Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637

User:Timmy Polo

Timmy Polo (talk · contribs) was blocked in April for repeatedly adding unnecessary plot details to film articles, and was warned several times. He previously edited as an IP (99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and the IP was blocked for 3 months. Timmy Polo socked many times (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timmy Polo/Archive), and each time showed a lack of competence and clue to be editing Wikipedia. The 3 month block on that IP has expired, and he immediately began adding unnecessary plot details to articles. I am asking, first off, that User:99.88.78.94 be blocked for more than 3 months this time, and perhaps that a community ban take effect. Timmy has indicated on several occasions that he currently attends college (he edited from the West Hills Community College IP, 198.189.228.4, so I don't think it's a matter of him being young and immature. He has socked 14 times, and has continually lied about his name in his repeated unblock attempts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that his hosting provider keeps the same IP address for so long, but I can't deny the similarity in editing pre- and post-block. Looks like the same person. My inclination, now that he's been fairly warned a couple times, is to apply a longer block immediately upon the next incident. Although I won't object if someone else decides to block anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just been blocked for one year. I still want to start a discussion about a community ban for Timmy Polo. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – Unbacklogged. TFOWR 23:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

AIV is slightly backlogged, if an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shakira 2010 Tour (its become a bit of a mess)

Resolved

 – Mess cleaned up and move protection applied by Graham87

Ok this is less of a request for administrators to act against an inidividual user its more of a case of correcting the actions of lots of users which has left a tangled mess of redirects and articles.

Background

• Shakira announced a world tour for 2010.
• The article was initially called She Wolf Tour
• This was moved to 2010 World Tour by Shakira
• which was moved to Shakira 2010 World Tour
• which was moved to Shakira 2010 Global Tour
• which was at some point also located at Tour de las Delicias
• as well as Tour of Earthly Delights
• which has just moved via copy and pasted to The Sun Comes Out World Tour.

Issues

• Multiple copy and paste moves
• Messy tangle of redirects.
• Inconsistant article history.

Suggestion

• Histomerge of Tour of Earthly Delights to The Sun Comes Out World Tour.
• Deletion of ALL of the other pages listed as then they serve little purpose.
• Move protection, as seen above there's a history of moving the article.

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a dedicated fan who is an admin? Because I'm not touching this one with a ten foot mic stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well as an editor who has the first or second most contributions to the article I wouldn't have requested if I wasn't sure to some sort of degree. Shakira has officially confirmed the tour title on her website if that helps. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All done, as requested, and I've also moved the old talk page over. I'm not a Shakira fan, just a history merge fan. :-) Graham87 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Graham... its been an utter and complete mess. I actually lost track of everything myself and I am one of the subject's largest contributors. phew! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User: 214.15.218.60

This user has been warned multiple times (eight thus far) about vandalizing Wikipedia yet continues to do so. The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you reported it to WP:AIV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV that is. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

Resolved

 – Page protected for 7 days, editors encouraged to work for consensus on talk page before making changes. --WGFinley (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute about the Restoring Honor rally crowd size section. A handful of editors, such as User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous and an IP user who uses different IP addresses, are trying to undermine the section by filling it with POV. Many attempts have been made to resolve the issue on the talk page but these editors refuse to comply. They are fixed on trying to prove two certain estimates, made by CBS/AirPhotosLive.com and Stephen Doig, are the only "scientific" estimates and thus the only ones to be taken seriously. Needless to say these two estimates are among the lower estimates out there. Estimates by many other reliable media outlets such as NBC have been removed or undermined. Several tags have been placed on the section -- POV, Debate, and undue weight. Several editors have warned the users and attempted to resolve the issue on talk but to no avail. Not only are the edits in violation of Wikipedia standards but they contain poor grammar. Examples:

• Here, the editor tried to "debunk" a certain estimate.
• Here, the editor removed important information about the physical size of the crowd and "critiqued" an "unscientific" estimate.
• Here, the editor inserted a source of questionable notability criticizing non-CBS estimates when earlier he had removed a criticism of CBS's estimate, saying it was not notable.

These are just a few examples I can find at the moment with my limited time. It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are "scientific" or not and which are to be taken seriously. We need to report all estimates. These users reject this.

I am asking for assistance on this article. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Response: Objections have been made to good faith edits.

The editor asserts that"It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are 'scientific' or not and which are to be taken seriously. We need to report all estimates. These users reject this."

Early on this might have been the case, and since it was a valid point, later edits of mine never rated estimate as unscientific or not without citation. See: [1]

• Here, the editor tried to "debunk" a certain estimate.

It would be helpful if the editor was less oblique. The editor seems be referring to a nonexistent estimate of NBC's of 300,000 which by citations, has been both misreported and debunked. Here is the relevant Talk discussion.[2] Since bad reporting of crowd size estimates is central to the controversy endemic to these estimates, the bogus nature of the NBC number was explained to give context, and my hope is that this is restored to the article. I did unsuccessfully try to find a source for NBC actually releasing an estimate of 300,000, and the editor is welcome to try, but so far, the editor has made no attempt to establish the alleged NBC estimate as valid.

• Here, the editor removed important information about the physical size of the crowd and "critiqued" an "unscientific" estimate.

The editor seems to be again referring again the NBC estimate I left in a edit which I had since changed substantially making it now moot.

Regarding the "packed" sentence. This is not an estimate at all, it's hyperbole. Previously the 1st sentence of the paragraph said that the crowd was a large open event. To avoid having the first two sentences being redundant, the first one was removed.

• Here, the editor inserted a source of questionable notability criticizing non-CBS estimates when earlier he had removed a criticism of CBS's estimate, saying it was not notable.

This is the first I've heard of the editor condemning On The Media as "a source of questionable notability". Since we have no idea of why the the editor is skeptical, there's no way of responding to this.

As for who "removed a criticism", this accusation is troubling and cause for concern. Per an edit summary,[3] BS24 said he/she was "Removing blogger sentence per further consideration." . [4]. The editor has not engaged in any any further attempt to defend the source found to be unusable in this case.

The blogger at issue who attempted to find fault with CBS's estimate has been thoroughly proven to be unreliable in this Talk discussion,[5]. After which the editor had quit the discussion, so we have no idea why the editor still feels source deserves inclusion. I would hardly refer to such a poor source by "saying it was not notable", and possibly infer that it was valid but just not that important, I object to an apparent attempt to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my concerns regarding the source. see:[6]

The editor says that I have maintained that the CBS and Doig have made "the only 'scientific' estimates and thus the only ones to be taken seriously." I know of no other scientific estimates made public by anyone with experience in the matter. On The Media unequivocally stated that there was a problem with scientific and unscientific estimates being given "equal weight." And Doig said statistical estimates were the only way to get numbers based in reality, but these citations are not in the current protected edit. This was done by citation of reliable sources. Regarding it is "Needless to say these two estimates are among the lower estimates out there." I have no idea what is being alluded to and would urge the editor to explain it further or withdraw it since it seems to suggest bad faith.

Most of these issues have been dealt with, or should be dealt with on the Talk page, especially the new arrival of whether or not On The Media is a notable source. In general regarding the crowd size estimates, the editor is not able to make good arguments why an unscientific estimates deserve equal weight. Most of the unscientific sources are briefly mentioned because there are so few of them. Because they do not reveal there protocols and procedures of estimation. (They often do not source the estimates, so where they came from is unknown.) There is simply not much to say about them. There has been a suggestion that the scientific methods are given too much attention, and I agree. This could be reduced and improve the section.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article history and talk page there was clear evidence of an ongoing edit war. I've protected the page for one week so the editors can work out their differences on the talk page to achieve consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to add it is not so easy to work constructively on this article if an editor uses "questionable" methods to reach his "goals", for example BS24 in this case.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Acid Bomb

Resolved

Can someone please take a look at Acid Bomb? The article is nothing more than instructions on making a potentially dangerous object. There is currently a prod tag on the page but I was wondering if this can be deleted sooner as something WP should not be hosting. If WP:NOTHOWTO is the only policy violation here and there's nothing that warrants immediate deletion that's fine; I just thought I'd ask the question. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. We have no CSD for that, but per IAR I have deleted it. --Chris (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Salted also, someone will need to explain why and what before using that title again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as y'all are IARing, you might want to salt Acid bomb as well. -Atmoz (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Would be good if someone could remove the salt. Seems like a notable topic. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipolice

Resolved

 – The Cabal has authorized me to certify this as resolved with no action. You don't know, you don't want to know. --WGFinley (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:WikiPolice acceptable? I thought we discouraged this sort of thing... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's really only intended to be the kind of jokey fauna that is always around. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's humorous. Wikipedia:Village stocks and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars aren't necessary for the project either, but I wouldn't want them to go away. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly an attempt to be humorous. I find it... not so funny. Doesn't mean it's discouraged, other than by a wide response of "eh, whatever". Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks(!) You're looking at the author. Never mind, to each their own of course. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that seemed too harsh--I don't doubt other people might find it funny--I just don't. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As with the movie Office Space, perhaps the idea is funnier than the execution of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You take that back right now! That movie was/is awesome. Like a hundred million hot dogs. Protonk (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It was good, just not as good as I was expecting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you're wrong. As to the substance of this ANI report: the page is pretty weak, but well within the current essay guidelines. I'm not sure what C&E is accomplishing with it, but that doesn't matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm "wrong" that it did not live up to "my" expectations??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

At this rate, I expect we will shortly have articles on the jokey fauna Wikipedia:WikiNyarlathotep, Wikipedia:WikiOnychophora and Wikipedia:WikiBicycle Repairman. (Omigawd, did I just trigger WP:BEANS?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gero II

Ummmm... not sure if this is a browser problem or something and if this is the appropriate place to report this, but when I try to go to the article on Gero II all I get is either a black screen (in IE) or a black screen with just the Wikipedia logo and the tab for article (in Safari). Clicking on the "article" tab does not solve the problem. AFAIK this is the only article that this happens with.radek (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the same issue (it's actually with the page to which Gero II redirects, Gero II, Margrave of the Saxon Ostmark.) The edit page doesn't seem out of the ordinary... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone had inserted some CSS that created a black screen. Removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks.radek (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason that we don't have a filter for position:fixed in articlespace? I understand that it's essential for daft user pages and the like, but I can't see any plausible reason to allow it on articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis, edit warring, incivility on Gold standard by 71.184.184.238

I apologize if this isn't the right place. The intricacies of WP bureaucracy elude me. There has been a long-going slow-motion edit war at Gold standard with one editor (71.184.184.238) pushing various original research via synthesis. Several editors have shown amazing patience in discussions on the talk page, but these attempts have been met with general diatribes, abuse, more synthesis, and a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The talk page has become huge with nonproductive discussions.

The user has been blocked once already for these issues, as well as trouble at Second amendment [7]. They have received several warnings on their talk page since the block [8], [9], [10].

As examples of recent behavior, This edit continues reintroducing a whole lot of material. I objected to it here because the references provided for one bit where completely inadequate. As one concrete example of the WP:OR, the material "Since the gold standard rewards savers, there is a greater pool of savings which can be used to make investments and start new industries. Under a fiat standard however, saving is penalized,[35] quite often by negative real interest rates [36]..." with that [36] being a link to these charts that provide no analysis at all, never mind a mention of either gold or fiat standards. My objections went unanswered (in any specifics, the editor says they believed they addressed the objections), so I have simply pointed back there when the material is re-inserted (as it has been several times). The most recent time the response was this. Other examples of talk page behavior included this diatribe and this bit.

The problem could be potentially solved just by semi-protecting the page (although the talk page behavior would still be a problem), but it seems more reasonable to block 71.184.184.238. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

71.184.184.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I have blocked this IP for disruptive editing for 5 days. Previous block from July dictates the length, and the general unwillingness to hold a dialogue in a civil manner necessitates this block. Jmlk17 05:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This IP editor has also been socking.[11] Suggest a longer block if he reappears and behavior remains unchanged. LK (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Community Ban of user:WillBildUnion?

(Sorry if this is the wrong venue).

I was investigating the edit history on some content that appeared to just be suffering from copy-edit errors, but looking further into the user's history, it appears that he's flaunting a topic ban (Greek, Roman, Christian). I'm having difficulty finding out exactly whether or not that's the case, but I thought I might as well err on the side of reporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talk • contribs) 06:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't see anything about this topic ban at WP:BANNED or WP:RESTRICT (those are not always kept up to date). Is it mentioned somewhere else?
2. Unless repeated and/or egregious, breaking topic bans is usually handled with a warning, then escalating blocks. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
3. The mentions I found were on his user:discussion page and here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talk • contribs) 07:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban seems to be in the ANI archives here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - While the topic ban seems to have violated, there's no way he should be community banned for reverting vandalism[12] and adding a reference[13]. A block for the topic ban? It may seem in order, since it's not yet October 3rd, and he's edited two "Christian" articles. A community ban? When his last block was for 72 hours? Massive overkill, IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  There's pretty strong precedent that a ban is a ban, and that editing in spite of a ban should not be looked upon kindly even if it is benign. If the editor thinks his ban should be reviewed then he should move to make that happen rather than just flouting the sanctions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  A topic ban (where, "Users who violate such bans may be blocked.") is not a community ban. Is a "community ban" tantamount to a "site ban", or not? He should be blocked for violating his topic ban again, not banned by the community. There is a huge difference between these two "bans", and the language needs clarification for us all, I think... Doc9871 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  If you look at other cases where editors have skirted round the boundaries of topic bans (or openly flouted them), they're not typically looked upon kindly. Sanctions are social measures and they aren't solely about preventing disruption. Users who aren't able to operate within our social boundaries (which includes respecting sanctions if they're imposed) should not be encouraged to edit here, as it seems to inevitably end in tears. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  Chris, I love ya dearly, "...but the question is whether an indef (which has halted the disruption) genuinely deserves to be upgraded to a siteban... Considering that his block log is hardly extensive, a ban on the grounds of unmanageability would be an extreme reaction. If it was true for Sven70: it's the same for WillBildUnion. No exceptions to this rule... Doc9871 (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  That's a cute little gotcha attempt, but the situations are apples and oranges. WBU is already under a topic ban, which he is not following. The question is what to do about that, and all I've done is point out that there's pretty good precedent not to allow editors who are topic banned from a certain subject to continue to make minor edits to it. To be quite honest a slap on the wrist with clear instruction not to continue to flout the ban while it is in place would seem to be an acceptable solution. Other than the word "ban" occurring in both, there are no similarities between this and the Sven70 sitation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  No "gotcha" in a bad way: I voted for your RfA because I know you're a good admin, and so what if we disagreed on the Sven70 thing. It goes beyond these editors. Block WillBildUnion for a week for violating the topic ban: longer if deemed appropriate. A community ban? I would vehemently oppose it. But... who am I? I'm Jean Valjean!!!! ;P Doc9871 (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  Apologies, I should have titled it "Re:Community Ban...". Brian Geppert (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPAM on Taobao

Would it be possible if http://www.esybuy.com was added to the list of prohibited spam URLs? A number of users keep adding the URL; note how they've piped it so that it appears as www.china.org.cn/english/business/239421.htm, which seems to be an attempt to fool people who click the link, anticipating a reference. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at WP:SBL. –xeno^talk 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

new type of personal attack tactic

User:Dr. Dan made this IMO very uncivil personal attack [14] quote: "You see, Loosmark has a penchant to appear in the most unusual and untimely manner whenever I make a post on WP some have suggested that there's a schoolboy crush involved, others have suggested that he's stalking me." Just by examining my edit history and that of Dr.Dan one can see that his claim that I appear whenever he makes a post on WP is blatantly false: [15], [16]. Further, nobody ever claimed that I am stalking him or that I have schoolboy crush(!?), in fact this seems to be "clever" attempt at passing a personal attack under the radar: The formula is "some have suggested that {insert heavy insult}, but I don't think that's the case". Just imagine somebody saying "some have suggested that you are beating your wife but i don't believe that's the case". IMO that's nothing but a covert personal attack and IMO totally unacceptable.  Dr. Loosmark  16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA is thataway... Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Meeso- personal attacks gone too far?

Resolved

 – User warned of Macedonia sanctions and admonished not to make further threats. --WGFinley (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned about Meeso (talk · contribs) for a while. I gave him a 3R warning two weeks ago [17] and noticed his uncivil behaviour then. Edit summaries such as "go fuck yourself !! deleting bullshit on my talk page" (on his talk page) and " IT IS NOT ANY LESS SIGNIFICANT THAN OTHER INFO! STOP YOUR IGNORANT BALLYRAG! OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS!" [18] are clearly not acceptable. I was considering going to WQA but then found an odd message on his talk page [19] from an IP which was clearly a response to a request for the name of an editor/Administrator editing Kosovo. His request is at [20] and says " Please tell me his name and I shall put him down for ever! I assure you if what you say is true, this admin will be lost from this article and maybe Wikipedia altogether!". I'll notify him now. Note that his sig reads 'Maysara'. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that his threat is probably just shooting the breeze, but it's still unacceptable. He needs to retract it or be blocked. I can put up with a lot in the way of incivility, but threatening editors is beyond the pale. And Eastern Europe articles are already volatile enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

His personal attacks and incivility are not just restricted to Eastern Europe. This (both the comment and the edit summary) is typical of his pattern of incivility and personal attacks at Talk:Egyptian Arabic. While not of the magnitude of his threats against Dbachmann, it is still indicative of his overall attitude. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is protected by general sanctions I have warned him[21] and logged the warning.[22] I've also directed him to withdraw the threat or risk being blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I retracted my statement (which was not a threat, although of course it is understandable to be thus interpreted by the admin). Maysara (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any reasonable legal proceeding would determine that to be a threat. --Chris (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what happens when a user warned of discretionary sanctions moves to a topic area not covered by them? Is it just regular content dispute again? --Selket ^Talk 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been warned about his behavior here and even if it went outside of sanctions that would still be looked at. If he acts in a simiar manner again free free to report it. --WGFinley (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing

Unless I'm mistaken(and granted, I haven't done much digging), the IP's post is outing and should be deleted/reverted, and rev-deleted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Considered that but the user he named edits under his real name and no other information was revealed I don't think it's outing. --WGFinley (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, 'D' was not his first name.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a post on Dab's talk page referring to the old thread with the full name that's still there. However deleting it seems a bit pointless to me since I find plenty of discussions which include Dab's first name including ANI itself 203.184.61.141 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And you are posting anonymously here because? Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless Dab is the one that posted that name, it's still outing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Zaspino and user:Theobald Tiger and IP'S

The two following threads are really one thread; I've joined them up so as to make them easier to discuss. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Zaspino

I would hereby like to report the user User:Zaspino as I feel harassed. This user has not made any edit which was not in an attempt to prevent me from editing (see). This user is continuing an argument that was present on nl.wiki here. Since the account has apparently been created simply to counter my edits I definitely feel harassed. Since the user is asking for ridiculous things and thinks these are solid points no argument has convinced this user of the correctness of my claims in the articles morality and teleology. The user insists on retracing steps and is asking for references of the references I made and is furthermore insensitive to any changes I made, explanations I offered and references I left.

Now, I am willing to listen to most everybody, but my patience has run out with this user since there appears to be no reason in him. Unfortunately it shows that my patience has run thin, but I hope this matter will be properly dealt with since this user is not editing here to benefit the encyclopedia in my opinion, although he claims otherwise.

