Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive620

Possible disruption at Peter Schiff

Resolved

 – No admin intervention necessary. —DoRD (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

All mention that Peter Schiff advocates for minority viewpoints outside of mainstream thinking keeps being removed from the article.

There is some back and forth between editors because some continue to characterize the text as somehow not relevant to the article subject, yet there have been NO objections against the assertion that Schiff does advocate for these minority views. The information has citations which have received no challenge at all --- and, in fact, one of the citations is Schiff himself explaining that the views come from outside of the mainstream. Generally, among those who are familiar with the field, it is pretty well-known that the views being advocated by the article subject fall outside of the mainstream.

Despite being sourced, edits like this one continue to occur, deleting cited information that is relevant to an understanding of the article subject and which is presented neutrally.

If this deletion is considered disruptive (as suggested by policy guidance), what can be done? (Not necessary looking for sanctions against any particular editors.) BigK HeX (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have not notified any of the other editors alluded to as you are required. In any case, this is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article talkpage. If that doesn't work, please consider taking further steps. Bear in mind, though, that all edits to the article must comply with the BLP policy. —DoRD (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed at WP:SHIPS

Resolved

Would an admin familiar with the spam blacklist please look at WT:SHIPS#Spam: Admin help needed and render the necessary assistance? Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Request dealt with by MER-C. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Review my reblock and revoke of talk page access, please?

Resolved

 – Thanks for the feedback, folks, although I don't think OS is needed here. Bencherlite^Talk 10:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

This user was blocked indef by Tedder for disruptive editing in January, specifically "not communicating on census numbers changes despite repeated efforts from many editors". Thereafter Rossdegenstein seems to have rather missed the point about (a) why he was blocked and (b) what he could use Wikipedia for. His unblock requests in May were declined. He continued to use his user page (while logged out from various IPs) and later his talk page for keeping track of how many Facebook friends he has. I first spot this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rossdegenstein, which I close with a speedy deletion and a "belt and braces" semi-protection of the user page; as the same pointless activity then transferred to the talk page, I reblocked with talk page access revoked, reverted to the last declined unblock template, semi-protected the talk page to stop him carrying in the same way with IPs and left a message about appealing his block via email. As I've been involved at the MfD as well as the reblock, another pair of eyes on what I've done wouldn't go amiss, to make sure I'm not misbehaving. Bencherlite^Talk 02:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I think this is a good talk page block. User was misusing his talk page. I would recommend seeing an oversight to get rid of some of those IPs just to be on the safe side. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Always unfortunate, but I see no sign that they understood what Wikipedia was for and could edit towards that goal. Wikipedia isn't therapy, etc. If they don't get it after that much effort, they probably won't. Regrettable but probably necessary now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I've reviewed this briefly and to me, Bencherlite's actions sound "about right". This seems to be a single minded editor whose grasp of English is poor, but who nevertheless ought to be able to use Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia - or not at all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for outside review by admins...

Since Slimvirgin is an administrator, i'm requesting an independent review of the following situation:

I've been doing a lot of research in IPCC papers on the Indur M. Goklany article, basically trying to verify statements independently (sections Talk:Indur_M._Goklany#Representative_... and Talk:Indur_M._Goklany#What_is_the_.22Resource_Use_and_Management_Subgroup_report.22.3F)

I've just removed a claim on the article, that i cannot verify. And get reverted with this comment ("back to Short Brigade; Kim, please leave this article alone") - i raised this on SlimVirgin's talk here User_talk:SlimVirgin#Say_what.3F, and am rather bemused about the answers and the claims made.

Could someone give me a hint as to the appropriateness of SlimVirgin's comments? (and what i take as an implicit threat (perhaps i'm oversensitve :-) ) - normally this should have gone to the special enforcement board, but that seems to be defunct during Arbcom. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have to say that i'm rather shocked about this move[1], since i was of the impression that such has no place in article talkspace. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if you have been asked to stay away from BLPs and haven't. I personally think Slim's criticism is justified and to be honest, as polite as she could be. I would take her and other admins advice and steer clear of BLPs. There are 3 million+ articles on en.Wiki, I think you could find something to edit that isn't BLP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this: I have notified Slim of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification for transparency - Slim was notified by Kim in this diff [2] about this thread though it wasn't a formal ANI notice and could have been missed if he/she wasn't paying attention to the destination link. Exxolon (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add here. Kim's problematic approach to BLPs and misunderstanding of policy is known to editors involved in the climate-change articles. Evidence will doubtless be submitted to the RfAr that's just opened. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what it was justified by? As far as i know there hasn't been any complaints filed against me, nor have i ever been sanctioned on BLP issues (i don't have exact recally - but i can't even remember that i should have been warned). Are you simply taking SlimVirgins word? Is it Ok for an admin such as SV to tell other editors to stay away from articles that he/she edits (is involved in), without filing anything? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This comment is a dishonest representation of what happened. SV did not tell you to stay away from that and other BLPs, she asked you to stay away. SV did not claim you were sanctioned or warned to stay away, she said that many people had told you that you "misapply the policies to suit your personal opinions, and you target the BLPs of people you disagree with" which is true. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ding ding, we have a sockpuppet... -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Or in other words: No, i haven't been asked to stay away from BLP's. So while it may look that way (from SV's comments) - that isn't the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This comment too is a dishonest representation of the state of affairs. ATren and others have asked you to stop editing the BLPs of the climate skeptics for reasons similar to those described by SV. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I butt in to ask who is right with respect to the underlying content dispute? Kim appears to alledge that Indur M. Goklany was a rapporteur of the Resource Use and Management Subgroup, while Slim appears to alledge that Indur M. Goklany was the principal author. Is that an accurate summary of the dispute? The source they both appear to use is [3]. Could someone (not me) who is not involved in the Climate Change dispute tell us who is misrepresenting sources, and then ban them from the article? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The report in question can be read at [4] - I think page 243 is the page that lists Dr. Gokalny. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that this cannot be considered a "third party source independent of the subject". Author bios are normally written by the authors, or based on information they supply. I have never heard of anyone fact-checking those blurbs, not over shades of meaning anyway. So it strikes me as problematic to argue for inclusion of material only found in a blurb like that. (Note, I'm not uninvolved, and have had problems with SV in the past, including the way she has represented sources in BLPs). Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what always happens—William Connolley and Stephan Schulz will be along shortly. Guettarda, accusing me of problematic BLP editing will gain no traction, no matter how often you try. What I find depressing is that this continues even as the ArbCom case has opened. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and Crum always shows up to defend you. It's called a watchlist, and you're well aware of how it works. As for accusing me of problematic BLP editing will gain no traction, no matter how often you try - I don't care about "traction", I'm not here to score points. Three (iirc) other editors supported me on the issue, and you stopped re-inserting it eventually. So - I don't care if you want to consider that some sort of a "win" (I'm not playing a game to win or lose). Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we please resolve this without having wild accusations thrown around? I am asking for outside review - not that anyone defends me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe SV could just provide a diff of where KDP was put on a BLP restriction. I thought topic bans were usually decided by community consensus, or at the climate change probation page where they have more lattitude. This doesn't seem to be a question of this one edit, but why SV has taken the attitude that KDP may not edit BLPs. Weakopedia (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct assessment. I'm not under such restrictions - and haven't even gotten a warning of such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Having had a look at this (but no previous involvement) it appears that Kim's version is right - in Climate change: the IPCC response strategies, the Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ISBN 9781559631037, 1991), Goklany is listed on page 204 as "U.S.A. (Rapporteur)". He identifies himself as a rapporteur in this 2005 submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The report lists its authors but does not attribute any authorship to Goklany. Really, though, this should have been sorted out on the article talk page rather than descending into unnecessary drama here. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should have been resolved on article talk - which is why i'm nonplussed by SV's strong reactions and claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you're annoyed, understandably so, but I don't think anything useful can be gained by raising it here (which was your decision, not SV's). I suggest closing this thread since I don't think there's anything actionable here, and redirecting discussion to the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is one thing to clear up: SV made statements that indicate that i'm suddenly (without warning) topic-banned - and that is why i raised it here (that combined with the PA's). Content issues are for the article talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This comment is a dishonest representation of what SV said. She never said you were topic banned. --Doodahdoneit (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since she's an involved editor, she can't topic-ban you or anyone else. I don't read her comments (here) as indicating that you are topic-banned. She tells you what she thinks you should do (advisory), not what you must do or not do (imperative). Likewise you could tell her that she should go take a running jump but don't expect her to get airborne any time soon, since she's not under any obligation to take your advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• While I think SV's lack of discussion is deplorable, and while she shows a lack of good faith, I don't think that she intends her comment to be interpreted like that. Take it as a request and decide whether you want to heed, contest, or ignore it. Slim, I would suggest that you clarify that you neither believe or assume that Kim is topic banned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Kim has some particular notions about BLP sourcing that I haven't seen him compromise on, and this is extremely frustrating for anyone (sometimes a consensus of us) who discuss this with him. The following puts into context Stephan Schulz' comments about SV's lack of discussion' and she shows a lack of good faith. SV and others, including me, have had epic-length discussions with Kim D. Petersen on BLP subjects. Massive amounts of time have been wasted with this editor who simply will not accept sourcing, no matter how sterling, if it provides negative information on a person sharing his POV, while at the same time his standards for including extremely negative information on at least one BLP have been so low as to include a nasty attack from a blog (see Talk:Fred Singer#Blogs?). Some links are on my ArbCom user-space workshop page accessable from the bottom of my user page. I can't recall a point in the BLP-related discussions I've participated in with Kim that he either admitted a mistake or even changed his opinion. I'm still working on how to word my evidence (it needs a lot of work), and if anyone has advice and/or links to further incidents involving Kim D. Petersen and problematic BLP edits/comments (including comments constructively showing me how I'm all wet on this), please feel free to tell me on my talk page. It would be in Kim's and Wikipedia's best interests if editors who share his overall POV get him to accept more of the community's widely shared notions about BLP sourcing. The alternative should be sanctions for WP:BLP violations or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the above, except to say that i disagree with it (obviously), and that i hope the RfAr will clear up, as John apparently is setting up to do. Since that is one appropriate venue for such complaints.. (and the response to them). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing "apparent" about it. I'm very explicitly laying out where I'm going to take this, some idea of how I expect to get there and offering you the opportunity to reconsider your actions and for others to try to help you reconsider. This should be resolved, one way or another. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, it is the correct way - and do please allow the courtesy for me to disagree with your view :). I used "apparently", because i hadn't seen it before now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:AnmaFinotera

This user is reverting all of my edits for absolutely no reason. He is claiming that I am a "sock puppet". How can I be a sockpuppet when I'm an anonymous IP address? Yes, I am the same person he feuded with before. I'm not claiming to be anyone I'm not. How does this make me a "sockpuppet"? Surely he is not allowed to constantly revert me for no reason? He is clearly attacking me out of petty spite. There is no place for feuding on Wikipedia. I have made nothing but constructive edits to articles, and he has reverted them simply because he can. I will not tolerate it.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See existing AIV report on this "editor", als User:66.177.73.86, who has already been blocked numerous times for his disruptive editing (adding blatantly false content, OR, etc), edit warring, personal attacks/incivility, etc.[5][[6]] He knows exactly why he was reverted as he is not making useful contributions, only resuming his edit warring and disruptiveness. Changing IPs doesn't erase your block log nor your warnings. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because I have been blocked in the past does NOT give you the right to revert every single edit I make. Clearly you are reverting me out of spite.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are disruptive with a known history of adding false content and OR to articles, with a seeming obsession with the Lemon Angel franchise. Such editing is not helpful and undesirable and will be removed. Fnboyism, rumors, and minute trivia are appropriate on Wikia, not here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. There was absolutely no reason for you to revert me on articles like Majokko Megu-chan. You reverted me because you're still stuck on this petty feud.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The only one calling it a "feud" is you. You were already blocked for all the mess you tried last time, and have been repeatedly been blocked for the same mess multiple times before that. I suspect the only reason you changed IPs at all was to try to pretend to be someone else, but bringing up the same stuff only made it obvious who you were. Your "edit" was to add your personal, unsourced opinion to the article[7] and was properly removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The information on the articles was unsourced and was correctly removed since they were potential WP:BLP violations. Find reliable sources before attempting to add the information back to the articles. Also stop trying to recreate the Lemon Angel article via other articles. —Farix (t | c) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to say "I don't see any reliable, third party sources for the IP's edits." N419BH 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not "change" anything. I am at someone else's house while we pack everything to move. Oh, and that information didn't even need to be sourced. If you're going to do that, you might as well just delete the whole Sennin Buraku article. Oh, and I have never once added "false content" to any articles.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "that information didn't even need to be sourced" indicates a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules. One of our most important rules requires that all information be sourced. If you don't have a source, do not add the information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It was already sourced. I merely expanded on it.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

you also added pov, original research, and an inexplicable typo to some of the articles. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The information and sources were ALREADY THERE. I will discuss this once I have access to a decent computer. Goodbye.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Sennin Buraku: "It is arguably the first ecchi anime, and, as such, is highly influential as an early late-night anime."

Yes, that statement very much needs to be sourced. Who argues that it is the first ecchi anime? Who argues that it isn't? Who claimed that it is "highly influential"? —Farix (t | c) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the one I was thinking of. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that can be backed up by an existing source on the article is that it was the first late-night anime and the manga is one of the longest running serializations. Nothing more, nothing less. However, three of the five sources are not reliable and one of the remaining just gives a credit listing by the studio that produced the series. —Farix (t | c) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the anonymous user's computer is only good enough to make complaints, but not quite good enough to read criticism. The question is, when she returns with another new ip address, is she welcome to contribute usefully? Or do we consider her a block-evading disruptive user, and just revert and block on sight? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I am not blocked. I have never evaded any blocks.

2. This computer is extremely hard to type on.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're digging yourself a hole. We require reliable sources, and several editors have stated that they are needed. Why don't you go find some sources instead of continuing to argue that you don't need them. N419BH 16:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, "If you are the only one advocating an issue, it is most likely that you are wrong, rather than everyone is an idiot." S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to break this down some more:

• From Himitsu no Akko-chan: "Akko-chan was originally aired as part of an entire block of popular magical girl programming that included Sally the Witch and Maho no Mako-chan."

The only source for this article, which doesn't appear to be reliable in the first place, doesn't make this claim. The only statement that the source backs up is that "Some sources state that, like Sally, Akko-chan was also inspired by Bewitched."

• From Majokko Megu-chan: "This series, along with Cutey Honey, is considered an important forerunner of the present day mahou shōjo genre"

The bold part is what the IP added. The original statement itself isn't sourced and the only sourced information is the credits section. AnmaFinotera does have a copy of the Anime Encyclopedia, so she can be checked with to see if it established either claim.

• From Cream Lemon: "A 5-minute animation based on Cream Lemon and based on a real-life pop trio was aired on Fuji TV as Lemon Angel."

Now this edit is interesting as the same editor originally claimed that Lemon Angel was not part of the Cream Lemon series, then it was, then it wasn't. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 45#Lemon Angel) If the IP editor who was attempting to insert the information couldn't make up his or her mind, then it definitely needs a source.

• From Lemon Angel Project: "The series revisits the popular '80s pop trio Lemon Angel, who had previously had another anime series, Lemon Angel."

The only source even hinting at a connection between to two is this article. And it states that the connection is in name only as part of a marketing ploy.

So was AnmaFinotera correct in reverting these edits? Positivity. —Farix (t | c) 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Captain Occam Unblock

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.

---

Resolved

 – Additional restrictions are vacated after independent uninvolved administrator review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• On June 10, editor was blocked for a period of 2 weeks by User:2over0 for "edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith".
• On June 11, 2over0 unblocked - based on an unblock request, specifically "Unblocked to allow participation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence and associated pages only until expiry. It looks like your participation is vital to that case, and it would be unfair to prevent you from presenting your evidence. I have unblocked you for this purpose. I will make a note of this over there". This is therefore a de facto topic ban / editing restriction from everything else but that Arb case
• On Jun 13, Captain Occam requested an unblock - as he was not blocked, I declined and pointed him here, to WP:ANI - the same place he has been advised multiple times to come.
• On Captain Occam's behalf, I am requesting a review of the restrictions in place, with what I see as 3 possible solutions:

Option 1 - Complete Unblock

• Support until and unless specific evidence is brought forth to substantiate caims which seems to be lacking he4e. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Precisely because of this ArbCom case, it is now better to let him edit all of Wikipedia and only block him in case of very disruptive editing. Any mildly bad behavior which would normally prompt some form of intervention (warning on his talk page and then a block if this behavior persists) can now best be tolerated as how he behaves when not constrained is also relevant evidence in this ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but that seems that argument would result in absurd results. An editor named in an ArbCom case has a "free pass" except in case of "very disruptive" behavior? I'm not saying that I necessarily support the original block. but I can't really support overturning it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  Ok, I see that the "free pass" bit can be bit problematic, but at least let him freely all of Wikipedia during the ArbCom case. If I were an Arbitrator, I would want to see how this editor behaves in general on Wikipedia, what his interests are outside of this particular topic. E.g. it can make a lot of difference if you show the same signs of problematic behavior on all science related articles on controversial topics or only on the intelligence/race related topics. Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support for the same reason as Hell in a Bucket. Admin 2/0 has failed to provide any diffs illustrating edits by Occam that he finds objectionable despite the fact that several uninvolved editors have asked that he do so. David.Kane (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Based on the below, the user seems to have been obeying the terms of the unblock, seems like there is no problem. Looking at the user's edits prior to the block, he had not edited the article for 48 hours before the block. I see no justification for a preventative block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. My assessment of this issue would be the same regardless of my opinion about the editor. An admin should not be able to block someone and refuse to provide specific examples and diffs of the user's behavior that led to the block, especially after being asked multiple times by a variety of people. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are you involved in a romantic relationship with CO? Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's really none of your business. You already asked me if I know him outside Wikipedia on my userpage, I answered honestly; anything involving personal details about how we know each other is irrelevant. It's not something that has ever been stated by us on Wikipedia or any page we've linked to, so I hope you're not trying to engage in WP:Outing here.

If you think I'm voting this way because of my personal feelings toward Occam, rather than that the block itself is unreasonable, then you need to realize this is exactly how the votes from several other editors in favor of keeping the block look to me. A lot of these people have been involved in content disputes against Occam, and as far as I can tell this is why they approve of him being blocked, even in the absence of diffs and specific evidence from the blocking admin. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Information and links to the fact that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was the girlfriend of Captain Occam have been posted by Captain Occam multiple times on wikipedia, and is still in the archives: [8]. If you don't want this information on wikipedia you might consider contacting WP:OS to have that page (and this one, and any others where it has come up) scrubbed. aprock (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been explained so many times already, I’m not sure what the point is in explaining it again. But I’ll do so anyway:

The only information that I’ve ever provided about my girlfriend’s identity is that my userpage used to contain a link to a DeviantArt community that I said was “my and my girflfriend’s”. The community has over 100 members, and there’s nothing on the page that I linked to which specifically identifies my girlfriend as having this Wikipedia account. However, by searching through this community as well as well as the personal DeviantArt accounts that Ferahgo the Assassin and I have linked to, Mathsci has claimed to uncover evidence that this user is my girlfriend.

If you think I’ve ever stated this myself, post the diff. All you’ve done is link to an entire 380 KB AN/I thread, and said the equivalent of “it’s somewhere in there”. I’m quite certain that the only people who’ve ever claimed this are Mathsci, and the various people who repeated this after Mathsci said it, which doesn’t give you permission to keep repeating the same thing yourself.

And incidentally, I have contacted oversight about this, and in response they’ve told me that it’s not possible for them to remove anything from AN/I threads. The fact that Wikipedia’s rule against outing can’t be properly enforced here doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. Whether or not the wiki editor of the same name is impersonating your girlfriend is a separate issue. I've suggested this before, but if this is stuff you're not interested in having on wikipedia, it's probably best for you (and Ferahgo) to just ignore requests to verify your relationship status. If there are issues with scrubbing this from wikipedia, that's even more reason to ignore any such requests. aprock (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

“Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend.”

And you’re just going to keep claiming this while refusing to address what I said in response to it? I just told you: if you think I’ve said this anywhere on-Wiki, post the diff. (That is, a diff from me, not from Hipocrite or Mathsci.) If you can’t, then as far as I (and probably anyone else who reads this thread) is concerned, you’re putting words in my mouth that I’ve never said. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - Captain Occam was open about his RL identity when he wrote his userpage initially. It took about ten seconds of not-even-googling to learn that Ferahgo the Assassin was his girlfriend, contrary to his constant protestations that it took some sort of gymnastics - however, to demonstrate this would be outing. Captain Occam used Ferahgo the Assassin as a meatpuppet before - and was not even a little open about it - see [9], [10], and multiple others. It is not outing to say that User:Captain Occam is dating User:Ferahgo the Assassin. It is outing if I were to say "Ferahgo the Assassin is Jane Doe" (She is not Jane Doe). It is a violation of WP:MEAT to recruit your real life girlfriend to campaign on wikipedia for you. Further, Ferahgo the Assassin recent wrote "I don't try to keep [my relationship with Captain Occam a secret and will answer honestly if asked"]. Where's the outing, exactly? If it outing if, to take a counterfactual, I was dating Beyond My Ken for someone to say "Hey, Hipocrite, aren't you dating Beyond My Ken? Isn't it meatpuppetry for him to recruit you to agree with him about topics you've never edited before?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@Captain Occam: As Hipocrite said, posting the details would certainly constitute outing. If you restore your User page to a state where the scrubbed information is again displayed on the page, I will be happy to explain where you made it clear that "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. aprock (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For Christ's sake. Can an admin please step in here and block these people who are trying to get an outing confirmed? The original question Ferahgo was inappropriate, both that editor and Occam have refused to confirm the allegation that's been made. Persisting on this topic is flagrant outing. Rvcx (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear from WP:OUTING whether relationship status constitutes personal information: Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information. I don't think anyone has ever published that sort of personal information, only that the two are/were in a romantic relationship. However, that is a personal issue, and in general it's not something I'm really interested in. In this case, my only interest is in correcting the claims by Captain Occam and Ferahgo that this information was not provided on wikipedia. Had they ignored it, or not responded with misrepresentations, there would be little to discuss. At the admin level, this is somewhat of a complex issue. It's not clear how this relates to WP:MEAT, or WP:OUTING, especially since this information was provided by Captain Occam through his user page and discussions elsewhere on wikipedia. Updating the policy pages to directly address this sort of personal information would help here. aprock (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that pointing out two users' admission that they have a relationship does not constitute outing; hence no action from me. However, anyone posting speculation as to real-world identities or identifying information here will certainly and clearly fall foul of our policy - and shortly thereafter of some admin's tools. Perhaps not mine. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, I don’t think you’re understanding the point here. This information has not been provided by me or Ferahgo the Assassin at Wikipedia, nor has it been provided at any page that either of us has linked to. I’ve asked Aprock and Hipocrite several times to support their claim that either of us said this by providing a diff, and both of them have declined to do so while giving a nonsensical reason why not. (If they think it would be outing for them to point to what I’ve said on-Wiki that they think proves this user is my girlfriend, how can it not be outing for them to keep repeating the personal conclusion they’ve drawn about me from this?) The link that Hipocrite posted that he claims supports his assertion about us is only Ferahgo the Assassin admitting she knows me outside Wikipedia; it says nothing about the personal details of how we know each other.

I’m quite certain that the reason neither of them can provide a diff in which either of us have said this is because no such diff exists. Is their unsupported claim that I’ve stated this on-Wiki is sufficient for admins to overlook their attempts to confirm non-public personal information about us? And if so, does this policy apply in other situations where someone claims this? If the only thing that’s necessary to get away with posting non-public personal information about another user is to claim that the user has divulged it themselves, and then refuse to provide a diff of where the user said this, it will be possible to get away with absolutely any instance of outing by making this claim and then refusing to support it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The diffs from your User page were scrubbed because you were concerned about outing issues. There are diffs elsewhere, but since they would out you, providing them seems contrary to your desires. If you restore the scrubbed version of your User page, I'll provide the diffs. Alternatively, if you definitively state that you would like me to out you, I'll provide the diffs. aprock (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you’re still not being consistent here. If you agree that it would be outing for you to link to diffs in which other users were talking about the content that was removed from my userpage, why is it not outing for you to talk about the personal conclusions about me that you’ve drawn from this content?

You don’t have to answer this. I expect that an admin will probably be closing this thread soon, so hopefully when they do, they’ll also make a decision about whether what you and Hipocrite have been doing here is acceptable. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I referred explicitly to the WP:OUTING guidelines, asked for guidance and got guidance. If you want me to provide diffs, which would expose personal information as described in WP:OUTING, I will only do it with explicit permission from you. Alternatively, you could drop the whole thing, as I've suggested several times now. aprock (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. There was no reason given for a block in the first place. The argument to continue it is that people didn't like the manner of the complaint about this? Stop the madness. The only thing being achieved here is the exposure of some serious favoritism, which warrants investigation. mikemikev (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per Mikemikev and others above. Providing no diffs and then accusing an editor of "not hearing it" serves no useful purpose. I am involved (as of recently) at the R&I article and had seen no recent behavior which would precipitate a block--and is that not what a block is supposed to be about? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

By "almost entirely" you mean David.Kane and mikemikev, right? Because only 2 of the 7 "support" votes here so far are involved in the ArbCom case. In what universe is 2 out of 7 a majority?

Even if what you're saying was correct, how is it any different from the votes against the unblock? Muntuwandi and Arthur Rubin are both opposing Occam in the ArbCom case, and you’ve brought up your content disputes with him in several past AN/I threads even though you’re not involved in the arbitration. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean pretty much everyone in this section except Count Iblis. I didn't say they were involved in the ArbCom case, I said they supported Captain Occam's position in the ArbCom case, a claim that is easily evidenced by their editing and commentary throughout the many noticeboards and talk page discussions on Race & Intelligence. The closing admin should be aware that these !votes are here for reasons other than neutral evaluation of the circumstances, but instead are probably motivated by personal connections and ideologically-based sympathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t even know who B and Hell in a Bucket are. The past day is the first time I’ve ever interacted with them. I also had never interacted with Vecrumba before around a week ago, and I have no idea what his viewpoint is about this topic; he’s stated a few times that he has no idea what mine is either.

This is a rather lame attempt to try and disrupt the consensus which seems to be forming, coming from one of the group of people who appear (based on their comments in past AN/I threads and on the R & I talk page) to have long-term grievances against me, which make up more than half of the votes in favgr of keeping thm ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Occam. Beyond my Ken should be commenting on the opinioins given not the id of the people giving it. WOuld this somehow be more valid if he brought this up? Just saying.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, block !voting -- the core subject of the ArbCom case under consideration -- is akin to meatpuppetry, and does not legitimately establish a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks."? It's quite simple, an editor was blocked with a pile of accusations and not a single diff. I don't even know if I support Occam's editorial position or not at the article, but let's pile on the bad faith crap. Oh, and "anyone who disagrees with someone else who disagrees with me/someone I'm against is a meatpuppet." Really, this "note to closing admin" is not helpful whatsoever. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support complete unblock, unless or until there is some explanation for the original block. This block seems to go against the basic notion that blocks are practical and not punitive. Further, it really looks like this was an admin making a statement about the parties to the ArbCom case (which concerns, among other things, whether "editors in good standing" deserve special treatment); there is at least as much cause for blocking User:Mathsci. Whether the appearance of favoritism is accurate or not, the block severely undermines faith in admin neutrality. Rvcx (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No administrator has so far shared your views, even though you have posted them now in many forums. I believe I'm in good standing with 8,200 content edits and about 40 articles created. Because I've participated in various ArbCom cases, I'm also known to various members of ArbCom. Most administrators can distinguish between an WP:SPA and an editor who adds quite a lot of content in a wide range of areas. As far as WP:CPUSH is concerned, here is a classic case. What you have written above verges on a personal attack and I would ask you please to refactor your comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your content-free claims to special privilege on the basis of number of edits (which, I should point out, would be reduced by a factor of five if you'd ever learn to use the "Preview" button and stop littering Wikipedia's live pages with typos) have no relevance to the matter at hand. Thanks, Rvcx (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim any special privilege. You on the other hand have just tag-team edited with two WP:SPA editors that have recently been blocked. I wonder whether your advanced skills with the preview button would help you write The Four Seasons (Poussin), Handel concerti grossi Op.6, Differential geometry of surfaces or Europe#History. You seem to have a lot of advice to offer, but very few content edits. Mathsci (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support complete unblock unless the original block has any evidence to it. Blocks are not punitive, but preventive, so if the blocks don't prevent anything, the block is not valid. The restrictions put in place seem pretty harsh—only edit the ArbCom pages? Until he disrupts Wikipedia or evidence for the original block is provided, a completely unblock should be put in place. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support complete unblock until admin who issued the block deigns to give his reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - Two of the three editors who have !voted since my comment above are also members of the block in question. I make it that there are only two three !votes in this section from non-aligned editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (miscounted) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to Ken There is nothing wrong with their opinions and to exempt them solely because they agree with Occam at ARBCOMis beyond ridiculous. You don't have to have completely unbiased people to make a consensus, unless there is a policy saying those who agree with you are exempted from doing it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. !Voting in a block distorts any actual community consensus that may be forming, by misrepresenting the balance of the discussion. Admins are not supposed to count noses in determining consensus, they're supposed to take into account numerous factors, such as the quality of the arguments, and among the many things they should consider is block voting, such as has occured here. An uninvolved admin may not be aware of the en bloc behavior of the hereditarian faction involved in the Race & Intelligence dispute, so I think it is helpful to point it out. Absent the !votes of that block, there is no clear consensus in this discussion at all, which will, presumably, leave the status quo in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So you'll have no problems pointing this out with a official policy disqualifying them from arguing on this persons behalf? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So, @Beyond My Ken, is it the case that a "block" one disapproves of evil and a block one agrees with is consensus? It's a small step from conspiracy theory to witch hunt. Let's not go there. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@Hell: I never said or implied that they were disqualified from arguing on behalf of Captain Occam, what I said was that the closing admin should take into account that they are part of a !voting block and act accordingly. That is why I slugged my comments for the attention of the closing admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@Vecrumba: The evidence of block behavior on the part of the heredetarian faction is very strong, and has been presented by numerous editors here and at the ArbCom case. No similar array of evidence has been presented for other block behavior, but if it exists, I expect that someone will present it to ArbCom. There's no witch hunt here, no wild conspiracy theory - anyone who's followed this issue over the last few months can see the clear behavioral evidence of block behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So there isn't a problem with not shouting from every section you didn't agree with that those people are involved, if what you say is correct the admin will be able to sort this out without you throwing the seeds of dissension and decide on the arguments merits without the color commentary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Option 2 - Reblock for remainder of original block

• Support. (1) It prevents further spilling out onto pages covered by the topic ban, and (2) It gives Captain Occam what they want - an opportunity to request an unblock, and contest the original block. TFOWR 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Part struck, re-signing. TFOWR 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Except that it should get reset to a new two weeks. When you evade a block, it starts over. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) User had permission for edit, does not seem to have violated terms of block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support This not the first time Captain Occam has edit warred over race and intelligence articles. He has been doing so since October 2009. This 3RR noticeboard archive report shows Captain Occam made 10 reverts to the race and intelligence article within 24 hours and continued edit warring 3 days after his block expired (diff to report). Occam is fully knowledgeable about edit warring and the consequences but was edit warring on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ according to the article'srevision history. Furthermore the administrator Georgewilliamherbert placed race and intelligence articles on a 1RR [[11]], which Captain Occam was fully aware of, even citing it in this diff .[12]. I see no reasonable excuse for edit warring. Unblocking him would set a very bad precedent and would be a punch in the gut to those editors who while being bold, have avoided edit warring. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The complexities of this situation are entirely the result of the attempt by the blocking admin to show latitutde to Captain Occam so that he could participate in the ArbCom case on Race and Intelligence. Instead, Captain Occam chose to post on Jimbo's talk page, in contravention of his unblock conditions, and has refused multiple suggestions that he take his appeal here. In addition, only in the last day has he taken advantage of the purpose of his unblock and posted to the ArbCom case. The easiest way to reduce the uncertainties of this situation is to restore the physical block and have Captain Occam's participation in the ArbCom case continue by proxy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• In reading this over, I realized that my comment may be taken as criticism of the blocking admin, but that was not my intention. I think 2over0's actions were an admirable attempt to be very fair to Captain Occam. It's not his fault that CO has taken advantage of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Participating in an arbcom case that isn't about you isn't a right. He should never have been unblocked to participate in it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Option 3 - Remain unblocked, with original editing restrictions intact for the duration of the original block

• Support 3 Although the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has continued on Jimbo's talk page, requiring Bwilkins to bring this here against Occam's wishes, I support the restriction until the expiration of the original block. Would change to 2 if problems persist, and editor could post AC comments on his own talk (as has been done before). CO has been extended a lot of good faith here. Verbal chat 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per verbal. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Confirm community ban for remaining duration of original block length (pending explanation of original block - I might disagree at that point).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per Verbal; I agree that allowing him to appeal to the God-King is a extension of the original relaxation of the block. I don't yet agree with option 2, but I could be convinced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Just reading this made me dizzy. You keep asking the same thing over and over and kept getting the same types of responses but you would reject what information you were receiving. I don't think that there is any single dif to show the behavior. I think it's the overall way you react to things. You really WP:IDHT. I think the block should stay and if this behavior of ignoring what other's say is repeated then I would say to make the block again without assuming good faith that you will stop the disruptive behavior. Sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Although I am recused from this particular case, I can state that it is a common practice to unblock an editor with restriction to participate in an Arbcom case in which the editor has a notable interest; such appears to be the case here. Since his unblock is specific to his participation in the Arbcom case, his focus should be solely on providing evidence and commenting on the workshop page of the case. Risker (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

CO Unblock Discussion

Discussion and !votes above would be appreciated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to discuss this here. And it’s not because I’m afraid of being blocked again; it’s because every recent thread here that’s involved me or the race and intelligence articles (which the subject of the ArbCom case for which I was unblocked) has turned into a mudslinging match about the content disputes over these articles. Several other (uninvolved) editors who’ve commented on the thread in Jimbo Wales’ user talk understand this also. If this thread is allowed to continue, it will likely turn into nothing but a colossal waste of everyone’s time, just like every other recent thread here on this topic.

Is it permissible for an admin to force me to appeal my block here when I specifically have a desire against that? If I’m being disallowed from continuing to discuss it in Jimbo Wales’ user talk, I can bring it up at the Arbitration Committee Clerks’ Noticeboard, per EdChem’s suggestion. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, another question: if this thread degenerates the way I’m predicting, am I going to be accused of forum shopping if I attempt to appeal my ban in the ArbCom case? If so, I want this thread closed right away. An administrator does have the right to essentially take away an editor’s right of appeal, by using it against the editor’s will in a channel that the editor has specifically stated that he does not want to pursue. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to appeal your block, you can email the blocking admin or use the {{unblock}} template. Your block was removed soley for the purpose of participating in the arbitration. Editing here and Jimbo's talk page are is not permitted. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

B, he was already denied on unblock based on the grounds that he wasn't blocked, and told that he would not be blocked for participating here. Catch up, please. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed --B (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If CO continues down this path, I'd change my support to option 2. As B says, he can then request an unblock. However, I would expect his refusal to participate here (not that his participation s required) would look bad to any admin. Verbal chat 14:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

B, the blocking admin also has specifically given me permission to request information about how to appeal my block in Jimbo Wales’ user talk.

He gave that permission retroactively, after you had already violated the terms of your unblock by posting on Jimbo's page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If people are going to be voting here without being familiar with the details of this situation, I recommend that everyone also read the discussion about my block in 2over0’s user talk. (2over0 is the admin who blocked me.) Since he did not provide any specific examples of what my block was based on, four different users have asked him to please explain in detail the justification for my block, but he’s failed to respond to any of them. As explained in ImperfectlyInformed’s comment there, a single admin also does not have permission to enact editing restrictions without any community discussion; to do so would be an example of discretionary sanctions, which is a failed proposal. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, editing Jimbo's talk page was a relaxation of your restrictions, showing exemplary good faith by 2/0 as you had already broken the restriction by posting there. Verbal chat 14:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal if this case was as clear cut as you claim, Occam would still be blocked and there would be a flood of diffs to prove this was a prudent course of action. I for one would like to see the diffs proving the allegations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said it was clear cut. He's been given a lot of leeway, and decided to continue his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Verbal chat 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without proving anything. Can you please show us why these are needed? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(ecX4) Indeed, I don't feel that we require CO's additional participation here if he does not wish to: this discussion and !votes can be made based on the contributions that are visible to everyone. In effect, it's a group response to an unblock request, only it will remove any and all doubt. Indeed, he was told that he would not be blocked for filing this, nor for commenting here. I was tired of seeing the lack of direct action, and am otherwise uninvolved in the entire situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If the community isn’t able to come to a consensus either way (which is what I’m predicting will happen, and that’s another reason I suspected that discussing this here wouldn’t be productive) what will that means in terms of my editing restrictions? Since there was never any community consensus for these restrictions in the first place, it seems like this would just leave open the question of whether the restrictions are valid. (That is, whether 2over0 had the authority to implement discretionary sanctions on an article where Arbcom hasn’t authorized them, and whether it was acceptable for him to do so without providing any diffs of objectionable behavior from me, even when he was asked for them.) --Captain Occam (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Conditional unblocks are extremely common - yours was a conditional unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You will ultimately lose that appeal The only person other then 2/0 to remove it would probably have to be Arbcom if no consensus can be made here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to apologize to Captain Occam. I was looking at this strictly as a question of whether or not the editing restrictions were obeyed, rather than as to whether or not the underlying block was appropriate. He hadn't edited the article for two days before the block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and once I looked at the actual edits, I don't see a reason for the block at all. The editing restrictions should be removed. --B (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note Just in case no one looked, 2over0 has not been here since 6/11.--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

He was still online and editing other Wikipedia pages while people were asking him for an explanation of why he blocked me, though, as well as for a few hours afterwards. The fact that he went offline shortly after this doesn’t explain why he never responded to anyone’s questions about this in his user talk. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of BWilkins unblock decline

(out) Incidentally, I believe BWilkins' description of Captain Occam's circumstance as "a de facto topic ban" is quite wide of the mark. In fact, what Captain Occam is under is nothing more or less than a de facto block. If the software had the capability of blocking someone from everywhere but specific places, that option would have been used, and CO would only have been physically able to post on his talk page, at the ArbCom case, on Jimbo's page and here (Jimbo's at CO's request and AN/I as the proper place to appeal his block). That physical capability is not available, so 2/0 allowed a conditional unblock for those areas only. In point of fact, Captain Occam is virtually blocked from every place on Wikipedia except those 4 places, which is not at all like a topic ban, where one is allowed to edit anywhere on Wikipedia except the place where the ban is in place. The two situations are mirror opposites, not equivalents, so describing CO's situation in that way is entirely incorrect. For this reason, Fqb's suggestion that CO use an unblock request was perfectly apt, and BWilkin's declining to countenance it on procedural grounds was not only very un-Wiki-like, but incorrect as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that public undressing, but "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." If CO was currently unable to edit due to technical means, then he would be blocked. He is technically able to edit. Period. If you want to discuss that in a better forum, let's do so - but don't detract from the point that someone finally tried to provide resolution to a situation. There was enough disruption and badgering taking place on Jimbo's page, that nobody else needed to continue it here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's please be clear -- I think your decision to bring this here was a good one -- Captain Occam had "beat around the bush" (so to speak) for quite a while, and it's good that you forced the issue to a decision by bringing it here. But that doesn't change the fact that you should have dealt with his unblock request as an unblock request on his talk page, since he was (and is) de facto blocked. Your decision was a bad one, and (like all admin decisions) is subject to scrutiny from the editing community. Your apparent conviction that he was topic banned is demonstrably incorrect and unsupported by the evidence, and you should have expected it to be second-guessed when you brought the whole megillah here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have my own actions reviewed, so I have made this into a separate sub-section, so that it does not detract from the issue at hand. I have clearly stated why I declined the unblock on the user's talkpage, Jimbo's page, and elsewhere. I stick by the decision that it was not an unblock request that was required to appeak a conditional unblock because he was not technically blocked as per WP:BLOCK - if anything, it was closer to WP:BAN as it was a socially-imposed condition. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• A few things need to be clarified here. A conditional unblock is the equivalent of a de facto restriction because it is a socially imposed condition rather than a technical means of preventing someone from editing. Conditional unblocks can be listed at WP:RESTRICT under "final warnings", though this is not a requirement like with formal community imposed editing restrictions. This is because a conditional unblock is not effected with a community consensus; therefore, an administrator may lift the condition because it does not require a community consensus to be lifted. However, should a reviewing administrator prefer to send the appeal to the community or have his/her action reviewed by the community for any reason, that administrator is entitled to do so. Theoretically, it could also be appealed to ArbCom or Jimbo, but practically, they would expect (or be expected to assert) that the community is to consider such an appeal first because they are a "last resort". In this case, 2/0 (the administrator who imposed the condition) requested that the restriction be considered by the community (at ANI) should the sanctioned user desire to appeal - should another administrator have refused to comply with this request and lifted the ban anyway, it would be predictable that 2/0 or someone else would have brought it here. In this particular instance, Bwilkins actions are therefore sound, and both Fqb and Beyond My Ken were/are off the mark. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Concur. I'll also note (as BWilkins did) that Beyond my Ken did not attempt to address this issue with BWilkins at his talkpage before bringing it here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah - he brought the issue here, I responded here. There's no need for back door discussions when the front door is open. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm the one who added the heading, as even though B my Ken felt it "incidental", there was a clear and strong questioning of my action, and I'm open to such critique (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the main point of my critique, it seems to me that refusing to deal with an unblock request because, in the admin's opinion, a conditional unblock is more like a ban than a block, is process for the sake of process. The block was imposed by a single admin, and was made conditional by a single admin, and the usual and normal block procedure is for a single admin to review it when an unblock request was made. The community need not get involved unless the admin requests a review of the block, which normally happens here. The only practical difference BWilkins' choice made was to muddy up the situation unnecessarily; however, as I stated above, I do applaud his fringing the issue here (where it would have gona in the normal course of events%, despite the sqbject's fear of having his case reviewed by the community at large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Beyond my Ken is drama mongering or acting in good faith. IMO he seems to be trying to discredit anyone with a opinion that differes from his own. In this BWilkins did do the correct thing by directing the editor to here. Granted it could've been handled anywhere but a topic ban should always be decided by the community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeez Louise, if I'm "drama mongering" I'm doing a damn bad job of it. No, this really is good faith concern on my part, in this case about unnecessary process, a concern I've raised in the past in completely different circumstances as well. I have no desire to rake BWilkins over the coals, nor do I have any opinion about his administrative actions in general, I simply think his take on the situation was wrong and his actions made things unnecessarily complicated. Obviously, others disagree with me, but that's what makes horse racing, politics and Wiki-discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Beyond my Ken is one of the main reasons why I wanted this issue to be resolved somewhere other than AN/I. There are a few editors who show up in nearly all of the AN/I threads related to these articles and generally turn them into mudslinging matches, and Beyond my Ken has been one of the worst examples of this.

