Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive672

User:Rcsprinter123

Many of Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)'s edits are related to list of bus routes in Derbyshire. On 29 December he created (at the time it was in article space) "important bus routes in Derbyshire"; it was taken to AfD the same day, and withdrawn after seven and a half hours because the article had been moved into user space. During the AfD, Rcsprinter followed the nominator, Aiken drum (talk · contribs), around and disruptively added tags to articles AD had created: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Two days later, the article was recreated and demanded full protection to make sure no one deleted it. The AfD was not complete as it was withdrawn, however I believe the emerging consensus was trending towards deleting the article or turning it into a redirect. As a result, I turned the newly created article into a redirect and explained why to Rcsprinter.

On 3 January the Skyline 199 article was deleted as the result of a completed AfD (albeit with minimal participation). He recreated the article and again tried to abuse WP:RPP to prevent anyone from deleting the article. I explained this went against the AfD and wasn't appropriate and it was subsequently speedily deleted.

On 10 January Rcsprinter created "key bus routes in Derbyshire", essentially the same as "important bus routes in Derbyshire" and gaming the system by trying to same content under a new title. It was quickly turned into a redirect, but on 10 February Rcsprinter restored the article without discussion.

There are more diffs available, with Rcsprinter edit warring, and simply not understanding policies. In a nutshell, it's clear that Rcsprinter123 is treating Wikipedia like a game and is not abiding by the rules, despite repeated warnings. I think a block on the grounds of Wikipedia:Competence is required may be in order, but am seeking wider input. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Endorse this summary completely. Rcsprinter appears to act in good faith on many occassions, and has a fair number of constructive edits (Template:Meat product navbox and Talk:Burger King/GA2 spring to mind), but also shows a serious lack of judgement on a variety of issues. In addition to the above, there's also the creation and subsequent speedy deletion of User:Sf07 and Template:Do not edit, edit warring on List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear, the odd totally weird edit, a recent block for copyright violations, creation of User:RcsprinterBot... certainly enough to show a lack of competence. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I can hear you all talking about me, you know.

Well, thanks for the constructive edits thing, but you don't have to be so rude! For a start my name is Rcsprinter123 not Rcsprinter, and then, it's very unfair when everybody just keeps deleting the stuff I made! Skyline 199 etc would have made great articles if they had been on there a bit and the community would have edited and expanded it. And it is notable, as it serves as a staple to nearly half of Derbyshire; I mean every single London bus route has its own page, even if it is minor!

I am not edit warring on List of bus routes in Tyne and Wear, just keeping the key.

The bot is still in progress, so there's no need to delete that either. It will update transport pages.

I also think there should be an important bus routes in derbyshire page, to set them apart from the others.

I also can't think why anybody never created a meat navbox before...

Yours slightly-angrily, RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt you want to help, I notice you've nominated several articles at WP:GAC presumably with the intention of improving them. However, you have consistently shown that you are not interested in abiding by the consensus of AfDs, recreating deleted articles multiple times, and don't seem to understand policies such as Wikipedia:Notability or why the AfDs have been closed in the way they have. I was unaware of the block for copyright violations, and frankly it's not filling me with confidence. I'm afraid I just don't think you are sufficiently competent, regardless of your intentions. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. I am sure Rcsprinter123 thinks what he is doing is completely acceptable, but the antisocial attitude of ignoring community discussion and restoring articles inappropriately is not something we want on Wikipedia. He may think it's unfair if his work is deleted, but if he creates non-notable entries then that's to be expected. London bus routes are sometimes notable, sometimes not. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument here. AD 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 identifies on his userpage as being 11 years old. While there have been young editors who have contributed to Wikipedia constructively, I can't help feeling that in this case Rcsprinter123's immaturity is showing through in the form of harassing AikenDrum back in December and failing to see the points of view of others. Nev1 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As per what everyone else has said, we don't doubt you're trying to help, but you've done some things that are unwise and some which are just plain wrong. You don't seem to have quite grasped some of the ways Wikipedia works, for example today's nomination for featured list of a list that's really not good enough yet. (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bus routes in Derbyshire/archive1). Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As the 'creator' of the Tyne & Wear Bus Routes page, I've been asked by Arriva436 to provide my input into the discussion. As I stated on the talk page relating to the page, I created this page after a couple of weeks of experimentation in order to achieve what I believe to be the 'optimum' column widths neccessary to show the required information. My objections to the 'amendments' were four-fold:
1) All the columns were left-aligned, with the only information in Bold relating to Route Names; therefore, having the Route Numbers amended to Centered and Bold creates a visual imbalance (IMHO);
2) The page refers, as the name implies, to Bus Routes IN Tyne & Wear, but also covers those routes that are 'cross-border' HOWEVER I made a conscious decision not to make note of any individual (extra) journeys that are completely outside the 'county' as they would be picked up by that relevant Bus Route page (assuming there is one);
3) The Bus Routes are shown in blocks of 100 for ease of viewing - some of the groupings have been clumped into seemingly random multi-100 blocks, which makes the whole thing look terribly unbalanced - I would have less of a problem if the Route Numbers had a meaning, such as "700-899 are School Routes", but not if it's seemingly arbitary;
4) And the icing on the cake - all the entries relating to Metrocentre Interchange were amended by the inclusion of a symbol indicating it is "at or close to a Tyne & Wear Metro Station": the nearest station is at Gateshead, a 15-minute bus ride away!

Compare this with what Arriva436 did to one of other pages; he has made quite a few amendments, but they were done within the design parameters laid down when I created that page (even using a different colour for a specific note relating to a multi-Route diversion).

I think the overall point that needs to be made is: if you are going to make an amendment, make the amendment but DON'T change the layout - fair? --Geordiewomble 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse by User:Srobak

I started a discussion with User:Srobak after I saw he considered this vandalism worth an immediate lvl 4 "only" warning, but didn't actually bother to revert the vandalism itself (warning was 4 minutes before somebody else reverted the vandalism according to my timestamps). After looking at the users history and talkpage I noticed that the user likes to give out lvl 4 "only" warnings like candy. See for example this reversion of an [obvious good faith edit] and the following lvl 4 "only" warning. There are many, many more examples of this behavior in the users edit history and almost his entire talkpage consists of messages telling him to stop templating the regulars and go easy on the warnings as far back as two years ago. Discussion on the user talkpage was not productive as I was told "1st - you need to check your watch and then apologize. 2nd - if you think that un-referenced, DFE edit was in "good faith" - then you seriously need to review your criteria. Good day." [6]. Faced with such a serious wp:BITE and WP:AGF violations I had no choice but to report the user and request he is added to the Twinkle blacklist to prevent him doing further damage. My apologies if this is supposed to go on some other page, I couldn't think of any other place which might appropriate. Yoenit (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that this sort of thing seems to vbe croping up quite a bit do we need a twinkle noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note; the revert seems to have been at 00:49 and the warning given at 01:45 :) Agree the rest is an issue though --Errant ^(chat!) 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As you quoted me above - you do indeed need to check your watch before making mis-informed, libelous accusations. The warning was issued 56 minutes after the revert, not 4 minutes before! Now, you get apologize here for all to see. Neither incident were biting in nature on my part. Both were deliberate acts of vandalism and/or mis-information on the anonip's parts. After years of extensive vandalism and DFE being endlessly contributed to both of those pages (you should review the page history of both to see the endless counts of "eats babies" and "died 2010" and other stuff), it is clear that shooting them with a squirtgun has absolutely no effect. Time to use the firehose. Now - as you seem to think that this is a TW abuse case, it further goes to illustrate that you need to seriously review your criteria. You will do a lot more good by helping to combat the rampant vandalism here at WP instead of undermining the efforts of those who are. The time for placating to that kind of nonsense has long since passed and you now taking deliberate measures to actually enable them will only make the problem much worse. Srobak (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, apologies for that. I compared the date sign on the talkpage with the time of the vandalism diff, never realizing there is an hour difference between the two due to my timezone setting. Yoenit (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading the post I edit conflicted with I want to clarify I apologize only for messing up the time difference on that warning. I strongly disagree with your attitude towards vandalism fighting and think your behaviour makes you a danger to the project. Yoenit (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. As it was a significant foundation for your complaint, it does negate it a bit. That being said - I strongly disagree with your attitude towards not fighting vandalism - actually placating to it - a behaviour which has a very demonstrated track record of being a "danger" to the project - but to each their own. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You gave a level4im warning to an IP who provided the information that Phil Collins was dating Dana Tyler, which is supported by this interview, among other coverage, with a note to "cut the crap". Since it clearly wasn't crap, though the IP didn't provide a citation, I think that you should take the advice you've been given here to dial it down a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, please don't accuse other editors of "libelous misinformation" for accidentally misreading a timestamp. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sarek - please decide where you would like to have this conversation - I don't have time to respond to fragmented discussions with you at multiple pages. As I said in your other thread - no cite was provided, and your are not citing a WP:RS. On top of that - citing it here does not help the issue. Perhaps you should contribute it to the article. As for the timestamp - as it was a very pointed factor for even starting this ANI to begin with - yes I am well within my right to demand accuracy in said complaint. Had Yoenit bothered to correct it in the first place and continue the discussion on my TP before over-reacting and starting an ANI, I am sure we could have found a mutually agreeable conclusion. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A), level 4 'Only' warnings are almost never appropriate as a first warning, B) your tone here is entirely too harsh. Tauntingly demanding he publicly apologize for libel because he misread a timestamp? Correct him and move on. The rest of his report is valid. --King Öomie 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They are more than appropriate for obvious, blatant vandalism. The rest of your comment is addressed in my response to Sarek as you are both saying the same thing.Srobak (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if there isn't a clear intent to harm the encylopedia. Adding unsourced but non-controversial information (rumors) doesn't fit the bill. That's a bad edit, not vandalism. --King Öomie 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would view it as controversial, but I can see where opinions may differ on that. However - I also view mis-information being contributed to an article as slightly more harmful than being categorized as a "bad edit" - a term usually reserved for something more trivial as poor formatting, incorrect/accidental content deletion, contributing to the wrong section, etc. But if indeed the admins view mis-info as bad editing - then there are some templates and guidelines that are going to require an overhaul. Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If the editor could conceivably have been trying to make the article more informative, but was doing so incorrectly or in a non-constructive way, you aren't looking at vandalism. The key issue here is intent. Dropping a 4i warning on someone for a single non-vandalism edit is pure mastication. --King Öomie 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted. Srobak (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to see an explanation of what in this article he thought deserved a "close paraphrasing" tag. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Already addressed in the article talk page. You can refer to and follow up with it there. The tag has also (incorrectly) been removed, and I have not reverted it (yet). In addition - that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Srobak (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not addressed. You said "it's close paraphrasing of the source", someone asked "what's close paraphrasing of the source", and you said "I already answered your question."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I cited the source from which the close paraphrasing originated. A quick perusal of the source will identify where. However - as I have already indicated above - the tag has been dropped and I have not pursued it further, the issue is unrelated to the one at hand in this discussion and can be continued on the article talk page if you really think it is a pressing issue. Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have no intention of working collaboratively. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there are no other words. Take what I say AS what I say and at face value. Do not tell me what I mean in what I say. That is not up to you, and without doing a mind meld you are not able to read minds. If you would like to work collaboratively on that issue, then there is a place for that... and it's not in this thread. Srobak (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, it would have taken less time to answer my question than to complain about me. What in that article was paraphrased so closely that it deserved a huge honking banner at the top of the page?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Honest to God... 1st> I am not and have not complained about you. 2nd> You are beating a dead horse. The issue was dropped some time ago. Why you are hell-bent on turning it into a federal case is mystery, and is not helping matters or WP. 3rd> I provided ample information in the article talk page (the correct place for the discussion) regarding the paraphrasing so that if someone were to take it upon themselves to even glance it over, it would be evident. I am not in the business of spoon-feeding things to people, and I am not about to start now - even for a WP admin. If I really thought it was THAT important after the OA reverted and posted their reasons why - I would have pursued it further. 4th This is not the place for the execution of what you are pursuing. Are we done yet? Srobak (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please either A) link to the point where you previously explain what the issue is (source and our text) or reexplain here. It's a reasonable request. People often are asked to link to previous discussions to show that they did or didn't do something. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Another misuse of vandalism warnings: last week this edit received an "only" warning from Srobak for being inconsequential.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to take a look at the warning and edit history of that ip. It is not the first time it had been issued a lvl4, and honestly should have been blocked long ago. Srobak (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That particular edit wasn't vandalism. For a little optimism, you should see vandals NOT vandalizing as a glimmer of hope, and instead gently link them to policy pages. --King Öomie 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also noted and understood Srobak (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now from this vantage point, seeing that you've had a different working definition of vandalism than is laid out in WP:VAND (which I don't really fault you for, seems like there's a lot of it going around), you can understand our reaction to your warnings, right? --King Öomie 20:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. I will try to use better discretion in my patrolling, and issue vand warns only for genuine vandalism, while being more support/informative to the others. It just gets old having to constantly fix the same pages multiple times a day while genuine vandals get pass after pass. Wears on my patience a bit, and I over-reacted towards those who were not necessarily deserving of it. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That pretty much settles that, unless someone feels the need to open another thread. I really don't think any kind of sanction is in order, and the content issues are better settled at the pages themselves or at DR. Absent further activity here, I suggest listing this as Resolved. --King Öomie 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on...he is insisting that he is going to template the regulars and using Twinkle to do it. Clearly it is disruptive, just look at his talk page. If he insists on templating the regulars then I'm all for taking the tools from him. I'd like to know he isn't going to do that again.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let's not drive helpful folk away from the project for minor transgressions. To prevent a snowballing which will occur, sadly, if this editor is looked at too closely, I endorse oomie's idea to close this. Egg Centric (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"He's a great editor, just don't look at his contributions?"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shame I have to say this, but... yeah! Group dynamics are such that if pretty much anyone with his sort of edit count is looked at and presented harshly enough a case could be made for a long block at the least, an indefinite ban at the worst. In an ideal world, you would be right (ironically, in an ideal world, so would Srobak as he would be perceived literally) but we have to look at reality.Egg Centric (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So Berean - you are actually endorsing bad edits/vandalism/whatever by people just because they have an account? If that is genuinely the administrative consensus then you all can do whatever you want. Registered users/regulars should be held to an even more strict adherence to the guidelines and policies than the anonip users - just like what you are doing to me here. If you are going to allow excessive latitude to users who obviously should know better - then you have far bigger issues and problems to worry about than me, and I will be happy to take my leave of this place as there is no longer a point in fighting a losing battle. Berean - you really ought to consider not putting the cart before the horse in this, and actually look at what the root cause of the issue in such a circumstance really is. Srobak (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So, Can I take that as a "yes, I'm still going to template the regulars"?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you always answer a question with another question? There are times when a template is warranted by a user. The fact that they are an anonip or a registered user is inconsequential. Just because a user creates an account does not ensure they undergo some sort of metamorphoses. As stated above - if anything a regular user should be far more aware of and accountable to policy and guideline adherence. Yes, I know your response will be to cite Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars - which is an essay - not a WP policy or guideline, to which I will respond with the equally valid essay of WP:Do_template_the_regulars. Please keep in mind I did not write either essay, and they both make very valid points - regardless of your personal feelings. Again - if the administrative consensus is going to actually endorse this lunacy - I'll be happy to just walk away now, and you can pull up the slack, saving you the witch hunt. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on guys, he's been big enough to accept the original problem. Is it necessary to now scrutinise everything he's ever done? WP:DTTR isn't a guideline, even if it's annoying. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine Physics... I see where this is going - and it is truly unfortunate. Let'em get it out of their system. Srobak (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

His judgment is the thing I'm questioning. He presumes a lot and using poor judgment with Twinkle is a bad recipe. He's quick to say that established users ought to know better...but here we are, with him having acknowledged that his judgment concerning vandalism wasn't right...why should we presume that his judgment is right about shoving templates in peoples' faces. I've seen a number of folks telling him not to and no one backing him up on that point...that is a running consensus. I'm simply asking him not to...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually mentioned earlier on about us being "here", and I'm far from perfect. To be honest - rather than all this - I'd have rather gotten templated. That being said... "You have 537 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." Shall I leave c&p from the raw watchlist on your talk page, or would you rather I email it to you? Srobak (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about your watchlist. I've asked you to not template the regulars and you threw back a strawman argument above. I asked again for assurance that you won't do it..and you insist that you are right and show nothing towards cooperation but instead state its a "witchhunt". I've suggested that the tools should be removed from you if you don't refrain and that turns into "I'm leaving". What is this? Templating a bot? ...and since when is redlinking verboten?

I suggest letting him do things manually a while and work his way back to the tools. Cramming templates at a few admins and regulars is a bad idea and he hasn't listened to anyone. You need to work with folks.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you accept that had he phrased things entirely differently you would have no trouble with him? Egg Centric (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Egads, Srobak, I brought you a painless out on a silver platter. You seem insistent on vindication via argumentation, though, so carry on, I suppose. --King Öomie 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with vindication, and that is nothing I am interested in - a question was asked, and I answered. What's wrong with even spirited discussion? I appreciate your efforts, and it is unfortunate others opted to turn it into something else. That makes no less than 3 different directions this thread has gone.Srobak (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright y'all - I'm done carrying on with this. Do as you will. Areas of concern have been identified and I understand them (1) and (2) - and that I would address them. If that isn't sufficient without having to further pigeon-hole me with non-policy/guideline issues just because someone has a different viewpoint on it, then there isn't much more I can do. I have worked tirelessly for years to try and keep the quality of articles on WP at their best and keep the vandalism and bs to a minimum. That is not always an easy task - and it is certainly a thankless task (not that I am asking for any). One thing it can be is frustrating when you see rampant vandalism and outright fallacies in articles day after day, followed up by other users who want to run you through the ringer for every edit or revert I might do. I know I am far from the hardest working editor putting forth these efforts - I know some who do in a day what I do in a week or more, but I'd like to think I am making a positive difference. If the consensus of the admins is that this is not the case, due to a couple of isolated incidents of warning policies and the few times that some registered users thought they shouldn't be held to the same if not an even higher standard than anonip users out of the thousands of "QA" type edits and monitorings I have conducted - and that sanctions are warranted... then so be it. I'll take my lumps for it, and as I said - take my leave of WP. I leave my fate in the hands of the admins at this point, and will not respond to any further circular discussion. I've recognized the things brought to my attention and have indicated to make better efforts on them, and said my bit and perspective on non-policy matters. That is all the more I have to contribute to this situation. I await the decisions of the admins. Thanks Srobak (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't recognized and said you'd do better on them because you have just tried to dodge what was brought before you. You don't have the right judgment to template the regulars. You don't seem to hear what has been asked.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus concerning Twinkle

• Blacklist from Twinkle to prevent further mistakes.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Such a shame :(

Both of you would benefit from reading an excellent book called Getting to YES. You would both be able to sort this out ambicably, I really think. The most troubling this is you are both right. Berean is essentially after greater compliance (and it has to be explicitaly stated) with policy and greater civility. Srobak is essentially after being allowed to edit towards the good of the encyclopedia, and the right to call a spade a spade.

THESE GOALS ARE COMPATIBLE. Perhaps we could have another go, gentlemen? Ber could re-enable twinkle, srobak could promise not to warn anyone for a couple of days? Egg Centric (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle hasn't been removed..instead, I'm starting a consensus format. It isn't the time period of not warning...a couple of days won't make up for errors in judgment. I think your summary is probably right <and also appreciate your efforts here>. I see him as being too recalcitrant, don't like how he responds to other editors (longtime editors that I respect a good deal) and looking for him to play nice in the sandbox. Collegiality seems to be pitched out the window with him.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been templated after this discussion began for removing a warning template from the good faith IP mentioned in my original post [7]. I have little faith that the editor is really gonna change his behaviour. Yoenit (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Really Yoenit? You were L1 templated because you violated WP:TPO! This is a perfect, textbook example as to why WP:TR exists and should be enforced. The original complaint from you was regarding [[8]], was reverted by an admin (Sarek) after being identified as an improper warn [[9]], replaced by the correct template [[10]], which you then removed as a third party, violating WP:TPO [[11]]. Thank you for making my case for me. Srobak (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, I am off to bed before I make any comments I am gonna regret. Suffice it to say I think further discussion with you is futile. Yoenit (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Short Comment by uninvolved editor

Srobak, I'm glad you're doing this work. You may not be aware, but you're coming off exceptionally aggressively/confrontationally here (heck, even your user page!) and I've no doubt that it's accidental, a feature of text based communication perhaps. Perhaps you may want to look at that - maybe be a little less direct, a little bit more flowery? Egg Centric (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Egg, I appreciate your feedback... but I will be honest: Flowery isn't me. I know I am direct... I don't pull any punches and I do not beat around the bush. For better or worse - it is who I am, and not just my "online persona". While some folks in this thread may see that as being potentially "problematic" for WP - the more realistic and open minded sort will also be able to identify the strengths and how they could be of far more benefit to WP vs. harm. Srobak (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, I am the same myself. Nevertheless there is some value in understanding how you come across to others and realising that even if one is in the right objectively, people will agree and disagree with you for all kinds of subjective reasons and taking care of that is wise. Furthermore, when it comes to the biting issue, this perceived aggressiveness (although we see it as straight talking) is a hindrance. Egg Centric (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Kerp in mind, too, that what you may regard as "honest plain speaking" may give the opposite impression: that you're being aggressive specifically because you have something to hide. I'm not saying that you lie; I'm saying that aggressive language often leaves the impression that the speaker is lying. People who pride themselves on aggressive plain speaking rarely realize this on their own, which is why I point it out. --174.5.67.203 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Another short comment by outside editor

Srobak, we have escalating warning levels for a reason. We try the softly softly approach before the big stick. Unless the edit in question is a serious BLP violation or otherwise egreriously violates our policies you should step through the warning templates in order. Exxolon (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's posted a mea culpa above (after this post). In general, I skip warning steps only when the vandal acts again in a short time (for example, directly reverting my revert of their vandalism). --King Öomie 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One more

Srobak, this isn't about "talking straight" this is about following process and rules. We have a rather strict policy about what is an isn't vandalism and about assuming good faith - not to mention civilty which I guess you just don't agree with. But a level 4 warning means something particular, and so does vandalism - by using it in the wrong context you are making it meaningless.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still another

I couldn't help but be struck by Srobak's tone in this thread: he sounds like an old-timer who has grown embittered over the years, badly needs to take a long WikiBreak,& is tolerated because he has done valuable work in the past. However a look at Srobak's statistics show a far different person: a Wikipedian for less than two & ahalf year, having made less than 2,000 edits in that time. And there's no clear basis for bitterness on his side: yes, Srobak's been blocked, but that was years ago & for 3RR; a glance at Srobak's talk page before this WP:AN/I thread shows a lot of questions & mild warnings about he handles vandals.

In short, I don't know where this bull dog mentality comes from. My advice to Srobak here is this: dial back on the 'tude, Dude. Not all vandals are vicious little scumbags; some are just bored juveniles. And people generally respond better to personal messages than to templates. If you can't understand this, & try to play nice with others, your experience contributing to Wikipedia will only become less pleasant. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at school articles

Adolescent vandals teeing off on their schoolmates, who are private persons, at least one particularly nasty case. Very recent IP/new user edits, sometimes multiple edits to the articles. Edits reverted, but need to be removed from public view.

• Tell City High School
• Philo High School
• Franklin High School (El Paso, Texas)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Think I got them, but I left a couple that didn't seem revdelable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Are comments made about a real person, made on a BLP of another person eligable for Revdel? As I mailed a revision to the Oversight list, but it was deemed not eligible for oversight nor for revdel as it was seen as simple vandalism. Jarkeld (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably. The oversighters are much more conservative (as it should be) about using their tool than admins. If you post the diff, I can clean it up. --Jayron32 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This one. Jarkeld (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and an earlier one by the same IP as well. --Jayron32 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder, anything particularly nasty about possibly living persons, that needs consideration of RevDel or oversight, should be either sent privately to an admin happy to handle RevDel requests, or sent privately to the oversight team as per WP:OVERSIGHT. Mentioning it here risks attracting additional attention (although I imagine it made little difference in this case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The user DID contact oversight, and they refused to handle it. This seemed like a logical next step. --Jayron32 16:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but privately approaching someone in CAT:REVDEL might have been slightly better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find someone on that list who was online at the time, but the people I looked at hadn't been online for a while so my next step was to mail the oversight team. Jarkeld (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Poofledawgirl Vandalism only acct.