--Faust (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling people trolls is not nice nor does it help your situation. —fetch·comms 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask.. --Faust (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would be clearer if you would refer to the specific differences link for the places where you feel that Zaspino has been harrassing you. Pointing us just at the whole talk page doesn't make it clear which particular action it is to which you are taking exception. One problem was that you got confused as to who said what, as shown at this diff; the words in question had been added in a section heading in this earlier edit by an IP, and not by Zaspino, but you refused to accept it when Theobald Tiger explained it to you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is simply ludicrous. Faust's arrogance gets in the way of his judgment, causing him to consider any objection to his edits as being inspired by a non-knowledgeable team of conspiring users. Zaspino (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not an arrogant man. I undid yet another attempt of Zaspino's to push his POV without consensus here. --Faust (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger

I would hereby like to report the user User:Theobald_Tiger as I feel harassed. This user has come to en.wiki to prevent me from making any edit here, after a dispute I have had with him on nl.wiki. Not a single edit since he has 're-awoken' on en.wiki is about anything else. Apart from that this user is insensitive to any and all arguments I have given in favor of my edits, including references, references of my references, explanations, dictionary suggestions, etc. I see no reason to continue discussion with this user since the user is clearly only interested in preventing my edits. That is why the user keeps retracing our steps and shows no recognition of changes I made on behalf of edits, nor recognition of clear sources........and worldwide recognition... --Faust (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• you will get a lot more sympathetic response if you quit calling them trolls and be more constructive in presenting your issues. Please provide some specific diffs where you believe admin action is required. Blocks are not punitive, rather they are invoked to stop future disruption. For that to be apparent i think you need to provide diffs of poor behaviour and examples where you have tried to go through the various dispute resolution stages :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask..

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, by "FTOWR" do you mean me? We've talked a bit recently, so it's possible, but I don't recall anything about this. Do you have a diff? I'll have a dig through my talkpage archives but a diff would greatly help. TFOWR 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went look at the Teleology talkpage to see the two famous "trolls" Zaspino and Theobald. I found two users who seemed knowledgeable and bent on improving the article. And one user, Faust, who was behaving in an uncivil and inappropriately condescending way: "I have adapted the above in a way that I think will be more comprehensible to Zaspino"... "Theobald, you are interrupting a discussion that might prove a learning experience to Zaspino... please stay out of this." Here is an appropriately critical post by Zaspino, and here Faust's response to it. If anybody there is to be called a troll (which we're not supposed to do anyway, yada yada), it's not Zaspino, nor Theobald. Advice to the community: it would be good if somebody kept an eye on this article (unfortunately I don't have the time myself). Advice to Faust: don't be so bloody rude. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Going by your posts on their talkpages, apparently you regard this ANI posting as a "request for blocks". I don't think Zaspino nor Theobald are in the slightest danger of being blocked. But you might be, if you carry on in the same way for much longer. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

@TFOWR, Yes, I meant you, apologies for the miswrite. I sent you several mails, but never got a reply. I also alerted Shell Kenny, but she is short on time I think. @Bishonen: I can understand your opinion, but I ask you to bear in mind that I knew I was being harassed from Zaspino's first edit here since it was a continuation of events on nl.wiki. That simply makes me lose my patience. Apart from that neither Theobald, not Zaspino are knowledgeable in the field, as is obvious from ALL comments they have made. They are only good at rhetorics. My case is made by the fact that I alerted TFOWR and Shell Kinney to what was going on at the very first post Zaspino made and predicted this chain of events. --Faust (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So you were in battle array from the very start? No... I'm afraid I don't see that as making your case. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Ah, email! That would explain it. Let me have a dig... apologies for not looking into it, I suspect yours isn't the only email I've missed. TFOWR 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, caught up with me email. Faust sent me two emails on 27 August and 30 August which raised concerns Faust had with one of the editors discussed here. Faust subsequently sent me two emails on 2 September which additionally raised concerns with a second editor discussed here. Basically, I can confirm that Faust's comment above re: alerting me is correct. Beyond that, I'm way out of my depth: this is - as far as I can see - a content dispute involving philosophy. If I were to reply to Faust's emails now I'd basically say: ask the experts. TFOWR 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Actually, it proves that I am not the one who was in battle array from the beginning and that I have been very patient without any reason for that. In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding. This explain his unreasonable denial of my references and his continual stating of falsities quite clearly. It shows that no matter what he will never accept anything other than his POV and is not interested in building an encyclopedia based on truth. Since Zaspino and Theobald are in a tagteam together, continuing a dispute from nl.wiki here I cannot understand why this would reflect negatively on me.--Faust (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IP'S 157.242.159.225 and 76.168.95.118 and 79.182.17.168 and 173.58.234.86

I would like to report the Ip's stated above, which are used by the same user. This user insists on places his personal definition in the morality article, without reaching consensus. I have undid the revision four times now and I think an edit-war is just not done. Although a majority is in favor of a revision, I am not convinced this should be done since the thoughts outlined in that revision are POV's explained elsewhere in the article, now being trumped as a general definition. I cannot escape the thought that they are in a tagteam with Zaspino and Theobald, since I can think of no good reason why such a user who would be interested in moral ethics would not have a user page, but suddenly come to the rescue of Zaspino and Theobald. --Faust (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The revisions I undid are 1, undone because of a POV posited as a definition, 2, undone because of the same reason and requested to discuss first on the talk page, 3, same reasons, 4, same reasons. Although the IP's vary I think this is the same user, if not, it is a tag team.

NOTE: if you want them, ask for the 'whois' queries I did. They are seperate companies, but the user has acknowledged to be at least two of these IP'S and any more random browser appearing saying the current version is not correc after months of never being under dispute just when there is a dispute with is transferred from the nl.wiki would make this story even more (if possible) unlikely. --Faust (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can clearly see Faust's indignation, but I fail to see what I actually did wrong. As far as I know I have broken no policy here and I have treated Faust respectfully. My concerns are with the content of en.wiki and I cannot help but notice that Faust's edits and proposals often show faulty reasoning and wobbly and untidy wording. The last few days my criticisms have been directed at precisely those defects. I have been careful not to refer to nl.wiki issues. I am not here to quarrel as my edit history amply testifies. I am definitely not the same editor as any of the above mentioned IP's (I have never contributed to en.wiki anonymously) - the anons actually know a lot more about the taxonomy of ethics than I do. By saying "In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding" Faust refers (without my consent) to an e-mail exchange with me. His conclusion is an outright lie. Furthermore, I do not form a "tag team" with Zaspino or with any of the anons mentioned above. On his talk page Faust states: "I am a horror at following policies, but a miracle at seeing what is going on..." To cut a long story short: I think Faust's ability to see what is going on as well as his ability to communicate leave something to be desired, to put it mildly. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I know I am just an anon IP, so I ask you to WP:assume good faith and hear me out. I am not any of the other IP addresses and I find it a little premature that the conclusion is that I am especially when the user that is multiple anon IP's has disclosed his conflict of interest. I am a anon user who generally performs wikignome activities, primarily stubbing and copy-edits by solely using the Random Article tool. Prior to my edit, my ISP made the unfortunate decision to change my IP rendering my past edits inaccessible to Faust. I know this is not a standard way to edit Wikipedia, but it is the way I chose to give back here. The cleanup tag on the page made me decide to investigate the talk page and I felt that a consensus existed that Faust was not interested in as well as brought the article into conformity with Amorality. However, I also sought greater consensus with an RfC. As for the Whois, I decided to check that out too. Interestingly, one of the multis that Faust is claiming is not even on my side of the world and does not appear to be a proxy either. Also I fail to see a WP:3RR violation for edit warring at least if I am figuring out the times correctly and good faith is assumed. I wish to state that I only edited the part in question a single time.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Faust never warned me with {{subst:ANI-notice}} upon my mention at the noticeboard and only mentioned seeking blocks in passing in the Talk:Morality page. I had to dig this page up myself and I find this the wrong way to offer constructive criticism of a user on Faust's part.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though. Tag team comes to mind. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do take note of my RfC however, which I do hope can eventually solve this problem once and for all. You don't have to believe me if you choose, but know that I am trying to do good.173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though, especially since you seem to be watching my edits, as is the MO of the others. There are just too many similarities to be a coincidence, also the MO you are displaying is one that can easily be considered harassment. Tag team comes to mind, but, as said, I may be mistaken, in which case I apologise. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game. Hans Adler 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I think further escalation of the conflicts between me and Faust can no longer be avoided, I have asked an administrator who has been involved to a certain degree in conflict resolution for advice. (I am prepared to leave the judgment of Faust's edits and proposals to the en.wiki community minus myself, as did one of the anons.) See Ask for Advice. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Of course, I could have simply quit the scene without bothering an admin. I am not important, and though I am not completely unfamiliar with ethical and philosophical issues, I am not a specialist either. The reason that I doubt whether my exit is desirable or not is that an extremely mild-mannered, well-read and knowledgeable editor as Pfhorrest, who writes clear, unambiguous and with precision about ethics and philosophy, is left alone in fighting the dragon (if not supported by the community). See for example [23]. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained to Faust that this IP and 157.242.159.225 are the only connected with me. He continues to accuse me of edits made by different IPs. I and several other IP-users have already complained about his grouping us together with some conspiracy theory to do with nl.wiki, which I have never even visited. Now he's doing whois lookups and still alleging we're the same people? Mention this again and I will report you or harassment. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting ridiculous. The users Theobald and Zaspino have no interest, nor knowledge on the matters discussed. They are merely trying to block well referenced edits on behalf of their own POV. I can understand that some people share that POV and that, perhaps an objective statement on the subject is undesirable to them. However, I will need at least ONE source to support this POV. As to the knowledge of Pfhorrest, I do not think this is so tremendous. The only thing that I was happy with, until recently, was his ability to argue his points. However, he has chosen to edit an article which is in dispute without giving a source as well, which disappointed me greatly. --Faust (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are now five sources, and clear consensus. If an admin reads this, can you please advise as to how I can prevent Faust from harassing me and vandalizing the article at morality? See that article's history and talk page for clear evidence of Faust's single-POV filibustering against a consensus reached by at least half a dozen other editors, with sources. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Conduct of admin Cailil

Resolved

 – Further discussion on this isn't going to help. Disengaging and de-escalating is what is needed here. Fences&Windows 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cailil (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page on 8 September to warn me – quite correctly – for borderline incivility in this post to another editor. I immediately struck the offending comment, but I felt that the language used in his warning – "please avoid ad hominem remarks...This kind of comment is unhelpful and violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG" – was totally disproportionate for the rather mild phrase "behave like a grownup", not to mention the incorrect use of "ad hominem", and I told him so.

Cailil responded with a "second warning", telling me that my comment was "tendentious and uncivil" and adding, "I would suggest that is not the best idea to test the limits while operating in an area under probation (as the British Isles naming dispute is)." Now, first of all my comment, while certainly brittle, was not uncivil, and the assertion that I was "testing the limits" was unfounded and unfair, but more importantly, in commenting on his post on my talk page I was not operating in any area under probation, so the implied threat of sanction under Wikipedia:General sanctions is, not to put too fine a point on it, an abuse of admin privileges.

I protested strongly, but in moderate language (not, for instance, using the phrase "abuse of admin privileges"). Cailil responded with an even more outrageous post, telling me I was "repeatedly behaving in a tendentious manner (after being warned for such behaviour)" and that my reply was "inappropriate and would be worthy of a 3rd warning - but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt not issue a 3rd warning for it." Now, as long as I have been a user on WP it has been accepted practice that an editor may speak freely to another editor on his or her own talk page (as long as it's not outright abuse) without being threatened with sanctions. There is also – I hope and firmly believe – a tradition that admins do not use their position to place other editors at a disadvantage. There's a word for that, but I daren't utter it or I'll be blocked for sure.

Since Cailil concluded by saying, "If this continues I will have another sysop review my conduct and unless they contradict me I will then proceed to continue to enforce site policy", I wish to save him the trouble by asking sysops on this page to review his conduct. I needn't tell you, I am most unsatisfied with it. Scolaire (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:STICK and then go do something productive. Cailil has said they will get a second opinion. Your conduct may have been borderline uncivil and not quite meriting the strength of warnings (or maybe there is more background here that hasn't been discussed yet), but it is silly to argue over a mere warning. Go behave properly and you'll have nothing to worry about. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no history between Cailil and myself, or any other background that I am aware of. Second, he did not say he will get a second opinion - that was contingent on "this" continuing. Third, I have said up front that my problem was not with the "mere warning", but with the increasingly heavy threats to block me if I don't kowtow to him. "Go behave properly" is every bit as bad as the phrase I was warned about in the first place. I hadn't expected to be worse abused by the admins here than by the admin I am complaining about. Scolaire (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Scolaire I'm just going to echo Jehochman. I said I'd get a second opinion - you've already afforded my that opportunity by bringing it here - so thank you for that.
  To be clear there is no exemption from WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TPG just because it's on a userpage.
  This is your third escalation of a simple, short to-the-point and accurate warning[24] (for this). In and of itself that is tendentious. While the warnings are perhaps curt they are accurate and appropriate in an area under probation (as the British Isles naming dispute is).
  While I recognize the good faith of your redacting the uncivil remark to LevenBoy your comments to me describing my warnings as "lazy",[25] "pompous" and "groveling>"[26] are inappropriate.
  Jehochamn is now the third editor to tell you to "move on"[27][28]
  For the record you were not threatened and I did not demand you 'kneel before Zod', "grovel" or "kowtow" in any way your above reply to Jehochman[29] is a misrepresentation of the facts of my warnings. Also your reply to Finn[30] looks like (and forgive if I'm wrong) a battle-ground mentality--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Point of order: the word groveling was not a description of Cailil's warning but a description of the kind of response Scolaire supposed was being looked for by Cailil. At the beginning, Scolaire's "act like a grownup" remark was judged rude by all and it was retracted. Cailil's second and third warnings on Scolaire's talk page were two too much; they were bullying and should be retracted. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet just for clarity there was no 3rd warning. In fact if there is a portion or a phrase you can evidence as inaccurate or inappropriate (considering Scolaire's actions) please do so. As I said to Finn earlier I don't see how I belittled (or bullied) Scolaire. If you can't evidence exactly how you attest I have bullied Scoaire I will ask you to withdraw that remark. Thanks for pointing that out about "groveling" - my mistake--Cailil ^talk 22:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your second warning ("And I'm afraid I have to warn you once more for misuse of the talk space. Please modify that behaviour") is something I interpreted as "stop being a smartass on your own talk page", but I was under the impression that one's own talk page was where one had the most leeway in that regard, and I did not see anything harmful in Scolaire's smartass response. What I take to be your third warning is in your third post to the talk page section, where you end with "If this continues I will have another sysop review my conduct and unless they contradict me I will then proceed to continue to enforce site policy." To me, this statement feels like a third warning, and the pointed absence of a specific named policy enforcement action (page protection, blocking, ARBCOM) made it a veiled threat, and to my eye it constituted bullying, in that the unnamed is the most fearful. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Binksternet, but I interpreted Scolaire's "smartass" response as tendentious and making a mockery of WP:NPA (ie they stated that as their remark to LB worked that they were happy with it). WP:TPG still applies to one's user-space - there is no exemption from site policy as users don't actually own their own talk space the rules still apply there. Scolaire described my short warning as "lazy" because I didn't wikilink policies that I expected them to know - I interpreted that as incivil. What I saw was incivility and tendentious after being warned for incivility - hence warning 2.
Re the third post I clarified at the top of that post that it wasn't a warning (perhaps I should have said "I'd AGF" rather than "give the benefit of the doubt" but that's what was meant) - I would be happy to apologize if that passage, the part you mention, came off as offensive (but this dispute was going with my first warning so that cannot be the point of conflict & Scolaire has never specified what exactly was wrong about my warnings or subsequent post).
To reiterate - that remark wasn't a threat, but I can see how if taken out of context it can be seen as such. However what I said is what I meant - if the behaviour continued I would have asked another sysop's opinion and input on it and then enforced policy accordingly, that's all. There's a bit of a leap to make (even though I agree I could have couched that line better) to saying that that's a threat, or that it could be called bullying--Cailil ^talk 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • (e/c) No, Cailil, it was you who escalated. My response to your original warning was not excessive, or even unreasonable. You could just as easily have said "thank you for your feedback" and let it go. You didn't. You "warned" me simply because you took exception to the tone of my response. That is not acceptable; it is ultra vires, and it is petty. And, for the record, there was a very clear, if veiled, threat. It is there in the diffs for all to see, and to say there was not is less than honest. And (though I forgive you for saying it) if I have a battle-ground mentality, what have you got? You must have seen within hours that I was not continuing any war on the British Isles Task Force or anywhere else, so where was the need for you to be increasingly belligerent in your posts to me over the following days. It comes across as a personal vendetta, and that is not acceptable from an admin. If admins are to admonish others for immoderate language, it is incumbent on them to be moderate in their own language. And thank you, Binksternet, for daring to use the word that would have got me blocked. Scolaire (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No Scolaire you brought it here, you made an issue of the first warning and the second.
And now, I must ask what language exactly is either inaccurate or inappropriate in my posts - how did it infer anything about you? And how is it inaccurate to say that the post you were warned for is in an area under probation?
You intervened in a highly fraught atmosphere with a remark that you have admitted to being inappropriate. When warned you were incivil to me and responded in a tendentious manner - you were warned for that, not for "failing to kowtow"--Cailil ^talk 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The "behave like a grownup" is more of an inaccurate statement, then an attacking one. Why? No 2 grownups behave alike. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem remarks like that in a probationary topic area are inappropriate - Scolaire should have addressed the edits not the editor--Cailil ^talk 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bubba and 9/11

Should any authorities (Secret service?) be contacted about edits like this? The IP does geolocate to the phone # given. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Probably just a tin-foil-hatter but it never hurts to check anyway. Secret Service, and FBI crime tip form. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Might be tricky to report the edits, as they're now deleted. Fences&Windows 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On that note, is there a simple way to get from a suppressed diff to the suppression log? In a case like this it might be handy to get ahold of the oversighter hiding the revisions and I don't really know how to do that. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You would have to contact an individual functionary or their mailing list. If it is fully suppressed, the log action will be hidden as well. NW (Talk) 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Protonk (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ragusino returns"

Hi all, User:Ragusino has returned in the (very transparent) form of "User:Orsat", has harassed me on my talk [31], started an edit war on the Republic of Ragusa article, and began canvassing others for support [32] (there is no question at all as to whether that's him again, his socks are usually exceedingly easy to spot). Could someone semi-protect Republic of Ragusa and ban "Orsat" please? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. You might've got a better response at WP:SPI, to find any other sleeper accounts. Fences&Windows 00:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of History

Resolved

 – User:Slp1 revdeled the edits. Fences&Windows 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an admin may want to hide/delete the history of a couple of derogatory edits on the article Antisemitism [33] and [34]. If this is not please redirect me to correct page to post this. Thank you for your time - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just garden variety vandalism by an illiterate bigot and not really eligible for revision deletion. —DoRD (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I've both revision deleted and blocked indefinitely. --Slp1 (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... okay then. —DoRD (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi DRD, I certainly respect comment and your "Hmm", but I'd say that it meets the "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value" criteria for revdev. BTW, I've always loved your username. A good linguistic joke is a good linguistic joke!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, was this the right area to ask for this or is there an area that deals directly with RevDel requests?- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering all the dire warnings that came with the extra button, I tend to be overly cautious, but I don't dispute your judgment. Thanks for the username comment! —DoRD (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7

Resolved

 – No edit warring apparent, appears a significant article revision is being discussed. --WGFinley (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that some Windows Phone 7 fan sites have been putting out a call for fans to go to the Windows Phone 7 article to "fix" it or remove text perceived as being negative.

The largest of all Windows Phone 7 sites is WMPoweruser.com, which recently wrote this article, asking fans to edit the Wikipedia article. Yes, the fan site attacked me, labelling me a troll against Windows Phone 7.

