns not to edit war, he will be a perfect editor here, and may revolutionize our articles here. I'm not trying to get him blocked - that's too harsh.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with the validity of his information for sure, but, it may be just time to give him a welcome template (even if he has one already).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

      A recent and long discussion at ANI (see archive 688) concluded that mentorship for Jasper Deng should be strongly encouraged. I suggest that you take more time to read my above comment, and not be so fast to reject my assertion that 'proclaiming "edit war" is a grave overreaction'. You have just repeated your mistaken opinion about edit warring, and I suggest that you seek the advice of a mentor before making any further comments here (yes, when an editor repeats an edit, that is edit warring, but when a new editor does a very small amount of it, it's a misunderstanding which needs to be explained, and does not need airing on a busy noticeboard).

      I have refactored User talk:Snakefan55 to remove the unhelpful templating, and have tried to offer some advice. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

      • For me, it was that comment, but, now I know that this is an ANI issue only if the user was a regular (i.e. not new and has a thorough understanding of 3RR). Continue elsewhere.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

USER at IP 90.220.41.77

This IP seems to exist solely to make sabotages to a couple of fictional article by adding his own fanfic. Mathewignash (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:GRA for advice on how you could improve this request so that more people might respond to it.  Sandstein  23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Improper move of Espanola, New Mexico by copy and paste

The page Española, New Mexico was moved to Espanola, New Mexico by copying and pasting the content, which destroys the history. Also, the talk page did not get moved. Please help. Thanks. --69.99.142.40 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the permanent semi-protected status of the page was lost during the move. --69.99.142.40 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. NW (Talk) 03:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: WP:REPAIR is there for just this sort of request. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this the direction that we want to go

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism is now being canvassed for. If there is an equal and opposite project than I guess that they will offset each other (see Yin/Yang) but I am not sure that this project should be trending toward Conservapedia. Nor should there be canvassing to ask other editors to contribute in either direction. 216.160.141.128 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Canvassed for" what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh... "canvassed for new members". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the project as necessarily trending toward biasing Wikipedia. All projects at WP are open, and those interested in a properly neutral and documented coverage of US politics can appropriately join. (Though not stated, the US seems to be the focus, not political parties elsewhere.) I and many others have sometimes joined projects in which there was some doubt of their direction, andI have joined this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much chance of wikipedia devolving toward conservapedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that the founder of the Conservatism project originally had a US-centric outlook for the project, and steered it that way. Others have broadened the scope. I joined to help keep its scope as wide as possible and to help keep its focus on article improvement rather than advocacy. Political activism should never be encouraged on Wikipedia, only neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is a very clear difference between WikiProject Conservatism and say Conservapedia (i.e. the WikiProject follows neutrality and sourcing policies) there isn't a problem here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the project's main page, it exists to improve coverage of topics related to conservatism. That's rather different to slanting articles towards a conservative perspective, so unless there is POV-pushing going on under this project's banner I don't see the issue. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the project isn't a problem, in theory, but perhaps the IP user is referring to the distribution of invitations to the project, which seem to be directed at editors whose contributions promote (inadvertently or intentionally) a conservative view, rather than simply at editors who edit articles on conservatism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

...where the United States Constitution and Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations have both been tagged as being under the project's scope. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Which aren't specifically related to conservatism, which is presumably the concern. This is what we don't want. And Baseball Bugs, do you realise 'liberalism' in the Wikiproject name you mention means Libertarianism, which is usually seen as a form of conservatism?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming "conservative" and "liberal" to be used in the US 21st century sense, libertarianism is often seen as a form of conservatism by liberals, and seen as a form of liberalism by conservatives. Conservatives don't favor legalizing heroin and prostitution or completely open immigration. Libertarians do. Liberals don't removing all regulations from business and abolishing the income tax. Libertarians do.) Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's "classic liberalism". Note that "Social liberalism" is also within the project scope. As regards the U.S. Constitution, it's definitely a topic of interest to liberals, conservatives, moderates, and just about any American with a reasonable education. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) I wasn't aware of the fledgling Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism mentioned above, but for a year or two now there's been Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism, without much complaint or problem. It is only natural that these groups should be build through the solicitation of editors demonstrated to have an existing interest in the topic. I joined the Conservatism project myself and have pitched in helping to estimate article importance and adding the template to appropriate Article Talk pages. Nor would I fret or try to micromanage decisions to put such things as United States Constitution under the group's "banner" — there are some pages which are tagged by six or eight different work groups. If a group feels a topic is relevant, the topic is relevant... Carrite (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Everybody in the world has a bias - whether it's left, right, green, anarcho-buddhist, or Peoples' Front of Judea. If we can harness those biases to a positive project, that's the best outcome we can realistically hope for. bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Lately an editor User:M.A.R 1993 who has a history of tendentious editing and refusal to get the point shows up every 2-3 days on Lahore Front and makes changes into sourced data while removing references and/or adds unsourced data. Instead of working towards improving the article and adding sources himself he wants all sources that are present on the article should be removed and his unsourced data should be placed. There has already been a Citation overkill in infobox trying to convince him by providing sources but he still continues to revert sourced data specially in result section of infobox.

Based on his persistent descriptive editing it seems that it is impossible to convince him. The only two sources he has provided on talkpage do not even mention the battle. All of this exactly fits the description in WP:DDE and and so I have approached here as suggestes on WP:DDE.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:GRA for ways in which you could improve this request so that more people might offer advice.  Sandstein  21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.

Well the following is the list of diff where the editor mentioned has removed references, removed/changed sourced data and added unsourced data in it's place.

• 1st diff
• 2nd diff
• 3rd diff
• 4th diff
• 5th diff
• 6th diff
• 7th diff

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page and warned M.A.R 1993 about the likely consequences should they continue edit warring. EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rude message from User:Saisharvanan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wangond#thanks_for_your_propaganda

--Wangond (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

{{uw-npa4im}} warning given. No objection if another admin wants to apply stronger medicine. Wangond, for future reference, please see WP:GRA for ways in which you could improve such requests. You also need to notify Saisharvanan of this thread.  Sandstein  22:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks, will follow the guide from now on.--Wangond (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

For reference: Saisharvanan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The edit in question appears to be his only edit since 6 April, and he has not edited since (12 hours or so). I concur with the warning, and am happy to block if that warning is ignored. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Wangond is actually here. He has been edit warring in various pages. [50] [51] [52] His main objective seems to be POV-pushing his views on Indian related topics. He refuses to discuss issues at article talk pages (instead, he leaves "warnings" on a user talk page [53] and when "forced" to, he refuses to cite specific sources for his statements. I don't know if this is supposed to be in AN/I or not. If it isn't, please let me know where I'm supposed to bring this issue. Bejinhan talks 02:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the next time he does it, go to WP:AN/EW. Nightw 03:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wangond is the editor that gave me a level 3 warning for supposedly violating NPOV. See WP:NPOVN#Just got a level 3 warning for my edit at Indus Valley Civilization -- where he's trying to keep out a view he doesn't like. Oh, I agree with the warning of Saisharvanan, but the issue raised by that editor looks real to me. Damn, he's again removed the view he doesn't like at Indus Valley Civilization, see [54] wher he continues to remove my fact tag and mention of Sharri Clark's views (he thinks including them violates NPOV). This is ironic since the sentence where I put the fact tag references Clark's webpage but the webpage doesn't mention the claims in the sentence, which Clark in fact doesn't support. Dougweller (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Embarassed that I did not catch that last night - and I see that you warned Wagond about disruptive editing. He, also, has not edited since posting here, so we'll see what he says. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent personal attack

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

This comment ("douchebag turdface") to another editor[55] is an apparent personal attack by an IP who has a short editing history. This editor has previously been warned about 3RR and personal attacks. I recommend a brief block to allow the new editor to read Wikipedia policy on edit-warring and personal attacks. TFD (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to the IP, I did call him a 'halfwit' immediately beforehand. I'm inclined to think that this anon IP has prior history though - he seems to have a bee in his bonnet about me for some reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Some mild edit warring has occured too, but, I feel this IP just need long explanation.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If what I said was seriously offensive, and whoever I said it to actually feels bad about it (crying or something), I earnestly apologize. I had in no way meant to cause any sort of damage, and will not do this again, lest someone actually gets hurt. I just want to say that you really do not think about damage when you say something, and nobody can easily remember to accurately calculate all the effects of everything he says. Furthermore, I want to add that I do come from an environment where people use these words every few minutes when speaking, and nobody I know in the world outside of Wikipedia makes a big fuss about offensive words. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• IP173: I'm glad you're planning on changing your on Wikipedia behaviour to meet the community standards and continuing contributing to the community and the encyclopaedic project. Wikipedia strongly discourages incivility to other editors because it breaks down community editing, and detracts from the project of building a free encyclopaedia. Wikipedia may be more restrictive than other communities in real life, because as an online forum it lacks many of the mediating elements of real life (such as tone of voice, physical expression) which tend to detract from incivil words. Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I only said that because I momentarily thought it would be illogical to joke with those words among friends while being so kind with those who deny Karl Marx's antisemitism. Just two different words. As urban dictionary states it, [56]. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Do note that personal attacks are strongly discourage on wikipedia, it doesn't matter whether you use your work mouth or even if they aren't seriously offensive. And yes this includes the halfwit comment Andy made about you. In otherwords, just don't do it Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nylandbookings

I've just reverted an edit by Nylandbookings (talk · contribs) [57] at one of our MOS articles. He's created 2 articles about himself, Nyland The ODS and Nyland The O.D.S. - probably copyvio from [58] or similar. I'm going out soon, anyone else want to deal with this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated Arbitration policy (final draft)

The final draft of a proposed update to the existing Arbitration policy is available. It has received extensive community review already but all editors are cordially invited to review the final draft and comment. The draft is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Sharona26 article creation, copyvios

Resolved

 – Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked user; articles have been deleted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sharona26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on an article creation spree of which the text is copyrighted and copied/pasted from IMDb. Despite warnings, the user continues to create the articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate RevDel