Resolved

This user Poofledawgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is copying the shibi inu page and duplicating it all over wiki using different topic names as from her talk page she has been consistently using her acct. for pure vandalism. Avatar 06349 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted all pages, Sarek's blocked the user. In future this can go to WP:AIV where it's likely to be addressed quickly. —SpacemanSpiff 19:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks

This user has a number of blocks for personal attacks but still continues [12] Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind Gnevin but i adjusted your link to show the edit summary which is the source of the personal attack, it just showed the article and that it was an old version edited by Onetonycousins. Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as "Useless propaganda". Hows its propaganda is another question. User despite two previous blocks appears to still think demeaning edit summaries are permissable on Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, thanks for correcting my error Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as Useless propaganda. Hows its propaganda is another question." A stalker and a genius. Believe it or not, "Hows its propaganda" is the question. Maybe ask the IP who thought it was "pointless". Onetonycousins (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not my fault that this page is in my watch list and your name appears once again for personal attacks and the like. Though you should know the answer to your question seeing as it was you who said it was propaganda. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack while reporting a ANI case. [13] Gnevin (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

IP 24.185.84.37 Use of User name JeffJonez

In reviewing edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Mitchell (government official) I noticed that 24.185.84.37 signed a comment in the AfD using the username JeffJonez. See [14] I have looked at the edits by both users and see a difference in the type of edits both create. 24.185.84.37 has removed maintenance tags and the AfD. The edits exhibit vandalism while JeffJones' edits are standard well thought out edits. Should something be done about the Anom's apparent spoofing of JeffJones' address? ttonyb (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP didn't take kindly to this point being raised: [15]. Coming on top of several warnings, that one earned them a short stay in the sin bin. Favonian (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

His actions go a long way to the validation of the assumption. ttonyb (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I've struck the fake signature in the AfD and replaced it with the real one. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Should I be flattered? I suppose my name is generic enough that this astroturfer thought it was cover enough. How odd! - JeffJonez (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you come into conflict with this IP recently? Or any other, in case he's hopping? GiantSnowman 19:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted my share of vandalism, but haven't had any challenging conversations in almost a year here. Who knows. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is it was not vandalism directed toward JeffJonez, but rather an attempt to add credibility to the AfD comment. ttonyb (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see now. The article was for a Homeland Security official, and I've previously made edits in several DHS-related articles. This is probably how anon came to choose my account -- as Ttonyb1 said -- to add credibility to their position. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Dorothyy11 and article about non-notable band "Dorothyy"

Resolved

This editor have three times now created the article Dorothyy, a non-notable band from Rhode Island. Three times it's been deleted, but he keeps coming back and recreating it. Then he made this diff to the Dorothy disambiguation page, after he had been reverted from adding that information to the disambig page before. To quote the edit summary in his diff, "im going to make a billion wiki pages and flood this site if this is taken down....." Recommend blocking of this editor, and salting of Dorothyy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Behavior by User: Mad Doggin 7 / 65.254.165.214

The user Mad Doggin 7 (also posts under the IP address 65.254.165.214, which is clearly the same person) has repeatedly disrupted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters. Over several months he has unilaterally reverted several community members' edits countless times to place his unsourced, extremely poor quality information (his story has also changed to very different but equally poor information despite him claiming the same source). This information is in direct contradiction to community concensus and provided official sources. When asked to provide links or verification regarding his sources or evidence, he has repeatedly explicitly refused to do so, stating that he is above the need to provide verification.

Not only this, but he has repeatedly threatened other users on the article's Talk Page who disagree with him with bans/blocks that he has no authority over. He has even explicitly lied about the administrator privileges of another user in an attempt to intimidate other users. This is explicitly prohibited as noted under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TPNO#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

I laid out a well formulated argument on the talk page (which he frequents): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters, in which I cited and provided links to many official sources (including the media's creator which he supposedly cites) and addressed his claims. I also warned him of his disruptive behavior and Wikipedia policy violations, with direct links to the policy pages. He has chosen to ignore this, and instead continued his reverts under his alternate IP address/account 65.254.165.214 (a quick look at the address' history reveals that this is obviously the same person) without bothering to respond or provide any sources as he has consistently done so in the past.

I recommend immediate action be taken to prevent further disruption by this user. As demonstrated over the last several months, he has no intention of stopping or providing any evidence, despite being warned to do so. Investigation into the IP address reveals a history of disrupting other articles as well. CannikinX (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Still awaiting administrator feedback). It has now been more than 24 48 hours since this thread was started with no comment or action. I am posting just to make sure this does not get prematurely archived. Though this article may be of "low priority", it would be greatly appreciated if there were some acknowledgement that this situation has at least been reviewed by a member of the administrative staff. Further investigation into this user's history reveals that it was deemed necessary by administrators to block him for his behavior in the past. CannikinX (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If he does this again and you catch it when its still "recent" you can report it at WP:ANV and probably get him blocked. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources

Issue

On Amrish Puri, Winston786 added information without adding a WP:Reliable Source after final warning. User has recently come back from a one week block over this issue. He has had warnings over several articles from me and other users over adding WP:Reliable Source, here, here, here, here, and finally he has made changes to here again without adding references. Thanks--SH 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)--SH 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ranbir Kapoor page is great example of what has happened. See the Talk page here, fascinating. Thanks --SH 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of where this user does not post WP:Reliable Sources, and on many occaisions goes against the source:

1. here
2. here which contradicts this
3. here
4. here
5. here he undid a reliable source.
6. here he seems to have an objection to Urdu.
7. here he contradicts the reliable source.
8. here he seems to have a strange objection against reliable sources.
9. here he deletes what the reliable source says "When Hindus crack this joke, they are oblivious to the fact that had the Sikhs not intervened, their womenfolk would have been dishonoured and taken into exile.". This looks like WP:Censorship too.
10. here, he removes content that I have typed on the Administrators notice board.
11. Note the WP:Competence and WP:Reliable Source raised by an Administrator here
12. He has had a another block this time for 2 weeks for breaking the WP:3RR rule here

Thanks --SH 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Any interested parties might like to read the discussion on my talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Response

I didn't add it(on Amrish Puri page), I RE-added it, it was taken off by IP 115.188.244.146 on 12th January 2011, it was there earlier. User:Sikh-history, who is consistently stalking only my edits didn't check it and reverted it blindly. I have added sources(and provided better ones, when asked for) in all the disputed pages.

• This case was settled as I immediately provided the reliable source.
• This I have already mentioned.
• This ended up with other user tagging what I added, which was a "fact".Winston786 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history himself have been adding unsourced data on pages. His edit history will let you know his obsession with me and is consistent stalking of my edits. Thank You. Winston786 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My explaination

2. This is a fact
3. This is a fact
4. here User:Sikh-history seems to have extra love for Urdu.
5. here I did not do it.
6. This explained above
7. here not contradicting, infact adding
8. This I did not, wrote EXACTLY whats written in the source
9. here User:Sikh-history seems to have extra love for Punjab.
10. here User:Sikh-history adding his POV unlike whats written "where they killed 1.5 lakh people, both Hindus and Muslims. He headed homewards almost immediately, taking back incredible loot gold, jewelry, elephants, horses, camels, skilled labourers and, as is usual in war, women" Winston786 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Further Comments

User:Sikh-history seems to have a pro Punjab and pro Sikh bias and a little anti Hindu bias in his editions, also the user seems to be madly obsessed with me, most of his/her recent edits are the one which follow my edits on a particular page, there are too many such incidents to call it a co-incidence. He/She started editing those pages only after I edited them, so them being on his/her watchlist doesn't really hold too much ground Thank You.Winston786 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am a Hindu convert to Sikhism originally from Haryana, and have lived in Punjab, not that it is relevant, but then again you must remember to WP:Assume Good Faith. Thanks--SH 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The user seems to have a religious history which could be a reason for his supposed bias. Winston786 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That is bordering on racism my friend, it is like saying because I am black, I have a chip on my shoulder, or because I am a Jew I hate Muslims. Accusations like that are not cool man.--SH 09:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

violation of 3RR

User Roger Pearse has violated 3RR on Mithraic mysteries‎‎. He has made four reverts in close succession and at least one was after being warned to refrain from edit warring. He has also reverted one of my comments from the talk page.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there are better noticeboards for that, but in the meantime (since the situation was obviously headed downhill) I have asked the mediation cabal to assist in reaching a resolution, listing you and Roger Pearse and one other editor - you may (or may not) wish to indicate your acceptance of mediation on that page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(In addition, the page in question is full protected, and the user in question said he's not going to be online today, so things seem under control) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User Impersonation - Mad Doggin 7 Making False Claims Using my Signatures/Claiming to be Moderator

The user User: Mad Doggin 7 has been impersonating me, making claims on the Talk:List of Black Rock Shooter characters and linking my user name at the end as a signature as if I had made the claim myself. Prior to clarifying that I am being impersonated, I have not made any contributions to that page since September 24, 2010 as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=386769826&oldid=386560984.

The edit(s) in question in which the identified culprit has made are the following:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=410621620&oldid=410254409 : Mad Doggin 7 uses my name at the end to back his own personal argument about sources and naming in the article

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Black_Rock_Shooter_characters&diff=411390510&oldid=411390089 : In this edit he claims for himself that I am a moderator to give weight to the last statement he made as me(noted in the above edit). I have never once alluded to being, cited myself as being, falsified my self as being or claimed myself to being a moderator

My account has not been compromised and a quick check through My Contributions shows edits that correlates with ones that I myself am aware that I made. To summarize, the user in question, User: Mad Doggin 7 has been editing in my name to their arguments in order to gain some absurd advantage over other editors. They have also made false statements and impressions that I am a moderator, of which I myself have never expressed, in order to gain an upper hand in their personal desire to ensure their edits to the List of Black Rock Shooter characters article are not removed or changed. Fox816 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking into it. Is it possible you wrote that in the past and he copy-pasted it? That's the only innocent explanation I can think of. N419BH 06:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have never made any such claims and a refresher check through my history shows no such writings. I read through it all...and to be blunt, their methodology and the fact they claimed it to be mine is an insult to me as an editor and a person. I clearly state in earlier posts that "I myself am not sure as to what the accurate names are for the characters aside the main four in the OVA so I can't comment on naming issues" - edit on September 17. I also clearly state that reliable sources must be provided and should be linked. Fox816 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's kinda what I thought. Looks like someone who doesn't realize the history shows which account actually made the edit. Looks intentional too; they seem to have created the comment signed to you in order to provide a second opinion to back them up, then they mistakenly assumed that everyone who's been around for a couple years is a "moderator" (no idea what that is) and used that to proxy-threaten the opposition with blocks. A STERN warning here seems more than appropriate, and a block is perhaps in order, though I don't have the tools to do that. N419BH 06:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing this up Fox816. I had my suspicions that something was up because the recent behavior under your name was distinctly inconsistent with past behavior, and I had a feeling that Mad Doggin 7 was somehow involved.

Please note, any administrators investigating this, that I have also started a thread with addressing several other grievances involved with Mad Doggin 7 (and his associated IP address 65.254.165.214) which is located higher up on this page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Behavior_by_User:_Mad_Doggin_7_.2F_65.254.165.214. It has information related to this investigation, and as of yet has not received administrator attention (as far as I can tell). CannikinX (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have struck out Fox's "signature" in the post in question and placed a note regarding who actually wrote the post and directed users to the page's history for the evidence. Investigating the socking claim now. N419BH 07:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. I went through the warning templates checking for one that fits "impersonation" but can't seem to find one, unless I happened to skip over it in my rage. If it is in my right to suggest, I believe a block is appropriate since the said user has shown a tendency for intimidation, subjugation and a general disrespect for other editors. As well, impersonation itself is a severe grievance that should not go unpunished. Will an administrator come along and deal judgment or do I have to parallel this case somewhere else? Fox816 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This template can be used once he is blocked, Template:Blockedimpersonator. Here is a warning template for his talk page, User:Chrisch/Templates/Impersonation. There is also one to use when actually blocking, Template:Uw-uhblock-double. I don't see one for warning users of impersonation however. Hope this helps! _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just leave it here for now. It's pretty common around this time (late night in the United States, early morning in Europe) for the boards to go pretty silent and few people to be online, with even fewer admins around. Someone will read through it once they've had some coffee and deal with it as appropriate. A stern warning is appropriate here, and I will provide a customized one in a moment. As for blocking the user, blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't use them to punish people, we use them to prevent damage. In my opinion, a stern warning is appropriate here, but a block is not unless the user continues their disruptive behavior. N419BH 07:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

...I guess I went ahead of myself there. I opened up a can of angry birds, now I need to cool down a bit. Thank you everyone for assisting :D Fox816 (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Final Warning given. We'll see what his response is. N419BH 07:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too optimistic, and a look at this talk page history shows why, but we'll see. Kansan (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Campaign of Deletion" against the Transformers Wiki Project by NotARealWord and TFWiki.net

The Transformers wikipedia project has recently suffered from a glut of sock puppet attacks and deletion nominations. I recently came across posts by user NotARealWord on a fan wiki (he posts as Item42 there, but since he publically admits to that, I think it's okay for me to say so here). In it he talks about the current "Campaign of deletion" he has going here. I also noticed several of the people who talk to him are also voting for deletion nominations, and some even admit to having sock puppets on Wikipedia. He did this after I told him how anti-Wikipedia sentiments on the tfwiki are. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive47#Some_Wikipedia_user The tf wiki even brags about how few Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia. http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Wikipedia I was wondering if this amounts to canvasing or even instigating some of the sock puppet attacks. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly some of the participants are dicks and violating policy, but multiple established editors have also initiated and participated in these AfDs, merges, redirects, etc. None of these happen without multiple people chiming in, and final evaluation of the merits of arguments about the articles are rendered by established administrators. Perhaps this calls for closer scrutiny of new(ish)-user initiation and participation in AfDs (which I think has already happened), but nothing more. --EEMIV (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Individual cases of possible sockpuppetry can be investigated, but my experience of the Transformers AfDs have generally been that in spite of some occasional questionable nominations and/or !votes, the right decision is usually reached, as genuine editors weigh in and sockpuppets/SPIs are exposed and disregarded by the closing admin. I can't claim to have any understanding of what happens on tfwiki but I'm disinclined to try and understand who is who and who has done what on which wiki, as I don't really see the relevence.--Korruski^Talk 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The question about whether the deletions were done correctly isn't the issue. It's about NotARealWord's tactics in seemingly canvasing from anti-Wikipedia groups about his nominations. He even brags on how many Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia. He would seem to be abusing the nomination process. Since he joined NotARealWord has been about article deletions. Maybe he should take a break and do something else with his edits for a change? (Note: This is Mathewignash at a terminal at my work.) 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not seeing evidence of canvasing per se. Can you point to a specific divdif? You might interpret his statements as bragging, and I agree that referring to it as a 'campaign' is a little unfortunate, but I don't see it as particularly inappropriate. If you found me talking on another wiki about my 'campaign to improve citations in BLPs on Wikipedia', I don't think anyone would be complaining. And yes, in the end, the question about whether the deletions were done correctly is the issue. If no damage has been caused, then any further discussion is really just drama for no good reason.--Korruski^Talk 15:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Failing to see an issue here, particularly with activities at TFWiki; whose members seem perfectly happy and content and quite accepting of our policies (it is, after all, what TFWiki exists for....). This just comes across as an attempt to get some action against NotARealWord. Mathewignash doesn't seem squeaky clean in all this; WP:BOOMERANG --Errant ^(chat!) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Canvassing "Stealth canvassing - Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages." People there had already said they were wikipedia editors when he started telling them about his "Campaign of Deletion". He did it off site with the clear intent of gaining support. He provided a link to his talk page which has a link to his nominations for deletion. He clearly attempted Stealth Canvassing to gain support for his nominations. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please provide a link or two to a diff of him asking folks to chime in at AfDs, or pointing folks toward a specific AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As said in my comment above, which you have not responded to, difs would be useful as currently I see no evidence of the 'clear intent of gaining support' that you are claiming. Incidentally, I have informed NotARealWord of this discussion, as you seem not to have done so yet.--Korruski^Talk 16:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Merely notifying those who are clearly on one side of an issue is is canvasing. It would be no different from me notifying only those who voted with me in a previous deletion cases that there is another deletion nomination. Doing it off site is stealth. He provides a link to his talk page on Wikipedia, and tells them about the nominations. I don't know of a requirement that he provides a link to the nominations in his posting, he does link to Wikipedia and tells people who are admitted members. They know to look in the Transformers Wiki project for current nominations. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
        • You might have been within spitting distance of a point if NotARealWord actually solicited anyone to come participate in an AfD, and if any of the TFwiki users were considered some sort of hotbed of Transformers deletionists. But he didn't say anything like that at all, and the TFWikipeople seem largely ambivalent/dismissive about Transformers articles on the Wikipedia, preferring their own content and methodology. I read through a few articles, and it is much more of a fan-oriented and humorous approach to the subject matter. If Mathewignash has a bee in his bonnet about how people talk about him off-site, there's really not much to be done about that. Similar complaints pop up time time time regarding the Wikipedia Review, where the response is (appropriately) "tough cookies". Tarc (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
          • The fact that the TFwiki's page about Wikipedia makes a joke about how it now has fewer Transformers articles is proof of it's deletionist tendencies. We don't need proof he asked them one way or another, he informed those he clearly knew off site to be of one opionion about deletion nominations. That's stealth canvassing. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Guys, stop asking for diffs. They don't exist. Mathewignash is making things up. Ego sum a atrum militis (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm confused. How can he? canvass people after the !vote? Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
              • (ec)It is not "stealth canvassing" if nothing is actually being, y'know, canvassed. Again, at WR there are regular discussions about problematic articles, but there is no sort of bloc response that results, now is one expected. Same for the TFWiki place. They are dismissive of TF Wiki articles in general. Dismissive != deletionist. And I really don't put much stock in the point of view from single-purpose anon IPs anyways, so this will be the last of this side tangent. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Tarc, you haven't read the discussion so far before joining in. 198.51.174.5 stated three edits above who xe is. And even without that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathewignash makes this point clear. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • Ahh, so I missed one line of one post of Mathewignashs'. My mistake, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of the commentary. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The long and short of the issue is that there's only a problem if pages were inappropriately deleted, which does not seem to be the case. The spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia: No damage means that this is a non-issue. Besides per Mathewignash's own link(very bottom) at the top of this page, the stated purpose of this "campaign" is to improve the encyclopedia. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think there's much cause to worry. Administrators are not, in general, members of the ranks of the terminally stupid; they will not simply delete nominated articles that have evidently been vote-stacked despite the appropriateness of the nomination. In fact, people can nominate articles for deletion until they are blue in the face, but articles won't get deleted solely because they are nominated -- the nomination must also have merit, and the votes must be reasonable plus representative of a consensus. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to this, please note that my "campaigning" was already addressed by Dream Focus (see here) a few months ago. And no, the fact that TFWiki "brags about how few Transformers articles are left on Wikipedia" has nothing to do with me. The bit that says "Wikipedia is also a real website. It has many articles on Transformers—though not nearly as many as it used to", has been around long before I started making AfDs. I started around August 28. Also, I don't think TF Wiki is actually involved in this deletion very much, I only noticed like, 2 people from there commtning on my AfDs. One of them was already blocked as a sockpuppet. NotARealWord (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In an interestign turn of events, a message board thread run by the tfwiki is monitoring this thread, a thread where NotARealWord has posted as well, and one member, Blackout, admits to "wasting" one of his sock puppets to post against me here. Meanwhile I see blocked editor "Editor XXV" has attacked this thread. Blackout is Editor XXV, a known mass sockpuppeteer, and Blackout is a major contributor to the tfwiki. So basically we know for sure one of the many sock puppeteers is a major TFwiki member. Mathewignash (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your point? -Blackout-/Editor XXV/whatever's acounts have been blocked. I'm pretty sure only the Divebomb account was created as a result of this. And, that was a "good hand" account which has already been blocked. Also, that thread is not really "run by the tf wiki" NotARealWord (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Ignash, this feels like a rehash of a previous thread you started last year.

This is far from being a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" versus all the poor put-upon editors who are being surprised at suddenly have a lot of work to do. This is you having over two year's notice that there were problems here, including from some of the editors who have now made deletion nominations, not doing pretty much anything about it, and then complaining when the rest of the world runs out of patience waiting. You shouldn't be surprised that you're in the pickle that you're in now. You had at least a year, after you knew without question that there was a problem looming, where you could at leisure have rectified this situation and prevented this from happening. That you are now pressured into working hard to cite sources at a time that you find personally inconvenient is a bed of your own making.

— User:Uncle G, An AN/I thread sometime ago

NotARealWord (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

...and looking back at that incident, it ended with us discovering that one of the editors making massive deletion nominations was a sock puppet nominator. So that complaint was VALID! Mathewignash (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That one was helpful, this one isn't. Not really sure if it was "valid" though, since you weren't actually complainin that you suspected sockpuppetry at first, you were just complaining about AfDs and the sockpuppets popped up. NotARealWord (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a regular on TFWiki (under the name JW), I am not aware of any anti-Wikipedia sentiment more organized than, "It would be nice if their rules were more like ours, and it would be nice if they had more Transformers articles, but [shrug] whatever." TFWiki's article about Wikipedia is not much more than an idle grumble (and mostly just about Wikipedia getting mentioned in a Transformers magazine, anyway). I believe this basically boils down to a disagreement between Mathewignash and NotARealWorld. 38.111.35.2 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it odd that anyone thinks there's a TFWiki campaign to delete TF Wikipedia articles, when I got the impression that a significant reason some TFWiki people are disgruntled with Wikipedia is because they found it annoying that articles and info they put effort into kept getting deleted or changed around due to Wikipedia rules. As such, making a campaign of encouraging said deletion would be... rather contradictory. --67.252.49.31 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus there is the minor detail that at least one tfwiki regular member, user:Blackout, is an active sock puppeteer disrupter on Wikipedia (user:Editor XXV). Something he told NotARealWord just before NotARealWord told him about the current "Campaign of Deletion" he was running on Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In full disclosure, there are currently two SPI cases about this: one where Mathewignash accused NotARealWord of being a sockpuppet, and one where NotARealWord accused Mathewignash of using an IP. What a mess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a blooming clue of what's going on here. We don't even have a list of which TF article are being AfD'd or any diff for the accusation of canvassing to get the un-indentified TF articles deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's probably because they don't exist. As EEMIV pointed out above, and as I pointed out the last time (hyperlinked-to above), there are in reality several distinct groups of people here. Alas, one group comprises malicious pot-stirrers, who have observed Mathewignash's reactions to other people nominating articles for deletion and set out to deliberately get a rise out of Mathewignash. But those are not even the majority of the people involved, let alone the entirety. There are, for example, people such as BlackKite (whom I pointed to last time as someone trying to get Mathewignash to cite sources and address multi-subject articles over a period of years) who most definitely do not fall into that category. There are also, as EEMIV points out, ordinary good-faith editors who have come along and expressed their concern at articles that AFD has drawn to their attention. There isn't some giant imagined "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" here. There are a lot of different people, with different motivations. Quite a few of them, it appears, are people acting in good faith to get some articles fixed that they'd like to see fixed. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• If there was any canvassing, it was already resolved months ago. NotARealWord (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As one of thiose who has, occasionaly, been involved in a tranformers AFD I would like to say that I am far more concerned bt the Transformers inclusionism. It seems that every character, planet, ship or shirt that appears in an incarnation has an articel. This is part of that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a big tangent from the initial concern Mathewignash raised, and that kind of content issue isn't relevant at ANI. Consensus seems to be that Mathewignash's concern isn't really shared by anyone. Let's stop editing this section so the bot can clear it out. --EEMIV (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No here to contribute + Sock puppetry

• grammar-and-logic.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Jean-François Monteil de Quimper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) =
• Jean KemperN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) =
• Jean KemperNN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) =
• PESSAC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

is a trans-wiki spammer of original research. Also with the same logins in the french wikipedia. See here Thank you. --Epsilon0 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All  Confirmed except the first one, which is stale, but I think that's also an obvious sock. –MuZemike 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Anybody to block him and to blacklist his three sites grammar-and-logic.com 1], [erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr 2] [knol.google.com/k/cestas/knol-000-pr%C3%A9sentation-des-trois/39y3khftrdkhq/62# ? 3] ? --Epsilon0 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. The blacklist is something I'd rather not touch, though. Courcelles 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Added grammar-and-logic.com and erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr to the blacklist - not sure how to add the knol link without blacklisting the entire knol.google.com site though (which presumably we don't really want to do!) EyeSerene^talk 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I blacklisted the stuff on meta, will remove here again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all of you. --Epsilon0 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-opening Weiterbewegung, Maurice J. Halton and revocation of licensing for posted text

This was raised at the end of December WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Weiterbewegung.2C_Maurice_J._Halton_and_revocation_of_licensing_for_posted_text but was auto-archived without any resolution - or any response by the user involved. (Please read if you're not already familiar.)