Recently, there have been more attempts at removing referenced content in the article, often by editors who edit no other articles or subjects. So I ask for advice on what can or should be done. Can some admins keep the article on their watchlists for a while?--Lester 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about the external article, but if edit warring happens on the article, it can simply be semi- or fully-protected as appropriate. In the meantime though, I'd just ignore that article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. The only obstacle is lester (talk · contribs)--intelati^(Call) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the community agrees with CalumCookable (talk · contribs) but he's afraid of a edit war with Lester.--intelati^(Call) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There has obviously been a content dispute going on for some time. Which of the processes at WP:DR have you been through? David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calumcookable has just begun the community consensus part. So far me and one other editor, have agreed with his changes.--intelati^(Call) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm that other editor. What are we supposed to do if there aren't many people (including Lester) contributing to the discussion of changing the article? We already posted up templates that gives the readers and other editors indication that there are multiple issues with the article being discussed on the talk page. Our ultimate goal is to simply make the article have a neutral point of view, and actually have the article discuss the product itself in a NPOV. Currently, that isn't that case. --Interframe (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

'Interframe', you can't complain about not many people coming to the talk page when you make uncivil comments such as this one.--Lester 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Lester is reversing many of the changes I and some other reader made. There are lot a of people actually edition the article, but it's being reverted. If I reword the section, Lester would revert it right away. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC. Templates on the page itself help, but only catch the attention of people visiting the page. -- Atama頭 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now we wait. (Jeopardy theme song:)--intelati^(Call) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes are in the talk page. can someone change the wording (of the WP:RFC) so that it is a place for the people to place their views on the article and the changes?--intelati^(Call) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) never mind. :)--intelati^(Call) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for fan websites to change the consensus out of shear numbers? Does Wikipedia have any defenses to avoid this sort of thing? --Lester 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't meant to be based on numbers. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a windows 7 Fan. Right now, the article's title SHOULD be called "Criticizem of Windows Phone 7" The only thing I have read of the windows phone 7 is on www.maximumpc.com. Thanks.--intelati^(Call) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to get uninvolved editors in the conversation and remove the fancruft and Balance the article for a Neutral POV. (added later) Ok, now this is a user problem is now that CalumCookable (talk · contribs) is threating lester (talk · contribs) to revert back his additions until he is blocked. I want someone to intervene on the conflict before it is out of control.--intelati^(Call) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in editing this page and consider it to be very biased (against the Windows Phone 7 platform). Many changes to improve it are promptly reverted. A lot of the controversy has been because of a "missing features" section that some insist has to be there. It's a phone and a feature can't be "missing" if Microsoft knew of it and decided to not put it in the device. For instance, the phones don't transform into a jet and fly you to an island they create for you even if some tech reviewer somewhere thinks it should. My proposition is that there should be a section for announced features, features removed from Windows Mobile 6.5, and a reception section (this has been added but is very poorly structured and written). I'm tired of contributing because most of what I add gets removed in hours. This article needs someone to step in. CaptainStack (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is very biased against Windows Phone 7. In fact, it's more of a list of what Windows Phone 7 isn't rather than what Windows Phone 7 is. More emphasis is being placed on what WP7 doesn't have than what WP7 does have. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

'Illegal Operation', it may help your credibility if you were not making derogatory edit summaries such as this one.--Lester 04:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing is that with Lester, is that his actions are very annoying.--intelati^(Call) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly stupid comment by myself.--intelati^(Call) 02:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't call himself a troll, it was just an IP edit; nothing to see there. Ryan Norton 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I haven't been commenting on WP7 because Lester (and occasionally some confused or SOCK random IP) just reverts a lot of productive changes made and is a classic case of WP:OWNing this article. He's just completely ignoring the countless people who have changed and commented about that article. Also, "missing features" - that is all. Ryan Norton 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been commenting either because of Lester. I have absolutely no problem with mentioning "missing features" in the article, but many of the points are debatable and whenever we try to discuss things like this, Lester is often the only editor to disagree with changes. Now I'm sure Lester has good intentions, but he believes everyone editing the article is a fanboy, and there have been many cases of this, but some editors only wish to have a NPOV in the article, and have the article just actually discuss the product instead of focusing on other things, like the Android and [Apple iOS]] articles. --Interframe (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to close this out, I don't see any major edit warring going on, there was a disagreement about one section being removed it was put back and being discussed. Review of the discussion appears reasonable on the talk page, I encourage the editors working the article to continue the work there. --WGFinley (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Request Administrator Oversight

Can this case be re-opened, please? The article needs administrator oversight. Talk continues, but it is not in good faith. Entire sections get blanked, even though discussions continue. One editor (User:Salilshukla) in those discussions has resorted to repeated vandalism of the article:

• Vandalism 1
• Vandalism 2
• Vandalism 3

Thank you for your assistance.--Lester 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is better dealt with over at WP:AIV :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Agreed, nothing there seems to need Oversight or even RevDel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's using "oversight" in the normal, English sense of the word, not in the specific and confusing Wikipedia sense. ~ mazca ^talk 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That user blocked 24 hours that's intentional vandalism I will have a look at what else is up on the article. --WGFinley (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Gypsydog5150: Threats of violence, block evasion, sock puppetry, 3RR, vandalism... and other abusive behavior.

Last night an admin made this block of the IP account that made this edit directed to me on a talk page: "I didn't, you fucking piece of garbage. I hope you get shot in the face."

At about the same time, the articles from which this all arose (the PA gubernatorial election and candidate Tom Corbett) were protected by other admins: here and here and here

Page protection (and perhaps the block) forced the blocked IP user to emerge from his IP sockpuppets and begin using his registered account Gypsydog5150, and he has resumed the abusive behavior - despite the block imposed by an admin.

He's done a 3RR on the Tom Corbett page: here and wiped out the talk page (reverting again to the wipe after I restored it) here

These are clearly all the same editor, based on the edits on the articles in question, his various other editing patterns, and his location in Pittsburgh.

All of the IP addresses (which appear to be dynamically assigned) trace back to Verizon in Pittsburgh.

Note Gypsydog5150's contributions show an interest in:

Greensburg PA (a suburb of Pittsburgh)

A Pittsburgh company called Owens and Minor

Van_Halen

Poison

The Pittsburgh IP accounts in question show some of the same interests (and even at least one of the same edits):[35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

I note Gypsydog5150 has a history of abusive editing: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

It seems to me that it would be appropriate to take some stronger acction and perhaps a permanent ban, regarding this editor. I take the "I hope you get shot in the face" comment pretty seriously.

I suspect you don't want to get into the substance of the editing dispute, but I'd like to point out that after he was blocked and the pages protected, I restored the Tom Corbett page to a version closer to what he wanted than the revert imposed by the admin. here. I was trying to be fair about it.

His alteration here of the election polling numbers was pure vandalism.

Thanks. John2510 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you are accusing me of things I didn't do. And somebody saying "they hope you get shot in the face" is not a threat or illegal in any way. Do you realize how many people are on the internet? And also why didn't you bring up you edit wars that you started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gypsydog, to say in an edit summary what was said using the ip account is a gross insult, a violation of WP:NPA, and a threat of violence--you are presumably saying the violence was only a metaphor, but we tend to take statements as wildly excessive as this as written. No conceivable editing dispute can justify it. I gather you are also denying that you are that ip. The only question in my mind is do we need Checkuser before blocking you, or whether the behavioral evidence is sufficient. If any other admin will agree with me that the behavioral evidence is sufficient, I will do the block. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done an indef block based on my own review of the situation. This was simply not vaguely OK behavior, and there's little doubt that the IP and editor are one and the same. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not getting the basic message. See his responses here and here. He's now involving family members of admins addressing his behavior.

On the first one, the IP traces back to the same Pittsburgh Verizon origin per here.

Thanks for getting involved in this. I'm thinking my blood pressure would be better served if I stuck to editing... I dunno... geography articles, and steered clear of political articles. I doubt I'll follow my head on that. John2510 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I also got a phone call claiming "This cost me $6,000" and a large number of incoherent threats before I hung up. I have disabled talk page access and revdel'ed the threats against myself and my wife on his talk page, and blocked the IP for a year.

The claim that this cost six thousand dollars is interesting - do we have known paid editors in Philadelphia? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I will note that the IP range Gypsydog5150 is on is fairly busy, but I would say that the edits are mostly his. If this continues to become an issue file and SPI case and we can look into the option of rangeblocks. Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to get this involved. It really makes you wonder sometimes if it's worth it... John2510 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have stepped up to handling problematic and potentially vengeful Wikipedia problems with the full knowledge that I'm using my real name, that my contact info is out there, etc. I didn't do that by accident or without expecting a certain level of stuff to come flying as a result.

With that said, the particulars here are most unfortunate. The apparent paid editing, the on-wiki abuse against a number of editors, etc.

If there's more onwiki problems I concur that a rangeblock is reasonable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Resolved

 – It was a mistake in vandalism patrolling, thanks for flagging it up, though you can simply revert such mistakes if you explain what you're doing. Fences&Windows 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are sources being removed from an article about a living person? [45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.167 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the previous edit was made without rationale or explanation, and was tagged "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". If one wants to make major changes to a BLP article, one should at the very least use the edit summary to explain or justify the change. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That previous edit added sources, is not that ideal for an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.167 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP has a legitimate point. Their additions appear to be good-faith attempts to add references to a BLP that was previously sourced to only a single article. I see no vandalism. The editor who reverted should be more careful to look at edits before reverting just because the version tag brings up "possible vandalism or BLP violation". Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, that was a big my bad on that one. Burpelson was right, I must have just seen the tag, I'm usually pretty good at these things. Thanks for catching that anon, good save. - Schrandit (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, none of us is perfect! Burpelson AFB (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, personal attacks, and other problems from User:Republic of Texas

Resolved

 – Clear troll. Attempts to intimidate with false claims of being MP, threats of outing, racist and homophobic trolling, lots of lies, etc, etc, etc. Indef is clearly warranted. — Coren ^(talk) 11:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edits and behaviors

• Republic of Texas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Let me start off by saying that I know this user is(at the time of this post) already blocked for 24 hours. This ANI thread is about a pattern of disruption overall, and how the behavior does not back up the claims.

Incivility/Personal attacks

This user claims to have a Law degree from Harvard, to be 44, and to be an officer in the military. However, their lack of civility with regards to other users causes concern. I would think a lawyer would know not to say such things, such as being held in contempt in a courtroom, for disrupting the purpose. It's the same thing here, insults and incivility do nothing but disrupt. Here are some examples(in no particular order):

• Hypothetical threat of privacy violation and helping in identity fraud(post in their SSN for instance)

What is more concerning about this, however, is that someone who claims to abide by the law, and enforce the law, would shatter the law in such a way.

• Trying to justify said threat, along with other things

• [46]

Self explanatory.

• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50] Racial slur to refer to a person specifically.

BLP violations

Title self-explanatory:

• [51]
• [52]

Restoring the above after having been reverted.

• [53]
• [54] Horrible BLP comparing subject to hitler.

Concerning edits

As I have said, this user's behavior does not back up the claims they made above. Looking into their edits, I find several things of note that concern me:

• [55] (m removed minor typos)

This edit does not 'remove minor typos', but two maintenance templates from the article. A false edit summary, plainly.

• [56] Internet speak.

Referring to the internet as 'internets'. Not something I would expect from a Harvard graduate.

• [57]

Same thing above, again using 'internet speak', such as 'ur' and 'luz'.

• [58]

This is concerning because I've grown to not trust any of the stories they have told regarding their background. But, AGF'ing, this of course could be a typo.

• [59] Inappropriate comment, violating WP:FORUM as well, although I am sure there are others.
• Copyright violation. See history of article and user's talk page.

Looking at this user's talk page, post-block, they don't appear to show any remorse for their behavior, or any understanding why it is problematic, and why it needs to stop. A 24 hour block doesn't seem long enough. In any case, this user's behavior needs to be discussed more in-depth.

The section directly below this is a transcluded statement from the user's talk page, should they wish to address others here during the duration of their block.

User notified.

Please discuss.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RoT's response

User talk:Republic of Texas

Discussion of RoT's edits

RFC/U is probably were you need to take this Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC) On Second look this seems to need immediate attention Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Knowing nothing of the history here, this comment seems to be enough to warrant an immediate indef for personal attack—even if it was "humor" it was in such poor taste that it is grotesque.   Thorncrag  01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:OUTING, I support indefinite block unless that threat to post personal info to sites is revoked immediately, strike the above - I support full indefinite blocking for racism, threats to out repeated attempts to justify abuse of the talk space, other users and this project. Agree with rob below--Cailil ^talk 01:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I also support an indefinite restriction on this user. User seems to not be listening to any advice that has been offered to him and I am very doubtful he intends to edit in a manner constructive to the community. Unless he was to change his position I don't see anything but disruption and a indefinite block on his near horizon. IMO wikipedia would benefit from a longer restriction on this user. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I assumed good faith on his earliest edits to the talk page of Wifey's World but I could see from subsequent activity on his talk page that he sadly just doesn't get it. Should the current block stay? Yes? Should it be extended? Yes. Indefinite block? Sadly, yes. As long as he displays that lack of civility and willingness to follow the rules and regulations that govern Wikipedia, he's not going to be a productive contributor. Tabercil (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can anyone point out a single one of his 238 edits that is clearly helpful, constructive, positive, or in any way a benefit to the project? If (as I suspect) not, it seems to me that an indef is obviously the best move here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To RoT, you can clearly post a response fine. To your age, given your edits, it seemed a reasonable assumption that you were lying, you certainly weren't acting it when you insulted people instead of discussing content. To your 'shorthand'. Why is this the first time I've seen you say anything about your mobile? Even if you did that with your phone, it doesn't justify the taunt-like post in reply to that page's AfD.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Referring to subjects as "homos" or "negroes" is clearly unacceptable. AniMate 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RoT's User page

Is all of that information on their User page appropriate? Especially the tags that refer to IP accounts, not logged in accounts. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

someone vandalizing talk page and being annoying

this is regarding a video game, ultima online and a dispute over the release date which has turned into a strange situation on the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:90.222.32.64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:94.8.49.182

I am trying to explain that a certain source is WP:CIRCULAR by quoting someone (jcbuilder) on a message board that is frequented by those who play the game. jcbuilder is somewhat active in the game's community and another person/people (above IPs) who apparently thinks I am this jcbuilder and apparently does not like him is throwing a wrench into the issue at hand on the talk page.

I don't know what to do, but this guy is pissing me off by editing my posts on the talk page.

67.248.251.103 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AN

Hm, keeps reverting him. Issue warnings (see {{Uw-tpv1}}) in an escalating manner. If they persist, report to WP:AIV. Consider registering an account so if this persists, the talk page can be semi-protected. –xeno^talk 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.251.103 (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

use of pages in userspace

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

WP:STICK, heat >>> light --Jayron32 04:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

---

This section is a good example of something that needs to be addressed. I warned user about not using Wikipedia as a social network and user tells me to "get off my back and fuck off!" Meanwhile, user has continued to use talk page as a forum in follow-up edits. Civility and policy issues with this one. Atlantabravz (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• More neutral title and, given the context I see no reason for admin intevention here. If I were in the same situation I would undoubtedly react to your unwarranted lecture in similar ways. The user is contributing to article space and has wide lattitude, as does every other user, to use their userspace as they will within reason. This was well within reason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur. You left a rather abrupt template on her talk page, and then complain when she doesn't take it with a thank you? There's a reason WP:DTTR is good advice, and you needed to have followed it here- or even better, to have investigated the situation some more before inserting yourself into it. If you have a problem with an experienced editor, some discussion goes a lot farther than a newbie template. Courcelles 04:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Editors will sometimes communicate in a social or friendly manner in their userspace. I have editors I know IRL or off-wiki, and discussing things of a personal nature, from time to time, does not violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. The issue is the number of social edits as relative to the number of project-relevent edits. This is I don't see where this user is any kind of a problem at all. This user is a good content editor, and I see no reason they should not be left alone. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Especially given the sensitivity of the post referred to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I would also have told you to fuck off, and stop templating people who are in mourning for sharing their feelings with their friends on Wiki. I'm disgusted that this was your response to reading that post. If you had to say anything at all, words of sympathy would have been appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd be spitting fire and venom if someone did that to me; I'd probably use even stronger language than that. I don't like sympathy (directed at me) much, but templating me would be far worse. I can AGF that the OP was just taking NOTMYSPACE a bit too seriously, but I hope that they don't do this again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• WP:NOTMYSPACE, as I see it, was created for people who appear to regard this place as a place to network— beyond that, I'm fairly sure we're allowed to have lives that interfere with editing once in a while, and to express that. We're a community. sonia♫ 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I should also point out WP:IAR. A little friendly communication once in a while can go a long way towards cooperative editing, which leads to improvement of the project. I'd say as long it's not a user's primary purpose on this encyclopedia it's more than acceptable. elektrikSHOOS 05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I know this is marked "resolved", but I think there's maybe an opportunity for another bit of resolution. I once templated a good-faith content editor. They'd requested article protection at WP:RFPP, I lectured them about something entirely different, there was a heated exchange, and then I stepped back and thought about things. I went back to the editor's talkpage, apologised, and suggested we start over. We started over. I learned a huge amount of background stuff about serious issues on-wiki that the editor was dealing with in the course of her content work. Embarrassingly, the editor forgave me, and came to regard me very positively. I still have to remind her that I was a WP:DICK. She doesn't care. The editor? DocOfSoc. My point, obviously, is that this can end positively for both parties. Atlantabravz has behaved far better than I did, so I'd suggest an amicable resolution is a very real possibility. TFOWR 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Retired

It appears, unfortunately, that the sound advice expressed in some of the replies above has fallen on deaf ears. It's a shame, really, because I know that it wasn't the intention of any of those that commented for Atlantabravz to reach this conclusion. —DoRD (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Shame. Clearly templating was a very bad idea but (s)he did have a reasonable point to make. :( --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable point, yes, but the choice of place, time, and method for making that point couldn't have been more poorly-chosen. Nonetheless, Atlantabravz seems to be a rather productive editor so I hope that, in time, he rethinks his decision. —DoRD (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He made a report that didn't go his way. Who here hasn't? To "retire" over it... this is past the "fourth grade", and no one needs to "coddle" him back here. He's been here since March of 2007. Please... Doc9871 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is terrible. Getting told to "fuck off" is unacceptable, and not only did AN/I not reasonably address his complaint, more than one commenter said they would've said worse(!) No wonder he left, this is like going to the police to report a rape and having the police chief say "Too bad, I would've raped you twice." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A better analogy would be if you walked up to someone and punched them in the face, they punch you back, and you go crying "assault!" to the police. Atlantabravz has some serious fucking nerve IMO dropping that warning template into the middle of DocofSoc's talk page comment about autism; it was rude, terribly inappropriate, and the response was exactly what he deserved. I'd have to wonder just how Atlantabravz came upon this talk page topic in the first place. Have these two had prior interactions? Given this bit of harassment by a banned user not long after, something doesn't sit well here. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We can walk around with analogies all day but at the end of the day Atlantabravz did something silly, Doc responded in an unacceptable way, Atlantabravz went on and took it to AN/I inappropriately and... AN/I failed to AGF and swung an axe. Lets just let it lie. Doc is now aware of the accepted policy on the use of user space (even if not in the best way) and Atlantabravz is chastised (even if not in the best way). [EDIT: FWIW I agree with/support Atlantabravz's point] --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be let lie. We lost a valuable contributor because ANI failed to respond appropriately to a perfectly reasonable complaint. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I regret that Atlantabtavz decided to retire, but he absolutely was *not* in the right here. Doc left a post on his own talk page, noting that his granddaughter has died (from a seizure induced by her autism). Atlantabravez responded by dumping a "not a social network" template on it, which is appalling. Yes, Doc should not have dropped the f bomb in his response, but Atlantabravez got flamed at AN/I for being in insensitive clod. Retiring is a disproportionate response, but obviously others disagree. Horologium (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this is a terrible event for Doc (she has written about it before on her user page a number of times). But Wikipedia is not the place for grief therapy. We should be willing to support members suffering, but this entire episode is a reason why updates/commentary such as Doc's should be discouraged. I recommend off-wiki contact via email as the best way to go and a slap on the wrist to Atlantabravez for insensitivity :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight. An editor posts a few graphs on their own talk page commemorating the death of a granddaughter 10 years ago, speaks a little bit of their grief and the difficulties imposed by the deceased child's extreme lack of empathy (as a consequence of autism)... and gets a "not a social" network template slapped on them by some jerk (completely lacking empathy themselves, it seems).. do i have this right? And then the template slapper storms off in a huff because they got a rough response for their thoughtless intervention on the other editors talk page? Good riddance, I say.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think the AN/I response was inappropriate. Telling him he acted like an insensitive jerk is fair; what was said is not. Atlantabravz had correct advice to give; (s)he was not particularly insensitive about it, but the whole reason for having such guidelines is born out in this thread. It is sad and silly. It is inappropriate to abuse a good faith action, even if it was a mistake --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was a good faith action - an incredibly stupid, insensitive, and nasty good faith action. The sort of action that makes us look like martinets and bullies. A fuck-free response might have been more appropriate, but the mood and tenor of the response was entirely appropriate. I certainly wouldn't have wasted more than two words to communicate my response to such an insult. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize you're doing your best here, but do understand that in any adult, professional environment, Atlantabravz would be facing the full wrath of HR. and Starblind's rape metaphor could have serious consequences. No society, workplace, environment, or project can sustain itself while actively punishing people for a moment's grief. 70.120.174.67 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all a perfect example of why the civility policy matters. Most of the time the little throwaway unkindnesses are just that; sometimes, they lead to grossly exaggerated drama and people seriously hurt and sometimes leaving.