I was also worried that his doing this would prevent the thread from reaching a consensus, regardless of whether or not my ban is justified, but it looks like the opposition to my ban is strong enough that this might be happening anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He's made his point, and whichever admin counts the !votes and determines consensus will take it into advisement, I'm sure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Will that be happening soon? This thread seems to have served its purpose: there are four votes to completely re-block, five votes to keep the current restrictions in place, and ten votes to completely unblock. At this point, the only remaining discussion seems to be Beyond My Ken and Hipocrite attempting to drag out the issue and muddy the water, and I don’t think allowing the thread to continue down this path will accomplish anything.

If an admin doesn’t close this thread soon, I think it would be best if everyone stopped replying to both of them. By continuing to reply, we’re only contributing to this thread being diverted from its original topic, and making it more difficult for an uninvolved admin to make a decision about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A marvelous example of the passive/aggressive behavior BWilkins pointed out on your talk page, Captain Occam -- reiterating the bogus !vote count from above as if the objection about block !voting had never been raised, at the same time getting in a dig at those raising the issue -- all while moaning about how badly you've been treated, when, in fact, you've been on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of special treatment -- justifiable special treatment, but special nonetheless. I'm only sorry that the middle option (return to straightforward block) didn't receive more support, so that you could see the difference between what it means to be blocked, and what has happened to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it pretty ironic that I’m the person who’s been accused of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. I know, I know I said that I wouldn’t reply anymore… --Captain Occam (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I'm pretty dense. I don't see any "irony" and I don't know what it is you think I'm not hearing. I hear perfectly well that my point's been made, and there'd be no need for me to restate it if you hadn't barged right it and acted like it never existed. I'd be quite happy to let it lie, if you would agree to as well.

Pax? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was that nobody commenting here other than you thinks that the “alignment” of the users voting makes any difference in this thread. Even some of the “non-aligned” users apparently think this idea is ridiculous, but you don’t seem willing to accept what they have to say about it either.

I don’t expect you to be willing to change your mind about whether this makes a difference or not, but if you’re willing to acknowledge how many other users disagree with you about it (both “aligned” and “non-aligned”), I guess I’m willing to let this drop. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't concur with your analysis of the situation, which overstates things in a way that's quite inaccurate, but I have no desire to delve further into your misapprehension, as it's essentially a side issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Occam " there are four votes to completely re-block, five votes to keep the current restrictions in place, and ten votes to completely unblock". The way I see it, options 2 and 3 are similar in that they both advocate for an editing restriction of some sort, with option 2 advocating a stronger restriction than option 3. They are not entirely separate, so it would seem that the number of editors favoring a restriction roughly equals those who don't, especially when we discount the COI of meatpuppets. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I regret my experience with the use of "meatpuppets" is that it is a code word used to discount the "side" one disagrees with. Let's just deal with the issue of a block with no supporting documentation provided with the block. That is a question of procedure, not a popularity contest. If you have specific accusations, then please make them in the appropriate forum, not here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

I think there is way too much wikilawyering taking place. We need to step back and look at the bigger picture rather than debating whether this is a block or a topic ban. Let us imagine there was no arbcom case, Occam would have been blocked and would have had to go through the normal appeals process. This is what all the blocked users on the edit warring noticeboard have to go through. By coincidence, Occam is involved in an Arbcom case, and because there is a deadline for submitting evidence, it is only fair that Occam participates. It is for this reason only that Occam was conditionally unblocked, and nothing else. Most blocked editors listed at the edit warring noticeboard are not involved in an Arbcom case, and therefore do not even get conditional unblocks. They do not get a chance to post on Jimbo Wales' talk page or to post an unblock appeal on ANI either. I therefore believe that Occam has been given a lot of preferential treatment, that most blocked users don't get because he is coincidentally involved in an Arbcom case. The main problem here is inconsistencies in the application of the blocking policy. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However the one thing that is really really lacking and killing this case is the refusal for the blocking admin to participate here. I would be open to reviewing the evidence for this block if the admin would discuss. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, if I could’ve just used the unblock template and gotten an admin to review my block in the normal fashion, I would’ve preferred that. I suspect that most uninvolved admins would have overturned a block that was implemented without any specific explanation of what it was based on. But because of my conditional unblock, the unblock template was removed on a technicality, and now I’m having to go through this protracted AN/I argument that (as I stated above) I would have much rather avoided. What you regard as “preferential treatment” for me, I regard as nothing but a massive inconvenience required of me in order to achieve the same result (appealing my block) that I could have achieved much more easily otherwise. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wish I was a wikilawyer. I could charge 300 wikidollars a wikihour, and show my wikiskills in the wikicourtroom. It'd be wikisweet... HalfShadow 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Review and decision

This is an unusual situation - we rarely impose the type of edit restriction that limits someone to Arbcom case responses only, though it's been done a number of time. The admin who imposed it also has become idle for 5 days. Community "votes" also aren't exactly a standard way of resolving issues with blocks.

Logically - the edit restrictions were a modification to the original block. The place to start in determining what to do going forwards is reviewing the specifics of the original block.

In the days leading up to the block, Captain Occam focused editing on the Arbcom case and on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article. Having reviewed all the threads there, in the days leading up to the block, Occam edited in a manner which was somewhat milder than the prior months, was discussing largely in good faith, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary for the situation currently under arbitration. There were extensive fruitful multiparty discussions going on on the talk page.

The underlying content and behavioral issues at play in the Arbcom case can be seen in the ongoing activity, and perhaps it would be best for all parties if we simply lock the article from editing for the remainder of the case, but the editing slowed down significantly over the last few days (since I full-protected for 1 day on June 8th). It was certainly not worse than prior times.

I believe that the block was done in good faith. However, I believe that in retrospect, nothing was going on at the time of the block that was out of the ordinary or beyond that already subject to normal Arbcom review and needing admin intervention. Admins should not be afraid to enforce policy normally against Arbcom case participants, but we also shouldn't focus overly critically on them. Arbcom will make any out-of-the-ordinary decisions required.

Had there still been an active block I'd overturn it at this point. Given the edit restriction was a replacement for that, I believe that it should just be vacated at this time.

This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors. However, reasonable normal behavior with due respect for the Arbcom case underway is not a problem for the encyclopedia or community.

As an uninvolved admin, having reviewed, I am doing so. The additional restrictions in place on Captain Occam are vacated. I am going to copy this section to WP:ANI, the Arbcom case workshop, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:2over0.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment on Georgewilliamherbert's review

(copied from ArbCom workshop) Georgewilliamherbert's review of Captain Occam's behaviour on Talk:Race and intelligence and Race and intelligence prior to the block does not seem to be accurate. He seems to have failed to notice that Captain Occam was reinserting material rejected by consensus for the third or fourth time. This behaviour of Captain Occam is typical. Here is another example of WP:CPUSH [13]. Georgewilliamherbert is making value judgements about content and failing to notice long term behaviour, which is precisely the problem with WP:CPUSH. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Occam didn't edit the article between my full protection of the 8th for 24 hrs ending and the block. He had made 2 relatively minor edits (in comparison) earlier on the 8th, and a long series on the 6th which were immediately reverted by someone else without fuss.

Occam's edits on the talk page for the days leading up to the 10th were, as I said, in the context of friendly and productive multiparty discussions on the talk page and were not disruptive.

We are arbitrating whether there's a problematic long term pattern. The arbcom case is the place to plead that case. We are not supposed to use admin discretion to presume the outcome of the arbcom case while it's in play. If Occam had done something serious during the case that's one thing. What he did leading up to the block was clearly not serious and urgent requiring admin attention despite the Arbcom case, and doesn't justify the block.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point this is at Arbcom. They will catch shit either way they decide but maybe it's best left there to be decided because [[WP:CPUSH}]] is advice and not official policy. I'm actually somewhat surprised by this action as well but at this point I think there is a lot of eyes on the situation now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert had placed race and intelligence issues on a 1RR restriction, Captain Occam violated the 1RR restriction by edit warring here. Captain Occam was blocked for edit warring, which was later amended to a conditional block and has now GWH has vacated these restrictions. My question for Georgewilliamherbert is what is the point of making rules if they are not going to be enforced when editors violate them. I think it is only fair that when rules are made, they are enforced because some of us take these rules quite seriously and we get demotivated when we abide by them, and others get a free pass for violating them. I am sure everyone knows the feeling you get when this occurs. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A number of parties violated the original 1RR. That calmed down and had not acted up again when the block occurred. Again - Occam hadn't edited the article between the protection and his block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Making a single-handed decision when a community discussion (based on precedence) is ongoing? Just, wow. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• The ruling of Georgewilliamherbert is justified on the basis that the blocking admin did not provide reasons for the block. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

E-mail from 2/0

Just as a matter of record, I had contacted 2/0 by e-mail while the community discussion was ongoing, and received this response today:

Thank you for letting me know. If it is still a going concern, would you please mention that I am moving and am suffering unexpected delays in setting up my internet access? Clearly, I endorse whatever conclusion the community reaches, though I do express some hope that people who comment do due diligence by reading the relevant contributions first. Thank you for your help in this matter.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation by Captain Occam

Fresh from his unblock Captain Occam has just violated the 1RR restriction on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ [14], [15]. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Both editors warned. I suggest actually linking to this restriction somewhere findable by other-than-psychic means.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The link is already in some of the above threads. But here it is again [16]. Occam had previously edit warred on the FAQ page, which was why he got blocked. He later argued that 1RR only applies to article space rather than talk pages stating here, "Georgewilliamherbert’s 1-revert restriction applies only to article space rather than to extensions of the talk page". However he was advised here that the 1RR applies to any page. So this is the second time Occam is edit warring on the FAQ and he was fully aware that the 1RR applies to it. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was the other editor involved in the 1RR fiasco. I was fully aware of the 1RR restriction, and I should have been more careful in editing. There really is no excuse for my violating 1RR. I will be taking a 48+ hour wiki-break at this point to cool off. aprock (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan, your comment in my user talk is the first time that any admin has said told me the 1-revert restriction applies to the FAQ. Since 2over0 still hasn’t provided a specific explanation for why he blocked me, there isn’t any way for me to know whether or not this was one of the reasons for it. It also does not carry much weight for me to be “warned” about this by Muntuwandi, who is an ordinary actively engaged in a content dispute against me, and who obviously objects to my edits for that reason. Now that you’ve pointed this out to me yourself, though, I’ll be careful to avoid violating 1RR on the FAQ as well as the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That fact the 1RR applies to the FAQ is mentioned in my response to Captain Occam found at this link Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence#Responses. This is what is written

Occam states "Georgewilliamherbert’s 1-revert restriction applies only to article space rather than to extensions of the talk page".However, Georgewilliamherbert wrote "Anyone not already under a 1RR restriction in Race and Intelligence issues should consider yourself under one now [17]". "Issues" is plural. There is no distinction between article space and any other space .

Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule states with regard to what pages edit warring applies to "A `page` means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space."

This statement was made 4 days ago, so Captain Occam was notified well in advance, yet still proceeded edit warring on the FAQ. Once again this is typical Captain Occam, selectively interpreting rules. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For Captain Occam's benefit, warnings by non-admins are to be attended to, even if the warning is from someone you have had negative interactions with in the past. If you have questions about the validity of any warning, the thing to do is to seek out opinions from experienced uninvolved editors, preferably an admin, rather than to ignore it.

Since I probably fall into the same categeory for CO as Wapondaponda does, it might be helpful for someone else to confirm this for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi: did you read my entire comment? Let me say it again: “It also does not carry much weight for me to be “warned” about this by Muntuwandi, who is an ordinary actively engaged in a content dispute against me, and who obviously objects to my edits for that reason.”

It happens fairly often that I receive a “warning” to stop editing the article in a particular way from someone who has made it very clear that they object to my edit in terms of content, and who is not providing this “warning” to any of the editors on the other side of the dispute who are engaging the exact same potential rule violation at the same time. It also happens fairly often that I receive a “warning” to stop engaging in a particular behavior from someone who is themselves engaging in the exact same behavior that I am, or even more of it. Often times, the “warning” is the other editor’s substitute for discussing the content dispute on the article talk page, even when I’m making an effort to discuss it with them there, and they’re ignoring my attempt at discussion. When the “warning” is this obviously an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by introducing some additional politics to it, can I really be expected to take it seriously? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the block-unblock you just went through, I would expect you to take every X-RR violation warning seriously. The fact that you don't and would rather edit-war (even if waiting for the opposing editor to make his case) I think speaks for itself. At this point, I'd be inclined to recommend that your editing restrictions (except for participating in the ArbCom case) be reinstated. You obviously haven't understood what a warning not to edit war means. There's no "ifs" no "buts", just don't edit-war.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, I have not been involved in all these recent edit wars you have participated in. My comments were not made as a warning because they were made in retrospect. I was commenting on your previous edit war on the FAQ page, and how that constitutes a 3RR violation. So what I wrote was not a warning, rather it was discussion about how the 3RR applies to talk pages as well. To be honest, I have always known that you can be belligerent, but I didn't expect you to start edit warring so soon after your unblock. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I’m aware of your argument that 2 reverts in a 24-hour period is sufficient to violate 3RR. You don’t need to explain again why you think this is the case. However, I’ve never heard this particular claim from anyone other than you. Are there any uninvolved admins here who can comment on whether or not this is actually correct? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ramdrake, what we’re dealing with here is a warning from Muntuwandi which was argued based on his conclusion from the fact that Georgewilliamherbert had chose to pluralize a single word (which GWH had never clarified), as well as the assumption that 2over0 blocked me because I’d violated 1RR on the FAQ. (Which 2/0 had never stated). I take SarekOfVulcan’s warning seriously, but your own comment about this is an example of the same problem I’ve just described. Your past interactions with me make it obvious where your vested interests lie, and even if they didn’t, this would be obvious enough from the fact that the only person whom you think deserves any sanctions here is me (and not Aprock). Could someone who is actually uninvolved please answer the point I’m making about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be most constructive to assume that everyone acted in good faith in the past in the presence of a little ambiguity and chose different interpretations.

With that said - going forwards, I think the 1RR restriction should apply to related article talk pages and the FAQs contained therein as well.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No Drama Festival upcoming: Notification and request (2 issues)

Admin Jayron32 has previously coordinated the Dramaout 5 day festival. That is a festival where editors try to write articles and avoid drama for 5 days. This July, Jayron32 is busy but suggested that I may coordinate it. He suggested ANI as one of the places to put a notice.

Task 1 (Easiest to do: just sign your name): Feel free to sign up to participate in the dramaout here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd It will take place for 5 days starting July 5, 2010.

Task 2:I requests volunteers to help out. Help this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd which needs a little copy editing. Many volunteers can copy edit.

Task 3: A sample template has been made but is in raw form, not on a template page. One or two volunteers can create a template, maybe like this.

This user will participate in the 2010 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, a dedicated effort to exclusively article write for five days.

Task 4: Several volunteers to notify past participants (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/2nd) of this new dramaout. To reduce the load, I request 8 volunteers to contact 10 people each. Volunteer 1 will notify person 1-9 on the list. Volunteer 2 will notify 10-19 on the list.

Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Volunteer signup

1. task 4. Will notify persons 1-9 and 10-19 and 20-29 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
2. task 2, will do in the next 2 days. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrative abuse, Legal threat, Win money, Free Sex

1. This ANI thread is not gettting much participation. Maybe it should be retitled "Administrative Abuse, Free Sex, Legal threats, Win Money" to attract attention and get responses! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

   I try to avoid the no drama festival. Too much drama. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I get for following Jayron's instructions! p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale alleged admin abuse

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.

---

Thread retitled from "Gwen Gale admin abuse".

The consensus of a majority is that there was no abuse, although a few editors believe that non optimum decisions were made. Mistakes happen, and abuse is systematic repeat of non optimum decisions despite advice. All these points have been made, and do not bear repeating. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – No abuse by Gwen Gale... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Re-opened. Fences&Windows 15:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Admin Gwen Gale has deleted my posts made to Talk:Downfall (film), which were made in good faith for the purpose of improving the article, and is now threatening to block me if I restore them a second time. I am seeking intervention to rein in this admin.--84.58.21.196 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Who died and made you Queen of Wikipedia? See [[megalomania]]. is not a reasonable response to a suggestion to come up with sourcing that supports your opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC) It is an appropriate response to an inappropriate peremptory command from Gwen Gale telling me that I "can't" make a good-faith post to an article talk page. This complaint is not resolved.--84.58.21.196 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I see no problem with Gwen's removal of your WP:OR and WP:POV filled drivel. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Gwen Gale: support in part, unsure in part: I had a dealing with Gwen Gale a few days ago and she was reasonable. I also looked at the edit at Talk:Downfall and my English is kind of bad that I don't understand the doe-eyed Lara paragraph. However, it doesn't look like extremism or vandalism. I can't figure out why this is removed by Gwen Gale. To me, the edit sounds like movie reviews. Movie reviews are always written in such weird, artsy language that I don't understand what the movie critic is trying to say. Not their fault but mine because they don't teach that kind of flowery English in school. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Gwen is arguing that rather than just asking for sourcing, the editor is inserting OR on that page as a sneaky way to get it into WP, since it wouldn't stand if it would added directly to the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I am going to go out on a limb and try and read Gwen's mind...*puts on mind-reading Carnac the Magnificent hat*...I think the reason she removed is it looked like fancruft, with OR or POV, but mostly fancruft. The whole post by the anon read like a movie review almost. Not for a talk page as we aren't a movie review site. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) x7 actually Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I am asking for editors to supply sources is non to friendly either. The burden on evidence lies with the editor adding the material. Gewn already pointed out on your talk page that suggestions should be covered with sources, as talk pages aren't intended to merely request that other people do something. I am not really opposed to you asking that, but the responses you make aren't friendly at all. Personally, i think that the responses are the reason for Gwen's removal. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC) A talk page is a perfectly acceptable place to discuss content that might be added to the article. You're not required to provide sources for everything you write on a talk page, if you were they'd be pretty empty. Noting an incongruity between a portrayal and what really happened and asking if anyone has seen a review or something commenting on it, isn't out of line. --Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC) NPOV means providing a neutral summary of the reliable sources, not "This is my POV, now can someone please find me some sources so I can put it in the article?" As for Gwen's rationale, all the clues are in her edit summary. PA = personal attack, I think. But let's see what she has to say. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Just a note, she has been notified of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (ec)Thank you for your answer. It would be helpful if the edit were translated into everyday English. I think the talk pages have much more leeway. If there is a valid point (not sure since I can't understand the flowery language), then the discussion should remain. However, I do see it is a Hitler related film. Hitler sometimes attractes the wrong people. A possible resolution is to ask the person to edit it one more time (don't block him) but to write in everyday English and to cite what the proposed edit is and what the source is. Did some film critic mention this? I will leave it at that because everyone seems to understand the edit, except me. To me, they could be speaking осския пълкмановодец Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC) The IP posted a bunch of original research to the talk page and then asked "are there not" movie reviews that say what the IP said. I think the page history straightforwardly shows that so far, they're not here to cite sources, but to stir things up. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC) If they are trying to stir things up, it's not working for me. I haven't a clue what the flowery language is supposed to mean. As I said, it could as well be (for non-Koreans) 격대여르티 (this is just gibberish in Korean script) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC) The language isn't that flowery, Suomi, the post was quite understandable original research. Rather, it's the IP's ongoing lack of any willingness to come up with a source to talk about, spending time wikilawyering and edit warring over the resolved tag at the top of this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, it was a post on a talk page, not article space, stating an opinion and asking if anyone had seen sources which discussed it which directly went to improvement and changes to the article. There is no reason that it should ever have been removed.--Crossmr (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I've answered this below. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.58.21.196#No_personal_attacks.2C_please for why Gwen Gale's deletion of my contribution violated Wikipedia's Talk page rules.--84.58.21.196 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Last I checked WP:OR refers to article space, not discussions on talk pages. The IP is asking a legitimate question and there is nothing difficult to understand about what was written.--Crossmr (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC) In a way, that's like saying BLP doesn't apply to talk pages. Users can't load up talk pages with OR, OR isn't allowed. I'd have let the post stand, but it quickly became clear the IP was more keen on battling than citing sources. I would also say there could easily be a blocked user account behind this. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) No it isn't. Not even a little bit. BLP is a policy in place for legal protection. OR isn't. While they sometimes cross paths in regards to living people, on other subjects they're entirely different. OR is a writing standard. All I see is someone who completely misunderstood an original post and then unnecessarily escalated things when called on it. Giano has said far worse to half the wiki community and I notice he's still unblocked. If you think there is sockpuppetry going on here, the appropriate page would be WP:SPI otherwise baseless accusations are covered by WP:CIVIL. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the original question at all. I see everything wrong with your reaction to it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I think you're mistaken. See also. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Crossmr, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. This has been marked resolved (about 2 hours ago and again recently), let's drop the stick and move on, shall we? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Just because its marked resolved doesn't mean its actually resolved. But by all means, sweep it under the rug, who am I to get in the way?--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Broom's downstairs, let me go get it. Cause this is where it belongs, under the rug. This is essentially giving the anon what they want. We should be looking at WP:DENY for the anon and moving on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC) The user made a perfectly reasonable comment on a talk page that was misunderstood by an admin who thus far as violated WP:CIVIL by accusing them of sockpuppetry without any evidence, WP:BLOCK by threatening to personally block an IP she's involved in a dispute with, and AGF by assuming someone who responded slightly (and very slightly) abrasively to their misunderstanding of the original comment. But yes carry on. You can't sweep fast enough.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Making personal attacks, to an admin no less, is now considered "slightly (and very slightly) abrasively"? Wow. Can I personally attack you and get away with it? I don't think I would. User introduced fancruft, OR and POV to the talk page, Gwen asked for references, none were provided, section was deleted per any number of reasons, then the personal attacks and reverts begun. So, Gwen did what she should and said "keep it up, I will block you". I personally see no problem with Gwen's actions here. If I had done it, I would have been blocked on the spot and rightly so. Gwen kindly gave the anon enough lee-way to get out of the personal attacks and whatnot. The user stopped after this was marked resolved. So, Gwen was kind enough not to block the user when she could have. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Asking someone who clearly misunderstood a post if they have a reading comprehension is a pretty minor attack. There are plenty on wikipedia who are allowed to say much worse and tons of admins will go to bat for them. It's a talk page. The user introduced a concept and asked if other users had seen any reviews discussing it. If they had the intent would be to add the material to the article with proper sourcing once found. There is no requirement to source comments made on talk pages (except in the case of BLP) and if you can point to a policy that says otherwise, please do so. There was everything wrong with the way Gwen handled this. It was unnecessarily combative and dismissive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Policy? Sure! How about WP:FANCRUFT, WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:NPA just for kicks. Now, you want to keep kicking up dirt, feel free. The anon was wrong, the admin was right, the situation is resolved and over, everyone's interests are elsewhere and Elvis has left the building. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Again, where do any of those state that they apply to talk pages those are all article space policies. NPA is the only one that applies regardless of name space and it is a separate issue. The original post contained no personal attacks, it was a perfectly reasoned request to ask others if they'd seen sources regarding that issue. The talk page is for discussion related to possible changes to the article and nowhere does it say that that discussion must always (or at any time) come with sources. As I said, close ranks, sweep it under the rug, carry on. Its hardly the first time.--Crossmr (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Never have I seen such a classic example of WP:OWB#37! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC) No, I'm sorry, that closure of this thread is not good enough. Whatever the reaction of the IP, Gwen Gale's suppression of the comment on the talk page was not acceptable. The IP was raising a legitimate issue, even though they didn't supply reliable sources, such sources do exist. The circling of the wagons to protect Gwen's misbehaviour here is disappointing. I have now reposted the IP's comments as a quote, and I have provided sources to back up what they were proposing. Are people genuinely OK with an admin removing talk page comments based on their own whim, when they are not vandalism, disruption, off-topic, or chatter? Fences&Windows 15:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Agreed. While the IP may have been rude and a bit gushy, but he asked a valid question on the article talk page, and properly followed what we claim we want new editors to do - discuss on the talk page rather than add unsourced material to the article. Removing it was inappropriate and I don't see how any of the arguments above as to why it was removed holding much water. He isn't a known vandal, not a sockpuppet (that anyone has proven), and, again, asked a legitimate question. Indeed, Gwen seemed to only remove it because the IP smarted off at her response of "cite WP:RS" (which was kind of a silly response considering the IP did specifically ask if there were any sources to support his claim, versus just saying "hey, I think this is true". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks AnmaFinotera. A meta-comment: did nobody else reading this thread think to see whether reliable sources existed that discussed this? Did Gwen Gale not think to do so? There's far too much time spent by admins pontificating, going on power trips, and arguing over rules, and far too little time actually thinking about content. Fences&Windows 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Beyond agreeing that the first posting was fine, I disagree with both of your assessments. It seems that a newer, more sophisticated, and long term problem is harming this project; the community is trying to close the door on that problem through early detection, and Gwen seems to have been acting accordingly in good faith (though perhaps too hastily) - what you've done is just opened the door to make it easier for the problem to emerge on the project. This is counterproductive in the long run because content is actually being considered, and I pity the fact that you both cannot see that; instead you are merely championing a short term issue. Well, I'm no longer surprised why too many admins lack the confidence to take action when it is needed in less clear-cut situations...but at least you've entertained the filer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) So if the first post was fine, her reaction wasn't. I didn't see anything good faith about the way Gwen acted. She was combative and dismissive, she assumed bad faith because of the reaction to her inappropriate response, she violated civil by claiming the IP was a sock without evidence (I still haven't seen her post the evidence even though she was asked for it, nor has she retracted her statement) and she threatened to personally block an IP she was involved in a dispute with. If she wanted to retract what she considered a personal statement, she could have done that. But blanking the original comment was completely out of line. I've seen people who have been here a lot less time than she told to suck up far more egregious personal attacks and not allowed to retract them.--Crossmr (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Break Fences and Crossmr, I want you to study WP:STICK very carefully and put it in place of this thread. Let it go, the horse is dead. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Article talk pages aren't articles. It's only in extreme circumstances that we remove comments from them, and doing it here was inappropriate. An apparent fan of the actress wanted to emphasise her role, suggested wording, and asked if anyone could find sources. On the face of it, this appears an eminently proper use of the talk page. I don;t know the film, but judging by the article it seems a conceivable opinion about it.Now, it is possible that in context the comment was not made in good faith, but I do not see any real proof of that. What I do see is the insistence by the admin that the prohibition against OR applies to talk pages the same as articles, and this is simply incorrect. In the extreme case of using the talk p. as a soapbox, we sometimes to hide the material, but I've not seen it done except in much more blatant instances than this, where people devotes dozens of paragraphs to POV or fringe. Gwen refers to BLP, and with respect to BLP she is correct, but this specifically, as an exception among the other policies, applies to talk space also; I suppose copyvio is also an exception, and even for this and BLP we need to allow some latitude in order to have a discussion of whether the material is in fact BLP violation or copyvio. I do not think we should close this without her acknowledgment of this. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Spot on. Sorry, Gwen, but I saw this as biting an apparently good-faith new editor who wasn't aware of WP:BURDEN. Education would have been better than sniping. WP:OR clearly applies only to article content as far as I can see, and I didn't see the IP editor's comment as trolling merely setting forth a proposal and asking for help from more experienced editors. His/her reaction didn't help, but then, when I was a brand-new editor here, some of the reactions I got, and made, were in that ballpark. I was was helped by more experienced editors, and learned the ropes. "And if you could see me now....." Rodhullandemu 02:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you, this has been my point all along. There was nothing wrong with the IPs initial question and everything wrong with an administrators response to it. They've made multiple bad faith accusations and so far have refused to back them up with a shred of evidence beyond someone saying "LOL" after being ganged up on by the usual crowd.--Crossmr (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC) So far at least two editors have tried to put a resolved tag at the top of this thread, but it's ok with me if editors want to keep talking about this here. When I first saw it, I was happy to let the OR/soapboxy post stand, only commenting that sources would be needed and that the IP might look at the OR policy. They answered by asking if I had a reading comprehension problem. In this broad topic area, when I see that kind of battling behaviour come straight off from an IP, I know the likelihood is strong that more behaviour woes will follow. I removed the post from the talk page, but in doing this, left a message on the IP's talk page about sourcing. The IP answered by restoring the post and asking who made me queen of Wikipedia. I answered with the words "read and learn" and a welcome template (for its links to policy), reverted the post and said I'd block them if they put it back, not because I had worries about the post, but because I had worries about the IP's behaviour. Other editors came to the IP's talk page, giving the IP sundry warning and nudging comments. The IP never did talk about sources, but stayed in the same straightforward "battle mode" with them as the IP had shown from my first contact with the IP (when I did not, at first, remove the post). I was watching their talk page for hints they might want to do something other than make personal attacks. I was still willing to help if I could find a window to do so. As I recall, their last post, which was to another admin warning them about their behaviour, was "LOL." I never used the admin bit through any of this. I still don't think the IP had any thoughts about sourcing what they had to say or gathering any understanding about how things are done here. It's easy in hindsight to say they were bitten. They bit rather hard themselves, straight away. Maybe they were only so stirred up by their anger at how the movie handles the fictionalized Junge character that they couldn't think of anything else at the time. Maybe the back and forth with the four editors they ran into drove them off, but meanwhile, they showed a familiarity with en.WP which still makes me think they've been here before and hence have had plenty of time to learn about sourcing and how to deal with other editors without attacking them. I handled this in good faith. When it does happen that other editors don't like how I've dealt with something, even if I don't agree with them, I do heed their worries and I'll heed these, I'm here only to help. Meanwhile another admin did spend some time coming up with some sources which may at least somewhat back up the IP's post. Through all this, nobody has edited the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC) The IPs initial behavior was fine. Your combative and dismissive tone wasn't, that is what escalated this situation. Following it up by removing the post and threatening personal admin action over a non-admin dispute, was not. That's a violation of WP:BLOCK, you didn't do it, but you threatened to do it. They didn't bite straight away. They made a perfectly fine and normal comment on the talk page which you misunderstood. You responded inappropriately, riled them up and then started throwing your weight around which escalated the situation further. 4 people have pointed out you were in the wrong and you still can't find your way to the IP's talk page to apologize for your biting tone. You're an administrator you're supposed to know better, but I guess if you have to be told, don't bite the newbies. If you wanted hints that they wanted to do something else, you might have properly read their initial post. Since you haven't acknowledged this, in the absence of a BLP issue, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V are not talk page policies. There are two issues here, the way you handled this, which should have been a routine talk page exchange, and what you're now doing post incident. I'm still waiting for you to either retract your sock puppet claim or provide evidence. You made a lot of assumptions, but none of them seemed to be good in this case.--Crossmr (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I would like to again mention to the other users beating the dead horse...."He's dead, Jim". Others have pointed this out, Gwen being the latest, this has been marked resolved twice. More witchhunt than discussion. Move along...and someone bury the horse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, we all heard you, if you have something different to say, please do so.--Crossmr (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Good, I am glad. Maybe this time it will sink in and we can move onto something, oh I don't know, interesting...relevent...current...not a witchhunt. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, you're right, I mean after a problem has happened why discuss it? As far as I'm concerned Gwen has violated at least a couple policies and a couple admins agree that she shouldn't have acted the way she did and she's taken no responsibility for it. I mean why would we want people to be responsible for their behaviour on wikipedia? Let's just all do whatever we want, and once it's done, it's done right? Why worry about it! Did you find that broom yet?--Crossmr (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Thought I had, thought this was firmly under the rug, but I'll be damned if you didn't get out the vacuum, vacuum under that rug and dump the contents back on the floor. Oh and "why worry about it?"....others haven't....they have marked it resolved. You seemingly are the only one who is out there with that stick, beating that dead horse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. What an overwhelming majority. 6 to 5 in support of her actions so there can't possibly be a problem she needs to take ownership of. Let's not forget that consensuss isn't majority and those supporting here are supporting a complete and utter misinterpretation of policy by an admin. Sweep complete!! and let the record show that "a few" is 45%, including 2 other admins.--Crossmr (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground; please stop engaging in conduct that suggests otherwise. Another editor has already told you to drop the stick and I echo that call; let it go and move on already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're turning wikipedia into a battleground. New people were still joining this discussion and giving opinions. there was no clear cut majority here. Trying to force it closed does nothing to serve the community.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What administrative action do you feel is required here? Perhaps you would like to continue this on Gwen's talk page, or submit an RFC/U. –xeno^talk 14:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC is a pointless wasteland as it stands. It's non-binding and will sit there and fester for a month while accomplishing nothing. If the discussion hadn't been constantly knee-capped a real consensus could have been reached and genuine action decided on. As it is now, we'll never know.--Crossmr (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that any new voices joined the discussion in the 10 hours prior to the closure. If you want to continue the discussion with Gwen, in hopes that she might "acknowledge that she did [something] wrong", please visit User talk:Gwen Gale. –xeno^talk 15:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bonus/alternate post-close opinion: Most participants above believe the IP reacted poorly to Gwen's initial comment. Most participants above believe Gwen reacted poorly to the IP's reaction. The fact that they were split roughly evenly on who was more at fault isn't really important. Rather than determining a winner, both editors are invited to take those opinions on board for the future. In the mean time, the IP's comment has been restored, discussion is going on at the article talk page, and further discussion here is unlikely to yield additional insight. If these behaviors, by either editor, are part of an overall pattern, they can be taken up on user talk pages or in extremis, a user RFC. However, the repeated attempts by a few editors to shut discussion down early and declare a winner is disappointing, and looks like a circling of the wagons to those who disagree. That is as unhelpful as continuing a stale discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  This is the exact problem, coupled with the fact that Gwen hasn't really seemed to acknowledge that she did anything wrong.--Crossmr (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved from AN

Methinks the horse is definitely dead now. We've seen a lovely display of wagon-circling, but the text is restored, any neutral observer can draw their own conclusions about Gwen Gale's actions that prompted this thread, and several admins have explained to Gwen Gale why they believe her action in removing a talk page thread was unwise. Can someone close this? Fences&Windows 20:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User with multiple accounts

Resolved

There is a user who has created many accounts entitled "XXXX (Madden)" and has created userpages for all accounts with a fake autobiography of a player from his Madden NFL game. Here is a list of accounts generated by User:The-Pope, which was taken from WT:NFL#(Madden) accounts:

1. User:Markael James (Madden)
2. User:Marcus Robertson (Madden)
3. User:Jervis Santana (Madden)
4. User:Thomas Harris (Madden)
5. User:Albert Ramos, Jr (Madden)
6. User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL)
7. User:Albert Ramos, Jr. (Madden NFL)
8. User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL series)

I think all accounts should be blocked as sockpuppets of each other, and the userpages be deleted as a violation of WP:WEBHOST. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take that route instead then. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, don't bother. Obvious socks are obvious. I'll delete the pages and block the users. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I already started the request here so a Checkuser can be performed to find additional socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Immediate issues resolved. SPI with CU looking for sleepers. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

AIV is backlogged, admins are needed, lather, rinse, repeat. Thanks. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Past Sock IP off a 1 year ban creating issues again

User talk:83.241.234.4 has an illustrious history, and although there's been some delay since the 1 year block's expiration, I think there's new concern with the recent string of edits. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The revert cycle on Omar Amanat is epic. Shadowjams (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are at least 25 reversions by this IP on 2 separate articles, well over 50, not to mention everything before. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have done some reverts. This user needs an immediately block. 2 years this time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked for 55 hours for "Disruptive editing" by User:Materialscientist. I have pointed him in the direction of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My block was a rapid first aid. Any admin should feel free to reblock for longer if necessary. I have briefly looked through their edits and am not keen to analyze them in depth. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank god we can put a finger in this levy. This was the most persistent page blanking I've seen in a long time, and I'm amazed how long it persisted for. Regent deserves a naive badge of courage for going at it as long as he/she did. In the end it was the right thing to do. I have tremendous respect for that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness Material blocked him, I think he should be given a longer block than 55 hours as he hasn't leart anything from his last block, and will comeback and do the same thing again--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have extended it to a year and told the IP that if they return after and start again it will be two years without any further warnings. I'm not particularly interested in telling him how to use the unblock template yadda yadda. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good resolution, unless someone wants to dig into the old SPIs and see if there's a new connection. The single IP seemed to be content to handle those two articles. I'm not sure the connection, but maybe someone could monitor those possible additional issues, but I don't see a lot of ongoing issues from here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Help required

Hello. Today I requested that the redirect "Dum Dum Diddle" be deleted per CSD G6, since I created a new version here. However, administrator Nyttend declined the speedy with the explanation here. The problem is that initially the "temp" page was dedicated to another article, "One Man, One Woman", which was previously restored by User:Juliancolton per my request. This is why the page history has to be separated before performing the move, and after the move, a history merge is required. I hope I managed to clarify the situation. Best, Qweedsa (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you explain that a bit more clearly? Fences&Windows 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the whole reason that I declined, since the request wasn't clear. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see what he's done. The article on the song One Man, One Woman was created by User:Insaneace1 on 20 March 2007. It was AfD'd in Feb 2009 with a keep result on 14 Feb, but User:LtPowers redirected it to The Album. On 1 June 2010 Juliancolton transfered a copy of the article, including all the history, to user:qweedsa/temp so qweedsa could write an article about the single One Man,One Woman. However, qweedsa couldn't find any sources to establish notability, so he decided to scrub the page content and turn it into an article on another Abba track (from Arrival), called Dum Dum Diddle. The page Dum Dum Diddle already exists as a redirect to Arrival (ABBA album), because User:Insaneace1 also tried to create a page for this track, and an AfD resulted in a redirect to the album.

queedsa wants you to delete the current redirect page, so he can move his article into mainspace. The two reasons that you shouldn't do it are:-

1. It will make an enormous screw up out of the history, as qeedsa's article started out as a different topic, and the current redirect has a previous article in its history
2. IT STILL ISN'T NOTABLE.It was only released in Argentina, it never charted, and the only place that it gets a mention (and the only source for the article) is the sleeve liner notes for the album.