Today has now brought the same problem back, on three four five more articles:

• B. Hick and Sons
• L. Gardner and Sons
• Seddon Atkinson
• Ferranti
• Dobson & Barlow (another one, after his "I'm gone now" posting))

As previously, this editor (who is generally assumed to be Maurice J. Halton) has helpfully posted large parts of his theses, but now flagged these same additions as copyvios. As before, that's an attempt to revoke an irrevocable license of this text, as clearly explained on our edit pages. The alternative (they're not the author) would be that their contributions represent a serious bulk copyvio.

Action is needed here. Obviously the project is harmed by this sort of addition and reversion. Several editors have already wasted time on dealing with this and, more seriously, it's difficult to justify working on these articles in the future if they're to be under perpetual threat of deletion / major content removal in the future.

This is made worse by the editor's refusal to engage in any discussion of their actions. Their carping at anyone and everyone else is irritating, but no worse than the usual trolls that we have to suffer.

What is our action from this point? Rollback of all of this editor's additions? An indef block and ban to prevent it happening again? Doing nothing, as last week, doesn't seem to be a viable option. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that Weiterbewegung is asked to suggest a solution, as treating experts with respect and trying to understand their Weltanschauung is often more productive than to assume conflict. He may be in a position to get Maurice Halton to give a OTRS statement of consent for his work to be used in this way: thus satisfying WP conditions so he in all conscience could then remove the copyvio tags he 'rightfully' placed, and we would all be in a more secure position. I am very keen to have this resolved as I have a to do list of other Manchester machine tool companies that need to be written up, and I am hoping that the eminent scholar has copious reams of notes on these companies that he may be proud to share.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

His theses are copyrighted. They are copyrighted the moment he published them. He cannot just paste them here, because we don't know if it's really him. There are two possible courses of action here: either we remove those contributions as copyvios, or he provides permission to use his theses through the OTRS system. If he does the latter, we can keep the text. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy Walsh, I think that the issue is wider than the original premise. However, to address your comment: it seems to make the assumption that the user in question is in fact Maurice J Halton & can therefore grant permission. To be honest, and based on other events not directly related to the copyvios, my suspicion is tending more towards trolling. Of course, I cannot prove this and, which is worse, I'm too green to know how to demonstrate it using diffs (I can see them but not use them!) etc. Take a look at my own talk page and that of the Churchill Machine Tool Company (+ history of that article). If he is not MJH then he has in legal terms himself breached copyright, and arguably also "passed off", and is in as much hot water as WP as an organisation; if he is MJH then by putting the stuff up here in the first place he has granted rights to use it. All I can add to this is that (a) I have been subjected to his general attitude and find it combative and reductionist at almost all times; (b) he does not seem to be learning even though other people much more experienced than me have tried very hard to deal with that attitude and accepted on good faith that as a noob he will not be entirely familiar with how things operate; and (c) his last resort seems always to quote WP:AGF, to the point where he is actually working *against* AGF by repeatedly using it as, for all intents and purposes, a defence. I for one am on the verge of walking away. I've fettled in quite a big way a couple of what are now big-ish entries here and have spurred those entries on to better things than I could hope for because they gained attention from people better than me (and massively so on the issue of polishing things up). In theory I could keep doing that quite easily. But "am I bovvered" when faced with someone who seems to me at times to be more difficult to deal with than a WP vandal ? I am genuinely sorry about this and feel bad as I type it, but I had to sound off. I also freely admit my limitations and ineptitude with regard to certain aspects of WP. It is not my intent to cause trouble or to seek attention. I've got a heap of stuff on the backburner for Farmer, Norton Ltd, which should exist as an article, but frankly am reaching the point of not caring less with regard to WP. And now I have probably breached all etiquette, but forgive me please because I've not been involved in this sort of thing before. Sitush (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, thanks for posting. I'm afraid you misunderstand the essence of the issue here. Whether he really is MJH is irrelevant—he cannot grant permission to use copyrighted work just by posting here, precisely because we cannot verify who he is. If he really is MJH or has access to him, he must grant permission through the OTRS system. That's really all there is to say about the copyright issue. His behavior and whether or not it constitutes trolling should be treated as a separate matter. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK Andy. My apologies for misunderstanding & thanks for clarifying. I'm afraid that my frustration is getting the better of me. Sitush (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the postings which are alleged to be copyvio, some, which were added by Weiterbewegung, give references to other works so it might be that rather than a copyvio it's more a copy paste requiring rewrite. Also what is the copyright status of the doctoral thesis? It is available online here http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/his_theses/1/ and if the whole document is downloaded please see the statement at the bottom of page 1 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History: Theses by an authorized administrator of UBIR: University of Bolton Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. There is also the policy statement relating to the repository here - http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/bolton_policy_template.pdf which suggests to me that the copyright status of the thesis is not as clear cut as it might first appear. As an email address is available I would suggest that contact is made with the university to discuss this. NtheP (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the next question is, how much of the thesis has been used? If it's a straight copy-paste, then their rules against commercial re-use would seem to apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not really the issue here. The boilerplate there is (not surprisingly) quite restrictive, and the use that was made went far in excess of that. However the claim here was different: that the content was specifically licensed to WP (under the general GFDL requirement) by the act of posting it. Provided that the editor was entitled to license it in that way (and generally the author of a thesis would still hold rights to do this), that is why WP might have rights to do so, not from some general boilerplate for all artefacts held in a repository. In this case it seems impossibvle to prove that it was correctly licensed (even though I still believe it would have been), because the editor is now refusing to confirm that they're the author. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@ClemRutter - good idea. What's his view of a future direction?

@AndyWalsh - you're right of course. It seems unlikely that an OTRS solution would work (even though that would be the best result), whether that's because the thesis wasn't his to give, or because he's since changed his mind.

My main concern is what happens in the future. I just don't want anything about engineering history to be under this indefinite shadow of getting slapped with a future copyvio claim. We must get to a point where there is no more of this editor's work still extant without a clear grant of rights behind it - whether that's by clarifying the rights (which their edits do after all claim to have granted to the project), or by rolling back all of their work forthwith. Of the nine(?) articles involved so far, one has already been deleted entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a special case here—we treat it as any other copyvio. If he makes contributions and we can make a reasonable assumption that he is writing new text from sources (even if it's his own thesis), there is no problem there. If his text is demonstrably a copy/paste from his paper or any other source, we revert it to a clean version. If there is no clean version, we delete it outright (as was the case with at least one of his articles). --Andy Walsh (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, treating the editor as a serial copyright violator, we'd usually block. That's a bit harsh in this case, as no-one seriously believes that they were.

My real concern is with the editor's ongoing behaviour. They refuse to engage in any real discussion, they continually attack other editors and they also drop these bombshell copyvio claims onto fairly important articles like Ferranti. It was their action that caused it - they should be at least a little contrite, not swinging around the black template o'death as if they were an aggrieved rights holder. If they openly discussed that the theses used had to go, then editors could clean up as needed without such drama. John Musgrave & Sons is now being cleaned up in much this way.

As they're an editor who has run right off the end of AGF, I'm unhappy to see them left with editing access without at least an acceptance of what has happened - I would support an indef block (NB indef isn't infinite) or at least some form of restrictive edit ban, just to ensure it doesn't happen again. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of his contributions yet, but has he actually marked something as a copyvio yet that's not really a copyvio? The answer to that question will go a long way toward deciding if he's actually being disruptive. I normally block only as a last resort. Even if he's ramping up to WP:POINT, I'm not sure the best solution is to block. I'm going to try to engage him on his talk page and see if we can sort it out. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The content they've marked is AFAIK correctly scoped as being that from Maurice Halton's theses, content which they've added. However we shouldn't regard this as a copyvio against the uploader, because the likelihood is that they're the rights holder to it. We can't prove this to keep it, but nor can we disprove it to treat them as a copyright violator. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We err on the side of removing it if we can't prove ownership. It can always be restored if an OTRS ticket is received. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Andy Dingley: I will ask then.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@Weiterbewegung: Sehr geehrte Herr Doktor, können Sie uns erklaren, was, in Seine Meinung werde dem besten Weiterbewegung. (oops wp:en not commons so in translation)- how do we progress?) Interesting issues of plagiarism, copyright, legal identity have been raised- but the Christmas tree has been taken down, and the mince pies finished- to the plus side Churchills is now a nice piece of work. With you we have two extra editors working on industrial history. So an opinion sir! --ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@Any German speaker: corrections to my talk page. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(/edit conflict)

This seems to be the only response so far, to a similar question I asked on his talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if anyone wants to try a dialogue after that, all I can say is good luck. Meanwhile we still need to determine if the copyvios are indeed copyvios. I see that Kim D-B has taken a brief look at L. Gardner and Sons and doesn't think that the whole article is a violation. Does the same exercxie need to be undertaken with the rest of the articles mentioned? NtheP (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately they're a fairly recent editor, and their edits (that I've seen) are mostly large expansions of a few articles. It isn't too difficult to roll everything in this list (a dozen?) back to before they edited, then to carefully hand-reapply any other editors' relevant changes since. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@Kim, that seems like a pretty fair analysis, and does gives us a lot of insight into Maurices Weltanshauung- and also gives us a fairly large tick lisk for areas that need to be improved. As one integrates into the Wikpediacommunity, one tends to brush off the irritations and develop strategies to attain your goals. Maurice, has set out quite clearly why he attempted to join and with that in mind, we can see how minor changes to the system could have prevented alot of the reason-free obstacles. ( Yes, I have issues with the mindless deletion on Fair Use images, 60 or 70 years old when it obvious the copyright owner was a company that is now defunct- by wiki-dalek who has no body of work to their name- and no experience in the world of cast iron and steel. ) It is an undesirable characteristic of WP, that discussion decends to argument and then to personalising. Most of those comments would be best left unsaid. I also think that Maurice is used to the world of peer review and objective argument, and we are behoven to debate at the same level. It would help if his comments were seriously considered, and his expertise was harnessed to achieve one of his identified aims: that of improving the quality, and indeed putting onto the internet for the first time the historical significance of these engineering firms. His comments about triangulation is very relevant. However, we need to stop patronising Weiterbewegung by impying he is a newbie- no way, he has been round the block a few times- consequently we can expect him to read WP:BITE and ask him to stop savaging timeserved Wikipedian who for reason of anno domini or lack of opportunity are less familiar with academic ways (the senior common room!). Weiterbewegung can obviously be asked to point out potential copyvios on each article and sugggest legitimate work arounds. And for the sake of sanity- can we slow this down a little so folk have time to formulate a reply before posting it- and get out to work as well.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ClemRutter, I must disagree, except regarding the issue of images and bots regarding which my bet is there are thousands who get frustrated (incuding myself). The Wikipedia community *is* a community, just as is the academic (MA/PhD etc) community or the local pub or works canteen. There are rules of conduct and expectations of standards, but the expectations and standards differ. That is life, and we must all interact with many communities with different levels or else perhaps choose to become become hermits. No offence to hermits intended. He *is* a newbie, to WP at least and that is where we are. And he seems not to understand the rationale nor be willing to take it on board however much his critical faculties might disagree with it - that's the compromise we all have to make in any community of which we wish to be a member: to challenge but not to destroy. The one WP rationalise he does understand is AGF, but he appears to use it as a bludgeon, a panacea for all he does & thinks is right & thus actually abuses it. One thing I regret very much about WP is the problems associated with verifiability and NPOV. As an example, I have recently added a verifiable/primary source point to the Churchill Machine Tool Co entry which I nonetheless would like to expand on but it would not meet standards: yes, the company did advertise 4 addresses in 1899 but this doesn't mean that it was at that point a notable business: accommodation addresses, agents etc were as much the norm then as now but I cannot easily verify this without copious examples, which would swamp the page and therefore cannot say it, which might lead some to the wrong conclusion. "Maurice" took me to task on an even more academic point which effectively related to triangulation. In a very high level academic environment (think Maurice Cowling, with whom I studied and who produced not a lot of actual output in his life) he would be correct but I am afraid that it is an extremely niche area and not conducive to the dissemination of knowledge. Rather like dissing as useless every car except a Ferrari (or whatever). You will not read many books on historical subjects that rely entirely on seeing the original sources and never quote the work of someone else with suitable footnotes etc, the works of Marc Bloch and Cowling aside. The key is whether the someone else who is quoted is reliable, but without this "standing on the shoulders of giants" little will progress anywhere because we (the world, the species) will be continually chasing the tails that we no longer have. I have queried the reliability of a source Rolt regarding a specific point on the Talk page of the Churchill article I have been working on: that is the correct place to do it, I feel. Anyone who believes everything they read (even on WP) is silly. The key is to understand the limitations of that which you are reading. WP is imperfect but that does not mean adopting a destructive stance, which certainly is my experience of "Maurice". I was also surprised to see his statement of absolute truth: any trained historian knows that there is no such thing and that interpretation always gets in the way even of how a primary source is formed; any trained scientist knows that truth is but a hypothesis. Those that know neither, please try to find the time to read Thomas Kuhn <g>. I have read that which he contributed elsewhere than the Churchill article but I suspect people are overemphasising the value of someone who seems unwilling to collaborate and is often obtuse when his opinion differs. The copyvio issue really is NOT the important issue here, I feel. We can get round that if only by starting over. I promise you, if one person can do it then someone else can do it, and life is a marathon etc... I've done it on one article to a reasonable standard: it wouldn't be what I would write for a thesis but it fulfils the community expectations and provisos, and most importantly it adds to knowledge in a selfless way. In particular, my recent contributions lack style and do resemble merely a list of (verifiable!) facts, but that is the compromise you make both while digging around for information/building an entry and also later when you realise that the constraints of NPOV etc actually prevent elucidation/interpretation of history. You are placing far too much emphasis on what is now appearing to be a single source (the copyvio thesis, splashed around in bits over many entries and my bet is including a lot that is actually subjective opinion, because that is the point of original thought) and a person whose attitude seems generally to be negative. I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than a really nice person in "real life" but there have been a lot of people giving to him and very little taken by him in this entire farrago, and so perhaps he is just not suited to the environment. Nothing wrong with fish, nothing wrong with air, but fish and air do not work. His constant quoting of AGF only goes so far. I don't want to see him go because there is little doubt that he knows a lot about, well, something but even if he stays the copyvio is an issue and I doubt that it will go away unless he comes round to understanding the community, which looks to me to be extremely unlikely. It was an issue from the start and those who seem to think it is the only issue are really missing the point: it is in fact a symptom rather than the cause. The cause is the person. Although one good thing to come out of all this is that the Churchill AfD resulted in a "keep" as a direct consequence of "Maurice" desiring to see it gone because it was incapable of being expanded. Perhaps he is the perfect WP Devil's Advocate? Tramadol kicking in, off to bed, end of far too long essay. Apologies to all, including "Maurice". Sitush (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Nev1 has already rolled back L. Gardner & Son to thee point before Weiterbewegung made any edits, which leaves the rest of us unable to see the contributions made by others sicne then and to establish if the copyvio is as widespread as claimed or what other material should be re-added. Is this the best way of doing it? My feeling is that it isn't. I fully accept that material that is a copyvio needs to be removed but isn't it better to examine before deleting all those revisions? NtheP (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't just roll back, I also deleted the content of the revisions which copied (with some changes) from this source. I can unhide the content of the revisions if people think this requires further investigation? Nev1 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem with the process. Only admins can remove the copyvio banner, which excludes most of the people familiar with the article. It's probably useful if people who are more familiar can read through beforehand and comment on talk: as to whether it can all just go, or if there are particular diffs that ought to be re-applied. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) John Musgrave & Sons has also been rolled-back, after discussion between several of the contributors here.

With regard to the level of copyvio / the text affected, I was editing (I think) the Musgrave's article and looked up the thesis when the matter of copyvio was raised. As far as I can remember, whole paragraphs were copied directly from the thesis text. I had been doing my usual wikignoming and adjusted a few things. My first experience of Weiterbewegung's attitude was that he seemed to resent the thought that I should have the nerve to edit his contributions! I found him utterly uncooperative and, to be frank, down-right rude -- not the sort of behaviour I would have expected from an intelligent WP newbie.

I think it is a fairly safe bet, in most cases, to simply roll-back the articles to the state they were in before W. applied the disputed text, but Andy D is correct in suggesting that each article's talk page is the best place to assess the correct course of action.

-- EdJogg (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that on Dobson & Barlow Maurice is now claiming indirect plagiarism going back to before his own edits (via a site that no longer exists and isn't to be found in any of the web archives I've checked). Having looked at the content he's complaining of, I'd actually dispute this one - our use of it appears to be quite minor and reasonable, not plagiarism. After all, even if the claimed intermediary site was wholesale plagiarism, the wiki edit by an experienced editor doesn't appear to be a crude copy & paste (this is hard to tell without seeing the intermediary though). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Mr EdJogg, still at it I see. Lest play ‘Spot the Fake’ shall we?

One of the oldest engineering companies in the world, Dobson and Barlow, was founded in 1790 by Isaac Dobson (1767 to 1833) for the production textile machinery. The partnership of Isaac Dobson and Peter Rothwell built mules in Blackhorse Street, and by 1850 the firm had opened a larger factory in Kay Street which produced a much wider range of textile machinery. By 1860 the firm employed 1,600 workers and by the late 1880s they were producing between 600 and 650 looms a year. In 1892 Dobson and Barlow became a limited liability company and, after building a second production facility at Bradley Fold in 1906, it was re-floated as a public limited concern with members of the Dobson family holding key directorships. In 1913, the company employed 4,000 workers.

Isaac Dobson (1767 to 1833) started producing textile machinery in 1790. The partnership of Isaac Dobson and Peter Rothwell built mules in Blackhorse Street and by 1850 the firm had opened a larger factory in Kay Street, Bolton. This produced a much wider range of equipment. By 1860 the firm employed 1,600 workers and by the late 1880s they were producing between 600 and 650 power looms a year as well. In 1892 the firm became a limited liability company. It built another works at Bradley Fold in 1906, and was re-floated as a public limited concern with members of the Dobson family holding key directorships. The company employed 4,000 workers in 1913 but by then Bolton's oldest engineering company was too specialised and locked into a market which was becoming more competitive both at home and abroad. During World War I, it switched to producing munitions, and then reverting, it benefited from the French and Belgian need to re-equip their mills.

Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am with Weiterbewegung here, this appears on the face of it to be to be excessively close paraphrasing. This conversation is going on in three places now, but the comparison is this edit by User:ClemRutter versus the text on p9 of Halton's 2001 dissertation (avaiable here). I will drop a not on ClemRutter's talk. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and as explained on the Dobson & Barlow talkpage have already reverted the article to version free of copyvios. Thank you to Weiterbewegung for bringing this to our attention. I see that you have identified copyright concerns about several articles, and we will be working through them. If you have any further to add to the list, please do so, either now or in the future. Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

ref name=stmarks>http://www.stmarks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wpdobsonbarlow.htm Dobson amd Barlow history</ref was the intermediate source. And as pointed out elsewhere this has been pulled which makes forensics a bit hard. Doing a google now Graces Guide uses the same text, and is covered I assume by a reference ↑ The Engineer of 10th August 1894 p121. Fortuitously I have checked the copyright statement on the Graces Guide page. Copyright © 2007 Grace's Guide. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licence, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the licence is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation Licence". Also on this page is a back reference to us. Google suggests that the page was cached 18 Nov 2008. I missed Maurices 2001 thesis back in 2009. I welcome Weiterbewegung addition to this article, and the OTRS crew could be brought on board to see how much we can include. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That Grace's Guide page was created in October 2007[16] well after Halton's thesis was written in 2001. It appears that they have been hosting copyright infringing material, and we cannot and will not use them as a copyright laundering service. The answer is quite simple. The material needs to be rewritten in one's own words. It isn't even very long. --Slp1 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Licence aside there remains the distinct possibility that the Graces Guide content is also a copyvio of Halton's dissertation and a good faith copyvio is still a copyvio. Call it a need to triangulate sources (as per Weiterbewegung) or ensuring that we follow WP:RS (they're the same thing) this is an example of, what I suspect all of us have done, in looking for sources on fairly obscure topics and going with what we can find. With the limitations of no original research to contend with it can, as Sitush mentions above, be very frustrating but something we have to live with. NtheP (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That part of Graces guide used Halton's pages at Bolton, see here. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Move spam

User:Zoupan is on a move spree, which has messed up a number of articles already. He started with Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid by moving it to a ton of locations, creating a number of double-redirects in the process. There is currently a discussion on the talk page regarding the article's proper name and no consensus on a move has been reached. The user was notified on a number of times not to peform such unilateral moves[17], but he continued without responding. The exact title of the page was Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid and now it is... well, I am not sure since moves are being performed this very second. I would like to move it back at least until the discussion is over (although it seems like it is mostly going in favour of keeping the original title), but I cannot do it without creating a big mess. So, I have to ask an admin to move the page back and most probably take some action in regard to the clearly disruptive behaviour. I am not even sure what's going on with all the other articles he's been moving around, but I feel they are misplaced as well. Thanks in advance. --Laveol ^T 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: I added this entry two days ago, but it seems like my edit was reverted. I have spoken to the editor in question and he said he didn't mean to do it. In the mean time User:Zoupan did actually drop two comments on the talkpage, but seemed rather uninterested in the ANI notice or undoing what he did.--Laveol ^T 20:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just added a friendly note to his talk page, also, encouraging him to show up here and engage in a good faith effort to address this. If he doesn't do so within, say, 12 hours, I'd suggest a block would be in order until he indicates, on this talk page, a willingness to do so. If this current thread rolls off to archives in the interim, it should be restored here so its continuity re subsequent discussion will be preserved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what? Scratch that. I'd suggest an immediate block is in order. He's had plenty of opportunity already to discuss, two users have already asked him to do so, and he's obviously refused. A block is necessary at this point, imo, to prevent further unilateral moves, until such time as he becomes willing to address this in good faith. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk)

131.204.254.72's edits

An anonymous IP, 131.204.254.72 (talk), which is registered to Auburn University, has been making unilateral decisions to convert college athletic templates' color schemes. The person who keeps doing this at that IP address has been warned about it and re-warned about it, yet continues to make (some good, but too-frequently detrimental) color scheme changes. Some of the issues that concern me, and apparently at least one or two other users (on record), are:

1. The lack of consensus with the color changes
2. Inverting a school's primary and secondary colors sometimes
3. This person's false belief that all navbox titles have to have white font (they don't)
4. Many of the edits by this IP make the visibility very poor, much of which can be attributed to reason #3 above
5. There has not once been an edit summary by this IP
6. Last, but not least, is this IP's absolute refusal to acknowledge any concerns and questions left on his talk page; we can therefore only assume he is overtly ignoring us

I may be out of line with this request, but I am proposing something along the lines of a two- or three-week block for this IP until he gets the point. If his unilateral editing persists, then impose a new, lengthier block, and so on. Sometimes, editors with the best intentions who think they're improving Wikipedia are the ones who weaken it, which I believe to be the case here. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This has been my limited experience with the IP as well. The templates I watch have had some changes that I thought were OK (didn't make the template worse but didn't greatly improve it either), but inevitably the editor changed all font colors to white even though white isn't a primary color of the school (it isn't even listed as a secondary) and then had white font over golden background, which is far less visible than the navy blue that was already there (and restored). No edit summaries at all and no response on the talk page. None of the templates that I watch actually needed any colors changed for visibility issues either. I certainly assume good faith, but if there is no response, we really don't have much of a choice but to put some kind of block or protection. I'd prefer the editor simply respond and at least provide some kind of rationale for his/her edits. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
• These are the main diffs on Template:Kent State University:
  • Changed background and main title font to white (I kept some of the edits, but restored the title to golden)
  • Changed remaining body text to white even though it was on a golden-colored background (Reverted back to blue for visibility)
• Diffs on Template:Kent State bowl games
  • Same thing changing title to white even though that isn't a primary or even secondary color (Reverted since white isn't a primary or secondary color)
• None of the IP's edits have edit summaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment two or three weeks seems excessive. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment A quick look at that IP's talk page and it is quite conceivable, indeed probable, this is a proxy server or something shared beteween god knows how many other users. Therefore whoever is making the edits quite likely didn't get the message themselves. Perhaps best to do a block that would be lifted once they acknowledge having seen the message? Egg Centric (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed my university (of a little more than 12,000) funnels all its internet through several IP ranges. Each IP can represent several hundred students at any given time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So can we impose a short term block on the IP range so that whomever is doing it will get the message? If that doesn't work we can figure it out at that point. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not indefinitely block the IP but permit account creation? Then whoever is doing it can create an account and acknowledge the message.. once they've done that the IP can then be unblocked again. Egg Centric (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Gnevin