Original (now departed) poster failed to understand that their message was brusque and rude and violated civility. Response was rude, however justified it was, and that made it worse. A number of people up above were rude.

To those of you who were casually abusive above - Think about what you did. The messages could have been communicated in a non-abusive manner. You didn't have to go push someone off Wikipedia to make the point you were making.

Him leaving was not a predictable result, and you're not at fault for that (his decision), but you all certainly contributed by creating a hostile environment for him.

Casual abuse is never good. Please don't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The casual abuse was the template. And cruel. And thoughtless. The response -- telling the abusive templater "to fuck off" in a moments grief was no big deal.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absolute nicest way possible; it appears Doc's niece died several years ago, and her sister in March. I am sure she still feels awful grief for those moments, and my sympathy goes out to her - but the ongoing updates to WP are inadvisable, for exactly this sort of reason. Atlantabravz just picked completely the wrong way to raise that point. It does not excuse the responses above which were extremely uncivil (Doc's response can be excused, the above certainly can not). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Anniversaries still hurt. So what if time has passed? This is a classic case of valuing civility over common sense. If you behave in a hurtful and insensitive way and them ask for feedback you can't complain when people are honest in response. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I might misunderstand, but you appear to be arguing that the ongoing updates to WP are inadvisable because someone might abuse her for them. The ethical response is not to silence DocofSoc, but confront the user who placed that abusive template, and then the admin who compared her to a rapist. I do agree that the situation is not best served by the "casual abuse" of Atlantabravez; a formal, final warning, followed by a lengthy block if the templating was repeated, would be best. 70.120.174.67 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sorry but I have no sympathy. The OP acted in an insensitive and careless manner that would have inevitably brought the recipient pain. Their reaction to this arrant stupidity was human and understandable in the circumstances and prattling on about civility completely misses the point that human interactions lead to human responses. What if the original template had driven off the recipient? No-one would have cared then because decorum would have been maintained but it would (unfortunately) be further evidence of what a po-faced over serious and self-important place we have become. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums up nicely why the civility policy as it's currently policed is such a childish waste of time Spartaz. It might as well be renamed the naughty words policy. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Having rules requiring civility and avoid personal attacks is a good idea, but the policies aren't as black and white as you make out. WP:NPA has this sensible advice: "Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." If the OP had simply realised that their templating was insensitive and had backed off, then they'd not have retired in a huff. Instead, they made no attempt to discuss it as advised ("If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page") and came here demanding sanctions. To retire based on this incident is totally disproportionate - but we can't legislate for poor judgment. Fences&Windows 01:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree DocofSoc posted a blog-like entry , not a comment to someone nor text for an article and this actually does violate WP:NOTMYSPACE, sections 1 and 4, to be exact, and yet, he's getting flamed for enforcing policy ???

Yes, I understand policy , in many cases , isn't black and white and some leeway can be provided and that yes, it can be done with community consensus. However, Braves followed what is the current written policy and not only does he get flamed for it, but docofsoc gets excused for an incivil post ? If you want to change the policy (and it looks like that's what has happened here, per consensus) then change it, but don't flame him for enforcing the policy that's in place now.

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the disagreement. Section 1 prohibits personal web pages: this was one post on a talk page. Section 4 only applies in the main article space. TFOWR 16:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Neutralhomer

Resolved

 – No administrator attention required. –xeno^talk 02:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has recently posted a comment/warning on my talk page that makes no sense. There was a previous discussion here about my requests for rollback rights and I was unclear about something so I asked Fastily [[60]] and Neutralhomer comes on my talk page with [response]. I would like to hear some of your opinions about it.Thanks --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 01:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Inka 888 was told, per here from ANI archives, that he would not be receiving Rollbackers access, he has harrassed Fastily (the admin who denied the initial request and brought it to ANI originally) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times about Rollbackers (today is marked as #1). This is a nasty case of harrassment and is himself a case of a refusal to get the point (humorous he says that about me). This user in his short time has been to ANI twice, once about Rollbackers and once about TWINKLE misuse (which he has gotten back even though he is blacklisted). There is obvious behavioral problems here and even though I have suggested the user get a mentor (since they feel Wikipedia is a "game" or "contest" with their actions), they refuse. This harrassment is just another case of behavioral problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing that Neutralhomer is failing to recognize is that is was just asking Fasily when i was eligible for rollback or at least to ask i never asked him for rollback. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 02:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a valid, easily understandable warning to me. Inka 888, you do yourself no favors at all by showing up here repeatedly, so if I were you I would simply accept that when Neutralhomer said "don't do that", he intended for you to understand not to do that. Pursuing this is only going to turn attention on you instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• The warning may have been a little OTT and many of those diffs date to before the ANI thread, but Homer's point was valid and bringing it to ANI, Inka, is only going to draw more attention to yourself when someone in your position should be trying to attract as little attention as possible. I'm sure Inka is acting in good faith and not trying to harass Fastily, but, Inka, you're not getting rollback any time soon, so drop the stick, back slowly away from the horse carcass and find something useful to do. I say this because I don't want to see you end up blocked, and if you carry on the way you;re going, it's only a matter of time until you are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - This is absurd that Inka888 is pestering Fastily again. At the unanimous AN/I discussion, two months was the minimum time mentioned before Inka888 was to ask again. It's been four days: and from what I've seen of his editing history, I believe granting rollback to this user would do far more harm to the project than possible good. Of course, I can provide the diffs (if needed)... Doc9871 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Save it for when he requests rollback again, perhaps?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was NOT asking Fastily for rollback I was asking him when I could ask anyone again to avoid getting here again for asking before i was supposed to. --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 02:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You were already told at least 2 months.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback is a privilege, not a right. Harassing admins is not likely to increase confidence in an editor's likelihood of using rollback discretely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbatimdat

Resolved

 – Indef'ed by Hersfold. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

He has continued to use racial slurs in discussion: "Don't even bother answering to unsigned posts of ustashe,balije and albanian separatists my brother, just delete them" [61]

He was previously warned about this type of language before. [62] "And you better stop presenting your nazi ustasha country as a scapegoat whose independence was based on the genocide. So what if we killed 11 year olds? In Jasenovac you were murdering newborn Serb children. And sign your posts wiki croat noob" [63] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look through this editor's contribution history, and it's clear that he has a history of making attacks like this every time he comes on the site. If this was only a recent occurrence, I probably would have gone with a short-term block, but since this appears to be chronic I've blocked the user indefinitely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan article vandalism by user Jrkso

Dear editors, the user Jrkso is blatantly and repeatedly disrupting the content of the main Afghanistan article and deliberatedly distorting the facts about the course of Afghan history. He has been blocked in the past for an edit war on another topic.

I have given dozens of very reliable sources for my Afghanistan edits, but he keeps removing them, restoring his misleading and unsourced version. Here you can see my very well-sourced version from yesterday and this is the version Jrkso was restoring yesterday, removing academic and other sources as well as changing content and flagging "Human Rights Watch" as a dubious source. Until I mentioned it on the content board it went so far that he repeatedly even restored the wrong spelling of names. For example Hekmatyar's surname is "Gulbuddin" see here, he kept restoring "Gulbadin".

Yesterday I once again reverted his vandalism, only to find out today that he restored his wrong version again.see here This time he added additional misleading information together with unreliable sources according to WP:RS. And those dubious sources did not even contain the information he gave. For example, it is a very well established fact, that Ahmad Shah Massoud (a resistance commander in the war against the Soviets) compared to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar or Jalaluddin Haqqani received only minor military aid. I sourced this information with four sources. Three being very reliable ones like Neamatollah Nojumi, Roy Gutman of the United States Institute of Peace and a report of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Along with removing all those sources Jrkso has now misleadingly claimed in the Soviet war section "Leaders such as Ahmad Shah Massoud received up to $200,000 a month along with weapons and other supplies from the CIA." and sourced it.see here His source, however, does not even back up his claims. According to his source he received that money in the time somewhere between 1989 and 1991 (when aid stopped again) but not during the Soviet invasion. Steve Coll, the 2005 Pulitzer Prize winner for general non-fiction for his book "Ghost Wars", (who is quoted and put out of context by the source of Jrkso, RAWA,) writes the following in "Ghost Wars" also see here:

"In their dim meeting room, Schroen handed Massoud a piece of paper. It showed an estimate of just more than two thousand missiles provided by the CIA to Afghan fighters during the jihad. Massoud looked at the figure. "Do you know how many of those missiles I received?" He wrote a number on the paper and showed it to Schroen. In a very neat hand Massoud had written "8." "That was all," Massoud declared, "and only at the end of the fight against the communist regime."

Later, after Schroen reported his conversations by cable to several departments at headquarters, the CIA determined that Massoud was correct . It seemed incredible to some who had lived through the anti-Soviet Afghan War that Massoud could have received so few. He had been one of the war's fiercest commanders. Yet for complicated reasons, Pakistan's intelligence service, the CIA's partner in supplying the anti-Soviet rebels, distrusted Massoud and tried continually to undermine him. Massoud also had shaky relations with the Islamist political party that helped channel supplies to him. As a result, when the war's most important weapon system had been distributed to Afghan commanders, Massoud had received less than 1 percent, and this only

at the very end of the conflict, in 1991."

— Steve Coll, Ghost Wars

The above source plus the sources I gave in the article are more than enough to validate my statement, that Massoud received only minor close to no aid compared to others such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

The only source Jrkso ever cited in this whole dispute is the internet platform of RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan). As the above example illustrates they take shortened quotes and totally put them out of context to create a new "reality". RAWA is not compatible with WP:RS. They do, indeed, very valuable humanitarian work. But, they are a very unsophisticated source for political discussion. They have a communist political agenda and not only have strong connections to other communist movements but also have a pattern of attacking other Afghan women rights organizations or Afghan women who rise to prominence outside RAWA with smear campaigns. That they would do the same with every political person of "greater evil" (as they must perceive it) is a logical consequence. Just to illustrate: RAWA (referring to the Soviet war in Afghanistan) called Massoud "the man who wouldn't fight" when the Wall Street Journal called him "the Afghan who won the cold war" source see at 40:50. And now Jrkso has even added that false information (or propaganda) "but others claim that Massoud staged sham skirmishes with the Russians" by RAWA to the main Afghanistan article. see here

Today I discovered that Jrkso has now started to also remove sourced content from the main Ahmad Shah Massoud article. see here Jrkso seems to have an agenda.

We have had the following discussion, with the attempt of mediation by the user Torchwood Who? see here. Unfortunately, it failed due to Jrkso's unwillingness to cease his vandalism.

This has been going on for days and I do not want to further waste my time with someone obviously keen to engage in an edit war and keen to hide realities of Afghan history or call sources such as Human Rights Watch "dubious". I will have to revert once again, and that ain't no fun.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The diff that you quote above (in the second paragraph of this section) seems to do nothing more than remove a spurious pair of square brackets, so you may wish to look again to find the changes to which you are really objecting. David Biddulph (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the links above were meant to show the article versions but of course you need those to the edits. I changed that. This was Jrkso's revision yesterday. This was my version yesterday. This was Jrkso' revision today.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And the story continues ... my version today as of 11:23 and now again Jrkso's revision today at 18:28.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Everything I edit is sourced with precision and I'm not trying to mislead or begin edit-wars. JCAla has been reporting me everywhere as soon as I corrected his edits. He rather see me get blocked then to solve our differences, such is a behaviour of a disruptive person. JCAla is POV pushing and messing up clean written articles. He has been claiming that Ahmad Shah Massoud received "close to no support" the next day he changed it to "only very little support" but the fact is he received "as high as $200,000 a month along with weapons and other supplies" according to Steve Coll. JACla praises Ahmad Shah Massoud but we have to report the truth about that due regardless. He has been adding Ahmad Shah Massoud to many pages.
• JCAla again cites youtube videos after I told him of List of band name etymologies. He cites links that don't mention what is written in the section. He also cited books without giving the page numbers.
• I noticed problems and tagged the 2 sections and warned JCAla not to remove that until the problem with the sections is fixed but he continues to remove them without explaining why. The sections are too long for a nation's article but instead he made them more longer. I think he doesn't understand.
• His last edit deleted 4 sources from the religion section that I just added. I'm willing to work with him as long as he doesn't force his views and opinions one me.--Jrkso (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jrkso's only source until today was information given on the internet platform of rawa.
• 200,000 a month in the late 1980s until 1991 is minor support compared to the support given to others. The whole U.S. support was $40 billion. Assuming Massoud received this money over a period of 3 years 1988-1991, when the aid ended again, he would have received $7,2 million from $40 billion, which equals 0,018% of the whole budget. Adding some minor support received in the years before and the value of arms, he hardly received 1% of the assistance given to the Afghan resistance. The Steve Coll quote above backs this figure up. So it was all rightly said in one sentence: "He received only little support."
• The large majority of my sources are academic sources, Human Rights Watch, Afghanistan Justice Project or well-acclaimed media outlets such as the New York Times. Other than that I used two youtube sources. One an official media channel from JourneymanPictures who works for ABC Australia and the other referred to a documentary from the National Geographic. WP:RSEX states "In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher ..." The youtube video's authenticity in question has been confirmed.
• I am not aware of editing the religion section. If that was done, then it was by accident. But I am not aware of it.
• As a compromise, I made the sections very short (shortened them twice), after Jrkso had insisted they were long.
• Jrkso tagged a section which was heavily and well-sourced. He flagged Human Rights Watch as dubious. Jrkso deliberatedly lies about issues until I prove him wrong with evidence. Then he turns toward a new issue. It is time for Jrkso to provide sources other than rawa. If Jrkso wants me to give page numbers I can do that. For example regarding the Human Rights Watch report (see the pdf version) these are:

p16
During most of the period discussed in this report, the sovereignty of Afghanistan was
vested formally in “The Islamic State of Afghanistan,” an entity created in April 1992,
after the fall of the Soviet-backed Najibullah government. ...
With the exception of Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami, all of the parties listed above were
ostensibly unified under this government in April 1992 ...
Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami, for its part, refused to recognize the government for most
of the period discussed in this report and launched attacks against government forces
and Kabul generally.

p34
Numerous Iranian agents were assisting Wahdat forces, as Iran was
attempting to maximize Wahdat’s military power and influence in the new government.
Saudi agents of some sort, private or governmental, were trying to strengthen Sayyaf and
his Ittihad faction to the same end.
Rare ceasefires, usually negotiated by Jamiat commanders [Massoud's party], representatives of Mujaddidi
or Rabbani, or officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
commonly collapsed within days.

p39
Hekmatyar continued to refuse to join the government. Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami forces increased their
rocket and shell attacks on the city. Shells and rockets fell everywhere.

As for information taken from Amin Saikal's book (the parts of the book can be viewed here):

p204
Despite repeated warnings by serious analysts of Afghan politics, and by the British government form 1986 on, Washington 
continuously turned a blind eye to the ISI’s transfer of a lion’s share of its arms to Hekmatyar. 

p211
Sayyaf ... was strongly backed by Saudi Arabia, whose agenda was to disseminate its primarily anti-Iranian Wahhabi Islam, given 
Saudi Arabia’s traditional claim of leadership of Sunni Islam against Iran’s promotion of Shia Islam. ...

Combat units affiliated with this party [by that Saikal is now referring to Wahdat not Sayyaf] were often directly linked to 
particular religious leaders in Iran and were supervised by Iranian intelligence officers who knew (or cared) little about … 
politics in Afghanistan. 

p220
Pakistan was keen to gear up for a breakthrough in Central Asia. ... Islamabad could not possibly expect the new Islamic  
government leaders, especially Massoud (who had always maintained his independence from Pakistan), to subordinate their own 
nationalist objectives in order to help Pakistan realize its regional ambitions. ... Had it not been for the ISI’s logistic 
support and supply of a large number of rockets, Hekmatyar’s forces would not have been able to target and destroy half of Kabul.

As for United States Institute of Peace Roy Gutman's book (the parts of the book can be viewed here):

p30-31
After several weeks of surveying Afghan military commanders and politicians in Peshawar and Quetta, covering much of the same 
ground as McWilliams, [State Department's] Tomsen was convinced of the enormous and growing distrust [among Afghans] of Hekmatyar 
and his Pakistani patrons. ... And Tomsen, using his ambassadorial rank and privileges as special envoy, made it a practice to 
send cables from anywhere but Islamabad. Back in Washington, he marshaled the evidence, secured backings from conservatives (and 
some liberals) on Capitol Hill, and guided an interagency review that produced a new set of goals. Reviews are the place where 
policy changes. Tomsen feared that Hekmatyar might capture Kabul with ISI and Saudi support, thereby putting Pakistan in direct 
control of Afghanistan and changing the strategic balance in Central Asia. The new aim was "to break the monopoly of the ISI, and 
CIA support, of the extremists and to strengthen the moderates." The CIA would continue arming the rebel forces, but U.S. 
officials would try to sideline Hekmatyar, strengthen Massoud's role ... Tomsen would also encourage military commanders, the 
crucial figures in the anti-Soviet war who had been largely excluded from the ISI ... The ISI, with strong support from the CIA, 
was well along with a different plan ... 

p41
He [Massoud] saw the war as an Afghan national struggle, not a proxy war. This put him at odds with Pakistan, whose ISI was eager 
to influence the fighting and hoped to use the U.S. aid it distributed to further its own national agenda in Afghanistan.

p42
As Massoud went his own way Hekmatyar, with Pakistan's backing, did everything possible to thwart him. 

p43
In November 1982, after receiving intelligence of a "massive" Soviet offensive planned for midwinter ... he pleaded for weapons, 
cash and food, and, finally, for "the people to go to the mosques and pray for the success of the mujahideen". But the supplies 
did not arrive.

p 54
Pakistan invited Dostum to Islamabad in an effort to draw him closer to Hekmatyar, and Iran’s deputy foreign minister made 
several trips to Afghanistan, attempting to draw Wahdat and Hekmatyar closer together.

Defense Intelligence Agency report:

p2
Rather than allow the most gifted Afghan commanders and parties to flourish, who would be hard to control later, Pakistan  
preferred to groom the incompetent ones for the role of future leaders of Afghanistan. Being incompetent they would be fully 
reliant on Pakistan for support. The principal beneficiary of this policy was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. His credentials were that 
of an anti-western Islamic fundamentalist who reportedly boasted about throwing acid in the faces of women who did not wear 
the traditional all covering Afghan chadof at Kabul University. 

p3
In tandem with favoring the incompetent Hekmatyar over more enterprising and gifted commanders such as the Ahmad Shah Massoud, 
the Tadjik commander from Northern Afghanistan, Pakistan also encouraged, facilitated and often escorted Arabs from the Middle 
East into Afghanistan.” 

Neamatollah Nojumi in "The rise of the Taliban" some pages can be seen here:

p129
This situation led the ISI to act against any Mujahideen organization both inside and outside who wanted to run the war against 
the Soviets in accordance with Afghanistan interests.  

Steve Coll again:

"In their dim meeting room, Schroen handed Massoud a piece of paper. It showed an estimate of just more than two thousand missiles provided by the CIA to Afghan fighters during the jihad. Massoud looked at the figure. "Do you know how many of those missiles I received?" He wrote a number on the paper and showed it to Schroen. In a very neat hand Massoud had written "8." "That was all," Massoud declared, "and only at the end of the fight against the communist regime."