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

This discussion has outlived its usefulness. The deletion has been undone, and an excellent suggestion been made that contentious RevisionDelete actions should be reviewed at WP:DRV instead of here - this would surely be better. Hopefully someone will pick up that suggestion and move it forward. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Earlier, Fences and windows (talk · contribs) redacted an edit-summary from WP:ANI, and it appears to be this one – if I remember right, and it was just a short string of "fuck fuck fuck" etc., then it doesn't appear to meet any of the RevDel criteria. Simple childish swearing is really not "grossly" incivil, it's very ordinary. Furthermore, obscuring it from public view also obscures it from scrutiny. I'm not clear that any harm can come from it being visible (it's not libellous, it doesn't reveal personal info etc.) But the main thing is that it doesn't meet the criteria.
I tried discussing this with the admin in question but we didn't reach an agreement, so I thought I'd request further input here. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll admit it's not that extreme, but I'd give it to Fences on criteria 3 (Purely disruptive material). Whatever. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  ...but that category is clearly intended to refer to things more than just words (as in, shock links, dangerous HTML, allegations etc.) – ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • • (edit conflict) I believe that it was Elen who in her RfA gave an eloquent argument for civility being a standard interpreted by the individual and therefore, highly variable. There are some people that find a string of curse words to be highly offensive. Certainly if that's what the post was, nothing was lost by deleting it. In light of Elen's arguement I'd very much give the benefit of the doubt to the RevDeling admin. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Actually I disagree on that... we are too lax with RevDel, and I have always been mildly uncomfortable with such fine-grain deletion control that does not really have community input (the same way the normal delete button is). Hence I think we should err on the side of caution in usage. Of course, AGF; F&W clearly found the summary grossly degrading. There is, I think, a small chance that the edit summary was directed at someone, I haven't read the thread in depth to check. But it seemed more a general rant. I think TT has a point that using RevDel in this case was not needed. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree with the above editor; the edit summary can fall into criteria 3 of WP:CFRD. This also appears to be directly related to an above discussion. Can this be grouped as a subsection of that? elektrikSHOOS 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  No, because this focuses on a separate, admin-conduct, issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• The community is split on how to interpret RevDel, it has been for as long as RevDel has existed. It won't be solved here. In the mean time, no one is mentioning malice here. I don't see any reason to pursue this further then. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not alleging malice, but I'm asking that the edit summary is restored. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 21:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is RD3 being discussed? F&W's deletion cites WP:RD2 ("Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material"). And whilst I have no doubt about AGF, I personally don't think that particular edit summary should be interpreted as meeting the criterion. it isn't even swearing directed at someone, so much as general (extreme) frustration being expressed. Rd232 ^talk 21:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Enough of this! Behave yourselves. I'm looking at the conversation at F&W's page and wondering how much of this is about policy and how much of this is just childish bickering. At this point I'm favoring thinking it's only bickering. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  So far I'm counting three people saying that the edit-summary probably should not have been RevDel-ed so your rather peremptory, "Enough of this!" comes across rather unimpressively... ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Right. This issue, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a big deal, but you've been trying very hard to make it one. More importantly, your conduct at Fences page was unacceptable. Let me repeat that. Your conduct at Fences page was unacceptable. It's becoming harassment. You don't like how the conversation went there, so you came here. It seems like you don't like the way it's going here either, where do you plan on going next? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  If you wish to start a thread complaining about my conduct, go ahead, though I'd advise you to read WP:AOHA very carefully first. I'd also advise you to think to yourself, "I wonder why none of the admins looking into this issue have thought to caution TreasuryTag if his behaviour is as flagrantly unacceptable as I think it is?" ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 21:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Sven, you're not admin, so please stop acting like one. It is coming across as a bit pompous. I agree that the deletion for a simple f-bomb is overkill here, and this isn't the first time that trigger-happy RevDel actions have bene brought to An/I. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  you're not admin, so please stop acting like one. Now that strikes me as pompous. Very funny! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 21:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Adminship is no big deal. There is no class system, classism, or classist behavior on Wikipedia. Administrators are normal community members with a few extra buttons, and don't behave any differently from non-admins. .... Any other myths we want to dispel here? Of course, if admins are really no different from other members of the community, Tarc's comment really isn't that persuasive itself. No real reason to give it more weight than that of any other community member. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Sven, there is a caste system on Wikipedia. We try to fix it, but never get anywhere. LiteralKa (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  Ka, I am well aware of the caste system. I was being sarcastic, with a tinge of raw disgust. Wikipedia has half a dozen critical issues, however the one that will do the most to kill Wikipedia, and yes, I do believe it will kill Wikipedia before the project sees it's 20th birthday, is that our community is socially dysfunctional. There's hatred and racism, vicious political games, cliques, an insular caste hierarchy, vested contributors, and a system that does not punish incivility or reward kindness. The community is a cancer that is eating at the heart of the project. It bleeds off good editors. We lost Panyd and Chase me Ladies, I'm the Calvary recently. Panyd was committed, believed in the cause, and was trusted by the WMF with a budget. The Calvary was an Arb. Wikipedia chewed them up and spit them out with barely a thank you, and now they're gone. Mono left recently, for other WMF projects that are less volitile. Sure, Mono's devotion to WP:BRD was at times grating, but he did a damn good job. With those three gone, WP:CONTRIB is all but dead now. Other involved parties backed out when they saw the leadership bail. Our community's inability to function to a higher standard wiped out a freaking WikiProject, one with staff support. And that's just in the last few weeks. I've counted dozens of good people and soild hands who have left because of the community. As to the matter at hand, sure, Fences might have made a RevDel that was not the best. It certainly had a bit of opposition, however TreasuryTag fighting him over it on F&W's talk page the way he did, then bringing the issue here, the only thing that is going to accomplish is that it's going to inflate TreasuryTag's ego and make F&W feel shitty. How is that helping anything. It's hurting the project, and no one really seems to care about that because acting like a community isn't on anyone's priorities. Well, if this continues the community will wind up tearing it's own throat out; more and more people will bail and Wikipedia will become unsustainable. I'll be standing in the corner with barely a frown wispering "I told you so" as Wikipedia goes down in history as a failed social experiment. As much as this disgusts me, I know there is nothing I can do to change it. I'm only one disgruntled user. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  "Enough of this!" brings to mind a scene from Duck Soup. Although that edit summary serves no apparent value, it's also pretty much harmless. The usual revdel is presumably done for vile stuff posted by trolls. Presumably the reason for using it is part of WP:DENY, so as not to preserve it for the public to see. That doesn't really fit this situation. But he shouldn't have posted that edit summary, either. It's unfortunate that editors can't change their own edit summaries. I expect there's a way, if the developers could be pursuaded to program it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• My 2 cents. I don't think F&W should have used RevDel here as I think the bar should be quite high for doing so (and I think "grossly" isn't met here). I also think TT needs to take it down a number of notches. In particular taunting after being asked to not post to a user page is something he's done, and been warned about, before (to me for one, so I'm certainly not unbiased). I also _like_ F&W quite a bit, so I've a bias there too I suppose but still think the RevDel was appropriate inappropriate here. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agree that this looks like pointless bickering. This issue is of less than crucial importance to the welfare of the project. Whether a string of "fuck"s is visible in a history somewhere or not is something that most people give an, er, flying fuck about.  Sandstein  21:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• What's "inappropriate" about somebody removing foul language that has only been placed to offend? GiantSnowman 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  It's inappropriate because it doesn't meet any of the criteria for the use of the tool. See WP:CFRD. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 22:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  This discussion is just screaming IAR, to me. Was it "letter of the law" to remove the edit? No, probably not. Was it harmful to the encyclopedia to remove the edit? No, it most certainly was not. Could the edit have been offensive to another user? Yes, it could have. Is there a point (that actually has an impact on what we're here to do) to restoring the edit? Nope. To me, this entire discussion is a waste of time over the epitome of a non-controversial action. What's the saying...? "Let sleeping dogs lie"? TT, I commend you for knowing quite a few of the ins and outs of policies and user essays of Wikipedia, but there has to be a point where IAR takes control of the situation. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  You can't IAR admin policy. What do you think is the point of laying down specific numbered criteria if it is perfectly acceptable to simply ignore them? I also suggest you read over the last case of "admin redacts edit summary which wasn't grossly incivil" – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  Could you please not use the phrase "I also suggest you..."? Perhaps you aren't aware, but that comes across as being awfully rude. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  I think it's perfectly polite, much more so than several alternatives which spring to mind. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My question is this: Is the encyclopedia going to benefit if we unhide said edit, or is this request for undeletion merely based on principle? –MuZemike 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It will benefit from having it available for public scrutiny, yes. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 22:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, though? What useful purpose does it serve to "have it available for public scrutiny"? Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Because of the transparency issues with RevDel, the principle matters a great deal. It's not like deleting or undeleting a talkpage comment - higher standards should be applied. Yet I find it hard to imagine a non-admin getting support for removing the equivalent comment from a talkpage. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly an inappropriate revdel; there's no content that needed to be hidden, nor was it grossly disruptive. That said, I don't see much benefit to a big ANI drama-fest to restore it. Fences should be more careful about use of revdel, but I don't see much point in dragging this discussion out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. What's done is done. Let's move on. -- œ^™ 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe F&W shouldn't have RevDel'd it, maybe it was OK, I really could care less and see this kind of hair-splitting discussion as an annoying and unproductive waste of everyone's time. But now that it's gone, asking to bring it back is just downright silly. The community benefits not a wit from being able to "scrutinize" someone cursing. I recommend that editors do something useful, like editing an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

see this kind of hair-splitting discussion as an annoying and unproductive waste of everyone's time. I recommend that editors do something useful, like editing an article. Interesting advice... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 12:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Co-sign. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

While A) not asking for sack-cloth and ashes, and 2) agreeing that this is not a huge deal, there is concern on my part at the reaction. As adminstrators, we should all be receptive to the occasional tune-up, and be able to contructively discuss reasonable disagreement. When reviewing the relevant talk page, TT seems to be "calm enough" for lack of a better phrase. There's clear consensus that this was an over-zealous use of the tool. It would be nice to see some indication that F&W has noted the community's input. Is that a reasonable thing to ask? - 203.202.43.53 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"not asking for sack-cloth and ashes" - quite, the point is not to be backward-lookingly fingerwagging, but to be forward-looking "let's agree not to do that sort of thing in future". And for those who want to close the discussion down quickly: one of the problems with RevDel, apart from it just being relatively new, is that lesser scrutiny makes for greater inconsistency of application, given the range of discretion the criteria permit. So when we get a particular incident that's debatable, it's worth discussing a little in terms of guidance for future decision-making. Rd232 ^talk 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to note that Prodego has gone ahead and made diff in question visible again. There's a thread going on here and a thread going on on Fences' talk page, and neither seem to be helping the situation. Without weighing in on my personal opinions regarding RevDel policy - please, let's accept this and not turn this into a deletion war or an even worse waste of our collective time. WP:CIVIL, I say. Let discussions about general RevDel policy stay at WP:VP or elsewhere. My two cents, Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 06:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

So, I suppose we should be revisiting this RFC, because if people are able to hide behind our own policies or our own licenses, then we have a problem. –MuZemike 06:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of all my comments in closing that RFC I think the most pertinent to this (and it is urgently needed) is Dpmuk's suggestion that we need some sort of formalised accountability to RevDel. Even though there is a clear and strong support for admin discretion over the use of the feature I think it is perfectly legitimate to question Revision Deletions in this way (ignoring that fact that this particular instance generated a little too much heat...). The scope of RevDel is still ill defined and only by setting precedents over turning (or upholding) edge cases can we figure out what level of use is acceptable to the community. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but we already have WP:DRV for reviewing the other kinds of deletion; wouldn't be unreasonable to use it. If consensus favors it, of course. lifebaka++ 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My two cents here, which I will put in unusually blunt terms for me:

• Although some of the participants have expressed concerns in good faith, starting and pursuing this thread was a poor use of the community's time. Of the top five or ten or fifty problems facing Wikipedia, the occasional rev-deletion of a borderline edit or edit summary that consisted entirely of childish vandalism and added no value to the encyclopedia, does not appear anywhere on the list.
• In general, Treasury Tag starts a fair number of threads on this noticeboard, apparently simply because he enjoys starting threads on this noticeboards. These contributions often have little value and he should direct his efforts elsewhere.
• We have a limited amount of project-wide administrator time. There are important things that administrators need to be doing, and which are not getting done on a timely basis (my personal cause is for more admins to monitor the unblock-l mailing list, which frequently hears from completely innocent users or would-be users caught up in range blocks; every one of these needs an immediate response before the user gives up and we never hear from them again). Diverting our energy into sideshows is not only undesirable in itself, but it gets in the way of things that actually need doing.
• Sven Mangard's concern about improving relationships throughout the community has merit. However, the tone of much of his rhetoric above ("the community is a cancer") is exaggerated and distracting. More seriously, some of his statements or speculations about why some of our colleagues are not active right now are, at best, misinformed. That's not helpful either; please don't do it again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  As always, if Newyorkbrad wishes to start a thread complaining about my conduct, or even discuss it with me on my talkpage, he is more than welcome. However, continually floating into ANI threads I start to disparage me doesn't come across very well and disrupts the flow of those discussions; in this case, there is a clear consensus that the admin action I complained about was, indeed, wrong, so it cannot be said that I am pointlessly muckraking. I resent and deny the allegation that I "simply enjoy starting threads on this noticeboard," and point out that I made all reasonable attempts to settle this issue with the sysop concerned before coming here as a last resort. I ask Newyorkbrad to strike the quoted passage. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  I've responded to TreasuryTag on my talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Conflictive behavior

There is a user (User:Tia solzago) who makes difficult any edition in articles related to political parties in Italy. For example, according to him the Berlusconi's party is not a right-wing party ! [59], the neo-fascist parties are not right-wing populists [60][61] the separatist government party (Lega Nord) is not a right-wing populist party [62], in this case despite all these references presented. Obstructs and reverses everything, but he don't present any single reference.

Appeals to consensus assumptions that have never been expressed. The problem is that (perhaps unintentionally) does prevail his personal opinion on the references and the common sense. In fact, he opposes giving no reasons. Maybe he is emotionally involved. He has already conflicts with other users [63][64](in this wiki, as in the Italian one) who makes editions in the article of the Lega Nord.

I don't know if is possible to ask him to abstain from reversing those articles. If this is not possible, I ask to an administrator to review these articles and references of each case, putting an end to this situation, in which is impossible to edit.

I don't know if this is the right place to express my concern. I'm new here and this user reverse nearly all my editions, in my opinion without any reason. Regards.--ForEverRome (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have notified User:Tia solzago of this thread, since you failed to do so. I understand you are a new editor, but that big orange box that appears when you edit this page requires you to notify any editor whose actions you are discussing. I have no comment on the substance of the discussion. Horologium (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks to me that Tia solzago is merely removing unsourced information from articles - what's wrong with that? If you are adamant that these political parties are indeed "right-wing" or "right-wing populist" or whatever, please add a reliable source to verify the information. Regards, GiantSnowman 00:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen by page history, in the last three weeks in Lega Nord there was an edit war. Discussions about edits can be find here an also here and user GiovBag was blocked two times for his behavior. It seemed strange to me that a new user did, as his first actions, the same edits of GiovBag, but I limited myself to rollback him and, after, I wrote him to explain my actions. About my other edits: The People of Freedom is a centre-right party, as written in incipit, and no right wing. Neo-fascist parties are clearly right-wing, but I'm not sure that they can be defined "populist", so I asked about sources --Tia solzago (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing strange. I live in Rome, Italian politics interests me and I know quite the evolution of right-wing parties and movements in Italy. I often see these articles and I am witness to the "conflict" in the article of Lega Nord. This user (GiovBag) was blocked by edit war, and it's fine. But he gave many references demonstrating that the Lega is a right-wing populist party [65], [Der Spiegel, BBC, [66], [67], [[68],[[69], [70], [[71] and internationally is considered in that form. But instead of accepting the references, they oppose and reverse, showing no reference to prove otherwise. Now the articles only shows the official position of the parties. But, there is no party in the world that defines itself as populist, because is considered pejorative. Some of this references, speak also about parties as Allenza Nazionale, Fiamma Tricolore, La Destra. There also this reference, [72][73]. All parties and movements that are born from neo-fascist MSI are considered right-wing populists, including Alleanza Nazionale. And the PdL is considered a Right-wing party, euphemistically called "center-right" in Italy, to dissociate from the fascist past. In fact, the "Right-wing" is divided in "center right" (moderated) and "far right" (extreme), but is always "right-wing". --ForEverRome (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tia solzago has my support. I always accept contributions by new users, but ForEverRome's behavior is a little bit disruptive and I too have the suspect that he may be a sockpuppet of GiovBag. Of course The People of Freedom is not a right-wing party by European standards. --Checco (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The spectrum of right-wing politics ranges from centre-right to far right. [74]. No more words. If for you the PdL is not Right-wing party, is understandable that you are unable to see what the LN really is. Bye.--ForEverRome (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 63.138.68.4

IP 63.138.68.4 has been adding "John Cavalli" to numerous unrelated articles - apparently this man was a musician in the 1960s, a painter in the 1600s, a scientist in the 1930s, an Australian wrestler a (think of anything) User:Frosted14 has just issued warnings whilst I was writing this post - block please. Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty static IP, so blocked for 1 year. WP:AIV should be able to handle this in the future. NW (Talk) 16:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User:71.174.128.244 at Causes of autism

71.174.128.244 (talk · contribs) is edit warring in the article and completely disrupting the talk page. He or she wants to add a point regarding one researcher in one vaccine/autism study who is being sought for fraud. Whether that negates the study or not, it leaves numerous others which have thoroughly debunked any link between vaccines, its ingredients, or anything about them with autism. Whether the non-notable researcher should be added to the article may be discussed, but edit warring and using the talk page as a forum is getting out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article states that there is absolutely no link between autism and mercury in vaccines. Government employed experts in the Poling Vaccine Court case found a link, A study by Horning M.; Chian D,; Lipkin WI. referenced at the NIH here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15184908 references a link. A recent study by a researcher in Brazil also shows a link

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-verifies-mercury-in-flu-shots-is-toxic-118432874.html

The newest study about Thimerosal, from the University of Brazil, warns that while vaccines are essential to the well-being of children around the world, the use of Thimerosal should be reconsidered. The author, Dr. José Dórea, reviews the published science which demonstrates that infant exposure to the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines is toxic to human brain cells.

and this all started when I attempted to post a link showing that the author of a major autism mercury paper showing no mercury autism link, has been charged with fraud in connection with that research paper. This paper is one of the most referenced works on the subject.