This user has an agenda, the results of which are continuous removals of valid content in an effort to degrade wikipedia articles on association football. The user in question is a supporter of Gaelic games and like many supporters of Gaelic games, views association football as an enemy sport in Ireland. This hateful bias is damaging to wikipedia. The user doesn't use inline cleanup tags (citation needed, etc.) in the articles in question as he has no wish for them to be improved. Instead, he removes entire blocks of valid text. Please see Ultras, List of association football club rivalries by country and other such articles (user contribs.) for examples. Onetonycousins (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I do notice from his talk page there may be an issue concerning an obstinately strict enforcement of MOS:FLAGS or somethingrather, but I wouldn't say he's being disruptive, maybe just a bit intolerant. If you are seeking some sort of action to be taken you should specify, what do you want admins to do here? Have you tried steps in dispute resolution? Considered WP:RFC/U? -- œ^™ 11:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Note related post: #User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks -- œ^™ 11:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note the personal attack in this This hateful bias ANI Gnevin (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this incident was posted specifically in response to the fact Gnevin has reported Onetonycousins for doing more personal attacks. Though i think it is a but unwise of Onetonycousins to complain of Genvin's behaviour on football articles when you consider some of Onetonycousins edits where he has removed sourced valid information and even calls it "propaganda" in a couple of instances amongst other things. If anything this can be easily resolved by the two editors discussing the edits on the articles talk pages. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Signatures

Resolved

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

There is potential for an edit skirmish at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, in which an IP insists on posting its signature as "Anonymous", with no links of any kind. I reverted it based on the User:Docu case. I realize it's only the ref desk, but can someone make a ruling here? Meanwhile, I will notify the user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't battle over this. I just think it's silly. Anonymous has been signing her post this way for years, and it's never been an issue. THis isn't an administrator engaged in controversial topics on talk pages, just a helpful volunteer at the desks. Whatever. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, to Baseball Bugs) It seems to me that your "it's only the ref desk" was precisely the correct reaction. Was this really worth raising here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have seen a couple of opinions here, but no definitive answer. So, yes, it was worth bringing here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, according to Wikipedia:Signatures#Links, isers are supposed to sign using the 4 tildes, and they are required to have at least one link. The IP is not providing any links or any clue who it is, and is edit-warring to try to keep it that way. Thus not only going against the basic signature rule, but also being disruptive. If anything, this is worse than the Docu case, because he at least said "Docu". "Anonymous" means nothing, and you have to look into the history to figure out who it was - which is precisely the argument that was used to justify threatening Docu with suspension unless he complied. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with a signature of the form "Anonymous, currently XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX", but not with a signature that purports to be from a user named "Anonymous" (who does exist). That makes it very hard, just reading the text, to tell who the edit is from. The signature link is also the main way to verify contribs, particularly once a post is archived. Without it, you have to dig in the appropriate page history for the edit with that timestamp. So the lack of signature does not add any actual anonymity (registering a username would be better), but the fake signature does make it harder for people to follow up on a contribution.

Given how trivial it is to create a valid signature, or to let Sinebot do it, and given that there is no anonymity gain in faking it, the user is only doing this to make some kind of point (note the "playing Sinebot" remarks the user also made).

If this user really is a long-term contributor, at some point they need to begin following site norms. There are a few users who don't want to create usernames - that's their prerogative. But the downside of not logging in is that your edits are going to be associated with whatever IP address you are using at the time, that's simply the way the site is designed. Misusing nosine to make a "fake" stable username, so that you can avoid creating a real username, isn't a solution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That IP has been active for about 4 1/2 years, ad from their very first edit they've used that misleading "Anonymous" construct. Maybe when they started doing that, it was "sort of OK", as per Sluzzelin's argument; but it no longer is OK, and needs to be changed to conform to the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see it being tolerated in 2006, when the site was smaller, but it's certainly not appropriate anymore. It's also a bad precedent to set: the goal (and rule, in WP:SIGN) is for everyone to sign their posts. Particularly on "public facing" pages like the reference desk. I think it would be fine if the user simply appends their IP to the "Anonymous". — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As a participant in this dispute, I should note I agree with CBM. Algebraist 03:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I checked, and the IP address is running an open proxy. I am going to block it per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Open_or_anonymous_proxies: "Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked on sight." — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.[18] Perhaps that explains why the user was not so keen on having its IP address openly visible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me a crime akin to tearing the tag off a mattress. David Able 03:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the mattress. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the IP is (1) starting to sign properly, which is excellent; and (2) going to check with a system administrator to find out what the deal is with the open proxy, a static I they've been using for 5 years. I suspect the user will get reinstated, and will have fixed the issue I raised here, and all would be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't ban IPs for technical offences. IPs don't have enough rights as it is. I have edited as various IPs for years and beleive me they're treated as third class citizens. Egg Centric (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

IP's who stick with the rules don't get into trouble. It's the ones who hide behind the IP's (or multiple IP's) and use that anonymity as a vehicle for incivility and vandalism, that give the "good" IP's a bad reputation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Open proxies are guaranteed to get into trouble. However, I'm not seeing the open proxy here for 208.76.104.133. There's a webserver running on the system but I'm not seeing an open proxy on the standard ports and it's not in any proxy blacklists. Could Carl or someone else please identify the proxy mechanism? Sailsbystars (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was checking for proxies with a perl script that attempts to load the Wikipedia home page by proxying through the IP. The script thought that there was an open proxy on port 443 over SSL, but I went back and double-checked that the script had been implemented correctly, and apparently for this situation it was falling back to a direct connection rather than proxying over the https connection. I'm going to unblock the IP, since I can't verify that there is a proxy any more. That was my fault for trusting the script instead of double-checking it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Jolly good. Since I raised the issue, I'm marking it "resolved", and I have to say I'm very impressed by the IP's cool and calm attitude throughout... and their quick willingness to abide by the rule once they became aware of it. It is indeed kind of odd if they were never called out on it before, but the User:Docu situation is relatively recent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is removing a BIAS tag vandalism?

User:Igny has reverted my removal of a bias tag and called me a vandal.rv vandalism I am sure it is not, would someone be so kind as to inform him such personal attacks are not on Tentontunic (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

this may shead some light on the situation --Guerillero | My Talk 04:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Instances of edit-warring on other articles shed little light on this particular situation. The relevant policy here is WP:NOTVAND. Depending on the viewpoint you take, Tentontunic's actions could be counted as either bold editing or disruptive editing. Not vandalism. Igny has had a history of bad-faith assumptions and incivility on the related talkpage (1 2 3 4 5 6), and this seems to be a continuation of that pattern. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Igny should avoid the term vandalism, which has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. See also the page for the POV template: "Removing this tag may be tendentious—just like placing it on the article may be tendentious—but it is not an act of vandalism".[19] I assume Igny was unaware, and it would have been more helpful to explain this to him on his talk page, rather than taking it to ANI. TFD (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I placed a reminder on his talk-page under the notice for this ANI thread. Both the notice and reminder were later removed with the explanation "no comment". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, removal of a POV tag is apt to be far more disruptive overall than leaving it in place. Collect (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but disruptive editing is not vandalism. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Ms. Black Gold on Stereotypes of white people

The user has been blocked twice[20] for edit warring over this material.[21] Both before and after I reported it to the RS/N.[22]

MBG has once again returned to re-add the material[23]. MBG has once again reverted a user who removed it.[24].

I long ago gave reasons for why I removed the material. Here is a summary of the objections I had made up to when MBG was blocked for the first time. A dozen or so other editors criticised the material or removed it, but she reverted or ignored them all.

If Wikipedia means anything, this editor either needs to be warned off or blocked yet again. BillMasen (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit extreme to say that "if Wikipedia means anything," action needs to be brought against an editor who hasn't been here since before last Christmas. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the clear consensus, in every case, was against this material. Surely re-adding it isn't acceptable? Or is someone going to have to sit on the page and clean it up every week or so?

If you think you can reason with the editor concerned (after looking at these edits) that would be great. I presume you agree that MBG's contributions on this page aren't acceptable? BillMasen (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, the editor in question hasn't edited ANY page since 23 December 2010...GiantSnowman 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So when I revert back to the consensus version, and she undoes the edit, will it be a problem then? Hey ho... BillMasen (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If that happens, then maybe there's an issue. At the moment, it isn't an issue, since they aren't reverting - or, indeed, making any edits at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep - revert back, and if/when she reappears and becomes disruptive, then it's a time to get admins involved - but presently there is no issue to be resolved. GiantSnowman 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked the account. Respectfully, I disagree with a wait and see approach in this situation given the history of the user. The contributor was blocked on July 7 for edit warring on the same article. The first and only edits she made after return were to resume edit warring, whereupon she was blocked again with a caution that further such activities would result in further sanctions. Her first and only edits after return from that block (albeit delayed by some months) were to immediately resume edit warring, including reverting the contributor who reverted her. If blocks were punative, there'd be no point in blocking months after the fact. But they're preventative, and there is every reason to believe that this contributor intends to ignore consensus and continue pushing her point of view at her leisure. An indef-block, of course, can be overturned by any plausible indication that she understands that this is unacceptable behavior and will stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Horrible block. Nothing in contributions that would support an indef block. Support unblock. -Atmoz (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly edit warring to restore the same material that got her blocked twice, somehow that doesn't support an indef block? Do remember indef is not forever, just until they agree to stop the edit warring. Support the block. Corvus cornix_talk 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good block. This user's only contributions to Wikipedia over the last six months have been to continue the same old edit war. Two previous blocks of escalating duration failed to drive home the point that this conduct is inappropriate. An unblock can be considered if this editor demonstrates an interest in contributing constructively to Wikipedia and a commitment to avoid the edit warring in the fugure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Best block ever made. Clearly preventing disruption, indefinite is not infinite, if they wish to be unblocked and be allowed to edit they can engage in discussion on their talk page and give an account of their actions. --Jayron32 02:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

To those who think there is no problem here; the user never would have been blocked at all if an admin had stepped in and warned MBG earlier on about POV-pushing (note the first two times she was blocked, I didn't even ask for a block). BillMasen (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One problem BillMasen, albeit a small one, is that you overused bolding on your comments at Talk:Stereotypes of white people. You make your points on that talk page quite well without it. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously nitpicking someone for how they format their text? Go outside. Jtrainor (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

People get so few compliments around here for doing the right thing, & you're seriously nitpicking someone for giving a back-handed one, Jtrainor? Sheesh! I'll try harder next time to be less subtle in complimenting people. -- llywrch (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Llywrch, thank you for taking the time to read it.  :)

The bold doesn't look to nice; the reason I put it was because I wanted to restate objections I'd previously made as well as make new ones, and I wanted to differentiate the old and new remarks. I didn't want to rewrite the whole thing and I didn't want to be accused of changing what I had said in the past. BillMasen (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Outing in an AFD thread

Resolved

 – No-one was outed, nothing to see here. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Scamwarning (talk · contribs) has outed another editor in this edit at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilyas Kaduji. As a new user, Scamwarning may not be aware of the restrictions, but the edit needs to be redacted anyway. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this one -- editor is apparently using his own full name, which is linked to the article subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just by the by, I've also listed this page in the BLP noticeboard as I'm concerned where this is going--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, and not wishing to confirm or deny an outing, the scamuser editor has only suggested that this agency might have the subject as a client, and there is no apparent link (unless you've seen something I haven't). So there is no particular reason to think that name given is the same person as the one working at the agency, nor that the agency is related to the subject. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: the bellow is also discussed here. It makes sad reading. Egg Centric (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was also outed in a thread; I'd like this edit to be redacted. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The diff you provided only mentions you by your username. I'm not seeing any violation of WP:OUTING in the short statement. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note the name of the page being AfD'd. — Timneu22 · talk 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the comment, but as a non admin. Still available in history. I've also notified the admin who made it so they can decide if they want to put it back etc Egg Centric (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted your change. It's not "outing", and besides which, it was posted by an admin who certainly would not "out" someone. Don't mess with other users' comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be anything other than outing, but no worries. However, I reserve the right to alter other people's comments when I believe policy permits me to. If I turn out to be wrong it's no biggy... Egg Centric (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Suspicioning that one user ID might be the sock of another is not "outing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Before I read that comment I did not know the real life identity of Timneu22. Now I do (or think I do, which is the same thing according to the outing policy). Egg Centric (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If the guy calls himself by a variation of a public figure's name, and calls attention to that fact, then he has basically outed himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I never called attention to myself. A poor admin user did. It's a clear case of outing. — Timneu22 · talk 12:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You called attention to it in this very section. There are plenty of users who adopt names that pertain to public figures. Most of them probably aren't that public figure themselves, and the ones who are don't admit that they are unless they are engaged in blatant self-promotion. If you've admitted here to being that public figure, then you have outed yourself. And if you are not that public figure, then what's the problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only is this not outing, Tim already made the connection between himself and the account in the copyright notice for this MediaWiki extension. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on, Daniel. Admit your mistake. Anyone had to go digging for any of this information until you did what you did in the AfD. Just admit it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not outing to accuse a user of SP. It may be ABF and PA (but as tyhe user appears to have adminted it this is not the case). Also I would aske are you still retired?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but by saying the socking was in the context of a vanity article the connection is far more obvious than it otherwise would have been. On the other hand, given the user has provided their real life identity in other parts of the project they have less of a cause for complaint. Mind you, then again I gave my age and occuption on my original talk page; just because it's visible to any admin I wouldn't want it putting all over the project... I really do feel there is wikilawyering going on by both sides here - whatever the technical definition it definitely was from a duck perspective unneccessary outing - but does Timneu22 actually care about that or is he trying to score points? Egg Centric (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone had to go digging for any of this information until you did what you did in the AfD." As I've said before, reread security through obscurity. If you wanted to prevent this exposure, the onus was on you, all the time. As you've said elsewhere, it's your fault for using the same username not only here but on YouTube and several other places. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See also open fields doctrine. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but regardless of what the policy says, and I'm dubious if this was really taken to the floor rather than a thread no one is reading that consensus would go your way (but I defer to your assertion that it wouldn't regardless) shining a light on what was once hard to find is still very much morally outing. Egg Centric (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This had originally been discussed where it should have been, on SPI. Because we didn't have enough evidence at the time and because people seemed to be unclear about it, it was decided to do the safe thing and not only close the SPI but delete it.

I agree that it wouldn't look nice if it had come up in a content dispute where it was irrelevant otherwise, but how else are you supposed to prove a COI? (unfortunately policy on outing does not recognize what everyone seems to agree is allowed). "shining a light on what was once hard to find" is very much in keeping with Wikipedia policy in that transparency helps ensure accountability. It is not enough to say "You weren't supposed to look ..." Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that if someone outs himself, even if in a relatively obscure way, then he's got nothing to complain about. It's a different story if sensitive personal information is posted, especially with the intent to harm, which this wasn't. I should also add that the user Egg Centric acted in good faith in this process, and has stimulated useful discussion about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jonasorg

User talk:Jonasorg keeps restoring their machine translation at Puerto National High School. Editors have reverted this machine translated gibberish to a stub a total of FIVE times already. The user has had two friendly, informal requests, four warnings, including warnings in their own language. A short 31 hour block already imposed, was probably not noticed. Request a longer block please so that when they log on next time, they realise they have been blocked, and that the repeated reversion of the article to the long unintelligible machine translation is unacceptable.--Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't you even started a "Discussion" page? IMHO you should try to improve other editors content instead of calling it "gibberish" and blanking it.--Raphael1 11:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Instead of throwing in inane comments here, perhaps you would do your homework and look at the page history and the user talk page history where you will see that several editors, including an admin, have agreed that the page is unintelligible.--Kudpung (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. -- œ^™ 11:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Off topic: Isn't it a shame that about the only intelligible things I could get from that article were the school had both a vision statement and a mission statement. Management consultant wonk even in such a setting... Perhaps that explains the quality of its students! Egg Centric (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

About every school and school district (at least in the U.S.) has some sort of a mission statement and a vision statement; mainly a bunch of words, though, and mostly cookie-cutter. –MuZemike 02:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess, it contained the words "commitment to excellence" didn't it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And every school in the United States, and anywhere else, that pretends to 'excellence' will have those statements removed from their Wikipedia pages. Kudpung (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Behavioral problems

RegentsPark (talk · contribs) and I are rarely on the same side of content disputes and that's fine since it leads to improved article content at times. The user has however demonstrated behavioral problems on a number of occasions. He launched a personal attack on me by calling me someone with a "single track mind". When I requested him to remove the offensive content, he simply ignored me. I asked him again but instead of removing the content and apologizing, he simply continues to argue, now saying that I am obsessive about a certain position. I am neither of a single track mind nor am I obsessive.

On an earlier occasion, in removing an {{Indian English}} template, he demonstrated that behavioral guidelines such as WP:POINT don't apply to him and do apply to me.

In the past, RegentsPark has been brought to ANI by another editor User:Yogesh Khandke allegedly for misusing his administrative privileges and several other behavioral issues.

Appropriate and timely action will help stop the reckless behavior by RegentsPark. I am requesting that an administrator remove the content that assails my character. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone is blowing things out of proportion... _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm apt to agree with Wikiman1. The comments may have been offensive to you, but are far from personal attacks and are closer to character observations.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(1)For an administrator, who has been for a greatly longer time on the project than Zuggernaut it is highly inappropriate that he attacks the person as opposed to contesting the content put forth by the person. (2)No one can be perfect and it not easy for an editor to understand the thin line between being considered tendentiousand perseverant. (3)Regarding the nature of Zuggernaut’s edits, is it not better for Wikipedia that an editor restricts himself to a very small spectrum of content of which he has expertise about? Please see the article Wikipedia, there is a criticism on it that which goes like this "My Number One Doctor", a 2007 episode of the TV show Scrubs, also lampooned Wikipedia's reliance on editors who edit both scholarly and pop culture articles with a scene in which Dr. Perry Cox reacts to a patient who says that a Wikipedia article indicates that the raw food diet reverses the effects of bone cancer by retorting that the same editor who wrote that article also wrote the Battlestar Galactica episode guide. (4)The least the concerned administrator-editor can do is to defuse the tension by making appropriate statements as requested by Zuggernaut, so that every one of us can get on with the task of building a better encyclopaedia: for example the The Great Backlog drive seeks our time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:India for the most recent conflict, where there are many discussions about the Famines and the British. Zuggernaut posts many separate threads on talkpages, so it is easy to see why RegentsPark has come to the conclusion that Zuggernaut has a single-track mind. I don't think it's really an insult, although obviously Zuggernaut has taken offense. As Yogesh says, there is a line between tendentious editing and perseverance, and I think the problem is Zuggernaut sometimes crosses that line in the eyes of others, usually because of starting multiple threads on basically the same topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark is one of the most cool-headed and neutral administrators on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut, on the other hand, has time and time again pursued his famine edits (and only his famine edits) on the India talk page in the face of strong and sustained opposition. "Single track mind" is a polite term, for it gives Zuggernaut the benefit of affecting "single mindedness," when others might be considering him to be a "consensus denier." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As I clarified on my talk page, I used the phrase 'single track mind' solely in the context of zuggernaut's activities on the India articles. Personally, I would not consider a contextualized characterization of this sort to be particularly offensive but, since he has taken offense, have expressed my willingness to modify the statement so that the context is clear (see this diff). I would suggest to zuggernaut that he not take offense so easily. Being obsessive is not necessarily a bad thing - unless, of course, the obsessing editor knows that their obsession is contrary to wikipedia's neutral encyclopedia building mission. --rgpk (comment) 21:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not of a single track mind, nor am I obsessive in the context described by RegentsPark. My style of editing is focused, i.e, I work on articles till they become good articles. Bulk of my edits to Wikipedia have gone to four articles - Upanishads, Deshastha Brahmin, Third Anglo-Maratha War and Famine in India of which three are good articles and the fourth one is being nominated for a good article review. A good way forward would be to completely remove the comments from Wikipedia permanently and an assurance from RegentsPark that he will discuss my content rather than me as a person. Is RegentsPark now suggesting that my editing is non-compliant with WP:NPOV? Zuggernaut (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with user needed

Resolved

Could someone who speaks Finnish please try to communicate with this user? I now believe they may be continually ignoring warnings and recreating pages because they don't understand english. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Finnish, but I do speak Admin. Title salted. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Finnish translation added to warning. --Kudpung (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Reg1997 six (6) CSD of this article in three days

User:Reg1997 claims to be "Isa 13 year old boy that have an assignment to create article on wikipedia by it's name." The article has been speedy deleted six times in the past three days. The user apparently understands how to game the system by using variations of capitals, etc., for each reincarnation. Request admin intervention to salt the versions of the title and eventually to block the editor.

• 19:43, 11 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (G3: Vandalism: fork of List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Reg Cox)
• 16:59, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 17:29, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "REG JAYCOBB JACOBO" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 19:43, 11 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (G3: Vandalism: fork of List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Reg Cox)
• 16:59, 9 February 2011 UtherSRG (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg jaycobb jacobo" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 13:53, 13 February 2011 Nancy (talk | contribs) deleted "Reg Jaycobb Jacobo" ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: History of EastEnders)

Kudpung (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning and will keep an eye on the young man. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the page he's creating is more or less a variation on List_of_EastEnders_characters_(1985)#Reg_Cox but with a different name substituted, thus this is bad faith, rather than just cluelessness. Egg Centric (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made a salt request at RPP, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. Lavalamp from Mars (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

These two need salting too: REG JAYCOBB JACOBO and Reg Jaycobb Jacobo. Kudpung (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Assignment to Create an article on 80s Soap opera Character? Little bit of bizarre assignment a character from Slaughter House 5 or simliar age appropriate book tittle I could believe but this sounds fishy... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Diversity

Someone did a VBT on the Diversity talk page. If someone has a link to an old diff they can rollback. Otherwise, we'll need some fancy footwork. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. Rklawton (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sizzletimethree on Lila Rose

Sizzletimethree (talk · contribs) has now twice (1, 2 removed several days' worth of changes at Lila Rose without discussion, in violation of the controversial tag at the article's talk page. Due to intermediate edits I have been unable to undo his edits and instead had to do them manually (1 2). NYyankees51 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I am not unduly surprised. If you look at the user's talk page and their comment on the Planned Parenthood talkpage + activity there earlier today, you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. Since I have gone to some lengths to try to explain that the user needs to take things slowly and read the rules/heed advice etc, I'm starting to think that this is no longer a case of AGF, despite the user's apparent "newbie" status. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If the edits to Lila Rose had happened in the past ten hours, I would block Sizzletimethree. However, the edits are older, and Sizzletimethree has received some counsel from a number of editors in the interim. Speaking for myself, I'm unwilling to block for these past actions, but would block without hesitation for any such future edits. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but the account looks suspiciously like somebody's bad hand sock. The first night the user was here, he or she went from taking three tries to figure out the {{helpme}} template to reverting Live Action (anti-abortion group) to an arbitrary early version in the history. --B (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Socking was my first reaction, but I couldn't find any evidence in a brief search. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion, but nothing I can prove. --B (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot is requesting assistance

Resolved

 – Anomie herself fixed the problem. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Appears this has been resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly replacing a removed PROD template

I am having issues with User:Ocean Shores. He is abusing his power as a huggle/twinkle script user by using the tools to repetitively replace PROD templates which are reasonably added, and to send false warnings. He has also refused to acknowledge my attempts to work the situation out otherwise. I assume he is trying his luck in hoping he will get away from following proper procedures because I am an anonymous editor, but I am not a new one and have been editing anonymously for years.