Later, after Schroen reported his conversations by cable to several departments at headquarters, the CIA determined that Massoud was correct . It seemed incredible to some who had lived through the anti-Soviet Afghan War that Massoud could have received so few. He had been one of the war's fiercest commanders. Yet for complicated reasons, Pakistan's intelligence service, the CIA's partner in supplying the anti-Soviet rebels, distrusted Massoud and tried continually to undermine him. Massoud also had shaky relations with the Islamist political party that helped channel supplies to him. As a result, when the war's most important weapon system had been distributed to Afghan commanders, Massoud had received less than 1 percent, and this only

at the very end of the conflict, in 1991."

— Steve Coll, Ghost Wars

Everyone should also watch this video (although it is on youtube). There are real people in it including Edmund McWilliams (former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan), Professor Tom Johnson (U.S. Naval Post Graduate School), Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH, ret.) and others.

"The actual aid that was getting to the Panjshir and to Massoud was minimum. Nothing close to what Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and some 
of the other parties received." - Professor Tom Johnson (U.S. Naval Post Graduate School) at 1:10 into the video

I think these samples prove the validity of the information given by me.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if some administrator would finally act on Jrkso's edit warring. see here He is not interested in all the sources, but in agenda-pushing. I think it is unbearable that nothing is done. Well-sourced articles will go in the crapper with such a policy.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack from Carolmooredc

Wrong venue. Please move to Try talking to the user, calmly, and if you need more help, try WP:WQA. Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Earlier today on the talk page for Talk:Libertarianism, an unregistered IP with virtually no editing experience (2 edits as of now) politely expressed a few concerns about the direction of the Libertarianism page. Carolmooredc, a user involved in the debate, instead of responding civilly to his concerns, immediately accused him of being a sockpuppet and engaging in 'disruptive editing', something I find in violation of Wikipedia's assume good faith policy, particularly it's sections on accusing others of bad faith and good faith and newcomers. Also, this is in violation of our don't bit the newbies policy, mainly this section:

*Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account.

I think these concerns about Carolmooredc should be addressed immediately; while the IP may indeed by a sock, accusing him of being one is against both the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of this page before posting.

1. You should have posted this at WP:WQA, instead of here
2. You should have made an effort to discuss the issue with her on her talk page.

I don't think her comments were probably productive, but I think you're going overboard, and should have tried to discuss it. I also don't think her comment was totally unreasonable. An IP editor with 2 edits, suddenly popped into an article that's having a heated discussion and sided with the small minority's opinion. Anyhow, I know you're having personal issues at the article over there with CarolMooreDC, but let's not start filing AN/I's for isolated and petty incivil remarks without discussing them first. If you feel you must file petty reports, please at least do so at WP:WQA. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconding the above, this does not belong here, no Administrator is going to block her for this (I hope).Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it is not a 'small minority'; if you look at the number of editors actively debating, it is about even. Ironically, the majority of the voters supporting the 'broad' viewpoint were one-and-done users who never commented again on the page; yet, when someone complains about possible meatpuppetry, you lash out and accuse us of violating policy. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Libertarianism has been under assault for years by User:Karmaisking and various of his socks have been banned from it in the last week to ten days. Since the editing style is so similar to past disruptive posts in content and attitude, I was just trying to get an idea from other editors more experience with this sock if this might be him, since dealing with this kind of abuse can be very frustrating and time consuming. Note that another editor User:Ddd1600 also created a sock puppet for the article when he was temporarily blocked. I can figure out how to show all the diffs if necessary. The complaining user must have missed those various discussions as well as this talk page section: Talk:Libertarianism#Warning_on_Sock_and_Meat_puppets. User:Karmaisking also has been busy on a couple of talk pages of editors to this page, User:BlueRobe and User:Darkstar1st, both of whom have been warned about these sock puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

lack of civility search the term soapbox in any of the last 5 or more archives on the talk/libertarianism, you will find each time an accusation is leveled, one of two editors do the accusing, carolmooredc being the top accuser. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block; maybe a warning would suffice. But assume good faith and don't bit the newbies are two key WP rules, and if she feels that strongly about it being a sock, she should have requested CheckUser, not personally attacked the IP. This is a recurring thing by her, BTW, accusing others of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry with no proof or evidence. Toa Nidhiki05 18:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP in question, whose entire editing history consists of 2 edits today, makes reference to "the last several months" [64] so either it's a sock or it's someone with a dynamic IP, but either way it's unlikely to be a newbie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A warning to abide by WP:AGF can't hurt. The complaints about suspected socks and disruptive behavior on the talk page are getting to be almost as disruptive as disruptive edits on the article itself. Two wrongs don't make a right. Disruptive editing and sock puppetry needs to be addressed. But disruptive complaining about the disruptive editing and sock puppetry should not be tolerated either. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but warnings to abide by WP:AGF don't belong here. They belong first on the talk pages, and if they aren't heeded there, then they belong on WP:WQA. They don't belong here on AN/I. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

In the interest of speedy spam cleanup...

Resolved

There is a speedy SNOW close here Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_10#Template:PortableApps.com that meets CSD criteria. Templates often get overlooked by CSD patrollers so I'm raising it here just to get quick attention. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Poof! TNXMan 19:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mhm07 inserting copyrighted material to Fort Osage High School

Resolved

 – Temporarily blocked; content removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this needs administrator attention, so bringing this here. New user, Mhm07 (talk · contribs), inserting copyrighted material to Fort Osage High School. User has been reverted twice: 1, 2, and inserted copyrighted material in again 3 after being warned 4. Will notify user of this right after submitting. Akerans (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Hopefully, s/he will get the message. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Langston Bonasera - Image issues

Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a troublesome editor who just doesn't seem to get the message about uploading non-free images. As of right now, I have counted 47 unheeded warnings that have been posted to his talk page, most about images that he's uploaded. He has also been involved in several content disputes but the main issue here is images. Editors have tried to provide advice over that provided in warning templates,[65][66][67][68] but he has ignored the advice, going so far as to place a warning on his talk page to other editors, telling them not to complain about the pictures he's uploaded.[69] Most recently, he uploaded a new version of File:Homicide life on the Street.jpg without updating the source information for the file. I reverted the change and warned him.[70] Instead of following my advice, he simply reverted the to the image he'd uploaded, still without updating source information.[71] With so many similar warnings over the seven months that he's been editing here, he should have gotten the message now but hasn't. It seems that he needs a more firm advice push in the right direction than I can give him. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed their contributions, I'm seeing a general lack of willingness to communicate overall, despite being warned multiple times that this isn't appropriate. If Langston continues to be unresponsive to discussion about the issue (including this thread), I think a block may be in order, but I'll leave some time for them to weigh in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing over 10 uploads of images without providing any source - CSI NY & CSI Miami. I'll work at reverting and deleting them under F4 (no source). My opinion is that a block would be in order given the ongoing response to the multiple warnings. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Langston Bonasera has been conspicuous by his absence since this discussion was commenced and this discussion fell off the page without being resolved. I hope I've restored it to the correct position. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvienience, but from the site that is using the FBI Seal illegally I don't think you have the right to critisise, so in the words of Bonasera, "I'm gonna make this easy for you. I Quit." I'll hand my badge (user account) in ( leave it abandoned ). Langston —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

The "FBI seal" isn't an issue. It's all of the other images that you've uploaded that are of concern. As for quitting, I'm not really convinced that your claim is genuine based on recent edits. Not long ago you created a new account and said you were going to use that instead.[72] After using it for a short time you "abandoned" it and returned to the old account. Today, less than half an hour after confirming that you're quitting,[73] you're back to using Rizzoli Isles again.[74][75] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on the talk page of the new account. If they continue with problematic uploads, they should be blocked. Fences&Windows 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with Langston for some time. After this discussion, this user wrote on their Langston Bonasera page "Replaced content with 'I <3'd this Wikipedia account, but you've all ruined it, thanks guys. I hope you all get cut by very sharp knives, forks and spoons". It was removed as inappropriate by another user, but perhaps this and the "I quit" then promptly using another account are indications this user must be watched carefully for further trouble. I personally would like to see them become a good contributor, but have some doubts from responses and lack of response to polite direction I and others have given them. I am sure age (mid to late teens) has something to do with this, but is not an excuse for refusal to comply with rules as well as the rude and petulant behaviour. Trista (cannot log in at work) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Sarujo

I added some citations from a DK guidebook to some Transformers articles last night, and come to find the user Sarujo has removed some (for instance Optimus Prime (Transformers). I pointed out that I modeled them after similar citations in article in the Batman article, which was a featured article, so I figured it was written correctly. I accused me of being lazy, then deleted them again. I've stated I can go into more detail this weekend, but as they stand they are they are perfectly acceptable. He keeps removing them from articles, saying I have to write them with more detail. I tell him that they are identical references I saw in supposedly well written articles, and he basically tells me he's trying to "rattle the cage" User talk:Sarujo to get me to write better. I do not appreciate someone repeatedly removing valid just to get me to rewrite something the way he wants to write it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're claiming harassment while you earlier accuse Sarujo of vandalism? That said, both of you need to knock it off and quit whining off to ANI every time a disagreement occurs. I urge both to calm down, act a little more rational and collegial as opposed to calling each other names. –MuZemike 20:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Valdaliam for removing valid content for no reason. He countered that it's valdalism, he did it to "rattle" my cage. Consider it rattled. Mathewignash (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You've failed to point out that I've ask you to tell me what they correspond to so I could add them in the suitable places in said articles. I can't believe you're using a comedic metaphor as your only defense here. First off a bibliography only should be used for cases when there are additional sources for statement already sourced. That book I'm guessing is something to do with development, am I right? So there very little to nothing protean to their development. Plus there are instances where a bibliography is used just list the names of current book used here or other literature that protean to the subject that, although helpful, were not needed as they sourced the same stuff. It would benefit these article better if your submitted source were included in the corresponding statements within those articles. As I do not believe that the sources don't cover everything that that article contains, fancruft and all. I ask you to tell me what those pages were and what the read, but ignored me. As usual. This is why I removed the instances of the source, as it was falling on you to put them in the proper places, as the source is unavailable and esoteric to some people. The sections need their citations, why can't you just give them what they need rather just put them off to the side. And don't say me removing them is impeding this cause you got that book right there in front of you. And if I'm not mistaken, there's a discussion regarding the book integrity right now on your talk page, is it not? So why not just edit in the sandbox or a sandbox of your own for the so-called work you want to do for these articles? Sarujo (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarujo CONTINUES to delete valid references to articles. This is deliberate vandalism. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes one feels like blocking 2 editors just to stop the whinging. It wouldn't be right, but when people don't read WP:VANDAL correctly, that sometimes happens. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have full-protected Optimus Prime (Transformers) for 24 hours for edit warring; I, or another admin will be sure to block if this continues. –MuZemike 01:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is just one page that Ignash just happen to bring to your attention. There are several other pages where the same thing occurs. Only he manages to go along and add the source to the statements. To go along everywhere else and cry vandalism on one article doesn't make sense to me. Sarujo (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Enacting Community Bans

I just banned Libb Thims after a discussion at AN. Ryulong raises an interesting point about whether my block notice should include the boilerplate about how to appeal a block. I'm not sure what the policy is on that and would appreciate views on whether this should be removed and whether banned users are allowed to post unblock messages. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Err on the side of mercy. Should he request unblocking, let it be assayed on it's merits. MtD (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that banned users were not welcome to edit here at all, which includes their former user talk pages. Ban appeals can be made by email to Arbcom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this isn't a ban imposed by ArbCom, it's a thing that has been done by a handful of worthies on AN. All I'm suggesting is that should he post a block appeal, we should consider it. Just coz. The quality of mercy and all that. MtD (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bans imposed by "handfuls of worthies" are not in a different category from Arbcom bans (or indeed Death By Jimbo). They're just bans, and in this particular case good ones; the user apparently devotes his online life to pushing his fringe science, so it is beyond unlikely that he's going to be able to edit constructively here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Except it would be misleading to tell a banned user that they can only appeal to ArbCom by email when (in fact) they are not the only body that has standing to consider such appeals (see also banning policy). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "only", I just said "can" - which is basically what the ban review policy says. It's one of multiple options. The point was that editors who are not welcome to contribute here don't need to keep their user talk privileges for the purpose of appeal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well why don't we see what the wretch does? Should he decide to appeal to ArbCom, so be it. Should he decide to throw himself upon the mercy of the community -- well let's hope he can throw that far. Whatever we should not be punitive, rather we should give in to our gracious selves. MtD (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to community bans, ban appeals are not limited to AC, and users are permitted to post unblock requests - but administrators are not permitted to accept them in the absence of a community consensus to lift the ban. The reason for this is if the user wants to appeal the ban, it's usually the administrator who notices the unblock request who will need to forward the appeal to the community. This part may not be clear from the theory outlined in policy.
• All that said, in regards to the talk page notification, a polite and less bot-like message ought to be typed and a standard block notice should probably not be used. The talkpage notice should mention the duration of the ban (if it is a definite duration), the link to discussion, and must refer the banned user to Wikipedia:Ban#Review_and_reversal_of_bans on how to appeal the measure taken (unless there are additional appeal terms in the text of supported ban - for example, some bans specifically include "may not appeal before 6 months of the ban has passed" in which case this should be specified in the notice too). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Community bans have a number of procedural problems on their own, but we shouldn't make it worse by denying them basic due process. Notice and a chance to be heard are basic principles of any fair system (and a few not fair ones). We'd be a joke if we didn't allow a reasonable opportunity for an editor to be heard.

I might also add that I agree with some comments earlier this week that there are way too many block first and ask questions later. Editors that aren't clearly pure-vandals deserve a chance to respond. This kind of decency shouldn't be new to most of the regulars here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It stands to reason that community banned editors should be able to appeal to the community, as Ncmvocalist discusses above; if allowing them to edit their own talkpages as an exception to the ban would encourage gaming, perhaps they should be directed to email unblock-en (or whatever the exact address is), at which point those monitoring that list could post the ban appeal here. Skomorokh 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned users have an option to appeal, via e-mail to ArbCom. They can also communicate with other editors via e-mail or IRC and ask those editors to post an unban request here or at WP:AN on their behalf.

"Fairness" does not require multiple outlets for appeal, simply that appeal be possible, and banned means banned - a banned user's contributions are not welcome anywhere on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear about this... There's a distinction between whether or not the banned user has an opportunity for appeal early on in the process, before the ban (or immediately after it) and appeals some time later, weeks or months. The former needs to be in a less cumbersome, and more open, method than arbcom emails. If you're point's only about the latter then I agree with you. But it would be a mistake for the only avenue for appeal at any time to be arbcom. That method is not open, doesn't involve the wider community, and simply won't generate the attention required. As big as this encyclopedia and community have become, the farflung policy pages don't always get a very wide selection of editors willing or able to comment, and that's a serious problem, especially when things move quickly. That is, fundamentally, my main hesitation regarding community bans. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I think you have missed the point of my comment and some of the discussion preceding it; community bans ought to be able to be appealed to the community. ArbCom should not be involved unless something has gone awry with our standard methods of handling matters. Skomorokh 22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not missed the point, I have disagreed with you. It is sufficient that community bans be appealed to Arbcom, or that an appeal to the community be brought up by a third party. I see no necessity for a banned editor to be allowed to directly appeal their ban to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sweeping sort of approach isn't helpful. It would be another story if user was trying to circumvent the ban (testing limits), or has misused their talk, or it's an exceptional thing (eg personally identifiable information, other privacy issues), or the user needs/wants to use another appeal body or off-wiki venue. But where none of that is applicable, and the user has complied, I see it as needless bureaucracy if an user is forced to use an off-wiki means to simply appeal to the community. That is, where we are asked by a subject to modify/remove something we ourselves imposed, it's we who should consider the matter due to procedural fairness. In those circumstances, there is no reason to make us less accessible by forcing users to use email/IRC; I don't see any wisdom in discouraging on-wiki transparency in favour of secrecy and mouthpieces. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a social justice workshop, it's a privately-owned publicly-oriented website which exists for the specific purpose of creating an encyclopedia. It has every right to protect itself from disruptions which prevent that from happening, including the potential disruption of a banned user making public appeals to be unbanned. A banned user has already been deemed, by the community, to be a disruptive element, and therefore can not be trusted to use that appeal wisely. Let the banned editor take their appeal to a duly appointed committee which can act, if necessary, as a check on the community's judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the same way that Wikipedia has every right to protect itself from disruption, it has every right to give users an opportunity to demonstrate that since the ban was imposed, they are both willing and able to improve the project (or that they can be an asset). Where you mention that a banned user was deemed as too disruptive, you miss the crucial part that the user was deemed as too disruptive at a particular time and in a particular context. Consensus can change anytime after the circumstances change (consensus is not immutable). If someone wants the community to review its judgement on something, it should be able to do exactly that without being bound by undue reliance and unnecessary bureaucracy - which Wikipedia is not. Chances are that the community will fix any genuine mistakes much more effectively than other users or bodies will because the community is more familiar with the past circumstances. The same goes for where the community's judgement was sound but circumstances changed, and where judgement was sound but circumstances have not changed. I think the community should not give up that right for dubious reasons, and that both routes should remain.

All that said, I think stats on the following would be useful: "how many users has the community banned each year (over the last couple of years)", "how many of these users talk pages were protected", "how many of these users appealed - how many to the community? how many to ArbCom? how many to both?", and "what was the outcome of each of these appeals?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker - page history mess

• Darth Vader (talk)
• Anakin Skywalker
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Darth_Vader&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1

This has been an ongoing discussion pretty much forever.

Should the two pages be merged or not.

And through WP:BOLD actions and in and out of discussions, the page(s) have been moved back and forth repeatedly.

But in the meantime, various copy/pastes have happened, and edit versions have been scattered.

And now it seems, in the wake of 2 (3) merge discussions that the bulk of the edit history of what "was" darth vader's page is sitting at the Anakin Skywalker redirect, and the bulk of what "was" the Anakin Skywalker page is now at Darth Vader.

I do have a personal opinion (I think they should be separate pages for various reasons), but in looking at this, I'm wondering if we need to just history merge everything in order to clean up the mess.

Other insight on this would be welcome. - jc37 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A history merge will make a mess of the history and diffs (e.g.). Best to just use the {{copied}} templates and attribution notes in the edit history (see WP:CWW). That said, I am confused as to why these have been swapped. The old revisions of Darth Vader show the old Anakin Skywalker article and vice versa. –xeno^talk 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You sound like you're better versed in how to do this, than me : )

And yes, I was confused by that as well.

I think that, regardless of whatever the results of the various merge/don't merge discussions, that needs to be fixed asap.