Hope this helps.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, your comment rightly describes the situation in a clearer way. But I would ask you NOT to distort my nickname (thank you).

It will not make an enormous screw up out of the history, it is nothing but a history separate-and-merge. If I had been a sysop, I could have done it myself, since I am familiar with MediaWiki administrative interface.

Your claim that the subject of the article is still isn't notable is here inappropriate, because this is not an AfD discussion.

Best, Qweedsa (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability is Wikipedia's test for whether or not there should be an article on the subject. If you want there to be an article, this is exactly the right place to discuss it. Having reviewed the article and sources, I would agree that the single isn't notable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now I see that, according to WP:MUSIC, itself the fact a song was released as a single does not make it notable. So what kind of sources should be provided to let the article exist? Qweedsa (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Qweedsa, apologies for spelling your name wrong one time. You would need to either meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC or else of WP:GNG - non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of other sources, Qweedsa, you might want to consider adding to the Arrival article the material that's sourced to the album notes. This material would then be attributed to you in the History. If other sources are later found, a stand-alone article can then be written about the single. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved the content of the "temp" page to the album article. Thank you for advice — and apologies for wasting your time. Best, Qweedsa (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Draynah

A look at this user's edits suggests they're not here to contribute positively at all, but what particularly drew my attention was their edits to User:Qotsa37, an editor who has not edited for a few days but whose page is on my watchlist. I guess the two may know each other. Draynah has provided a real name for Qotsa37 at least twice: here and here; should these revisions be deleted? I42 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I can say that Qotsa37 has made at least one HOAX article, B.O.M.B. Fest. I checked out the bands that are coming to this "Fest" via their official websites....and one isn't touring at all and one isn't touring then. Hoax. I would recommend Qotsa37 be blocked for HOAX articles. Checking out Draynah. Checkuser might be a good idea too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the festival does exist, and at least some of the lineup is kosher (Of Montreal, Lupe Fiasco) - [18]. No sign of 30 Seconds to Mars, but ... Black Kite (t) (c) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• User:Qotsa37 is pure Myspace. Considering deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Another blantant hoax by Qotsa37. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • ...and the hits just keep on coming. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• User:Qotsa37 and User:Draynah pass the "same person" test to me. I recommend a checkuser to confirm, but these "two" seem to be the same person. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm...Bombfest 2010 appears to have already taken place. If it's a hoax, they went to a bit of effort. --Onorem♠Dil 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out User:Lilwhiterapper too. Seems to know Qotsa37. Will check on "Bomb Fest". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted the userpage and the subpages per NOT#MYSPACE. An SPI might be worthwhile on the various accounts but they could just be IRL friends. I've removed the speedy tag from B.O.M.B Fest. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty certain they are just real-life friends. Their behavior seems to show that this is true. But we can let an SPI check this. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edits have indeed been a bit dodgy, which is why I have his userpage on my watchlist. My impression is that he's generally here to contribute, but doesn't take it too seriously, and that the two accounts probably do belong to different people who know each other. But what I wanted to raise here was the aparrent outing of Qotsa's real name, which seems to be getting overlooked. I42 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this back out of the archive because it was not resolved. I42 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Qotsa37 is back, created by Qotsa37, but with very similar content to that put there by Draynah. I have revised my opinion that the two users are likely separate individuals - this is looking very suspicious. And given that the two users have been editing each other's pages, they wouldn't then seem to be legitimate alternate accounts. I42 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence the users are the same is provided by Qotsa's edit to his homepage here: he claims credit for creating two pages which were actually created (inasmuch as they were converted from redirects) by Draynah (here and here). I42 (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I've finally got a chance to respond.
  

1. B.O.M.B. Fest is the exact opposite of a hoax. I actually attended the festival, and 30 Seconds To Mars was legit there.
2. Draynah is actually an account of my friend's. I set it up for him and he gave me the password so I could contribute from both accounts (since my parents basically said "cool it" on Wikipedia) and stay under the radar from my mom and dad. Sorry for the confusion, but David's account, Draynah, is a legitimate account that both him AND I contribute from.
3. I didn't intend on CGGC. and Kill Ronan! being hoax pages. Wikipedia's policies say that I can have a limit of non-encyclopedic content in my userspace, and I guess I took that the wrong way. While you're at it, you can delete this because I guess it doesn't fit Wiki userspace standards.

Thank you for your time, and I hope this works some stuff out. (: qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that we don't allow shared accounts? Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ohhhhh.... :/ I was not. Okay. I'll stop logging into Draynah if that's the rule. Thanks for the heads up. Qotsa37^Talk 17:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agressive message by Direktor

Resolved

 – WP:ARBMAC related sniping. Toddst1 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if Direktor could abstain from leaving me this kind of messages. I find this user to be quite agressive in general and have no particular interest in pursuing any kind of exchange with him, except possibly during a mediation, in the presence of other parties. Now he is apparently trying to create some kind of conflict with me, possibly with the hope of reporting me here. Having no use for this, I'd like to report his problematic behaviour, which I find uselessly menacing. I sincerely hope that he will now leave it at that and abstain from using this kind of barely-veiled threats. Jean-Jacques Georges ([[User talk:"preemptive report"|talk]]) 10:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It would also be nice if you could notify DIREKTOR of this report. I have done so. He accuses you of meatpuppetry. I haven't checked the merit of that accusation, but that is not an "aggressive message" in and of itself. What exactly is the point of this report? It seems to me you're just trying to beat DIREKTOR to the punch by reporting him here first.--Atlan (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also notified him, or at least I thought I had. Good guess, I did want to beat him to the punch, since he apparently wants to start some conflict with me (in which I have no interest at all : the point of this report is precisely to prevent him from doing so). We disagree on several issues regarding world war II in Yugoslavia, one of which is currently undergoing a wearisome mediation. In general, I find his attitude to be agressive and objectionable, so I may have over-reacted to his message. Anyway, several users have been exchanging comments with me about the aforementioned subjects. I have thanked them for their appreciative comments and, since they seem to be interested (no idea if they are knowledgeable) I have encouraged them to express their thoughts and opinions on the subject. One of them suggested a mediation about another article Direktor has been concerned with, and I basically answered "fine, go ahead if you like". That's it, and I find it quite unpleasant to be accused of such a preposterous concept as "meatpuppetry" just because I encouraged interested users to express what they think (and I must add that I have no idea what they precisely think). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk)

Classic "preemptive report". As in all threads of this particular type here on AN/I, the user that posts it is actually the one in violation of policy, and that should be the focus here:

• User:Jean-Jacques Georges has endeavored to recruit his personal WP:MEAT "army", trying to enlist User:Theirrulez [19], User:Sir Floyd [20], and perhaps others I am unaware of.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Theirrulez, and Theirrulez's reply "About your plan" on User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Sir Floyd.

• In addition to this, User:Jean-Jacques Georges appears convinced that he is allowed to game the system and throw all manner of insults at whole groups of people simply by avoiding to name them explicitly.
  • during the first (Jean-Jacques Georges/Theirrulez) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)". Going on to say "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins." (These comments refer to the Josip Broz Tito article and should be viewed in the context of the recent discussion on Talk:Josip Broz Tito.) The (recently blocked) User:Theirrulez replies with "Tito's fanboys (I can't stop laughing when I read this definition :D) preside the article, raving something about consensus".
  • during the second (Jean-Jacques Georges/Sir Floyd) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)", going on to say "My personal opinion is also that some users (...) should not be allowed to participate at all".

The fact is that this is a "preemptive report". In my experience this certainly seems actionable, so I warned the user on his talk pointing out policy. He reported me here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know DIREKTOR to be someone to make false accusations (at least not deliberately). If you're not guilty of meatpuppetry, than you have nothing to worry about. To counter his accusation with one of your own (accusing him of trying to pick a fight), and barring him from leaving you messages on your talk page, does not seem like the most productive way forward. I don't see anything actionable here, at least not on the part of DIREKTOR.--Atlan (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the OP hasn't read WP:CANVASS? He appears to think that soliciting people to join his dispute is okay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not been soliciting or "enlisting" anyone, but merely answering to people who had expressed their interest in the subject, and suggesting that they say what they had to say. If Direktor feels insulted at the slightest by anything that I have said, that's his problem. But seeing him refer to my "army" of "meat-puppets" or whatever absurdity he may come up with, confirms, at least in my eye, that he is indeed "someone to make false accusations", and quite deliberately. It is quite easy to verify that these users were the first to contact me, not the other way around.

And yes, the point of this (so far non-conflictual) report is precisely to avoid him prolonging this needless exchange and pick up a fight, which I think he is trying to do.

I am not "guilty" of whatever "puppetry", though I do think that more opinions would be welcome : I have indeed nothing to worry about, except Direktor's abravise agressivity.

Basically, I just want this user to leave me alone and I do bar him from my talk page. "Constructive" exchanges shall be limited to project pages, about which I have no problem. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should discourage people from asking others "to give me a hand in finding sources, correcting informations [sic]." Some of the later language is not exactly ideal, but I don't think the initial request is canvassing. (Of course, given the tiresome nationalism-inspired conflicts in areas like this, I can see where the notion would come from...) Shimeru 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editting and personal attacks in the Leviathan article

User:Ishmael bnei Noah Elroi came into the Leviathan article, replaced properly sourced information with improperly sourced information, ignored (and continues to ignore) requests to read WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NOR; insists that because he knows Hebrew and simply pointed to the Tanakh, he did not need to cite sources. He has engaged in a number of personal attacks (1, 2, 3 (at bottom), 4 (edit summary), ignoring all warnings. He eventually did come closer to naming an actual source besides "Tanakh", but it is a translation that is not freely available (so I believe he is violating copyright laws). He even promoted it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ho hum, I lost my tail.

Yeah it wasn't intentional, at times Yes I clicked submit (or w/e) over preview.

Yes, I get annoyed when I go <- to fix it and to find that nothing was there.

Yes, I am clinically insane according to the United States Department of Health (WA, OR, PA).

So Yes, expect a flurry of irrational crap to go on, when one is being overwhelmed about the stupidest of things.

Its not the knowing of Hebrew.

Its the stating in the article of a HEBREW source.

That source is not hebrew.

its english. Any ONE can see that.

Unless you mean by the Leningrad Codex, which well then opens up a whole new topic of crap That I'm quite frankly not willing to discuss.

But whatever, I could honestly care less.

It was a series of mistakes by a new user.

And instead of attempting to allow the other end-user work out all the kinks without rolling back like a prepubescent fop every mis-edit.

If given due consideration, I am most certaintly not the first User in this regards that has experienced issues with this particular administrator. It just depends on how well and Just of a job those want to do.

Considering this is an Open source. Obviously in most cases the least amount of 'work' is required.

And I am sure as hell no longer donating.

Got rid of auto add bot sign crap. Browser crashed AGAIN.

Ishmael bnei Noah Elroi (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There, signed!

And as for "Promoting" that apparently must be a mistake.

Amazing one cannot discern a real life NEW USER to (censored)pedia.org.

Why dont you try cutting the snark and reading all of the policies listed in the complaint above about you? If you cant follow our editing policies, there may be other websites out there you'd feel more comfortable editing at. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Your edit history shows that you are perfectly capable of using proper English without playing the "innocent newbie foreigner" card. So please stop playing games. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

They can do that when they come back from the block I just gave them for continuing the personal attacks above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's not WP:TROLL, it's at least WP:COMPETENCE, but I don't believe that for one moment given the history. Indef? Rodhullandemu 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, just 31 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you evens that this will end up as indef. Rodhullandemu 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the IP added and subsequently removed drivel that was added below a minute ago, I'm inclined to agree Rod. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not taking that bet. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll watchlist the article. These guys always seem to come back and the more eyes, the better. Yworo (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock?

Resolved

 – The range 75.47.128.0/19 had been blocked for 12 hours. If more trouble continues please remove this tag. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A user, who keeps changing IPs in the 75.47.x.x range, is repeatedly blanking pages. Currently:

• 131.161
• 146.157
• 155.18
• 159.3

have been blocked. Would a rangeblock of a couple of hours be appropiate here, to stop the vandalism? RandomTime 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seen it, too. Adding:

• 75.47.156.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (I blocked 'em for blanking at WP:AIV, and being an obvious sock of...
• 75.47.128.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (I blocked 'em for vandalism, with "Not vandalism" as the edit summary.

TFOWR 15:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

75.47.128.0/19 blocked for 12 hours. Hopefully that will slow things down. TNXMan 15:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hemant Karkare and anti-Israel Conspiracy Theories

I would like to bring attention to the article on Hemant Karkare, which is currently sufferring from a massive edit war, possibly by sock puppets (see my post here for the list) led by an anti-Israel editor named User:TwoHorned (He tried to POV-push in the India-Israel relations article before). The focus of the "edit-war" is over WP:FRINGE Conspiracy Theories concerning his death and the 2008 Mumbai attacks (in which a Chabad Lubavich center in Mumbai was destroyed by Pakistani Muslims). The edit-warriors keep inserting many bogus claims made by extremists, one of them is that Israeli-government has been fomenting religious riots in India (see this section of their version). Perhaps intervention would prove constructive in this area. Thanks.117.194.197.61 (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cows with Socks

I saw a new account create a 'sock' and then immediately start deleting a new article Blackburn Lake Primary School. All reverted.

Special:Log/newusers 00:34, 19 June 2010 Ultimatemoocow (talk | contribs) created new account User:Ultimatemoocow1 (talk | contribs)

I warned the 'Sockmaster' Ultimatemoocow (talk · contribs). Suggest indef. block the Ultimatemoocow1 (talk · contribs) account at least? -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 01:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The original account never seems to have made any edits on-wiki. Having two accounts isn't in and of itself a problem - it's only when you hide that fact or edit in ways that makes it look like the two are separate and reinforcing each other. Having a prior account you never edited with isn't a problem, and given the names here it's not clear anyone could possibly mistake this for anything other than a identified second account...

It's not clear to me that it actually requires intervention at this point, though it's somewhat silly and bears some ongoing review. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I have already pointed out what you said to Ultimatemoocow (talk · contribs). I may have been a bit too terse and scared them off, though I did ask them to make constructive edits in future. --2 20.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just gave Ultimatemoocow1 a once and only warning for their edits- and I was very close to just blocking as a vandalism-only-account, but since they removed the mess they made (though not restoring the content deleted) I decided to give another chance.. but if someone else wants to block, feel free. --Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Courcelles. What annoys me is I've probably lost an hour chasing 'cows'. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 02:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And, per the user creation log they're definitely the same user. --Courcelles (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably just a kid from the school having fun. School articles tend to attract that sort of vandalism. Shimeru 02:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Groink

Resolved

 – You're both acting like children. Please go do this somewhere else, where you won't bother others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When I reported User:Active Banana on WP:AN3 for edit warring, the I received the following reply from User:Groink.

48 hour ban isn't going to do a thing. 48 day ban isn't going to help either. I've been monitoring this from the outside, and I have to side with Active Banana on this issue. Most of you may not realize this, but many articles related to Korean popular culture has a way of being filled with a lot of unsourced information - most of it by IP anons. Take a look at the Korean wave article for example. These articles are filled with Korean nationalism! It's simple to post uncited information on these articles, and then leave them sitting for MONTHS without any citations. And yet, the thousands of readers coming across these articles will take these uncited information as the truth. It sounds like Taric25 is one of these editors who like filling articles with lots and lots of information, and then wait for someone to cite the information. I for one, as well as many other editors are against this form of editing, as I refer to myself as a Deletionist as well as an Exclusionist. These editing philosophies believe that information should be added to the article ONLY when the information has been cited at the time of the addition to the article. Taric25 does not understand that it is not the deleting editor's job to find the source. As Active Banana has pointed out several times in the Rain talk page, it is the responsibility of the adding editor to cite the information as it is entered. I repeat - the longer the uncited information stays on-line within Wikipedia, the better chance in the information becoming a falsified fact. Groink (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I would like you to withdraw your statement, “It sounds like Taric25 is one of these editors who like filling articles with lots and lots of information, and then wait for someone to cite the information.” I spent my time on the article un-deleting all the unsourced information that Active Banana removed from the article and replaced all of it with sourced information. I have never once advocated for adding unsourced information to the encyclopedia, so again, I would like you to withdraw that statement, because I explained to Active Banana in this article that it is better replace unsourced good-faith edits with sourced information like I did here, instead of removing good-faith edits like Active Banana did here. I myself have created or worked on Biographies of Living People for a while, like the article I created for Miss Foozie, and as you can see, I am no stranger to making sure all the information I add is sourced.

Also, your concept that it’s the adding editor’s job to cite follows the rule, but doesn’t follow the spirit of the encyclopedia. Remember, we’re here to write an encyclopedia, not to play remove content wack-a-mole. Yes, experienced editors should always source contributions when adding to the main space. I completely agree. On the other hand, inexperienced editors with good intentions are not too familiar with all our rules, so rather than deleting good-faith unsourced content, I feel individual edits are much more valuable to the encyclopedia when an editor simply takes 30 seconds to do a Google search to see if a reliable source exists in order to source it. When Active Banana writes, “Much of my editing time is in situations where I do not have any reasonable expectation of not being interrupted for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"”, this seriously disturbs me. Wikipedia is not a race, and the fact that Active Banana says “I do not have any reasonable expectation … for even a "couple of minutes to do a google search"” makes me seriously question how this editor spends time on Wikipedia. We should focus on the quality of our edits, not the quantity!

In addition, Active Banana is not appropriately using edit summaries. Actually, neither are you. You did not write an edit summary for your last three edits to this page, so I ran http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?lang=en&user=Groink and saw you only write edit summaries for 30% of your edits? Taric25 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, constructing an entire sentence describing the process of removing one character - yeah, that's productive alright. Yup. Look at the history page for this VERY talk page - you're in the minority, I'm in the majority. I stand behind what I've said before - as long as those uncited awards stay where they are, you didn't fix anything! I recommend adding <!-- --> around all the uncited awards, and let the other editors find the sources - while at the same time avoid them being seen by readers. My overall beef is about readers who believe everything they read from a major web site. Groink (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

08:01, 18 June 2010 (edit summary: "/* User:Active Banana reported by User:Taric25 (Result: ) */ This edit summary intentionally describes absolutely nothing about the edit I just made.") I do not appreciate your sarcasm. Please apologize. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC

The user did not comment again, and I left {{uw-npa1}} for the editor’s inappropriate use of edit summaries and sarcasm. The editor replied.

Dude, YOU attacked me first about the summary BS. You made a comment on what I said earlier, and that's all good. But then you just had to find it in yourself to crank it up one notch by throwing in my 30-percent comment rate, which wasn't even on-topic with the edit warring. The edit warring is all about editing philosophies, and I made the comparison between you and I/Anna Banana. But, you just HAD to dig up something totally irrelevant to the argument just to piss me off. That, dude, is not cool. My sarcasm for your previous sarcasm is therefore justified. We're even! The end. Groink (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I left {{uw-npa2}} for the use of foul language, and I saw the editor had started an attack page in the userspace. (I will not quote attack pages, but here is the history). I removed the section per WP:CSD#G10 and left {{Attack}} on the talk page. The user reverted, so I removed the section again and left {{uw-npa4}} on the talk page. The user reverted again. Taric25 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That section was in poor taste, at least. I reverted to your version, with a note in the edit summary pointing to WP:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?, where that sort of thing is explicitly mentioned. Shimeru 02:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

IZAK's behavior

Unresolved

 – File one or more RFCs - this has run its course here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

• IZAK (talk · contribs)

I'd like to bring to attention IZAK's recent behavior and comments made towards other users. It all began in late May at this DRV discussion regarding Jew-related categories. To summarize, Mayumashu (talk · contribs) nominated several categories for speedy renaming, changing Foo-American Jews to American Jews of Fooian descent, presumably with this CFD as a precedent. IZAK then listed the renamed categories at DRV. Nothing problematic... until IZAK begins making baseless accusations towards several users, including Mayumashu, Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) and Cyde (talk · contribs). He accused Good Olfactory of pushing his "POV interpretations and ideas", calling Mayumashu "[Good Olfactory's] reliable partner in speedy deletions", among several other things [21]. Both Good Olfactory and Cyde called his comments out for being over-exaggerated and misrepresenting the situation [22] [23] [24] [25].

Good Olfactory suggests relisting the categories for a full discussion at WP:CFD, where IZAK responds with "First you are party to speeding them then you want to follow normal slower procedures when things don't go your way." [26]. Good Olfactory respond, explaining that none of the admins at CFD are responsible for speedy renaming of these categories, we simply cleaned up after Cydebot, who failed to delete some of these categories after moving their contents, as well as rebutting IZAK's claim of "follow[ing] normal slower procedures when things don't go your way" [27]. IZAK goes on to make several other baseless claims in the DRV, reading the thing may be more worthwhile than my endless diffs.

During the DRV, IZAK engages in discussion on Good Olfactory's talk page, where his baseless accusations, incivility and bordering personal attacks continue, where IZAK goes on to say that the renames of the categories were "causing havoc with your renames that seem utterly un-educated" [28], and he goes on to the point where Good Olfactory redacts IZAK's subsequent uncivil post.

Recently, another CFD regarding these categories came into play, and IZAK went on to continue making accusations towards the same users [29]. Good Olfactory naturally doesn't appreciate these same old accusations [30], where Mayumashu concurs with Good Olfactory's statement. After observing both the DRV and this discussion, I sternly warned IZAK of his comments, as his behavior was simply unacceptable, especially after being told to cease from making these claims. He then goes on to accuse me of stalking him and "advises" me to "make constructive suggestions to the actual discussions focusing on content and facts", among other accusations [31]. I went on to reply with this and initiated this report.

IZAK's behavior has been nothing but troublesome and offensive, and I'd say could be characterized as baiting and battleground mentality. As his recent accusation mentions my username, I would have brought it here to ANI for other admins to review. All involved parties (IZAK, Mayumashu, Good Olfactory, Cyde) will been notified of this discussion. — ξ^xplicit 03:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, I totally dispute the chronology and the manner in which Explicit lays out the picture. To really understand the present picture read the events as they unfolded at the 2 DRVs (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent) and the 2 CfDs (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Category:American Jews by national origin). Even the way he headed this section about "behavior" when it's about many more serious issues and differences of approach in categorizations of Jews' topics. Events unfolded far differently and nothing was as clear as Explicit says. This is all ex post facto and he re-arranged the scenario to make his case, which is not the way events unfolded, and why they devolved the way that they did. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Cyde Weys here. I'd just like to address one of the points in particular brought up by Mr. IZAK, if I may. My emphasis below in bold. Original caps-lock-is-cruise-control-for-awesome left intact.

"When bots take on a life of their own they are in effect like Frankenstein creatures and only by contacting their creators can there be any hope of finding out who was responsible for the changes. Maybe you can look into that." link

"and then with the help of User Cyde (talk · contribs)'s killer HAL-like "User Cydebot (talk · contribs)" -- something straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- dozens of perfectly fine Jews' categories are terminated (i.e. killed off) [...] aided by his reliable partner in speedy deletions User Mayumashu (talk · contribs) who then deploy the INSATIABLE and UNSTOPPABLE monster killer bot created and run by Cyde (talk · contribs)." link

Cydebot is in no way, shape, or form a killer robot. SkyNet and other killer robots that rebel and destroy their creators are science fiction, not science fact. Why, I can shut off Cydebot at any moment. Here, let me demons__Ac.6:l%5Of@(y0isRH@9QvlO4Y|kl_h()!z) <CARRIER LOST>

I tole you that you should'a used Perl for that, for defensive reasons. But noooo.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to know that ANI is used for such serious purposes. Bus stop (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very serious purpose. We just had a long-established editor and bot operator run away with himself and attempt to correct his bot's obviously superior intervention here. That will never do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Hm, yes—my condolences to Cyde, may he rest in peace. Explicit's summary is a good one, and comprehensive. It gets a bit tiring to have IZAK continually make false accusations against me. I've made attempts to discuss things with him a few times, but he always seems to invoke a conspiratorial mindset that I am repeatedly trying to pull a fast one on the category system. (See below, where he attempts to shift the focus to an inquiry of "all the massive changes in other categories [I am] conducting UNDER THE RADAR".) I'd appreciate any assistance in having him stop harassing me on various pages by making false accusations based on bad-faith assumptions about my actions and intentions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Concur. IZAK's response is problematic, on at least the following points.
  1. If a speedy rename is overturned at DRV, with specific instructions to resubmit to a full CfR, then questioning that submission is absurd, and shows bad faith, not just of the renominator, but of the DRV closer.
  2. Having (say) Category:Mexican American Jews, with no "parent" Category:Mexican American or Category:Mexican-American, is also an absurd result. If IZAK wants to be credible, he should nominate Category:American people of Mexican descent for a return to Category:Mexican American. It's quite possible that others have acted badly, but it's clear that IZAK has. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. He again asserts that no one who is not Jewish can understand the weight of his arguments. I'm Jewish, and I don't understand the weight of his arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  The difference between origin, descent, and nationality seems to require most of the categories, except African-American be split in 3, if we are to do things cleanly. But that's not really on the table, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the ball can start rolling. An uninvolved administrator—a Jewish one, at that—reviewed the situation and has found IZAK's behavior troubling, just as those involved has pointed out. This insight, among IZAK's continued bad faith assumptions after the warning I have given him on his talk page, one can only expect that he face the proper sanctions. — ξ^xplicit 20:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim to be uninvolved. I've opposed IZAK on some of his template proposals before. I don't recall whether the proposals obtained consensus, but that's too close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, my mistake. Thank you for disclosing this information. Point of the matter is, I don't think anyone has agreed his behavior is anything near acceptable, and his inability to change his behavior, redact his comments, or even admitting to his inappropriate behavior really says more than any diffs brought forward can display. — ξ^xplicit 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Explicit: I am not on trial. Get that straight. If you want to open an arbitration case go ahead. But make sure it involves the full context of ALL parties concerned. It is a rather absurd claim that someone is an "uninvolved 'Jewish' admin" (there is no such official position on Wikipedia, and it was not requested or required here or anywhere in any case by anyone) when (a) there is no way to prove or know if any user, let alone an admin is "Jewish", (b) users' and admins' religion is totally irrelevant because (c) the only thing that matters is the record, ability and knowledge of a user in editing articles in a WP:NPOV manner over time whose edits are known to be reliable, and in any case, in this case, (d) the above admin admits to having a WP:COI and having been involved with some edits that I long cannot recall. At any rate, (e) this is no way to conduct a discussion at ANI, or anywhere, it's all very unprofessional, roundabout and one-sided. The only thing that is being said is that (f) I write very vigorously, sometimes somewhat bluntly, and I do write a lot for Wikipedia and it's almost very good, and that (g) some people evidently suffer from WP:I don't like it, and instead (h) that they wish to be whispered to in kinder, gentler, softer tones, especially when two parties hold diametrically opposed views as to how to understand and classify subjects, which is more comical than anything befitting a serious discussion between scholars. Finally, (i) Notice who is complaining, and it's not the many dozens of Judaic editors who I work closely with on many topics for years. If you persist, they will all be called upon, in my nearly eight years on Wikipedia I have gotten to know lots of good editors, to have their say on this matter, and they are proven Judaic editors, even though I have no clue who is Jewish or not, and neither should I, or you or anyone care. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1. You have stated that nobody who isn't Jewish would understand your reasoning, so mentioning the religion of editors is appropriate.
2. "Calling" on the "... dozens of Judaic editors who (you) work closey with" would be a WP:CANVASS violation.
3. You have clearly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as well as lying about the history. The speedy category rename was overturned, per WP:DRV, but the current category names are clearly ambiguous, as noted in the active CFD: Category:Mexican American Jews could me:
   1. American Jews of Mexican origin/descent
   2. American Jews of (former) Mexican nationality
   3. Dual US-Mexican citizens who are Jews
   4. Americans of Mexican Jewish descent
4. Blocks for misconduct can be discussed here.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, now it is you who is getting vexed and I don't know why. (1) I never said that editors must be "Jewish" to comment on Judaic topics (show me where I have said such a thing) but (2) I have said that editors need to display knowledge of the subject-matter to be taken seriously, isn't that what you would expect when writing and editing articles about your field of mathematics? (3) Nobody called for an "outside" admin who is "Jewish", that is pure bunk. No sensible Wikipedian asks for people of any religion, but the least one can expect is editors who understand the subject seriously. (4) What nonsense are you talking about me "lying", show me where I am "lying" please and apologize for that uncalled for insult! (5) Did you even participate in the now nearly two months long saga of the the two DRVs and the two CFDs? I can't recall any input from you there, only here when you got involved lately on this ANI discussion. (6) In more than close to eight years on Wikipedia I have worked with dozens of good Judaic editors (I have no clue if they are Jewish) and (7) if this ANI is being conducted as a de facto "ArbCom" case I can call, on their talk pages (I have not done so yet) on as many others who know my history to give their outside opinion here. (8) You can't have it both ways, to talk about this as if it was a "mere ANI case" yet in reality conduct an interrogation and investigation as if we are already at the "decision" stage of arbitration. (9) By your own words you prove that this is ultimately only about CONTENT as you drag in issues that relate purely to content and if so, (10) you prove that this is about stopping me as an editor on false pretenses (11) because any editor who edits as long and as profusely and as interactively as I do will never always say the perfect thing at all times, since there is always give and take. (12) Finally, to repeat, again, I REJECT and strongly PROTEST you calling me a "LIAR" (a huge violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA by YOU!!!) and I request an APOLOGY. Show me and PROVE where you imagine I "lied" rather than make false and inflammatory accusations against me. Sheesh. IZAK (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

IZAK's response

If I may be allowed a word in my own defense. The bottom line at this point is that a CfD and TWO DRVs have gone in my favor as pointed out above. This has not come easily. I have long familiarity with all the categories in question. Therefore when it came to my attention that massive changes were being made on very tenuous grounds by the three users above, I called a spade a spade, perhaps somewhat bluntly, but in no way meant to insult anyone. On the contrary I take the three opposing users mentioned above very seriously and that is why I confronted them directly. At first they were not so open about why and where they based massive speedy deletions on, but upon drawn out discussions with all sorts of give and take it became clear they were making changes defying WP:CONSENSUS. The long drawn out debates and discussions can be seen starting at this DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people, that then moved on to this CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people, and then was followed by this DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent with all three going in my favor, and now we are at this new CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Category:American Jews by national origin that has just begun and where User:Explicit has decided to come out against...me in the middle, or shall we say fourth quarter of this long and winding process. There have been strong words traded by all sides but the net result has been positive namely a clarification of why massive changes to category names of Jews were being made by two or three editors not normally part of WP:JUDAISM, not that it matters, but it was the arbitrary and near-shady way (no better way to describe it folks) they went about making speedy changes that had to be wrung out them to find out why they were doing what they doing, see especially the illuminating exchanges at the 2nd DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Anyhow, we are in the last quarter of this, so far four part drama, and it is poor form and unhelpful to the larger debate for User Explicit to intervene one-sidedly at this critical moment when he should be standing back and taking note of the issues being debated in a vigorous and frank manner, as the diplomats refer to such exchanges. What really needs deeper exploration, clarification and explanation is what the heck (pardon my French) Users Mayumashu, Good Olfactory and Cyde (with his monster bot that can destroy years of work with the click of a button) are up to not just in the Jews' but in all the massive changes in other categories they are conducting UNDER THE RADAR. This may be a good time to open up this issue that has remained sealed for far too long! Thank you for taking this matter seriously. IZAK (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Those who agree:
  • Yoavd (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Those who don't agree this should be on ANI

WTF is this RFC doing on ANI?? Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, "WTF" is rude. Secondly this is not a "RFC". Thirdly the way it got to ANI was that User Explicit was raking me over the coals on my talk page, so I advised him that he was unfit to do so as an involved party, at which point he was supposed to look at ANI for an uninvolved admin (presumably to rake me over the coals) and more objectively to revue the entire situation, but unfortunately he has decided to retain his role as chief judge, jury, and executioner to depict only me in a one-sided manner only, while there are still massive CFD debates on the go. Sorta like rushing into the middle of the delivery room and telling the mothers to shut up and behave or they'll be reported and wheeled out of the hospital, or something like that. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WTGDFF is ruder. Or more rude. Either one. HalfShadow 06:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It would not hurt if the !votes here were less rude. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

From my research, it seems that "WTGDFF" is sacrilege, which is not "rude" but abominable. How low can you go? IZAK (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that we have a policy against sacrilege. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Wasn't aware limbo was going to be involved. I'm not really good at bending, but I'll give it a shot... HalfShadow 07:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy shmolisy, there is no policy to foist sacrilege either, oh, and doing the limbo befits a bimbo. Hope you guys are taking this in the right spirit and won't fly off on tangents. IZAK (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IZAK, why are you acting like a innocent victim? Cyde agreed that something should be done about your behavior, while Good Olfactory has asked an uninvolved administrator to end your continued harassment he has endured from you. Interestingly, stating that I "decided to retain his role as chief judge, jury, and executioner to depict only me in a one-sided manner only" only adds to the evidence that you continue to assume bad faith towards other users and have failed to provide proof that I've done what you described. And how exactly does this discussion or the one on your talk page negatively effect the CFD in any manner? — ξ^xplicit 06:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Explicit: Fantasy: Seems anything I say is misconstrued. If I were to burp you would call it an "atomic blast", if I were to yawn you would call it it a yawning chasm, that's the way it is when wolves smell blood. Now back to the facts and reality: I have had nothing to do with Cyde or Good Olfactory outside of the two recent DRVs once the DRVs and CfD got rolling, and in the past CfD and the present CFD to which they are direct parties, they are not babies and you are doing a magnificent job of WP:LAWYERing for them and projecting them as oh so gentle little fragile lambs, so please stop globalizing my very focused concerns which are legitimate as explained in my comments and research in the two DRV's and the CFD -- and why they lost both DRV's and the CfD and will most likely lose the present CfD as well. This is a nice tactic to distract from a string of their losses, that when you can't win on the issues you go off on tangents acting like you are "innocent victims" when they have defied consensus. We seem to be going around in circles. I have said what I have to say, and do not wish to repeat myself especially since you are intent on twisting my words. Let's see what an impartial admin or two has to say. I am not known for any type of senseless and futile edit warring, but I am known for defending my views and findings. I have cast my CFD vote and explained it. We are now awaiting further user input to the CFD and this is an enormous distraction that will accomplish nothing but create even more divisiveness. I express myself acerbically at times, at other times I am funny and at others I use different writing styles. Good Olfactory hurls insults at me about what I see and don't see, I ignore it, but you don't seem to see it, Cyde is cynical in his comments about me but that's ok to you. But hey, listen, what is this kindergarten? This is all part of normal debating and discussions and it is counter-productive to claim that Cyde is aggrieved when he has created a monster bot or that others know nothing about making massive changes to categories without consensus, but we are going around in circles again. So I am holding off for now. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am an "oh so gentle little fragile lamb". Just sayin'. I think one way you could avoid being misinterpreted is that when you make comments to others that result from some degree of frustration, avoid CAPITALISING CERTAIN WORDS, ← like that. In internet dialogue, it implies shouting and bombasticity. (Or as Cyde put it, you look like you're saying "caps-lock-is-cruise-control-for-awesome".) I've been on the receiving end of this style of writing more than once from you, including in your comments in this ANI report. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So Good Ol, you are just saying you don't like the way I type. Sorry I never took typing lessons, I was too busy studying real subjects. Com'on, get real and make a sensible argument, not that I type in caps or whatnot, one word in ten thousand, or however you choose to misunderstand me. Are you so perfect? Have no complaints been lodged against you? There's lots of stuff in your edit history that proves you are no angel. But I do not wish to get into tit for tat. By the way, would you prefer that I change my user name from "IZAK" to teeny-weeny "izak"??? Would that freak you out less? Would you sleep better at night if it was only little lower-case "izak" typing at you and not "bombastic" (as you violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF calling me that) "IZAK". Kindly do not depict me as "The mouse that roared". Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just making a suggestion that I thought you would find helpful. But it's clear you will reject any suggestions, so carry on .... What I actually don't like more is the way you harass other editors when they disagree with you. But obviously, you don't recognise that to be a problem either, so .... Oh yeah, and when you make stuff up about other users. I don't like that either. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. 1) I, the same as good ol, am not a fan of caps. 2) I prefer italics and bolding. 3) Or prefer the use of all caps, as good ol appears to by his usage for example of all caps when he wrote "HINT" on his user page, only when I am the one using all caps. 4) I suggest that good ol read ee cummings. For some reason, I expect he might enjoy his writing. 5) I note that WP:CIVILITY is all caps. As is WP:CV. As is WP:CIVIL. 6) When good ol seeks to have the content of that guideline deleted on the basis of the afore-mentioned all caps usage, I will be interested in commenting at that discussion. 7) Whatever my view on the usage of all caps, I recognize that all caps usage is incorporated into wikipedia usage, is not against wikipedia MOS, and that my view is not shared by all. I don't think it advances the resolution of the instant content dispute to discuss that issue here -- and I would not have a problem with anyone rolling up the above off-topic discussion, so as not to distract others from the content issues here. With all due respect to both izak and good ol.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Holy crap. That was ... (starts with an "L", ends in "E", other caps in between. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Very upsetting. I expected a much more witty and smile-inducing response from you, g. o.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion to block IZAK for one month due to continued lack of good faith, incivility, GAMING, Forum Shopping, etc

• Support 76.237.178.20 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

— 76.237.178.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Reject this arbitrary motion, quite sweeping and one-sided obviously in the negative spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND that obviously wishes to escalate rather than reduce tensions and full of outright inaccuracies and provocations (what does "etc" mean?), considering that the involved parties were and are all actively involved in two DRVs and two CfDs, in which they all opposed IZAK, and as a result of which lengthy discussions ensued in the DRVs and the CfDs. Keeping all parties interested in Judaic topics informed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism is legitimate and important, not to be derided as being something "negative". In addition, three of the parties opposing IZAK are admins (Good Olfactory, Cyde, Explicit) with enormous powers of their own. If they have disagreements over CONTENT, as they obviously do, and that has evidently driven them to distraction, the correct next step should be to proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and so far that has not begun, they are relying solely on admin powers to solve what should be discussed as in the DRVs and the CfDs or on talk pages. In Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide, see: "Blocking parties during Mediation" where "blocking during mediation" is strongly discouraged and this would be a form of blocking an opponent when you disagree with his views, and all one has to to is take a look at the the 2 DRVs (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent) and the 2 CfDs (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 10#Category:Jewish people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 16#Category:American Jews by national origin) to see that they disagree with IZAK on almost every point. So this proposal is wild and solves nothing. As someone said this is NOT a RFC, which would require some form of mediation between the parties first. Nothing is actually happening at the moment outside of this ANI, and the way this sub-heading is worded proves that someone (who is it in any case?) is merely interested in aggravating the situation which is not the way to go when there is presently not much of anything going on. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support blocking for WP:NPA, but a month is too short too long. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question for Arthur: As you yourself have violated WP:NPA by falsely calling me a "liar" without justification, above, how can you justify yourself by passing judgment against me? IZAK (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. IZAK has been editing in good faith, making beneficial changes that were needed and which I support. The only charge against him is speaking straight, not mincing words. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that if someone has the time, they might do a sock check on the SPA above, to see whose sock he is -- and block both the sockmaster (who you can expect also !voted along the same lines as his sockpuppet) and the sockpuppet for all eternity. Actually, sockpuppets. This absolutely reeks of bad faith !voting. Folks -- this is not a game of seeking to create dishonestly the appearance of consensus by flouting the rules, to !vote multiple times. Poor form, I'm afraid. May be time to ban a sock or two.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion, continued

• Comment I think User ξxplicit's summary is an accurate one, and appreciate the work the user's done to put it together. User:IZAK way of interacting in the DRV and CfD has been rude, in my view, and to have insinuated stuff both untrue and far beyond the matter of renaming or not these pages. Perhaps 48 hours is too short a wait period for the speedy renamings - if User:IZAK had seen the tags and objected then a lot of this could have likely been avoided. But it does not excuse the user's behaviour. Mayumashu (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the earlier sentiments that this discussion does not belong here at AN/I. It only creates more feelings of "ill will" and animosity amongst all involved. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Need help at World Cup ref bio page

Koman Coulibaly blew a call in the US vs. Slovenia game and his page is now under heavy attack. I've fully protected for now but would appreciate some additional admin eyes (e.g. on the talk page) as I'm not able to monitor very much. Ronnotel (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll add it. If you see any other pages under attack, ping me on the talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is back to semi it seems, but it could still use some additional eyes. It is slowly moving into the direction of becoming libel where most of the article is criticizing the subject - either for this match or for past offenses. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There's now an article in USA Today regarding the vandalism here if any is interested. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Stupid media... They seriously took a screenshot of the vandalism and posted it to show people? Anyway, watching page. Netalarm^talk 23:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry?? You lot allowed the vandalism to take place, and then criticize those who call you on it? 182.239.133.49 (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"You lot"? Who is that? Wikipedia is run by volunteers, not by a paid staff. Let me ask, did you do anything about reverting valdalism on that article, or bring it to anyone's attention? If not, then "you lot" includes yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also need help at Roberto Rosetti, another World Cup referee who made a disputed call today. 86.145.163.16 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by IP:User:83.38.89.212

Resolved

 – Anon blocked again. Prolog (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The anom user, blocked as User:83.38.89.212 on 16 June 2010 by user:Prolog for 1 week for continued unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory[32], is back and editing as User:83.36.226.22.[33], [34] This editor is already blocked at least five times for promoting fringe theory and edit warring, however, as a dynamic IP he/she continues its disruptive behavior. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This editor now breaks again also WP:3RR. Beagel (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• User:83.38.89.212 continues the above noted disruptive behavior still. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Academic2005

Got a request from Academic2005 on my talk page to contact someone about help removing logs from Google. I thought I'd post it here, as I know little about how to help Academic2005. Jolly Ω Janner 12:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"My page was deleted several times upon my request yet my name still appears and is thus listed in the Google index. I would like my name and the deletion log to be fully suppressed at that point in order that no information appears anymore on Wikipedia and Google. Please provide me with with advice or help me contact the appropriate Wikipedia person if you cannot do anything, it has been months that my name appears on Wikipedia and Google and I do not know what to do. I have sent removal request to Google already and they deny them saying that my name was kept on Wikipedia and therefore cannot be removed. Thank you very much for your assistance, regards. Academic2005 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)"

Question does your name come up for anything other than by searching "Academic2005" or "Academic2005 Wikipedia"? I got nothing Wikipedia-related on the first page of the first term and in fact the second term also yields nothing relating to you. Also, is there a particular issue with this? Wikipedia accounts are created with the understanding that your edits are visible on the internet, you are encouraged to hide personal information, but if you googled your real name you would find all your social-networking sites and everything. Is there a special reason why your username is so vulnerable? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that the user created a page related to him/herself (I don't know the name of it) and that it was deleted. Google can take a while to update itself to deletions, so when you type the name of that article in, Google still probably has some of its (personal) content previewed on the search page. As I say... this is just what I think. Jolly Ω Janner 12:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the editor previously had an article about themselves speedied on three occasions, the most recent by Floquenbeam. However, Google is still indexing the now deleted page, so a Google search on the editor's name is bringing up Wikipedia as the first hit, even thought the content (both in Google's cache and here) is a summary of the deletion log and the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" message. However, an admin would have to confirm whether or not that's the case, as naturally I can't see Academic2005's deleted edits, so I'm just guessing as to what the page was. :) I would have expected that the "does not have an article" pages was set not to be indexed by Google, but perhaps not. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The google cache article holds the last created article, which was an attempt to prevent caching (The page tried to add NOINDEX and NOFOLLOW). There is little we can do about it, as the page is deleted on Wikipedia. Until Google refreshes its cache it will likely stay there, pointing to the now-deleted page. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I searched for the real name, and did get the Wikipedia deletion log as an early hit. Would it help if she stopped creating new articles with that title? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have told him that Google will purge itself and loose the search result for the article itself, as for the deletion log that is unfortunately, tough. If he didn't want the name on the internet he shouldn't have created the article. As for his username, I see nothing that relates to his personal information in it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I understand, Bilby has it right. If you search for the name of the person the article is about, Google sends you to the deletion log. The deletion log has no mention of Academic2005's account, so I'm not sure what the problem is; perhaps it's annoying to the subject that there's evidence a page was ever created? The latest version I speedied just had the content "<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX,NOFOLLOW">"; I deleted it because I'm pretty confident that won't help get the article out of Google's cache. I believe Google has a process for people to remove articles from their cache; I'll see if I can find it again. But this isn't something we can solve on this end. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Tony1/delinking scripts - failure to correct obvious errors

Think this has gone on about as long as it's useful to...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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

---

A handful of editors have for a while now been running delinking scripts across hundreds of pages on the project, which have the effect of removing internal wikilinks to terms that are described as "common". The cited justification is the wording of the wp:overlink guidelines, which does indeed suggest not linking terms that are common, but with a specific exception to that when they are relevant to the topic. The guideline of course does also stress navigability as being a key aim behind wikilinking. I first noticed this a couple of months back, when one of the editors stripped links to France from the article on French wine. Broadly I agree that there is probably too much redundant and trivial linking on articles and I would support most of the removals in most cases, but I have occasionally tried to raise the issue with those editors when I've noticed problems with the effects of these semi-automated removals. Very occasionally I and others have restored the odd link, often in turn to find that one of those editors comes back to remove it again.