Here are the diffs of him using huggle and twinkle to revert a good faith PROD template removal and re adding it 1, 2, , clearly in violation of WP:PROD. Here is the diff of him warning me here, and my attempt to discuss the issue with him (which was ignored) is on his talk page.

Please let this user know he is not following procedure. Thanks! 118.93.168.227 (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed and notified him on his talk page. Ocean Shores 03:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It says directly on WP:PROD, "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the proposed deletion tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." You are out of line here, Ocean Shores. Silverseren^C 03:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SS above, this explanation [25] to the IP is incorrect. Ocean Shores, if any editor removes a PROD, please do not reinstate it. Take it to AFD, as you have done. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Ocean Shores (talk · contribs) removed the second re-addition themselves - presumably realizing the error [26], and instead added an WP:AFD, which is the appropriate next level if a prod is disputed.[27]

Based on those edits, I don't see where they have "refused to acknowledge my attempts to work the situation out otherwise". They did acknowledge the issue based on your comments, replied to your post on their talk page, and switched to using AfD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If I did violate Wikipedia guidelines, then I am horribly sorry. I had no intention whatsoever of abusing anonymous IP editors or taunting the Wikipedia guidelines. Ocean Shores 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is concerning that a user with a flawed knowledge of fairly basic policy is allowed to edit in such a high volume with script tools. I do not agree with huggle in principal because it allows for users who pass a very basic set of guidelines to run rampant with no accountability or supervision. The issue was partially resolved while I was writing this which is why the above comments are being made, and I admit everything is fine now, and trust the user is now familiar with PROD policy. The article is now up for deletion where it can hopefully be salvaged. Thanks, 118.93.168.227 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the page User:Augustusguarin a violation of our licenses?

Is the use page User:Augustusguarin itself a violation of our licenses? It seems to be a translation of Dot-com bubble to another language, which I think is probably Tagalog. However, there is nothing to attribute it to Dot-com bubble. Could someone please help? What should be done with it? Should it be deleted, or should someone encourage this user to send this article to the Tagalog Wikipedia if it has no such corresponding article (after properly attributing it to us, first)? Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that this page is getting into content categories it has no business being in. Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If they want to transwiki something, userspace doesn't seem inappropriate to do that. I did comment out the categories. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Attribution can (and should) be provided after the fact; this should take care of that. –xeno^talk 20:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Google translate says its Filipino. Heiro 04:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tagalog and Filipino are the same language according to what I can find. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed it from search engines. Wikipedia is not a free web host, and it's the English Wikipedia, not the Tagalog one. They should be doing this on the Tagalog one, but maybe there's no rule against it. A subpage would be even better. Otherwise it's probably a good faith attempt. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the "Stock market crashes" template at the bottom of the page put the page into Category:Finance templates? Or is just the template going into that Category? Corvus cornix_talk 07:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Biffer1965 making repeated accusations of plagiarism

So Biffer1965 has been warned several times for specious material into Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers. If I were still an admin, I've have given him a time-out for not listening, but that's up to you guys now. He asserts that "someone" (likely him) originally created...whatever Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers did. It's not sourced, and it's usually added as a block of text at the end of the article. Since January he's decided to add it to talk page for the article as well. Clearly he has no intention of sourcing what he's adding, which accuses the subject of the article of plagiarism. We're in need of some intervention, here. Reposting so someone can possibly see it.  RasputinAXP  02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left them another note on their talk page; perhaps they will be willing to at least engage on the talk page rather than just repeatedly copy-pasting. If they continue and choose not to respond, I think a block could well be appropriate. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee

I have WP:3O on my watchlist and noticed a listing at [[28]] by User:Jeffro77 in regards to Cairns, Queensland. The discussion between User:Bidgee on one side, and User:Jeffro77 (with a single contribution by User:BorisG) had become extremely heated. User:Bidgee's contributions were clearly uncivil.

At the same time, I became aware that Bidgee included a reference to me on his/her userpage which was becoming a little shrine to the people with whom s/he had had disagreements (Jeffro77 got the same treatment at [[29]]), stating that I "had a POV" and "couldn't handle the truth". I removed this personal attack at [[30]] and warned Bidgee for the personal attack. He reverted and reworded it, but it was still unacceptable so I reverted and warned again and notified him/her of my intent to bring the issue here at [[31]]

I have had run ins with Bidgee before, most recently because he inappropriately used a personal attacks warning template on a new user, User:MelbourneStar1 at [[32]]. MelbourneStar1 did not personally attack Bidgee any more than Bidgee him/herself did, visible at [[33]] and the edit summaries for the Severe_Tropical_Cyclone_Yasi history at [[34]]. S/he reflexively warned me for inappropriate template use at [[35]] (this reflexive counterwarning was also conducted on User:Jeffro77 at [[36]] in response to Jeffro's warning on Bidgee at [[37]]).

The discussion in regards to User:MelbourneStar1 continued at my page, in the second half of User_talk:Danjel#Top_Ryde_Shopping_Centre_not_largest_shopping_centre_nor_largest_development.

User:Bidgee has a history of removing edits to his/her talk page highlighting his/her misbehaviour but continuing the behaviour anyway. These are some examples in order from most recent:

• [[38]]
• [[39]]
• [[40]]
• [[41]]

I'm sure there are more. I only looked at the most recent 500 edits to the page.

I would like any reference to me removed from Bidgee's shrine. Bidgee is an extremely uncivil editor, and I think a reminder from up on high about the requirements for people to be civil would be great.

I'm not saying I'm an angel. I'm definitely not, but... Wow. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:USETEMP in regards to inappropriate template use. I at least pretend to be nice.</jovial> I'm notifying all users mentioned above. -danjel (talk to me) 13:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee removed mention of Cyclone Yasi from the list of notable cyclones that have affected the Cairns region at Cairns, Queensland (with the irrelevant claim that effects on Cairns were not notable because other places were worse-affected).[42][43][44]

After he repeatedly reverted mention of the cyclone, I posted a 3RR warning on his User Talk page,[45], which he immediately deleted.[46] He responded by posting a 3RR warning on my Talk page[47] (I had reverted his edit twice[48][49]; I had also made this earlier edit—not a revert—in which I removed the redundant commented statement, because Cyclone Yasi was still correctly mentioned before and after my edit.) and suggested there were no sources indicating that Cyclone Yasi had a notable affect on Cairns[50] (compare Google search for Cyclone Yasi Cairns). I provided sources indicating that Yasi had an impact on the Cairns region.[51][52]

I initially (incorrectly) stated that he had breached the 3RR,[53] rather than merely reaching 3 reverts, to which the user responded aggressively at the article Talk page[54] in addition to a personal attack about me on his User page,[55][56] which I attempted to remove, citing WP:TALKO.[57][58] I also added a Third Opinion request about the original content dispute.[59][60]

After realising he had only reached the 3 reverts, I reworded the incorrect statements[61][62][63] and removed his personal attack about me from his User page.[64][65][66] User:Bidgee has restored the attack, claiming it was "not personal"[67] and that he had not "claimed there were not sources for the effect Cyclone Yasi had on the Cairns region".[68] However, if that were genuinely the case, there would be no contention with listing Cyclone Yasi in the Cairns article as "a notable cyclone that affected the Cairns region".[69]

When he saw the 3O request, User:Danjel also indicated similar difficulties in dealing with User:Bidgee.[70] User:Danjel thereafter warned the user about personal attacks[71] and attempted to remove User:Bidgee's comments about him.[72] See Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First, can I just point this edit out? Anyways, I dealt with Bidgee a little bit. There was a discussion in the WPTC that seemed to reach a conclusion ([73]), so I went ahead and started moving articles to the more common title. Bidgee posts on the Australian notice board, claiming I was moving it to a less common name, despite the discussion we had. Bidgee went ahead and unilaterally reverted some of the moves I made [74] [75] Around that time, Bidgee got into the discussion, but IMO was ignoring the developing consensus, even calling my analysis of the data useless. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

When I first had a look at he/r discussion page, I was pleasently surprised to see that she was not the subject to violations, there were many editors thanking he/r, It was as if everyone liked her. The "View History" on her talk page, unfortunatley, told me another story. S/he has reverted so many notices, warnings, etc. She has kept all of the "Thank you's" or "Can you help.." or the awards, but has kept a big bulk her/his history reverted to only be viewed in the View History section.

Prior to having an issue with this user, i though of he/r as a strong user, a 'Leader', But all s'he wants, is to be the boss. To get the last word. S/he has used profanity before to get her/his own way [[76], as well as notice templates on other users talk pages to satisfy her own agenda. I have been on Wikipedia since the 17th of Decemeber 2010, so a substantial amount of time, I know rights from wrongs...accusing another editor of being disruptive after 2 small edits (that had references) [77] and then getting smacked with a 'stop attacking' template on my talk page [78] after trying to defend myself [79], Is all wrong. I had apologised to her/him for my actions (which were'nt as bad as hers/his actions) [80] (Feb6) and still have not gotten a reply, with her/his excuse being 'busy'...when her/his contributions log shows that s/he has been editing pages and talking with other users. It is disrespectful, and I honestly take my apology back.

We all make mistakes, I am sure admins now and than make them too. It is normal. We're all human, but this user on the other hand just keeps on making them as well as blaming them on others. This is not what Wikipedia is about. It is atrocious that there are users like her/he on here. Someone has to set her into place, tell her/him what s/he is doing is wrong.

I don't want to ever cross her again because I'm 100% certain that she'll stick the issue (our conversation) right onto her/his user page so everyone can see, as s/he has done before, and is currently doing now. [81] I don't think that there are many Bullies on Wikipedia, but I think I may of crossed one. A major one. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• This seems like more of a case for WP:DR, specifically WP:RFC/U. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no content under dispute here, except in regards to Bidgee's shrine to all those who disagree with him/her, which s/he won't allow anyone to remove. More problematically, while Jeffro and myself have actively tried to get Bidgee to remove the content, there's been no contribution to discussion from Bidgee's side. I doubt that Bidgee would participate in an WP:RFC/U. -danjel (talk to me) 11:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Danjel, the disputed User page content is within the scope of the User RFC, and is central to the purpose of raising it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've endorsed your post there. -danjel (talk to me) 11:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than griping about alleged personal attacks, you would be better off trying to address the content issues that Bidgee raises, and see if you all can reach some consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That has been attempted. Refer to Talk:Cairns, Queensland#Yasi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Working with Bidgee has been attempted repeatedly. -danjel (talk to me) 11:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, mostly what I see are discussions where both sides have been escalating things - Bidgee may not always be right, but his stance is normally defensible, yet I see few non-aggressive attempts to resolve anything. Edit warring, templated warnings, and discussions through edit summaries don't tend to fix problems.

I note that the current version of his user page is somewhat less intense than the old version - personally I never liked those sorts of "collections" on user pages, but it does seem that he's made steps to alleviate some of the problems prior to AN/I. Is the current version still unacceptable? - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the current version is unacceptable. My statements about his edits are factual as is demonstrated on the Cairns Talk page. When an editor requested that Bidgee not post statements about that editor on Bidgee's User page, Bidgee claimed that editor was "harassing" him[82]. Bidgee's attitude and behaviour therein are ridiculous. Danjel and other editors have indicated that Bidgee's behaviour at the Cairns article have not been the only problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Using the Cairns article as an example, Bidgee was using a different understanding to what a "notable" cyclone in regard to Cairns was. That's fine, and clearly consensus was on your side in the end. However, there wasn't a clear consensus when you added your edit, which didn't include a source. You were reverted, with a request to take it to talk. So you made a comment, and reverted it back. The two of you went back and forth, and each time you added the same and Bidgee requested discussion or a source. At no point during this did you or Bidgee make another comment on the talk page, and it culminated in an exchange of templated warnings - you to Bidgee for 3RR, followed Bidgee to you for adding unsourced material and 3RR.

My point isn't that Bidgee was right, but that looking through the history I see two seemingly stubborn editors butting heads as they get progressively more annoyed with each other. It is very hard to apportion blame - at any point either of you could have stopped reverting and looked to a better path for dispute resolution, but neither did.

In regard to behaviour about the user page, I agree that the content was inappropriate. However, the attempt to resolve the problem seems to have been conducted solely through more templated warnings, by you and Danjel, and comments made through edit summaries on his talk. Maybe I'm missing something, but again, when someone is annoyed, this isn't the best path to solving the problem - even if you are (as I think you were) in the right. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I provided sources at Talk indicating that Cairns was affected in a notable way (diffs already above). After I reverted twice, I did not revert again, and warned Bidgee about the 3RR rule. Bidgee ignored the sources, based on his own superfluous interpretation that for the cyclone to have a 'notable affect' that it must cause 'severe damage'. If the Cairns article were the only article involved, this would probably not need to be addressed here (or User RFC), but the reports of other editors' separate dealings with Bidgee in addition to Bidgee's behaviour at his User and Talk pages indicate there to be a larger problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those sources were only provided after you edit warred to include the content. You added sources to the discussion almost an hour after you started adding the unsourced material to the article, and not until after you had warned Bidgee and Bidgee had warned you in return. My issue is not that you were in the wrong - although you should have provided sources rather than edit warring to include unsourced material - but that you, as much as Bidgee, could have tried some form of resolution beyond edit warring and templated warnings. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem arose because Bidgee arbitrarily decided that there was not a 'notable effect' on the basis that there was not 'severe' damage and that other towns were 'more badly damaged'. However, Bidgee is well aware of what media coverage there was of the event, but maintained even after the sources were provided that the cyclone didn't have a 'notable effect' based on his own arbitrary criteria. Bidgee already knew that thousands had been evacuated (including two hospitals), thousands of people lost power for days, etc, and such is demonstrated in his opening comment in the section he started. Those emergency response and other actions were notable affects of the cyclone, therefore the sources that were only provided later would not have (and did not) ameliorate Bidgee and were thus redundant as far as the dispute is concerned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is that you are still focusing on why your edits were correct. They may have been, and consensus seems to have gone your way in the end. But the issue in an edit war isn't who is right, but how you responded. Rather than taking it to talk (as asked to do in the edit summaries), or adding a source, you continued to revert, and then dropped a 3RR warning on Bidgee's page. Bidgee should also have stopped reverting and tried to engage in discussion, rather than asking that you do so and reverting. So I'm not saying that I think Bidgee is without blame, (and the content he added to his user page was clearly inappropriate), but the cause of the issue was not a single belligerent editor, but two people choosing to escalate instead of breaking away. - Bilby (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not really the order events. Initially, I removed only a comment, leaving mention of the cyclone intact in the article, as it was before my edit.[83] (At the time, I had not realised who had introduced the comment, and merely noticed that it was redundant because the same cyclone was mentioned immediately below.) After Bidgee reverted the first time (removing the correct information I had previously left intact),[84], I then realised he had started a Talk section after he commented there[85] and I commented at that section with what seemed a fairly reasonable indication of notability based on information Bidgee already knew.[86] (Perhaps I could have provided a source there, but the intro of Bidgee's section indicated that he was already aware of relevant sources.) My first revert was only after that.[87] Bidgee reverted again without commenting at Talk,[88] and I then did my second revert[89], which Bidgee immediately reverted.[90] I indicated that Bidgee wasn't using the correct criteria for 'notable effects' and provided sources at Talk.[91] Since Bidgee had made 3 reverts, it seemed appropriate to let him know that with a warning template. (Regrettably, at that point I said Bidgee had breached 3RR, but he maintained his attack after that was corrected.) Another editor later restored the correct information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's mostly accurate, except you warned Bidgee for 3RR, Bidgee warned you for 3RR and adding unsourced information, and then you provided sources on the talk page. But that's not the issue. The issue is simply the there was a shared responsibility for how things escalated, and at any point either of you could have stepped back, but neither did. In particular, the don't template the regulars essay is, I've found, quite wise. :) It doesn't excuse what he posted to his user page, which was over the top, in the same sense that his warning to MelbourneStar was inappropriate, but I'm not seeing a pattern here of Bidgee being belligerent, so much as a series of incidents where Bidgee is poked, pokes back, and the editors concerned (with the exception of MelbourneStar's apology) continue to poke harder until something breaks. Anyway, I'll let it sit. - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I was perfect, and I think I've been fairly candid in describing what happened. In my dealing with Bidgee I kept to the issue of the dispute, until it seemed necessary to address Bidgee's attack secondary to the initial dispute. Was not aware of the don't template the regulars essay. I edit on some controversial pages and as a result have had my share of disputes (Bidgee's belligerence is relatively tame compared to some), but I have never resorted to vilifying editors on my User page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

At User_talk:Danjel#User:Bidgee there was a discussion involving Bidgee and his/her interaction with MelbourneStar1 (in particular his unwarranted warning on MelbourneStar1). The discussion basically went nowhere with Bidgee sticking to his/her guns. The critical point that Bidgee was also in the wrong went completely ignored with Bidgee preferring to concentrate on MelbourneStar1's actions. It was a good case of "well so-and-so didn't follow the rules, so I don't have to either". I'm a teacher. I get that a lot. -danjel (talk to me) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree that Bidgee made a mistake with this warning to MoriningStar1 - it was inappropriate. But your response, of giving Bidgee a templated warning about the misuse of templated warnings, wasn't going to fix things. My point isn't that Bidgee was right - I just keep seeing people trying to solve problems with warnings, edit summaries and aggressive statements, (including in that discussion), and I'm unsurprised that there hasn't been a satisfactory resolution. I'm not sure that there could have been, of course. Anyway, I guess we'll see where the RFC/U goes. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

@Billy *MelbourneStar1 :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Any idea who the IP-hopping user is who keeps attacking Bidgee on their Talk page, requiring the page to be semi-protected? Corvus cornix_talk 07:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, MebourneStar☆ is way cooler. And *Bilby. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha thanks and don't worry :) Oh and **MelbourneStar☆ :) lol -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, But I have noticed that, Bidgee may be a little bit of a "difficult" editor in my point of view, but no, he does not deserve that, no one does. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry, edit warring, unreliable sources, false consensus, business as usual on Aspartame Controversy

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.

---

At Aspartame_controversy Brangifer and his friends, particulary Yobol are making the lead into some gossip section, inserting multiple unreliable sources, strengthened with Weasel words and immediately claiming consensus when I removed rightfully the ridiculous sources. Yobol then falsely accuse me of the three-revert rule at my talk page while I only undid an edit once and undid an edit again that contained different info. When someone mentions an unreliable source, the burden is on them to prove it's reliable. These people have a very aggressive attitude towards editors who present the other side in the controversy to level out the article. After all it's about a controversy, a dispute. I would like to see these people being blocked or even banned from the article. Immortale (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• — Immortale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please supply some difs of who the meat puppet(s) are and some of the other things you are claiming like false consenses. From looking at the history of the article, you are at 3 rr which means the notice is good. The sources you say aren't reliable the other editors involved are saying are reliable which brings consensus against you. Please keep in mind the WP:Boomerang. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think the underlying issue is the prominence given to the Merkel emails, this is a niche event that is rarely even mentioned in serious coverage of the controversy. The article has been having serious discrepancy issues with regard to sources for as long as I have been editing here, to the point that GAO reports were sought to be excluded for spurious reasons. Why something that is rarely mentioned in serious sources and often only in passing if at all, is given the first line in our article is odd. un☯mi 13:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• These pro aspartame editors keep claiming consensus immediately whenever someone tries to make a valid contribution towards the neutrality of the article. They work closely together, support each other, protect each other (here for example where Brangifer demands an apology from me for his friend), and bully all other editors who have a different opinion than them even if they apply the wikipedia guidelines. The three-revert rule doesn't apply because I didn't revert 3 times the same edit. The source was replaced by another unreliable source. If this is what Wikipedia is about: bully-editing, then allow it, otherwise I really would like to see a strong and just administrator to do the right thing and ban the aforementioned two individuals from the article, as they are the most prominent. The proof for this is all over the talk page and the history section.Immortale (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Full disclosure, I edit that page a lot. I doubt that the editors mentioned would consider themselves 'pro aspartame' but rather 'pro wikipedia policies' I know that is what I consider myself. As hard as it is, please WP:AGF. I also see no evidence of meatpuppetry. 67.68.139.8 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC). I am sorry, that was me, I thought I was logged in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There, unfortunately, seems to be a trend of false accusations by people who do not want to follow proper behavioral guidelines on the aspartame articles (see previous AN/I threads here, here, and here). Specifically, these WP:SPAs have been falsely accusing others of being sockpuppets/meatpuppets/shills of companies for a while now due this content dispute. Unfortunately, this is the 4th AN/I thread about this subject recently, and unless the community does something to curtail this behavior, I suspect these articles will be further disrupted (as they have been for months now). I note specifically that Unomi's comments above are content specific and really belong on the talk page of the article, not here. The behavioral issues of these SPAs, however, needs to be addressed. Yobol (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The editors complained about are merely enforcing wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically WP:MEDRS (reliable sources for articles about medicine). TFD (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are a group of SPAs who have been making these complaints for some time now without any evidence. They live on that article and push to have dubious sources, primary sources, and even websites with nothing but anecdotes, included as sourcing. It's really been very tiring. The rest of us edit many articles, have much more experience and understanding of policies, and they keep making personal attacks and claims we're working for industry. Personally I have no great love for the pharmaceutical industry, or for Monsanto or Searle, and I'd love to help bury them if they were wrong, but in this case the scientific evidence is very clear....aspartame at normal doses is not a dangerous substance (except for a very particularly infinitisimally small group of people with a certain illness). The gross assumptions of bad faith need to stop. My latest message for one of the SPAs, User:Arydberg, is illustrative of what we're up against. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not meatpuppetry if there are several different editors who merely wish to follow wikipedia guidelines and improve articles in line with reliable sources. Unfortunately, it might look like meatpuppetry to somebody who wants to get their POV into an article and finds multiple people disagreeing with them. I'm not sure why this has come to AN/I, as it looks more like a conventional content dispute that should be addressed on a talkpage imho. (Full disclosure: I've never edited the article, and don't have any particular opinion on aspartame, but have commented on the talkpage once). bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who introduced that new ‘unreliable’ source to the article and even though I wasn't explicitly named in Immortale's complaint I guess I'm one of the ‘bad guys’, too, so I guess I should comment here. While I don't think the source is unreliable, I don't feel strongly about keeping it - what I do feel strongly about, however, is the insinuation that I introduced it in bad faith. When Immortale questioned the validity of a source I found a new, better one that basically said the same and added it - I thought that was pretty much a standard procedure here. Instead of saying why this source isn't reliable, Immortale removed it saying if I doubted their assessment I should “take it to WP:RSN”. I know this is what they have been told in regard to some of their sources, but that wasn't until a discussion at the article's talk was fruitless. I'm nobody's meatpuppet, nor am I a ‘pro-aspartame’ editor, and those accusations are very annoying. --Six words (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

These SPAs have some weird ideas about what they consider RS. Here are just a few diffs documenting User:Arydberg, a close ally of User:Immortale, continually and repeatedly seeking acceptance of personal anecdotes on self-published websites as RS. Check these dates (massive IDHT):

• Oct. 10, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&diff=prev&oldid=389097041

• Dec. 22, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aspartame_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=403641574

• Dec. 24, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=403972845

• Dec. 28, 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=404578410

• Feb. 13, 2011 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aspartame_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=413611484

• Feb. 14, 2011 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=413820884&oldid=413819099 Done AGAIN right below in this thread!

It's very tiring to be dealing with constant IDHT and total failure to understand RS and MEDRS. This needs to stop and it would appear that only topic bans for all these SPAs will work. They all tend to repeat their attempts to bypass our rules.

These are the SPAs who live at Aspartame controversy:

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

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

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

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

• Writegirl62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Something needs to be done to stop the disruption. I suggest topic bans for a while.