If you would be willing to do so (so that it's done right : ) - please do. - jc37 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I dropped Arbitrarily0 a note to see if they can explain why they've been swapped, in case there's some reason neither of us are seeing. –xeno^talk 16:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! My thinking was that a swap would avoid complicating things with subpages, and rather keep histories exactly as they were (although under swapped locations). I'd be happy to move things back around to wherever if this has created some problems. May the force be with you, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

125.255.65.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Started placing unsourced date of birth on the article for Nessa Morgan [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81] (claiming "Birth date as per New Zealand register of births, deaths and marriage"). See Talk:Nessa Morgan for information on what sources say about her dob. Then started removing a sourced dob for Dannielle Gaha [82] (claiming "Removed incorrect year of birth on behalf of Dannielle DeAndrea- Dannielle's management."), [83], [84]. (first removed here and then restored with a reference here) Warnings [85], [86], [87]. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The reason for the block is Disruptive editing: Slow moving edit warring on Dannielle Gaha. Tiptoety ^talk 05:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

if this person is claiming to be Danielle's management and tried to fix a date, blocking them sounds less helpful than telling them to make an account and inform OTRS of who they are. 67.119.12.106 (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I left the IP a note. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 06:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Transformers articles

I need advice. In the last week about a half dozen editors have taken on the task of "cleaning" up the Transformers ficiton related articles. By cleaning I mean deleting without even trying to improve them. I don't know if this is an organized effort of just happenstance that all of them suddenly started nominating different Transformers articles at an amazing rate, and then voting to 'DELETE for each other's nominations, but it has gotten become near impossible for us few working in the Transformers wiki project to keep up with (many of us just started school and are busy). What bothers me is not a single one of these deletionists has offered any improvements in any of the articles they work to delete, and just today about 30 articles were nominated for deletion by this crew. I don't know that anything can be done get them slow them down as nominating articles is their right, but the limited resources of the wiki project (many of us just started fall classes) means we can respond to their demands for proof of notability quickly enough. I'm sure a lot of the articles being nominated deserve to be deleted or merged to larger articles, but others do not. Is there any thing I can do for couple of articles I know just need additional citations and work, and shouldn't be deleted quickly? Often times I don't even know an article has been nominated for deletion until after the fact as these guys often forget to list the nominations at the wiki project. Would it even be okay to ask the Transformers Deletion Patrol to voluntarely limit their nominations for deletion to a certain number a week to be polite? Mathewignash (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Can you provide links to some of the articles in question please? --Selket ^Talk 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with any of the deletion debates, but this recent discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard may be informative. If these Transformers-related articles up for deletion are sourced with the sort of sources up for evaluation at the RSN thread I've linked here, they deserve a lot of scrutiny. — e. ripley\^talk 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Here's some advice: stop throwing around words like 'deletionist'; all you're doing is painting someone who wants an article deleted as someone trying to destroy the project. Placing you as its saviour, I suppose? There is nothing wrong with deleting articles that don't belong here. → ROUX ₪ 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• You can see the nominations for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Meanwhile, it is my experience that tagging Transformers articles for improvement hardly ever results in them actually being improved. I tagged a large number for non-free image overuse a long while ago and practically none of them have been fixed; indeed in some cases the tags were actually removed. Some of these articles have been unsourced for years, and many have been tagged as such, as well as having other long-running maintenance tags. There are well over 1,000 (yes - one thousand - that's not a typo) Transformers articles (as an example, Category:Autobots has 357 on its own) and the vast majority are non-notable on their own - some might qualify for inclusion in "List of minor characters in..." type articles. But no-one seems to want to do the work there. Sometimes the only way to get the attention of editors that articles are deficient is to nominate them for deletion, unfortunately. And I haven't seen a single article yet nominated that was at least dubious in its notability. Ha, just saw the two very poor nominations mentioned below. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In question here is the sudden constant bulk deletion nominations in such a short period of time by a couple editors, who all vote with each other to delete. It's CLEARLY meant to get the articles deleted without any chance of fixing those worth saving. There are articles worth saving as a couple that have had work done to them have been kept. Deleting so many so quickly is clearly not in the best interest of writing good articles. Mathewignash (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm guessing that the ones being deleted, happen to be stubs that haven't been expanded in months or more. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. Jazz (Transformers) and Soundwave (Transformers) got nominated today. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Wowsers, those articles shouldn't be deleted. Has Wikipedia decided to do away with fictional or animation based articles? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Bumblebee (Transformers) and Grimlock now too.
      • (edit conflict) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked I was pretty sure Wikipedia isn't run by one person. Please, tell me what's wrong about nominating articles for deletion if you (reasonably) think they should be deleted? Isn't that the whole point of the discussion part of AFD? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I admitted in the opening that editors have a right to nominate. My question was as to whether politeness can be expected in nominating only articles that deserve it (instead of the seemingly random nominations) and if this is an organized effort (it seems to be the same guys over and over) whether they can be asked to voluntarily limited their nomination to those that can be addressed in time, for the sake of improving the articles over trying to get deletions. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Shirik is right, but I agree those two are two very poor nominations - probably two of the most notable Transformers articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Mass nominations tend to catch people eye. Were these nominations brought to WP:TRANS? GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Although I feel that the notice on my talk page is enough, the nomination for the Transformers article was not meant to be disruptive. Just thought I would say this before someone left a message. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
            • It's not funny. Don't use the AfD process to make a point. For the record, I could care less about Transformer pages in any way, I'm just speaking on policy and common sense points. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks both here and on the AfD pages. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think that the AfD process is working. There is healthy debate on those AfD entries and the consensus on several seems to be to keep. If I'm missing something, let me know but it looks like the debate should really be on those AfDs and not here. -Selket ^Talk 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • User talk:Mathewignash flocculated mediocrity of Transformers articles when others try to remove fansites or fancruft. He puts it back and says the article is OK and the sources are too. How are the articles ever to improve if the inclusionist cliché keep putting ever useless piece of fan cruft and saying its ok. He probably objects to my adding Dinobots sources which is alot more than the inclusionist cliché have done. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the nominator of these article, has nominated them in good faith. This ANI report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • ...and hereby is. --Selket ^Talk 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I got an answer. If there seems to be a concerted effort by a small group to delete a project's articles so quickly the project cannot respond, can anything be done by it? Is it considered suspect that suddenly a couple guys all started nominating articles together, and voting for each other's deletions? I know I'm to assume good faith, but I'm not seeing it here. Mathewignash (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unless you can prove editors have specially have ASKED to vote a certain way or some other method you accusations are baseless Mathewignash. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• There are any number of consensuses that can be achieved through the AfD process. Some examples are:
  • Keep all
  • Delete all
  • Keep some, delete others
  • Keep some, merge others
• etc. But AfD is the place to work that out. -Selket ^Talk 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the direct answer.Mathewignash (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mathewignash, your repeated characterization of other editors as a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" is unacceptable. You are going wrong in two places:
  1. You are tarring everyone with the same brush. There's a gulf of difference between Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs), for example, and other editors.
  2. You are ignoring the warning rumbles about this that were on your talk page years ago.
• I've gone back through the history of User talk:Mathewignash, and in amongst the reams of warnings about non-free content, I find that in September of 2009 you had a conversation with TTN about transformers articles. Instead of thinking "I'll stop TTN dead in xyr tracks and cite sources showing that xyr claims are wrong." you just carried on blithely, regardless, for another year. (I notice, given that these articles are now being nominated for deletion, that Black Kite came to your talk page to talk to you about list of characters articles with too much non-free content back in February 2008. You had another conversation about these multi-character list articles in August 2009.)

  You talk of "writing good articles". Good Wikipedia article writing involves using and citing sources. You've had conversations about that on your talk page in August 2008 and January 2009. You had a further relevant conversation about sourcing for fiction on your talk page in January 2010.

  This is far from being a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" versus all the poor put-upon editors who are being surprised at suddenly have a lot of work to do. This is you having over two year's notice that there were problems here, including from some of the editors who have now made deletion nominations, not doing pretty much anything about it, and then complaining when the rest of the world runs out of patience waiting. You shouldn't be surprised that you're in the pickle that you're in now. You had at least a year, after you knew without question that there was a problem looming, where you could at leisure have rectified this situation and prevented this from happening. That you are now pressured into working hard to cite sources at a time that you find personally inconvenient is a bed of your own making. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • If you have a problem with me, that's fine. I'm only a so-so editor at best. This still fails to explain the sudden deletion nomination of 10-30 articles a day for the past week by a small group, which is the subject of this talk. Sadly it's been explained to me that there is nothing I can do but ask that some of the editors slow down so we can address issues. Some have. I appreciate that. Some have even sided with keeping and improving some of the major articles. It's a nice change, knowing they want to improve, not just delete the articles. Thanks everyone for that! Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You don't get to dictate a narrow discussion focus in your favour, here, Mathewignash. This is very much also about you, and your continuing failure to do something about a problem with the articles that you've been contributing to that you knew was coming for years in advance. Even now, when someone points out sourcing that xe considers problematic, you utterly fail to get the point and completely fail to address the actual issue. You've had years of warning about this. Learn! Or the discomfort and pressure will continue. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Whether Mathewignash fails to get the point does not justy the mass nomination of over 90 articles in a very short time. That seems rather WP:POINTy to me. —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This isn't about justification. It's about how this could have been prevented altogether by taking action a year ago, and gross mischaracterizations of a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol", that you, too, appear to be erroneously buying into. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm not buyinG into anything. I'm just point out that these mass nominations are very disruptive, if not WP:POINy. No one is going to "improve" the articles if they have to go through over 90 articles at once. It doesn't matter how much "time" Mathewignash was given, there is simply no excuse for nominating so many articles at once.

            And please stop refactoring my comments into a format you prefer. Plain indents are less trouble to work with and looks neater —Farix (t | c) 00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

          • You're buying into it right here. You're still assuming that there's one editor, or an organized group of editors, with an organized campaign to "nominate 90 articles all at once". In reality, there are at least two separate, and as I pointed out above very distinct, groups of editors here. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My issue here is that so many articles are being nominated in such a short time. Is there really an immediate need to nominate over 90 articles in just two or three days?[88] This is simply too much for anyone to deal with and salvage content that is worth saving. The nominators should be told to "back off" for a while. 10 articles per week is a lot of articles to have to cleanup and search for reliable sources, but it is workable. However, 90 articles at once gives noone a chance to look for reliable sources or determine which articles are better suited to be merged into a list. While I do support the cleanup of the Transformer articles, there is no deadline here and there should be no rush. —Farix (t | c) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have seen that these deletions seem to be planned. One editor will nominate, then post on the other user's talk page that they "may be interested" in these nomination. Now these are to pages that the second editor has never edited before. I thought you were supposed to notify Wiki projects, article creators, and maybe those involved with the editing of an article about a deletion nomination. Why are people notifying those whose only interest seems to be a history voting DELETE with them on other articles? If you look here User_talk:Dwanyewest#Transformers_AfDs you will see an example. someone nominate a bunch of Transformers articles for deletion, then notifies the user with a history of deletion votes about how they may be interested (in an article they never edited before!) a few memoents later votes for delete have been added. What was the provocation to tell this individual about the deletions besides their history of voting delete? Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[89] These kinds of comments are extremely unproductive and uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So I have been told. It was a reaction to coming home and finding 30 articles nominated for deletion by the same group of guys who have been at it all week. Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any good reason the article for Sideways (Transformers) is under TWO nominations for deletion at the same time? Mathewignash (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be called an error--looks like a double click on the tool. :-) I've administratively closed the "first" one, the "second" one is ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Danke shane. Mathewignash (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• My problem with Mathewignash and like minded inclusionist when someone tries to remove fansites or fancruft. The immediately cry "notable" and claim fansites are good sources of information. I also the resent the what seems like an accusation that there's some sort of cabal of deletionists or the insinuation I just started editing Transforemers. What about about the inclusionist who go notable but will have a article which merely mentions a subject once in a sentence and call it significant coverage as evidence of notability. I have added alot more actual reliable third person sources on Transformers than alot inclusionists have see the edits of the ones I did below if you doubt me. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The Transformers (TV series)
2. Transformers: Armada
3. Beast Wars: Transformers
4. Dinobots
5. Transformers: Energon
6. Transformers: Cybertron

I still don't understand why the other editors who nominate for deletion are notifying you on your talk page that you may be interested in those nominations, when these are articles you have never edited in your life. Why would they think YOU are the person to notify? If it walks like a organized effort to delete, and talks like an organized effort delete... Mathewignash (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I can't speak for others motivation maybe it like you say there think I will vote a certain way. I neither endorse or encourage others to vote a certain way. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Focus on outcomes...

What do we really want to see for transformers? I doubt there's really one answer, but a consensus answer is probably going to look something like...

• Separate articles for the most important characters, as demonstrated by reliable sources, with as much real-world commentary (e.g., how Bumblebee was bought by GM) as possible.
• List articles of the fictional characters not notable enough for their own articles, with verifiable content.
• Less plot information than what we currently have, by a long shot.

But for the life of me, I'm really not seeing how a mass deletion crusade is actually accomplishing any of this. I mean, sure, I suppose it's possible to raise the quality of Wikipedia by deleting poorly written articles... but that's like expelling the struggling students to improve a school's average performance. What I really don't see in all this name calling (cruft, deletionist... they're all pejorative) is a way forward to improve the Wikipedia coverage of Transformers characters. Sure, there's some excision due, but this much? In this haphazard a manner? There's gotta be a better way, really. Have we remembered nothing of POKEMON? Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to fully agree Jclemens. I can't for the life of me see why we would delete an article on the character Jazz. Pokemon, betacommandbot... i guess we don't learn. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on some of the comments above, I believe that the rapid-fire nominations are the results of personal vendettas against Mathewignash. That's not to excuse Mathewignash's unwillingness to bring these articles in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but two wrongs don't make a right. —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I did think I was bring the articles in line - I just don't want them deleted out of hand, and I don't discount every sites as easily as others seem to. You may notice my voting history isn't to always KEEP, I often vote to redirect or merge minor articles. One of the users who is usually pro-deletion just made a suggestion to me as to a source for many of the articles I might use to help improve them. This was helpful. THANK YOU! Perhaps we can keep some of these articles by actually improving them. Mathewignash (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That does it. I can't stand it. I'm not going to keep quite about this any more. I have no vendetta against Mathewignash, and I take offense to such a statement Farix. I only to fix what is dealy broken. I've asked for his help and incite on my proposed edits on the Megatron and Starscream articles, but they turned a blind eye. Second, can't you see why anybody delete or redirect Jazz, DJ?? Is everybody blind??? A lot of the sources there come from fansites like TF2005 and their message board which as I recall fansites are unreliable sources. So what, are we now going to look away cherry pick guidelines that suits us? Sakes alive the articles damaged goods and you know it. How am I or anybody suppose to clean up this mess form and push the usable stuff to GA or FA if everybody's making excuses for such sorry pieces of work? I'm sorry, but I can't take this molycodling of bad articles anymore. Sarujo (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen when others to reorganise or make some editors will object and say its fine the way it is. In regards to sourcing and removal of info. Besides User:Mathewignash you seem partly responsible for some of the proliferation of mediocre articles such as Transmetal Driver, Mutant (Transformers),Longhorn (Transformers). Besides I am sceptical if any improvements can be made because recommendations were made a year ago, [90] but no action seemed to made. We need to have a minimum agreement of what format Transformers articles should take and what needs to removed. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets look. Transmetal Driver, an article I wrote as a newbie 4 years ago, and have not touched in over 3 years. What is stopping anyone from improving it? Not me. Mutant (Transformers) is a page I created 3 years ago to explain a category, and the category was deleted. Then the page was nominated for deletion, I voted to get rid of it! I don't have the authority to delete old pages, even ones I made. Longhorn (Transformers) is also a page I created 3 years ago and have not touched in 2 years. I created as basically a stub when the character was introduced. The company dropped him as a character, so he never got any coverage since then. I never added anything to it, and it's probably deserving to be deleted or merged, as was proposed. I did not vote to keep it. Why are you complaining? Mathewignash (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait are you addressing me?? I have no memory of ever editing those articles. Sarujo (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing Mathewignash. I should have been more explicit. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a suggestions for Transformers character articles layout which is shown, divide them into categories. Because certain characters have multiple biographies. What does everyone else think. I would definitely eliminate things like toys and unofficial releases because they are supported by fansites. What is anyone else view on my proposal.? Dwanyewest (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

--Cartoon-- Sub catogory 1980s Beast Wars Armada -- Comics -- Marvel Devil Due -- Film -- -- Video Game -- Below will others like popular culture

I might go along with this look. A discussion I had with the user named Eh! Steve we were planing a rewrite to the Megatron article. Wouldn't my proposed format be any good? Also you might want to use a No Wiki format for those proposed sections. Sarujo (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your format or mine is good either way the fancruft such as toys and unofficial toys definitely have to go whatever direction is gone needs to be universally agreed. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It it actually an older format similar to one we used before, but we moved to the current one years ago due to the fact that many times a character from one story will share a name, but not really be the same character. First we seperate the character into the different continuities of the character, we do this since many times the characters are completely different characters from one continuity to another.

• Generation 1 character named Ransack (An Insecticon thief!)

• Armada character named Ransack (A Mini-Con truck who is a sidekic!)

• Movie character named ransack. (An ancient Bi-Plane Decepticon!)

In each section we list an infobox, personality, abilies, and the major appearances of the character by the company, in chronological order by when the company started. Therefore Marvel Comics is first, then the TV series (started a few months later than the comic), then the Dreamwave comics, then IDW Comics, etc. Then a list of the toys for the character. If we didn't do this then we'd end up with some mishmash infobox that says Ransack is a insect/truck/biplane who steals thing, is very old, yet is a sidekick... Mathewignash (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Biggest problem I have with what Dwanyewest did is he didn't talk about it just, he just came in one day (under an anon IP) and re-wrote the Optimus Prime page, deleting major sections without ANY talk. I just reverted him as if he was some vandal, and asked that his proposals be moved to the talk page. He seems to have taken GREAT offense at me as some sort of Transformers article dictator. He did not propose any changes to the Wiki project, he just came in and did a major rewrite to a page in a manner that wasn't the way we had agreed to write the articles in the wiki project - so of course I reverted it! Mathewignash (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just what is the point of talking about such drastic changes to an article when you, Ignash, the sole editor available on the project, won't even give your incite on the proposed change? Have you forgotten the time I tried editing Starscream and Megatron? You reverted my attempts to improve those articles told me to to discussion. When I gave my proposal, you fail to respond. So again I ask, what's the point to discuss something when somebody only responds to something that happens that they don't agree with? Sarujo (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific I made an attempt to edit those articles on September of 2008 [91] [92] I made some drastic changes to the Megatron and Starscream articles. You came in and cluster reverted them shortly after. [93][94] Then I did a cut and paste of the two. [95][96] After doing this twice, you came to both Megatron, Starscream, and my asking to discuss the with you the edits. So I complied, and wrote a response figuring that you would respond at my talk page as it seem like the right place to do so. When I got no response after seven days as I didn't realize at the time an editor needs to post a "talkback" template on said poster's corresponding talk page, I went to the Megatron talk page to mention that responded in my talk page. Six days pass, so I cut and pasted my proposal there. Finally, you respond and make a sugestion. Okay so I did. I created my own sandbox and started working on a potential Megatron article uninterrupted. So in April of 2009 (seven months later), I sent word on your talk page for your thoughts on my current progress. No response. It's been over a year now. So again, I ask, what the point? You seem to only care when the article aren't being edited your way. So why should I or anybody do a consensus discussion with any editor who's going to turn the other way on any proposition they just don't like? It seem that mass editing, is the only way to get editors, such as yourself Mr. Ignash, attention. Sarujo (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

About that Megatron thing, I'm prey sure listing the Predacon alligator as a version of G1 Megatron falls under fancruft, since that's from interpreting the on-package bio which was written without knowledge of the Beast Wars TV show. It's just a minor, unintentional thing. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NotARealWord (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Alot of this is gonna be needed to be started from scratch. Guidebooks must be useful GI Joe use it for characters I imagine Transformers have it for their characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers does have a lot of guidebooks. See here. NotARealWord (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CU results

 Confirmed:

• Claritas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nefesf9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anton dvsk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blest Withouten Match (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If I have not mentioned an account, consider it  Unrelated unless a reason comes up to justify running a CU. I will leave to uninvolved admins and the community as far as blocking is concerned. –MuZemike 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

er...how is this related to the transformer thing?--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the recent edits of all these users. Very sad, I often disagreed with her but this is shocking to say the least Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Man, that's what I get for following WP:AGF. I'm too much of a softy. Anyway, I think there are still problems with a lot of the articles. What would people think about consolidating the AfDs? That way the community can have the discussion in one location. --Selket ^Talk 02:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The new sock needs to be blocked; two are already indeffed for socking, so no worries there. Claritas is already retired, but if he/she decides to come back they will need a stern warning about this sock history. Maybe a mentoring from Jack Merridew or something. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly disappointing; I always found Claritas to be a rationale, leveheaded writer. —fetch·comms 03:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Like any other editor with a pretty firm agenda, it is disappointing, but hardly surprising, that this conduct has transpired. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Very disappointing that someone will be so hell bent on getting rid of "low risk" articles that they would pull a stunt like this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is what it is though. We still need to focus on outcomes. Not everyone who argued for deletion was a puppet. --!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selket (talk • contribs)

True, but when people start socking in AFDs, it's going to taint the outcome, even if it turns out to be the correct one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked Blest Withouten Match. What length block is appropriate for Claritas? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• To what extent was the socking disruptive? On a crude search I can't see any use of the socks to !votestack, but of course I might be looking in the wrong places.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it has more to do with the fact that the socks were waging a crusade (essentially) against Transformers articles and nominating a heck of a lot of them for deletion. Thus, some of the accusations made in above sections about a "secret plot" to delete them seems to be accurate. Silverseren^C 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Which causes bad feelings for those arguing for deletion, because they all get tarred by the brush of one cheater. And bad feelings for those arguing for retention, because they wonder if more people are stacking the deck against them. And bad feelings for those of us who just want the whole mess to result in better Wikipedia articles, because none of that will be forthcoming due to all the stupid, avoidable drama. Aaaargh. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Can't believe Claritas has been socking. I knew they were nominating lots of fictional articles but socking? And s/he currently has an an article at FAC. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I haven't followed this situation at all, just kind of stumbled upon it yesterday. On the surface, disruption may not be apparent. From the looks of things, it seems that the Claritas account was arguing for deletion/merging/whatever to reduce the amount of Transformers articles (and I had seen them going at fiction-related articles from a few other franchises in the past few months as well). Then, the account "retired" about a week ago. When the apparently previously innocuous sock account picked up right up with Claritas' work, I think that's the point where it became disruptive. The community tends not to like that sort of bait and switch scenario. "Ooh, I'm gone, but look here, my good friend is ready to pick up where I left off, so there must be more people out there who feel the same way I do!" If I were to make four sock accounts, and spend 10 hours per day editing with all five accounts (two hours per day each, or whatever) on the same thing in the same way, why it would seem that there was a small army of active, like-minded editors out there doing the same thing - and, if that thing "we" were doing were to rub people the wrong way, then that would be a problem, wouldn't it? It taints the water in any discussions where people are trying to determine consensus. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this news makes me feel like I just wasted my time. Sarujo (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is the point where it is important to not give up. This is the point where the single person with the disruptive agenda has been spotted and stopped. This is the point where you should be concentrating upon the other discussions, and the points raised quite properly by other, quite independent, people, not part of any sinister "patrol", who have been trying to discuss and rectify problems for years. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I said that Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs) was distinctive, above. (Mkativerata, this is what is known as a bad-hand account. Fetchcomms, this wouldn't be the first time that someone good at writing about subjects that xe likes takes a slipshod and cavalier approach in nominating for deletion things that xe doesn't like, with boilerplate rationales and no research. Good content writing and tunnel vision about what subjects are "worthy" have gone hand in hand before.)