Considering what I found in just a few hours of looking, the article is plainly in error. It is my opinion that someone is trying to control the content of the article to remove any references to the autism-mercury link. That person or persons may be employed by a vaccine company. If so it will not be the first time "content control" has been practiced on wikipedia, nor will it be the last.

As an example of the extent to which some authors are going to delete valid material I have had one of my additions deleted with the excuse being that material I copied verbatum ( a paragraphs worth) from a news article (to avoid objections of bias) were deleted as a "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION". That is plainly a bogus objection. Copyright laws not not bar the use of excerpts.

My objections to this kind of conduct on the talk page were deleted by the authors in an attempt to hide their less then exemplary conduct.71.174.128.244 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN, WP:COATRACK, WP:MEDRS, as well as WP:SOAPBOX. Your editing so far fails all of those. NW (Talk) 13:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice you refuse to answer the question posted above. Is copying about a paragraph worth of material from a news article "copyright infringement". Please respond. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Copying a sentence let alone an entire paragraph from another source without a comptabile license and presenting it as wikipedia text is completely unacceptable and should never be done for copyright and plagarism reasons. Let me repeat that, you can waste a tremendous amount of editors time by copying a paragraph as presenting it as wikipedia text. Please do not do so in the future. It may sometimes be acceptable to quote a paragraph, making it clear you are clearly quoting from a source rather then just pasting it into the article as wikipedia text but from a look thru the history that was not what you were doing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a sourcing problem, WP:UNDUE covers the problems of giving too much weight to certain sources above others. To the editor, have in mind the following scale, approximately from best to worse: meta reviews > reviews in notable journals > position statements of very notable associations > news pieces in major scientific magazines > reviews in minor journals > individual studies in notable journals > individual studies in minor journals. News articles from mainstream newspapers are somewhere there, very near the bottom of the scale, they can be bumped up if the author is considered reliable.

The "no link to vaccines" position have some very notable reviews and statements behind it, so it needs to be given a lot of weight in the articles. Trying to upset this balance with individual studies will simply get you blocked for ignoring WP:UNDUE. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I see two problems at that talk page, The IP is unaware of a number of important policies, most importantly, WP:SYN and WP:MEDRS, and has now been explicitly pointed to them by NW here, and myself there. Time magazine, prnewswire.com, and gordonresearch.com are not appropriate sources for medical claims in Wikipedia. Once the IP is familiar with those guidelines, they'll know what kind of content is appropriate to bring to Wikipedia medical articles.

Another problem is rudeness to the IP. I won't list instances. But could those responsible please try to be more patient. Unless I'm missing some earlier interaction not on the current page, on the face of it this is a new editor with a fairly commonly-held view, who's come here to correct an article in good faith. Politely explaining or explicitly pointing to WP:BRD, and WP:MEDRS/WP:SYNTH from the start may have saved a lot of angst and time all round. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Poling case government researches found a link. Others have also consider mercury a causative agent. So the "no link at all statement" is plainly bogus.71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's plain wrong. In the Poling case a whole series of vaccine shots in a short time may or may not have contributed to the outbreak of a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that causes some symptoms also found in autism. The standard of proof in the Vaccine court is very low - the mere possibility of a link is sufficient. Can you provide a reliable source that supports the claim that Thiomersal was causally involved in the case? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question reminds me of Wall Street firms that regularly pay hundreds of billions in fines after complaints are lodged against them but "do not admit to illegal conduct". The Poling case was a complaint for damages (autism) caused by her vaccinations. The government paid up, and its own experts found the link - a "possibly" preexisting mitochondrial disorder which can also be "acquired". What the actual court records say is unknown since they are "SEALED". The government paid Poling 1.5 million and $500,000 a year for life. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz - In further response to the above I found the following while going over some of the studies I ran across which may or may not be what you are looking for.

With special reference to the Poling case and mitochondria - material from the body of a study printed in the Neuroendocrinology Letters October 2005 Vol 26 No 5. http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf "It was also shown in vitro that low concentrations of thimerosal, which can occur after vaccination, induce membrane and DNA damage and initiate apoptosis (programed cell death) in human neurons (38). Humphrey and co workers (39) have shown recently that this apoptosis (programed cell death)is mediated by mitochondria in an in vitro study." I had to type it from the pdf file so pardon any spelling errors 71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That paper does not seem to mention the Poling case at all. And the paper is not saying what you think it says. Do you actually read your claimed sources, or do you just perform keyword match? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking on rudeness I find this well in excess of anything I have said

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Causes_of_autism&diff=424958219&oldid=424957932

Please go back to your vaccine denialist crowd and give each other a group hug. -- > User:Orangemarlin 71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally THIS article at CNN HEALTH cited as anti mercury causes autism is actually pro that position http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-06/health/vaccines.autism_1_childhood-vaccines-vaccine-injury-compensation-hannah-poling?_s=PM:HEALTH starts off with

"The parents of a 9-year-old girl with autism said Thursday that their assertion that her illness was caused by childhood vaccines has been vindicated by the federal government's decision to compensate them."

What was used instead was this quote "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a conference call with reporters."

The governments FAILURE TO TAKE A POSITION is in no way an indication that there is no mercury autism link.71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The way I read the article, the government did not fail to take a position. They refused to take a position, since there's more litigation pending. You'd be wise to not confuse the two terms, especially based on the larger situation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Either a "failure to take a position" or a "refusal to take a position" is in no way an indication of the rightness or wrongness of a position. The editors I am in opposition to use that lack of a statement as proof for one side of the argument. By their logic a failure of the government to say that "water is wet" proves that "it is not wet". A plainly farcical position.71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As one of the people having to deal with this IP on the talk page, I have to ask how much of this time wasting do we have to put up with before someone does something about his tendentious editing? They're trying to cite a press release from an advocacy group about a study they haven't read (and has no intention of reading) as well as a press release from a law firm on another advocacy website as reliable sources for medical information. Someone please stop the madness. Yobol (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How about we start with you admitting that Poling has autism. At least according to her doctor, her parents and the US Court system. Something you refuse to recognize. see your objection below.

(cur | prev) 01:04, 20 April 2011 Yobol (talk | contribs) (67,181 bytes) (Undid revision 424948824 by 71.174.128.244 (talk) Poling not diagnosed with autism) (undo)

and "Content control" goes on. Latest objections to include material is that reference to primary research studies are not allowed per wiki policy. The autism article is full of references to primary research studies. Sound two faced? It sure does to me. Additionally prsnewswire is being objected to as an unreliable source. I wonder if other news outlets such as Reuters and AP are next on the list? http://www.prnewswire.com/ 71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand what a press release it is? NW (Talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A press release is designed to be skewed towards the releasing agency. They are not reliable sources by any means,so they are inappropriate to use as sources. The AP and Reuters are news agencies whom are obliged to oversee their reporting. Do not conflate press releases with news agencies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And PR Newswire, repeatedly referenced by 71, is not a news agency, but a channel for press releases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as there's a difference between a press release and a scientific study published in a refereed or peer-reviewed journal. I'm waiting for a citation to the latter. Until then, 71's arguments appear quite WP:POINTy and WP:SOAPBOXy to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So why is OK to use a statement by a US government official that "no statement on the governments position has been released" as proof that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. That statement was most likely issued in a press release. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Prsnewswire has been adresed, not to my liking, but at least addressed - Now does anyone want to take a shot at the objection that no primary research studies can be used in the article when that article is full of references to such studies? Anyone? Anyone at all?71.174.128.244 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In the latest version of "content control" I have been told that studies published in the Annals of Epidemiology, Cell Biology and Toxicology, and Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons cannot be used in a wiki article.71.174.128.244 (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I get my butt chewed off around here, and we put up with this?????? Really, this makes sense how? I guess admins don't care, they just want to make sure I don't drop an F-bomb. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears clear that this noticeboard care more about the use of a four letter word than they do about the time wasted dealing with fringe POV pushers spamming talk pages and ignoring policies/guidelines. And they wonder why people leave this project. Yobol (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys wanted studies showing links between vaccines (aka mercury ) and autism. I am finding them for you. First you bitch that studies must be review studies and primary studies are not welcome when the article is chock full of primary studies, then you say studies in respected journals can't be used and now you bitch at the number of those studies I am finding. You seem to have a "content control issue". Wikipedia calls WP:OWN issue and you guys have it in spades.71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, I guess Wikipedia prefers the random IP POV pusher than real editors, as long as the POV pusher does not say "FUCK". I may as well quit logging on, and just use some random IP address. Apparently, I can edit whatever I want in whatever way I want then. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Judging from the demeanor being displayed in that talk page discussion and in this thread, I would recommend that at least two editors, if not more, be given six-month topic bans from that article. Need names? Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

One day,

Yet more "content control". After the complaint by Yobal above on the number of my posts, reflecting the ease with which I have been able to find studies supporting a Mercury/autism link, I have now been told that the issue is FRINGE and any article additions on that issue will be deleted. Aren't FRINGE positions supposed to be hard to find support for? I can certainly say that I have had NO PROBLEM AT ALL finding support for this position in reputable journals, both original research studies and review (or overview) studies.71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but our paranoid IP editor has completley lost me with "...vaccines (aka mercury )". Displaying such an ignorance about this matter, and science in general, while trying to push a fringe POV, says that it's time this whole thing was stopped. The IP editor is wasting a lot of good editors' time. Stop him doing it, please. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Again I have had no problem finding studies in reliable sources showing a link between mercury in vaccines and autism. I have also had no problem finding complaints that the CDC used flawed studies to show that mercury in vaccines does not cause autism. Right this minute a major contributer to 3 of the 5 studies used to back that CDC position is on the run with $2 million in CDC money that he had supposedly spent on autism research. Usually when you vanish with research money you didn't spend it on the research you were supposed to do. Instead you "make up something".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html

A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First you said "...links between vaccines (aka mercury ) and autism", then you said "...link between mercury in vaccines and autism". They are not the same thing. I cannot tell if the problem is in your logic, knowledge, or English expression, but whatever it is, you are not presenting a coherent case. This stuff is important. It must be discussed properly if at all. If a language disability prevents you from presenting presenting your case, you should give up now. It's not the job of those who think your case is garbage to try to translate logical and linguistic garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor stumbling across this, holy crap. First of all, there is a lot of uncivil behavior going on all around but secondly, can we at least get page protection here? I favor the strongest possible sourcing requirements for medical articles, if Wikipedia is allowed to be turned into a fringe source we lose all credibility, and on a topic that is timely and medical we could get someone killed. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This finding seems pretty darn definitive to me: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170 "Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period."

as does this one:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Induction%20of%20metallothionein%20in%20mouse%20cerebellum%20and%20cerebrum%20with%20low-dose%20thimerosal%20injection%2C "As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism."

and this review study is chock full of references to other studies supporting mercury as a cause of autism http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf. Some of those referenced studies were included in this report http://www.autismboulder.org/pdf/ScienceSummary.pdf to the Colorado Senate with a recommendation that mercury compounds be removed from vaccines. IT also bitches about the poor quality of the studies done in Denmark and used by the CDC. You know! (or may be you don't) the ones that were either contributed to or co-authored by that guy who just ran off with $2 million in CDC autism research funds.71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there hasn't been much edit warring on the article. Just really one editor who gone overboard on the talk page of the article. I guess you could protect the talk page, but has that ever worked? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That editor is getting kind of annoyed by things like Yobal refusing to admit that Hannah Poling had autism. Autism is defined by US law. If you have the 3 required symptoms of autism then you have autism Poling had all 3 of those symptoms. Poling had all 3 of the required symptoms. Therefore by US law she had autism.71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so lawyers get to make medical diagnoses? That's cool, as long as doctors get to sue them. :P MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No! Doctors make the diagnosis, partly so that the autistic kids are legally eligible for government programs to help them. Since no cause for autism is recognized, then entry into the programs requires the showing of the symptoms of the disease. 3 symptoms are required and a number of others are optional. If you get a cold and you go to the doctor, does he determine if you have a cold by checking for symptoms, does he stick a pin in a voodoo doll, seek guidance through prayer, flip a coin, check out his tarot cards, or some other method? Any doctor I go to had BETTER check for symptoms, otherwise he will never ever see me again.71.174.128.244 (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I guess I have to be the one to point out both http://www.detoxmetals.com and http://www.autismboulder.org are advocacy sites. That automatically raises WP:COI and WP:NPOV flags, IMO. Perhaps it's time to just drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I must point out that US law has no impact on the definition of autism for 95% of the world's population, including me. Let's globalise this. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Votestacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Latin American‎

Pablozeta (talk · contribs) has been posting neutraly worded messages to several users [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] several of whom voted "keep" in the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/White_Argentine where Pablozeta was also admonished for canvassing, and apologized saying that he did not know the rules[85]. Apparently he still doesn't realize that contacting editors with known views is still considered votestacking even though the message is neutrally worded, although the policy makes it abundantly clear. He has not contacted any editor who voted delete at the White Argentine Afd. How do we deal with this at the AfD?·Maunus·ƛ· 13:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked: User talk:Pablozeta#Canvassing block.—Kww(talk) 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm trying to stay aside from this whole dispute, but I should comment that I used to edit under the username "MBelgrano". My account has been renamed some weeks ago. The change was not intended to pretend to be a different user in discussions (in fact, I specifically made the change at a time I had no ongoing nominations, discussions or proposals, to avoid that), and I also say so at my userpage. Cambalachero (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nwoo5000

Resolved

 – user blocked for 31 hours by Woody (talk · contribs), many thanks! GiantSnowman 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nwoo5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Neil Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of problems with this one - the user in question has admitted to being the subject of the article, so we have obvious COI issues. Nwoo5000 also continues to add unreferenced information, as well as advertising a shop he owns on the same article. User has been warned a number of times by myself, and other editors have also reverted his edits. However, I am now up to 3RR so won't touch the article again (last edit was by Nwoo5000, who undid my edits) and as the editor refuses to listen/understand, I've been forced to come here - any admin help would be appreciated. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If he is Neil Wood, the best thing for him to do would be to put the information about himself on his personal website (if he has one), which the article could then reference. Presuming he's notable for his football career, there's no reason the article can't have a link to his official (personal) site in the EL section, is there? He can link to his shop on his personal site. I couldn't find any references to Neil Wood owning Barocca Interiors on the web anyplace, though, so we ought to make certain he is who he says he is before we even consider mentioning that in the article. 28bytes (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside from that, though, it looks like he's just broken 3RR with his last revert of Argyle 4 Life's revert. And he's already been warned about edit-warring, so... 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He hadn't been warned about the 3rr rule or explicitly told he would be blocked etc if he carried on. New users can't be expected to know this. If he continues to revert then yes, I will block him. Lets see if he discusses it first. Woody (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He just reverted again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours by Woody. 28bytes (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats by DeadSend4

Please see this edit. Nymf _hideliho! 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted this separate section at the same time, so I've merged the two sections.