Anyway, there does not seem to be any broad consensus for this "campaign" or for the running of scripts, or as to what terms would be seen as "common" or "well known" enough for links to them to be removed on each and every occasion they occur, regardless of context. There has been a lot of discussion on this (see my talk page, WT:LINK). Perhaps the wider issue is something that needs to go to an RfC, but in the short term there does seem to be a need for admin intervention. One editor, Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently ploughed through around 60 articles on Australian TV programmes, stripping out not only every link to Australia - which may or may not be a good thing - but also removing links to items in the Categories and See Also sections and hence messing up the format of the page, eg with this edit. I raised this on their talk page, pointing out the mistakes, here. They simply deleted my comment (their edit summary refers back to a previous talk page thread, where they had previously made light of genuine requests from both myself and another editor to be more careful and manually review the results of their script). They have since made no effort to correct their mutiple errors - instead one of the only two article edits they have made since then rather pointedly involved themheading off to a page they surely know I have on my watchlist, the Champagne article, to remove links, at least one of which I had previously restored some time ago.

The other reason that admin intervention of some sort is perhaps warranted is that we seem to be heading down a similar road to the one that ended up here over the delinking of dates, with many of the names involved oddly familiar. N-HH talk/edits 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If the example you gave is characteristic, this is a total mess. Tony1 should stop until he can get proper consensus for this or at least exercise some common sense and double-checking on these script edits. The crusade against overlinking seems to be removing perfectly valid links (including category links) indiscriminately. Fences&Windows 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the de-linking of common everyday words and places. I have not seen Tony1 de-link a word I think should be linked.  Giacomo  17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't have problems with most of the removals. There are, despite that, occasional issues about removing for example each and every link to France from pages about things from France - issues that several other editors have commented on over the past few months - but these are not the point either of my post here on ANI. The problem here, as noted in my post and the one example diff provided, is with removals that are manifestly wrong, and which muck up formatting and take pages out of categories, and then with an editor deleting and ignoring comments that bring it to their attention. If Tony won't sort out an obvious problem when I point it out to him - and then makes an edit to another page clearly designed to needle me - I'm going to go and ask for help. Our interactions to date have been largely friendly, albeit based on slightly heated disagreements at times (see my talk page), by the way - this is not a personal spat of any sort. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Was Tony was never specifically sanctioned regarding future automated delinking? That would seem to have been an oversight if true. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Tony1 topic banned, an indef from guidelines on date linking, and via Tony1 restricted a 1-year ban from reverting said linking in articles. Curious timing that the latter expired only yesterday, though. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, then, it is an oversight. It should have been apparent at the time that any restrictions of this sort would be followed to the letter and not the spirit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not an oversight -- if you look down a bit in that case, at least one person was banned from any script-assisted editing, so it's plainly a remedy that was considered, but rejected, in Tony's case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted a whole bunch of his recent script-assisted edits -- while a couple of the ones I reverted were valid, the vast majority left non-links in the See Also sections or unlinked categories. Someone else might want to do a few more of these, as they're kind of messy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You should never use the rollback feature to revert good faith edits! Rollback is for reverting vandalism, you should have used the Undo function or fixed the edits (which I've tried to do by the reverting has made it harder then it would have been). Bidgee (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My two cents... the delinking campaign causes these issues largely because of a dogged insistence on the part of the handful of editors doing the majority of delinking that their opinions are the only valid opinions, and that anyone who disagrees with them is just plain wrong, wants to link everything, and so on. (I'll freely admit that Tony and I have been at loggerheads over this for ages now, stemming back to his unilateral rewrite of the "What to link" and "What not to link" sections of the linking guideline in July 2008.) The reality is that while many people do agree with the notion that there is overlinking - multiple links to the same article, overly simplistic words linked, and so on - there is no established consensus regarding the use of these scripts, the haste with which the scripts are being used, and the insistence that non-linkworthy "common terms" include a wide range of cities, countries, major world events, religions and the like that Tony et al feel readers "should know". Moreover, the list of "common terms" is presented as nigh-on policy, but is actually not even easily accessible by other editors as it is buried in the depths of the delinking script. As I've said repeatedly, there is certainly merit in cleaning up the truly overlinked material. However, the problems we're facing are centred on the opinions driving this campaign, which has seen arguments that (for example) New York City is not a valid link in an article about that city's subway system, and that the article Canada does not warrant a single link to United States. Editors who disagree are told that the delinking is all about "improving the reader's experience", but are also told that readers who want to find these "common terms" are expected to use the search box instead of a link. Sadly, this is at its core yet another MoS-related dogfight, with much fervour on the part of the participants and little or no interest (or even awareness) from the community as a whole. We need to determine a consensus as to what the larger body wants, not just what the MoS gnomes feel like arguing over, and it should be resolved before the actions are taken on such a wide scale, not after. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a fair summary of the problem. We might need an RfC to sort this out, and Tony1 could be heading for a block for disruptive editing, or another sanction against using scripts. Fences&Windows 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

An RfC would probably be the best approach for a long-term resolution, and I personally would prefer to see some form of restriction on the use of the script; at the very least, the "common terms" list should be discussed and also made easily accessible for input and change by any editor. As for the idea of a block, even without the personal involvement I'd be reluctant to endorse such a move at this point in time as I think that Tony1 honestly feels he is doing the right thing. We do need to develop an understanding of how the larger community wishes to approach linking, instead of leaving it to the handful of editors who have the patience to sift through the guideline discussion pages. Hopefully, by adding more voices to the discussion, we can find common ground and move forward instead of the "all or nothing" approach currently in play. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• (Disclosure: I'm a pretty good Wikifriend of Tony, and I was a party in the date delinking Arbcom case) Tony has actually been running these scripts for some time now, and for the the substance of his edits has not been challenged by most editors. If you look through his recent talk page archives, most of the complaints about his link edits are of a technical nature (the removal of categories cited is an example of the glitches). It's fair to say Tony is rushing these edits somewhat, and needs to test the scripts first before using them on articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just woken up to this. I don't know why my last twiddle to the script started unlinking the odd category—I will fix the problem, technically. It's the first time this has ever occurred. The venom expressed above is part of a campaign by two users, CKatz and N-HH, at WP:LINK—put simply, they have tried over some time but have not a hope of gaining consensus to have the guideline changed so that every instance of common English-speaking countries, and world cities such as New York and London, must be linked on every occasion. CKatz, in particular, has been kicking up dust about once every six week—it's quite regular. No, Fences and Windows, what CKatz says here is far from "a fair summary", and you are way out of line talking about blocks. Get your facts right about "topic bans", Tarc and Chris Cunningham—you're patently wrong, and I expect retractions. And your accusation about "timing" is laughably irrelevant to those facts. Where did you get your information from? Please read it properly. SarekOfVulcan, why did you revert "valid" edits? That seems to show a herd mentality. Tony (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC) PS And I had no clear idea from N-HH's post on my talk page yesterday that there was a technical glitch. It was a gigantic post, as usual, wrongly accusing me of edit-warring. I usually remove such posts from him and Ckatz. If the post had been a short paragraph with a diff to an example of the glitch, I'd have taken immediate action. But no, it was the usual diatribe. This page is turning into just what N-HH and Ckatz want: a diatribe—all over a glitch that can be fixed and, in repaired by me in the articles involved (almost all small, marginal and probably not often visited). Tony (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony's post above - "every instance of common English-speaking countries, and world cities such as New York and London, must be linked on every occasion" - is a perfect example of the misrepresentation used as a means of shutting down anyone who complains about the removal of wikilinks. With respect to the spurious claim listed above, N-HH and I are both on record as saying that is clearly not true, and Tony has repeatedly been asked to please stop misrepresenting opposing positions. I find it very frustrating that someone who is himself very quick to make accusations of incivility can be so uncivil in this way. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this fight but here is my two cents anyway. Since WP is a globally accessed website, used by millions of users from grade school to Doctoral scholars and all in between with various levels of understanding of he english language I recommend caution when employing the term "Common terms". What is common to you or I may not be common at all to others and I for one find it rather handy to simply click on the link and be wisked away to the related article. To me the bother over do we link or not link is a 2 dimensional argument in a 3 dimensional Wikipedia. Can it be annoying to read through an article with sea of blue links? Certainly, but does it hurt anything? My opinion is that it does not and in my opinion there are far better things to spend ones time with such as expanding the content of the thousands of stubs or creating some of the hundreds of articles that have been created. Anyway, thats all the comment I have and I will leave you to your discussions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to conduct such a discussion, which should be at WP:LINK. Please read the title of this section.Tony (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Venom? Hysteria? Diatribes? Please calm down Tony. I don't see any evidence of that from anyone else here. Yes, you could have repaired the glitch, but you didn't. Even when I came to your talk page, with a diff, and pointed out the problem, which affected multiple pages. You just deleted my post, and now admit you did that without even reading it, something that you are now trying to somehow blame me for. And of course another editor had just the day before, on a different talk page, advised you to take more care to review the effects of your scripts. And now you're accusing someone who actually took the time to come and correct your multiple errors of exhibiting a "herd mentality", after I came here asking for help and they responded. Just to correct a couple of points -

• I have never IIRC ever posted to your talk page before this. Even if I had, your proud assertion that you "usually remove such posts [without reading them]" hardly deserves commendation. People can also see that you often come to my talk page, and that I not only read what you say, but that I supply you with substantive answers
• As both myself and Ckatz have pointed out - even in this very thread - neither of us have ever asked for "every instance" of certain cities and countries to be linked. Do you not read those bits either?
• You say there is no hope of changing what wp:link says. How would you know, since you've never asked for any wider community input on your delinking campaign? Plus of course, I don't want it changed. I want it adhered to, eg where is says "Think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers" and where it says common terms can/should still be linked where they are "relevant to the topic of the article"
• Tarc seems to have broadly accurately summed up the ArbCom ruling against you. What did they get wrong?

Anyway, as you correctly note, and I acknowledged from the outset, this is not the forum for a wider debate about linking per se. It was however the right place to come to get help in correcting outright errors introduced by your script over multiple pages, and to get you to perhaps at least take more care in future to review the impact it has on pages. Problem seems resolved, for now. N-HH talk/edits 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's crap like this that makes me seriously wonder if we'd be better off without a Manual of Style. So far, it's one benefit has been to bring an end to the AD/CE edit wars, & its drawback has been to enable one small group to create policy without involving the rest of this community, then force it on a surprised majority thru bots & arrogance, acts that have ignited a larger number of disruptive edit wars. -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A minor point. Revert can be used to reverse the effect of a malfunctioning bot. Regardless of whether Tony's edits are appropriate, we all agree that Tony's edits have the effect of a malfunctioning bot; he's not checking, or he would have noticed the unlinking from within the #See also sections, and the unlinking of categories. (Note that I've opposed Tony on a number of issues in the past, not including this particular one on WP:LINK.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony1 was using a script but I see no evidence of him running a bot, but more like using a script and making the mistake of not looking at the changes. Fact is some of the edits broke nothing and most did take out [[]] in some Also see links and categories but with the reverts the articles which didn't have any problems were not checked by the reverter. I took an hour of my time to undo and fix these problems and everyone going "he did it, he should fix it" is unhelpful, rude and goes against what Wikipedia is about. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The MoS is, in general, an enormous benefit to the project. It's editors who use it as a power mechanism who are problematic. There really aren't that many of them, and the project should be able to deal with them without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whom are you accusing of using the MoS as a power mechanism? If it's me, I'll take it up by filing against you in a separate venue. I have seen no retraction of your aggressive behaviour above, nor an admission that is it based on false claims. This page is discredited, as far as I'm concerned: it is being used as a forum for malcontents who want maximal, undisciplined linking, including Arthur Rubin above. Tony (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Malcontents who want maximal, undisciplined linking"?!? Tony, can you please, please, just consider for a moment the possibility that you may have pushed this too far, too fast? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider compromising your personal goals - even just a little bit - in order to accomodate other viewpoints? Surely that would better reflect the collaborative spirit than does this name-calling directed against editors who disagree with you, or the repeated attempts to discredit their opinions? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; except that they are not "personal" goals, I do discuss other viewpoints, and my view is a compromise. Tony (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you have a point, CC. However, whenever I have been in doubt about the best style to use in an article I simply use my copy of the MLA Style Manual; I find nothing useful in the MoS -- except examples of how not to behave on Wikipedia. While arguing for its deletion it might be one of those proposals akin to requiring an account to edit Wikipedia or ranting against WP:IAR, a serious & well-supported nomination at AfD might be the cluebat needed to reach through certain thick skulls.

And to our threat-making friend: if the shoe fits, don't whine. -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• If NHH had actually drawn Tony's attention to the actual errors in Tony's script - as he should have done on his talk page, rather than getting caught up in trying to sort out old scores - I sincerely believe we would not be here now. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, in what way is "I quickly looked at some of these, and noticed that many of them have removed links to items in the "Categories" and "See also" sections, which also of course has messed up the formatting." not drawing Tony's attention to the errors in the script? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sigh. It seems OC followed Tony's lead and didn't read what I wrote. Also, I was not "settling old scores". I was noting - and explaining - a disagreement with him over his edits that same day to the Dubai article, in the first separate bullet point, while letting him know I would back off from any pointless edit war. The notice about script errors was the first sentence in the second bullet point. I then, yes, expanded on that to point out broader and less immediately obvious problems with the script. N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Any speed reader will tell you that the simple lesson in making sure you point doesn't get missed is to keep it concise, and not to bury it with chaff. The issue NHH raised with Dubai is old hat which he has been banging on for ages, and could have been done en passant at the end if he wasn't content with leaving it at WP:Linking; while the important, if it was indeed important, messed up formatting should have been mention up front and with a diff - yes, links do heighten perception. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
        • What's speed reading got to do with anything? And the Dubai issue is not "old hat". It was an edit of mine from the day before, correcting what appeared to me to be a previous poor edit from Tony, which he had then reverted again, hence why I approached him about it. I've never edited or commented on the Dubai page before. Nor had I been on his talk page before. Having noted that Tony had been responsible for creating gaps in the infobox links, I then looked at his other recent contributions, and saw the outright errors being put into the TV pages. Hence the "two points" raised on his talk page, bullet-pointed, with the Dubai one first. You know the effort to paint Tony as some kind of victim, and me as being engaged in some kind of political stunt against him by coming here, might actually carry some weight if we choose to ignore the rather salient point that he simply deleted a clear and straightforward message on his talk page alerting him to script errors. Sarek's quoted it above - what's not to understand there? Simply taking responsibility for what happened, rather than saying I didn't express myself properly or whatever, and then raving at everyone who has commented here, would seem to have been the more sensible and less drama-inducing way forward for Tony and others. N-HH talk/edits 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re reverts: An use of script without monitoring the changes is functionally equivalent to a bot, and should be treated the same way, except that the user should be warned before blocking, while bots may be "warned" after blocking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Can it be annoying to read through an article with a sea of blue links? Certainly, but does it hurt anything?"[35] Yes, it does; it hurts the reader's capacity for attention to the high-value links, and even his/her ability to find and distinguish them. It drowns them in the sea of blue. Tony's well-judged (in my opinion) removal of low-value links has the function of making the high-value links much more visible and useful. That's what wikilinks were designed to be: carefully selected for their helpfulness; inviting, and relevant.

I don't see any need for admin intervention here. Tony has stated that he intends to fix the problem, which is not major, as soon as possible. Please give him a chance to do so, rather than rush in to do it for him; his userpage indicates that he's Australian, and it may be a little much to expect editors to work through the middle of the night. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

First off, the "sea of blue" term that is so often used in this matter is a bit of a misnomer; the disputes arise over a handful of links here and there, whereas the "SoB story" muddies the water by implying that we're disagreeing over articles that are packed with dozens of links. Secondly, it is clear that there is a real problem in the overall attitude involved in this matter. Tony, for one, has in the course of this one ANI discussion demonstrated a clear disdain for any editors and admins who try to question his methods. Already, he has labelled N-HH, Arthr Rubin, and myself as "malcontents", accused Tarc of misleading ANI readers and being "biased and possibly involved in muddying the waters", and claimed Thumperward's post here was "aggressive, partisan, personalised, uncivil, threatening, and based on false information". That's just three examples from this one incident, and I could easily list numerous similar incidents from related discussions about the issue. At what point do we say enough is enough? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

At the point where we find something more useful to get on with? --John (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware civility issues were subject to convenience. Also, given that Lightmouse is now back from an Arbcom-imposed block for script-related issues, it would be helpful to establish a clear understanding of what the community expects in terms of this large-scale script-based work. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

? Don't tell me you're lobbying ANI for a block for that stuff? Are we done here? Bishonen | talk 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

I've never suggested that; it was someone else who mentioned a block. However, it seems clear to me that some form of resolution is required, or else this just drags on, and on, and on... --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am very sorry to see how easily ANI can be used for a political stunt by N-HH, Ckatz, and now Arthur Rubin et al. That is exactly what has happened here. We don't want ANI to lose credibility as a forum for dealing with difficult behavioural problems: this could have been solved immediately if the message had been clearly expressed and diffed on my page in the first place. The admins who have leaped in here on the bandwagon should think twice about their actions: they are giving every appearance of partisanship, which degrades this page. Tony (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony, you've made all sorts of accusations, none of which you've substantiated. Now, instead of simply responding to the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed, you are trying to sidestep this discussion by claiming it is some sort of coordinated "stunt"? Look, I don't care much if you choose to ignore my concerns; I'm certainly used to that by now. However, there are people who have made observations here who are new to the fray; can you at least consider the possibility that they might have a point? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, I think we have a melt-down in process here. Out of sheer nosiness, I took a look at the last 50-100 edits Tony1 made & was gobsmacked by the wild accusations he posted, mostly concerning WP:NPA, on the Talk pages of almost every person who whom he believes was critical about his behavior in this thread. Anyone who considers her/himself a friend of Tony might want to have a quiet word with him about taking a WikiBreak before he loses it & repeats the bizarre exit of a former editor. -- llywrch (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe any uninvolved observer will agree with me: this is not going to end pleasantly. Not for those involved, & I strongly doubt for the rest of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Llywrch, you're well-known as a partisan on the issue of overlinking. You continue to dramatise the issue and attempt to smear me, which is the cynical reason it was brought here in the first place. The place to discuss the wider issues of overlinking is at WT:LINK. I rest my case that this is a political stunt. Tony (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is Llywrch "partisan"? Could you please provide links to support this claim; it is possible I missed it, but I really don't recall Llywrch being involved in the discussions regarding this matter at the link guideline page. (Nor do I see Llywrch listed as contributing at the guideline page or talk page over at least the past year.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, what nonsense. Let it go. Lay off Tony and find something useful to do... --Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lay off Tony"? Sorry, but I must have missed the memo that said long-term editors can do what they want, when they want, in whatever way they want. Maybe we should add that to WP:CIVIL: "If you've been here for a long time, have your way with the place, rules be damned." It is illuminating to note this recent edit to Tony's delinking script: the edit summary for delinking operations now reads simply as "copyedits" instead of "rem gratuitous links". Again, since when is this sort of conduct acceptable? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony made a mistake with the script, which is easily done, and he's an editor who can be trusted to fix whatever errors he makes (and we all make them). This seems a bit of an over-reaction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the script error "easily done"? Yes, of course. We've certainly all made mistakes, and we'll no doubt do so again and again. The difference is in how we respond to our mistakes, how we repair the damage and move forward. You say you trust Tony to "fix whatever errors he makes"; I have to be perfectly honest and state that based on my interactions with him over the past few years, I do not share that confidence. I've witnessed too many instances where I have found Tony to say one thing and mean another, too many debates where he has repeatedly misrepresented my (and other editors) positions, too many times when he has simply ignored any concerns raised about his actions and instead attacked the messenger. He's certainly done it again this time, as witnessed by his posts to Tarc, Thumperward and Fences and Windows's talk pages. That is why I find the change to the script to be a direct example of the problematic attitude: instead of actually addressing the concerns raised here and elsewhere over these actions, he's just changed the edit summary to disguise the actions in question. Frankly, the script error appears to have been a catalyst for finally bringing some of these problems into the light and thus up for discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure other people are tiring of Ckatz's personal and political vendetta against me. She knows that writing huge posts further dramatises what was a trivial matter. I won't even bother responding to it. My talk page, and that of other users, has been the usual venting point for both Ckatz and N-HH. I think it should be kept to WP:LINKING, and that it should avoid the personal.Tony (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony, let me be absolutely clear. I do feel that you have done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why that cannot be the case for a long time to come. However, the fact you "won't even bother responding" when others raise concerns about your style is at the heart of the matter here. So, too, is attempting to trivialize these concerns. You claim that this is some sort of "vendetta" (your words, certainly not my motivation) yet you refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. For example, you claimed Llywrch is "partisan", but have not responded to a request to support that claim. You've just said that N-HH uses your talk page as a usual venting point" - but the talk page history says that N-HH's first post (of only two) to your talk page was on June 15, 2010. I, for one, find those sort of actions troubling. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to achieve here, Ckatz. Tony acknowledged his error with the script. That apart, I see strong consensus to remove the sea of blue that Wikipedia articles have been for too many years, but if there's disagreement about the extent of it, that's best discussed at WT:LINK. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that Tony has done a lot of good work however he has also displayed obvious contempt and has also done a lot of contreversial things as a result of his strong beliefs. The problem I see here personally os not just one of wether the edits were valid or not but more importantly how he responded to criticism of them. Once he locks his teeth into something in WP that he perceives as as problems such as date delinking or common term delinking (also evidenced by the previous ban that was levied in him from date delinking). It should be made clear to him that this is not Tonypedia, it is Wikipedia and is a community effort. It is not his sole responsibility to make the project right in his eyes and if consensus determines that he is out of line then he should accept that without bullying them into conformity, insulting them or ignoring them completely. As an example here is a link to one of the articles I pulled up at random that he had edited with his script [36]. In this edit he broke links to categories leaving them stranded at the bottom of the article, changed date formats from one to another for no reason, and removed links to Australia and Sydney. Know the latter could be argued as common terms however using myself as an example I don't know much about Australia or Sydney being from the US and although I have heard of them, after reading the paragraph I fealt myself compelled to click on the Sydney link, but it was not there. Certainly if these were linked a number of times in the article I would agree with tony and say that one is enough, but to not have them linked at all, to me, is wrong. --Kumioko (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, re Llywrch being "partisan": you need only search the WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM archives to see that he has been at odds with Tony before (they also had a brief debate at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-08/Dispatches, but no fireworks there). Does that make Llywrch less qualified to participate in this discussion? No, but he cannot be labeled a neutral and uninvolved admin in this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that Tony did not reverse the error, even when it was pointed out to him - he deleted my message, and then went off to edit other articles. That's why I came here, to get the problem solved. And, as pointed out, I have never posted on his talk page previously, so this "venting" allegation is a little off-beam. Examples of "venting" on others' talk pages are, as also noted, far more easily found in Tony's recent contributions history. As Tarc, Chris Cunningham and others can attest. Equally, this thread has also had the beneficial effect of shining a little light on the wider issues with scripts, and with Tony's attitude to criticism or queries of his behaviour. Can probably be shut off now though. N-HH talk/edits 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Tony1, yes I'm involved but if I were posting here solely out of "partisan" interest I would have hardly suggested that a friend talk to you & suggest you take a WikiBreak. Your bullying & intimidating posts I alluded to above are a gift to anyone whose primary motivation would be to block you; instead I made a far friendlier suggestion. (And resisted the temptation to call you "buddy boy" -- which offends you for some obscure reason; it must have some offensive connotation in Aussie slang.) The issue is not that there are duplicate or unneeded links in many articles, but how you handle contrary opinions, how you interact with other users. No one is so valuable to Wikipedia that they should be allowed to respond to criticism as tony1 has done. -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is just the opinion of a very partisan user. When a user here talks immediately of blocking me for getting something wrong in a script, and calling edits such as diff 19 "a total mess", that is, indeed, bullying. It may suit you to label my objection to it as bullying, but you are partisan. Kumioko, diff 19 you link to has significantly improved the article, and brings it into compliance with the style guides in three respects: dashes, correct date format, and common-term links. The fact that two links in the See also section were erroneously unlinked is a trivial matter to fix once it's pointed out, not "a total mess". Here, it is being whipped up into hysteria by people who want to smear me. N-HH, I have already explained why I missed your point on my talk page. It has been fixed by someone else in all of the articles (after Vulcan went through and damaged many of the edits). I'd have fixed them myself gladly had I been properly apprised of it rather than presented with a long diatribe on my page. That should have been the end of it. But there will be continuing posts to keep the drama boiling over. Tony (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, Tony, edits such as diff 19 were not a total mess, having 30 other edits around it with the same blessed mistake was the total mess. Running around calling everyone who criticizes your actions "partisan" is bullying. Stop, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  I was bullying you? Please, don't be so melodramatic. I'm not 'partisan', I just object to careless editing with scripts and removing valid links. Fences&Windows 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Was this a bit of a cock up? yes. Is the thing fixed now? I believe it is. Is Tony sufficiently chastened? undoubtedly. We're not well served by speculation whether this might be a politically motivated thread, but it seems to be over and done with. We should move on. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the technical issue resolved? Well, changes were made to the code, although one of the changes does appear to be aimed at simply obscuring the controversial actions. However, we have to ask if the fundamental behavioural issue has been addressed. Given the general tone of Tony1's recent talk page posts, I would suggest it has not. Even today, after all the comments here regarding his attitude from editors who are not involved in the linking discussions, he's still describing people who question his methodology as "extreme". That doesn't strike me as "chastened" in the least. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And the point is not to chasten anyone, it's just to make sure that Tony's scripts don't damage articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So what else should be done? Obviously, "chastening" Tony in this manner seems to have an adverse effect. The scripts have been fixed. If there are further problems, it may be more productive to continue discussions at another venue, such as Tony's talk page, WT:LINKING, or an RFC(/U). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the problem here is not in removing redundant or unneeded links, but in Tony1's inapproriate response to criticism. Such as this post on Chris Cunningham's talk page, where he began to repeatedly make hostile accusations confusing CC with Fences & windows -- despite CC's repeated protests -- until DaBomb87 stepped in to confirm CC's protests that he hadn't said anything Tony1 accused him of. Then there was this exchange with Tarc where Tony1 started ranting when Tarc addressed him in a friendly manner as "buddy boy"; Tony1 responded by accusing him of "rank rudeness" & rhetorically asked if he had read the policy about civility. And then there is this comment to SarekofVulcan, complaining about SoV's "partisan" involvement & failing to retract SoV's statements. He did all of this without any participation from me. While Tony1 has subsesquently apologized to Chris Cunningham & Fences & windows for his comments to them, he has left both Tarc & SarekofVulcan wondering just WTF was up with Tony1, & likely gun-shy over dealing with him again. (And I won't bother mentioning his interaction with Ckatz or N-HH; some might believe his words to them justified.)

So what are our options here? Maybe someone who is a friend to him could explain just how he is his own worst enemy, because AFAICS no one in this thread wants an article to be "a sea of blue links", but he's acted in ways I've linked to which would have resulted with another editor being indefinitely blocked. And if I discover another interaction where he's acted this badly, despite an apparently conflict of interst, I will block him. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I react very badly when I feel I'm being unfairly attacked and bullied: it sharply rekindles the pain and misery I experienced when relentlessly bullied as a child. I usually point out to the person involved that I feel they are being aggressive. Tony (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's as may be, but the case is that you have been the one doing the attacking here and on the talk pages of people who have commented, as well as simply making stuff up. You're still at it, with this post to User:Fences & Windows, which accuses myself and Ckatz of "belly aching" and "holding extreme views". At least you seem to finally have rowed back from the misrepresentation of my views as "wanting to link everything", although only to the extent that you now merely claim I used to think that, but have since been persuaded otherwise, which is equally untrue. You also allege that I "do not accept the rules set out in the style guide". Well actually of course I do - especially the bits that say "think before removing a link—it may be useful to other readers", and which says links to common terms can/should be kept where relevant. You seem to have that issue slightly upside down. That's on top of your previous accusations that I vent on your talk page - when I'd never posted there previously to my attempt to notify you of the outright errors your script had introduced. You know, the note you deleted and ignored, which is why we ended up here, even though it's apparently my fault you chose to delete it.

And, for the record, and as the preceding shows, Tony's attacks on myself and Ckatz are as unjustified as the attacks on everyone else. Again, for the record, if anyone cares to see what happens when Tony comes to my talk with questions or points, they can have a look at the threads here, which do include, yes, the retraction of and an apology for one catty comment, but where the interaction is broadly friendly and my attitude responsive. By contrast, if anyone wants to see unsolicited actual "venting" on a talk page, they can also find it on my talk page, in this section, third comment. Finally, as evidence of my "extreme views" - which mostly consist of asking questions - people can look here, where any discussion of wider linking issues should, as agreed, also now take place, now the out-and-out problem raised here has been dealt with. N-HH talk/edits 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Note It appears that there may be another issue with the delinking script. Tony made a pass through the article Wales here; the changes deleted linked languages (such as Welsh, English, etc) but did not replace them with unlinked text. This left several mangled sentences that had to be manually repaired by myself and another editor. I've left a note for Tony on his talk page, but I'm not aware if he is still online at this time. Given the fact that this script is accessed by several other editors, it might be necessary for someone with good scripting skills to check over it to prevent similar problems until Tony responds. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony blocked "indefinitely"; Tony un-blocked (an hour later)

I just blocked him indefinitely, since these uncorrected errors followed so closely on the discussion above. Any admin can unblock without consulting me if they're convinced that he's made changes so that he will not make unreviewed script-assisted edits going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem, given that it appears that Tony1 has run his script again without checking the result - but an indef block against a valued editor for an (admittedly repeated) mistake seems overly harsh. If a block is warranted at all, (which I'm not sure about given that he isn't currently editing, and thus it may not serve any immediate preventative function), surely something shorter would have sufficed? - Bilby (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean indef-as-in-we-don't-want-him-here, I mean indef-until-he-figure-out-how-to-stop-breaking-articles. If that takes an hour, that's fine with me, and a shorter block wouldn't have any point. If, on the other hand, he comes back and says there was nothing wrong with what he did, he needs to be kept from editing a bit longer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, my intention with my post above was to draw attention to the script issue so that someone could review the coding before it introduced additional errors. Would you perhaps consider unblocking Tony for now, given that he's apparently offline, in favour of (say) a one-strike warning and a ban on using the script until it is properly repaired and tested? Perhaps the script itself should also be taken offline now until it is fixed. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion above was sufficient warning, actually. If he wants to commit to not using automated tools as a way to get unblocked, that's fine with me too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, please undo this block now. It's way too harsh for what boils down to a script malfunction. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz's suggestion is a good one. Can the script be disabled and Tony unblocked? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

I also think that unblocking, and temporarily blanking and protecting the script is a much more elegant solution than an full block. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The block wasn;t unjustified, but it seems there's a better way to handle it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for that too. An indef block is likely to lose an editor, while disabling/protecting the script will simply lead to further (hopefully constructive) dialogue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Work's for me as well. It's a more elegant solution. - Bilby (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to try to disable the script myself in case I mess something up. I'm not even sure from looking at his contribs which one it is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SV, I didn't block him for the script malfunction, I blocked for not fixing the script malfunction. Again. If he had fixed the mistake after he made it, there'd be nothing to block for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've undone the block as there seems to be consensus to disable the script instead, and I feel this block needs to be overturned asap before it leads to more problems. I'll leave a note on Tony's page asking him not to use the script again until it's definitely fixed. If there's anyone who knows how to disable it, that would be a big help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please note Tony1 has promised not to use the script "until it is proven by a third party to work faultlessly". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Script disabled

I've disabled the script [37] - but should point out that the script could be run locally, so anything we do here depends on voluntary compliance with not running the malfunctioning script in the first place. –xeno^talk 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case can an admin give him a very clear, beyond dispute message that if he runs the script locally he will be blocked, if he attempts to run the script again without fixing he will be blocks, if he runs a different script that screws up he will be blocked.....or whatever people feel is the appropriate message. Because SarekOfVulcan is right, he ran the script AGAIN, AFTER being advised of the problems and WITHOUT fixing the SNAFU. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems a much better solution to me too. Although I would add - not that it's directly relevant to the introduction of outright error, or to the imposition/lifting of blocks - that an attempt to remove the main substantive link to "Welsh language" on the Wales page, whether done manually or by script, and whether completed cleanly or not, seems remarkably ill-advised. N-HH talk/edits 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SV, I think you acted unwisely. Tony1 has been told by several different individuals that the script was broken & his initial response was paranoid rants at them, not to fix his script. He's not responding to comments, but to his own demons; Wikipedia is not therapy. And if he wants to defend his incivil behavior by citing various childhood injustices, I'll happily match that with my own history of the same ill treatment (as I expect, could many other Wikipedians), but also having lost my mother at the age of 12 & then suffering the injustices inflicted by a toxic & insecure stepmother -- neither of which I have successfully overcome many decades later. Yet despite all of this I manage to either treat other Wikipedians with far more respect than him, or to simply walk away from the dispute. I've walked a mile in his shoes, & I have no sympathy for his poor behavior. To repeat myself, if Tony1 has any friends they need to talk to him or he will be banned from Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, your "if Tony1 has any friends" crack is not a proper way to talk, Llywrch, and is not like you. Please think twice before you hit "save". (Incidentally, Tony has plenty of friends.) Bishonen | talk 22:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC).