I also pointed out that Mathewignash, TheFarix, and others were making the error of tarring everyone with the same brush. Jclemens' analysis of why that leads to further problems bears re-reading. There's no way that Black Kite and Blest Withouten Match are part of a "Transformer Deletion Patrol", and this insidious and entirely wrong-headed idea needs to be stamped out before it further affects discussion and editor relationships. One person deciding to go on a crusade (as was clear from the Blest Withouten Match account alone) is quite different from the other people such as Black Kite, J Milburn, and so forth, who have (as can be seen from Mathewignash's talk page) been discussing the problems here for years. The two should not be confused in any way.

Selket, consolidating the discussions was tried. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Proposed centralized transformers discussion. Yes, Claritas closed and moved the discussion. Perhaps, in light of the above, you should see how many editors are now in favour of re-opening it. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The person behind the accounts has only made it tougher for him/herself. If a new account comes along & re-nominates those articles for deletion? it quite obvious who it'll likely be. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Claritas marked the discussion as closed, but was already withdrawn by the nominator due to gathering no support, and somebody else would probably have closed it within minutes anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditions for block reduction of the Claritas account

Ok. Claritas has screwed up. Royally. But I'm not certain that this (apparently) one-time going off of the rails is enough to consider them banned. They are indefinitely blocked, but as is often said, indefinite != infinite. OTOH, a block of some duration is definitely in order IMHO. So, the question in my mind are, what are the conditions under which Claritas would/could be unblocked? (And, of course, *only* the Claritas account, not the socks.) A length of time? Some sort of restrictions? What are people's thoughts as to what would/could/should be required for an unblock of Claritas? - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• See what they say in a year. They were socking with the clear intent to deceive and stack discussions. That is not acceptable, and we need to draw a really bright line. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say nothing less that the standard offer would be acceptable to allow a return. -- Atama頭 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SO specifically says it's not for extremes. I'd say deliberately messing around like this is an extreme. → ROUX ₪ 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's an extreme the way the essay is meant to take it, as an example of how "extreme" a situation would have to be, it mentions law enforcement involvement. But my opinion is that nothing less than the standard offer should apply, I'm not against a stronger restriction. Wikipedia inevitably has an Achilles heel in regards to sockpuppetry; it's such an easy way for people to manipulate the encyclopedia in very disruptive ways and nearly impossible to prevent beforehand, and we can't be very proactive against that kind of abuse. The only kind of deterrence I can think of is to maintain that we have little tolerance for that behavior so that editors might want to think twice before doing it. -- Atama頭 00:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't the block length kind of moot until (or really, if) Claritas returns from retirement? I say put it as an indefinite block with an explanation for the block on Claritas' talk page and, if Claritas returns by indication on the talk page or some other means, then a review can be made of the block and a decision for the future worked out then. Silverseren^C 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Claritas isn't retired, s/he is merely using sockpuppets. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I received an email from Claritas earlier today (before her indef):

Email

Hey, I saw the thread at ANI. I've had a lot of problems with good-hand/bad-handing and socking from the start (several previous accounts - check Adorno rocks). I've coupled the creation of good content on one set of accounts (this one, Adorno rocks, Blest Withouten Match) with outright hoaxing and deception on others (check the article on Paulius Galaune). I've decided to come clean (demonstrated hoaxes on Nefesf9). The principle reason I'm retiring is that I don't think I'm positively contributing to the project, but I'd like, as a token, to get William H. Prescott's article to FA. Could you exempt me from the auto-block so I can answer questions in the candidancy ? I don't mind being indeffed afterwards, and you can check that I don't edit any other page. I'm not going to come back in the near future, because I need to learn to treat the project in a mature way. I'm an aspie, and tend to be obsessed with "gaming systems" (I know about NOTTHERAPY). I hope the Wikipedia community has enough faith in me not to question my contributions on this account. I'm emailing you because from your comment at ANI it seems that you've appreciated my previous work, but you can put this up anywhere if you think anyone else might want to read it. All my previous alternate accounts have been blocked, apart from Claritas-test, which you might want to (just used to see what welcomecreation looks like). Many thanks, Claritas.

I do not think that, based on the consensus here, unblocking would be a good idea, especially due to this admission of using even more socks. I have also blocked Claritas-test (talk · contribs). I am just posting this message on here as xe indicated on xyr talk page that xe was unable to communicate due to the block. Thank you, —fetch·comms 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Standard offer (that is, one year with no socking) seems to be the best that could be done for this account now. You might want to add other conditions (full disclosure of all socks, etc...) but i haven't looked into it enough to say more. As for his desire to bring an article to FA -- well, if he has a friend in goodstanding here, they can proxy for him if they care enough. But the kind of socking involved shouldn't be tolerated -- ever -- and his personal desire to "just do one more thing, so please conditionally unblock me" should be refused.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• SO is an essay and one with many issues, can't support it. The block is indefinite and any unblock discussion needs to be had in a central place and a consensus formed. The community was abused, the community can decided at some future time if they want to let her back in.--Crossmr (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the email provided, there is no choice but to permanently ban this user unless and until they undertake to not do what they did. In a year let's revisit this. As to the FA... this is one of those cases, I think, where the good of Wikipedia is best served by allowing Claritas to comment. Use a specific section of their talkpage and transclude into the FA nom as needed. → ROUX ₪ 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should prejudge. Let her conduct during the FAC be a test. I am glad she has come clean, if indeed she has. Then, if she asks for an unblock at some future point, we will have evidence of conduct after the block to help us make a determination.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles so far claimed to be hoaxes created by the bad-hand accounts, in the above electronic mail quotation and in discussions elsewhere, are:

• Paulius Galaunė (AfD discussion) — cleaned up by Renata3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jonas Asevičius-Acukas

Uncle G (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• If Claritas has willfully disrespected the project in such a way, why are we entertaining giving this user the undeserved respect of allowing them to fulfill a personal desire within the project? I think exploring this road leads to exceptionism. With the long history of deception shown by this user, admitted to above, what guarantees do we have that this opportunity would not lead to further unforeseen abuses? What message does it send to other disruptive puppetmasters if we grant this exception? I feel this is a demonstration of one of the most severe abuses on the project; a user who tries to sneak their vandalism (see hoaxes above)and bad faith (see AfD nominations and discussions) behind our backs by creating a good editing history on selected puppets. It's shameful and makes a mockery of the project. It's not just disruption, but disruption beneath layers, cloaked by the protection of WP:AGF. I see no reason, no matter how good the contributions of the puppetmaster were, to allow her the privilege of her request in light of the evidence.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm rather disturbed that Claritas' screed on their talkpage talks of how the project is broken and seems to shift responsibility for their own actions away from themselves. Until they can show some internalization of why their socking was a bad thing instead of some attempt to show up "the man" I don't think even the SO should apply. Syrthiss (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• At least standard offer. Sockpuppeting is bad and we should not tolerate it. Also, looking at User talk:Anton dvskit seems like he/she was disrupting as part of some "experiment". I'm pretty sure that's not allowed here.NotARealWord (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Albsolutely no unblock under any circumstances. This is not a silly newbie mistake. This is an experienced account who knew exactly what they were doing and chose to use several accounts to actively and deliberately disrupt and sabotage Wikipedia. I'm especially unimpressed with the talk-page rant, the gist of which essentially blames Wikipedia for letting them get away with it, and the email quoted above which tells of an "obsession with gaming systems". Well, no thanks. This user is poisonous to the project and should not be allowed to return under any circumstances. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• No No way, no how. I can live with people vociferously arguing to delete things--there are plenty of people who do that all the time, they're called deletionists. I can live with people "crossing the line" to sock once--I expect we've all been tempted to do so at one point. I can even live with people who disparage our good-faith editors who've lovingly invested in trivia and plot summaries for fictional elements. But I cannot countenance the willful falsification and game-playing that has been admitted above. I don't care what mental defect Claritas' human has: he doesn't get to return, ever, based on his . Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Initially I was fine with Claritas getting off with a stern warning, but given the attitude that has come to light since then, I'd prefer if they stayed gone. Disrupting Wikipedia for fun is even worse than disrupting it to prove a point. We'd have to see some real demonstration of a change of heart, and at some distant point in the future for my feelings to change on that. BOZ (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. I dealt with 2 socks (Nefesf9 & Anton dvsk) who created hoaxes. I am a "softy" and I do believe in second chances, but not this time. Even when the user decided to "come clean", s/he still lied in subtle ways. The hoax was also subtle -- hard to notice even if you tried and you were specifically looking for it. After revelation that these were Claritas' socks, I lost any trust in anything the user says. I would not be surprised if there were hoaxes/questionable material added under the main account also. Someone should go thru a sample of edits with a microscope. Renata (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Per this comment at his talk page, I think that two years without touching the project with any socks while making good content as an extended standard offer is a reasonable enough request. If socks are found during the two years, or if he does not abide by any editing sanctions after the two years, he can be blocked without another chance. Claritas has done quite a bit of harm recently, but he has also done quite a bit of good writing, and has recognized what he has done wrong. Two years is a long time, and if the community will try and have a little faith in 2012, this could end up very well, like Jack Merridew has. Claritas seems already to be telling the truth (no sleeper socks or AfD votestacking seems to have been found so far per my quick skim of the below section), and he at least is not so incompetent that he doesn't know what he did was wrong. —fetch·comms 04:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Unless someone is wildly abusive or attacking others in real life they should get at least one chance for redemption. A 3 month block would be long enough for me, combined with a 2 year ban from AfD and prodding. Then we could retain the benefit of their excellent writing without the deletion sprees. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember that Claritas' biggest problems weren't anything to do with AFD, they were with (very sneaky) hoaxing in article space. Keeping them away from both AFD and article space doesn't leave a whole lot of room to contribute to the project, and anyone who needs that much restricting, handholding, and monitoring (presumably to include regular checkuser "checkups") would be a net negative for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And yet we let MisterWiki/Diego back in.--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Momma always said that two wrongs don't make a right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe- let's see how we all feel, and what Claritas says, in a year or two. If Claritas expresses a desire to return. Reyk _YO! 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet-created AfDs

Should the AfD discussions started by Claritas and sockpuppets be closed? NotARealWord (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Some of them probably can, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumblebee (Transformers), which is practically a SNOW keep case. But there are others that are renning towards delete consensus and shouldn't be closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, they should be closed with no prejudice to renominating them in small groups after a weeks time (to give the other TF AfDs time work through AfD). —Farix (t | c) 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• More importantly what about the AfDs that Claritas has previously started which have since been closed? Given the admission of widespread socking above, is that sufficient probable cause to checkuser Claritas vs. everyone else who ever participated in any AfD in which he !voted? Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That would definitely fall into the  CheckUser is not for fishing category. T. Canens (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No. There's an admission of widespread sockpuppetry. If there's no socking, there's no problem, and no changes needed. On the other hand, the abuse of process appears to have serious ramifications. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Closing now based on that would be a needless invocation of bureaucracy. The bulk of this stuff is unsourced, non-notable fancruft, and apart from 2-3 actually notable subjects, the bulk of the lot is headed towards certain deletion. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So you're excusing his behavior and discounting the damage it's done to the process, just because you don't think the material is appropriate for Wikipedia? Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's not what he said and don't you think reinterpreting someones words to cast their views in a certain light is hardly behaviour that will reduce the temperature round here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec)I'm employing common sense. Please give us one good reason why, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackpot (Transformers) should be aborted just because of who the nominator was? Several users have weighed-in with policy/guideline-based reasons to delete the article. The nominator's ulterior motives, if any, have no bearing on that. Tarc (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, the processes have run long enough that it would be stupid to stop them at this point. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing a spot-check on some of the underlying IPs (keep in mind I am currently pressed on time), I'm not really coming up with anything else aside from the four accounts I reported above. I am also reluctant to "fish" indiscriminately through every account who participated or even !voted a certain way in AFDs. If I get time later, and I'm in a good mood, I'll make a more-detailed sweep, but I'll tell everyone right now not to expect anything more.

To comment neutrally on the deletion discussions in which Claritas or socks have started or participated in, as Jclemens noted on my talk page, will the discussions have made any difference with her removed (i.e. did the socking/deception make a difference in the outcomes of the AFDs)? I'm sure the question will come up: would the articles in question ever have been sent to AFD if they weren't nominated by Claritas or any of her socks, despite said discussions that resulted in consensus for deletion (i.e. what Tarc mentioned above)? Traditionally, we tended to let go discussions initiated by banned users (in violation of ban, of course) especially if others have taken the reins of said discussions; this is consistent of our policy of deleting pages created by banned users, i.e. we don't delete said pages if they have had substantial edits by others because of the fact that the community has absorbed the stuff into its collective bloodstream. –MuZemike 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, that is an appropriate clarification and what I had in mind: If socking is found to have affected the outcome of AfDs, those should be reopened and revised. If the CU's say that there's been an appropriate level of scrutiny and that they're satisfied any actual damage has been dealt with, I'm good with that. I would never advocate that an XfD be thrown out based on the existence of socking which didn't affect the outcome, and agree that would be an unreasonable result. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When dealing with this kind of stuff before (Ocean Mystic Researcher and his attacks against RAN come to mind), I've always closed discussions that had not received a delete argument. If someone else has argued for deletion, it seems parallel to the case of a significant edit made by an unknowing user to an article created by a banned editor: to delete the AFD would deprive that editor of his voice.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As MuZemike says, it's standard practice to reopen any closed afd where the socking affected the result. In this case the socking is so extensive that is had affected the atmosphere in dealing with articles on the topic. This discussion has certainly affected all current AfDs . I think that is certainly enough reason to close all ongoing AfDs without prejudice to relisting. It might well be reason to revert any previous deletions on this general topic area. The original idea of having some common discussion remains a good one, though I';d suggest we wait a few weeks. Even though I have usually been opposed to complete deletion for these articles, Claritas was certainly right that something must be done about them. They're overelaborated to the point where even the game fanatics should realize that for Wikipedia, they must be combined and contracted. The misbehavior should't interfere with finding a solution. (And, in a general solution, those article that need to be undeleted to be merged etc. can be dealt with also, thus eliminating the need to reopen them all. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2010-09-09 19:23:54

• The sockpuppetry is extensive, but it is not specific to transformers. The Nefesf9 (talk · contribs) account has contributed to exactly three AFD discussions, none of which were Transformers-related, and two of which were a blatant attempt to wave the bad hand actions in everyone's faces. The Anton dvsk (talk · contribs) account has no AFD discussion contributions at all. That leaves the Claritas (talk · contribs) and Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs) accounts. Pietrodn's tool at the toolserver reports that their contributions intersect at only two user talk pages.