I'm not one to start trouble, but while discovering an incident brought up about me (though not by name) on the Wikiquette board, I happened upon this apparently resolved bit. Since his unblock request was denied following the Wikiquette conclusion, he's been accused of a sockpuppetry complaint (I know nothing about it, just what I'm finding). In response to the sockpuppetry, he made the following legal threat (bottom of the page).

I do believe this user feels he was wronged in some way. It sounds like he may not be familiar with how to behave here, and it might be worth determining if this threat is real. He is blocked and currently unable to comment other than on his talk page. I will stay out of this from here, but can you please look into it? CycloneGU (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If the editor isn't actually a sock of ItsLassieTime, he's doing a good imitation. ILT was full of anger and bluster and threats... and denials... in connection with entertainment-related items. Tell him to rescind immediately, and if he won't, then indef and take away talk page privileges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I am the admin that opened the SPI case, let me state that I was alerted about the possible socking through this thread on my talk page. Tenebrae (talk · contribs), who alerted me, provided links that help started the case. Willking1979 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just discovered this thread regarding DeadSend4.This sheds more light on the situation. Willking1979 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this last sentence a threat of violence? Nymf _hideliho! 19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it one, but it wouldn't take much modification to get there. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I didn't consider it a threat of violence, but that's just because 14 year old kids routinely use the, "You wouldn't say that shit to my face" phrase all the time on the interwebz without actually being able to back any of it up. Seriously, let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill and just deal with what is actionable.... mainly, the sockpuppetry and legal threats. Although, I don't know how a minor can afford a lawyer, but I digress. My guess is this is just some kid who feels the need to flex his e-muscles on other wiki-editors because he doesn't understand there are some actual rules around here. Mostly harmless, IMO. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a threat of violence, just anger and frustration. If its ILT, it knows what it's doing and is playing us. If not, then we owe it an apology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of non-admins engaging/arguing with/poking this blocked user on his talkpage; it would probably be helpful if they stopped. 28bytes (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if someone could present more solid evidence connecting Janehiswife with Itslassietime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As is always the case, sharks will circle when they smell blood. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 21:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the "poking and prodding" can bring out the truth - as it did in the original ILT case, 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a Columbo episode. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, just one more thing, sir... whether Dead4 is a sock of ILT or not, he's still an admitted sock of the indef-blocked user Jane His Wife. Last I heard, socking by an indef'd user would routinely result in an indef of the new user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But wasn't JaneHisWife indeffed for being a sock of Dead4? This seems like circular logic to me. Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jane is the sock, Dead is the master. Doc talk 22:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, there are other problems with this user rather than socking. The extremely tendentious WP:MYWAY/WP:OWN behavior is gounds for concerns itself. Just have a look at the history of the Nicole Kidman article and the related talk page. Nymf _hideliho! 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I encouraged the editor in question (perhaps prematurely), to back off and look into fresh-start options. But I will say that if it turns out NOT to be a sock of Lassie (or someone else), this editor has show a willingness to work on content and provide sources. Perhaps their communication style is off-kilter- and he/she seems to be a little sensitive to criticism- but I think, with a little assistance, this editor could be beneficial to the project with some mentoring. But again, I await the results of the SPI before endorsing any further action. Quinn ^CLOUDY 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Peterzbear‎

Could someone please help me with User:Peterzbear‎? This user clearly means well, but creates election articles in a sloppy manner, never responds to messages I leave on his/her talk page, and doesn't make any efforts to improve those edits. I'm getting tired of following him/her around to clean up pages that contain no text, no categories, copy the contents of a template rather than properly transclude the template, and all else. When the 2012 election season heats up, this user could be useful to have working on these articles, but maybe needs mentoring? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking meltdown from 38.103.95.130

As you can see, this anon editor is a chronic overlinker who has been asked repeatedly to stop. Since his edits aren't vandalism per se, it seemed more appropriate to bring it up here than at ARV. I get the impression he doesn't even know his talk page exists so I'm a little at a loss as to how to encourage his enthusiasm into more productive edits. Millahnna (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'll check back in a few hours and again a day from now. If he starts back up again I'll block the IP. Looking at the contribution history it has been mostly this sort of thing for a few months. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• The MO is similar to a known vandal, comparing it to the log of reports about The Verizon vandal. It's a different network, so it may not be the same person. However, if his edits are going to be disruptive on the whole, then he warrants a block to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• This editor appears capable of contributing constructively, they just have a different idea of what merits linking. I was hoping that a bit of discussion and education would resolve things, but they do not appear to be interested in either and have continued linking as before. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, as Escape Orbit notes, some of their edits do contain constructive efforts. Sometimes it's buried within a batch of overlinking and sometimes it's isolated. But despite attempts to communicate (I've templated and added small notes to templates and Escape has dropped entirely individual messages of the non-template variety), they don't seem to get the idea. This is why I think they don't realize there's a talk page there. I honestly doubt they've seen a single message directed at them. Millahnna (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I've written something on the IP's userpage (thereby creating it), on the off-chance that s/he knows s/he has one of those. A long shot, I know. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

• Just a suggestion - though perhaps I'm being naive - sorry if I am - has anyone considered the possibility that this IP may represent a bot? I've seen a lot of cases on other Q&A sites where bots just do bad things but they (obviously) don't respond to messages. --Alex146 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Who on earth would write a bot to do that? From the contributions it appears to be someone who's trying to help but genuinely doesn't understand that there is such a thing as overlinking. I have to agree with Protonk and C.Fred that a block is in order until they can communicate that they understand why what they're doing needs to stop. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor has ignored all warnings, ignored this AN/I discussion, and as of today is still continuing with this massive overlinking. Seeing as the IP is not very dynamic (same one since early April) I've blocked for a week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st

Owain the 1st started editing less than a moth ago. He racked up a number of reverts today.[86] I assume an admin can click on that and see the multiple reverts on individual articles but let me know if you want me to do more work on this request. The topic area is under 1/rr and blocks can be implemented without warning. However, I did not see a single article that had the edit notice pop up while editing so there is a chance he did not know. So can and admin explain the ins and outs to him? AndresHerutJaim is reverting him over and over so he is in breech of 1/rr. However, the recent request for arbitration regarding Tiamut has provided a precedent for editors to break 1/rr while reverting probable disruptive accounts.Cptnono (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And Owain the 1st just proved he was an account bent on gaming. He edit warred and opened a report. When I made a mention of this report here he removed it without explanation.[87] I was willing to have some good faith but that was just blatant.Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not know what you are banging on about but I see you never even thought to report the guy who started it and has been vandalizing my edits without reason.Anyway anyway anyone actually looking at the edits will see he was in the wrong.I have reported him anyway so no need for you to, not that you were going to.[88]AndresHerutJaim reported byOwain the 1st (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is even a single one of AndresHerutJaim's edits in this mess justified by policy ? I seriously doubt it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have issued an ARBPIA warning notice to Owain the 1st as an initial response; more review coming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

and you have failed to issues any warning to the guy who is actually guilty.As Sean has pointed out in this section were Anders edits justified by policy? Your credibility with me is now zero.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong as you have blocked his account.My Bad.Sorry.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah; as I mentioned on my talk page, anyone pushing limits on this topic area gets the ARBPIA warning and goes on notice about the increased attention and discretionary sanctions. He had already had that warning issued in December 2010.

You getting the notice after today was pretty much a given, and I can do that quicker than I can review all his stuff and issue the block (AndresHerutJaim blocked 1 week under both DISRUPT and ARBPIA; logged to ARBPIA page etc).

On first impression, you muchly violated our WP:3RR policy on edit warring today, and though AndresHerutJaim was acting disruptively, that does not generally allow an exception to those policies. I am continuing to review this aspect of the overall incident. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I allowed to undo Andres vandalism?Owain the 1st (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NO. Please stop all editing on the pages until I finish reviewing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Right, please stop. Everyone is still investigating the edit history. You can be sure this will be properly sorted. Suggest you strike through your "and you have failed to issue ..." comment, that you immediately retracted, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On review - I count 4 reverts each by Owain the 1st on Gaza flotilla raid, Iron Dome, MV Mavi Marmara.

Were you previously aware of our three revert rule on edit warring?

The policy allows exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism, but not for this sort of disruption. For this type of disruption you are supposed to get administrator attention when it starts... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty new here and still learning the ropes.I do not know the rules yet.I have just edited stuff that I believe is biased/vandalism and I have put in information with links to good well respected sources.The other guy was just editing out perfectly good and well sourced stuff. In the Iron Dome thread there was a tag about criticism of the dome ask by whom? and I put in who it was by and a link to that fact and he just deleted it and I believe called it vandalism, when it was not.Someone yesterday I think deleted Finkelsteins piece from the law section about Gaza and I put it in the others comment and he deleted that as vandalism as well and it was not, it was well sourced.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So, no, you didn't know the rule.

Please read this: Wikipedia:Edit warring, in particular the Three-revert rule section. Starting now we're going to hold you accountable for understanding and abiding by those.

Those are the rules. Even if you're doing good content work, reverting three times a day is an absolute limit, other than dealing with outright vandalism and a few other cases. This case was not one of those exceptions.

What you seem to be adding is - as far as I can tell - sourced to reasonable accurate sources (see our reliable sources policy and our verifiable sources policy) and seems generally compliant with our neutral point of view policy. It is important to be careful - in particular in this topic area. But you seem to have something like the right basic idea already.

In the future - if someone starts edit warring like this and won't discuss it with you on article talk pages or their talk page, come notify an administrator here (or on the edit warring incidents page). Pushing back as hard as you did on your own here is a policy violation. Even if you had good content and good intentions, the fighting back and forth is bad for the encyclopedia, and it should stop before you get that far. Reverting is not banned, but doing it 3 times on the same article in 24 hrs is, and you aren't always allowed to do it at least 3 times before you're in trouble (2 times a day for several days, being really rude or pushy with only 2 reverts, some topic areas are limited to 1 per day per article, etc). Discuss on both article and user talk pages instead, and if someone is still unreasonable after that, come get an admin and we'll sort it out.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In the topic area it is 1/rr. A review of the blanked content on the user's talk page shows that there has already been some concern (with warnings) and a welcome template full of links. I have a hard time believing the editor is actually trying to learn the ropes but would be happy to have time prove me wrong.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks George. If I have any problems like today I will just report it to the admin and let them take care of it and I will keep my edits within the limits.Cheers. As for Cptnono, pity you could not have reported the guy who was actually vandalising the site.Looks like you have nothing to say about Andres at all, funny that.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume Cptnono is not looking at both sides of the issue, and please don't poke at him like this. See our policy on not making personal attacks and our policy on civil and collegial editing. Cptnono is rightly very concerned about what you did. Other administrators could within our policy re-review all this and apply the policy more strictly and block you too, for your part in all of it. Please accept that I've assumed you acted in ignorance and good faith, that you're getting off very lightly, and move on. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving on.Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AN3 needs love

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is all backed up but I need to go deal with the great sunny world for a few hours. Most of them are probably stale by now. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Avengednightmario

Avengednightmario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account whose only contributions are to repeatedly recreate an article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallica 2011 tour at a variety of different locations (due to multiple saltings), or add a link to the new article from a related article. Please block, thank you. O Fenian (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Salted new location. Warned user. I understand the desire to block, but it's premature: no warnings, and it's at least possible he's got no idea what the template on his talk page mean.—Kww(talk) 09:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with user Traditha

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

This user is making some problematic edits on the Brooke Logan article. I reported the editor to 3RR here and it was suggested by another editor that I bring it to the attention of admins here

First, the edit warring/3RR:

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

In addition to the 3RR warning and the article's Talk page I made the following attempts to engage the editor in discussion: 1 2 3 4

I also sought help from the WP:SOAPS community here

The edits this person is making are entirely unsourced, made up of original research, completely in-universe, and notability hasn't been established. Not only are Wikipedia guidelines not being followed but even the soap opera project's guidelines are being ignored (here).

I've also left messages in my edit summaries: 1 2 3

It was a different editor who initially trimmed the article down here

I know that I'm guilty of edit-warring myself but I was really trying to get the editor to engage in discussion and honestly trying keep the article from being unencyclopedic. Thus far the editor has refused to even acknowledge my attempts at discussion or even leave any kind of edit summary. SQGibbon (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike

I'd like to get support for placing a 1RR restriction on July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. It's a brewing problem featuring two editors that have been blocked for edit-warring on related topics in the past, V7-sport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Iqinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now with Gregcaletta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joining the fray. I already blocked and unblocked V7-sport over this article, but from looking at it, I worry that any action taken against just one party is going to inevitably have the effect of taking sides. Note that despite blocking V7-sport, I also restored his latest batch of edits when they were blindly rejected by Gregcaletta.

I'd like to propose a 1RR restriction for the article, and put a nice prominent edit notice informing people of the fact.—Kww(talk) 13:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you forget to mention Randy2063 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an editor well known for talk page filibuster and political motivated reverts and uncompromisable POV. (at least my opinion)

Look he just reverted all the edits at BA that were previously well explained by GC one by one in his edit summaries the same change that were reverted by his buddy V7-sport 2-3 times. An unnecessary revert while things are clearly under discussion. IQinn (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If those were "well-explained", I'd hate to see "poorly explained". That's the same batch of V7-sport's edits that I restored. Still, that's part of the reason I am asking for support on a 1RR restriction: too many people making too many reverts.—Kww(talk) 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I've been loosely following this since I declined Iqinn's unblock request the other day, so I can see where this restriction might improve the situation if it will force them into discussing rather than reverting. —DoRD (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've had this article watch listed for a few months (maybe a year) and I've hesitated to get involved here because I'm fresh off another dispute with some of these editors at another article, Maywand District killings. This situation also left some of the above with blocks. The article clearly isn't the problem and it doesn't need a blanket 1RR restiction. If we have problem editors who are leaving a trail of edit warring and constant reverts it's the editor(s) who need to be addressed. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well i guess than we have to deal with you as well.