Those of us on the opposing end of these SPAs aren't "pro-aspartame", we're just keeping the article(s) from being turned into an anti-aspartame blog and collection of fringe opinion pieces. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I made a complaint to ANI and Kim Dent-Brown started looking in. I tried to add a section under the title “Grassroots Efforts”. It was removed. Kim Dent-Brown made the following statement, " I think WP:ABOUTSELF gives us a little freedom of manoeuvre here. It says: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field and then gives a list of further requirements. Personally (nailing my colours firmly to the mast here) I think the DORway site is unscientific scaremongering. But as mentioned above I think it's reasonable for us to refer to it in an article about the controversy. Of the two sides, one relies on peer-reviewed sources which fit our WP:RS criteria very well. The other mostly comprises blogs, YouTube videos and scare sites like DORway, which do not fit our criteria. The problem is that if we exclude all reference to the aspartame critics, the average reader (as I saw myself before I started to read this article) is going to read an antithesis without having had any thesis set out!" When i then posted a section on Grassroots efforts it was removed. Kim Dent-Brown made suggestions which I followed. It was still removed ...twice. The aspartame controversy is a true dilima. One side is composed of thousands of web pages claiming harm from it’s use. The other side claims a majority of research that proves it is safe. In an article titled “controversy” both sides must be told. The editors accused here simply will not allow the two sides to be told! Arydberg (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wow! Now you've done it again right up above. You have been told to never mention this again until you had taken it to RS/N. Then we can talk about it. We've been hearing about this from you again and again and again and again and again, and that's not hyperbole. We're not about to use your own or any other self-published collection of sob stories from people inspired by Betty Martini's delusions as a RS here. That would be a grotesque violation of our sourcing policies. Kim Dent-Brown came to the talk page without any idea of what you've been up to and you pulled him into a trap. The types of sources he described are indeed allowed in articles about themselves. You were told that, and yet you persist in trying to get us to use your own website, created after you got involved here, and created so you could publish it here. There is no way that is going to happen.

• You again falsely claim that both sides aren't being told, but they are. No reader of that article is in doubt that there is a controversy and about its nature. Although we use much gentler language than my vivid description here, they will discover that there was lots of controversy in the beginning of the approval process. Lots of it, and it's explained in excruciating detail. They will also discover that the controversy (which was nearly dead) has been revived and kept alive by Betty Martini and her hoax email. (Without her the controversy would have died out since all the scientific evidence (that's done properly) shows no great danger.) They will also read how there are literally thousands of websites created by people inspired by Betty Martini who repeat her laundry list of supposed dangerous diseases and conditions caused by Diet Coke and aspartame. They are repeating her delusions and lies. The evidence and the RS we use show she's making it up and it's just lies. The science is against her. The article makes that plain too. So, we ARE covering both sides! We're just not allowing you and your SPA buddies to turn the article in a fringe article that makes the mainstream position look like a fringe position. No, the anti-aspartame position is the fringe position.

• Now you want us to use your own website (or one like it) with a collection of anecdotal sob stories WHICH YOU HAVE SOLICITED ON ANTI-ASPARTAME GROUPS for your use at Wikipedia as if it was a RS? This is such a gross example of repeated IDHT that a block is deserved. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, we already use the non-RS DORway website as a reference several times, even though, as Kim Dent-Brown so accurately describes it, "the DORway site is unscientific scaremongering". It's not a RS, but we still use it to document several things about the anti-aspartame position. We're really stretching the rules to do that, but I think it's allowable in the way we've done it, and to do more would be indefensible. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• This entire business seems to me like a child tattling on their brother for smashing a vase, whilst holding the hammer. Immortale, you keep bringing up meat puppetry- I'd love to see a single piece of evidence that anyone at Talk:Aspartame controversy has been communicating about the article or coordinating edits outside of wikipedia. And if you can't provide that, stop asserting it. I don't want to see it again. --King Öomie 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently Immortale has been blocked for edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) And Arydberg has received a VERY strong warning. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• And I have handed out warnings to Jmpunit and Arydberg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I would like to thank the courageous admins who have taken action. Would it be too much to ask for a topic ban, including the talk pages, since that's where the most disruption is occurring? That is likely the only way to get this to stop, at least for a while. Also socks have been used in the past and will likely reappear, so we'll still need to be observant. A permanent semi-protection of the article, allowing only editors with autoreviewer rights, would also help. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to get the formalities right, does anybody know if and when any of the parties in question have already had warnings under the WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions rules? I'd otherwise hand out a few of those now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I've gone ahead and gave the standard warnings to the three editors mentioned above. Also declined an unblock request by Immortale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many straw men are being pulled in here. I reported an incident but it turned into a witch hunt. Brangifer who I identify as the main bully, brings up false allegations against me time after time, which is apparently completely accepted as WP:AGF. Brangifer calls me "a close ally of Arydberg" without any evidence. I've never even replied to Arydberg on the Talk page. But if Brangifer cannot find any good reasons to accuse me, he brings in others to smear and ties them to me. Then when he finds out he's at the winning hand, he sneaks in his unsubstantiated accusation "Also socks have been used in the past and will likely reappear, so we'll still need to be observant." I've never used any socks, have been accused of that several times, but got completely cleared by that. Administrators have apologized to me then. All because Brangifer fights a crusade against pseudo-science and mistakenly puts Aspartame in there as well. He violates WP:BLP every time he mentions Betty Martini, by calling her a liar and a whole other range of insults because of his personal dislike of her (she has a religion he disagrees with). Recently I put a valid secondary RS source in the article, from the New York Times, historical correct, but as always, every time and I mean every time, someone comes with an edit that shows a negative finding about Aspartame, even within all wikipedia guidelines, then we have to go all the way to get it accepted, if it gets accepted at all. Since the ethical standard of Wikipedia has become so low, I voluntarily withdraw myself as an editor. Immortale 83.185.26.203 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

When you claim to never have used socks, you undermine your point by evading a block to do it. From what I've seen, Brangifer's dislike for Betty Martini is based on her work and her insistence on pushing pseudoscience, not her religion, but it's nice of you to make that assumption (while complaining about AGF violations). WP:BOOMERANG seems like a hobby. --King Öomie 14:15, 14 February 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.

Toolserver down?

I got this message when going to Toolserver.

Bad Gateway An error occurred while communicating with another application or an upstream server.

There may be more information about this error in the server's error logs.

If you have any queries about this error, please e-mail [email protected]. Back to toolserver.org homepage

[ Powered by Zeus Web Server ]

--Perseus8235 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

*Cough*

"If you have any queries about this error, please e-mail [email protected]."

Your email account is → that way I believe. Tiptoety ^talk 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just refresh and it should work. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Refreshed nine times. Oh well. --Perseus8235 20:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like an error in a particular tool. The toolserver itself is not down, at least not right now. What tool are you loading? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a particular tool. I loaded Checklinks and SUL and both loaded just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here? What is an enwiki admin supposed to do about this? WP:VPT might be more appropriate, as might be Tiptoety's suggestion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone thinks we're just a bunch of tools? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Onetonycousins more personal attacks

This user has a number of blocks for personal attacks but still continues [92] Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind Gnevin but i adjusted your link to show the edit summary which is the source of the personal attack, it just showed the article and that it was an old version edited by Onetonycousins. Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as "Useless propaganda". Hows its propaganda is another question. User despite two previous blocks appears to still think demeaning edit summaries are permissable on Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind at all, thanks for correcting my error Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Just to add user in question did refer to a reliably sourced addition to an article as Useless propaganda. Hows its propaganda is another question." A stalker and a genius. Believe it or not, "Hows its propaganda" is the question. Maybe ask the IP who thought it was "pointless". Onetonycousins (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not my fault that this page is in my watch list and your name appears once again for personal attacks and the like. Though you should know the answer to your question seeing as it was you who said it was propaganda. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack while reporting a ANI case. [93] Gnevin (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This user seems unable to interact with other users in a civil manor [94]. Can a admin please intervene here Gnevin (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean this. You need to link to the actual diff which you find in the page history. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry don't know why I keep making that mistake, thanks Gnevin (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Several vandalism incidents in my user's page.

Resolved

 – Protected indefinitely. m.o.p 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings; there has been at least three incidents of vandalism during the last week in my user's page (See history here). The vandalism comes from three different IPs: 87.19.217.18, 95.247.134.126 and 80.116.195.35. User MBelgrano and I have reverted the changes, but it seems that this is going to continue. I request semi-protection of my user's page. Thanks for your attention.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

67.142.177.26

Resolved

This IP address has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism, most recently for three months. User has edited his own talk page ([95]) to make it appear that an unblock request had been approved. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert, ignore :) I don't think anyone will be fooled by that. -- Luk ^talk 13:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas

This user has repeatedly edited/reverted a lot of music articles by not taking into the account as to how many genres there may be listed, e.g. Eyes Wide Shut has at least more than one genre for definite. He has also vandalized a few Madonna articles as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.178.225 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on user:Christopher Monsanto

Apparently Christopher made the mistake of pointing out the non-notability of someone's favorite programming language. The AfD process is simply filled with personal attacks from SPA's and anonymous IP users. You only need to look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nemerle to see what I mean. I suspect there's rampant sock-puppetry as well as clear off-wiki canvassing. I don't really know what should be done, but the AfD is essentially impossible to read because of the overwhelming amount of attacks and irrelevant content. Glaucus (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Monsanto does not appear to be unduly flustered - indeed, his responses are in danger of verging on "brilliant" - and I do not see a closing reviewer being swayed by the SPA's. I think all that needs done is a quiet pat on the back for CM. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yebbut a significant number of closing Admins tend to count votes & make their judgment based on that. Not knowing much about Nemerle -- & I've made a living from computers for 15-odd years -- I would be very tempted by the discussion as it stands to close it as "No consensus" due to the combination of votes to keep & Monstanto's constant refrain of "show me the reliable sources" -- which is the right response, BTW. My recommendation in this case is that if you want to help Monsanto would be to study the AfD discussion, do some research, & add your opinion about this language. (BTW, what is the notability standard for computer-related topics? I've stayed away from this area because I'm not clear exactly what is a notable computer topics -- be it commercial software package, free source program, Linux distribution, or computer term -- & what will be deleted. Some subjects are notable only to its fanboys, & some are actually of interest beyond its cult of followers.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that the closing admin will note the lack of response to the request for RS by the majority of commentators, who question instead the acumen of the proposer. If there is a possibility that this might devolve to a head count, then perhaps thee and me should comment there? I shall do so drekkly, in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my title here was misleading. The real issue is the clear attempt to subvert the AfD process. Rampant meat-puppetry, SPAs, meaningless votes whose sole content is to attack the proposer. If it devolves to a headcount, they will win solely because they ignored the rules of the process. Glaucus (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It didn't devolve to a headcount. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I should have more faith in the process :). Glaucus (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

vanU, deletion sprees, especially of legitimate pages, is never pat-worthy. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Throwaway85, the pat was for keeping his head and responding calmly and rationally to the trolls. I think it's clear that he handled the attacks and canvassing admirably, even if his original judgment on the whole issue was questionable. Glaucus (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here and look at what's sparking this: CM is on a bit of a nomination spree, nominating articles that very well may fail GNG for deletion. The response by the "SPAs" is motivated by a strong opposition to the deletion of valuable information on legitimate subjects. These are people who have been informed of CM's actions, but who aren't familiar with the etiquette and decorum rules on Wiki. Nevertheless, their concerns are valid. CM's actions, while within policy, are misguided and damaging. We should not be in the business of removing interesting information on legitimate subjects. I've asked CM to stop his spree so we can discuss this as a community and arrive at a solution. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Let's look beyond the letter of the law and use our rationale, please. If nothing else, this issue obviously warrants further discussion by the community -- what stays and goes on Wikipedia should never be up to the discretion of one individual. --Rileydutton (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Two points here. First, the arguments of people who "aren't familiar" with Wikipedia rules and guidelines are not necessarily valid. Articles are deleted for specific reasons, if SPAs are recruited to the AfD to votestack without giving any kind of actual encyclopedic reasons for opposing, the closing admin will likely ignore them. And more importantly, deletion isn't at the discretion of one individual, especially a non-admin like CM. If you disagree with the process, Less Heard vanU has left comments in the CM thread below about the process of changing the system. If you disagree with the individual AfDs, add actual content to the articles and show notability through reliable sources. In any case, multiple threads about an editor acting within policy aren't going to help. Dayewalker (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fkt7t/nemerle_factor_alice_ml_and_other_programming/

Also I don't object to user:Christopher Monsanto's cleanup, but I think that people are upset because they feel like articles are being deleted at a rapid pace, too fast for them to make their voices heard. Maybe slowing down the pace of deletion nominations while we wait for the reddit article to leave the front page of the subreddit would be prudent. --ScWizard (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

How can an 8 day AfD discussion be considered a rapid pace? Corvus cornix_talk 08:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think more prudent still would be to rethink GNG, as it excludes a lot of legitimate subjects from Wikipedia, like little-known programming languages. In theory it's a good thing, but the incremental cost of hosting a new page is so incredibly negligible that there's no reason whatsoever to ban a topic simply for being obscure. Promotional, vanity, sure. But obscure? Why do we want to keep obscure topics off the project? If I wanted to write an article on a 16th-century nomadic Mongolian tribe, why *wouldn't* we want that article? I get that there are OR issues that arrise when there aren't a ton of sources, but that doesn't mean that, for a more pertinent example, a blog post by the creator of a language explaining its features shouldn't be counted as a reliable source. The Internet has changed a lot in the past few years, and simply saying that something is a blog doesn't make it unreliable. Tons of people self-publish these days, and the range in quality is too great to simply throw out the lot. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Srrrgei has recreated the Nemerle article. I've put a db-recreated article on it. Corvus cornix_talk 08:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The AfD is now listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 14#Nemerle. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet another SPA created a new version with even less evidence of notability. Speedied per G4. Guess salting would seem POINTy as long as the deletion review is in progress. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

http://artist.maestro.fm/Terry_Weeks.html?v=biography

I know there was a page somewhere where websites that was taking content from Wikipedia without proper attribution could be reported. http://artist.maestro.fm/Terry_Weeks.html?v=biography looks like a user content site but I do know this particular page is a copy of Terry Weeks. What should be done?--v/r - TP 21:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There are so many of these types of sites that I usually ignore them; however, you can email the (new) general counsel, Geoff Brigham, if he has an email set up already (I don't think so). Right now wmf:Designated agent says to contact Sue; I don't know if legalwikimedia.org would be a better alternative. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for My Talk Page semi-protection or block of Special:Contributions/68.198.135.130

Recently, Theosophical Society was semi-protected against WP:TE by Special:Contributions/68.198.135.130. That same IP has decided my Talk page is the place for his uncivil rants, despite my asking him to be productive or stop. I'd appreciate either a block of the IP or a semi-protect of my talk page. emphasis added

The IP's contributions to the article's talk page aren't particularly productive, either (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly uncivil about the diff you gave to your talk page. The article is already s-protected. I'm not sure what disruption there is to prevent ... users are allowed to have dissenting ideas. --B (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for a semi-protect of my talk page, as I asked the IP to either be civil there or post his anger somewhere else, not that of the article (which should be open to discussion, no matter how uncivil). However, I will note that statements like this on the article's talk page seem to be inappropriate and unhelpful:

• " It must be a conspiracy by the Illuminati or by a bunch of chipmunks. Or you are wrong. Which do you think is more likely?"
• " How about the following, crowning incivility: learning (incompetently) on the job"
• What a joke."

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IP 112.205.7.91 - disruptive editing

User IP 112.205.7.91 was indef blocked on two wikis (de, id) and here was temp blocked four times (his block log), last one-month block was ended 24.12.2010. Now is harassing me with pure vandalism and undoing my edits:

1. [96]- vandalism restored

2. [97] - undo valid iw

3. [98]- undo valid iw

4. [99]- vandalism restored

5. [100] - vandalism

6. [101] - vandalism

and so on, as can be seen on his contributions.

In recent days he was warned by Trigaranus and be me, on his talkpage, but without success. Of course, his talk page is full of warnings.

He his uncivil too, as can be seen here (talk to user Velella), b-word here or d-word in comment here.--Yopie (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed this highly disruptive behavior. Some of this user's contribution may be acceptable but the vast majority is pure vandalism. Several blocks and warnings and the behavior is resuming. I have blocked this IP for 6 months, while keeping the possibility to create accounts. olivier (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fast solving.--Yopie (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In the future, the best way of dealing with this is a Warn and Report policy. Keep warning until the final warning then report the user to AIV.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't blocking while allowing account creation kind of defeats the purpose? (Candid question) -- Luk ^talk 17:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. My idea was that a user who has a disruptive behavior when only identified by an IP might refrain from such a behavior once he/she is editing with a registered account. If necessary, the created accounts can in turn be blocked, but I hope that the 6 month IP block will be a strong enough signal to the user to stop disrupting. olivier (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this 3RR?

Yet again, there are a myriad of IP addresses removing the image on Khaled Mohamed Saeed. The image was decided to be returned to the article at DRV. There is already discussion on the talk page about whether the image should be put in a hatted box while being kept in the article or not, though that has little to do with this. But, regardless, is it considered breaking 3RR if I keep reverting the removal of the image by IPs? If so, could someone else please help or place the article under semi-protection? Semi would be a good idea anyways. Silverseren^C 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, 3RR is allowed to be violated when it comes to obvious vandalism - which these edits are, given the community consensus at DRV. GiantSnowman 17:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite – editing in good faith is not vandalism, even if it is in opposition to a consensus. And the consensus, if such exists, is shaky, since there were also other, experienced and good-faith Wikipedians who removed the image. And note that IPs are entitled to have editorial opinions too. I semi-protected the article because the IP activity suggests some kind of coordinated campaign or socking, but other than that it's still a legitimate content dispute and not immune to 3RR, in my view. (Note that I'm not entirely uninvolved, as I have expressed opinions about that image myself in the past.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reblock without talk page access needed

User:AudioVideo Dimension - Viper 5901 was blocked on February 10, and is now engaging in promotion on his user talk page. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Y Done — Scientizzle 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alleged racism by Badger Drink

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.

Everyone's points seem to have been made as clearly as they are going to be, and there appears to be little chance of any consensus for any admin action being taken here. Please direct this discussion to WP:RFC/U or some other more appropriate venue. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

---

I saw this edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damnatio_memoriae&curid=44345&diff=412838755&oldid=406233625 and thought I would look into the user. Their talkpage is dripping with warnings about incivility. The term used in this edit summary is racist, equivalent to the n-bomb. There is an article on the term itself, which touches barely on the fact that it's offensive. Bitey and snide I can handle, this is too far.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the edits much but you cannot say Goyim is equivalent to the n-bomb, that's ridiculous. I don't even know how to respond, they're completely different. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 04:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that he used the plural form when it should have been singular. Other than that, meh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic pejoratives of any kind are uncalled for. Heiro 04:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a term that has very different meanings depending on the context. For example, in the phrase Shabbos goy it has no negative connotations. In this context, the connotation seems negative and the meaning seems to constitute a slur. It does however seem that in this context the comparison being made by Kintet exaggerates the severity. If it were directed at a specific user I'd say it was a violation of WP:NPA, but given the context, it is more running afoul of not being a dick. It isn't helpful and is needlessly inflammatory. So, um, don't do it again?JoshuaZ (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As a goy myself, I found it funny, if perhaps a bit too pointed for an edit summary. To call it "racist" is silly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Egg Centric (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but Kintetsubuffalo may have a good point. I think he sees the word goy as equivalent to gaijin, haole, Pākehā, Ausländer, and other terms, and he may be right. I suspect every culture on the planet has similar terms to indicate "those who are not like us". Xenophobia may be more than just a cultural or social value. It may be a function of the mind itself. If so, then one should be aware of our tendency to act in such a way, and to be more careful with the words we use. It is even possible that Badger Drink isn't aware of the words he uses, which would explain the continuing civility violations. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He's focusing on the word rather than the meaning. I interpret Badger's comment as being short for, "Not only would a Jew never make this claim, only the most ignorant non-Jew would make this claim." He's just saying it in a somewhat more colorful way. That doesn't mean he's correct in his assessment, but that's another story. And while I suppose it's possible that some folks use goy the way the N-word is used, in general the idea the goy and n*gg*r are equivalent is... ignorant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct; the word goy is not used like or as the n-word, but it could be misconstrued as racist because it has xenophobic undertones. In this way, goy is really no different than gaijin or haole. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not racist the way he used it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey. This goyim doesn't find it particularly offensive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's not racist as he used it, as JoshuaZ so elegantly explained. However, it can certainly be misconstrued as racist due to its xenophobic undertones, and this explains the reaction of Kintetsubuffalo and Heironymous Rowe. Badger Drink should remember that edit summaries are used specifically to help other editors know what type of edits are being made as they peruse their watchlist. Was Badger Drink's edit summary helpful? Badger Drink has a history of using edit summaries to make wisecracks, and many are less than civil. Now would be a good time for him to stop using edit summaries in this way and an opportunity to engage in more civil discourse. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the edit summary was an attempt at humor (which I, as a goy, indeed found funny). But I don't see how could that specific comment could be construed as "racist". It doesn't put down any race or ethnic group, it puts down the ignorant. That may be unfair to the mentally challenged, but it ain't "racist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" and "racism" are often confused with each other, and this would explain the reaction by Kintetsubuffalo. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Badger Drink's comment that "only a truly befuddled, naive goyim would present something so condescending as fact" is a clear personal attack on the editor who made the edit he reverted. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No question is a sarcastic putdown of the original poster, and may well be unfair. But the comment itself is neither "racist" nor "xenophobic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is most certainly xenophobic, and there is no question about that fact. Do a bit of research on the history of the term, please. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that specific statement xenophobic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The word, not the statement. You are free to consult Google Books, Scholar, or your local library for further information, as this discussion has gone beyond the boundaries of this topic. There is general agreement in this discussion that Badger Drink should be more careful with his edit summaries in the future and remain civil with his fellow editors. As for xenophobia, it is found in every culture, and is part of who we are as humans. Nobody is immune from it. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't fly. The word itself is just a word. Tell me how that specific statement could possibly be misconstrued as xenophobic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does "fly", and no word is by itself "just a word". Words have meaning, and this word is classically defined as xenophobic in the same way as gaijin, haole, and all the other words meaning "not us". This is not even up for debate. Do some research on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't fly. Words are used in different ways in different contexts. You can't say, "this word sometimes means this, therefore it always means this." Unless you think I myself am an "ignorant goy", in that I'm not in the least offended by it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The concept is classically defined as xenophobic regardless of the context. In fact, that is exactly what makes it good material for comedy, such that it can be used in any context without changing its meaning. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what it's "classically" defined to be. You can find xenophobia and racism anywhere, if you go looking for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• The statement "only a truly befuddled, naive goyim would present something so condescending as fact" is exactly as racist as "only a truly befuddled, naive jew would present something so condescending as fact" and "only a truly befuddled, naive black would present something so condescending as fact". DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • None of which are necessarily racist in a given context. I'm more concerned about the "condescending" part, as I'm not so sure it's a fair characterization of the uncited statement that Badger removed from the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Saying that someone is a "naive goyim" is not racist, it is xenophobic. Saying that someone is a "naive Jew" or a "naive black", is racist and xenophobic. Viriditas (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
      • It's ascribing an undesirable behaviour to a person based on their perceived membership or non-membership of an ethnic group. To me, that is racism. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
        • No, it's saying that even most non-Jews would know that this supposedly Jewish thing is false, unless they were extremely ignorant. That's not racism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Well... it's not racism to me. The undesirable behaviour, in this case, is that they're ignorant about jewish topics. You content it's racist to suggest us goys are less knowledgeable about jewish trivia - I think that that's absurd! Egg Centric (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Why did Badger use "goyim" instead of "non-Jew" then? GiantSnowman 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Because the two terms have identical meaning? ("How odd of God, to choose the Jews; But the Goyim, annoy 'im" ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
              • "Non-Jew" is factual; "goyim" can be pejorative. I find the choice of words unsettling to be honest. GiantSnowman 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
                • Hmm, perhaps we have different experiences - I've often heard it used, including by Jewish friends, and I've just never seen it as pejorative in itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that User:Badger Drink incorrectly used the plural form goyim when it clearly should have been singular goy; i.e., "a truly befuddled, naive goyim [sic]." This is a strong indication that he isn't closely familiar with the term and its finer nuances. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why all of the semantic debate about this term? Our article on the term here even says it can be seen as a pejorative and controversial, as with every other ethnic or religious based slang term. If a term can be seen in this way, it should not be used to describe other editors here, ever, period. Comment on the content not the contributors. Heiro 19:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The operative word term there is "can be". In the way Badger used it, it is in no way pejorative towards non-Jews, but only towards the ignorant. And I'm assuming he meant to use the plural, but that's something he would have to speak to. And he could have said "non-Jews" but that wouldn't have been funny. "Gentiles" would have been somewhat funny, but goyim works much better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've heard "Jew" used pejoratively, and even "American" - should we ban those too? If we prohibited the use of all words that *can* be used pejoratively, we'd have very few left. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So, its ok to use pejorative descriptors, as long as its used as a joke? Or to reverse what was said, if the editor had said "naive Jew" everyone would be ok with this? The fact the user used any kind of ethnic, racial or intelligence descriptor for an editor instead of commenting directly on the content and why said content wasn't acceptable is the problem here. Heiro 21:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point of the comment. As a parallel, suppose I claimed in an article about Christianity that Jesus said the greatest commandment was, "Go therefore and teach all the world to play soccer." I could be right in saying that only the most ignorant non-Christian would think that could be a correct statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But he wasn't commenting on the contributor. He was talking about the nature of the contributions. The contributions may have been made by Sir Jewsalot for all we know. He effectively said they were so ignorant that almost all jews would think otherwise, which is fair enough. Egg Centric (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. He was saying the alleged Jewish axiom was so obviously incorrect that even most non-Jews would know it was incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to comments of this nature; even if he wasn't being openly racist, he was certainly inappropriate. GiantSnowman 21:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Its underlying premise may have been a bit pointy, but the comment was in no way racist or xenophobic. That's not erring on the side of "caution", it's erring on the side of "ignorance". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "its ok to use pejorative descriptors": No, I'm not saying that - I'm saying that it's people's intentions that count, not a blanket assumption that every use of a specific term *is* pejorative. And given that "goy/goyim" is often used in a non-pejorative, even sometimes affectionate, way (if my Jewish friends are actually being affectionate, as I think), then we should not just assume the worst. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Belated response from Badger Drink

Apologies for taking so long to respond to what is clearly a very pressing, highly-prioritized concern of merit absolute. I had long heart-to-hearts with my goy half, both before, during, and after the controversial edit in question, and on all three occasions we reached the mutual, unified conclusion that there was, is, and will be absolutely nothing offensive about said edit summary. The critical lynchpin of this conclusion was that anybody can arbitrarily take offense at anything - see the above example about Jews and Americans - and there comes a time when one is letting ones own hyper-sensitive (some might even go so far as to label it with the possibly-quite-pejorative "histrionic", but I myself have made a February Resolution to not use that word in any noticeboard thread, no matter how fitting it may be) sensitivities interfere with collaborative work. It's disruptive to fart loudly in a business meeting, but it's just as disruptive to stop the meeting in its tracks every time one suspects someone of possibly committing to, in schoolyard terms, an "SBD" (and I'm not talking about a soundboard recording here!). I'm sure nobody intends to be disruptive, but intent only goes so far - there comes a time when one must understand that they're being a little bit on the side of things that a neutral observer might be compelled to label as the "ridiculous" side, and when that time comes it's truly best to swallow one's own arrogance and make a sincere attempt at self-betterment. At the risk of being deemed incivil, allow me to rephrase the above tl;dr succinctly:

It's not racist. If you find it racist, you need to grow up. If you find it racist and are already grown up, you need to develop a better understanding of what truly constitutes racism, as spending the rest of your natural life tilting at windmills is in no way ideal for either you or the windmills.