A friend would actually help a person & tell them the truth, Bishonen. Not defend them when she/he makes statements that are classic examples of denial that she/he has a problem. And Tony1 at last has admitted that above. I wonder if any of the people who consider him a friend would tell him when he has made a mistake -- or consider that an act of betrayal. -- llywrch (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What a sad sad thread. Increasingly real editors and major contributers on Wikipedia, far from being supported and nurtured, are now driven into the ground. Many "for life" administrators and "wantabe" administrators seem to think that content editors are the real enemy, and should be hunted down. Warring against such editors and blocking them is a sign of administrator virtue and effectiveness. Only administrators as a group now seem to control how administrators behave on Wikipedia. The power imbalance with the real content editors has spiralled out of control, and the administrator has become king. How was this allowed to happen? What real content editors, the ones that are still here, now dare raise their heads above the parapets? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep: make a million brilliant edits and a few lousy ones and you get shot at dawn. Great.  :/ --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we for once avoid having this sort of discussion devolve into an "us versus them" diatribe? I certainly wouldn't want to deny anyone their right to express strong feelings about a block they clearly object to. However, turning it into yet another catfight portraying the poor, embattled editors versus the big, bad admins doesn't help anyone. (In fact, it only serves to deepen the rift.) Admins aren't perfect, that's for certain, and I've no illusions that we have no bad ones in the group. I'm also certain that there are bad content editors, yet that concept seems to be immune from criticism in certain circles. Tony1 isn't "bad", but long-term non-admin editors can screw up just as royally as the long-term admins can, and when it happens we need to address the issue, not just sweep it under the rug. Tony has a long history of positive contributions, for certain. He also has an equally long history of behaving in a dismissive, I'm-right-you're-not manner, pushing and pushing to get what he wants. The former is great for the project, the latter is not. In this situation, he made mistakes with the script, reacted badly when called on it, and then screwed up again. We need to address that attitude; if the block was in error, we should address that as well, but we certainly cannot ignore the issue that brought us here in the first place. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Tony's script, Llywrch. It is in the userspace of GregU (talk · contribs) so that editor should fix it, not Tony --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing the delinking script, as far as I can tell, and that is Tony's. (The "common terms" one.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry I was looking at the wrong edit summary when I posted the above. Still, indef was crazy: a 24 hour block would have been more reasonable, IMO. The problem with Tony is indeed that he often gets the bit between his teeth then runs with it, everyone else be damned. You don't deal with that by locking the horse up until it promises to behave: you engage with it and try to work around the problem together. I have had serious disagreements with Tony in the past but have always been able to talk to him and work with him until we find the way forward together. Not sure anyone really tried that here --Jubilee♫clipman 01:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Problem. I have a major problem with script disabling being effected as a result of an AN/I brought vis-a-vis issues (of disputed significance and merit) with regard to one editor. First of all -- this is the wrong forum for such a discussion (and, arguably, for the discussion w/regard to the editor). Both issues, and without doubt the "should we disable the script" issue, are properly discussed on the wp:link page. I see there has been some measure of discussion there, without consensus support being expressed for nom's position (and, I might add, I have respect for nom, as well as editors on both sides of this issue -- I believe that many of them are among our best). I think that places nom's raising the same issue here, after he failed to garner consensus support at wp:link, in the category of forum shopping.

  Even more serious, in its impact on the project, is the disabling of the script as a result of some editors' non-consensus concerns about the use of the script by one editor. Concerns that failed to gain consensus support when they were raised in the proper place. That the issue should now be forum-shopped here, and this action taken against the script itself, is inappropriately broad in that it severely impedes the use of the script by other editors to better the project. Note -- I use the script, and have for some time. In all that time I've only once had an editor complain of my use of it. And that editor failed to garner consensus support for his position (when he, properly, brought it to wp:link).

  I urge an immediate restoration of the script. I urge further that this discussion be moved off these pages, and over to the wp:link pages, where it properly belonged in the first place, unless editors feel that the conversation that has taken place there, over some weeks, has already adequately addressed the issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues - whether or not removing the links is appropriate, and what to do with a malfunctioning script. The former is, as you say, an issue for discussion on WP:Link. The latter is of more immediate concern, especially if the script is being used by other editors, and thus is probably best handled here. I'd be against (and I suspect from his comments below that Tony1 would be against this as well) restoring the script before the current bugs have been fixed. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Epeefleche, if you think I am forum shopping, you haven't read my original post, or my subsequent comments. If you don't see why the script has been put on ice, then you haven't looked at the history of what happened properly. And if you're not aware why the thread then became as much about Tony's behaviour, then you haven't been reading what he's posted here and on people's talk pages in the last couple of days. Including his repeated accusations, only a few hours ago, that this is some kind of "political stunt". I'm not going to clog up this thread by repeating all of it, or rebutting any of it all over again. N-HH talk/edits 05:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tony promised not to use the script again until somebody else has tried it. He has been making changes to the script, which need to be tested. How on earth is that going to happen if the script has been knobbled??? Having said that, it seems he's not importing that script, so the disabling is pointless anyway, if the objective is to stop him from using it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• I'll also say that if the script isn't re-enabled, I intend to copy I have already copied it over to my userspace for those who wish to use it. I think not all presently assembled are in rational mode - there's just too much adrenaline swooshing around right now. We need to isolate the problem to deal with it effectively. It's not a threat, as I would at least like to give the opportunity to others who feel more comfortable in using it to do so, and give feedback if they can. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the script was effectively production code, and thus it was being employed by people even though it had significant bugs. To fix it you take the production version off-line, (which was done), debug a development version, then put the new version back into production. Disabling the production code doesn't stop someone from fixing it, while mirroring code with known faults so that people can use it doesn't help fix the problem. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Bilby, that the issue of whether or not to remove links is appropriate is not an issue for this page (especially when it has been discussed for weeks on wp:link, the proper forum). I don't agree that the issue of what to do with a malfunctioning script which as you point out is of more immediate concern is best handled here. This is an administrator noticeboard for conflict situations, last I checked -- not a technical page for discussions on production code/bugs/development version debug. Methinks.

  The first issue should be turned around w/a pat on the back and sent back to the proper pew. The second issue no doubt has a home that is also other than on this page. In any event, I think its time to close this over-long thread, the total content of which I believe belongs elsewhere, to allow editors to focus on the true AN/I issues that remain on this page. (You know, such as the thread/complaint immediately below this one, where one editor -- who uses ALL CAPS on his user page, is taking another editor to task for ... you guessed it ... using ALL CAPS. Now, that's the sort of issue that I believe belongs on this page, and which we should all turn to).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No one was trying to resolve the wider linking issue here. And if you're still suggesting that I brought this to ANI to review that issue, then I can only advise you again to actually go and read what I've said from the outset. I accept that following everything here, in what you correctly point out is an overlong thread, might be a bit much, but please just spare two seconds to do the above before talking about "sending things back" with "pats on the back". I came here because an editor's script was causing multiple manifest errors on multiple pages, and they were ignoring and deleting attempts to bring it to their attention, using the edit summary "dead end". That seems pretty ANI-worthy to me, especially when they started causing yet more errors in the middle of it all. N-HH talk/edits 15:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't do alternate accounts; I don't see the point for running a script. I will not use it for the time being. I find most of the thread, and Vulcan's indefinite block, just disgusting. It is almost entirely a polical stunt by two users, which has spiralled out of control. In particular, I find Illywrch's comments to be utterly nasty and unbecoming of an admin. Tony (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite block? What?!? Does the blocking admin think Tony just enjoyed leaving things fouled up or threw caution to the wind and could care less? The silver lining in the cloud here is that someone’s block log should be taken with a grain of salt. that shows an indefinite block followed by a reversal an hour or two later is a badge of honor. Congratulations Tony; you ran out across the field to try to accomplish something with a new, powerful, experimental tool that wouldn’t work quite right and took one in the ass. Like the previous incident, this bullet was easily and quickly removed with tweezers. Greg L (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be too drama queen-ish here; indefinite does not mean infinite, it just means that access is removed until the issue is settled, rather than pinned to a definitive time. Block logs are neither badges or honor nor scarlet letters. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what Tarc said. An indefinite block can run from a few minutes to... well, forever. Blocking someone for a set period, like 24 hours, can imply it is being done as a punishment. -- llywrch (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. Why block Tony for a day, or a week, when the issue could be resolved in under 12 hours?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear. Except ... it's not quite right. Any block -- 1 hour, 1 year, indefinite -- can be terminated by an unblock. That's a characteristic they all share. The only difference among them is when the block terminates by its terms. And on that score, the 1 year block is more punitive than the 1 hour block. And the indefinite block is ... yep, you guessed it.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And on behalf of all my close friends who are queens, who are women, and who are drama queens, I suspect that it might be a nice touch if Tarc found some more pleasant term to describe other editors. I don't think the fact that GregL just happens to be a drag queen is pertinent to the issue at hand, especially when his point reflects the facts far more accurately than did Tarc's, as I just pointed out.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I have no strong opinion on the wider issues at play here; I disabled the script mostly on request from SlimVirgin, but also because I agree that a script that is still in development with code errors should not be made available for users who may not be aware of the same. I note that at least one user has forked this script to their own userspace, which is OK - as long as they be sure to check the script's changes thoroughly to ensure that the edit stands on its own feet and of course, properly attribute the original author of the script in the edit summary when they fork it. If and when Tony fixes the script (and probably should resolve the wider issues too), I have no issue with it being re-enabled. The script is but a tool, it is the editor who is responsible for what it does. –xeno^talk 15:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarfication. I will run through the script section by section when I have some time, probably during the course of the next week. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Separate account and some musings

We ask that people running bots generally do it from a separate account. Significant automated editing often is included in that.

At the least, it would seem to be appropriate for Tony1 to do so, so that if there are ongoing problems again the response to that can be separated out from personal interactions.

We generally ask that those doing bot or automated activity do so with a high degree of care and with a high degree of sensitivity to problems they may cause. People have been blocked and desysadminned in the past for behavior or attitude problems related to bot and automated activity. WP:NOTTHERAPY applies triple to bot operators and highly automated editors... We appreciate the effort, but the bots / automated edits aren't in a vacuum, they're in a community full of other editors, and not engaging constructively with the community, concerns, and consensus is a very serious problem.

Tony1, I don't think there's need for additional sanctions or warnings or anything else at this time. The separate account would be wise for your and our protection. You might want to reconsider whether you want to do this automated editing if you respond in this manner to criticism of it. That's not at all a negative comment on your interest in the project or your efforts - but if your automated editing causes more problems than it solves, it's not doing you or the project any good.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A separate account is a good idea --Jubilee♫clipman 01:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, bots and scripts are entirely different creatures. And as far as I am aware, we have no such suggestion with regard to scripts. Nor would one make sense IMHO. I use a script generally when I am editing an article. Why in the world should I be forced to log out, log into a new account, run the script, log out, and log in again to continue editing. A huge waste of time, with zero benefit. With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no experience and little knowledge of bots: I run a Mac, and Mac users are shut out of these AWB things. Scripts require human oversight, and on these occasions I have erred in not scrutinising the diffs carefully enough; in the case of "Wales", very late at night and tired. It was a silly oversight, but on a single article, and in good faith. Thanks to Ckatz et al., who leaped in to fix the errors.

Nevertheless, automation is a very small part of article treatment, for me (per Epeefleche's comment above). Manual unlinking of silly links that ruin our wikilinking system, such as "sheep" and "gold" in Wales, and the improvement of link pipes, is the key, and is difficult or impossible to do automatically. The script contains chronically overlinked items in popular entertainment articles that I got sick of seeing again and again and again (like ... "divorce"). The relevant WikiProjects where I've discussed this seem to be quite on-board. Naturally, it can't be applied to sociological articles that might contain a reasonable link to divorce.

I still don't like the idea of a separate account for anything. Call me old-fashioned, but I would rather be responsible for everything I do. And while on that matter, I would rather fix any problems I cause in articles, but time-zones and hysteria prevented that on this occasion.

I am stunned and burned by the herd attacks above. They were destructive and mean, and show that AN/I easily becomes dysfunctional when administrators and other editors use the page to attack, make personal comments, and contribute to a snowball effect—this, rather than to solve the issue, which could have been done in a few paragraphs. It is unconscionable that this page should be a dynamic venue for exactly what was subsequently complained of. The initial threat to block was totally out proportion, and yes, I took offence; subsequent threats were over the top, and are the opposite reaction to what is required. I can't imagine what goes on in other threads on this page if it spins out of control so easily. All this for a technical error and disregarding an enormous post on my talk page with an extremely negative title from one of the two editors who have disagreed with an aspect of common-term unlinking—again, late at night—was the start of it all. Then an indefinite block from an editor who himself had damaged some of the articles that were the subject of the thread. It is demeaning and robs a user of their dignity: I am responsible, reasonable, considerate, but that is destroyed when I feel so unreasonably under attack by a squad. Perhaps administrators have become so used to dealing with sociopaths and schoolboy vandals that they have lost the ability to empathise: that is essential in dealing with such issues. Threats and admin actions need to be measured and in proportion to the context, and in this case were not. Please re-think the attack-squad frame. Tony (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. A link to the sheep page from Wales seems rather appropriate to these eyes .. N-HH talk/edits 15:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ps: my original note to you about the errors was not "enormous" Tony. Two bullet pointed, short paragraphs. Which, as you suggest, should have been enough to solve the immmediate issue.

Tony, clearly you have an ongoing issue with some editors here, but making it out that you are facing 'herd attacks', that AN/I is 'dysfunctional', that the 'hysteria' of the community prevented you from fixing it and that administrators attack you (WP:BATTLEGROUND) because they are too used to dealing with 'sociopaths' is massively over the top - please consider cutting down on the melodrama. If you are going to be making edits using a semi-automatic scripts on such a huge scale, you need to take more care with it, or you should expect people to get annoyed with you. And then you continued to make faulty edits while that topic and script were under discussion here? The block may have been unecessary, but it wasn't wrong - what were you expecting to happen? Fix the script and get someone to check it before just going back to what you were doing.

Epeefleche, with all due respect, your comment implies you don't have significant knowledge of either scripts or bots. A JavaScript script can easily be a bot - if you type in a word and it automatically delinks it on hundreds of articles, that's automatic editing (I haven't checked what this one actually does). Likewise, if you type in a word, and it loads each page and gives you the option to delink, but you don't bother checking the the diff before clicking to remove it, that's taking semi-automated editing too far, is essentially automatic, and you can be blocked or the script disabled (if you don't check your edits in AWB, for example, you'll probably lose rights to that).

Sheesh people. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You just put your finger on it: "if you don't check your edits in AWB, for example, you'll probably lose rights to that. I.e., you lose the right to use the script first, then if you circumvent the ban on using the script you get blocked. I was indeed thinking of AWB when I said separate accounts would be a good idea. I can understand the objections to separate accounts, however, and using them must remain the editors choice, IMO. Scripts and bot are different: a script is operated live, a bot is left to run on its own. BTW, either the above is the release of massively pent up tension or this is "Gang Up On Tony Day". Tony's answers perhaps aren't always helpful but there does seem to be a lot of baiting and lack of faith from other editors in the above multiple threads. Anyway, perhaps it is now time to move on now that Tony has agreed not to use the script until he has word that it is bug free? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for using Wikipedia to be social. I mentioned Tony's edits last night. The guy is a badass and has done some good stuff here. He screwed up. It happens. Drop it already.Cptnono (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fragma08 reformatting talk page posts

On the talk page at Talk:Frances Farmer, this user has persistently reformatted the title of a sub-section which was posted to address a claim the editor made that was false. Throughout the discussion on that page, User:Fragma08 has also persistently claimed that the 3 editors responding were incivil and were making personal attacks, where in fact the opposite was true. He was blocked twice for comments he made on that page, including once here for posting "You clearly have psychological issues." while parroting back a post I made, in what appeared a mocking manner. That block was for 24 hours. He came back and the very first edit he made to the talk page removed the section title and his post included a personal attack on one of the other editors here where he said "your obsession with me/my username now forming parts of titles (?) relating to a discussion on Farmer already covered above is disturbing and unhealthy". The editor simply addressed a post to the user. He was again blocked for his attack [38], this time for 72 hours. The reformat was reverted. The first post he made when he returned from his second block was to reformat the section title again, saying "Be neutral and this discussion has already been covered above. No need to create new titles to single out or excessive linking to editors. This is a talkpage, not ANI or personal talkpages." The discussion in that section regarded a post he made, there is no non-neutrality, no new titles were created in response to his conduct, although it was about a claim he made. It was reverted. He once again changed the section title, claiming "Again, this discussion is already covered above, so stop with additional titles to single out/link to editors. The talkpage is for the article and must be neutral in content and heading. Stop reverting." I was unaware that pointing out a false statement was singling anyone out unnecessarily, or that stating it was false is non-neutral. The conduct of this editor during "neutral discussion" has been completely outrageous and refactoring someone else's post is a continuation of that. He is also quite contentious in his edit summaries when removing warning templates from his talk page: This one for not assuming good faith was just removed, this one was in regard to the personal attack for which he was blocked the first time, he removed it saying "removed nonsense warning tag from incivil Wildhartlivie - Not welcome on my talk page. Stay out!", and this one regarded his refactoring talk page posts as I've reported above, was removed with the edit summary of "removing crap". He comments to an administrator here, when invited to appeal to get the block overturned, stating "No point, as I realize, some users are protected and have a carte blanche to act anyway they like including breach of established policies. I naively assumed policies applied to all without bias." and in the edit summary said "Pointless in face of clear bias and discrimination in appl. WP". The conduct of this editor is untenable and contentious. It clearly deteriorated with each post to the Farmer talk page and has carried onward. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I know that you can remove edit warnings since it implies that you have read them but I'm unsure about block notice removal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

From WP:OWNTALK:

"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users."

I believe that means the block template (a warning/notification) can be removed, and such removal is evidence of the user understanding the block. N419BH 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My complaint isn't about his removing things from his talk page, although the way in which he has done it carries over from his conduct on the article talk page. I posted the diffs and edit summaries to illustrate the conduct of this user. My complaint is that he keeps changing a subheading on Talk:Frances Farmer, which he came back from two blocks in a row to reformat. His conduct has been atrocious, though, and no one "changed" the article talk page post except Fragma08, where he is apparently trying to hide his misconduct by changing the subtitle. He's done this repeatedly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Pagemonster18

Pagemonster18 was blocked in January 2010 for "repeated addition of unsourced information" by Kurt Shaped Box. After the block expired, Pagemonster18 received two warnings for adding unsourced materials in February 2010. In June 2010, Pagemonster18 has added unsourced materials that were reverted by other editors: Justin Bieber [link], Logan Lerman [link], Liam O'Brien [link], Negima! Magister Negi Magi [link], and Spider-Man (film series) [link]. Can you please investigate? Thanks, Davtra (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user. Please remember to substitute the template {{ANI-notice}} on the talk page of those you mention here. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. You were very quick. Davtra (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Having not being particularly active on WP recently, I hadn't noticed that Pagemonster18 was continuing to play 'fantasy casting' and add extremely dubious fan speculation (almost to the level of fanfiction) across a wide range of articles (his usertalk too). Had I been aware, I'd more than likely have blocked him/her indefinitely by now, as to be brutally honest, he/she seems to fail to grasp the concept of what this site is actually for and shows little sign ever of wising up and editing constructively. Regardless of whether action is taken against Pagemonster18, I'd recommend that every single edit he/she has ever made be scrutinised for accuracy by someone familiar with the subject matter in question... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An update, Pagemonster18 continued to add unsourced materials after this notice was posted. Two of Pagemonster18's contributions were reverted: Mark Hamill [link], and Willa Holland [link]. Davtra (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

I looked through all of Pagemonster18's contributions in May 2010. For your information, Pagemonster18 was first warned about adding unsourced materials in August 2009. Most of the contributions were reverted for adding unsourced data from 4 May 2010 to 28 May 2010: Rain (entertainer) link, Cameron Richardson link, Chris Pine link, Ashley Greene link, Transformers: War for Cybertron link, Adam Sandler link, Aaron Eckhart link, Katie Leung link, Clarisse La Rue link, Ben 10: Ultimate Alien link, Lindsey Shaw link, List of Naruto antagonists link, Jetfire link, Debby Ryan link, Josh Keaton link, The Super Hero Squad Show link. I don't have confidence in Pagemonster18's contributions. Pagemonster18 doesn't even question why his/her contributions were reverted. I don't think the message is getting across. Davtra (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Yes, I'm very close to indef blocking already. I've noted on their talk page that the next time they add unverifiable casting notes to Wikipedia they will be indef blocked. Fences&Windows 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Abd r Raheem al Haq

Resolved

_{Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Qur'an alone S.G.^(GH) ping! 14:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)}

The User:Abd r Raheem al Haq is destroying the Qur'an alone by claiming that Quranists DO accept some hadith which is false as you can see from the edit summary and edit here. This notion is absolutely false and i have complained about him 4 days ago as well here.

You dont have to be familiar with this topic, you only need to look at the title of this group. Quran ALONE. What does 'alone' mean? The very purpose of this group is hostility against hadith. Abd r raheems claim is the same as saying an anti-semetic group loves jews.

Do you see my point? I have warned him already, and so have others, so i hope a warning or a temporary block is in order. His false edits are persistent and some of us don't have the time to clean up after him all the time. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Or sign their posts ;) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This revision appears to use this page as its reference for the contentious area of the article, whereas Abd r Raheem al Haq's version does not contain a reference (though this alone is not unequivocal proof of wrong-doing). Is that site a reliable source? I can't work out who has written it. A better one could surely be found, a printed one. For example. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise when the article states that that page is a suitable, unbiased source, it is referencing itself. Toyota claim on their page to produce the best cars but that doesn't make it so. I will remove the section as an attempt to promote the use of that source in the article as acceptable. And I will move this to the content dispute page and remind all users to take care when chucking around accusations of vandalism. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider this resolved at all to be fair. Given that I've not even been asked to respond to the accusations made about me. If you look at Bazm-e-Tolu-e-Islam, within the article itself, it correctly states that Tolu-e-Islam do use hadith and are not anti-hadith as Iwanttoeditthissh wants to have the article imply. The defining characteristic that sets a Quranist apart from the orthodox Muslim is their rejection of the need to interpret the Quran by reference to the Hadith. Some Quranists. like myself, reject the Hadith outright, that's true, but many do not. Many accept the authenticity of the Hadith, I don't know why, but that's not a matter for Wikipedia. Iwanttoeditthissh has a some familiarity with one particular strand of Quranist Islam, the somewhat fringe 19ers, and tries to present the article from their point of view. He makes offensive comments on my talk page and pretty much everywhere else.

The article now has that link restored, so we're now, once again, stuck with the virtually incoherent;

Quranists do not necessarily reject the authenticity of all hadiths, however, they never accept the authority of such hadiths, asserting that the Quran is sufficient and as such should solely be used.

The English is appalling or plain wrong, hadith is a plural, "He knew many hadith.", there is no 'hadiths', but without being pedantic, there is still the fact that at no point does the document cited actually make anything resembling the claim we've derived this horrid English from. It is in fact the preface to The Message, A Translation of the Glorious Qur`an, hosted by free-minds.org. It is a link to a Quranist, English translation of the Quran, it is not even a citation. I will take the liberty of reverting this hasty edit. I'll be happy to see it improved, but to just delete my improvements without even giving me a day to respond is unacceptable. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for SPI

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XJRfoBY is created. Any further comments should be directed there. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody please start a SPI on XJRfoBY (talk · contribs) aka TheTacoKing96 (talk · contribs)? As an IP editor, I'm unable to do so but the evidence is pretty solid. Both are single purpose accounts focused on promoting Mark Kirk and/or negativizing (is that a word?) the article of Kirk's political oppenent, Alexi Giannoulias. There are no concurrent edits, with each having a distinct block of time in which the other did not edit. (XJRfoBY 17:06 - 18:41; TheTacoKing96 18:49 - 18:54; XJRfoBY 18:59 - 19:06; TheTacoKing961 9:13 - 19:16; XJRfoBY 20:16 - 20:37; TheTacoKing96 20:40 - 20:50) Both have the habit of not signing their talk page posts, and both have a similar style of edit summaries. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why not open an account, and (as a non-IP), seek it yourself? Might be better, as you could then follow it and answer any questions as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Are you sure that an account is necessary to initiate an SPI and/or Checkuser request? I notice that the SPI pages are not semi-protected, and I see no reason why an IP shouldn't be allowed to initiate the request and/or provide evidence in the investigation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• There still needs to be a SPI page created, which I have done, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XJRfoBY. N/A0 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And you even informed the editors in question - above and beyond. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

IP editors are generally unable to create new pages (except for talk pages). Once the page exists I am able to freely edit and comment. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Reply at GiftigerWunsch: IPs cannot create pages, so they would be unable to create the SPI page to initiate the request.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply at Epeefleche: That would be what I would recommend, but I have two comments about that point:

1. Some IPs do not wish to create an account.
2. Some users may not know how to create an SPI.

Since an SPI has been created, you can edit that page, 69.181.249.92. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I think this can be safely marked as resolved now since the investigation has been launched as requested. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Help at WP:RFPP

If someone has a few minutes can they please pop on over to WP:RFPP, there are a few cases at the top in desperate need to attention. Top two are BLPs currently in the middle of a huge edit war between SPAs and IPs. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlogged

Resolved

 – Backlog has been cleared. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

...is in desperate need of Admin attention. IP 68.7.241.68 is not going to block himself, and another IP is leaving notes there that may be genuine or may be attempts to frustrate justice, as it were. -Rrius (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any Admins awake? There are 13 vandals in the queue. -Rrius (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Saturday night, lots of parties to attend. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So being an admin and having a life are not mutually exclusive? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed the header....gets their attention faster. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying, most admins are at the party and it's impressive that some can use their 5g iphones to phone in updates. Perks are perks. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a requirement that you hand over your personal life at the front desk when you receive your admin-badge? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins are knocking down the backlog now. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You get an iphone with adminship. Whatever generation it is, so 4g + 1, that's what you get. ALL RUMORS of course... Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs still more help. I'm off now.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Avargas2001

Resolved

 – User has been blocked (without the ability to edit his talk page) for 1 week. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This user is currently engaged in creating some serious POV violations at Falkland colony and Matilde Malvina Vernet. The first is a POV fork of Falkland Islands, the second a recreation of material previously deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Matilde Malvina Vernet (a not-blindingly-obvious hoax). Both have been deleted before, the second at AFD.

User has repeatedly accused editors of being "racist pigs" [39][40][41][42] and has deleted speedy deletion templates four times in the last hour [43] [44] [45] [46], having been blocked twice before for similar behaviour. User has received final warnings and continued problematic behaviour afterward.

I suggest he be given a longer block (the last was a week) and that these two article names be salted.

Since he has been blanking his talk page, I note that I am now notifying the user of this discussion here. Pfainuk talk 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

you guys contribute none and delete my post i am now sure it's a racist group because you guys post lies over falkland wich is a patch of land occupied illegally by britush pirats you do what you want i do not care to read wekepedia anymore since everything is edited to defend the white race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avargas2001 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User blocked for another week for WP:DE, WP:NPA (see "racist pig" comments on that article talk page) derogatory race-orientated comments, and general misguided POV-pushing nonsense. I have kept it as a week for now but would not object to an indef or longer block. I have followed the contribs around and I think I've got everything. Both articles have only had to be deleted twice now, I don't think they need salting myself - it is hardly much effort and we can always reconsider. I expect that, at the very least, the user should be told that resumption of this silliness on return from block will result in indef without warning. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Pfainuk talk 11:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've only taken a cursory glance at the evidence, but I believe the action was appropriate SSGH. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll go for that - though I will note that he has now replace the block notice on his talk page with the same kinds of personal attacks as before. Pfainuk talk 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've locked his talkpage for the duration of the block and directed him to the email unblock route. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as resolved unless there are any objections, since the matter has been dealt with. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEAT & WP:NPA violations by User:Jean-Jacques Georges

(I do apologize for bothering you fellas with this after the above thread, but I should like the matter formally addressed.)

• User:Jean-Jacques Georges has endeavored to recruit his personal WP:MEAT "army", trying to enlist User:Theirrulez [47], User:Sir Floyd [48], and perhaps others I am unaware of.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Theirrulez, and Theirrulez's reply "About your plan" on User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges.
  • Note User:Jean-Jacques Georges' "Yugoslavia articles" thread on User talk:Sir Floyd.

• In addition to this, User:Jean-Jacques Georges appears convinced that he is allowed to game the system and throw all manner of insults at whole groups of people simply by avoiding to name them explicitly.
  • during the first (Jean-Jacques Georges/Theirrulez) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)". Going on to say "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins." (These comments refer to the Josip Broz Tito article and should be viewed in the context of the recent discussion on Talk:Josip Broz Tito.) The (recently blocked) User:Theirrulez replies with "Tito's fanboys (I can't stop laughing when I read this definition :D) preside the article, raving something about consensus".
  • during the second (Jean-Jacques Georges/Sir Floyd) discourse, User:Jean-Jacques Georges refers to others and myself as "a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)", going on to say "My personal opinion is also that some users (...) should not be allowed to participate at all".

In my experience this certainly seems actionable, so I warned the user on his talk pointing out policy [49]. He promptly took offense, deleted the warning, ordering me not to post on his talkpage in the future [50], and reported me here [51] (in an apparent attempt to post a classic "preemptive report"), and then simply resumed the activities [52]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I should be much obliged if someone notifies the user that he has been reported, as he has just ordered me not to post on his talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You do know how to make enemies, do you ? This is utterly absurd. The fact that several users have (in the first place) contacted me about current issues being debated, and that I have answered them and suggested that they give their opinions on the various project pages has nothing to do with such puerile accusations.

"Recruiting his own meat army".... This is simply pathetic. Words fail to describe the sheer absurdity of this claim. I have seen a lot of hostility and bad faith on wikipedia but this one definitely takes the cake.

I do not know Theirrulez and Sir Floyd. They wrote me a message, I answered them. End of the story. We seem to be in accordance regarding some issues, but that's it. I have no idea of their personal opinions on more global matters.

And indeed, many "Yugoslav" articles are in a deplorable condition and woefully biased. May I add that I have not read their respective revision histories and have, for the most, part, no idea who wrote them ? Why, oh why, does Direktor feels targeted ? If I am not mistaken, he never edited this or this or this (all insufficient articles, that have nothing whatsoever to do with him).

As for Theirrulez being "recently blocked", may I add that Direktor was also "recently blocked" ? (not that I care at all).

More bad faith from Direktor : the link he provides to "prove" that I "simply resumed the activities" ([53] : does he mean that I have resumed hostile activities against him ?) is simply a correction on a message that I had left earlier on Sir Floyd's page. A grammatical correction. The message was written, as far as I can remember, prior to the pathetic exchange that I had with Direktor.

Moreover, he (deliberately ?) misquotes me : the exact sentences are "A great deal of them look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side)" and "the article looks like it was written by a professional (but clumsy) POV-pusher of profound incompetence (or several of these)." Meaning : these articles are bad, they look like they were written by one or several pov-pushers. Which is what I think.

Indeed, I order Direktor not to post on my talk page in the future. I find this user's attitude unbearable and his arrogance wearisome. What he does here proves further his aggressive intentions towards me. I have no interest whatsoever in any contact or exchange with this user - occasional project pages excluded, of course - and hope this wish will be respected in the future. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As I see, JJG talks in general, not acusing any particular editors, but you seem to feel identified with the description he does on a particular way of editing. Perhaps you are acknolledging your own actions on his words... FkpCascais (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's called gaming the system, Fkp. In the given context it is perfectly clear who he was referring to with these obscenities. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. I was referring to several, possible, undeterminated people, as probable culprits for the deplorable state of the articles. If anything, I insulted the articles, which are indeed bad and which, by definition, have much more than one "author". And, also, you misquoted me (see above) in order to make what I say appear more agressive. If you feel targeted and insulted, that is your problem. If you feel the need to fuel our mutual hostility, that is also your problem. Now I consider that this absurd exchange should simply end, for I have no interest whatsoever in it. I think we should simply leave it at that, and simply abstain from talking to each other in the future. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? These "cretins" then, when did you "debate pointlessly" with them? Please. Despite your apparent assumption to the contrary, people are not stupid. Either way, the posts are there and they're reasonably brief, leave it to the admins to have a quick look at your two threads and make a decision. Appalling behavior, completely unprovoked in any way... I honestly did not expect such animosity from you JJG. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Citing you: "Appalling behavior, completely unprovoked in any way" , you must be joking, right? Anyway, you seem to have adopted the tactic of making allways a counter-report any time someone reports you (you did that with me several times), even if necessary to go around looking digging old discussions, just to find some reason. What you are reporting here has been your usual behavior for months. In some discussions we had, you made me go trouth some old archives of talk pages, where I found many interesting stuff about you. Then you and those users just begin doing less that on eachothers talk pages, probably because you found out that is way better to make those comments via e-mail. But you still can´t resist making them as you recently did with LAz21 on eachother talkpages about me. To be honest, I think you just hate to see that you were caught in what you were doing and the worste is that many users became aware of it and started talking with eachother. It really is not their fault and as you already admited, you are starting to be quite famous around, but don´t get too excited about it, because you´re becoming famous for the bad reasons. Even I receved several several anonim congratulations (as seen on my talk page) because I stood up to your behavior, from people that just gave up because, from I understood, they simply don´t want to participate in discussions that include you. The complains on you are numerous, and honestly beleave that you are doing much harm to WP. The problem is not what you defend, but how you do it. You can even be right in some cases (I had real dificulties to find even one edit war or discussion where you were completely right), but all this complains are certainly not all wrong. You should/could really try to change and I definitely hate to see excellent WP contributors like JJG (even you admited that) to think to abandon the WP project because they have no patience neither wish to deal with you. WP is a wanderfull place that allows everybody to be part of an encyclopedia. It is hard to understand that you just prefer to spend most of the time here the way you do. FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the Gunpowder Plot done in Pantomime. We are at the point where the "doubtful swords" are exchanged for bladders and the participants beat each other about the head and neck. I would have hoped that these participants had learned something from the Draža Mihailović mediation by now, but sadly, no. Some good faith would be a boon, as would sticking to content, not the contributor. Would all concerned be willing to try focussing on content once more? Sunray (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That it may be, but JJG is behaving rather inappropriately, to say the least, in an area that should be regulated by the ARBMAC restriction. Let's look at some of what DIREKTOR has had to face in the last few days: "Glad to see I'm not the only one who finds Direktor's agressivity and arrogance to be unbearable". [54]; "unless one is a hyper-sensitive Tito fanboy". [55]; "labeling him a traitor... is stupid to say the least" [56]; "Yugoslav articles look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV pushers" [57]; "There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins".[58];"IMHO, it is useless to argue endlessly with Direktor, or even to discuss with him at all. Sources should be provided if there are some. That's it. And as for the "encyclopedic" nature of the word "regime", his arguments are absurd". [59]; "Direktor, you don't make sense. IMHO, you never do". [60]; "I seriously doubt that you have any knowledge at all besides a few pages glimpsed on google books". [61]; "No, I'd prefer that you stop contributing entirely to wikipedia, but I suppose it's useless to wait for miracles". [62]. Nobody should have to tolerate this sustained campaign of personal abuse. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Alasdair, I agree that there have been inappropriate statements made. And there are different styles too: Voluble vs. acerbic. But really, is it worse to make oblique comments about "insane trolls" or to accuse someone of "meatpuppetry? I have no idea. What amazes me is the seemingly infinite capacity of participants to be outraged by each other's comments. As Shimeru observed in the previous outburst on this page, these are "tiresome nationalism-inspired conflicts." One might only hope that the players will begin to lighten up. Sunray (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Accuse someone of meatpuppetry"? Sunray, if those posts of JJG's are not WP:CANVASSING, we need a new definition.

Say rather: "Is it worse to make oblique comments about 'insane trolls', or to canvass users to sway consensus? I have no idea." Apparently this will all go down under "crazy Balkans badlands nonsense", and the insults and recruitment will be ignored once more. I mean seriously, (over-)neutrality is one thing, but ignoring these wikicliques only makes things far worse when their "plans" come to fruition... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He plans to make a revision of some other articles. Nothing "obscure" as you pretend to make it look. On the other hand, you have been receving many support and help from other users, [63], so what? Prpa? FkpCascais (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Direktor: You seem to be conflating the terms "meatpuppetry" and canvassing. There is a quantum difference between the two. Canvassing is contrary to a behavioral guideline; meatpuppetry is an offense governed by policy. The policy, WP:MEAT, states: "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. Accusing someone of "meatpuppetry" is akin to calling someone a "troll." Both may easily be seen as personal attacks. Would you be willing to take responsibility for your own behavior now? Sunray (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see the basis for this report. The comments by JJG were about how to go about finding sources to improve some articles he thought were non-neutral and poorly sourced, they don't look like canvassing or recruiting 'meatpuppets' (how can established editors suddenly become someone's meatpuppet?). His comments about "POV trolls" were maybe unwise, but were directed towards hypothetical editors; I think we're all aware that POV edit warriors and trolls do abound in areas of nationalist disputes and DIREKTOR shouldn't assume that such a characterisation was meant to personally apply to him or any other established editor. DIREKTOR's post on JJG's talk page was pretty confrontational, I'm not surprised JJG removed it - it was dispute escalation, not dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Persistent date changes to cartoon articles -- Needs some attention

This IP (110.54.137.133) has deliberately changed dates to incorrect values, mostly air dates, on cartoon articles since March of this year. Most of those went unnoticed, although almost all were eventually fixed by regular editors. The IP has been warned, and received a 1 week block a little while back. This has only continued. Almost all of their edits are of this variety (a few early on appeared to be legitimate). There is never an explanation or source provided and the user's never engaged in dialogue.

Just to ensure that these are actual errors, I spot checked a few, and those examples follow.

• I Am Weasel IMBD source, diff similar
• List of Johnny Bravo episodes IMDB source diff
• Evil Con Carne source diff (Note that the IP changed the date for the end to match IMDB (the start date does not match IMDB) but IMDB doesn't list the last episode--the Dec 31 date had been there since early 2008 with this addition, and was changed by another IP (187.171.8.1), although it remained in the same month (that other IP might warrant investigating, but it's from a different geographical area))
• Mister Magoo's Christmas Carol Date source diff (VHS tapes in 1984 were pretty expensive, hard to imagine a children's video coming out like that)

As for the early on edits, this edit was in fact correct. It was originally correct in the article but had persisted for a long time due to this edit by a [geographically unrelated] IP [64]. This was early, so I don't know if it was a legitimate correction or just a random change that got it right.

Keep in mind, although I'm using IMDB as a source, these changed long-established dates on here. If this editor's on a crusade to fix erroneous IMDB dates, they haven't said as much or provided any evidence.

I looked for other IP ranges a little bit, but not extensively. The editing history speaks for itself, and the occurrence of some correct changes is odd, but given the absolute lack of communication, these issues have gone on long enough. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Am I in the right place with this? I figured it's not "active" enough to be at WP:AIV, and Long term abuse is not a notice board. Should it be at WP:AN instead? I'm surprised nobody has responded. Shadowjams (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP for three months, as they are not responding at all, the problem is long-term and the IP is stable. Fences&Windows 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know Shadowjams, I believe that policy on WP:AIV does insist on recent activity and warnings, but depending on who answers the report, they do often accept reports of long-term vandalism (I have submitted reports of a similar nature to AIV and they have been well-received). In any case, if you incorrectly file a report an editor will usually respond with a template giving advice on where it should be filed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my answer was a little confused/confusing there. AIV the place to report persistent / long-term vandals, but they do have to have made recent vandalising edits and have been appropriately warned. Depending on the severity of the vandal and/or the vandalism however, a level 4im (single) warning may be appropriate, and the user could be reported to AIV if they made subsequent edits following that warning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both F&W and Giftiger. I watch a few of these long-term editors and while many of them quit and go away after a few weeks, a select few stay on for much longer. There is a little bit of a gap between AIV and ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the block was well deserved. Repeat offenders (whether repeatedly blocked or not) do the project a great disservice.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Request- contact user- semi-protected page

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

User_talk:JzG

Hi, I am unable to contact User:JzG as their page is semi-protected. I am attempting to ask them to explain their decision to delete a page I began called Radio23. The stated reason was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Experimentation, freedom of expression and a DIY approach to broadcasting are among the station's distinguishing traits. The ethos is to empower people to do their own show free from censorship..."