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

Just one example: You as a highly involved editor moved the article and closed the debate. Something that is not helpful and could be seen as edit warring considering the history on that article. That should have been closed and performed by an uninvolved admin. IQinn (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding snarky I have to say, this is the combative attitude which repeatedly lands you in difficult positions. As always, my edits on Maywand, or anywhere else, are open to review by anyone at anytime. As I utilize process, only undertake contested edits when I have clear consensus to do so and don't edit war I'm not worried about it. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- 1RR is not the solution. The problems will still be there. We need to deal with each issue on the talk page separately, rather than all at once, and I think most of us can. The "political motivated" charge works several ways. It's telling that other editors were excluded from that. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Iqinn and V7, for one, are edit warring across multiple US/Iraq war articles, with a pro-insurgency and pro-American POV respectively. I think the appropriate course of action is a 1RR restriction on either the editors or the subject as a whole, not just on this article itself. And to clarify, i would lean toward the latter rather than the former (as the latter would take care of any issues with the former anyway, and the subject tends to attract new editors). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"pro-insurgency"? I never edited "pro-insurgery" and there is nothing in my edits that would suggest that i would edit "pro-insurgery". No, i also do not edit anti-American. I strongly reject this and i do challenge you on this one. Provide diffs or strike this in your comment. IQinn (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning to get involved in this ANI any farther unless I'm directly cited or involved by another, I've stated my piece, but I have to echo Iquinn. He defiantly edits with an assertive paradigm but to simply label him as "pro-insurgency" is a mischaracterization. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think a 1RR will make the situation worse or better. The problem is that V7-sport has reverted virtually all edits made by anyone but himself to the article for several weeks. He doesn't just revert the changes he has voiced a disagreement on; he reverts all of them, including citation needed tags, the addition of sources and factual material, and even basic copyediting and tags describing the article as under dispute. I have not reverted his changes; I have only reverted his reversion of my changes. With a 1RR and V7-sport still allowed to edit the article, he will just continue to revert all of our edits once a day instead of 3 times a day unless he comes to realise this behaviour is unacceptable. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  At the risk of sounding rude, your accusation is a clear case of unclean hands, given that you have made multiple reverts to readd your changes, and of multiple users. I would suggest taking to heart the warnings of WP:BRD in your editing style. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully support WP:BRD. I have only reverted changes that do not follow that policy. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The irony of IQinn calling Randy2063 “an editor well known for talk page filibuster and political motivated reverts and uncompromisable POV” is breathtaking. The very first time I looked at that articles talk page I found Iqinn summarily deleting his objections [93] and calling his objections “Propaganda, Propaganda”. The over the top incivility was one of the things that got me involved. The Characterization of TomPointTwo as "'highly involved" in this because he worked on a different article also is absurd. They are 2 editors who have worked in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. V7-sport (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a good thing you mentioned that. I had forgotten that, in spite of the references, people used to claim that there were no weapons at all in that first attack. It's a reminder of what a trial this article has been. -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

@V7-sport Please do not quote out of context. TomPointTwo was highly involved in the discussion about the title "FOB Ramrod 'kill team'".

• He started the first discussion. [94]
• He takes his position in that debate. [95], [96], [97], [98]
• He seems not happy with the result of the first debate and started a second one about the title.[99]
• He took his position in the second debate.[100], [101], [102], [103]
• He himself declares consensus.[104]
• That was not helpful and almost edit warring considering the history of that article. V7-sport you as an involved editor in that debate on TomPointTwo's site may let other uninvolved editors judge and comment on these diffs. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of context? Like interjecting a different debate on different article?V7-sport (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it was TomPointTwo himself who brought that into the debate as well as other editors. IQinn (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Alternative solution. I suggest that we allow V7-sport to edit the article again, but we forbid all editors including myself from reverting more than one change at a time except for vandalism (and of course except for reverting some edit which infringes upon these rules), and forbid editors for removing "dispute" tags. Only admins can remove the dispute tag when they judge there is no longer a dispute. All changes are to be made manually and individually with extensive edit summaries. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm already allowed to edit the article. Just now you made 4 edits and created a "Cite error: Invalid tag; " in the References section, you added things to the info box that weren't in the sources (Ie, first strike, second strike, children wounded, etc) that you have listed and you are citing an editorial on the blog section of website with out attributing it as such. [105] That's adding original research, misrepresenting the sources and creating a cite error. The thing is, These are all edits that you have done previously with the same results. I have repeatedly endeavored to explain the objections on the talk page. I've repeatedly contacted you on your talk page. Yet there they are again and it's the same objection to me reverting. V7-sport (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well actually the cite error was created because you had removed the source in question from the article and I have now fixed that. Perhaps you should not be allowed to edit the article, because you don't seem to understand the definition of original research nor can you understand the sources. I've explained the edits on my talk page so I don't know why you are bringing that argument here. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I didn't remove any source, I had consolidated all the citations a while back to make it easier for someone going through the references. So much for that. Original research is anything that isn't attributable to a reliable published source, which is what you have added when you post things like "In the 1st attack (1st and 2nd strikes):" and attribute it to this source which doesn't characterize it as such or mention wounded children. You answered some of the objections tried to justify what you did on your talk page because there are other sets of eyes on the problem, but I have objected to these edits repeatedly on the articles talk page and you have simply reverted. You still haven't addressed then there.V7-sport (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The more eyes on my edits the better, but this is not the appropriate place to discuss them. I responded on the talk page because that's where you placed your objections. You could have requested that I respond on the article talk page instead. I would have preferred that. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I answered hereV7-sport (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest limited, escalating article bans. We shouldn't be giving editors permission to revert anyone, even only once a day. Instead, I propose article banning the editors in question starting for one month, then increasing it if they don't figure out how to get along with each other and how to edit in an NPOV manner. As someone above mentioned, at least two of these editors have been at it in a similar way in another article (Maywand District killings), so it's not an isolated incident. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) No offence but as you were also involved in Maywand District killings and similar articles you might also be part of that topic ban that i think would be ill advised. - IQinn (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it safe to say?

Since this conversation is no longer about the ANI but about talk page crap, can we get someone to close this discussion? I mean it's clear to me the parties arguing here have no interest in working with each other, and since no action is being taken on the ANI, let's just close this discussion. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I suggest article topic bans, short at first, be imposed. Otherwise, I think administrators will again be forced to intervene with these editors. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to ban these guys from the article. I am quite happy if someone reverts my edits as long as they give proper edit summaries and do not revert multiple unrelated changes in one hit. So why not just make it a rule that each reversion has to be done manually with an extensive edit summary? This is already a Wikipedia guideline and it consistently enforced as a rule for the article with the help of an admin then that will have a much greater chance of resolving the problem than simply banning the interested editors. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia guideline or policy states that each reversion has to be done manually? You actually had an admin say that wasn't the case. V7-sport (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that was policy; I said we should make this a rule for this article in order to facilitate consensus building. It is certainly de facto policy to include proper edit summaries for any controversial reversion, and it is impossible to provide adequate edit summaries when multiple unrelated changes are made in one hit. Whether that is official policy or not, it would facilitate consensus building to make that a rule for this article rather than blocking editors. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Current "semi-automated" tools allow for reversion of a single edit, but it does require the user of that tool to be paying close enough attention to revert a single edit instead of a series of sequential edits by a single editor. A little attention to detail "should" limit multiple reversions with a single click, but it requires editors to be paying close enough attention to notice which edits are going to be reverted with their next click. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping we could self-enforce this rule with an helping to make sure it is enforced consistently. Another option, much more extreme, would be to make the article a "pending changes" article level 2 so that admins have to confirm each change. Best to have to resort to that. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - propose 1RR rules for V7sport and Iqinn

In case it's impossible for anyone to figure out what's going on here, that's OK. There is a lot of filibustering by involved parties which is making it impossible to figure out what's going on. So, I'm going to simply propose 1RR restrictions for the two main edit warriors at both of these articles. This shouldn't be controversial - I can't see any harm it would do, especially as both are on opposite sides of the edit wars, so any restrictions would cancel each other out. My proposal:

• 1RR/day for bot V7sport and Iqinn, related to all articles involving the War on Terror, broadly construed but within reason. If, after exactly 6 months, the party has not been blocked for any edit warring or personal attacks, the restriction is lifted.
• If either party is blocked for edit warring or personal attacks on any article or talk page whatsoever, the restriction immediately becomes 1RR/week, and the 6 months timer is reset.
• If a party wants to appeal a reset of the timer because they feel a block was unfair, they may do so at this noticeboard.
• Parties are reminded to follow the WP:BRD cycle. When administrators are considering blocks or the community is considering appeal of a restriction, they are encouraged to consider if the party has followed or violated the BRD cycle, in spirit and in textual form. Breaking 1RR is not acceptable, but if there is a borderline case (e.g., someone made a mistake, the text altered may or may not have been a revert). Protestations of "I followed the spirit of BRD because the edit sucked" (when in BRD has been followed) should be ignored.

Maybe this way we can stop some of the insanity going on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn and I were not the only editors accused of edit warring on this article. Have to say, that's a bit draconian. V7-sport (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre i highly suggest you reply to the pro-insurgency issue above as it in my view shows that you might be involved yourself and just looks for an opportunity to block someone who is in your view pro-insurgency. What is "rediculous" and almost a personal attack this accusation takes also away any credibility from you to suggest or to decide anything in this issue. I also want to mention that i had exactly one edit on "July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike" in the last 10 days in total and that was one that follows exactly WP:BRD and mend to stop the edit warring between V7 and GC. I have taken my 48 hours block you gave me on "FOB Ramrod 'kill team'" and there is nothing after that at all that show or suggest that i was involved in any edit warring in contrast to other editors. IQinn (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misspoke - i should have said anti-war on terror, or perhaps as, V7 is pro-war on terror, anti-pro-war-on-terror. And I think we can leave it up to the community to review the history of your recent edits and blocks and determine who was edit warring the most and who wasn't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am also not against the "war on terror" nor pro "war on terror". Yeah i think we can leave it up to the community now, as said there was nothing at all that even suggest that i was edit warring after the 48 hours block you gave me. And here is the history of "July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike" for the community to review. As i said one edit. IQinn (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I can understand singling out these two, but, at the same time, I don't think the conflict between them is the only one that's causing problems in the area. I can see an area level restriction or an article level restriction, but not specific editor restrictions at this time. If they truly can't behave themselves, they will trip over area or article level restrictions and wind up blocked anyway.—Kww(talk) 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Tibet

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

Resolved

 – There is no incident and no administrative action to be taken, so this not appropriate for AN/I. Use the article talk page for content disputes. --RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I recently found out that there is simply no mention of Tibetan politics on the main article of Tibet. All articles of regions and territories around the world contain the mention of politics in the main article along with other aspects. It has been claimed by a few editors that the main article should only consist of ethno-cultural Tibet while there are separate articles about Economy of Tibet and Tibetan culture on wikipedia. I would request administrators to intervene. My attempts to add sources are being reverted despite the references being highly reliable.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a section on politics on the Tibet page here [106].Feel free to expand it if you want to.Owain the 1st (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added it right now backed by sources but my addition of sources is being reverted.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. It is apparent that although what Chinese sources mention is not reverted back by anyone(which should be if not reliable), on the other hand those changes added with references are reverted back. The most alarming aspect according here is absence of Ethnic Tibetans. In their absence, those who put any material for the ethnic Tibetans should not be discouraged. In absence of Ethnic Tibetans commenting on this topic, the attitude that Chinese sources are reliable and others are not is biased against Ethnic Tibetans and not necessarily biased only in favor of Chinese sources.Thisthat2011 (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What you should have is a balance, the Tibetan point of view intermingled with the Chinese point of view.If you have someone reverting anything from a Tibetan point of view just to push the Chinese version of events then that would be wrong and against the rules here.Hopefully a member of the admin team will have a look at it and sort it out.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can tell what is done w.r.t. Indians and it is that every religion or sect or subsect/subculture is editing contents on wikipedia and there are hardly such kind of reversions done over a period of time. As I said, such edits that do not represent independent views on Tibetan culture can be termed biased in the absence of Ethnic Tibetans themselves presenting their understanding(which could be completely different or may be counter to position taken by Chinese sources). But there should not be any edits reverted in spite of references on arguments "Not all sourced text is automatically fit for inclusion.", "Reverted to revision 425174280 by CanadianLinuxUser" or even "Néel's comment is redundant" while reverting mine and so on.Thisthat2011 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is no call for any administrative action, and certainly no need for it. To the next person who agrees, please consider closing this thread. UplinkAsh, this is a conversation for the article's talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

High Use Image Source Problem

On File:United States Department of the Army Seal.svg, there is no source. Normally this would be a quick trip to FfD, but since it is used in a number of military pages, I don't want to do that (just yet). What is the best path to resolve this? The uploader is not a Wikipedian (unless by another name), so I can't ask them where they go it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We got two other versions of this seal, both in SVG, so just replace and delete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Image comes from http://www.defense.gov/multimedia/web_graphics/army/USAc1.eps (linked from http://www.defense.gov/multimedia/web_graphics/). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, don't want to be messing around with federal law, so I don't. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if it weren't PD-USGov, that's a Commons file, it seems, so if it were to have been deleted and it was the only version, then someone would need to save a copy first and re-upload locally. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bogus admin socks?

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see this and some of the associated links. On my way offline and no time to investigate, so sorry if this should be at AIV or SPI. Can't (quickly) notify editor because of redirect. Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Already indef blocked as an impersonation account by another admin. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, we've got an SPI case about this - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBWatsen. Future socks can be reported there as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiding behind an open proxy template — a new trick?