Just to touch upon a couple other points I saw raised:

1. I have no clue who made the original condescending edit, hence I am not altogether sure it can be construed as a personal attack.
2. I'm truly sorry to any and all half-wit ignoramii I may have offended, or continue to offend, with my bigoted intolerance of half-witted ignorance on encyclopedia articles.
3. The text in question, no matter how earnest and good-faith the intent, was completely patronizing, condescending, and the very textbook definition of sheltered ignorance. If it would help illustrate, I would be only too happy to offer similar patronizing, condescending, shelteredly-ignorant yet earnest-sounding statements about other religious, ethnic, or cultural groups, including but not limited to: Women, African-descendants, Christians (excluding Unitarian Universalists and Methodists), Unitarian Universalists, Methodists, Muslims, Asians, Hispanics, Wikipedians, Nupedians, Veropedians, Stratfordians, anti-Stratfordians (including but not limited to both Oxfordians and Baconians), homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, and/or resexuals, whatever those are - yet I hope it is not necessary, not least because I'm sure someone would completely duck under the point and label me a sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot, xenophobe, philistine and/or troll while on their way to arrest Jonathan Swift for cannibalism.

   Finally, and perhaps most importantly,

4. I would like to extend my most sincere, heartfelt apologies for my own ignorance in using the plural form when clearly the singular was called for. I am at a loss to even begin to account for this oversight, and I would both understand and accept if a temporary preventative block is deemed necessary to contain such marked disregard for the languages of both Hebrew and Yiddish, the latter in particular in a rather precarious position already, and certainly in no condition to withstand such linguistic attacks.

I believe that adequately covers all matters raised, but if there remains opportunity for elaboration or clarification, please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page, and I'll be only too happy to provide. Badger Drink (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure you are doing yourself any good here.Slatersteven (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for that hollow apology; referring to those you offended as "half-wit ignoramii" shows you honestly have no idea about the offence you have obviously caused to fellow editors. GiantSnowman 22:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nor that they will not do so again as they don't think they have done anything wrong this time. It also implies to me that the user knew exactly what they were saying.Slatersteven (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I should point out I wrote this before either of the above were there. In fact, on principle, given the nature of my comment, I haven't read them - I sincerely know nothing about their content other than that there are replies

Goodness me, that's a perfect response. However, I should caution you that the intellectually inferior offenderati will happen upon it in the next few moments, and frankly the prognosis isn't good. You're not Giano, you see, and the majority of that will go over their heads... and so they will perceive further insults.

I do hope that I'm wrong. Egg Centric (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap, I really shouldn't have said that like I did. However, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to remove it, especially as it remains fairly reflective of my thoughts... but it's still not as sensitive as, er, politically it ought to be. Egg Centric (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Egg Centric, are you referring to me and Slatersteven as the "intellectually inferior offenderati"? GiantSnowman 23:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, hence my oh crap comment Egg Centric (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, that's still unclear now I read it. What I mean is I really should have read the other (i.e. your) comments before just posting that - they were directed at hypothetical responses. Now it looks like some sort of attack it wasn't meant to be. Egg Centric (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, no offence was taken or anything, was just trying to shine a light through this increasingly foggy situation! GiantSnowman 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we need more then a "if people are thick thats is their problom" from the offender. The user gave offence becasue they did not think (or did not know) about what they were writing. That is why we have rules on civility, and why in this case a full and honest appology would have difused some of our (well my) doudts that the user does realise they did in fact make a mistake in their choice of words.Slatersteven (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink, I'll remember that the next time someone throws a ethnic pejorative in my direction that as long as they don't think its hurtful I shouldn't either, because if I do, I'm just too stupid not to get the joke. Heiro 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend a user RFC on Badger Drink as the next step. This is clearly a user who does not understand the importance of civility and harmonious editing, and it is very sad to see long term editors supporting his right to maintain his incivility. Wise speech and kind words are needed more than ever in this world today, and we must begin with ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC is a sensible idea, I feel. GiantSnowman 23:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if the original comment was uncivil (just thoughtless), the response clearly is. But this does raise issues about prerogative attacks and what constitutes one? Is it the intent or the reception?Slatersteven (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware Wikipedia was responsible for moderating "this world today" Egg Centric (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But it is responsible for moderating itself, Do you really belive that if I give you offence (not matter hiow trivial or foolish on your part) I should not offer an full and honest appology?Slatersteven (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Had Badger Drink said "oops, no offence meant, I see how it could have been taken though" etc. etc., it would have been fine. But with this sarcastic and ill thought-out response, he's unfortunately exacerbated the situation. GiantSnowman 23:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He has indeed. But you can choose not to take it further. If you're able to, it may be better to let sleeping dogs lie. Of course I understand if you do wish to take it further. I will never agree with you, but I will understand :) Egg Centric (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would never, ever expect you to give an apology for a response merely because it offended me. Of course I would appreciate an apology, but I would prefer a sincere "no" to an insincere "sorry" Egg Centric (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on? So he has not in fact done "the minimum" we would expect (and just apologised) but (If I take your meaning to be what I think it is) we should allow him to get away with saying "Nahhh nahhhh I don't care"? He has virtually said that he will do this sort of thing again and yet we should drop this? As to offering to apologise for offence received, If I were to say "I am sorry that you are so stupid tou have taken offence" would you accept that? That is what he has done, and that is unacceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I am more offended with his 'apology' than with his original comment...GiantSnowman 23:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I have commented now. His origional 'offence' whilst stupid and ill informed may have been honest. His resonse is insulting and ofensive and shows no inclinations towards defalting the issues (and indead seems to have been a deliberate provocation).Slatersteven (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The original post of that item was in November of 2008,[102] and augmented in December 2010 by someone else,[103] but none of it was ever sourced. If it were me, I would have removed it with the plain comment "Unsourced and untrue", and been done with it. But as a goy, a Yank, and a WASP, and certainly an "ignoranimous" in many areas, I take no offense at any of Badger's comments, and neither should anyone else. Get over it, lower your antennae, and move on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What about his response? GiantSnowman 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind being called a half-wit, as I figure half a wit is better than none. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

But you don't want to be one and a third wit, believe me ;) Egg Centric (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not have my wit (or lack thereof) called into question...GiantSnowman 00:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to "get over" Badger Drink's continuing violations of WP:CIV. Instead, he needs to read and show that he understands it. I'm going to be leaving this thread now because I have articles to research and write, but if anyone decides to start an RFC on this user and is able to certify it with two users who have tried and failed to resolve this problem, please contact me so that I can participate. This behavior should not be tolerated from anyone. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly we have some folks with fixed world views and I think it is time to close this thread. To me the comment was marginal in the first place. Yiddish has that quality to it that gave the comment a light-hearted tone (has anyone here read Leo Rosten's book The Joys of Yiddish?). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, close it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The comment was totally unacceptable, and the "but it's Yiddish" defense is indefensible. If I call the President of the United States a schwarze, it is still racist. And if I call a non-Jew a goy it is still xenophobic. No excuses. More to the point, several editors have complained about Badger Drink's comments and behavior. The user refuses to accept that his words could be misconstrued as offensive, and the number of users defending his incivility here is disturbing. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to harp on this goyim non-issue procedurally, I can assure you I will fight it. It's nothing. It should never have been brought here in the first place, and frankly, doing so was an act of ignorance. The comment was in no way, shape or form "racist" or "xenophobic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep it open - allow Badger Drink a last chance to give some hopefully more satisfactory answers. Also, to Baseball Bugs - the problem is bigger that the "goyim" comment, it's about Badger Drink's lack of civility and personal attacks. GiantSnowman 00:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a separate issue and has nothing to do with his use of the term goyim nor the ignorance-based original complaint here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your need to "fight" other editors here, in a discussion about incivility, reveals your own issues with civility. Instead of fighting, you might want to lay down your sword and prick up your ears, and listen to what other editors are saying. Listening is the first step in civil discourse. Try it for the first time. Until you do, you are only fighting yourself. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are in no position to be lecturing anyone else about civility and attitude. What I'm fighting in this case is "nannyism". If you've got issues with other comments he's made, fine. I've got some concerns also. But if anyone has ideas about continuing this ignorance-based complaint about goyim, they need to think again. Your argument is tantamount to saying that John Lennon's "Woman is the N*gg*r of the World" is racist because it contains the N-word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not listening to what other editors have said, and you are waging your own personal battle against other editors based on what you think rather than what is said. This is not good. I have not, at any time, claimed that Badger Drink was being racist, yet you have implied above that I have. For this reason, I am no longer going to attempt to communicate with you, because you have shown, in comment after comment, a curmudgeonly intransigence that does not allow for communication. You may want to join Badger Drink in reviewing WP:CIV, as I get the impression from your comments that you are as unfamiliar with it as he is. To conclude, I find your angry, fighting attitude completely at odds with the purpose of this noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And you are not listening either. Your comments about this particular usage of goyim has been, and remains, dead wrong. It was at the start of this section, and remains so now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've listened very closely to everyone and everything that has been said, and I've respected the POV offered by both sides. I've even tried to put myself in the shoes of the OP and attempted to think their thoughts and see from their eyes. Can you say the same? It appears you are too emotionally invested in your own opinion to consider the POV of anyone but yourself. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't listened, because you've still got it dead wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone back up for a second?

I've been following this for a while, and only now feel the need to interject, since the level this has been taken to is just absurd. Maybe this user's edit summary was potentially offensive to some, but by the looks of it he certainly didn't mean it that way. But if he doesn't want to apologize, there's no rule saying he has to. No good is going to come out of pushing this any farther. If the editor starts attacking a specific user, or starts being entirely uncooperative then the issue should be brought up in regards to that specific event. But there's no one right use of "goy," and we're not going to get anywhere by throwing around potential meanings and guessing at the intentions of others. Being a dick is bad, but creating bureaucracy and red tape just to get someone labeled as one is even worse. I'm not taking sides in this argument, but it would be better for everyone if we all just moved on.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I second that. I think this is all getting entirely out of proportion. I've described myself as a "goy" on Wikipedia talk pages, and I can see no reason why I shouldn't do the same again. There are probably circumstances where the term might be offensive, but I really don't see how this can be interpreted as one, by anyone who wasn't over-keen to look for it. How about getting back to arguing about something more significant instead, like how much of Glenn Becks paranoid ranting we can legitimately report, or whether Sarah Palin's younger daughter's Twitter pages are a reliable source ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I think the "goyim" comment is now a minor issue; my concern is that Badger Drink has been uncivil and has attacked those (myself included) who have raised concerns, and he doesn't seem to give a damn. GiantSnowman 00:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Badger drink felt that people were making a big deal out of nothing. He responded with a pissed off answer. This is understandable. People were offended by this. This is also understandable. But nothing's going to get done by continuing to bicker about this, and continuing to dig at this issue (and I'm directing this at both sides of the argument) will just escalate things to an unmanageable level.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. The fundamental essence of WP:CIV is simple and easy to understand: 1) Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users. 2) Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. 3)Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible. If for some reason Badger Drink doesn't understand or acknowledge the civility policy, then he might want to consider a different website. We need the civility policy to be understood to make it easy to work with and collaborate with different editors from around the world, all with different backgrounds and upbringing. We might not all agree on our beliefs or our preferences, but we can all agree on the golden rule. There is really no room for debate here. Either Badger Drink follows the civility policy or he doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well OK, but you should really post that good advice in threads about civility. This one isn't. There are 5000 plus words in this thread and most of them ignore a fundamental point. User:Kintetsubuffalo who started this thread titled it "racism by Badger Drink" and makes it clear he is talking about perceived racism, making the point of saying "Bitey and snide I can handle, this (perceived racism) is too far". His complaint is about perceived racism, not civility, and all mentions of civility should be ignored. The only thing we should discuss here is whether "goy/goyim " are racist. Moriori (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You've nailed it. The issue initially was the false charge that Badger had made a racist comment. It should have been closed immediately as being a frivolous, ignorance-based and uncivil complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, we don't close threads because the OP used the wrong word to describe an ongoing, long term problem with an editor. Instead, we listen very closely to what editors are saying and directly address their concerns. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we all listen closely to what editors say, and sometimes see whether their actions match their words.. Guess who has made TEN edits in this thread since promising "I'm going to be leaving this thread now". Need a hint? Check out this. Moriori (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind and returned to this thread. Was I supposed to ask your permission first? The civility concerns surrounding Badger Drink have not been adequately addressed. This has been a long term problem with this user and he has been warned many times about his use of edit summaries. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish I did LOLs, but unfortunately I don't. Can I just say Come In Spinner? Moriori (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about being human is having a choice. You can change your mind at any moment. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to start a brand-new section on alleged incivility, go ahead. First, close this entire, bogus "racism" section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink responds

Apologies for a second straight sub-heading, but this is perhaps more efficient than trying to fight a multi-front battle in the threaded comments above. I have been asked on my Talk page for further comment. Having glanced over most of the above, I find, to my dismay, that a few editors are now utterly convinced that I called them halfwit ignoramuses. I assure them I did nothing of the sort, no matter what the tea leaves are telling them. A few people seemed to be sincerely worried that nameless, faceless - one might say "hypothetical" - editors would be off-put by my horribly bigotry against halfwit ignoramus musings masquerading as encyclopedic fact, and while I am sorry for the hurt feelings of these hypothetical editors, I feel that encyclopedias are no place for halfwitted ignorance. I wasn't directing that comment at non-Jews, as the charge that "goy" or "goyim" qualify as hate speech is so utterly fucking ridiculous that I could not take it seriously even on the most superficial level required to actually acknowledge it in my statement. I'm sorry that my comments were mis-read, and will strive to my utmost abilities to ensure that further comments by myself, including this one, are harder to mis-interpret. I will not offer insincere apologies - I am a man of many faults, I'll be the first to admit, but two-faced pseudo-political empty-hearted pandering is not one of them. I remain convinced that I was within my right as a Wikipedian to offer a slightly sarcastic remark in the edit summary, and remain thoroughly unconvinced that anything in my subsequent statement merits offense on anyone's part. To paraphrase a catchphrase of the radical fringe: "if you're offended, you're not paying attention". It is my sincere hope that a more careful, thoughtful reading of my statement will enlighten anyone and everyone who feels personally slighted. If someone feels personally slighted that I disagree with their viewpoint vis-a-vis the appropriateness of an apology from my person, then I'm afraid I cannot - and will not - pacify that particular slight. I don't demand apologies for people accusing me of being uncivil or racist - a charge those who know me best in my personal life will know is the furthest statement one can possibly make from the truth - or when people trespass on my own personal hangups and walled mental gardens. I would appreciate the same courtesy in return. If any specific questions remain, I can be reached on my talk page. Badger Drink (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm following the advice of some obviously more experienced editors above and requesting that this thread is now closed - Badger Drink obviously doesn't understand, or refuses to, and so this discussion isn't going anywhere, and I'm sure we all have more important things to be doing with our time. GiantSnowman 02:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

...*facepalms* Wow, just...wow. Silverseren^C 02:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The section was, and still is, labeled "racism by Badger Drink". Try as they might, no one has come close to demonstrating that Badger is guilty of racism. In fact, the premise of this section is a personal attack on Badger Drink. This whole megillah needs to be shut down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The title of the section should be "Incivility by Badger Drink". That would be more accurate. And the next section should be labeled "Inability of Badger Drink to understand what incivility is". Silverseren^C 03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility could be of some concern. But the OP's statement, reinforcing the section title, "The term used in this edit summary is racist, equivalent to the n-bomb", is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen on here, so I can't give much credence to the rest of the complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is true that that interpretation is incorrect, however, it is know that, colloquially, goy and goyim are used as a pejorative to mean inferiority of the person you are speaking about. And the way it was used by Badger Drink does seem to insinuate that usage. Silverseren^C 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You're reading things in that aren't there. Meanwhile, I checked Leo Rosten's book The Joys of Yiddish, and under goy he states that "just as 'Jew' is used as a pejorative by some Gentiles, goy is used as a pejorative by some Jews." The comparison to the N-word is completely off the wall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is used pejoratively, and you cherry-picked Rosten, avoiding his description of the pejorative use of the term on page 133 as "xenophobic depreciation". Game over. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT used pejoratively, and I did NOT cherry-pick anything, I simply went to the goy item... which, if you read closely, was at one time employed defensively by Jews who felt persecuted by the goyim. You're dead wrong. "Game over." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The term is used pejoratively and that's all that matters, and the Rosten source you cite says it is used pejoratively and in a "xenophobic" manner. Per WP:CIV, editors are supposed to "participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users." I should also like to point you to CIV, particularly the part about not ignoring the positions and conclusions of other editors. Instead of telling other editors they are "dead wrong", you should be showing respect and humility. There is no question that Badger Drink's edit summaries have been problematic for a long time now[104][105] and the fact that the user refuses to recognize the civility policy is well established. He even goes so far as to assert that he is not here "to make friends" which is pretty much at odds with our civility policy which requests editors to "treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project" and to be "welcoming and patient towards new users." Clearly, Badger Drink doesn't want to be civil. He has made that quite clear. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong about the goy thing. If you want to file a complaint about civility, that's your right, but if you revive the goy nonsense, you won't get away with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not the user's intent that counts. It is the reader's interpretation that counts. And that there are multiple here who think that the term is being used uncivilly and xenophobically, if not racistly, that counts. Corvus cornix_talk 08:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no way his comment could be interpreted as "racist" as the OP claims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your repeated assertion does not make it truer the more times you say it. The OP is not the only person that thinks it's racist. Corvus cornix_talk 08:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No one here has put forth any evidence whatsoever that the way it was used is racist, xenophobic, or whatever. They're harping on the one word, blind to the context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean other than the provided sources in which the word is indicated as pejorative? And what source have you provided that it isn't? Corvus cornix_talk 08:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

often disparaging How many more sources do you want? Corvus cornix_talk 08:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"Those are general indications of how the word is sometimes used pejoratively. No one is arguing that it isn't sometimes used pejoratively. Explain to us how the specific statement could possibly be interpreted as "racist" or "xenophobic". And don't say "because it has the word goyim in it." That's a bogus argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Bugs. It is pretty obvious from the context just how it was intended, and it wasn't intended as a joke. Corvus cornix_talk 09:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't question your good faith, I question your good sense. There is nothing offensive about the statement. He's saying that not only would a Jew know that the Jewish-related item is incorrect, but almost everyone who's not a Jew would also know it. Where, pray tell, is the xenophobia or racism in that??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why did he not write it in negro and white and say non-jew. Moreover this is about general incivility and refusal to accept he had given offecne (or understand that he should show more consideration for otehrs).Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bugs - surely a statement can be xenophobic merely by containing a word that is usually/often xenophobic or pejorative? Even if the statement is true and not otherwise xenophobic. By way of a simplistic comparison, if someone said to me "you're a faggot" I would probably interpret that as being somewhat homophobic purely because of the use of a word that is generally pejorative, despite the fact that the statement is, at face value, entirely true. I suspect you would be on to a losing battle if you kept insisting "where is the homophobia in that statement? Show me why it is homophobic and don't just say 'because of the word faggot'".--Korruski^Talk 13:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What action?

Most of what has passed here has been people arguing about the term itself, and arguing about how it could perhaps have been better expressed. But that's not what this board is for - it's for requesting admin assistance. So, what admin action is being requested here? Can someone state the requested action clearly, so we can perhaps get a !vote out of the way and move on? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say but I think (given that the initial intent may not have been to give offence, but the reponses were (it seems to be) deisned to do just that) would be to issue a warning to be less confrontational in future.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are going to be zero blocks for racism at this point in time. If someone wants to file an WP:RFC/U related to long-term incivility (as was already suggested), then go ahead. This ANI report is generating more heat than light, and I'm prepared to close it and let the RFC process do its job. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is that Badger Drink doesn't seem to care that his words were taken in a negative context and, indeed, seems to just be making it worse with his further comments. A civility warning is probably what we should expect here. Silverseren^C 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to basics

What seems to have been lost sight of in all of the verbiage above is that the original edit by Badger Drink appears to be incorrect, and the passage he removed to be correct. The phrase ימח שמו וזכרו is indeed a noted curse in Jewish culture. It was created as a back acronym, the initial letters spelling out the word Yeshu, the Hebrew form of Jesus; and it is used as the ultimate put-down. I have restored the edit. RolandR (talk) 14:43, 14 February 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.

Regardless, there is still no source, it's strictly original research, hence I have removed the edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Menilek's credentials and behavior

• Menilek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2009–present
• Minilik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2006–2008 (indefinitely blocked)
• Menelik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 2004 (possibly related; single edit that doesn't warrant attention)

User:Menilek/Minilik is an intermittent contributor whose edits and behavior (I believe) warrant further scrutiny. On several occasions (for example, in May 2009, diff), Menilek has made the exceptional claim that he is the current head prophet of the Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews). The only source I have seen to corroborate this claim is his Myspace page, to which he linked in the autobiographical Teru Minilik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (deleted via WP:CSD). More recently (13 Feb.) he claims to be a member of the royal family (diff) (not sure which one; presumably that of Menelik I and Menelek II of Ethiopia). Based on these claims, he has presented himself as both an authority and spokesman on Beta Israel and related topics in Wikipedia. His activity has been intermittent, involving two accounts since 2006 (the older of which is indefinitely blocked).

Even if Menilek is who he says he is, Wikipedia's verifiability policy trumps citing oneself as an expert. I was not sure where to report this, as WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:AGF and WP:OWN have all been applicable at one time or another. I'm hesitant to take unilateral action given my own (but comparatively minimal) involvement with the subject matter.