I whole-heartedly dispute that this article was in any way advertising or promotion, and I fail to see how freedom of expression or freedom from censorship are a bad thing. Radio23 is a valid internet radio station strongly linked to Scannerfm and WFMU, both of which have valid and long standing wiki-pages. I am attempting to follow proper protocol in asking the user to explain their decision before disputing, but am unable to do so because ofn their talk pages' semi-protected status. Please advise. Aspland11 (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Notified user. –xeno^talk 13:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It was pretty promotional. I am willing to restore the article to a user sub-page on three conditions: 1. you edit the article so that it is neutral and avoids partisan praise of this station. See Wikipedia:Words to watch. 2. You write the article using reliable sources. 3. You check with me before moving it back to articlespace. Fences&Windows 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't an article in a user subpage be alright, even if it was not neutral or had no reliable sources, as long as there are

1. No BLP attacks,
2. No copyright issues, and
3. No movement back into article space until article issues are fixed?

—MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm happy with that proposed resolution but Aspland11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Fiedorczuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is QuietCountry25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) all of whom have created articles on this "internet radio" (i.e not radio, zero bar to operation) station - with two previous autoconfirmed accounts plus the current account having been able to recreate an article, it's not clear to me why he's unable to post on my talk page. Also in my view use of the word "censorship" in such cases is a red flag for spammers and POV-pushers. It's absurd to use the word "censorship" in this context. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Aspland11 states on his talk page that "Finally I would like to point out that I am not Fiedorczuk or QuietCountry25, although these people are known to me." Perhaps they are friends, or possibly meatpuppets? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, right, maybe they are his WP:BROTHER. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• And BTW, since Aspland11 is not 10 days old yet, he is not yet autoconfirmed; (my bad, it is 3 days and 10 edits) however, new users can create pages, as they have the createpage right. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you should open an SPI report if you have evidence of sockpuppetry. Note that Quietcountry25 claimed to be Fiedorczuk. Fences&Windows 22:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Hannah Williams.jpg

Resolved

 – Previous edit removed from history by User:Gwen Gale as requested. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please can the edit history of this imagebe revised removing the incorrect image which was uploaded by a new user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, edit histories must be kept unless there is a serious reason for them to be hidden by a sysop. Can you explain why you feel this is necessary in this case? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently someone substituted an incorrect image (a picture of someone else) for the correct image, which has now been fixed back. Deleting the incorrect image from the history would not raise any problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Would that come under RD6? Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RD6 might be appropriate; I don't think it is a controversial or contentious deletion; but the edit has been reverted so I don't personally see the need to remove it from history. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The other picture is of Hannah Williams (actress). I don't think deletion is appropriate, partially because we don't just indiscriminately remove things from page histories and partly because it doesn't meet any of the revision deletion criteria. --Deskana (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is fair enough in the general case. In this instance, the intended image is a photograph of a child murder victim, disseminated by the victim's family. It is a bit insensitive to leave the visible history, which includes the images themselves, conflated with the photo of an unrelated person. Under the circumstances, my view is that we should grant this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how it's insensetive, but I guess it doesn't matter since it's been done regardless of my opinion. --Deskana (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Little catastrophy when trying to move a lemma

Resolved

Hi admins,

I did something really stupid, I'm afraid! My aim was to move Rederi AB Slite to Rederi Ab Slite, as "Ab" is the correct Swedish acronym. In de:wp, this would not have been any problem. But en:wp seems not to be really case sensitive, is it? So, I tried to "Workaround" this way:

1. Move Rederi AB Slite to Rederi Ab Slite1
2. Move Rederi Ab Slite1 to Rederi Ab Slite

Obviously, in en:wp I cannot overwrite redirects? :/

I am so sorry for the inconvenience... Can anyone help me please?

Thank you! -- JøMa (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. FYI, your original intended move wasn't possible because the target already existed and had a prior change in its edit history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Nineteen Nightmares

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.

---

Resolved

 – There has been a motion to close for some time which has garnered support but no opposes, so I'm marking this incident as finished. User is being mentored and all involved seem to find this an acceptable way forward.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

I believe that this report should have been taken here in the first place, but I am simply leaving a note here regarding a report made at WP:Wikiquette alerts where extensive details have been given, and to clarify the issue I placed a nomination there that the user should be blocked and/or topic banned. A sysop suggested that I leave this here to bring the matter to the attention of this noticeboard, but since the discussion has already started there, I think it's best to leave the discussion and proposal there. The relevant discussion and nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Please understand that I am a new user, trying to get up to speed, have encountered many editors who have been very hostile to me and that I would request a moment to address any charges you find that don't make sense or that make me look like I am attacking someone. There have been many accusions, most of them baseless, and it seems I should have an opportunity to address each one if I am to be banned. I will state that my only intention on Wikipedia is to read the articles and hopefully make them better when I can. Please also be aware that the person bringing this issue to this venue is on the opposite side of a contenscious DVR from me and wishes to have me banned to silence criticism of the discussion. It seems highly innappropriate for an editor to seek a ban on the main proponent of the argument against which they are making. Thanks for your time and I do apologize if I've gotten out of line occasionally. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Giftiger is probably correct, it probably should have come here. For convenience only, I have copied the discussion there to this location and collapsed it, so one doesn't have to go back and forth between pages. I've also posted a notice that any further comments should be made here. GregJackP (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC) To ensure it stays up to date, I have transcluded it rather than allowing it to remain copied. If this transclusion causes a disruption on either page, please revert both the addition of noinclude tags to Wikiquette and this transclusion here. This isn't exactly protocol but I am exercising good faith and WP:IAR here but welcome its reversion in case of disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Reverted it myself: didn't go as planned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Important Note: The following section was moved from Wikiquette regarding this subject, and contains the bulk of the report and discussion. I have therefore collapsed the note here left afterwards, which was originally just a note redirecting to the below discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of Personal Attacks by Nineteen Nightmares

A section has been opened at AN/I here - please add any other comments at that location. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares (talk) has continually engaged in a pattern of personal attacks, incivility and disruptive editing despite repeated requests, warnings, and a block. Examples are:

• Unsubstantiated claim here, stating "GregJackP, would you please disclose your obvious connection to the subject. I seriously have my suspicions that you are actually the subject of this aricle, right back in here in some devious way strongly trying to keep and manipulate the data in the piece." He also asked Minor4th and Giftiger Wunsch of basically the same thing, here.
• Unsubstantiated claim (diff here) that GregJackP and Minor4th are sock/meat puppets of Dmartinaus. Note that GregJackP initiated an SPI of Dmartinaus that resulted in his being blocked for two weeks and 4 of his socks being indefinately blocked, which is hardly the actions of another sock/meat puppet. Note that a checkuser was conducted in regards to the SPI and the investigation is located here. The checkuser did not find any relationship between either GregJackP or Minor4th and Dmartinaus.

Comment The socks of Martin have variously voted 'delete' and changed their minds and done lots of stuff that would not be in keeping with a legitimate separate editor. Because you nommed Martin as a sock, it doesn't mean you aren't friends with the guy. I see you didn't answer any of the questions. Do you know this man personally? Your comments and behavior suggest a strong WP:COI but you remain silent on this front, instead reverting to reporting me for asking serious questions about an article that has been an incredible adventure to unravel. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Incivility by changing section heading to "Lies and Skullduggery" here.
• Personal attack on Dmartinaus here, stating that Martin "You brought this whole thing on and behaved like an idiot." There is simply no call for this type of attack on a currently banned user.
• Unsubstantiated statement that "FYI, GregJackP is a liar" located here.
• Personal attack on JNW here stating " I removed the templates at first BECAUSE I WAS NEW AND DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER, YOU MORON!
• Personal attack and threats left on Dmartinaus's userpage: diff. I understand the frustration with this user but this type of behaviour is completely unacceptable per WP:NPA and WP:THREAT GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Personal attack left with this edit, I removed the part which was a clear personal attack here, and reinstated without modifying the tone here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Subject has been appropriately warned about his conduct, as shown below:

• Comments about inappropriate personal attacks here by Minor4th and Giftiger Wunsch.
• Comment on tone of this edit by Daniel Case here.
• Warned on personal attacks here by GregJackP.
• Warned for vandalism (disruptive editing) here by GregJackP.
• Comment and warning for disruptive editing, incivility and personal attacks, advised of her intent to block if it continued, here by Sarah.
• Comment on personal attacks here by Minor4th.
• Comment on incivility here by Pdcook.
• Comment on personal attacks here by Technopat.
• Warned for personal attacks here by Modernist.

• I have recently npa-warned this user up to a final warning level according to the most recent comments I mentioned above: [65] [66] [67]. The warnings were disregarded and removed (the final warning hasn't been removed yet, as of when I last checked) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous actions/investigations:

• Blocked for disruptive editing (24 hrs) here, request to lift block declined. This was from a report to AIV.
• ANI for "continued incivility and personal attacks" located here.

It is apparent that anyone that disagrees with Nineteen Nightmares becomes the target of his attacks, and that this is a long term pattern of abusive behavior. I also don't think that it is necessarily appropriate for him to leave messages for Jimbo, but I'm also sure that Jimbo can handle that himself. GregJackP (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- I fully support this notice by GregJackP, as I have been the target of repeated attacks and accusations by NineteenNightmares. Even in the few minutes since this notice was posted, NighteenNightmares has made another personal attack [68] on myself, GregJackP and Giftiger, requesting a checkuser because he thinks we are socks of Dmartinaus (a checkuser was already performed which resulted in blocks of Dmartinaus and 4 or 5 of his socks). The instances of uncivility, personal attacks, and disruptive edits are literally too numerous to list. A review of NineteenNightmare's contributions and his talk page will tell the tale. I support whatever actions can be taken to remedy this problem behavior. Minor4th (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment You will just try anything, huh? My questions are just that, questions. I questioned the idea that there were socks in the Martin piece and by golly, there were socks in the Martin piece! However, I am not making any accusations against anyone unless I see a pattern of behavior that mimics the subject and behavior of his socks. Incidentally, you are the individual who got me banned for a day by lying to a supervising editor. I have never done anything here but try and improve the site and constantly people such as yourself are doing this type of thing, which in effect wastes everyone's time. I believe you are closely connected to Mr. Martin and are trying to get me banned again so you can quell any kind of criticism of the piece, which obviously I have been the most vocal about here on Wiki.

To reviewing supervisors and editors, please note that the majority of "evidence" being presented here is from my first few days and I had no idea how the site worked as an editor. I admit being harsh at first, but the criticisms against my endeavors were continually hostile (and against Wiki policy of not biting newcomers and assuming good faith) and in effect curbed my ability to focus on editing, which is why I created an account after being a reader for many years. If you will look at my comments, editing and so forth, from the time of my one day ban until now, you will see that I have been at all times civil, but that does not preclude voicing my suspicions about possible misbehavior on the part of others. I smelled the socks before anyone else and I still smell them. I am not going to remain silent about it. I would be glad to be wrong as the article that is the focus of all the contention is a personal bio from a marginal individual with little to no notability. It is quite obvious to me that this report is just another attempt to get me banned so GregJackP wont have to address the inherent problems in the article itself. I suspect GregJackP of actually being a sock or meatpuppet of the subject of the article, Donald G. Martin, and respectfully request a checkuser on him to preclude the possibility that he is a sock or more likely a meat puppet, or friend of Martin's, judging from his comments and familiarity with the individual. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Comment - I was initially involved with this issue and started the first AN/I thread. After a review what has transpired over the past couple of months (I haven't paid much attention to it), I must say that I am terribly disappointed in Nineteen Nightmare's behavior. I felt like NN learned from the AN/I that no one was out to get him and that no one had any personal problems with Valley Entertainment Monthly. The article was userfied in order for NN to find additional sources that demonstrated notability, a guideline I thought NN had taken the time to understand. But faced with another AfD in which additional editors thought the article still failed to demonstrate notability, NN has become hostile again. What good does it do accusing editors acting in good faith of sock/meatpuppetry or saying that others are behaving like idiots? These are continued violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Is a longer block (one week) necessary so that NN can take some time to review these and other salient policies? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone would address the antagonistic behavior being directed at me, I would not be so ticked off about all this nonsense. Please let's make this clear that all this stuff has been a tempest in a teacup and amounts to attempts to silence me, so the Martin piece can be restored and we can all read about his land developments and lawsuits. Yeah, I'm feeling pretty sarcastic right now and sorry to disappoint you because you have been a good guy and I always appreciate your feedback. I will try and cool the rhetoric, but how about someone address my concerns in the AfD for Valley Entertainment Monthly? They have all been very vocal about what they think it wrong, but two solid refs are all the site demands in the first place for notability and the article has them. We're supposed to be concerned with content but no one answers my serious concerns and instead continues to make these kinds of reports. It is fairly apparent, isn't it, that they are just playing an "us and them" game? Personally, I am disgusted by it, Wikipedia should stop it, and if you ban me, then you can expect that article to have no one to actually make sure it doesn't end up selling the man's real estate for him again, and again, for free. So, you see my concerns are about content, but they remain unanswered. If these people were genuinely interested in following Wiki standards, they would offer advice on what is wrong, not attempt to tag and delete everything they find, then report me when I voice an objection because they don't like my arguments or perhaps the words I use. I don't consider any of my suspicions to be unfounded. They are based on patterns, just like when I suspected socks and said so early on. In fact, GregJackP got me banned the first time by lying about my behavior and the suspending editor never bothered to get my side of it, which was another punitive annoyance. I really can't understand how Wiki can even operate under such conditions and I hope this kind of thing changes so an editor could actually get some work done here without other's taking manipulative potshots. If you do not understand this, and still think I am just spouting off for no reason, I guess there's no more to say. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Support. Exhaustive and exhausting advocate of a non-notable subject. A far more effective case could have been made just by finding a few solid sources, and removing all the fluff. Communications have been contentiousness, with accusations and insults; user can't abide by not getting their way, and reacts by creating WP:WIKIDRAMA on multiple fronts. In addition to edits noted above, early on on there was this message [69], which struck me as unusual for accusing me of not understanding the guidelines, given the continued self-description as a newbie editor. Contentious from the start [70], [71], [72]. JNW (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, my fellow Wikipedians, but - What are you actually supporting here? Someone propose action, and we might be able to agree/disagree!  Chzz  ►  19:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point -- I did not know what the culmination of a Wikiquette notice was, so I was expressing my support for whatever actions could be taken to remedy the problem behavior. I will look at the proposals below. Thanks. -- Minor4th (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Block proposal

Proposal: Since an actual proposal hasn't been given above, despite the numerous "supports", I thought I would specify one here for discussion. I propose that the user User:Nineteen Nightmares be blocked from editing for a period of 3 months or so (which I think it appropriate given his history and his continued behaviour), and would also recommend an indefinite topic ban on Donald G. Martin and Valley Entertainment Monthly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Note to reviewers: Please be aware that 19Nightmares does not have an extensive block history and has only been blocked once and for 24 hours. Also note that at least half-a-dozen editors voting below are heavily involved in the underlying dispute with this user. Sarah 01:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nom. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. GregJackP (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, rationale above. JNW (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Do Not Support I would ask any supervising editor who reviews this to understand that several of the people who have signed it are on one side of a contentious DVR while I am on the other. The motivation here appears to be to silence me completely through a ban as the article they are arguing for is a vanity piece and I am the primary person who has been shouting about it for two weeks until if finally got some attention and was deleted. In addition, I am only here to enjoy and help to improve Wikipedia when I can. All the other stuff is fluff, and these editors have constantly gadflied me with nonsensical approaches to dealing with the controversy instead of having a civil, intelligent discussion in the first place. In other words, this whole block proposal is simply an attempt to quiet legitimate criticism. Yes, I have gotten irritated by this behavior and made some sarcastic remarks. I believe anyone who is under constant attack from a group of experienced editors and who himself is new to Wikipedia would probably have the same reaction. Basically, I'm still trying to come up to speed on how the site operates but from what I've seen so far, it is hard to understand how any article ever reaches concensus opinion with all the passive aggressive behavior on the site. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Comment - I have been referred to this WQA by one of the users supporting the block. After having been one of the first users to comment on Nineteen Nightmares' "uncivil behaviour" |here I have been occupied elsewhere and frankly have neither the time nor interest to go through the huge amount of exchanges between the several users involved in this, and related, issues. One thing, however, that does worry me following a random skim through some of the links provided above by the supporters of the block is their seemingly one-sided presentation of the issues at stake. No mention is made, or if there is, I missed it and am willing to stand corrected, of the exchanges at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs), for instance, which have directly or indirectly led to this WQA. My gut-feeling - a luxury afforded me by not having any interest whatsoever of acquiring admin responsibilities in the future - is to bind all the editors involved into committing themselves to not edit any page previously edited by any of the others, except possibly to revert blatant vandalism by third parties. This formula seems to have worked well in other similar situations I have come across. Good luck to the admins who have to take the decisions on this and many other ones. --Technopat (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a great idea. I see no reason for me to edit a page if there isn't someone there trying to use Wikipedia as their own personal sales platform, which is how I see this article. There would also be no need for a ban against me and the rules state a ban is supposed to be preventative and not punitive anyway. So, with that being said, if we can close this article discussion or reach some conclusion, I have nothing more to say about it. My only intent ever was to protect Wikipedia from this type of misuse of the site. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

The problem I have with this is that this would result in four or more editors not being able to make constructive arguments to the AfD review discussion as a result of one user's abusive attempts to defame us. I expect that this is exactly what Nightmares is aiming for, which is why he is such a vehement supporter of this suggestion. In any case, it'd completely disrupt process on the review, and the AfD itself already saw enough disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Giftiger and would not voluntarily agree to such restrictions. If one looks at the entire body of edits, I don't think that an admin would find that Giftiger, Minor4th or myself conducted ourselves inappropriately, nor do I think that the three of us should be blocked from editing each others pages. It has not just been the three of us that have had a problem with Nineteen's personal attacks and incivility, and a number of them have also commented on the issue. GregJackP (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Again, in good faith am beginning to have reservations about what increasingly seems to be a concerted effort by the proposing editors. If the editors in question have already made their contributions to the AfD, I see no further need for them to worry. Besides, the proposal obviously refers to edit warring on articles, not AfDs, etc. Huh? Am also concerned about one editor's upfront refusal to abide by suggestion i.e. informal proposal for arbitration, the details of which would obviously be set out by an admin. (Forgot to sign my comment)--Technopat (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the AfD or edit warring, it is about repeated personal attacks and incivility. I have outlined what has happened and documented it - why would I voluntarily agree to a ban without having done anything inappropriate? I have yet to be warned for misconduct of any type and have tried to conduct myself appropriately. If I have done otherwise, then of course I would be agreeable to some sort of admin action, but I'm not going to volunteer for punishment where I haven't done anything. GregJackP (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- I would agree to stay away from NN's edits and his talk page if he stays away from my talk page and discontinues to make accusations about me by user name. Minor4th (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - No, I don't think the proposal has anything to do with edit warring in the slightest. Minor4th (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have no stake in the Don Martin page. I think that the editor's actions as described above, including their hypothetical suggestion to reveal another editor's conflict of interest to local media, speaks for itself. JNW (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Several of Martin's socks also voted delete before changing their votes to keep on the first AfD. Does that seem peculiar? In any case, Martin has been very adept at making his socks appear like independent editors. Not saying that is what is happening, just trying to address your comment. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

With the notable exception that he used the same IP address for all of them, as well as behaving in a similar way in all cases, and a checkuser confirmed all socks and they were all blocked. As I have said before, I invite you to take a look at my contribution history, Minor4th's contribution history, GregJackP's contribution history, and anyone else who you disagree with and therefore decide to accuse of sockpuppetry. You'll find that we all have significant and varied edit histories, and there is quite literally no basis whatsoever for an SPI, and certainly no basis for the persistent defamatory comments you have left about all of us. In any case this is a separate issue and the discussion of Martin's various socks is not relevant to the proposal and it is not a defense for your clear history of personal attacks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Look, I really would prefer to have a civil discussion like two adults. You say something, I answer or try to, etc. and hopefully we resolve whatever issue is in front of us. Anyway, I've asked the three of you repeatedly why you are so adamant the piece be kept. He just doesn't seem notable much at all. More like his 15 minutes of fame and he wants an article out of it. I don't get it, but I would like to know why you, Minor4th and GregJackP are fighting so hard for this one. I promise to try and keep civil here, but I would appreciate if you could make an effort to better communicate your thoughts, too. There seems to be a lot of mystery. But that doesn't mean Im opposed to admitting a mistake. If you are not socks, then I can accept it, but your behavior has appeared to mirror the subject's own. This whole thing has obviously been frustrating for a lot of folks, including me. If you are not a sock, I do apologize and will readily admit such things if they are indeed verified or explained. It also seems a lot of the confusion around Wikipedia is related to lack of communication but not sure we can do much about it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Nightmares, I realise that this has been a frustrating process but the veritable mountain of personal attacks you've made simply isn't acceptable, and being civil for the duration of this AN/I report isn't going to negate that. As I have stated several times, and I might add, never in anything less than a civil tone, all of us have made our views very clear, as well as carefully justifying our reasons. You have made numerous arguments which amount to "I don't like it", and there is very clear evidence for that above. I still plan to support the block since frankly your actions have been totally unacceptable despite my attempts to reason with you. If the block is carried through, I hope that the experience will serve to help you recognise these mistakes and not repeat them in future. I have no issue with you providing you keep future communication civil and observe policy, and I would encourage you to edit constructively following whatever block is actioned, if this nomination is indeed actioned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be taking a WP:Wikibreak anyway. Good luck with everything and I'm glad you are not a sock. You still have not answered the question of why you want to keep it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

If you read my comments on the AfD and the review more carefully, and especially if you look through the previous consensus discussions, you will find that I have very carefully and very completely described my viewpoint of why this article should be kept per wikipedia policy. I suggest you read these comments if you want answers, because I do not feel I need to explain any more times than I have already, and in any case this is not relevant to the AN/I discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

19N, I have asked you to look at the talkpage of the article in question where I was in opposition to Dmarinaus and his socks on the lawsuit section, I initiated the SPI on him and his socks, a checkuser did not show any connection with myself (or Minor4th/Giftiger) and Dmarinaus, I have asked you not to continue to repeat your unsubstantiated allegations of sock/meat puppetry, I have warned you about it, etc. None of it has stopped what I believe to be unacceptable behavior on your part, nor brought on any degree of civility that I could discern. I support the block proposal. GregJackP (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support for a block. Despite numerous warnings, a previous AN/I thread, and a lot of patience from other users, NN continues to disregard Wikipedia policies. Given that he has not in the past two months learned to interact with other editors in a civil manner, then I feel a block is, unfortunately, necessary. We have all spent way too much time dealing with this WP:DRAMA. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support for a block per nom. I think something shorter than three months is more appropriate. I'd say a week or two and then monitor. I'm concerned that NN still does not have any insight into his own bad behavior and apparently thinks he has done nothing inappropriate since he was last blocked. Minor4th (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 3 months might be too long. 2-3 weeks might be more appropriate. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the repeat performance after the last block, as well as the number of warnings the user has ignored, I'm not sure that 2-3 weeks will be long enough to have a good chance of really stopping the behaviour. But I am flexible with my views on that, and in any case if it continues after a 2-week or so block, a longer block could be implemented later. I'm still in favour of around 3 months, but I have no real objection to it being 2 weeks instead if that is what consensus decides. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support a shorter block (two or three weeks) and I would urge Nineteen Nightmares to get a mentor, because his behaviour has been very poor, so far. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC) - Changed my mind; it's now a conditional support, see below. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support for a block. The thing that struck me as really strange about 19 nightmares was as soon as he got the original reprieve from AfD to fix the sources in his article (and after he doled out a few barnstars) to would be allies, he began deleting other peoples articles, showing no compassion for anyone. However now he certainly feels sorry for himself when things do not go his way...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I believe we've essentially snowballed that there should be a block, but it seems split as to the length of the block; can we discuss that a bit more thoroughly? I invite those contributors who have supported without modifying the nominated block period to also discuss what length would be most suitable. I'm also wondering about opinions on the proposed additional topic ban. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, what you have is a consensus of mostly involved users and that's not a consensus that we recognise. Sarah 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree there. Support from unrelated parties has been shown by Salvio, Modernist, Pdcook, Technopat, and others. I would also like to strongly emphasise that this is about recent personal attacks made against myself, Minor4th, and GregJackP and has no relation to the AfD or review discussions; the issue is with his behaviour, not his opinions on the topic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Salvio seems to be the only one on that list not involved at least to some extent and a consensus of one isn't very compelling. I'm not sure who the "and others" covers but Modernist was involved in the dispute over the newspaper and Pdcook has acknowledged involvement in his comment. Modernist, Technopat, and Pdcook were involved enough for Greg to think they warranted notification of this discussion. Sarah 03:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A section has been opened at AN/I here - please add any other comments at that location. GregJackP (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of the above items (including my warnings) pre-date the last block so 19Nightmares has already been blocked for them. My observation of the user is that their behaviour has improved markedly since the block. If they've slipped in the last few days, it's probably because they feel under attack and that their article is being unfairly targeted as punishment for editing the Martin article (I don't personally think this but I can certainly understand why 19Nightmares might). I really don't think that a long term block or ban is appropriate given the circumstances. If there are civility issues, I would suggest a civility parole. I also note that most of the people supporting are people involved with Martin or newspaper articles and it's really unfair for them to have such a heavy involvement in this decision. I don't mind them stating their views but community sanctions really need strong input from uninvolved and uninvested parties, not those with a vested interest in getting rid of an opponent. See the Ban policy which explicitly calls for "a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute". Therefore, I call on the closing administrator to weight the views of the half-dozen votes from people involved in underlying disputes with this user. Sarah 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If you could provide a list of users you feel are too involved to contribute to consensus, then that would be helpful. There have clearly been comments from numerous third-party contributors who were not involved in this series of personal attacks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• You're kidding me! As one of the very involved parties, I'm sure that you're fully aware of the fact that the bulk of the people here are involved in disputes with 19Nightmares. If you want a list, a good place to start is with Greg's contributions and the people he notified of this ANI, who then came straight here to rubber stamp their vote on it. And I'm using the word "vote" very deliberately here because that's what you all are doing with your empty "support per nom" type votes. You might not be aware but we don't actually do "Votes for Banning" nor "Votes for Bannishing". Rather, this process is meant to be a conversation which reaches a consensus of uninvolved users. I don't think that I should have to start compiling lists - rather the involved parties should have the personal integrity to be clear in their comments that they're involved in disputes with 19Nightmares, so involved, in fact, that Greg notified them about this discussion, and then leave it to uninvolved users to decide how to proceed. Sarah 02:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have no idea whether three weeks or three months is enough time to encourage behavior modification--but I don't think we're discussing a cooling off period--this is a long term and unrelenting mode, not a sudden flash of anger. I'm not clear that 19 has done damage to articles, so I don't know that I'd support a ban on topics. The issue seems to be a kind of insistent ownership, which can be transferred to other topics, and results in notably aggressive reactions whenever challenged, and the belief that there is a vendetta. That didn't start with the Martin article; it's been there from the first challenges to the valley paper. I'm most troubled by today's threat to contact the media in order to publicize another, blocked, editor's self-promotion. Boundaries aren't understood and guidelines are abused, and the user's 'newness' is continuously invoked as an explanation. Since I was involved in the newspaper article, my thoughts can be weighed appropriately. JNW (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, Sarah, even without the earlier (pre-block) activity, he has shown remarkably uncivil behavior with personal attacks. Since the ban he has:

• Accused GregJackP of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Accused Giftiger of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Accused Minor4th of being a meat/sock puppet.
• Called Dmartinaus an idiot, how he "slimed, cheated and faked" and then threatened to notify a local Austin newspaper about Martin's conduct.
• Characterized Dmartinaus as "this stuffed shirt from Texas."

Those involved in the earlier cases have also commented, and are concerned about 19Ns long-term pattern of behavior. As far as a vested interest, it appears that the DRV is heading for an endorse, which I will accept as the consensus decision. I don't agree with it, but that is how it is supposed to work. Whether 19N is here or not will not make a difference on that outcome, and there is no need to silence him on that basis. I would have hoped that you AGF on our part, but if not, that is OK too. I certainly don't think that a civility parole is appropriate based on the threat to contact Austin newspapers. In any event, if I'm correct, this needs to stay open for a while anyway to make sure that uninvolved editors and admins can look at it, evaluate it, and make their recommendations. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(Addit)In light of the diff below, this is even more objectionable - that's no threat to contact the papers, it's a warning about the reality of what could happen to someone engaging in the behaviour Martin has here. This doesn't have a single thing to do with assuming good faith - it's purely about treating people fairly by complying with the banning policy. Whether you think you have anything to gain from getting rid of an opponent is meaningless, the fact remains that you and the others above are heavily involved in disputes with this fellow and policy requires a consensus of uninvolved users for community sanctions. You're entitled to state your opinion and present evidence but you need to accept that the decision comes from the uninvolved community. I actually don't blame him for those sock/meat puppet views as I reached similar suspicions entirely on my own when I first read the AFD and became involved with the Martin dispute and I very nearly included a couple of the accounts he's now apparently expressed suspicions about in my SPI evidence. I don't think they're socks of Martin or they would have come up in the check of Martin's IP, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there are other socks being run here. You don't present diffs so I can't actually check what he wrote (a major problem when you quote and paraphrase people out of context and don't provide diffs for people to read the comments in full themselves) but I don't see a problem with raising concerns that involved parties may be running puppets especially when their behaviour is entirely inexplicable and baffling - that's why we have an SPI in the first place. The only possible problem is the manner in which he does it. I certainly agree that he can be incivil and abrasive and that's why I think a civility parole should be tried before we even talk about banning someone. Yes, I'm not surprised that you don't want to try a civility parole. You're probably the most "involved" of all the involved users and I don't blame you for being exasperated and fed up but bans should be a last resort. We have here someone who has been blocked ONCE - for 24 hours only! And you want to jump from that straight into a ban! If we're going to make such a dramatic jump, there needs to be very clear with no questions about fairness and that's only going to happen if there's a consensus of uninvolved people. Thus I urge you and the others to leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins. We see above attempts to declare that a ban proposal is "snowballed" on the basis of a group which is at least 90% involved people and the claim that the only issue remaining in question is the duration. This is completely unacceptable. We do not allow people involved with disputes with a user to shepherd and push through a ban in this way. If uninvolved admins review the evidence and conclude that a ban is appropriate, I will support that. However, I will not accept a ban that is heavily driven by the group of people so heavily involved. Look, I've been very critical of 19Nightmare's behaviour, I've given him very stern warnings, I've refused to unblock him, and I've got no interest in protecting him from his actions. But I insist that all users are treated fairly and I'm not going to abide a ban that violates the banning policy. Sarah 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Please provide a diff for the threat to contact newspapers - that's the first I've heard of it and I can't find any evidence above for it. It's very unhelpful this business you have of making allegations but not giving us a diffs so we can check for ourselves, thus requiring us to completely accept your interpretation. This isn't the way ANI works. Read the instructions at the top - we require diffs so we can review the evidence for ourselves. Sarah 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

[73] "How would your major Austin newspaper feel about this as a story? About how this "big time," highly respected PR firm owner just slimed, cheated and faked his way through adding his own puff article to Widipedia. Honestly, I'm full exhausted with your subjective babble and repeated denials about your behavior. Get it together or just edit your own website, where we know you are Superman. You are not going to be allowed to use Wikipedia to further your own selfish interests. Not while I'm around, sorry." <------ by NineteenNightmares. There are many diffs in the Wikiquette notice posted by GregJackP that is copied above. -- Minor4th (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the diff, Minor. But I'm not sure why that's being painted as a "threat to notify a local Austin newspaper". It's plainly a rhetorical question and a hypothetical headline and it's a very important message Martin needs to fully absorb and appreciate. The press do monitor what happens here and what people get up to and there have been numerous scandals in the press as a result of people doing exactly what Martin has done here. I have warned people about this exact thing myself and I hinted at it with Martin in my comments warning him that his activities here are publicly viewable. So I don't find that message objectionable and I think it's very misleading to paint it as a "threat". As is often the case with 19 Nightmares, the problem is not the message (which isn't remotely a threat) but the abrasiveness and incivility of his words. Which is why a civility parole and incremental blocks should be tried before long-term blocks and bans Sarah 03:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Noting here for the record that 19Nightmares has clarified he was not making threats." title="Linkification: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartinaus&diff=prev&oldid=369081870">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartinaus&diff=prev&oldid=369081870. Sarah 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

When I read it, it looked like a threat to me, and obviously others took it that way as well. Perhaps it's because of NN's persistent caustic and horrible behavior whenever anyone disagrees with him. I see that the comment was later explained by him as not intending a threat but merely cautioning Dmartinaus that his bad behavior is out there for the world to see -- and I don't disagree with that. Did you read the rest of the comment? There's no excusing that kind of behavior. For instance, in the same comment: "And no one is going to take the "author" thing seriously because someone borrowed some cards from your collection for a book and you added the cutlines." and " You have absolutely wasted my time and other's time to puff yourself up with a Wikipedia article. " and "Get it together or just edit your own website, where we know you are Superman. ". By the way, I suggested a much shorter block, so I feel I was a little unfairly caught up in your broad brush strokes. His abrasiveness and incivility is exactly the problem as you've stated, and that is the reason this discussion is being had. By the way, I am a relative newcomer myself and did not know that as an involved editor I was supposed to refrain from commenting on behavior that was directed at me. Good night. Minor4th (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course I've read it. As I've said multiple times now, I'm not opposed to blocking when he lets loose but they should be incremental and not merely jump from 24 hours straight to a ban. Civility blocks per se are controversial here and to go from a block log of one 24 hour block to a ban without incremental blocks or a civility parole is extraordinary. I'm not remotely opposed to appropriate blocking when warranted. I am however opposed to allowing content opponents determine the fate of their opposition. Sarah 04:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- I also want to say to Sarah that I think your rant to GregJackP above was really unfair. For one thing, you're an admin, and your criticisms and comments directed at non-admin editors are taken with a bit more weight -- you chastised him for not providing a diff to the threat to notify Austin newspapers, but he clearly did provide the diff in his opening notice. You made a blanket accusation that he didn't provide diffs so you can't check his behavior yourself, but in GregJackP's opening comment, I counted 19 diffs. From your comments, it seems you have not read the diffs that were provided as evidence of Nightmare's latest acts of incivility and personal attacks. It is true I am an "involved" editor only because I have been the target of numerous attacks from Nightmare, and they continue through today. I do not think it is improper for editors who have been attacked to comment on the behavior of the editor who levelled the attacks. GregJackP started this discussion on the Wikiquette page and it was suggested by another editor that a proposed solution should be made so that we could agree or disagree. Stating that one supports action against a persistently virulent editor in no way suggests that anyone is trying to circumvent admin functions or whatever it is your're reprimanding Greg for. Further, I am dismayed that you have just given credence to Nightmare's outlandish accusations of sockpuppetry against GregJackP or Giftiger or myself. Please read the diffs. The behavior actually speaks for itself, and may I also note that you too are an "involved" editor just as much as any of us. --Minor4th (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This board - and admins - are extremely busy and you MUST cite diffs with claims if you expect us to take some piece of information into consideration - it's non-negotiable. Greg gave me paraphrasings of messages and he didn't provide a single diff with them, nor did he tell me he had posted diffs elsewhere or where to find them. You can't expect us to try to figure out if someone has posted a diff amongst numerous other diffs elsewhere on this page. I key-word searched the page for "newspaper" but couldn't find any diffs or even any explanation of these claimed threats and if that's not enough for an admin to find relevant diffs, there's something very wrong with the way the material is being presented. And the reason we don't accept un-diff'd quotes and paraphrasings is exactly highlighted in this case - Greg claimed 19Nightmares' threatened to contact the press and he used this alleged threat to justify jumping from one 24 hour block to a ban and to dismiss the usual path of a civility parole, yet when the diff came to light, the "threat" looked rather different to what was decribed. "I do not think it is improper for editors who have been attacked to comment on the behavior of the editor who levelled the attacks." I'm not sure what that's about but no one has said that people attacked have no right to comment. Sarah 04:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah, GregJackP's diffs are in the report of the incident you're responding to, not "amongst numerous other diffs elsewhere on this page." Instead of reading the opening AN/I report, you parachuted in to NN's defense and immediately took issue with a couple of editors on an assumption of bad faith. For instance you called our behavior on other discussions "entirely inexplicable and baffling" when you suggested that we may be Martin's puppets; accused GregJackP of subverting process by voting for a lengthy ban (which he didn't), and on and on. You keep touting fairness of process, but you are not living up to your own standard. One has to wonder if content opposition is influencing your neutrality on this issue. Now, for the sake of my own enjoyment on Wiki, I am leaving this and all related discussions because as others have mentioned, there has been far too much time wasted. Again, good night. Minor4th (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Sarah, I'm going to try and address some of your comments calmly and civilly. First, if you have the evidence to support including me in a sockpuppet investigation, then please file the request, but innuendo about it, while not as blatant as 19Ns, is still a problem with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you feel that way, you should file the case with your evidence. Otherwise, you should not insinuate that about editors. I'm not worried about the outcome because I know that I'm not either, but as an admin, you should hold yourself to high standards in that area. Second, I did not bring up a block, nor did I refer this to AN/I - I took it to WQA. I also did not suggest any period of time for a block, but considering that you suggested a block on him in your warning (diff above), I find it extremely strange that now you are against any type of block. Third, you are as involved as any of the rest of us - having been given a barnstar by 19N on June 13th and by giving him advice on your talkpage. If our input is to be disregarded, then yours should also be disregard as being just as involved. Fourth, I notified everyone that was mentioned in the original WQA - which included you, 19N, and Technopat, all of whom have taken positions in opposition (as expected based on the DRV discussion). No one was trying to stack the discussion - as I stated earlier, it should remain open for discussion for non-involved editors to give their input. Fifth, you jump on me for notifying involved editors, yet I don't see a comment from you that your were involved, nor that you were notified by me. It goes both ways. Sixth, you ask for the diffs - they were all provided in the initial posting - it is not my fault that you apparently did not read them. You didn't view 19Ns comments as a threat, but Martin did (on his talk page), as did a number of others that read the comments, especially when you consider the same comment called him a number of names and was insulting in nature. Seventh, you stated that involved editors should not vote, but it's OK for you to do so as an admin, when you're just as involved? How so? You've been involved for a good while. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd also note that these personal attacks started from the very start of the initial AfD discussion, with extremely rude and insulting comments from the individual, which I was very lenient with. I only started warning him after the 3rd or 4th occasion, when the attacks were severe enough to warrant a couple of them being removed and replaced with an explanatory note regardless of the fact that this was on Afd. I forgave that since a couple of weeks passed while I was inactive however, and issued more informal warnings for him to stop, and yet despite the fact that I didn't start template-warning him until the 3rd or 4th instance again, it reached a final warning in the end. And that's ignoring comments he made inbetween, such as the personal attacks he made to Dmartinaus' user talk page which I couldn't warn him about as they had been made before my previous warning. I think it's clear he's a pretty severe offender and repeated offender and I'm wondering whether you are opposing the block because you honestly don't believe that he has made sufficient personal attacks to warrant a block, or simply because you don't feel we should be participating in the process, as you stated previously. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'm opposing for two reasons. I fully agree there are problems with 19Nightmares's behaviour, but we have methods for dealing with that (civility paroles, topic and interaction bans, short and incremental blocks etc) which don't require us to jump straight into a long term ban and these options should be exhausted first because such lengthy blocks are a last resort, not a first. I'm not opposed to a reasonable block if there have been further civility violations, but 19Nightmares has only been blocked once and that was only for 24 hours, a very short block, so this 3 month ban with an indefinite topic ban is extraordinarily excessive and coupled with the fact that it's coming from his opponents on those very same topics they want him banned forever from and I find it completely unacceptable. If his behaviour is so problematic, users should be reporting (with diffs, not mere quotes and paraphrasing) so admins can review and block incrementally. This hasn't happened so the point hasn't been driven home about the tolerance for such behaviour. Secondly, it's unacceptable having involved users push through a longterm block and an indefinite ban for their opponent. As I've said, the banning policy is very clear that bans require a consensus of uninvolved users. Frankly, involved users should only present evidence and give their opinion but not actually be voting because their "consensus" is irrelevant and their "votes", without even declaring they're involved, corrupt the whole process and lead other people to believe that there's a large amount of uninvolved support for a ban so they just go along with it. It's completely tainted and unfair. You ask "whether...[I] honestly don't believe that he has made sufficient personal attacks to warrant a block". I fully agree there are civility issues and could well warrant another block (I'd have to have a close look at the diffs since the last block), however, such a block should increase incrementally (since the last one was 24 hours, I'd suggest a week), not jump straight into a long term ban. Sarah 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Sarah above. I think she makes the most sense. I must say that 19Nightmares brought up many legit points in his defense that I agree with. I can understand how he feels. It appears to me that he is very much under attack by his opponents and was frustrated, which is normal. However he feels, it's no reason to punish him or silence him. I should also point out that the block proposal is a bad idea in my opinion. Caden ^cool 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I EC'd a bit too, whilst seeking the right words... the following is probably still wrong, but if I do not post it now, it might never 'take';

• Support the specific proposal for a 3 month block.Not as 'cooling off' but, to protect Wikipedia from harm, based upon recent contribs. Also - it should go without saying - with no comment regarding any subsequent unblock request, in which the user might explain why their unblocking would not cause further disruption; to me, it is clear that a block is an appropriate action, and should have already happened; the correct forum for a discussion of unblocking is via an unblock request. I believe that I am a neutral party in this matter; I have come across the users contribs (via Mr. Wales' talk), but that is all.