I just reverted some userpage vandalism by 64.18.130.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). There's a template on the IP's talk page saying it's been blocked as an open proxy. Since it's obviously able to edit, I checked the history... and it turned out the IP had added the open proxy template itself, back in early March. To hide behind and avoid a bona fide block, I presume. (A Potemkin template) ! Would somebody like check if it is in fact an open proxy (these are mysteries to me) and in any case block it? It produces nothing but graffiti. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

I blocked it just after its last edit. The template was placed some time ago, when it was previously blocked - it could have been placed by anyone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

no. the template was placed by the ip in the history, no one else. unless there's some weird oversight thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what I mean is that the template could have been placed by today's vandal, the blocking admin, a reviewing admin, the previous sock, some other observer, while checking the proxy. It's of no relevance. This is simply a case of an expired, and now renewed, block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Shrug. The template was placed on 8 March by 64.18.130.162 him/herself. If that doesn't make any difference, fine. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

It was over a year ago, four hours after the last block. It was almost certainly a different user. My guess is that someone else was confirming it was an open proxy, and took the opportunity to leave the template in good faith. That happens all the time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate articles (sorta)

A W Khan and Abdul Waheed Khan (UNESCO official) are clearly the same person. Frankly, moves and merges are not my specialty. Anybody wanna give me a hand here? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Both articles appear to be based on copies from Kahn's UNESCO bio. Since the copying is extensive and foundational, I tagged them with {{db-copyvio}}. There is some independently contributed text such as the infobox that could be restored and used, after a rewrite and revdel. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A W Khan was deleted; Abdul Waheed Khan (UNESCO official) was listed at WP:Copyright problems/2011 April 22. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Paulrightsgenie

Paulrightsgenie, a promotion-only account, continuously readds copyvios to Sam Munson, The November Criminals (2010 novel), and a predecessor article despite multiple warnings and no attempt to satisfy WP processes. Multiple instances of CSD tag removal. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't immediately match the user's edits to what you report. Can you please provide diffs for these allegations and a link to the source of the alleged copyvio? (See also WP:GRA).  Sandstein  21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can't because Sam Munson has been deleted since I listed this here, and I'm not a sysop, and I'm judging the two November Criminal articles on the basis of the warnings on the users talk page. The user did, to their credit, finally rewrite The November Criminals (2010 novel) enough to avoid the copyvio and after removing a BLP prod at the Munson article once, provided a RS before removing it the second time. I'm willing to wait to see if s/he recreates the Munson article before pursuing this, but if s/he does then I may ask to have some history restored. Good enough? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, should they continue to paste copyvio text into articles, a block may be necessary.  Sandstein  21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the reference and have nominated the article for deletion. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, I think there were still considerable traces of probably copyvio promotionalism, so I rewrote the article, and added references to 3 major books reviews, & a NYT education section article about the book--in addition to their book review. Drmies, perhaps the AfD should be withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate articles (sorta)

A W Khan and Abdul Waheed Khan (UNESCO official) are clearly the same person. Frankly, moves and merges are not my specialty. Anybody wanna give me a hand here? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Both articles appear to be based on copies from Kahn's UNESCO bio. Since the copying is extensive and foundational, I tagged them with {{db-copyvio}}. There is some independently contributed text such as the infobox that could be restored and used, after a rewrite and revdel. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A W Khan was deleted; Abdul Waheed Khan (UNESCO official) was listed at WP:Copyright problems/2011 April 22. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Paulrightsgenie

Paulrightsgenie, a promotion-only account, continuously readds copyvios to Sam Munson, The November Criminals (2010 novel), and a predecessor article despite multiple warnings and no attempt to satisfy WP processes. Multiple instances of CSD tag removal. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't immediately match the user's edits to what you report. Can you please provide diffs for these allegations and a link to the source of the alleged copyvio? (See also WP:GRA).  Sandstein  21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can't because Sam Munson has been deleted since I listed this here, and I'm not a sysop, and I'm judging the two November Criminal articles on the basis of the warnings on the users talk page. The user did, to their credit, finally rewrite The November Criminals (2010 novel) enough to avoid the copyvio and after removing a BLP prod at the Munson article once, provided a RS before removing it the second time. I'm willing to wait to see if s/he recreates the Munson article before pursuing this, but if s/he does then I may ask to have some history restored. Good enough? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, should they continue to paste copyvio text into articles, a block may be necessary.  Sandstein  21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the reference and have nominated the article for deletion. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, I think there were still considerable traces of probably copyvio promotionalism, so I rewrote the article, and added references to 3 major books reviews, & a NYT education section article about the book--in addition to their book review. Drmies, perhaps the AfD should be withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Winterreise

Someone - sometimes as an IP sometimes as new user Ephoph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (say that name out loud...) - keeps removing a small section from Winterreise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is correctly sourced. They give no edit summary, nor have joined the conversation I've tried to start on the talk page. I think I've done as much revert as I'm allowed, so that's what I'm coming here. I don't think its straightforward vandalism, but its as much use as :-( almost-instinct 17:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, what they keep removing is hardly well-written (weasel words), but such uncommunicative behavior is hardly conducive to a positive environment. Then again, you're asking for administrative intervention (and you are right that we can't really claim vandalism yet) but I see no evidence of for instance warning templates or other explanations, or a pointer toward the talk page. Talk more to them. I've placed a welcome template on their talk page and reverted the IP (and I gave them a blanking-2 template); that's about all we can do right now, I think. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I was looking at the edit history and saw that someone had deleted the following sentence: "It has been claimed that it would be impossible to write this work without having experienced similar emotions in reality." I happened to agree with this person and figured that I would join the cause. I do admit though that it is my fault for not being communicative. I apologize for that. Now to justify myself... I am not concerned that the passage isn't properly sourced and/or referenced. What bothers me is the relevance of the sentence. Just because someone somewhere claimed something doesn't make it important or pertinent to the topic. I could easily find a written source of someone claiming that the moon was made of cheese, but I wouldn't add that to the Wikipedia entry of the moon. The sentence in question tells us about the opinion of some random person and doesn't really help us to better understand Schubert or his song cycle. Also, the sentence is essentially outdated romantic ideology. We no longer refer to composers as 'Genius' or 'vehicles of God' in serious, academic discourse. Similarly, we shouldn't picture Schubert in his room pouring out his emotions on sheets of paper. Instead, we should be discussing the devices he used to create such a well crafted work. P.S. I'm sorry you don't like my name :) Ephoph (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that that sentence, while referenced, is strictly some guy's editoral opinion (unless he was there in the room when Schubert was writing his stuff) and doesn't belong in the article. Regarding your user name, you need to change it to something else before someone else does it for you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to discuss that kind of change on the talk page after it's been reverted once. Don't keep reverting. Walter Rehberg (the person cited in the bit being removed) seems like an ok source to me. Maybe the phrasing could be adjusted somewhat (inline attribution and a little more context might help) but if he had something to say about the composition, it seems informative to add it to the article, even as a data point in the way Schubert criticism has changed over time. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Pirate Cat Radio

87.166.190.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has removed a certain group's external links from Pirate Cat Radio, and then removed references, with the summary "Wikipedia must remove comment of legal matters as they interfer with an ongoing matter." I'm not sure what's going on there, but it seems like an attempt to re-factor a Wikipedia article to support an alleged legal dispute; there was related edit warring involving that group in the same article in February by low-edit-count users. I have not gotten in the middle of it; I'm just bringing it to administrators' attention because I noticed the recent edit activity and the phrase "Wikipedia must" was a red flag for me. --Closeapple (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I jumped in enough to restore part of the text, since it traces back to Mission Loc@l, and they appear to qualify as a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor has jumped IP's - I've restored your version. [107] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Both IPs are GeoLocating to Berlin and Pirate Cat Radio is out of San Fran, I call BS on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Berlin thing might have something to do with this (3rd to last paragraph). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Barnstarbob (formerly Vegavairbob)

At Chevrolet Vega, an article that if it is not in fact 'owned' by Barnstarbob (formerly Vegavairbob) is very close to be 'owned by' him (85% of the edits to the article are by that editor only, few if any edits by others are allowed to remain in the article, discourages others in editing), and editor who is extremely close to the subject matter (features his own photographs, uses photographs of his own cars and structures the article around promotional material from the manufacturer as well as advertising) -- the editor Barnstarbob, has recently been changing my edits to the discussion page, discouraging my edits, and is now making person attacks (see: "You are a conflict and pain in the ass.") – or this: "you are... clearly in need of help." The editor has a long history of having been warned about his editing behavior. The attacks go too far. 842U (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This User has tried in two discussions to label me "owner", and now conflict of interest. He starts a discussion in Project Automobiles, does not participate, then proceeds to do whatever he wants regardless of discussion results and failed at getting any agreement on his "charges", then in the article talk page, referring to me as Barnstarbbob/Vegabob he has failed again at getting anyone to agree with him on a conflict of interest charge. His edits don't conform to Wikipedia standards for neutrality and prose although his contribution was not deleted. His agenda is basically just to create havac, although finally he has stopped the biased, framed edits. I changed only my name in his discussion edits as follows Barnstarbob/Vegabob to Barnstarbob because, like his article edits, there is a tendency for him to "frame" information towards his agenda or opinion. (Barnstarbob (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Others have in fact concurred that the article is owned. 842U (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You are lying. It has been determined in the discussion you started, but didn't participate in, that I work with other Users on this article and do not delete or revert other User contributions including yours.(Barnstarbob (talk))

My rely to 842A in the article discussion page should sum up the problem I'm having with him and his endless, unfounded accusations. It just doesn't stop. There is no agreement by any User as to his accusations, in his previous Project Automobile discussion, or current article discussion. He just won't stop harassing and must have his way, regardless of discussion results. My reply should be read in full, it covers his accusations and my defense.

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, You've used your own photographs. I have no photos of mine in the article. You've used photos of your cars in the article. I have no photos of my cars in the article. You've built the article around promotional photos from General Motors and Chevrolet. I haven't. You've reverted all of my edits as well as pretty much everyone else's. And you only include the input of others when it aligns with your pro-Vega bias. Do any research on the Vega today and sources paint a very clear picture of the car as poorly engineered, poorly built and damaging to it's makers. And still you don't include that information in the article. You can accuse me of Ownership if you'd like, there's no evidence. Your COI is clearly imprinted in the article. And even if we just look at this discussion here, clearly others agree. Furthermore, your statement "You are following your own agenda and are clearly in need of help." is a personal attack. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks on editors, and I certainly will not either. 842U (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

842A Aren't we on the defense now. How do you like it for a change. Ok, You need help with your editing - hope that's not too personal. You are not following Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality and prose. Now, (here we go again) I have contributed over 700 images to Wikipedia. I took 18 photos of the article's 51 images. There are 28 GM and Chevrolet images; the rest are charts and Common images. 4 of them are of cars I own. That is 4 out of 51 images. You must be kidding. Your accusations are again, flawed and biased (like some of your editing). the photo of my Vega Panel truck was included in the gallery only because there was no rear shot of a wagon (or panel) from any source. Without that image included, a rear view of the wagon/panel would not be in the article. My other car, a Millionth Vega, is featured alone, and with the Vega's competitors from the 2010 Motor Trend Classic magazine's Gremlin-Vega-Pinto comparison photo shoot, of which is a free-use photo taken by me, with my Cannon camera. Obviously Motor Trend's photos taken and used in the magazine would not qualify for free use or inclusion here. These are useful for the article, as they show the car with its competitors (for the first time in over 35 years), and images of the Vega milestone car, past or present, are not available elsewhere for free use inclusion. Just because I happen to own that car is no justification for not using its image, which was already concluded in your discussion. (you just don't give up, do you?...more rehash.) All the article's free images are high quality and depict the sections and text of the article. When I started work on the article in Feb 2009 there was one image, the only one in Commons. Clearly since the article's inception - August 2004, images were not available to Users, with only one included in the article for five years. There wasn't even enough text to include additional images, for years, although a gallery could've been used, but wasn't. Well, images were available to me and I used the highest quality photos and images to depict the text I added to the article. This has been covered in discussions; it has been determined that the images used throughout the article are beneficial to the article whether I took some of them or not. Stop beating a dead horse with your accusations. Now, again, I do not delete other User contributions, and have not deleted your actual contribution to this article - mostly negative non automotive sourced criticism to which I've added auto press criticism, and reverted my deleted auto sourced praise. However, it is you that has made unjustifiable deletions. You've deleted complete sections on a whim without notice. Like I said before, The article will remain neutral and unbiased. All the factual information, positive - Awards and Praise sections, and negative - Problems and Criticism sections explain the Cars history - and its status - while it was being produced and sold, as well as its current status. There isn't bias or lack of neutrality as concluded by the discussions. The facts (and reviews), past and present are presented in a neutral way without opinions expressed by any User as per Wikipedia standards. And stop attaching Vegabob to my Username to "frame" your case. Framing isn't beneficial in articles or discussions of the articles. It has been determined two years ago and in current project discussion that my knowledge of the subject does not conflict with Wikipedia's article objective of neutrality, and I've followed all suggestions in discussions to that end. You are a Wikipedia User, as I am. You should spend more time contributing to, or improving articles, instead of wasting time here, rehashing your failed agenda. You should've participated in the Project Automobile discussion you started. Nonetheless, clearly the outcome of the discussion wasn't to your liking. Based on the lack of interest or feedback this time, it is also clear Users have probably had enough of your endless, unproductive and unwarranted accusations. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC))(Barnstarbob (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Regardless of who is at fault here, I will block the next person calling someone a pain in the ass. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. That edit was quickly reverted by me almost immediately.(Barnstarbob (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

• Hullo, Bob, long time no see. I certainly recall your WP:OWNership issues in your previous incarnation - and if it appears that it has started up again, I shall be reviewing your contributions and interactions. I strongly suggest that you make a real effort to improve your interpersonal and editing behaviours if there is not to be a return to the old ways. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit warring over the Vega? The Cadillac, I could see. But the Vega??? That's like edit-warring over the merits of the Zayre chain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Everyone knows Ann & Hope was much better! You'd have to be crazy to shop anywhere else.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Urartian language