In his most recent activity, on 11 & 12 February, Menilek asserted ([106], [107]) that Aksum/Aksumite Empire officially embraced Christianity during the first century CE, citing Rey, Sir Charles F., In the Country of the Blue Nile and the New Testament account of Phillip and the eunuch (Acts 8:26-39; [108]). However, the source (and the Bible) use the term "Ethiopia," which more likely means Aethiopia (Classical Greek term), referring to the Kingdom of Kush rather than Ethiopia in the modern sense. Aksum itself is not mentioned. A more recent text (Hansberry, William Leo Pillars in Ethiopian History, Howard University Press, 1974) suggests the older, rather than modern, meaning of Ethiopia in this context. Ironically, User:Menilek himself pointed out the distinction between ancient and modern Ethiopia in an older discussion (diff).

I reverted his edits and left comments about it on his talk page (diff). Menilek left a lengthy response on my talk page (diff). Regarding my concerns regarding ancient Ethiopia vs. modern Ethiopia vs. the Aksumite Empire itself, he provided a synthesis explaining how the mention of Ethiopia (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa, in the ancient sense of the term) would apply to Aksum as well based on geographic proximity. Thus far he has not re-introduced the material, nor have I responded to his comments (in all honesty, I am quite unsure how to craft a response to what he was written).

I become more and more skeptical about the content (and intent) of Menilek's edits, based on the user's past behavior on Wikipedia. As the head prophet of the Beta Israel, Menilek has presented himself as both an authoritative source and as a spokesperson at Talk:Beta Israel:

• 6 May 2009. Presents himself as an expert on the subject (WP:SELFCITING); also makes the argument that only those of "x" ethnicity/nationality are truly qualified to write about "x" ethnicity/nationality (which I feel is racist in any context and, unfortunately, a sentiment I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia).
• 6 May 2009, makes assertions regarding the origins of Sephardim vs. Ashkenazim; asks for sources to the contrary but does not offer any himself (other than the Book of Genesis).
• 6 May 2009, WP:SELFCITING again; WP:FRINGE(?) assertions regarding Arabs as false Ishmaelites, and (modern) Ethiopians as true Midianites/Ishmaelites.
• 6 May 2009, forgive me if this seems uncivil but I am not sure how else do describe this other than as ranting.
• 6 May 2009, again brings up claims regarding Ethiopians as Ishmaelites/Midianites, but (as mentioned earlier) points out the difference between the ancient and modern uses of the name "Ethiopia."
• (Menilek's series of edits to Talk:Beta Israel on 12 May 2009 were generally to copyedit the earlier edits he made on 6 May.)
• 29 May 2009, again making claims about his credentials, along the lines of "Just tell 'em Menilek sent you."

Elsewhere on Wikipedia:

• Comments at User talk:OneTopJob6 (diff), and reposted on his own talk page (diff), 29 May 2009: Again, Menilek posts what I can only describe as a rant, albeit in response to a personal attack (diff). Again, Menilek makes exceptional claims ("I am one of the leading authorities on Bete [sic] Israel, as one of their 2 highest ranking spiritual leaders!").
• In the Raphael Hadane article (about a Beta Israel priest) diff, 31 July 2009: Asserts that the proper term for Ethiopian Jewish priests is "Kahane," not "Kes," yet the subject of that article (Raphael Hadane) refers to himself as "Kes" (Chief Kes, at that): link.

User:Menilek is highly likely the same person as Minilik (talk · contribs). The latter account was blocked indefinitely, due to COI username, following the creation of the autobiographical article Teru Minilik. In the article, the subject claimed (deleted edits) to be "rasnebiy (head of the nevi'im)," i.e. the head of the prophets, but the only source to corroborate this claim is a link to the subject's own Myspace page. There was also an uncited claim (ibid.) that the subject is "a descendant of both Minilik the Great (bka Menelik I) and also is descended from Sahle Maryam, when he was king of Shewa by his first wife, princess Alitash, the half-jewish daughter of Emperor Tewodros II and his Bete Israel wife from Aksum,(Sahle Maryam was later coroneted as Menelik II)."

On his talk page, Minilik claimed (deleted diff) to be the the head of the Beta Israel, and asserted his right and authority to enforce the desired spelling "Bete Israel" on Wikipedia. Upon being blocked, he claimed (deleted diff) to be the head prophet, and again demanded that Wikipedia comply with the desired spelling, using language that bordered on a legal threat.

The older Minilik account also uploaded a number of images depicting ostensibly ancient flags, e.g. File:Aksum Flag.jpg and File:Tigray Flag.gif. The consensus, however, was that these flags were of his own design. The former was later uploaded to Commons, where it was deleted as per discussion (Deletion requests/File:Aksum Flag.jpg). The latter was deleted from Wikipedia as per discussion (WP:FFD#File:Tigray Flag.gif).

It seems simple enough to block Menilek as a duplicate account of the indefinitely-blocked Minilik, but I am not sure that this is fair, given that the new account is not specifically writing about himself. At the same time it is not fair for him to defer to himself as the provider of expert opinion (absent any source better than Myspace that would corroborate his credentials). I wonder if it might be a conflict of interest that the user is writing about the Beta Israel, whom he claims to represent, but here I could use additional opinions.

-- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Left notifications at User talk:Menilek and User talk:OneTopJob6. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this all looks rather old, is there any evidance for recent (actual) infringments of policy. By your owen admision(by the way why all the locks on the diffs?) he has not attmepted to re-insert the disputed material.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wondered about that. My concern is that this is happening long-term, but due to the account(s) being only intermittently active, it has largely stayed off-the-radar, so to speak. I think the most recent activity would fall under WP:NOR but, again, Menilek hasn't re-added the material. I had missed this earlier but he's actually said "As such an expert on the subject, that means that I to, myself, AM a source" (diff). This presumably means the rest of us are non-experts which would not seem to leave much room for discussion. I have to think this falls under WP:CIVIL and probably WP:V, though as it's happening on my talk page (rahter than main space) I am not sure about the latter. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that at least some of the material appears to be sourced to third party sources. In fact he claims that all of the material is attributable to third party sources. Perhaps you could explain how he is in error in this regard (has he falsified sources for example?) in fact exactly what has he done that breached policy that has made it difficult to work with him?Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The cite he sources, and the Biblical account mentioned, say "Ethiopia" (which again, brings up the ancient meaning of that name vs. modern Ethiopia). But his edit specifies "Aksum". This is not what the source says and, to me, looks like synthesis at best. The only place where it says the New Testament mention of Ethiopia is Aksum, is in his comment on my talk page. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The locks probably appear because I'm logged in to the secure (https) version of Wikipedia, so all the links are to https versions. Sorry for any confusion. Is there an easy way to grab the regular http links without logging out and back in? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to Gyrofrog for taking on this matter; from about 4 weeks ago my time for Wikipedia has been reduced to almost nothing due to starting a full-time job (on top of helping look after a stubborn & intelligent 3-year-old), & I haven't had the time to investigate what Menilek has been up to. I noticed two of his edits last night, i.e. [109] & [110], which I found odd. Both of these edits assert tendentious & fringe claims about a medieval province of Ethiopia; this province is located in what is presently Eritrea, which complicates the problem -- viz., many Eritreans claim their country is the rightful heir of Axum, rejecting Ethiopia's claim. (This is not an issue I want to take sides on with the little time I have for Wikipedia.) So I reverted the one edit where Menelik's inserted material was the most tangential (the Tigray-Tigrinya people article) & ignored the other, assuming there might be some larger reason for this than an idiosyncratic belief. (FWIW, I did see the earlier Minilik account, but I couldn't find a clear explanation for the block.)

Now that I've read Gyrofrog's statement above, I can see how those 2 edits fit an established pattern: he is pushing (to use Wikipedia jargon) his fringe POV of Ethiopia history. Why he insists on using C.F. Rey as his preferred source puzzles me: if he wants to rely on sources "less likely to have suffered latter-day Marxist revisionism", there are the works of James Bruce or E. A. Wallis Budge (both of whom wrote comprehensive accounts of Ethiopian history that are still today cited in the reliable secondary literature); or if he is willing to forgo his bias against Ethiopian historians, he could draw on Alaqa Tayya Gebre Mariyam (1860-1924). C.F. Rey was only an explorer who visited Ethiopia in the 1920s & 1930s. Further, if he is related to the Imperial line of Ethiopia -- which is possible, since there are descendants of the Gondar dynasty alive, to the best of my knowledge, & there is even another senior branch of the Shewan line which may have survived the Ethiopian Revolution -- he wouldn't have made the amazing mistake in his rambling message on Slatersteven's talk page of calling Haile Selassie "Emperor Selassie": "Haile Selassie" is a single name, & only people ignorant of Ethiopian customs would make the mistake of calling him "Selassie" alone. To be blunt, I believe he's a kook whose claims to be a primary source for his contributions fails more than casual examination, & even if the sources he might use are reliable, I'd still be suspicious of his contributions.

I apologize to anyone who saw what I wrote above & decided "tl;dr". If I did have the time to participate fully in Wikipedia, this statement would have been much shorter & to the point. -- llywrch (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Because my responses to the above questions, accusations and/or concerns may perhaps be too lengthy to be posted here on the ANI Discussion page, to avoid clutter, as I have been advised, I will just notify whom it may concern, that I have responded to said questions, accusations and/or concerns on the respective person's user_talk pages with more detailed answers than may be prudent to put here. You may read my responses at each of those people's user_talk pages, but I have responded, of that you can be sure. [Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menilek (talk • contribs)

I have followed up, as well, on Menilek's talk page (but it reiterates what I've already mentioned here). Llywrch, the reason for the block on the Minilik account was given as "{{spamusername}}" (on 30 May 2008 by User:Orangemike), following Minilik's creation of the article Teru Minilik. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that note by Orangemike, but I found it too terse to understand, & I didn't have the time to research the matter further. Now, had he left a note on Minilik's talk page explaining why he had been blocked -- or even a sentence why {{spamusername}} was appropriate in that case -- that would have answered all of my questions about the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User request: Please don't post diffs using the secure server URL. NavPopups doesn't display them making it very time consuming to review them. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have converted my original https links to use {{diff}}. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is DOWN!

Resolved

 – likely a local issue, but even if not wrong board

The logo isn't loading, the banner is acting funny, images don't load, etc. Assume part of 1.17 deployment? --Perseus8235 14:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything is absolutely fine over here. No issues with loads. Could be your ISP. m.o.p 14:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks all okay to me too. Either way, there's nothing admins can do about it if it was down I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait–has 1.17 been deployed already? --Perseus8235 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No: Special:Version. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who is curious, http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2011/02/1-17deployment-attempt2/ has the current 1.17 deployment schedule. I assume we're getting it on Wednesday. --B (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we went over this already? No one at AN/I can do anything even if the servers were down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a turbo button in your admin tools? ;) --B (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if you can't fix anything and everything, what use are you? HalfShadow 17:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I demand all Wikipedia administrators to STEP DOWN IMMEDIATELY if they can't even fix a little broken server. Can't you hear the uproar in the streets? Damn dictators, they are all the same ;) -- Luk ^talk 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

...also: donuts. We demand donuts. HalfShadow 17:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Chocolate-frosted donuts, please Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Be silent masses. You shall have cake ......... :) Pedro :  Chat  18:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Steak? Did you say steak? I am OK with steak. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If wikipedia is down, how did you post here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible he just means it's depressed. Here it is St Valentines day, and the poor thing never even got a card... Where is the love?! HalfShadow 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As in, "Wikipedia is doo-doo-down, dooby-doo-down-down, comma-comma, down-dooby-doo-down-down, etc."? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass rollbacks?

I don't have time to investigate exactly what's going on here because I have to log off in a moment but it looks like there may be some multiple-article edit warring going on between Golbez (talk · contribs) and some IPs, including 88.246.22.78 and 178.241.94.83. Maybe someone could look into this -- œ^™ 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith. It's not an edit war when I range-block the other guy. --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was assuming no good or bad faith on either part. Simply reporting an incident. -- œ^™ 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You stated I was involved in an edit war (which, due to the two-to-tango nature of edit-warring, implies I was also edit-warring). I was not; I was cleaning up vandalism. I appreciate you bringing this to ANI, since - as you pointed out - he has an IP outside the range I blocked, so, being not an expert in whack-a-mole, maybe someone can figure out the next range to hit? --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm ABF with the IPs, they look to be blindly reverting ever one of Golbez's edits - definite disruptive editing. GiantSnowman 17:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Appears to be some sort of content dispute; IP editors are removing Hungarian phonetics from article ledes, no explanation or edit summaries provided. I've asked one of the IP editors to explain themselves here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Armenian, not Hungarian. And it's because they are an anti-Armenian nationalist vandal; note they also retasked some pages to change the meaning entirely, and removed sourced content that could conceivably be taken as not-anti-Armenian. Do some of the Armenian names need to be removed anyway? Maybe. But not by him. --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I don't know all the IPO codes, and presumed "hy" was Hungarian. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The local name for Armenia is Hayastan. :) The language is Hayeren. --Golbez (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And now I know something I didn't know before. That makes today a good day. :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of the edits in question, but I almost always assume that a veteran editor in good standing, is usually making constructive edits, especially when reverting an ip. That isn't always the case though, but perhaps you should have left a message on Golbez's talk page before making a report here. But who am I, I'm just one of the pencil pushers, and as always I leave it to the more talented of you all to determine the next step.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the one rolling back most of 178.241.94.83 (talk · contribs) edits, which are clearly related to 88.246.22.78 (talk · contribs)/ 88.246.30.168 (talk · contribs)/95.5.2.220 (talk · contribs), obviously block-evading IPs of Hedoma (talk · contribs)/Karfiol (talk · contribs). The edits appear to be nothing more than removing Armenian language content (e.g., [111]) and grossly uncivil nationalistic nonsense (e.g., [112]). — Scientizzle 18:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the persistence of this particular vandal, would it be worth a temporary cascading semi-protection of Template:Lang-hy? — Scientizzle 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be logical, but {{Lang-hy}} is fully protected right now. So checking the 'cascade' box would impose full protection on articles which use that template. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just found out from Wikipedia:Cascading protection#Cascading protection that cascading protection cannot presently work in semi-protect mode, so that's out as an option. — Scientizzle 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I caught 78.171.39.166 (talk · contribs) very early in the act of another round of reverts. Please keep an eye out for further such disruptions. I'm signing off. — Scientizzle 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please protect TFA?

Resolved

 – Semi-protected by HJ Mitchell. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured article is getting hammered by IP and throwaway account vandalism. Can someone please semi protect it? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection (sufficient to address the type of vandalism described) is permitted on the same basis as any other article, and it looks like HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) has taken care of it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we be concerned about this?

See this. Is this something to worry about on a sockpuppet level? Oftentimes I see a relatively new account create one other account, but this is the only time I've seen one create so many, and it kinda has me worried what they might be used for. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Benign explanations abound (teacher creating accounts for students, etc.). They'll need an eye kept on them, just in case, but no actions taken unless they start acting up. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that works...I'll watchlist their pages and keep an eye on them. Normally I just let it slide, but so many at once raised a few more alarm bells in my head than normal. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are definitely socks of MascotGuy and should be blocked immediately. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

All blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protect Vex News

Relevant links: [[113]] --Article for semi protect [[114]] --Article subject [[115]] --User harassed off WP for editing the article [[116]] --User harassing above user [[117]] --User who created the article [[118]]

The article on the conservative blog / news site in Australia, VEX News is in a poor state and I'm requesting Semi-Protection so that I am able, along with other interesting WP editors to clean it up without the threats / reverts / undos etc. that have come from a range of anonymous IP's and 2 users (including the user who created the article). All of the IP's in the list below began by editing the article, all but 2 ONLY edited the article. As such I am going to assume they are the same people as the registered users and I am not going to notify them that they are being discussed. I apologise if this is against policy. I will notify SammyAzizMercedes and Gerrydavidson

• [[119]] |175.37.98.245
• [[120]] |175.35.117.201
• [[121]] |58.171.2.174
• [[122]] |58.171.153.94
• [[123]] |SammyAzizMercedes
• [[124]] |110.174.108.177
• [[125]] |Gerrydavidson
• [[126]] |58.171.231.121
• [[127]] |120.156.194.153
• [[128]] |120.156.203.92

For all intents and purposes it appears that this article was created as a fluff piece by user GerryDavidson and protected by a series of anon IP edits and SammyAzizMercedes. When I first encountered VexNews it was during the last Federal Election and there was a considerably nasty piece, near the top of google searches for a labor party candidate in an electorate. The piece attacked her viciously on a number of fronts, not having a single source for its claims and there not being a single mention of the claims on any online source despite their ferocity and intensity. I get the feeling this website and hence the WP article are part of a partisan game of name-blackening and little more and suggest editors be vigilant to assure this doesn't continue. Furthermore, as part of these tactics it seems User: Roooster was bullied off WP as she stopped editing after being threatened by user SammyAzizMercedes.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather stale looking at the edit history of the article. Collect (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a pattern. Each time there is an edit, anon IP's turn up. I thought it was worth asking (even if denied) to get semi-protect to ensure editing is more secure.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed after a bit more of a poke around that the article on the author of Vex News has suffered the same problems. Semi-Protect has been granted, then lifted and the problems have returned. I now ask for Permanent Semi-Protect for both neglected articles.

[[129]] --Talk page discussing previous semi-protect and Anon IP edits.

Now for a list of suspect editors on the Andrew Landeryou article:

• [[130]] |DoclerWhose?
• [[131]] |120.155.146.242
• [[132]] |120.156.124.244
• [[133]] |Showninner888
• [[134]] |120.152.29.130
• [[135]] |124.180.34.30

Ok forget this ... the amount of IP's is endless, the amount of users with identical talk pages and edits only to this article seems outright stupid. This is downright intimidating.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I might've found the motivation for this campaign. This character, Landeryou first had an article made about him talking about his arresting and sacking as demonstrated at; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Landeryou&action=historysubmit&diff=358610162&oldid=18461385 Since then, he (or someone acting in his interests) has acted almost as a vigilante attempting to clean his online image in order to support the operation of his news website.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely WP:RPP is the place to go...? GiantSnowman 16:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, that's the correct page to request protection; and no, the article shouldn't be semiprotected based on the above report. None of those contributors is vandalizing, they are disputing a part of the article, and they have engaged in discussion about it. We don't semiprotect articles in order to pick sides in a content dispute. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I looked for that page, thinking I'd been there before but I couldn't find it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Gavin immer, we should semi-protect articles in this kind of dispute. I gave up eventually at Andrew Landeryou, but IPs and new accounts would constantly remove anything that the subject might not like, effectively sanitising it and turning it into a hagiography. IP hopping and meatpuppetry is ground for semi-protection. Look at Talk:Andrew Landeryou to see what I was dealing it. Fences&Windows 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So thats 1 for and 2 against? More opinions would be nice. Thank you for your opinions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not this is the right venue, I think the honourable Fences is right about semi-protection; it might be a good idea in this case. bobrayner (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree on semi-protecting these two articles. We have the responsibility to prevent the recurrence of a chronic problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Archived before any action occured, will re-raise this from the dead when I get a chance.

Canvassing, meatpuppets,SPAs, oh my!

This. This. This. Some stuff here. The general issue has been brought up before, but this really needs to have its own section brought to administrator attention. There's a lot of SPAs and all that jazz that need dealing with.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's not much we can do about it, I'm afraid. It's like trying to deal with 4chan trolls, and I've been dealing with them every day since I virtually became an admin, if not before. –MuZemike 08:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, no action's needed before they move on soon. But it's important that at least the closing admins of the AfD's affected are aware, I think.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article in question is at DRV right now (not mentioning which one or pointing to any specific discussion per WP:BEANS). –MuZemike 08:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not up on all the details, but from just looking through the user's talk page I saw a few IPs or new editors who's only recent edits were on that talk page and on programming language AfDs.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Christopher Monsanto' talk page be semi-protected until this all blows over? That has been the general course of action when a user is verbally abused by random IPs. —Farix (t | c) 13:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned it, but ended up just blanking most of the insults. It's over, now. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If these people blow off steam on his talk page, it keeps other parts of the wiki from being damaged. Better to leave it, unless Christopher says he's had enough --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "blowing off steam" is a legitimate excuse to overlook a campaign of personal attacks by IPs. When there is a problem with an editor being personally attack, administrators have a responsibility to prevent the attacks from occurring further, regardless of whether the editor asks for protection from the personal attacks or not. The fact that Christopher Monsanto has now withdrawn from editing as a result is the very thing that WP:NPA is suppose to prevent. I honestly don't see any good that has came out of this mess while the culprits now know that they can get away with similar abuse in the future. —Farix (t | c) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's over now. CM went to LHvU to ask for help, and I suggested a temporary semi-prot, but LHvU didn't edit again until the storm was mostly passed. I spent a couple hours keeping an eye on his talk page and blanking any personal attacks (narrowly interpreted). There's nothing for AN/I to do now, so I'm not sure why we're still discussing it. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that personal attacks should be ignored. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:British politicians convicted of fraud

Would any more admins care to join the two currently in a deletion/recreation fest at Category:British politicians convicted of fraud? I will let them both know of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an ok category to me. Cla68 (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To me too. --JN466 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And the way things are going, it looks like it could become quite a well-populated one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Oops, I used the wrong smiley there - I meant the sad one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, a very sad state of affairs. Even worse that my party seems to be the main offender...GiantSnowman 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Political comment: But no surprise. Egg Centric (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Any of you take a look at the logs? DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Category was temporarily deleted pursuant to this close. Apparently User:Scott MacDonald can't handle this delay. That's fine. It's a little bit ha-ha funny, but fine. I'm not going to keep pulling away the pacifier by deleting it again. By re-creating the category three times he appears to have violated 3RR, but I'll let someone else deal with that if they think it's worthwhile. Given his reactions thus far, I doubt acting on it would result in anything approaching a teachable moment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You don't get to delete something without any basis in the WP:CSD policy, redelete is as a recreation when there hasn't been any deletion discussion (as required by policy CSD G4), then throw the 3RR policy at me. Look, we disagree as to whether this category should exist - so you nominate it for deletion and we calmly discuss it. Just leave your admin tools in the drawer next time.--Scott Mac 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point—that's where you assume too much and turn everything into a battleground. I was carrying out a temporary administrative action; the close said the categories could be recreated after the DRV—but no, you just couldn't wait when you were asked repeatedly to do so. And yes, you violated 3RR, which is a bright line rule you can't get around. It's difficult to "leave your admin tools in the drawer" when one is carrying out admin functions of closing an inappropriately timed CFD temporarily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Huh? You early closed a CFD discussion by deleting an category that had not been nominated for deletion - and leaving that populated category as a red link. Nothing gives an admin the discretion to do that. If it were only temporary then why not just leave things as they were? The DRV is due to close prior to the CFD, so there was no need for you to do anything - and I actually don't think the DRV can any impact on this either way anyhow but ymmv.--Scott Mac 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
        • "Huh?" indeed. Yeah, I can see you still don't get it, or are at least choosing not to do so. I've no desire to attempt yet another explanation or to continue this lovely banter—I already got a belly full of that on my talkpage. Bottom line: try to respect the administrative actions of other admins, don't bother to inquire on their talk pages about the action if you are just going to do what you want in any case, and don't violate 3RR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
          • (ec)Bottom line: please don't abuse your admin tools. If you want something deleted that's not coverted by the CSD, then use XfD. If revert waring is bad, doing so with admin tools is worse.--Scott Mac 23:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I didn't "want something deleted". You've completely missed the boat, and I don't think it's coming back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
              • If you don't care why did you comment to endorse the dubious deletion of the parent category here?Griswaldo (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                • My vote was purely procedural and had nothing to say about the merits of the category in and of itself. DRVs are purely about process and are not XFD round 2. The boat's now too far away for me to shout to the shore anymore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • Yes, it looks to me like you were all at sea long before I got to the beach.--Scott Mac 23:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
                    • What I'm saying is your continued stated belief in what I was trying to achieve is so far away and so unconnected from what I have repeatedly stated as my actual intent that I see little point in continuing discussion. You missed it somewhere near the very beginning, I think, either mistakenly or deliberately, and I don't see a prospect for change in that regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Groucho on What's My Line, addressing a Mystery Guest: "Are you a corrupt politician? Am I being redundant?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)