19, if you're reading this please remember: I am one of those who does not 'bite the newbies' - I try very hard to help new users. I understand your frustration, I really do - but resorting to personal comments does not further the cause of Wikipedia. I make this !vote without any prejudgement; I truly hope that you will come back and interact in a collegiate manner. I support the specific proposal - you've (recently) harmed the project, and two wrongs do not make a right. If you can explain to an admin in an unblock request why it would not do harm to remove the block, that would be all well-and-good; I really hope you understand what I am saying here. Even if others don't "play by the rules", I do.

Your user page is WP:POINT -y, and borderline WP:NPA; My biggest suggestion for "fixin" Wikipedia would be to vet all editors and block the seemingly 90% of people who are here to harrass under guise of site protection while in reality they've done nothing but cause a lot of confusion. and dozens of Wiki editors and only one that was willing to go beyond crude criticisms and actually be constructive - I accept that this is not personal, but it is an attack against the Wikipedian demographic grouping.

Yes, Wikipedia is not perfect. Yes, it has many, many huge problems. However, I encourage you to "fix the problem from within" - work with your fellow Wikipedians, not against them.

As always, I advise caution and relaxation - it's only a damn website, after all. Let's chat, eh, and figure out how to fix this? But play nice. Chzz  ►  01:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support three-month week ban block; however, I do not support the indefinite topic ban, but instead suggest a one-year month topic ban on Donald G. Martin and Valley Entertainment Monthly, as indefinite topic bans are almost nearly unhelpful, no matter what the situation is. (Note that I am a neutral editor that has not been involved with this conflict before I read this on ANI.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• 19Nightmares has only ever been blocked once and for 24 hours. It is very excessive, to say the least, to jump from a one single 24 hour block to a ban. Very excessive and very unusual. People who get banned for civility related issues usually have a list of blocks and other options have been exhausted. We have other options and tools available which we would ordinarily try before moving to ban someone. Sarah 01:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• My fault, I meant block, not ban. I've edited my post. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've also fixed some of the time lengths. I made a mistake with the time lengths; I've shortened them, as I had intended. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Three months isn't just excessive, it's ludicrous. I can see the evidence that this user has been thoughtless and overzealous, but as far as I can tell from his contributions so far, he's basically here to help build an encyclopaedia. He seems quite passionate about it. We do need specific measures to instil thoughtfulness and respect, because talk page messages clearly aren't doing the trick.—S Marshall T/C 03:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Of Two Minds Here This seems to be a continuing and recent trend of behavior, and by this point the user should know better, but a block that long with a ban on top of it seems to be an invitation to make sockpuppets. If that happened and Nightmares is stupid enough to use the same IP, then consider it darwinism on the reblock, but if the user has only had a 24 hour block so far, there's no point in giving that good of an excuse to engage in that behavior. Whenever a negative user gets enough of an excuse to engage in even more negative behavior, they'll use it. A block only works when it is a wakeup call for the user to change their behavior. Nightmare's behavior needs to change if they wish to remain on Wikipedia, and I hope it does because every user has the potential to be valuable to the project. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to politely say to all uninvolved editors that I will certainly respect whatever the concensus is on the block/ban issue and I will not be creating socks, with my IP or otherwise. I'll just go back to reading Wiki, which is the best part of being here anyway. I am just hoping the supervising admin on this one takes his time to see the truth of it all. Its been quite an awakening. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Comment I think this has already been a huge waste of my weekend, and I'm going to wash my hands of it now; I have given my views, and I have no intention of continuing to fight tooth and nail with Sarah (who I might add, is just as involved as anyone else, and has also shown that she hasn't actually looked at the diffs which she claimed haven't been provided) to defend those views, which I have already justified. Whatever your definition of "involved", I don't honestly believe there is any doubt that consensus is indicating that the user should be blocked, the question now is how long that should be; even Sarah, the primary (and quite vocal) opposition to this nom, has stated that a (shorter) ban may be appropriate. In light of the suggestion by MC10 that an indefinite topic ban rarely works, and would like to indicate that the topic ban should be reduced to six months. I still hold that the block should be for three months, per my own nom and per Chzz' explanation above. I have made my viewpoint known, and I'm going to bow out from the discussion now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. It's unreasonable to claim that there was a threat to report another user to the newspapers, to use that as justification for dismissing my suggestion to implement a civility parole with incremental blocks, insisting instead on jumping from a 24 hour block to a 3 month ban with an indef topic ban, and not provide a diff next to the claim. I did, in fact, read all the diffs presented in the opening post (which is how I knew that diffs predating the last block were included) but there was no threat to contact newspapers in any diffs I read (and as it turns out that's because no such threat existed). No admin is going to accept such a claim without a diff clearly backing it up. Claiming now that it's evidence that I didn't bother looking at the diffs is absurd, unfair and yet another assumption of bad faith. I have never pretended to be uninvolved. I blocked Martin, I blocked his socks, I refused to unblock 19 Nightmares, I've acted as an administrator on the Martin page and related pages. I've never claimed or implied I was uninvolved, but I'm not the one trying to orchestrate a ban for someone I've been in disputes with. I have said several times that I have no problem with blocks being used appropriately but it needs to be fair and measured. I do not think a 3 month ban and indefinite topic ban for someone with a single 24 hour block in their log is remotely fair without a very special, compelling reason, which doesn't seem to exist in this case. And seeing a group of involved people tell each other to come here and then try to push through such an unusually and irregularly harsh penalty against their opponent with 'Votes for Banning' type comments, with the person making the proposal, who is also a very involved party, declaring two hours in that the proposal was snowballed and the only question remaining was duration, all on the basis of one uninvolved person and half-a-dozen involved people who were messaged to come here, it's just not right. The banning policy is very clear and explicit that a ban requires a consensus of uninvolved users and you'll just be giving 19Nightmares a very credible rationale for appealing if you (collectively) don't allow that to happen. Sarah 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is not unreasonable - at least three separate editors and the subject took the comment as a thinly veiled threat. You freely accuse others of not assuming good faith, but you should look in the mirror. You have assumed bad faith on my part at this AN/I (see [74], [75], [76]) and in the DRV (see [77]). I could post others, but you have consistently assumed bad faith on my part and ignored my attempts to explain when I first learned of your concerns - please stop assuming bad faith on my part. You have made insinuations of sock and meat puppetry, without providing any evidence of the same when asked by two of the individuals that you insinuated that about. You have misstated facts - I did not seek a ban or block. I took this to WQA and the instructions on that page explicitly state that it is not for block. It was brought here by another editor at the suggestion of yet a third editor. I did not propose a block, but I did support it. You comment on the fact that I notified individuals of the WQA as if I were trying to round up votes - I notified everyone that was referenced in the original posting at the WQA. You omit the fact that I also notified you and Technopat - who could hardly be expected to take the same position I was. I brought inappropriate conduct up for review. That's it. Please stop assuming bad faith on the part of others while you are doing the same. It causes me at least to have serious doubts about your neutrality and fairness in this matter. At this point I'm tired of it - you can block me or ban me or whatever, but it is not appropriate for a Admin to use their position to shut up those on the other side with thinly veiled statements regarding sock puppetry and bad faith, but not to explain to them why they think that, and why they think it is appropriate to basically tell them to shut up and go away when they try to ask you about your so-called evidence. Do what you will with this. GregJackP (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Nineteen Nightmares picked up on my proposal to get a mentor and, although I hand't meant myself, asked me. I've told him that I'd be glad to help him. In light of this, I'd change my opinion above from support to conditional support: basically, if this doesn't work, I'll support once again a two or three-week block. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent development and I would fully support a mentorship. It might be worth coupled with a civility parole. Even if a limited block is required, I still think mentorship would be very valuable as 19Nightmares seems to care about content (as S Marshall above noted) and it's very unusual to see someone so new (8 weeks) being proposed for a ban or long term sanctions without the use of lesser remedies being tried first to try to guide and assist them to become valued community members. Sarah 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

I propose that with Nineteen Nightmares requesting mentorship from Salvio, and Salvio having agreed, that we suspend further action unless a problem with the mentorship becomes evident. I propose that Nineteen Nightmares is encouraged but not required to apologise to editors he may have offended and that others involved are encouraged to bury the hatchet.—S Marshall T/C 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I am willing to forgive and forget the attacks providing he modifies his behaviour (immediately). Blocks exist to protect wikipedia from disruptive editors, and despite certain accusations made during this process, I have no desire to silence the user, nor to retaliate to his comments. I am confident that Salvio will be an excellent influence. I recommend however, that if any further personal attacks are made by the user in the near future (say a month), the 2-3 week block endorsed by several users here should be the immediate response. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I clearly support this (and thank all those who are showing confidence in me). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Conditionally support - I concur with Giftiger, am concerned that the behavior will recur. What is the process if that happens? Do we start all over? GregJackP (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Depends what he does. If it's an egregious repetition of the same behaviour, post on AN/I with a link to this diff. Any uninvolved administrator will read this along with the background and understand that the user's on his last chance. But if it's more minor then his mentor's talk page is the place to go. I'd just mention to Giftiger_wunsch and GregJackP that if there are two possible interpretations of anything Nineteen Nightmares says, the onus is on you to assume he means the less offensive one; and also that it may not be a good idea for you to be involved users on lots of AN/I threads in quick succession. Try not to take offence if it's avoidable.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm talking about blatant personal attacks. I am a firm believer in assuming good faith but some of his comments could only be interpreted one way, in my opinion. It's this sort of comment to which I'm referring. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Good idea and good luck to Nineteen Nightmares. Minor4th (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. JNW (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

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

User:AuthorityTam

Articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses are frequently controversial and often there are heated disputes from all sides. These have often involved myself (and others) who have disagreed with User:AuthorityTam (and others). During that time, AuthorityTam is one of the editors with whom it has been particularly difficult to work with. However, recently when I raised some AfDs regarding a series of articles about JW literature that do not have third-party sources, AuthorityTam made, on three of the four AfD pages, a lengthy irrelevant personal attack, which includes dredging up edits I made in Talk pages over 4 years ago (before AuthorityTam was even an editor at Wikipedia, mostly out of context, with entirely wrong conclusions, including a false claim that I had previously "discussed [my] "firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion" at Wikipedia Talk pages.) AuthorityTam felt the need to make it appear that I raised the current AfDs out of bias rather than sticking to the merits of the articles considered for deletion. In doing so, AuthorityTam also deliberately declined to mention many extended debates where I have defended the same religion, in which debates AuthorityTam was on the same side. The irrelevant content included at the AfDs is clearly a breach of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette. For the AfDs containing the attacks, please see:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications_for_evangelizing

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_reference_works

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents

--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Further instances of antagonistic editing: AuthorityTam and I have clashed frequently on JW-related pages over our interpretation of material. This is not unexpected, given our respective positions inside and outside the religion. I am content to deal with such differences of opinion, but I am becoming tired of his relentless attempts not only to antagonize and attack me with every comment, but to stir up trouble over a matter that was settled six months ago.

For a time my user page contained a strongly-worded explanation of my motivations in editing JW-related pages. After an editor complained, I voluntarily removed the strongest denunciations of the Watch Tower Society in order to AVOID offending editors who are still in the JW religion. The material was deleted on January 11. Since April 2010 AuthorityTam has repeatedly quoted from the deleted material and, recently begun wikilinking my previous user name with that deleted material. I’m unsure of his intention, but the result could be to heighten whatever offence the material might have initially caused. I showed good faith in removing the material; he repeatedly, unnecessarily and provocatively revives and highlights it. I have twice asked him to stop using the material and concentrate on subject matter. He responded with further invective. Examples of his resurrection of the deleted material are: on 16 April, on 22 April, on May 14, on 19 May, on 28 May, on 28 May, and on 18 June. In the last week he has added the same wikilink to my user name at three AfD pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses reference works, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing as a pre-emptive strike before I had even posted a comment.

On April 23 AuthorityTam created a list of partial and in some cases distorted quotes from my earlier comments framed to give the false impression I had attacked him, made physical threats and suggested he was homosexual [78].

My requests for him to desist were made on 22 April and 13 May. BlackCab (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Update on previous notice concerning sock puppets on Hemant Karkare

A notice was made on this page yesterday (archived here) about a possible sock puppet army edit-warring anti-Israel and anti-Hindu Conspiracy Theories regarding the Hemant Karkare and the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Conspiracy theories now being disseminated on the internet exhaustively by the Pakistan Government, as well as the left/Muslim press in India (see the diff of the ANI complaint, and the sockpuppetry allegations, for reference). While the sockpuppetry allegations are currently under review, and the page fully protected, the sock army has fled to another article, Saffron Terror (see article history), and are espousing similar POV in that article via edit-warring and using the sock accounts to bypass WP:3RR [79] [80]. Immediate intervention remains a dire necessity. The socks in question are:

• SuchiBhasin
• Khan.found
• Cool_hindu 117.194.193.101 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would protect that article, but I commented on the talk page about the proposed merge. Is YellowMonkey or RegentsPark submitting an SPI? Fences&Windows 23:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I've informed the editors that there is a thread at ANI about them. Fences&Windows 23:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

African Americans in the Revolutionary War

Sorebird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been executing what appear to be well intentioned, but badly formatted and poorly sourced, edits to the subject article. I've approached them twice but have not received a repsonse. I do not know if this is disruptive enough to qualify as vandalism and I have reverted their edits twice, so I feel I should not take further action. More eyes would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 18:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A very short attention-getting block might be in order, if they keep ignoring input from you... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just undone a couple, malformed contributions seemingly at odds with the flow of the article. I have reminded them of WP:CIR. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Salvio.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We do seem to have a problem with basic competence here. If they persist we could semi-protect the article, and see if that prompts them into talking? Fences&Windows 23:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Capsot and WP:CANVASS

Resolved

 – Consensus seems to be that building support for a Wikimedia Chapter isn't spam or canvassing. Fences&Windows 23:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Capsot is working on building a Wikipedia Chapter in Catalan-speaking places. Good for her- I didn't even know what a Chapter was until I got an unsolicited request for support from Capsot, and looked it up. Seems like a worthy enough goal. I noticed that a lot of people had gotten requests for support. People who've expressed an interest in Catalan, and people who haven't. Lots of identical requests. It seemed to me that this was not a reasonable use of user talk pages, since it seemed to be rather spamming for an organization which, while Wikipedia-related, isn't actually something that most of us can do anything to help with. Even if lots of English Wikipedia users do, as she asks, put supporting templates on their user pages, it won't actually get her any closer to her Chapter. I pointed out the rules on WP:CANVASS and WP:SPAM to her, and asked her to stop, but she isn't stopping, though I think she is trying to target users who are interested in Catalan for her messages now. My interpretation of the rules is that this is still spamming, and not okay. I left her a final warning to stop doing it. But I wanted to confirm with other users that my interpretation of the rules is reasonable, and that I will be correct in blocking her if she continues. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First, please notify them of this thread. Second, could you please provide some differences for those of us who are too lazy. Personally, I don't see anything wrong if a few top-editors are notified but sending it to many people who seem to be uninterested seems to violate the canvassing rules. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I notified them immediately of this thread, as any reasonable person would.  :) Recent diffs include [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]... they just go on like that for at least three pages of contribution history, though that's where I stopped hitting the 'older 50' button. Also relevant may be our discussion on my talk page, in which User:Capsot is concerned that I may be motivated by a failure to respect linguistic diversity, Wikipedia's glorious ideals, and freedom of speech, and thus be failing to see that it's best for Wikipedia that she continue to make these edits.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd certainly prefer not to see anyone blocked for trying to build up a smaller, sister project, unless there is genuine disruption and no other way of stopping it. Also, as there is no effort to affect the outcome of any decision-making, I don't see WP:CANVASS as a relevant policy here, although other policies of course may apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

She isn't trying to start a Catalan Wikipedia- that already exists- but a local, real-world organization of Catalan Wikipedia supporters in a specific region. The whole 'chapter' thing was a new one for me, though I'm sure everyone else already knew about them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with notifying people about setting up a chapter, but only if they live or may live in the area (which is in Spain and France). The first editor contacted for example, says on their user page that they live in Chicago, and therefore could not join a Catalan chapter. TFD (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the responses after writing the above, I really don't see anything wrong with it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I see why you were concerned, but this isn't spam as it is Wikimedia related, and it isn't canvassing anymore than an invite to a Wiki meetup would be. I think there's a consensus here that this is OK, so I'm closing this as resolved. Fences&Windows 23:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

SamEv

I tried to step back from what seems to be a constant edit war with SamEv. I even created an article Dominican Republic National Beach Volleyball Tour but everytime I try things seem to escalate.

He has constantly accused me of being a sockpuppet and an investigation is going on. I am fine with it, but he is also personally attacking me. He reverts my edits on sight even when they are properly cited. He only corrected one of them after I made a big deal about how he put the wrong information in. "I made a contribution and you basically did a revert and didn't bother to read what I wrote [88]! I know you didn't read because you placed Gabriel Mercedes as a Judo player rather than a tae kwon do player [89]. You think I have some kind of weird prejudice about Dominicans and you've stated this. If that were the case why would I even put in a silver medal olympian? I complained about it [90] since you have a history of reverting whatever I place in. It was after I complained did you bother to fix it! [91]. If I had made that type of mistake you would've labelled me a vandal! CashRules (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)"

This is the second incident I am reporting. [92] CashRules (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He is fishing [[93]] and creating a distraction on a few pages. [94]

What should I do? CashRules (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been the main editor of the Dominican Republic article since December 20, 2007. That's why I edited the DR article today. It's the one I edit the most.

The accuser would like to get me out of the way because I'm pursuing an SPI against him. He figures that the more he opens this kind of thread, the more he'll somehow distract from his own actions, or drag me to his level and cause me to get blocked.

My contributions history speaks for me. Please see his. Please see this: he doesn't want it on his talk page for obvious reasons. It is rank disruption what he's doing by restoring that section there.

Now if I may, I'll continue with my editing and try to forget this distraction. SamEV (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have commented on his disrputive behavior as well.

BilCat (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [95]

BilCat (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [96]

BilCat Revision as of 22:47, 19 June 2010 (edit) (undo) [97]

FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [98] CashRules (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the sequence of relevant edits, in chronological order: 17:00, 20 June 2010, 17:32, 20 June 2010, 18:57, 20 June 2010, 20:17, 20 June 2010, 20:37, 20 June 2010, 20:32, 20 June 2010, 20:34, 20 June 2010, 20:37, 20 June 2010, 20:38, 20 June 2010, 20:41, 20 June 2010, 20:42, 20 June 2010, 20:52, 20 June 2010, 21:00, 20 June 2010, 21:26, 20 June 2010, 22:12, 20 June 2010, 22:24, 20 June 2010, 22:35, 20 June 2010, 22:35, 20 June 2010, 22:38, 20 June 2010, 22:40, 20 June 2010, 22:49, 20 June 2010.
SamEV (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, user CashRules: The matter of the tae kwon do guy was a mistake, and I corrected it soon after.

You say I've been reported before: yeah, by you, a few days ago. And your report was declined, with these words for you: [99].

Fishing? How? What is it? SamEV (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC); 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Team Fortress 2 and S@bre

The issue is that S@bre has not been "striving to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editor", to quote WP:ADMIN. The issue concerns this edit - [100]. The claim that "Between the bases there is a neutral space" was contested by Findstr, a new user. S@bre's comments, from my point of view, neither adequately support his claim that the statement is substantiated by the source given nor demonstrate the attitude administrators should have concerning new editors (see WP:BITE). They can be found at User talk:Findstr#Re:TF2, and I'll quote the last two comments in full:

"Because its not false information: its simply information that isn't universally applicable anymore. The source and the point in the article are contemporary to the game's release. At that time, pretty much all but a few maps conformed to that design philosophy. Most still do. In three years since the source was past, things have changed via the updates, but all those original maps where it is applicable are still there; thus it merely needs clarification in the wording, not removal: I've just provided you with an alternate way of phrasing that information. And honestly, trying to prove that Valve employees talking about how they made the game are unreliable sources (based on your own original research of their work no less) is completely absurd. -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got better things to do than to argue over one sentence in an article, especially if you're going to become self-righteous and start contextless comparisons with 400 year old sources. I'm sure you have better things to do as well. The source's claim of "The maps are usually made up of two enemy bases separated by a neutral space" is accurate; it doesn't, as you implicate, say "every map has a neutral space". I've made a change to the wording to reflect this, but at this point, I don't care if it satisfies you or not. I'm sorry this has become adversarial, but I just can't be bothered with this anymore. -- Sabre (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)"

These do not reflect well on the editor's commitment to WP:AGF, especially due to the generally civil nature of Findstr's comments (since removed from S@bre's talk page, but which can be read at [101]). It also seems from S@bre's minor "tweaking" of the page - [102] that Findstr's point was actually perfectly sound. I'm bringing this here because Findstr brought this up at WP:HELP, and I felt obliged to take it to the appropriate forum. Claritas § 12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to copy and paste what I left at the help desk a couple of minutes ago. If I have acted incorrectly regarding this whole OR thing, then I apologise. I certainly apologise for my behaviour in this case, looking over my last comment in particular, it wasn't acceptable or becoming of my position as an admin; its no excuse, but its been a long week. However, I had indicated to the user that I wished to disengage from this issue, primarily because, as Findstr noted himself, it was getting me worked up. Removing messages from my own talk page, last time I checked, was allowed and given that it can easily be retrieved from the page history, and should not be taken as "pretending the conversation never took place". You're welcome to debate my edits and change the article if I am at fault here, please don't involve me with the content dispute part of this anymore. -- Sabre (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of messages from your talk page wasn't itself at fault at all. I merely noted this in my comment in case people looked for Findstr's comments on your talk page. Regards. Claritas § 15:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I will paste what I wrote on the help desk (sorry that that wasn't the right place, didn't know about this).

---

I recently edited the TF2 article to add some content, and to change some existing content as it was no longer factually accurate. I did remove some content too by mistake -- I did not realise that the reference at the end of the paragraph contained multiple pages. Anyway, I got into a discussion with an administrator called Sabre about the removal of content and the subsequent reversion of some of my changes -- whilst I accept that I made a mistake in removing some content as mentioned earlier, even editing it was not an option since there was no newer source to verify a change in the article content.

The strange (and seemingly hypocritical) thing is that I was told to make sure that my edits conformed to WP:OR. Fine, even globally demonstrable data is not a verifiable reference for content, that's fine. What I find strange is that the same administrator who had told me not to add my own original synthesis in has now done it for me (see the lastest edit on the Team Fortress 2 page).

What sort of double-standard is this that I am told that if a source is out of date it does not matter, but the administrator in question is not questioned when doing the same thing I wished to do? I fail to see why his original research should be considered 'verifiable' whilst mine is considered unreliable and unverifiable. I find it demeaning that I am to be cautioned like a child and be told by the aforementioned that we are 'adversaries' merely for me asking a question to an administrator (who I thought would be kind enough to answer my questions, but I guess I was wrong about that), only to have the administrator who cautioned me himself edit the article in the way he told me that I could not, not to mention that when I asked about his double standards he decided to merely pretend like the conversation never happened by removing the conversation from his talk page.

I find this a rather disturbing revelation in an encyclopedia that I use often. What is going on here? Findstr (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I have not been uncivil, I have only expressed a desire to understand what I have done wrong, and how I can help. If this is what Wikipedia is like, I guess it is not the place for me. Findstr (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I might add to Sabre that being allowed to do something does not mean that it is a good thing to do. I find it rude that instead of trying to help out you shut me out and act like I am merely an aggrivation. I'm trying to help, but you're not exactly helping. Findstr (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• This doesn't appear ripe for ANI. Why wasn't this discussed with Sabre at their talk page first? –xeno^talk 15:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I placed this here per WP:GBU, on behalf of Findstr, because he and s@bre could not reach an agreement concerning s@bre's actions. I thought that it would be better to have a discussion with a wider audience than a private discussion between myself and s@bre as I was originally uninvolved with this issue. Apologies if this was inappropriate. Claritas § 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. –xeno^talk 19:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a fan of enforcement of sysops being held to their obligations under wp:admin. That said, I think this is a borderline case, and its not clear to me from the above that anything more is appropriate here than perhaps a reminder to the sysop of his/her obligations under wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• probably wasn't the most civil way of handling the conflict... wikipedia is hard work... that does not excuse the behavior... would probably be good for wikidrama if sabre apologized and maybe got a third party to help with the content dispute maybe from the relevant wikiprojectArskwad (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ottre's request for reviewer status

Resolved

 – The reviewer right has been granted to Ottre (talk · contribs), after discussion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cross-posted from User talk:Fastily, who is on a wikibreak. I want this matter resolved today.

It seems you misunderstood me here. I don't think I should have been blocked for removing negative information from the Tony Abbott article, a high-profile BLP which gets a lot of contentious edits. Because I am an experienced editor, a caution would have sufficed. What I plan on challenging is the comment by User:Orderinchaos (in the collapsed discussion at Talk:Tony Abbott#Budget Reply 2010) that the ABC Television program Lateline is automatically a reliable source because it is produced by the ABC, which was used as a pretext for the block. Cheers, Ottre 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a short 24-hour block, which you have already appealed and were declined. If you are looking for consensus to overturn the block and appeal decision, it is extremely unlikely that such consensus will be formed before the block expires. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm also somewhat confused why you have requested that a block be lifted under the heading "request for reviewer status". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This was presented a bit confusingly at first, but it seems this user's application for reviewer rights was denied, apparently on the basis of a month-old block. Though framing the reviewer request in an "I was wronged a month ago" context probably was a counterproductive way to go about this, it seems others that weighed in over there didn't think the request should have been denied on that basis. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the way this was presented. I'm still quite upset to be denied reviewer status. I've been editing for the best part of two and a half years. Ottre 13:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My mistake, I just realised the block I thought he was referring to was made today, but it was actually made last month; it should have struck me as strange that he had access to this page while blocked. In any case, the block was issued by one sysop, denied appeal by a second, and originally issued as a 3RR violation; 3RR violation and edit warring is automatically grounds for a temporary block, and the block is now over so I see no reason why it should now be challenged. You may wish to challenge Fastily's decision to deny your reviewer rights, but I don't think you're likely to get anywhere trying to challenge a month-old, 24-hour block issued because of a clear 3RR violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any meaningful worries in granting this. It's a stale block for 3rr and the editor has acknowledged that a warning for that would have been ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I should note I never said any source was "automatically a reliable source". Everything is always a set of probabilities, as I see it, peer reviewed academic sources >> program shows (with greater fact checking) > live news > opinion. As for the particular situation a month ago, Ottre got into a major edit war over a fairly minor bit of a BLP, it got reported by a neutral editor, I actioned the request as the situation was fairly uncontroversial, that's pretty much what it comes down to. This editor is normally OK (it was his first ever, and hopefully last ever, 3RR situation), the article itself is a bit of a battlefield and would test even the most patient editor, and so I see no problem in granting reviewer status. Orderinchaos 12:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think Ottre should receive the reviewer bit. I've also initiated a thread on the question in general here: Wikipedia talk:Reviewing#On denying requests for reviewer permission. –xeno^talk 15:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If a single month-old 3RR block is the sole reason for withholding review status from this experienced, dedicated user, then I believe the status should be granted. For what it's worth, as a general matter, I would also prefer to see 3RR issues arising from good-faith attempts to enforce the BLP policy addressed in a tailored manner (e.g. by a temporary page-ban from the specific page in dispute) whenever possible, rather than by blocking, although I'm not opining on this specific block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Issue reviewer status: I believe the block was completely justified as a result of a 3RR violation, but I don't see why a single, short block a month ago for a relatively minor offence should be a reason to deny reviewer status, especially when the user's contributions clearly show that the user would make good use of the status.

Ottre: I must point out, however, that the block was completely justified and it would serve you better to read WP:3RR, understand why the block was justified, and accept that. Others are likely to have a more positive impression of an individual who has had a brief block but understands that their actions were inappropriate and has corrected that behaviour, than an individual who has been briefly blocked but maintains that it was not justified. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the permission should have been given; preventing editors from gaining the permission because of old 3RR blocks seems a bit extreme to me. As long as the user requesting the permission is experienced and trusted, I would trust the user to not abuse the reviewer right, and grant the right. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the emerging consensus here, and in general here, I have enabled the reviewer permission on Ottre's account. –xeno^talk 18:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Range block needed

Back to January, I have been intermittently dealing with a vandal who utilizes IP addresses originating from Mumbai who in addition to vandalizing articles I primarily have on my watchlist (Tensou Sentai Goseiger, Goseigers, and a few others) also vandalizes articles on Bollywood films and actors. The used IPs (from oldest to newest are):

• 59.184.51.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.9.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.46.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.0.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.48.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.22.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.184.10.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The range 59.184.0.0/20 would encompass all of these, but I do not have the technical abilities to make sure that this would not adversely affect Wikipedians in Mumbai. As far as I can tell, these are all the same individual.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be more fitting to semi-protect the articles, there don't seem to be that many. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several Bollywood movie articles that would need to be protected and the other articles get good edits from other IP users.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I think it's probably a much safer option to semi-protect the pages worst affected; IP address editors may still use spers to get positive edits made. Alternatively, you may be better off launching a SPI if you believe that these are all socks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The worry about a range block is, the IP is editing non-static from a commercial ISP and it could wipe out so many GF users in Mumbai. When articles are semi-protected for awhile owing to one nettlesome IP, they tend to get the hint, quick. Start with say, 2 weeks, which could do the trick. I've seldom if ever seen it take more than 2 or 3 months for an IP like that to get bored and stop checking back to see if they can get in. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no real "worst affected" page. The IP comes by, makes his two edits to the pages I watch list, and disappears. The fact is he vandalizes several other pages which only et noticed when I find he's edited the pages I do. So semiprotecting the two pages I watch will only mean that the other edits go missed. I will contact a checkuse to see if the /20 block will produce any significant blocks of goodfaith editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to contact a check-user for that. The toolserver has a neat tool that can check the contributions made for a certain range. Personally i deem it a great help when i decide on a rangeblock. Of course it won't show edits made by logged-in editors, but a range-block is a semi most cases anyway. Non-confirmed users or account requests can always be handled trough the mailing list. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at the tool server it seems that nearly every edit from this range is this individual, or it's a vandalistic edit anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could apply an IP-range oversight? By this I mean that any edits coming from a particular range of IPs would need to be sighted before they went live. Such a system could be effective in dealing with vandals if we were able to use it, without affecting other IPs who aren't causing problems. Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Raised at WT:PEND. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea Mjroots, I would certainly be interested in commenting on introducing such a feature and how it might be implemented. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Mjroots and Giftiger.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

59.184.53.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) showed up today, same range same edits. Can the range be blocked yet?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the IPs listed, we're not dealing with a /20 range, we're dealing with at least a /18 range and possibly a /16 range. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked 59.184.0.0/18 for two weeks, AO, with account creation enabled. Please keep me apprised of any updates or issues. TNXMan 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

KiK Again

Another Karmaisking sock that should be blocked right away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KeynesianEndPoint 70.210.29.99 (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, obvious sock was obvious. Fences&Windows 16:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CentralBankersAreBlindLikeMoles 70.210.29.99 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

NLT?

At Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort, an editor responded to a 2008 post with this which I am guessing refers to a legal firm... but that is just a guess. Is this a problem at all? If it is, does it need any action? I am not asking for or suggesting either one, just looking for community oversight/guidance.- Sinneed 14:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit ambiguous if it is, perhaps some words of advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

*nod* I knew I didn't know enough to say anything useful...that wording seems reasonable.- Sinneed 16:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

2008 Mumbai attacks

IPs 117.194.198.217 and 59.160.210.68 (possibily coming from infdef banned user Hkelkar) are acting together to evade 3RR. I opened a section in the talk page, they blind revert.

Also note the accusation launched against me:

• [103]
• [104]

Thanks (Redacted) 14:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Independent of this (per a request at WP:RFPP) I have fully protected the article for three days. Per tradition, I assume I have protected m:The Wrong Version. TFOWR 14:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rjuner and the National-Anarchism article

I've been editing, expanding and improving the Wikipedia article on National-Anarchism since 5 October 2009 and my work was praised on 8 February 2010). Unfortunately, since the beginning of of June 2010, User:Rjuner, who openly admits to being Andrew Yeoman, a local “leader” in the National-Anarchist movement, has taken a more active interest in the article. I suggest everyone read a 2009 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled 'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists to familiarize yourself with this individual and his agenda. As I explained to him on the Talk:National-Anarchism page, Yeoman therefore has an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to how this article presents the definition, history, views, political positioning, and criticisms of his movement. When one look at his 13 June 2010 edits of the article, the majority of them seem to try to whitewash the racialist (racist) dimension of National-Anarchism and suppress some sourced criticisms in order to make his movement more attractive or less controversial. This is simply unacceptable. Furthemore, in light of his first comments on the Talk:National-Anarchism page, it is clear that he doesn't understand that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether he thinks it is true. I therefore suggested to him to refrain from editing the article and limit himself to voicing his legitimate concerns about the content of the article on the Talk:National-Anarchism page so that other editors can access whether or not his claims have merit.

That being said, I was hoping a Wikipedia administrator could intervene in this dispute in order to resolve it once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• While the COI rules do not prohibit an editor from editing something w/regard to which he has a COI, it does call for close scrutiny of his edits. Which are then to be judged under normal standards. Can you supply diffs? Say, the worst such instances? That might prove helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The one difference that is most telling is the 05:26, 13 June 2010 Revision in which he mangles the sentence while trying to suppress the racial dimension of the National-Anarchist agenda, which is exposed by our primary reliable source, scholar Graham D Macklin, who wrote the following in his essay Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction:

This racist anti-capitalism had as its end the desire to foment civil and racial strife through ‘no-go’ areas for ethnic minorities and state power as an essential prelude to racial civil war and the collapse of the capitalist system.

While our secondary reliable source, journalist Casey Sanchez, wrote the following his report 'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists:

Calling themselves the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), they envision a future race war leading to neo-tribal, whites-only enclaves to be called "National Autonomous Zones."

I rest my case. --Loremaster (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't edited the article since the 14th, he's stuck to the talk page. Where is the immediate problem? We do allow people with COIs to edit articles; it is only when they become disruptive that they are blocked or topic banned. Are you proposing a topic ban? If not, what is your purpose in posting here? Also, please remain civil; calling Rjuner "Oh Great Leader" is sarcastic and unhelpful. Fences&Windows 01:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Fences.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Talk:National-Anarchism page, Rjuner has stated that he will continue with his disruptive editing. The only reason why he hasn't yet is probably because 1) the article was under a temporary block from June 15th to June 18th and 2) I've informed him that I reported his behavior to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Due to my previous experiences with disruptive editors, my purpose is to make Wikipedia administrators aware of this problem before it escalates so that one of them intervenes by warning Rjuner from further engaging in this kind of behavior. As for my sarcastic comment, I concede it was unhelpful but it was in reaction to the belligerent attitude Rjuner has displayed on the talk page when he gives us orders or disparages our writings skills when his are worse. That being said, I'll avoid doing that as much as possible from now on. --Loremaster (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

General comment

It seems to me that too many discussions on this and other noticeboards are turning, very early in the discussion, to a near-voting format (as in, every post preceded with Support or Strong oppose or the like. While marking comments in this fashion may be useful in some circumstances (e.g. disputed community bans), moving to this type of format in ordinary discussions tends to polarize the comments and move the participants away from a search for a consensus outcome. Just an early-morning thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You might consider moving this to here, as I believe this is the correct place to discuss this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem. It's a balance. Sometimes a clarity is needed from bolded clear opinions within conversations to make sure they don't go back and forth endlessly. As long as it doesn't become a proxy democracy rather than a discussion, then it's alright. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose Ra ra rA RA RA!!!!!!!!! RJ (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bear (talk · contribs · logs)

I've just blocked User:Sugar Bear for 31 hours for 3RR violation, however the last block was for a week, and the user unblocked on the proviso that they accepted and understood the 3RR rule and Wikipedia policy. Should the block be increased? If so, for how long? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How recent was the last block? If it was recent, then this block should (following the normal course of events) be longer than the last one.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see [105] his last block was for a week, nine days ago - and it wasn't reduced, he served the whole period. This block should definitely be two weeks at a minimum given his record. ~ mazca ^talk 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Mazca, though I think a longer block -- along the lines of three to four weeks -- would be appropriate. See his below pertinent block history.

• 17:06, June 20, 2010 SGGH (talk | contribs) blocked Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule)
• 22:35, June 10, 2010 Vsmith (talk | contribs) blocked Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule)
• 13:00, January 20, 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Sugar Bear (talk | contribs)" ‎ (agrees not to edit war or make PAs and edit from but 1 acc)
• 22:32, January 18, 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: edit warring, personal attacks, harassment, email abuse)
• 05:23, January 17, 2009 Luna Santin (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) ‎ (Continued block evasion, edit warring, sockpuppetry)
• 11:43, January 16, 2009 SheffieldSteel (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) ‎ (Block evasion)
• 15:12, January 15, 2009 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR at Mudvayne)
• 15:17, May 24, 2007 JzG (talk | contribs) blocked Sugar Bear (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Disruption)

--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This should be at least 2 weeks, maybe more. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Vsmith has extended it to a month, rendering this discussion moot. Thank you for your discussion, though. :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A month sounds ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Treating first-time offenders gently is one thing, but I believe coddling repeat-offenders comes back to hurt the Project. Good result.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that one month is fine. Given his previous block history, and the fact that the previous 3RR block had only been nine days ago, a one-month block is alright. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Delinking nationalities

Following along with the discussion above concerning Tony1, does the delinking requirement (or whatever you want to call it) require the delinking of nationalities? Colonies_Chris (talk · contribs) is doing just that. To me, that's wrong. It seems particularly relevant to indicate what country a person is a national of. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

When questioned, Colonies Chris quoted the manual of style, but he left off the first clause of WP:OVERLINK: "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article..." The full quote is "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, and dates." The caveat surely is important and requires editorial judgement, not mass delinking. There seems to be a persistent problem that those who want to remove these links en masse refuse to discuss concerns with this approach. Fences&Windows 23:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I have already suggested that an RfC may be the way forward, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)#RfC?. Fences&Windows 23:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be some editorial judgment called for here in the application of a script, and of the rule. I think it completely within the intent of the rule to de-link "Ted Williams, an American baseball player". This goes to the core of the rule -- readers of English WP can be expected to know what American means, and are aided little by a link. This contrasts with "Person X, an citizen of Niue". There, a link makes sense. In any event, this page is not the correct forum for this discussion -- the wikiproject page, where it has been discussed at length, is a good first stop. RfC may be appropriate at some time, but at this point there is no consensus on that page for linking all countries.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean there is no consensus for delinking all countries. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• My names not Shirley. And no, if you read the talk page discussion, the opposite issue is discussed and failed to garner consensus support. But again -- this is not an AN/I issue, but one as to which discussion is best engaged in, IMHO, on the appropriate wikiproject page.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• There is consensus that well-known countries' names should not be linked. As such linking is not mandated by MOS, it follows that the delinking of same does not contravene MOS. On another matter, I find it highly surprising that a user who made his first edit only two weeks or so ago would know his way around WP to such an extent. Notwithstanding, his coming ao quickly to ANI – merely running here to Papa when he does not like the response – is a rather aggressive move. I wonder if by any chance this could be an 'alternative account'? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not an alternative account, but a starting over account. And I didn't "run to Papa", I had been following the above discussion concerning Tony1 and though this issue was a continuation of that one. And I've been using this account for six weeks, not for two. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit heavy-handed to take someone to ANI three minutes after you post on his talk page (46 past the hour, after 43 past the hour). I think we have a right to know the previous incarnation of your account. Tony (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the Right to vanish is not the right to start afresh. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But RTV is not the same thing as WP:CLEANSTART, which is perfectly allowed, and by no means do we have a "right" to know his old account. The policy says only Arbcom needs to be informed, and that's only if he runs for sysop. SheepNotGoats (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For these sorts of things the option is to either roll them in with general editing, or to try and make a clean sweep. Clearly there are big advantages to the former, both in terms of editor time taken and "watchlist alerts", but the latter has the advantage of making the cultural change - i.e. new editors don't pick up the old habits. Of course this is not clear cut, the question of boundaries is thrashed out elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 09:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Sheep, I'm glad to learn that such previous accounts have to be disclosed to ArbCom before an RfA. Good move. However, bringing an editor to ANI without giving him a chance to respond on his own talk page puts a question-mark over the identity of Mr Proudfoot. Assuming good faith, one of the pillars of the project, suggests a different course of events. Tony (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick qu on the linking point, since we're here again (not expecting admin involvement on this point, as before): where is the consensus to remove effectively all links to certain countries, which OhConfucius refers to above? This is commonly claimed, but despite repeated requests, no one has ever shown me a link to where any such discussions have taken place, or to where it was agreed which countries fall which side of the threshold. As F&W notes, and is also regularly pointed out, the guideline appears to have a very explicit "relevance" exemption. On what basis is this being ignored? Where's Jeremy Paxman when you need him?. If relevant links to the pages on for example England or Spain are so useless, even to the occasional reader here, since "everyone knows what/where those countries are", why bother having pages on them at all? N-HH talk/edits 12:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong page. Please go to WP:LINKING. Tony (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. But thanks anyway for reminding me. I now look forward at last to your posting the answers there then, where, as noted, they have been posed on several occasions previously, without response. In particular I look forward to finally seeing the link to the discussions that established "consensus" for such rigid delinking. I mean, it must exist, since it is cited so often. N-HH talk/edits 18:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yodel Australia

Hello All, A few times I have written an article on Yodel Australia, however it has been speedily deleted. I was unaware of all the processes and requirements of a new article because I have only just joined Wikipedia and this is my first article. I have had the help of some Wikipedia users and have re-written the article User:Natkolk/Yodel_Australia, I have quoted numerous sources and made the article as neutral as possible. Could you guys please review and let me know what you think. Any changes that I need to make, or a way that I can get this reviewed and put live?