An anonymous editor with a constantly changing IP address keeps re-inserting a claim or a wording that is not contained in the sources that he is adding to support it (the claim being that "by 500 BCE Urartian appears to have been confined to the elite, while the common people spoke (proto-)Armenian" - no specific date and no "elite" being mentioned anywhere in the sources). I compromised by adding and tags to his footnotes, but he keeps deleting my tags, while ignoring my request for quotations. By this point he has broken the 3 Revert Rule ([108], [109] [110], [111], [112], [113]), also reverting a vandal fighter, User:Avillia in the process, but I'm not reporting him primarily for that, since I think the problem is deeper than that - he is generally uncooperative and refuses to respond to concerns about sourcing and to grasp that the sources he adds need to support the exact claim being made and not just mention the topic. He also deleted the entire phonology and grammar sections as a collateral effect of his edit warring several times ([114], [115], [116], [117]), despite being alerted as to the fact that he was doing so ([118] [119]). As another example of his uncooperative attitude - he also insisted on adding "Urartian" in the category "Armenian languages", which by its very definition ("Armenian and its most closely related relatives") excludes the language. The only justification he has given is that the category page includes the title of the article, so apparently the categorization is correct ([120]). When I pointed out to him that the title of the article appeared on that page automatically as a result of his adding the category, his only response was "rv vandal editor". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a typical "glorious ancient history of our glorious people" content dispute/edit war, possibly within the scope of WP:ARBAA2, but conducted almost entirely among (changing) IPs. I've semiprotected the article for three months. This will force the participants to register accounts, which will facilitate the management of any continued dispute. The dispute itself needs to be resolved via WP:DR, not here, though I tend to agree that edits like this are vandalistic insofar as they remove much content for no clear reason].  Sandstein  20:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually already have a longstanding account, I'm just too lazy to log in with it and make most of my edits with my IP, even when I create substantial portions of an article as I did in this case. However, I don't think the other IP will register, especially since you have protected the page in his preferred version (whatever his reasons to prefer it, the content-wise differences had minimal nationalistic relevance) - unless I use my account to revert in a few days. I still maintain that his refusing to provide quotes (from online sources he has cited!) and deleting requests for such are tantamount to refusing to follow WP:V and should justify a block.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's me.--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you always log in to edit, as not doing so may be considered an abuse of multipe accounts (it makes edits harder to track), and that you revert the article only to the extent needed for vandalism repair (reinserting the big chunk of deleted text). The rest is a content dispute and needs to be resolved via WP:3R, perhaps by asking for a WP:3O.  Sandstein  21:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't abuse multiple accounts, I only have one IP and I don't use both my IP and my account in edit wars (nor am I often engaged in such). In this case, however, I can clearly identify myself as being the same person as the IP in my edit summary. As for the content dispute - I assume that by WP:3R, you meant WP:DR? Again, I'm pretty sure the other person won't feel any pressure to add the requested quotes from the online sources or even to talk to me as long as the article looks the way he wants it to, as it does now. He had plenty of time to copy and paste those quotes (if they existed, which they absolutely don't) before the semi-protection. As for the large chunk of text, don't worry, he eventually stopped deleting it after I took the pains to provide him with a new version to revert to, which included both his favourite unsourced claim and the large chunk of text. But - again - I think DR is too good for a content dispute on such a low level, where one side essentially refuses to follow policy, doesn't even write meaningful edit summaries, inserts unsourced claims and refuses to source them.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This SPI might be relevant, though too many IPs for me, hard to follow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Aryamahasattva, but I am now certain that the user I encountered is actually the well-known Armenian nationalist troll Ararat arev, banned for 3RR, block evasion and sockpuppetry. The IP addresses come from the same area as the IP addresses listed in the block log - the Los Angeles area - and his field of interests (Armenian nationalist issues) is the same. Various other related articles such as Hurrian language and apparently Urartu have also been semi-protected because of him ([121]). Under these circumstances, I think his edits should be reverted without further ado, because even if he registers with a new name, he would still be blocked. Any thoughts? --Anonymous44 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations of bias based on my nationality

• Foxhound66 (talk · contribs)
• Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Foxhound66 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN and WP:AGF on Talk:Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) and my talk page because he doesn't like the [[way the article is written, claiming I have "Singaporeanised" the page and "[made] the article biased".

There was a content dispute a few weeks ago, in which he got his way because an RFC and a MILHIST peer review both attracted little to no response and I decided not to pursue the matter. After I left the article for a few weeks and returned, he accused me of wanting "to mess this article up" and told me to "go and get a dictionary", and when asked to be civil, he responded by saying he didn't want to be given the Wikipedia rules "unless [I] know the differences in meaning" of two words which triggered the content dispute. I then requested HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to intervene, and HJ posted a message to Foxhound's talk page, only to have it removed immediately.

I returned to the article yesterday to clean up bare URLs in the references, only to be again aggressively attacked by the user over my alleged incompetent writing and bias, despite the fact that he's now also contributed significantly to the article because of what he saw as being bias, to the extent of owning the article by attacking all the edits I make to the article.

However, the attacks based on my nationality go beyond belief and are clearly now a personal attack. As an admin has tried and failed, and Foxhound continues to assume bad faith and make attacks, I am asking for admin intervention. This is no longer a content issue, but a behavioural one on Foxhound's part. And I'm not willing to be attacked simply because I'm Singaporean and have an interest in maintaining this article on a Singaporean military position. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have left a strongly worded warning regarding the personal attacks on their talkpage. Bring the issue back here, or my talkpage, if it has no effect. As for the content/bias dispute - other than commenting that well sourced material should always be included, according to WP:Due weight - I suggest that you instigate one of the many content dispute resolution processes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. I didn't come here to seek input on the content dispute, merely intervention in the behavioural dispute, which has happened. Thanks, will update if it continues. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor Bakhshi82 changing and removing editors' comments, and making threats

This user continues to change and remove editors' comments, especially mine, at Talk:Titanic (1997 film), as seen in this link, where I reverted him. His reasoning for continuing to do so is also in that link. I feel that his reasoning is unsound, as this is not some serious case of a personal attack. It is me stating my suspicion that he edited the article as IPs against consensus, and that he did it again once he could no longer edit the article as IPs (once it was semi-locked). He has been repeatedly reverted on this -- changing and removing my statements -- and yet continues to do so. He has also made WP:THREATS against me, as seen here. Administrative action is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks to me like Bakhshi82 correctly applied WP:AVOIDYOU. Commentary like that doesn't belong in an article Talk page, IMO. If you have suspicions of an editor trying to circumvent restrictions or bypass WP:CONSENSUS by seeking the relative anonymity of editing as an IP, it should be taken up on WP:ANI (like it is now) or off-wiki. That said, editing others' Talk-page comments is normally a fairly clear-cut no-no, as is editing against consensus. There's no doubt a content dispute exists, but gaining consensus SHOULD have resolved it. Those are my observations, anyway...I'll now step back and let the admins look things over. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

How could he have correctly applied WP:AVOIDYOU, if he is using that to edit/remove my comments? As you stated, it is "a fairly clear-cut no-no" to edit/remove editors comments in the way he has been doing. I also see nothing wrong in voicing on the talk page my suspicions about socking. I voiced my suspicions to bring it to the attention of others, and stated that I would take action if it continued. And whether or not I should have discussed his actions in a different forum setting or not, this is about the fact that he has continued to edit/remove my comments and has even resorted to legal threats. My suspicions of his conduct being expressed on the talk page does not excuse his horrid behavior, and administrative action should be taken to make sure he understands that he cannot continue to do this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think comparing an editor's editing pattern to another IP strictly falls under WP:AVOIDYOU since the guideline states "...when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack", especially when its destabilising the article, and Flyer's comments certainly don't fall under WP:NPA#WHATIS. I have to admit I shared Flyer's suspicions at the time that Bakhshi was socking, since that certainly appeared to be the case. I don't think it's out of order to politely warn an editor about socking if there is a pattern, but agree it's probably better done on the editor's talk page rather than in the discussion itself. Bakshi's alterations extend far beyond just refactoring the sockpuppet accusations though, which I don't think can be justified under WP:AVOIDYOU. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have only one request. I want User Flyer22 to delete my username as a suspect in all her comments in the Titanic (1997 film) discussion page at this sections: Consensus and Rudeness and consensus. instead reporting IPs that acted against consensus she has done unlike WP:NPA and WP:AVOIDYOU and slandered me. She often used my username in her several comments as wrongdoer IP, and then she and her friends rejected my friendly editing that was according the rules of Wikipedia. Everything is visible at the talk page. My deepest thanks for your consideration.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already denied your request. My denying your request does not give you the right to then edit/remove my comments and anyone else's who focuses on your behavior at the article. If you truly want me to put you through user check, then I will. "Me and my friends" did not reject your "friendly editing that was according [to] the rules of Wikipedia." We editors rejected your edits that went against objections/consensus/Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Yes, everything is indeed visible at the talk page...as well as in the article's edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

about the my old comments i have to say maybe i wrote some fault texts but i changed that as you can also and at this time history of article isn't our main argument.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point. I did not want to change my comments, and you took it upon yourself to change/remove them...repeatedly. You even removed Betty's entire recent comment that mentioned you not engaging in conversation. I've only had to revert you once on removing my comments, as others kept reverting you for me. Those reverts should have told you that you were in the wrong. I was pretty much done with you...and would have left things where they were...if you had not continued to take it upon yourself to alter/remove my comments. I wish to hear no more from you on this matter, and would rather hear from administrators about this. This discussion becoming too long will only discourage some of them from weighing in, as most prefer short discussions or at least discussions they can get a good summary of without reading much...so that they can then weigh in easily enough. This back and forth between us is not helping matters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry but unfortunately all of your wording is an uproar from your delusion, Betty Logan removed his or her entire last comment by its own hands not me, ask him or her, and again sorry but, about the prolixity, this is you that like to reciprocate by too much writing but unfortunately unfair.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no delusion going on here. You removed Betty's comment, as the link at the top of this very section (my revert of your clear vandalism) shows. And yet you wonder why I don't trust a lot of what you state?

Seriously, is there no administrator willing to act on this? Is this user just allowed to continuously alter/remove comments because he objects to what may be stated about his conduct? Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I check that again, you are right, but i have no objection with his or her comment, When i reverted Frank i removed Betty's comment unintentionally, because we was editing in a same time, i will apologize Betty Logan on the talk page.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Enough, both of you.

Flyer22, please stop accusing them there of misbehavior. If you believe there is a case for sockpuppetry , take it to WP:SPI and file a case there. You've crossed the line into harrassing them on the article talk page. Please just stop.

Bakhshi82, removing comments in the middle like that is not entirely appropriate, and you should have come get administrator help rather than responding in that manner. Please do not do that again.

Both of you should probably try and avoid each other for a while, as you're evidently not getting along.

Please consider this a formal administrator first level warning. If you keep it up towards each other, I'll leave further warnings on your talk pages, etc. If you need more admin intervention you can continue to request it here on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In what way have I harassed Bakhshi82 on the article talk page? My sockpuppet suspicions were voiced before Bakhshi82 showed up claiming he wasn't the IPs. When he showed up, he started harassing me, insisting that I alter/remove my comments. When I stated that I was willing to let the matter go but not remove my comments, he kept after me to remove my comments and started removing them himself. He is the one who kept altering/removing comments and making threats, and yet I am the one who was doing the harassing and am equally at fault? I most definitely disagree, and so do most editors at that talk page. "[N]ot entirely appropriate"? His altering/removing comments wasn't appropriate at all! I have no problem with this user, other than his going against consensus and removing/altering comments. But if this is how administrative action can work -- blame the actual one who kept getting harassed (I had no interest in removing my comments; and since Bakhshi82 kept coming after me to do so, it was harassment) -- then oh well. I suppose I just have to accept it. Bakhshi82 will continue to think he can do whatever he wants at Wikipedia without any sort of consequences for disruptive actions. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This right here is exactly what I mean about harassment, and about only one of us not being able to let things go. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have to say that this is completely outside of anything that any reasonable person would say is compatible with acceptable behavior here. Exactly how much threatening behavior is this person going to be allowed to get away with? Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know this discussion was taking place and perhaps it's too late already, but I think there is not an appreciation here of the situation with Bakhshi. The advice that he and Flyer avoid each other has some merit, but it's not an equal problem. I have edited at the Titanic (movie) page quite a bit, and he is difficult, to say the least. Has he changed other editors' posts? Yes. Has he made threats? Yes. He changed the article after a long and contentious process had resolved itself, but then his English is pretty spotty so he's not really in a position to offer stylistic improvements anyway. He was invited to offer his views and he declined. Now, perhaps Flyer was not correct in accusing him of sockpuppetry, but I find it very curious that the IP contributor never returned to claim that he was not Bakhshi. Instead, the socking just stopped, and Bakhshi returned. (Coincidence!) I note that he's returned today to Flyer's talk page with bad behavior. I think the editors here did not comprehend the situation very well and should look again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the sockpuppet accusation perhaps would have been better kept out of the discussion, but it's simply not true Flyer harrassed Bakshi. For a start Bakshi wouldn't come to the talk page so he wasn't even there to harrass! The only other direct communication Flyer had with Bakshi where she initiated contact was on his talk page to direct him to the discussion, and to inform him of an AN3 report which had been filed after his reverting (which she didn't file incidentally). I think we lost patience with Bakshi towards the end which perhaps reflects badly on us, but he did push it by putting the same peacock (and grammatically incorrect) terms into the article over and over, and we didn't get any assistance when we asked for it, so I don't think the deterioration of the situation can be entirely laid at Flyer's feet. I mean, it was just hard to deal with, it was a difficult discussion even without the added complications. I am sure Flyer would agree to handle SP accusations more appropriately in the future, but things wouldn't have gone this way if Bakshi had stopped reverting and joined the discussion, so maybe rather than allocating blame perhaps both Flyer and Bakshi would be best served by this discussion if Bakshi agreed to edit in a more collaborative manner. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK seriously, do something about this guy. There is something really wrong with this situation. Millahnna (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the editors of this page are silent in the face of Bakhshi's documented over the top misbehavior. This is appalling, if true. No one in a leadership position will say a word? What is the problem? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And the creepy continues. Meanwhile Flyer has left Bakshi alone and progress has been made on the portion of the article that started the whole mess to begin with. I'm a little disheartened by how this is shaking out. Millahnna (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, there really isn't any sort of formal leadership here. Us admins are just volunteers, and we're not obligated by anything but our own morals. I'm not surprised people left this alone; it looks mostly like a content dispute at first and now creepy, two things admins like to steer clear of. Anyway, I left Bakhshi a warning that his behavior is inappropriate. If anyone else feels like an immediate block is necessary, feel free. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was under the impression that some editors have credentials to do things that other editors do not, which is a sort of leadership, whether de facto, ad hoc, or non-hierarchical. I don't think it's correct to call Flyer's complaint a content dispute, though. She didn't ask to have any content changed. She complained about two specific things (threats and illicit edits) that have nothing to do with content. Yes, it sprang from a content dispute, but almost everything does. Again, thanks for jumping in, even if it's not your usual portfolio. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

---

May I point something out? Here we have a dispute between two editors:

• Flyer22 has been a Wikipedian for four years. She has 46,000 edits (65% to article space). She has nine barnstars, five DYK's, four GA's, and many other accomplishments, all of which can be seen with a quick scan of her user page. In addition, she is an outstanding, fair-minded, erudite, and talented editor who works hard in a number of difficult areas, and has for years.
• Bakhshi82 has been a Wikipedian for less than a year. He has 165 edits (30% to article space). This is not counting whatever editing he has done under various IPs or previously-banned usernames. He is... not a good editor, let us say; I'll leave the particulars as an exercise for the reader, along with the assessment of this editor's mental state.

So when Flyer22 comes here with a legitimate complaint, what happens? She gets jumped and then hung out to dry. What a ludicrous spectacle. And you people wonder why established editors are getting pissed off and leaving. "Come to ANI"? Why yes sir I'll bring my next problem right to ANI, just as soon as I finish pounding in some tent pegs with my forehead, which will be a more productive and certainly more pleasant use of my time. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and simply searching User talk:Flyer22 for "Bakhshi82" shows sufficient reason to believe that the latter is not suitable for Wikipedia. No doubt someone could provide a link to a rule saying that nonsense must be tolerated because we are all equal, however simply removing the source of the nonsense would seem to be a more helpful procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting gratuitous removal of notable people from category, edit warring etc.

He's systematically going through categories and removing people from categories of things they worked on. He seems to be doing this fairly arbitrarily, even when the people are verifiably referenced to be highly on topic, and he's doing it when they're not referenced from any other subcategories.

It seems to be either essentially deliberate category vandalism or somebody has seized his account or he's got some kind of problem, (or he's just being a total idiot.)

He's even trying to edit war the changes through, and he's unable to point to any policies or guidelines consistent with what he's doing.

Other users have complained about similar issues on his talk page.

I wouldn't mind too much, but he seems to be mass-removing stuff from categories. And he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, but everything I know about the category system says he's lost his mind.

Help?

e.g. he's removed Gerard O'Neill from Category:Space colonization, but looking at the bio and the main article at Space colonization he's in both. Alan Liefting has also removed Konstantin Tsiolkovsky who more or less invented this theoretical field. [122], and there's loads of others.

I'm going to go with an RFC anyway but is there anything an admin can do to slow this stuff down, otherwise there's potentially going to be a heck of a lot of reverts until an RFC can get to grips with the rights and wrongs of this, he seems to be wrong, and prolifically so. Potentially we're looking at having to go back through this guys edits over months or years and reverting thousands of edits.

Many thanks!Rememberway (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Removal_of_categorization, Talk:Gerard_K._O'Neill#Categories.Rememberway (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be a new category created to hold the people who advocate or theorize about space colonization. I think Alan Liefting is correct in removing people from the category space colonization, because individual biographies are not article topics of colonization. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree you could do that, but there's no policy or guideline that you should do that, and he's not anyway, he's just deleting them all out of hand. What he's doing is essentially indistinguishable from category vandalism, and he's doing it fairly fast, using semi-automatic tools.Rememberway (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think you're correct that biographies are not categorically on-topic, are you saying that (for example) the Wright brother's biography shouldn't be part of the aviation categories?Rememberway (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're planning on making a category called People involved with space colonization, where exactly do you think these biographies should be categorized? It is common practice to add biographies to the categories of what they're involved with. Silverseren^C 03:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Wright brothers should be in the category "Wright-Patterson Air Force Base" or "Gliding in the United States".

The new category could be "Space colonization advocates" or similar. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? Their experiments with gliders led to their development of the airplane; and a portion of the current Wright-Patterson was a testing ground for them in addition to having been named for them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You could do that, but instead this bozo is just deleting stuff completely.Rememberway (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've struck out your personal attack, please do not make such comments. Silverseren^C 03:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a lower-stress approach for people who advocate such changes to make the split category and recategorize biographical articles, rather than just remove categories from biographies...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Binksternets opinion. It is rare to see biographies in the categories in which they are involved. There tends to be a subcat for biographies eg. Category:Botanists, Category:Astronauts. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Space advocates is appropriate for any space colonization advocates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So why are you deleting categories then? You've invented your own personal policy that doesn't actually exist in reality and then gone on a deletion spree.Rememberway (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody could do that with anything. I could arbitrarily decide to remove every 50 th sentence from long articles. There's no policy that says I could do that, but there's no policy that says I can't, and the articles are long enough already right? The articles should have been shorter already. Right? Let's do it then!

That of course is ridiculous. How is this category deletions not the same type of thing? This is an arbitrary deletion spree. The things you are deleting are nearly always related to the category you removed them from. You also did the same with Category:Futurology. This isn't somebody acting normally, this is somebody doing bad faith deletions, the Wikipedia is being repeatedly damaged by your actions. And you are completely unrepentent, and apparently intend to carry on deleting.Rememberway (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Rememberway has been quite belligerent from the start. I have been called a vandal, accused of edit warring, called an idiot and now a bozo. This person is not assuming good faith. It is also a bit rich to accuse me of edit warring when Rememberway is doing exactly the same thing. I have explained my edits in edit summaries and on the talk page. Also, I am attempting to explain the rationale for my edits, although I must admit I am probably not making it clear or covering all the points that I should. Rememberway seems to want clear policy of guideline for categorisation yet there is no prescriptive guideline. In the absence of this I consider what is best for the reader, on unwritten convention or on consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: When you removed the category on Gerard's article, did you add the Space advocates category to it? Silverseren^C 05:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that category initially. It is a more approp category than Category:Space colonization and the article has been in that category since before this issue was raised. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC

There is also Category:Space advocacy. Maybe these categories could be reorganized some way. Category:Space colonization is a fairly large category containing a lot of vague subjects, fiction, etc. which are all fine, but O'Neill was most associated with what I'd call a narrower subtopic that seems worthy of a (sub)category of its own. Basically "space colony engineering" or something like that. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Space advocacy contains lots of biographical articles that should be in Category:Space advocates (as per the categorisation guideline). I think the category structure is about right given the low number of articles but Category:Space colonization needs cleaning out (which is the issue here) and a Category:Space colonization organisations is possibly needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Alan, it's really quite disruptive to do a lot of repetitive operations without prior discussion. There's a WP:BOLD principle but it's intended for actions like single edits, that can easily be undone and discussed. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of my "repetitive operations" are uncontroversial. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this one is not. Could you try to be a bit less abrasive about it? You've removed a bunch of categorization info without moving it anywhere else, which could be viewed a WP:PRESERVE problem. Binksternet's suggestion of making new categories is reasonable. But I think it's best to open a discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT or some other appropriate place, about how to deal with these categories.

I don't think "space advocates" is necessarily the right place for these biographies. The category I'm imagining should contain, say, both Gerard O'Neill and Henry Kolm (Kolm was a magnet expert associated with O'Neill's mass driver lab), whether or not Kolm was personally a space advocate (I don't know if he was). You could also do some constructive populating of the categories rather than depopulating. For example, obvious missing persons include K. Eric Drexler, T. A. Heppenheimer, etc. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully my addition below is not too long for this venue:

First, I do not agree with User:Remeberway's name calling. I do not consider that to be productive. However, I understand this editor's frustration. I have also recently had encounters with Alan Liefting. I have to agree with 69.111....'s characterization that Alan Liefting may come across as abrasive. It is difficult to nail down what rationale Liefting adheres to when removing categories from articles on a large scale. [123] He adheres to guidelines and policies, and then he doesn't adhere to guidelines at the same time. He refuses to provide supporting documents or figures for the rationale he employs - which becomes frustrating. Although it is probably true that he uses the AWB bot only on occasion this is not stated in the edit summaries, and it is supposed to be noted in the edit summaries. Second once his edits had become controversial, he continued to edit as if there were no objections (see previous diff). Especially with the AWB bot it is explicitly stated what to do pertaining to controversial edits, guidelines and policies, and mass editing [124].

The main theme, when communicating with Liefting, is that he is not communicating. Instead he rigidly asserts that he is right and the other editor is wrong - period (see previous diff and [125]. I noticed he mentioned that User:Rememberway is edit warring. As I see it, the edit war actually begins with Liefting edits. He shows no inclination to acknowledge or respect established editors who work on, edit, watch, and protect (large) groups of articles where categories are suddenly being removed without explanation [126]. When his edits were reverted by an established editor (me) he reverted those. These edits included articles, images, and the category:Metamaterials category page. Sorry to say but sudden removal of categories from pages and images on my watch list disrupts my editing. In any case, I reccomend that once Liefting sees that an edit has been reverted that he leave it alone and move on. By his own admission (here or somewhere) he has done thousands of edits, most of which have been uncontroversial. So I am sure there are many more uncontroversial edits ahead. Why stop and fight with other editors who put sweat and tears into articles.

Also, in the first diff is a bit of controversy over edits with User:Andy Dingley. Dingley and I discussed possible solutions on Dingley's talk page [127], [128] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actions by Melesse

I have noticed that Melesse (talk · contribs) has tagged MANY images with FURs when none are needed and nominated images that are ineligible for copyright (Examples from the past 50 edits: [129] [130][131] (more available in user's edit history)). I understand the motivation to fix and applaud this user for the initiative to fix images, however, I believe this user's actions are becoming disruptive through spurious deletion nominations and labeling images copyrighted when, in fact, they are not. I've attempted to discuss this issue with said user politely on their talk page recently...twice ([132][133]) and requested cessation. To date, all I've gotten in return is silence, though this user has opted to say things to other users.

At this point, I'm at my wit's end. Images that are perfectly fine, but are missing a simple label, are being sent to deletion and others are inappropriately being labeled with FURs and being removed from articles where they are NOT in violation of policy. Since this user will not talk to me, I think this is the best avenue to seek assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at the first three diffs, it appears that two things have happened. One, Melesse does not know about {{PD-text}}, and two, the images were not tagged as PD-text, they were tagged as copywritten. In light of that, I would think the best course of action would be to explain PD-Text to Melesse, as technically Melesse's actions would be correct if not for that somewhat hidden factor. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Copywritten"? Do you mean "copyrighted"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • These are the tags that should be on the items: {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}. I discovered this problem while working on images... on the Commons they are correctly tagged and over here they are incorrectly tagged. Now we know why: this user has been tagging images for years and has apparently tagged many of them incorrectly. I will have a go at explaining to Melesse. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Yeah, sure, whatever. <rolls eyes>

@Diannaa: Thank you.

Looks like this problem is solved. I recommend a back massage for BQZip01 while this gets sorted out. I don't see bad faith here, just someone who was doing what seemed like good work to them but with only 80% of the picture filled in. Hopefully this will all settle down and go away. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa, for your full and clear explanation. The previous one, to me, translated to "Some images are marked as fair use but they're really not, for unexplained obscure reasons that you're expected to know." Melesse (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Sven: user BQZip01 has now been notified of the outcome. Unfortunately we now have an unknown number of files with incorrect templates --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Melesse, your answer "Sorry, I didn't know and all that gobbledeegook that BQZip01 wrote on my page was just too confusing/vague" doesn't hold water for me. I've addressed this issue before on your page. I even offered to help you sort through images and REDUCE your workload Your response was, effectively, "go pound sand and leave me alone. I don't care." I've pointed this issue out for over a year and you didn't listen until the issue was brought up at ANI, so I think your "who? me?" response is misleading.

However, if you are true to your word, then I see no reason to continue this discussion further. I will consider the matter resolved. I stand by my offer of assistance to help you look through images. All you need to do is provide me a link on my talk page and I'll help with the assessment (format can be as simple as you want; I'll know what it's for). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring by User:BogdaNz

Hi all. User:BogdaNz has continued to edit-war on German battleship Tirpitz and has all but refused to discuss the issue rationally, despite efforts by several editors to reach a compromise. He has been blocked twice for edit-warring on the article, and has resumed the activity. Can someone please handle this? Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

pls go watch discussion,you changed at least 3 times the number in characterisitic without starting a discussion,you changed everything without starting a discussion and nobody sayd nothing I taked citations from biggest historical research book about Tirpitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits are supported by reliable sources. That is not the point, however. The point is you refuse to discuss the issue rationally, you refuse any attempt to reach a compromise, and you continue to edit-war. This is unacceptable. You have been warned by me and several other editors to stop, and yet you continue. If you persist in your tactless handling of this situation, you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, looking at the history of German battleship Tirpitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it seems that there is a persistent edit war mostly about the ship's specifications (length, speed etc.: [134]). The edit war is between BogdaNz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the one part and mostly Parsecboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, on the other part. The numbers being warred over are not accompanied by inline citations, but the confused talk page discussion leads me to believe that the contributors use differing numbers from different sources.

BogdaNz has been blocked twice already, on 16 and 18 April 2011, for edit-warring on the same article, and has continued edit-warring where he left off as soon as the blocks expired. This means that a time-limited block is not sufficient to prevent continued edit-warring. In addition, BogdaNz's talk page contributions are nearly unintelligible (e.g. [135] [136]), which raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. I have therefore blocked BogdaNz indefinitely. Any administrator may unblock him if they are satisfied that BogdaNz will stop edit-warring, cite sources correctly and make intelligible talk page contributions.

But I believe we should discuss whether Parsecboy should not likewise be blocked for edit-warring. He has made many reverts that simply exchange one uncited set of numbers for another, rather than adding inline citations to the contested numbers so as to allow their verification. What do others think?  Sandstein  16:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My figures are supported by citations in the prose (which is the norm). I have repeatedly attempted to discuss the issue, all to no avail. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the norm is that "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's from the lead paragraph of the policy WP:V. And being right is not among the exceptions to the prohibition against edit-warring listed at WP:EW#3RR exemptions. It follows that you can be blocked for edit-warring even if you reverted unsourced or incorrect edits.  Sandstein  16:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the introduction and infoboxes are typically not cited, provided the information contained therein is cited elsewhere. I've written 23 FAs, you don't need to quote WP:V at me. But, while we're quoting policy, just above that section is the line "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

An infobox is like the introductory paragraph: as long as its information is cited elsewhere, we don't need additional citations there. Moreover, WP:V and other sourcing policies are definitely important: there's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} is a redirect to {{uw-vand4}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of style infoboxes don't normally need citations, but as soon as a fact is contested, it is nonetheless a good idea to add an inline citation, even if the same fact is already referenced somewhere else (which I'm not sure is the case here).  Sandstein  18:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unintelligible talk page comments + well-written additions to articles = copyright violations. I will start going through their contributions. No comment on the edit war issue at this time. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)