That would be so so appreciated as I have spent hours creating this article. I have tried very hard to make it properly sourced. I am now quite proud of the end product and would love to see it live. Thanks so much for your help. Natkolk (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the usual place for this sort of request, but since you're asking, I'll take a look at it and leave some feedback at your talk page. Shimeru 08:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For the future, Requests for feedback is a better forum for such a request. In addition, consider creating it in user space, then checking for feedback before moving into main space.-- Creating it first in user space was a good move.SPhilbrickT 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:E-watchman

Resolved

 – E-watchman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:E-watchman appears to be a single-purpose account for linking to an anti-JW website that fails WP:ELNO. The username is similar to the name of the website, which was automatically flagged as a possible conflict of interest. See E-watchman's contributions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Indef.'d S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hope&Act3!

Hope&Act3! (talk · contribs) has been going through the articles on Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during 1948 and removing the term "Palestinian" from them (see [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]). Besides the problem that the user is marking these edits as minor, the user has failed to respond to any attempts to engage them on the issue and has just continued removing the word "Palestinian" with no response (see here). This has been an issue a number of times before with users insisting that there are no "Palestinian" Arabs and disregarding the fact that the sources call these places "Palestinian villages". I am not looking to resolve the content issue here, but I would like somebody to get the user to stop making these contentious edits and go to the talk page and explain why they are removing the word "Palestinian". The edit summaries for these edits, the only place a reason is given as there have been no talk page comments, say this is based on {{Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine}} saying "Arab" and not "Palestinian Arab" in the title of the template. nableezy - 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He also removed the arabic names from mountains in an area which are internationally recognized as in Syria: [115], Can some admin please notify him with the ARBPIA notification and log it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The user has continued to make these changes after being notified of the discussion here without making any other comments ([116], [117], [118], [119], [120]) nableezy - 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he needs a mentor for awhile. Maybe an experienced editor could adopt him. He seems to feel like he's in a battle and he seems to be getting stressed out about it, see User_talk:GHcool#your_essays and User_talk:Ukexpat#gaming_the_system_and_disruptive_editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I just left a message for Hope&Act3! encouraging her/him to discuss her/his changes and warning that persistence will lead to a block. We'll see what happens. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And Hope&Act3! persists. [121] [122] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours in an attempt to get more discussing and less reverting.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But wait, aren't we supposed to be removing nationalities per MOS? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

COI and COPYVIO issues with User:Hkettani?

I've just noticed that Hkettani has added (what appears to be) his own paper to Muslim world: [123]. I'm noting this here because it's a bit complex for me to deal with as this journal paper has been uploaded to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/IJESD2010.pdf and I can't work out how to check for any copyright clearance for that. (There is no copyright information in the paper itself; the web page for the journal is International Journal of Environmental Science and Development (IJESD).) He has also added this paper and others from his own website to a range of other similar articles.
Just to add that I've found the upload: File:IJESD2010.pdf. There is no copyright information provided there.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the Muslim world edit AGF and asked the user about it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that the uploaded paper has now been tagged by a bot as {{di-no license}}. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

PeRshGo

PeRshGo (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly being incivil towards users at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saiyan_(Dragon_Ball). Per TheFarix's suggestion, I am reporting this here to see if any administrator can get involved. His incivility and assumptions of bad faith is a disgrace towards the communities involved in this dispute. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Was just about to file an WP:WQA against him for the same issue. In April, PeRshGo undid a consensus based redirect of Saiyan (Dragon_Ball) to Dragon Ball claiming it was done on "one person's opinion".[124] It was noticed by User:TheFarix June 18th, who restored the original redirect[125]. PeRshGo reverting with a summary of "Thanks for your opinion"[126] so Farix sent it to AfD. During this AfD, PeRshGo has repeatedly made uncivil and bad faith remarks at multiple editors at the AfD and the Anime and manga project was a whole, including:

• discounting the consensus at the talk page re the original merge and falsely claiming that an "an overzealous editor decided on their own" to do it[127], claiming "merger was completely out of line with proper procedure" [128], repeatedly making false claims that there was no consensus in the discussion and was a bad redirect (despite direct evidence to the contrary)[129][130], calling it a [overzealous and premature deletion][131]
• stating the project plays things "play things fast and loose"[132] and acts in bad faith[133]
• stating "nearly all of the Dragon Ball related articles got steamrolled in one foul swoop", which he felt "really can't be considered good faith"[134][135]
• repeatedly implying that those arguing against him are dishonest and "playing make believe" with him[136][[137]]
• accusations that the merge was done because people didn't "like it"[138] (note, link goes to redacted version for hopefully obvious reasons) and that the mergers left out sourced information[139]
• repeatedly referring to actions as "shady"[140][141] with the later being after a known sockpuppetter tried to stir the pot more by posting to Talk:Dragon Ball and his post was removed
• Accusing me specifically of impropriety for noting the sock (which I reported above and as started there, is as obvious as one named Bambifan202), reporting, and removing his post per WP:BAN[142]

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented on his talk that he was heading straight into blockable territory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that PeRshGo's repeated accusations of bad faith for "past wrongs"—the merging of most of the Dragon Ball articles—and other personal attacks have become so great that it will prevent other editors from evaluating the article fairly and not commenting on whether to delete or merge it in fear that they to will be attacked as part of some grand conspiracy. —Farix (t | c) 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He seems to realize full well that his behavior is unacceptable, hence him quickly turning to editing something entirely different when this report was placed here. A block seems unnecessary now, but perhaps a sterner warning than the smiley-ended one Sarek left him is in order.--Atlan (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? It appears he got the point, smiley or not. Let's see what happens. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant a warning with a little more context. I hadn't read the message you left him after that yet. That's sufficient as far as I'm concerned.--Atlan (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the reminder that SarekOfVulcan left after he reminded PeRshGo of a block for WP:NPA. When I checked the message that this user left after that (see the difference here), the suggestion was that PeRshGo can strikeout his personal attacks, especially the attacks towards the Anime WikiProject itself. Hope this clears everything up. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath.[143] That edit is pretty much a backhanded slap with another deceleration that the other editors he/she disagreed with have bad faith. —Farix (t | c) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, man. This is definitely not good at all... Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see it as "Ok, I messed up too."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I get the point. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that he picked that quote diligently to state that "everyone was acting in bad faith". And the fact that it came form an anime series is a clear indications who the "other side" was. —Farix (t | c) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.... now that you mention it, I finally got the point about what he had said. I was only a little confused about what his statement was. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well my peace offering backfired, so I suppose I give up. Sorry for losing my cool and I wish you all well. PeRshGo (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:AnmaFinotera

No admin intervention required. Both parties encouraged to play nicely or stay away from each other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I question this user’s rollback use of Twinkle. As I am aware, we are not supposed to any edits that are not vandalism as such, but she did here. I would leave {{ANI-notice}} on her userpage, but she has asked me to stay off her “talk page period”, after I left her an apology. The whole situation stemmed from Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television) when I informed her that I was uncomfortable with her accusations of bad faith at that page, her talk page, and on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Television. User:E. Ripley thanked me on my talk page for apologizing to AnmaFiontera, but when I saw AnmaFiontera removed my apology, I asked for advice on E. Ripley’s talk page. I don’t know what to do, since I have apologized and just want to collaborate with her. Others, such as User:Ring Cinema are also having problems with her accusing us of bad faith. Please help and notify her talk page like {{ANI-notice}} or something like that, because as I said, she wants me to stay off her talk page. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I have informed her. 夢 追人 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Well, the primary reason why rollback should only be used in cases of vandalism is because it removes the option of leaving an edit summary; rollbackers are advised that if for some reason it is easier to use rollback on a good-faith edit, a note should be left in place of an edit summary. Twinkle gives the option to rollback but leave an edit summary, and in the diff you showed, the user in question made use of that and left an appropriate edit summary. In any case, this is the administrator's noticeboard; I am unclear what you are seeking an administrator's help with. I am not an administrator, but will do my best to help if you have a specific issue you need help with. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) In the space of 20 minutes, this guy left me SIX warning templates, all invalid and inappropriate[144][145][146][147][148][149], and despite his "redacting" the warnings, he has left the same wording in numerous places in the discussions we were involved in, including continuing to claim I "redacted" his comments by removing his bad warnings from my talk page.[150][151][152][153] He was warned if he did it again he would lose his Twinkle rights, so then he left a warning without the template[154] and was warned again by multiple uninvolved parties and apologized.[155] Guess I see how sincere that apology was, eh? Among his "warnings" was claiming I canvassed by leaving a note at the TV project regarding his attempt to move the location of the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not #Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television) to his newly created Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television), after he deliberately (by his own admission) canvassed only those from the NOT discussion who supported his desire to have channel listings in articles. He has only now left messages for others after multiple people called him on it. He also reverted anything I did with the discussions, including removing his inappropriate addition of the RfC tag to everyone of his notices. Another editor also removed them and he reverted again. Links available if anyone doesn't want to follow the contribs...got tired of copy pasting. He clearly doesn't want to collaborate with anyone unless they agree with him. And I love the interesting selective linking there. For the full context re Ring Cinema, we disagreed over the wording at WP:MOSFILM, I'd left notes on his talk page[156] and that reply was in the middle of that discussion. AFTER my last post to his talk page and the selective link above, he left this note[157]. As Taric25 has already informed Ring of this ANI, I'll let him speak for himself as to whether we are still having a problem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I think it's fairly clear from the evidence above, the fact that the reporting user felt the need to apologise, and comments left by other users regarding the incident, that AnmaFinotera acted according to policy. The reporting user hasn't actually made it clear why he is requesting administrator intervention however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I just want her to use her edit summaries more appropriately and stop accusing people of bad faith, that’s all. Taric25 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

98.81.19.56

98.81.19.56 (talk · contribs) has been adding information to Minnesota Twins, Jim Kaat, 1965 Minnesota Twins season, Ataxia, and Bob Allison without including verifiable references from reliable sources, and without discussing on its user talk page or the article talk pages. Diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. The user is also using disingenuous Edit Summaries here and there.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to be informed of deletion sometimes

Hey guys and girls. I've been reviewing the article: Fight for This Love trying to get it to GA. Someone has deleted the image: File:Cheryl-crow-fight-for-this-love-500x279.jpg which was part of the music video section. Now I didn't upload the image but it would have been nice (and polite) if however had deleted the image to inform me so that I could try and rectify the situation. Its obvious from the talk page and revision history that I am carrying out the changes required for GA so it shouldn't have been too difficult to work out.

I would appreciate if someone could find out why the image was deleted and let me know please. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• It was tagged, and subsequently deleted, by the same user; their rationale was: "Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding." –xeno^talk 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. But i actually disagree with the deletion of the image. I am aware that many articles use snapshots from music videos to explain the concept of song. And i actually though the image used was appropriate. Could somneone please review the deletion because I want to request the restoring of the image. I think it was unfairly deleted. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is very rare that a music video screenshot passes our non-free image criteria. Criteria 8, as stated here, is the usual one. You've got to remember that the article is about the song, and so unless the screenshot significantly increases the reader's knowledge of the song, not the video, then it fails this criteria. This one certainly did, and if the article had got to GA review stage, it would have almost certainly been removed at that point. I've also removed two further non-free images from the article because they similarly fail our criteria, being either replaceable and/or failing criteria 8. You do realise that an article doesn't have to have pretty pictures to pass GA, don't you? - in fact using images that are against Wikipedia's mission is more likely to make it fail... Black Kite (t) (c) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Black Kite's take on this matter. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey in this case i'm guided by the GA review. My GA reviewer asked for images to be input into the article stating that irt was more appropriate for GA nominees to have images. But thank you for the explaination. If the general practise is not to include them then I won't argue. I completely understand. Its a shame that not all articles are treated equally. There are many that have such images and i guess its hard to enforce. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, having images is not a requirement for good articles (though I believe is for featured articles). –MuZemike 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article still does have one non-free image and one non-free media file. It is exactly the same for FA - although it has to be admitted that it sometimes wasn't in the past. No Line on the Horizon is an example of a recent music FA which meets our image policy. Note the use of free images. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(admittedly somewhat off-topic) In response to MuZemike's comment, I hope that having images is not a requirement for FAs either -- although I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case. However, there are literally hundreds of topics which will then never obtain FA status because relevant & informative images simply don't exist for these topics. (An example would be many of the rulers of territories located in contemporary Ethiopia: no descriptions, or representations were ever created. And experts aren't certain even if their capitals -- or associated landmarks -- can even be identified.) Not having this requirement would remove the pressure to use those politically incorrect Fair use images. -- llywrch (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would like the deletion formally reviewed, you can file at Wikipedia:Deletion review. –xeno^talk 18:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have great respect for Fastily and Xeno, and where the two agree as to the consensus view on wikipedia, you can expect it to be as they say. That said, I don't agree with the consensus view, and question whether most U.S. intellectual property lawyers with, say, a decade or two of experience, would share it. But that having been said, unless the consensus is changed, our mandate is to follow consensus. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think there is any doubt that the Foundation's legal counsel (Mike Godwin) has both hat experience and very much on-topic special expertise, and he had no small hand in overseeing the crafting of the copyright policy (which, incidentally, isn't subject to consensus: it's a legal obligation driven by foundation mandate).

  Which does not mean that I don't find it regrettable that the batshit insane copyright laws make it nearly impossible to make proper fair use of media in an encyclopedia while retaining the ability to make it libre. But that's not a problem our own policies make, it's an external constraint we have to live with (at least, until lawmakers stop pandering to Disney and the media megaconsortia). — Coren ^(talk) 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

  A comment must be made here. Our fair use policies do not reflect demands made by US Copyright law. Full stop. It is unfortunate that we have borrowed the term of art Fair use, as it has led to a number of understandable confusions. If we were simply exercising our fair use rights, we could easily host stills of music videos or copyrighted images of living subjects or copyrighted photos of buildings etc. All we would have to do is show that we aren't competing with the sale of those images (basically). The reason our non-free media policy has restrictions like NFCC 8 is because we have a foundation mandate to defer to free content. We prefer, all else equal, to have free media. The architects of the NFC rightly assumed that if non-free media had few restrictions on its use, it would displace free media, mostly because it is very easy to get a copyrighted picture of someone and very hard to get a free image of that person. We want people to seek out free images, take their own pictures and contribute to the commons. That's why we make it such a pain in the ass to use non-free media. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• All we would have to do is show that we aren't competing with the sale of those images (basically).

This is false. It's quite possible to infringe on copyright without impacting the sale of an item. Impacting the sale is a good indicator that a violation has happened, but it is not necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I figured that my one sentence comment wouldn't be taken as an exhaustive listing of the fair use tests. 184.59.8.54 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: to be clear, my comments here should not be taken as an endorsement of the deletion and were intended strictly to provide further information to the original poster. –xeno^talk 18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

96.246.7.9

96.246.7.9 (talk · contribs) has been adding information to Timo Ellis without including verifiable references from reliable sources, and without discussing on its user talk page or the article talk page. Diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 6   — Jeff G. ツ 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 24 hrs and left the IP an explanation. Also - FYI - you need to {{subst:ANI-notice}} on users' talk pages when you put a report here so they're aware that there's something under discussion here that they may want to participate in. This is extremely important... I did that here for you, but if you make future reports please remember to do so yourself. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

edits by 'Scarlet Johansen'

Resolved

 – Scarlet Johansen (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by Spartaz (talk · contribs) due to concerns with the username. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the names similarity to Scarlett Johannson (possible coincidence), editor Scarlet Johansen (talk · contribs) appears to be trying to perpetrate a hoax centering around the number 808. See their now deleted first edit—diff to Internet meme, which mentions 4chan. They also edited 808—diff, 808 State—diff (both deleted) and Area code 808—diff which I started at and marked as unreferenced, before following the edit trail back with growing 'concern'. Before I investigated, I was tempted to report to UAA as a username violation.
Opinions please? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1st diff corrected --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left her a message explaining that she needs to verify her edits with references. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Very AGF of you FisherQueen! All their edits have been reverted now (myself and 2 other editors) most before I posted here. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 13:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a WP:UAA violation. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that's what I actually thought/said above ↑ too! But AGF I investigated and went WT%? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• slap face* yes, you did. D'oh. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever reads everthing people post? I need to learn to be a bit less linguistially verbose perchance? I feel it is a problematic Username. The last time I looked into a username of a Real Person, I uncovered what proved to be a Hoax article in preparation and several sockpuppets/ connected Users. I'll AGF again and see if 'Scarlet' comes back. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, UAA is taking a look. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Er... you guys really are going to AGF extremes. That account looks like a blatant troll to me. First edit was to add something about /b/ to internet meme. [158]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I reverted several of their edits, so I'm rather sus of them. As I said above, I found a new user account by the name of Ewa Sonnet (talk · contribs), and I knew there was a real Ewa Sonnet, and it led to all sorts of places (as per my post above).
What is /b/ by the way? -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 23:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

/b/ is, well...see 4Chan. —DoRD (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Use of the term "newfag" was a pretty good indication of the user's intentions. It's a term often thrown around 4chan, and apart from that it is also a rather dubious term as it contains the word "fag". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the username has been blocked by Spartaz. --Bsadowski1 08:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbrittreid

I'm not entirely sure how to handle this. Here is a longtime user in good faith with a tendency to add some rather pointed edit summaries and who is misquoting the "verifiability, not accuracy" maxim in regards to the article on the old Green Hornet TV show. I have provided several instances which disprove that his contention that the "Black Beauty" was a 1966 "Chrysler Imperial." Our own article at Imperial (automobile) proves that the proper name of the car is "Imperial Crown." Imperial was a separate brand in 1966, not a model. I've reverted this fellow at least four times and I've been polite about it, but his edit summaries and failure to cite any source other than an incorrect one which lists the car as a Chrysler is becoming a problem. I've brought up the issue on the wikiquette page, did what was suggested, provided ironclad proof of the name of the car (both verifiable and accurate) and still he's reverting me, misquoting policy and suggesting I "go somewhere else" on the article's talk page. Other than suggesting he mind his edit summaries, I have never said anything to elicit a response like this. The source he's quoting, despite the fact the source is Dean Jeffries, is wrong. It is not a "Chrysler Imperial." I don't wish to do the wrong thing and just block him, but if he insists, I may have to. Anyone want to give me a hand with this? PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wikiquette thread
• Talk page discussion
• Note at PMDrive1061's talk

This one kind of looks like a content issue at the moment, PMDrive1061, and you seem to be involved. I don't think you should block him yourself even if he insists. If you were just anybody and I happened upon this, I would recommend that you get other contributors involved to help establish consensus. If there is clear consensus for your version, his persistence would become disruptive editing.

On the content question, it seems to me a lot more beneficial to at least footnote the discrepancy. A whole lot of other people call the car used in the series a Chrysler Imperial: [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], and [167], for instance. While it might be a misconception, the term "Chrysler Imperial" evidently has broad usage for the 1966 car: [168]. Given that, it seems like readers might be confused by encountering "Imperial Crown" in the article anyway, without some explanation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Moon. That was the point I made; Imperial was in fact a Chrysler model prior to 1955 and calling a 1955-75 Imperial a "Chrysler Imperial" is a common mistake. Even George Barris refers to it as a "Chrysler Imperial" on his website. I tried to tell him that I briefly had an old '69 Imperial LeBaron and that I knew what I was talking about. It was my father-in-law's second car and he loaned it to me for a few months a bunch of years ago. I was thinking about this last night and I might preface the line with something like "a Chrysler-built Imperial Crown" or in parentheses, something along the lines of (sometimes referred to a "Chrysler Imperial," albeit erroneously). I don't mind a compromise, but this fellow is stuck on a rule which IMO doesn't apply. Thanks for the help.  :) Owe ya one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

minor edit war at Politico, possible tag-team & retaliation

Resolved

 – No need for immediate admin action, minor content dispute. Fences&Windows 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Reopened as requested. Fences&Windows 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that these two editors are working to keep the label of "conservative" (or even "right-leaning") out of the lede. They've each made 2 reverts without discussing it on the talkpage. When they finally do post there, it's to say that they don't like it and it's not accurately sourced. I also believe that one of them, Arzel, may be acting out of retaliation for the EAR I recently opened regarding similar behavior at FNC. The other one actually called my edit 'vandalism.' They don't seem to have any true interest in collaborating.

• Politico (newspaper) •• Talk:Politico ••• source of self-criticism

This article reads like a promo piece. I tried to balance with well-sourced criticism. (From the politico.com website, in fact)

1. Arzel (talk)
2. Weaponbb7 (talk)

• diffs: 1 2 3 4 • edit history

The first editor Arzel and I have a history from Talk:FNC ever since I disagreed with him & he got huffy. I know that AN/I doesn't resolve content disputes but I mention the criticism because it's a part of the larger issue of Arzel (&others) fighting those of us who seek to balance these articles. I've made several attempts to discuss the lede change and work to improve it, but they simply revert and use the edit summary instead of the talkpage. I've also revised it three times in an effort to be conciliatory, although neither of them has afforded me the same courtesy. Until he learned of Politico's conservative bias from myself & another editor at a separate mediation discussion, Arzel had never touched the Politico article. He immediately removed the criticism from this article which I had mentioned to illustrate a point. -PrBeacon (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Eye Roll* PRbeacon confuses a consensus against his position with tag-teaming, as i stated before on the talkpage i am not against criticism, but Neutral Wording that does not imply some Republican conspiracy to pretend to be a news blog, This Requires an RFC at most not i fail to see the need for this ANI thread. 02:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• This ANI should be closed and PrBeason should be reprimanded for wasting time. This dispute is the culmination of a mediation regarding Media Matters for America. One of the sources of information which PrBeacon disagrees with is from an editor at Politico. PrBeacon believes Politico to be a conservative organ and during the mediation he has assisted in the attempt to paint Politico as being biased towards Republicans. At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias. This claim was removed by a different editor and then quickly re-added by PrBeacon. After a month of no sourcing I removed the wording as uncited. PrBeacon then quickly re-inserted the section leading up to this ANI culminating in this final version which I removed. Using a very vague wording from Politico which would imply that Politico admits that they are biased towards Republicans (a clear violation of WP:SYNTH) when in fact the source mostly repudiates the source (ironically a criticism from MMfA). PrBeacon is a POV pusher and is attempting to insert language into the Politico article to support his argument against the mediation regarding MMfA. The accusation of "tag-teaming" is laughable at best. A check of my edit history will show very little (if any) common edit history with WeaponBB7. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is a waste of any admin's time, I apologize.   Since Arzel disputes the chronology, "At the start of the mediation process an ip inserted an uncited claim that Politico admited a Republican bias"   --a review of relevant datestamps shows that is incorrect. And further review supports my case, I believe.

5/06 • Politico criticism added- (by anon-IP)   (this was quickly revertedby another editor)

• my restore of the criticism- "add cite tag and give them a chance" (Based upon previous talkpage discussion)

5/27 • separate RfM started

6/14   • my comments at RfM-   "so far only conservative sources.."

6/16   • A's question at RfM-   "since when is Politico conservative?"

  • another editor's reply-   "no question they're conservative"

at 13:41   • A's reply at FNC-   "discuss in adult manner?"

at 13:48   • A's reply to E.A.R-   "if you're going to attackme.., pls notify"

at 13:50   • A's (first) revert at Politico-   "No citation."

The quick succession of these last three edits is what sparked my suspicion about retaliation. The issue of Politico's bias, in my opinion, surfaced as a minor issue in the mediation. No one else questioned it there. I think Arzel conflated the two when he moved from the RfM to Politico via the other two project pages.

    Unfortunately I'm not experienced enough to argue the issue of tagteam, i've only seen the (loose) allegation at other ANI threads -- used to question if 2 editors are circumventing the 3RR rule, thereby attempting to draw another editor into violating it.

If admins here deem either or both charges inconclusive then again i apologize. I will reserve comment about the remaining counterclaims. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this ANI thread to be a WP:DUCK of Badfaith. This editor has nerve to make Edits to support a unfounded POV (that politico has mysterious ties to Repulican leadership), with a Cherry pick a quote from a website to support his view. Throws unfounded acusations agianst two editors of Tag-teaming in an ANI thread complete with diffs and then has the audacity to claim he didnt know what he was doing. I highly doubt this to be a case of WP:Competence Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As you're keen to interpret policy & guidelines, please explain this revert in light of "What is not vandalism" (particularly the assumption of NPOV violation). -PrBeacon (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between adding Garbage to a page. A Quick look at your Edit history show a long term pattern of making controversial Edits to push a POV, and Gaming the system to do, this ANI thread is baloney. The Number of Mediation threads and complaints at notice boards you have posted is absurd. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that is not an explanation, just a deflection (with false accusations). -PrBeacon (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please go back to discussing the content on the talk page. Fences&Windows 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If only it were so easy. I don't think this is just a content dispute although I do appreciate your comments on the article talkpage. I'd like to ask for a second opinion, especially in regards to the issue of retaliation by Arzel. And for the record, I acknowledge that even briefly mentioning the criticism in order to provide some context here may be distracting and unnecessary. Until now I haven't replied to Weaponbb7's counter-accusations because he has assumed bad faith from the start. His responses have ranged from a dismissive eyeroll to distortions of fact including a blatantly false summary of my edit history. (By the way, I forgot to mention that he attempted [169] to move the Talk:politico thread that i started to the separate mediation.) What both of them call POV-pushing is actually an attempt to provide balance. I may not be perfect in these efforts, but in the past I have collaborated with editors even when we strongly disagree on content. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon has Canvassed an editor that I have had disagreements with in the past to comment here. This kind of behavior has to stop. Arzel (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not canvassing, I asked for his opinion, "please let me know..". I didn't ask him to post here and I didn't expect him to.-PrBeacon (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK Arzel (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It may look like so to you, but it doesnt walk or talk like so. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: if any uninvolved editor or admin wishes to reopen and examine this issue, please do so. I request that involved editors do not post here again until other uninvolved editors have commented, to avoid furthering the dispute and to allow others to comment. Fences&Windows 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I accept the above invitation, as an uninvolved editor, to reopen the issue. I would like this to be reopened so I can hear more from the involved editors. They are most familiar with the circumstances. In the western world judiciary, as on wikipedia, efforts to understand the circumstances in a dispute are ill-served by seeking to censor the ability of victims, accusers, and the accused to state their case. Just the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Epeefleche, if you have comments to make to help resolve the dispute or about the conduct of the editors involved, please go ahead and reopen it. Do note that Wikipedia is not a court of law, and that this is not about censorship; I am discussing the issue with the participants on their talk pages and on the talk page of the article. I simply feel that this AN/I thread is not going to help matters. Others may disagree, but the involved editors have said their piece in detail already, which is why I asked (not ordered) them to allow others to comment. Fences&Windows 20:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll try to not be shy about sharing my further comments about helping resolve the dispute upon receiving the further input I've requested, now that I have taken you up on your offer to re-open the issue. As to resolving disputes, as a general matter resolution is not served by prohibiting victims, complaining parties, and accused parties from giving voice to their positions. It leaves them with unresolved frustrations. While you are of course correct that wikipedia is not a court of law, there are at the same time elementary principles that appy to both. Hearing the testimony of the involved parties is one of those -- efforts to stifle their giving voice to the facts and their views is, IMHO, counterproductive.

If the editors here had already, as you suggest, said all they had to say, there would be no need and indeed no sense at all in your saying above: "I request that involved editors do not post here again until other uninvolved editors have commented". The only reason you could have made that statement, without it having been wholly non-sensical, is if you anticipated that in the absence of that chilling statement the parties in question would have wished to comment. It does the project a disservice to seek to quash their contributions to the discussion. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look as well if needed. Soxwon (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you're assuming I was aiming to squash debate. This is not an example of admin abuse: I anticipated that a fruitless thread would ensue that repeated exactly the same as had already been stated, and into which no outside editor would wish to involve themselves, as often occurs with such content disputes at AN/I. Often each party becomes increasingly irritated and attempts to bait the other into getting blocked. My aim was to avoid unnecessary escalation and grandstanding, and to facilitate more constructive debate by involving outside editors; until that point, I was the only outside editor who had responded. I hope you can comment on the content dispute and behavioural issues here without further input here from those involved; I believe there is already sufficient information here and on the talk page. Fences&Windows 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sox--thanks. I welcome you taking a look as well. @Fences--whether its your intent or not, the effect of your approach here IMHO is to quash debate. That also leads to parties not feeling heard -- not a good thing. Parties rarely, in my experience, feel more "heard" when they are told not to contribute to the discussion. Anticipating that what parties would say would be fruitless is not, IMHO, giving the parties their due. For purposes of clarification, I'm addressing the instant issue here, not bringing an AN/I or RFC or arbitration about admin abuse. Let's see what the editors have to say, first, and Sox and I and whomever cares to can then comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I think this thread should be closed, in that it doesn't help resolve this dispute; it can only serve to stir up more drama, now that editors are discussing on the talk page and benefiting from outside input. That's only IMHO, obviously. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I submit again that the issue of retaliation has not been addressed. Is this because it is so difficult to prove intent? Given that he is involved in disputes with me elsewhere, is it acceptable for Arzel to revert my 3rd rewrite of the content (in lead) before using the talkpage? (For my part, I recognize my early reverts to keep the unsourced criticism were mistaken, but I acted in good faith due to existing and past talkpage discussion about it which included the source I eventually used.) Should I have kept working to reach common ground on talkpage when I got no signs from either of them that they wanted to do the same? -PrBeacon (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting quite tedious. There is no requirement to go to talk to discuss a clearly synthesized statement which is both not backed up by the source, and is grossly undue weight even if the source had given you a leg to stand on. You talk about working to reach common ground, yet your first reaction was to start this ANI. It is hard to find common ground when one party is so combative. Arzel (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We're both combative due to our history of disagreements, but my early actions in this case were to try discussing it on the talkpage and revising the suggested content -- this ANI came after. Other editors' feedback on the talkpage now is encouraging, but I see only Weaponbb7 digging in his heels and Arzel not joining since this ANI was opened. (Note to admins -- my previous response to Salvio &others was removed [170] with no explanation in the edit summary.). -PrBeacon (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

edits by 'Scarlet Johansen'

Resolved

 – Scarlet Johansen (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by Spartaz (talk · contribs) due to concerns with the username. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the names similarity to Scarlett Johannson (possible coincidence), editor Scarlet Johansen (talk · contribs) appears to be trying to perpetrate a hoax centering around the number 808. See their now deleted first edit—diff to Internet meme, which mentions 4chan. They also edited 808—diff, 808 State—diff (both deleted) and Area code 808—diff which I started at and marked as unreferenced, before following the edit trail back with growing 'concern'. Before I investigated, I was tempted to report to UAA as a username violation.
Opinions please? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1st diff corrected --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left her a message explaining that she needs to verify her edits with references. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Very AGF of you FisherQueen! All their edits have been reverted now (myself and 2 other editors) most before I posted here. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 13:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a WP:UAA violation. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that's what I actually thought/said above ↑ too! But AGF I investigated and went WT%? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• slap face* yes, you did. D'oh. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever reads everthing people post? I need to learn to be a bit less linguistially verbose perchance? I feel it is a problematic Username. The last time I looked into a username of a Real Person, I uncovered what proved to be a Hoax article in preparation and several sockpuppets/ connected Users. I'll AGF again and see if 'Scarlet' comes back. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, UAA is taking a look. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Er... you guys really are going to AGF extremes. That account looks like a blatant troll to me. First edit was to add something about /b/ to internet meme. [171]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I reverted several of their edits, so I'm rather sus of them. As I said above, I found a new user account by the name of Ewa Sonnet (talk · contribs), and I knew there was a real Ewa Sonnet, and it led to all sorts of places (as per my post above).
What is /b/ by the way? -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 23:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

/b/ is, well...see 4Chan. —DoRD (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Use of the term "newfag" was a pretty good indication of the user's intentions. It's a term often thrown around 4chan, and apart from that it is also a rather dubious term as it contains the word "fag". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the username has been blocked by Spartaz. --Bsadowski1 08:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

disruption of moors article by ITSENJOYABLE (talk)

This editor talk) Has been causing unnecessary commotion on the article moors. He is constantly removing content and explanation that pertains to Black Africans and is not providing a reason and not only that he has started an edit war and is preventing any one from editing the article. This behavior started a while back and then he stopped editing on Wikipedia now he is back with his Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND mentality and causing havoc again. Botsystem (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a serious edit war going on here; you might consider taking this report to the edit warring noticeboard and/or filing a request for protection. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that SISPCM (talk · contribs) has also joined the war, reverting an edit which undid the unexplained removal of references and wikilinks, claiming that it is vandalism without explanation (sorry, it was a different editor which claimed vandalism with a similar edit). I've reverted this edit, but as there's clearly a serious edit war going on here I'm going to avoid joining it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guftiger_wunsch: this appears to be a slow moving edit war, with an editor who keeps removing text and sources, adding accusations of vandalism, on top of that. I see, however, that no attempt at talking to the editor have been made, apart from two level three warnings on his talk page (and not even really spot on, if I may say so). I think that a stern warning (and a short block, if he persists) might do the trick... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ITSENJOYABLE also has been removing the picture of Othello (a Moor) and Desdemona from Interracial marriage. SISPCM removed it once too, which makes me think they may be related accounts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that SISPCM made such an edit on this page without warning, and the fact that ITSENJOYABLE would be getting very close to 3RR if not for that, led me to a similar suspicion. Perhaps a SPI and checkuser report is in order here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, user:Giftiger_wunsch and Malik Shabazz you are on to something. I think those account are related as well, here is an edit ITSENJOYABLE made After SISPCM vandalized the page earlier on in May [[172]] Another incident is in the article Thraco-Roman when ITSENJOYABLE's edits got reverted by both me and another user SISPCM "came in" and reverted it back as he did today.[[173]] Botsystem (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on [174] I think it's fairly obvious that they have some relation. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I do have a relation with User:SISPCM in the sense that I have made his acquaintance on the Internet, exchanging WP user info. But I did not asked him to second me in the edit disputes I am involved in on WP. He acts on his own accord, and most probably he follows my editing. (An IP check will show that we are two different users; in any case, I really can`t see how one could honestly think that I tried to avoid 3RR problems by resorting to something so obvious... And btw, what is the relation between Botsystem and Malik Shabazz? The former seems to merely be a sock/surrogate account created for editing a certain, particular article, i.e. Moors; do check his edit history!). In regard to the dispute on the article Interracial marriage (to which I was lead precisely because of the ongoing dispute at Moors), please note that me and my counter-arguer, Malik Shabazz have taken the dispute to the talk page, and, pending my reply there, I have not reverted to my version. I believe this demonstrates my good faith regarding the quality of these articles. Now back to the dispute regarding Moors. I believe that I have followed the protocol when I deleted the unencyclopedic and POVish content which user Botsystem insists on keeping: per WP:Undue weight I have removed the Afrocentrist claim that the Moors were Black people, a claim backed by a book written by Afroncentrist scholar Ivan van Sertima (among other fantasies, the books also claims that the reason why present-day people of North Africa are White are because the supposed ancient Black African elite (the ancient Egyptians, Mauri, Libu, etc.) was absorbed by the more numeorus White European slaves they imported and owned...). I have also removed an unsubstantiated statement simply because the reference, as given, is unscientific: Barack Obama did not co-sign this article - numbering merely 5 pages, with a line spacing of 2 (!) -, the publishing info are absent, as is the page number in the reference, and, most importantly, because its content does not relate to the statement for which it claims to act as reference! And lastly, I changed the lead paragraph per reason given in the edit summary ("We are dealing in terms of ethnies (culture and languages), not races. An Arab or Berber could also be Black, but this is not the topic of this article"). IMO, race aspects should be dealt with in a separate chapter of this article; this was what I intended to do, if only user Botsystem wouldn`t have tried to push his agenda. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't delved into huge detail here, but looking at the edits, you removed cited content without explanation, and even claimed that it was vandalism. As for suggesting sockpuppetry with Malik and Botsystem, I believe this clears that up immediately: Malik is a sysop with over 41,000 edits going back to 2006 and Botsystem is an infrequent editor whose first edit, however, was April 2009. It's rather far-fetched to claim that a trusted sysop created a SPA sockpuppet over a year ago on the off-chance that he might need to use it to edit a specific article now; is that really what you're suggesting? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually expecting an answer? Or why do you seem to bog down to this petty issue? I am not clinging on whether these two users are the same. It means nothing to my argumentation, I realise this clearly. I hope this issue is closed. I haven't delved into huge detail here, but looking at the edits, you removed cited content without explanation - well, if the edit summaries don`t constitute explanations, I don`t know what would... Do delve into detail, and, if you answer, do also tell me how is it called when you insert uncyclopedic content without explanation. And you do it again, and again, and again. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, if it's a petty issue perhaps you should not have brought it up. Secondly, the material is by no means unencyclopaedic. In fact, the additions you were reverting simply introduced wikilinks, an additional item on the list of races which are termed Moors, and a supporting reference. As far as I'm concerned, this is an uncontroversial addition which cannot be challenged unless you can show that either the reference is unreliable and support that with multiple more reliable references stating the contrary, or that the reference does not give mention to the added material and thus is not a valid reference for the statement. Claiming that this is vandalism and giving no other explanation is seriously misstating policy, as well as certainly not assuming good faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking different languages. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I can speak the same language. ITSENJOYABLE, if you repeat stunts like this again I will be extremely concerned. Do not refer to good faith edits as vandalism.

All of you: use edit summaries - deciphering the mess of "Undid revision X by Y" is a nightmare.

All of you: why was the last edit to the talk page in March? Hint: pointless reversions can be avoided if you talk.

TFOWR 16:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Being charged for personal attacks

Okay,, I have my own problems but this one I did not need. I've been working on this article for years. It transform it's self with new references, I'm not a writer but I have this passion about the subject to have piles of references plus I have the support of most who knows the subject. An editor comes in a without a word cut's it, is from the start starts his own format the filling unreferenced materiel, I start off basically from the start. Well this goes on for a while until he cut's it again and verbally attacked me. When I requested a new editor, he falsely charges me for a personal attack on him, the facts are all there all you have to do is read it to know that what he is saying is false. I would like to have the truth be known and any negativity comments on my personal file be removed. I have a new editor now and I feel we are working very well together, he knows about the subject and it is close to complication. What can I do to clear my name? Please reply to my talk page. Thank for reading this rant Andy2159 (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)