  I agree with Starblind and Tarc. Whilst there's the obvious case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumblebee (Transformers), a mass closure would throw the baby out with the bathwater in some of the other cases, especially a mass closure that isn't even limited to just the single disruptive sockpuppetteer. Yes, the misbehaviour shouldn't interfere with finding a solution. But closing "all ongoing AFD discussions" because of it would be to let it have a disruptive effect. Tarring discussions started by Black Kite, NotARealWord, and others with Claritas' brush would be letting the disruption succeed. Uncle G (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see any vote stacking; wikistalk shows no unpleasant overlap. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • My point was to go back to Jclemens earlier suggest at the head of the section: Focus on outcomes. Regardless of the socking, we still have to deal with the transformers articles, and a centralized discussion remains the only reasonable way to do this, no matter who started or contributed to any previous or past AfD. A degree of inconsistency cannot be avoided with Wikipedia processes, but we should seek to minimize this. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Proposed centralized transformers discussion bears revisiting. Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see any good reason to overturn any affected AfD deletions. Without !votestacking (no-one is suggesting there was any) it's hard to say the outcomes were tainted to the extent that they should be revisited. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by GregJackP

There is no consensus to overturn the article ban (instead, six administrators have supported a general climate change topic ban of GregJackP of up to six months in length) and the discussion is beginning to devolve into yet another climate change battleground, so I am closing this appeal as declined.  Sandstein  11:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Article ban on Climate change alarmism, imposed at GregJackP's talk page, logged at WP:GS/CC/L#Log of sanctions Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notification of that editor NuclearWarfare notified [97], William M. Connolley notified [98], Wikispan notified [99]. Statement by GregJackP NuclearWarfare imposed a sanction that was in error. His sanction stated: "This is ridiculous. You are going probably going to cite this action as an example of my abusing my admin tools or something, but: consider yourself banned from Climate change alarmism. When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently. Doing so otherwise is blatant disruption. NW (Talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)" First, my only edits to the article as to this matter were: [100], reverting a removal by William M. Connolley and adding a source from a peer-reviewed article and which was reverted by WMC; [101], reverting WMC, with a request to discuss and come to a consensus; and [102], adding material and a source from a peer-reviewed article and which did not revert any other edits, nor remove any material. Following the last edit (which was subsequently reverted by Wikispan and which I did not contest) I had made no other edits to the article, confining myself to discussion of the material on the article talk page and on the ArbCom PD talk page. At the time of the sanction, NW had not complied with the requirements of climate change probation, which states: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." (emphasis added) NW did not provide any warning (a prerequisite for a sanction in this area), nor any steps to take to improve editing in the area. Additionally, this ban seems punitive, stating that I was "continuing to edit war" when I had not touched the actual article at all since it went to discussion on the talk pages the day before NW imposed the sanction. I was under the impression that we were supposed to go to the talk pages for discussion, rather than continuing to edit the article when there was a dispute. This seems punitive in nature, and my actions violated no established rule or policy as there were only 2 reverts on my part. It also seems as if the sanction was biased, as WMC had made 4 reverts [103] and was continuing to edit war, but without being sanctioned. @Count Iblis. I appreciate your efforts to come to a solution for this. In this case, I made two reverts and then confined myself to talk page discussion. The problem I have with this is that I was banned from the article for disruption/edit warring when I had in fact gone to the talk pages for discussion. I just want to be treated the same as everyone else. Am I not supposed to go to the talk pages for discussion? Should I have continued to revert WMC? Does that mean that I should have just shut up when WMC disagreed with me? All I was doing in this case was presenting my view on the matter on the talk pages. I really don't understand how making 4 reverts is OK, but merely discussing it on the talk pages is not. It seems that it is encouraging one to go straight to the article and edit war, and this is very troubling to me. It smacks of groupthink, where no opposing opinion is allowed. GregJackP Boomer! 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The following copied from the 3RR page. "Without commenting on the actual content dispute, I don't think William M. Connolley's edits alone warrant sanctions. Discussion is ongoing in (multiple) places on the use of sources, and blocking anyone at this point is only going to hinder discussion. I'm watchlisting the page, and won't hesitate to impose a 1RR restriction per WP:GS/CC if y'all can't work it out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)" Note the comment that "blocking anyone at this point is only going to hinder discussion..." I have asked him to comment here. GregJackP Boomer! 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC) @TenOfAllTrades. Please re-check the history of the article and the diffs. WMC removed global cooling which was sourced by another reference. I reverted that, and added the peer-reviewed source in question. He removed it, and I restored it one time, at the same time asking for discussion on it. That's it. One restoration of reference with a request to discuss. The remainder of my involvement was on the talk page. I did not restore it further. Please correct your comment to show the facts. GregJackP Boomer! 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment - I can't say this any better than TGL said it at the ArbCom PD page, so I'm quoting him here: "Okay, am I missing something here? I'm only going by the diffs that WMC provided and from what I can tell he is upset that Greg added the words "or global cooling" to the article? Is that a fair assessment? If those were the words added then they are clearly supported by the source[104]: "Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today." "The new data about global temperatures came amid growing concerns about world food supplies, triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend might threaten humanity’s ability to feed itself" For heaven's sake the paper has a sidebar listing a lot of literature at the time and trying to debunk their findings, but you can't debunk what they were saying. Here is a quote from the siebar about some more literature at the time: "The Cooling (Ponte 1976), predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050" I didn't even read through the entire paper, and scanned through the first part and found dozens of examples of "climate change alarmism" from the 70's based on global cooling. That WMC and his friends are arguing that there wasn't alarmism in the 70's is ridiculous to anyone with half a brain, but fully expected by those with fully functioning equipment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I reinserted it and asked for discussion. The entire paper was about dispelling the myth of scientific consensus of global cooling, and cited the above examples of popular media alarmism in that regard. That is what the paper said, and I'll be happy to provide a copy to any admin that wishes to read the entire paper, including sidebars. I wasn't even looking for anything by WMC, but an Ebsco host search using the term "Global cooling" brought it up. It wasn't until I began to format the {{cite journal}} template that I even noticed who wrote it, and I will admit that I thought it was humorous, since WMC had been steadily removing global cooling material. I was attempting to follow the appropriate rules, had not 3RR'd, went to the discussion page and stayed there - this is what the policy required, or so I thought. The block was a day later and punitive, but I don't guess it matters since the lynch mob is forming. GregJackP Boomer! 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC) @TOAT: I read what the paper said, in plain English, and asked for discussion. I find it hard to believe that we go on an editor's personal knowledge and opinion instead of what is actually written in the paper. I took it to talk for discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) WMC deleted "global cooling" and its associated source. I did an Ebsco host search and found a peer-reviewed source. It happened to be co-authored by WMC, which I did not even notice until I was preparing the cite journal template (and which I thought was funny). There is an entire sidebar that covers the alarmism about global cooling in the popular media. I put "global cooling" back into the article, WITH A FOOTNOTE that the article was about debunking the myth of global cooling scientific consensus, and that the article cited numerous examples of alarmism in the press. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS. I did not misrepresent it, and anyone that says that I did is intellectually dishonest. I'm not the only one that thinks that this is what Peterson, Connolley and Fleck said, see Bedford, Daniel (2010). "Agnotology as a Teaching Tool: Learning Climate Science by Studying Misinformation". Journal of Geography. 109 (4). The National Council for Geographic Education: 159–165. ISSN 0022-1341. Writers of syndicated opinion columns in leading news publications occasionally quote the scientific literature in such an egregiously selective manner that only the most charitable interpretation could see the mistake as a genuine oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent (examples are provided by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck 2008). See also Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Charnovitz, Steve; Kim, Jisun (2009). Global warming and the world trading system. Peterson Institute. p. 115. ISBN 9780881324280. In reviewing the earlier literature on climate change, Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck (2008) note that in the 1970s there was widespread concern about global cooling (escalating to fears of another ice age) I used the same examples as noted by Bedford and Hufbauer! Please also note that since WMC's article has only been cited 13 times, I find it hard to believe that he was not aware of the fact that his article had been used to support the material in exactly the same way that I was doing. Of course, that won't matter, you are looking to lynch a skeptic. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC) See also Perkins, Sid (2008). "Cooling Climate 'Consensus' of 1970s Never Was: Myth Often Cited by Global Warming Skeptics Debunked". Science News. 174 (9). Society for Science & the Public: 5–6. JSTOR 20465649. which stated: "When these skeptics mention previous concerns about global cooling, they typically cite media reports from the 1970s rather than journal papers - "a part of their tremendous smoke screen on this issue," says Peterson. Among major magazines, Time and Newsweek ran articles expressing concern about the previous decades' cooling trend, juxtaposing the specter of decreased food production with rising global population." I don't want to be topic banned any more than any other editor, and the comments that have been made spoke of other sources saying the same thing that I did. I'm providing those. Now, because I'm vocal that I don't want to be banned, some are saying that this is a battleground mentality because I'm not "playing dead" - all I'm trying to do is defend myself when it appears that everyone wants to ban me. I would also point out that I explained the position of WMC's in a footnote, that it was to debunk the myth, but that the article had cited a number of cases where the popular media was alarmist in their presentation of global cooling. That is what the paper said, and what others have stated that the paper said. GregJackP Boomer! 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Statement by NuclearWarfare TenOfAllTrades seems to have gone into sufficient detail about why I chose to ban GregJackP, so I won't waste people's time in repeating his words. GregJackP is well aware of the standards in this area, having been heavily commented on the Proposed Decision for the Climate Change Arbitration Case. While he may not have been formally sanctioned before, this would be akin to someone who had extensively commented at WT:IPCOLL being blocked under Arab-Israeli discretionary sanctions and then complaining that he had not been notified about the existence of discretionary sanctions or how to improve his behavior. I recognize that I usually take a more hardline approach than most administrators, which is why I shall be stepping back for now. Whatever other administrators wish to do is fine with me, but I do want to say that I am seeing far more wikilawyering than usual in this case, which I certainly think should be taken into account. NW (Talk) 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Shell Kinney's comment on this may be of interest. NW (Talk) 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the appeal by GregJackP Comment by Count Iblis I wrote about a possible voluntary restriction GregJackP could stick to: I don't think blocking editors is a good solution because other editors with the same behavior will then step in. It is better to think of an agreement for the editors who find themselves in frequent disputes along these lines. If Cla68, GregJackP, William and a few of the other involved editors would stick to a variant of this, then what would have happened is that e.g. Cla68 could have made the edit about global cooling and William could have responded on the talk page. Then others could have continued the discussion and continue editing. GregJackP could have made his comments too, but he could not have reverted back to Cla68's version if others had changed the text. By keeping Cla68, William and GregJackP involved, you actually prevent an influx of new editors editing in a disruptive way, because any such editor watching the discussion from a distance can see hat his/her points are already discussed. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Note that my point of view on this issue is supportive of what most other editors wrote in that section. So, I share the sentiments that make some of them say that GregJackP should be topic banned from the climate change area. However, as I explained, that doesn't really solve the editing disputes in these pages on the longer term. From GregJackP point of view, it seems to me that the choice on the longer term is between eventually getting topic banned when the community is fed up with his editing style (most likely to happen after the ArbCom case concludes and the discretionary sanction regime comes into force), or putting himself under some voluntary restrictions now and getting used to editing under that regime. Count Iblis (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by A Quest for Knowledge Without commenting on the content issue (which I didn't look into), I am concerned that this appears to be a punitive sanction by NuclearWarfare. WMC was clearly edit-warring.[105][106][107][108][109][110] yet NuclearWarfare chose to only sanction GregJackP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) @Jehochman: How did you arrive at a 6 month topic ban? I'm not mistaken, for the past nine months, the established consensus of uninvolved admins in the CC probation area has been to give a warning or 24-hour block for a first time sanction. If you're trying to change the sanctions regime so that they are tougher, I think that's good news. In fact, I've been saying for some time now that the admins should be crack down on both warring factions. But in all fairness, some advance notice should have been given that the sanctions regime was going to be changing. Further, I hope that tougher sanctions are applied consistently. I note, for example, ScienceApologist is also misrepresenting a source.[111] Except that it's in a BLP which is even worse. That request has been open for two weeks now and still no action has been taken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It should be pointed out that I asked Jehochman on his talk page to respond to my post here,[112] and he responded by deleting my post on his talk page.[113] The larger issue of why Jehochman is arguing against existing consensus remains unresolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) @TenOfAllTrades: I have read through the paper WMC co-authored and it certainly seems to apply to this article's topic. Can you please explain what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring with WMC? So far, I'm not seeing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Observation by TenOfAllTrades Let me see if I understand this. The source in question (T.C. Peterson, W.M. Connolley, & J. Fleck. "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus", Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 89:1325–1337) appears to be used in the article as a source to support the opening sentence of our article, which purports to define the term 'climate change alarmism'. On examining the source, it doesn't use the term 'climate change alarmism' anywhere. The sole use of the word 'alarmists' is where the paper reports the words of a politician, as part of a description of how that politician had engaged in selective (and deceptive) quotation from published literature. In this case, William M. Connolley removed the citation of the paper from our article's lede, because he knew it didn't actually support the statement it was attached to in our article. Dr. Connolley is eminently qualified to evaluate this, because he was one of the paper's three authors and is presumably familiar with the words that he wrote and published less than two years ago. What I see is GregJackP twice reverting the author of a source when that author explicitly states – in his edit summaries, and on the article talk page – that the source is being misrepresented. With all due respect to A Quest for Knowledge, the content issue cannot be neglected if one wishes to understand this situation. This isn't a simple edit war; this is a Wikipedia editor wilfully ignoring a scientist's knowledge about his own published work, and going out of his way to provoke that scientist by misrepresenting his publication on Wikipedia. That's appalling, and GregJackP certainly deserved harsh sanction for it. If GregJackP had found a suitable, peer-reviewed scientific publication which interpreted the paper in his particular (and frankly novel) way, that might be a different kettle of fish. We, as Wikipedia editors, don't go telling the authors of primary sources that they didn't mean what they wrote, or that they didn't write what they meant; that's WP:OR and WP:SYN in the worst way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)(corrected 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)) Correction: GregJackP added the source twice, but the first time wasn't a revert. Given his ongoing conflict with WMC during the Climate Change Arbitration, the original decision to add the source citing WMC's work is difficult to see as anything but a deliberate provocation. In any event, he still has failed to explain why he decided to re-add the source, substituting his own judgement for that of the paper's own author in determining what the paper reported. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Observation by FellGleaming With all due respect, the reliable source here is the paper itself, which has (presumably) gone through a peer review process and been published, to be part of the permanent historical record. We use reliable sources only here, not the opinions of editors, even if that editor happens to be the author of a source. Even ignoring the verifiability issue, there have been many times a person -- even a scientist -- later regrets something they wrote or said, and attempts to mischaracterize or at least minimize their earlier statements. Further, I note in this particular case that there are three authors on the paper, and the lead author is not here editing the article. It is not unusual for multiple authors to disagree on interpretations of their published content. This is why the fact that WMC is one of the authors of this paper is irrelevant to WP policy and the discussion at hand. The sole touchstone here should be whether or not GregJack's summary of the content is correct or not -- not as interpreted by WMC -- but as interpreted by any reasonable person based on the text of the paper itself. To use an example from my own field, a paper was about to be published that contradicted the pet theory of one researcher. As a courtesy, he was asked to collaborate on that paper, and did so, contributing some data used for the analysis. After publication, he continued to argue to one and all that this paper was misinterpreting the data; a conclusion the lead author (and the majority of the scientific community) disagreed with. If this particular researcher came to Wikipedia and began tendentiously editing the entry on this paper, would we treat him as some reliable authority, when his edits clearly contradict the contents of the paper itself? (Note: I am not implying this is the case here, but simply arguing against granting any special status to any particular editor) Fell Gleamingtalk 18:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by Spike Wilbury (ec x2) I declined to sanction William M. Connolley here because I observed that discussion was ongoing and was best for progress. I'd like to see NuclearWarfare's answer to the concerns posted here, especially regarding the "warning" required by WP:GS/CC. I don't see in the log that GregJackP has been sanctioned before or has received prior warnings, so maybe NuclearWarfare can enlighten me. Normally we would not ban an editor from a page for this kind of behavior without community discussion. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by Kim D. Petersen I'll make this short, and only comment on the warning issue: Despite assertions to the contrary, GregJackP has been warned here per the requirements in GS/CC. He is aware of GS/CC - has commented on several enforcement requests[114], and in fact he himself has warned others here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by Lar I guess WP:GS/CC/RE is now (un)officially dead since it appears that NW (who is uninvolved but not free of accusations of bias) imposed this sanction unilaterally, and without prior mention there. If the community endorses that approach (unilateral imposition followed by direct to AN/I appeal), so be it. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) This is a meta discussion. Feel free to move it wherever best. I think we should move all discussions from that board to AN/I until ArbCom posts a decision. At least here we get a large number of uninvolved comments. GS/CC/RE has become so polarized and toxic no sensible editor wants to get involved there. Jehochman Talk 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Proposal by Jclemens Without commenting on the substance of the dispute, GregJackP appears to not have been warned before the sanction was imposed. Thus, it is appropriate to modify the page ban to be a de facto warning of impending page ban should the disputed action continue, and remand everyone back to the talk page to discuss this and similar issues collegially. Support As author. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Opppose Discussion Aside from whether the ban sticks, I should mention that I already informed the participants in this dispute that I will impose 1RR on the page if edit warring ensues. I would much prefer that to blocking or banning participants. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I basically agree with this. Although I can't really believe it, I'm inclined to agree with FellGleaming as well, at least as far as the RS vs. expert thing goes. We typically do not allow people to edit articles about themselves, much less require deference to them. However, I am curious if GregJackP actually didn't know about sanctions (raising basic fairness concerns) or if this is a purely procedural objection. --Selket Talk 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC) See my comment above. GregJackP is very much aware of the GS/CC regime. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, that seems clear now. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC) GregJackP was obviously aware of the sanctions since he was the subject of an RfE here.[115] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Greg did not do anything wrong except edit war. This is a content dispute. If the uninvolved editors will look at the discussion on the arbcom page, they'll see that the arguments over the use of the paper are evenly split. NuclearWarfare has been editing the CC articles lately, and is therefore no longer an uninvolved editor in the topic. This ban has no validity. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Greg performed one revert, WMC performed two. Greg receives a lengthy topic ban; WMC receives nothing. Are you intentionally trying to make a mockery of fairness and balance? Fell Gleamingtalk 01:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Result of the appeal by GregJackP This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. User:GregJackP took actions that were intentionally provocative: he misrepresented a source written by another editor, and then revert warred with that editor. This is extreme WP:BATTLE behavior and shows that GregJackP is unfit to edit any climate change topics in the foreseeable future. I recommend a 6 month topic ban from all climate change pages broadly construed. We need to come down hard on bad faith behaviors such as misrepresentation of sources and trolling. Let's see what other uninvolved administrators think about this. Jehochman Talk 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I would support that. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I would also support that; the original sanction of a ban from a single article was much too specific for the behaviour it sought to address. I would, however, suggest that 6 months is on the long side and prefer a duration of between 6 to 10 weeks . CIreland (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I support this with the 6-month duration. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Support 6 month duration (first choice) or 2 months (midpoint of CIreland's proposal; second choice). People need to understand that when something's reached the point of multiple Arbcom reviews, playing silly buggers on content on the articles related to it is absolutely not ok anymore. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 6 months sounds fine to me. We can always shorten the duration on appeal if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I disagree that GregJackP did anything that was intentionally provocative. Read the information presented carefully. A topic ban is so far over what's reasonable that it's mindboggling. The article ban should be overturned. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Looks like you might be the outlying data point. Can you, or anybody else, provide a narrative that explains the edit war in any way other than what's been laid out in this thread? I am looking for a three or four sentence summary with diffs that shows how GregJackP's edits were acceptable. My intention is to leave this thread open for a total of 48 hours, and then to apply whatever sanction, if any, represents the consensus of uninvolved administrators. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) So you're going to pass judgement on what the other admins say? I just want to be clear what role you've decided to take on. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I think I comments elsewhere about how unhelpful it is to recast someone's comment to a different meaning as it adds to the temperature. Please stop already with the battlefield mentality Lar. Spartaz Humbug! 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I think it's a fair characterization and a valid question. Nothing battleground about it, JEH isn't an adversary, he's as uninvolved as I am, I just want to know what he's planning here. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC) GregJackP has left a message for every admin commenting here asking us to look at sources that support his interpretation. I have a simple question for him. Was he aware of these sources when he was edit warring on this article? Spartaz Humbug! 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) What is the relevance of that question? If the sources support his interpretation, that suggests that it was not an unreasonable interpretation. It also suggests that maybe an interested editor perhaps ought to edit the article to add those sources. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Because it goes to the heart of what was motivating his actions. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) We can't judge motivation and therefore we don't care about it. What we care about is outcomes. Seems to me that WMC participated in writing a paper that points out that some folk get alarmed and now wants to back away from that by refactoring what the paper said but the source doesn't support that, nor do the secondary sources. GregJackP did nothing wrong here except go up against the wrong people. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC) While NW's article ban is probably not what I would have done, I'm inclined to let the call on the field stand. I am however extremely troubled by the attitude of many editors and admins about this content dispute. Since when is a statement by a Wikipedia editor a reliable source? The deference being given to WMC is completely un-wiki-like. I think people should go take a look at WP:EXPERT. WMC's edits raise serious conflict of interest concerns. Why does it seem like most admins have forgotten that. I take no position on what the paper actually said; I haven't read it. However a paper should stand on it's own per WP:RS and the author of the paper should stay out of the discussion and certainly not be given the deciding vote. -Selket Talk 14:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The COI issue is not forgotten; it's just not especially relevant when we are considering the behavior of GregJackP. Per common sense, when GregJackP edit wars to use WMC's paper to support a position the opposite of what WMC wrote, and the opposite of what WMC believes, in the midst of one of the most heated conflicts on Wikipedia, that is highly disruptive. Any editor should know better than to do that. Please do look over WMC's editing and file a request for enforcement. I for one would appreciate a review by an uninvolved party. Past requests against WMC have been hard to act upon because they are filed tendentiously by content opponents who appear to be playing the "ban my opponent" game. We obviously don't want to encourage that sort of battlefield behavior. Jehochman Talk 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Two points: 1) I don't think that paper necessarily says what you think it does, or even what WMC now says it does. 2) Is there a problem with WMC's behavior? How many enforcement actions have you taken to try to help ameliorate it? It's easy to criticize those bringing these requests forward, isn't it? But what have you done to try to help? Asking for an "uninvolved party" ... seems a foolish request. ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Result of result discussion I have had a conversion with GregJackP, who seems ready to agree to leave the existing sanction in place (i.e. drop the appeal) but he wants to make clear that he was not intentionally misrepresenting the sources.[116] We should always allow our volunteers to retain as much dignity as possible, and create forward looking resolutions. My suggestion is that we archive this appeal with no further action, and recommend that GregJackP work on other articles, and take advantage of dispute resolution, such as WP:3O, WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN at the first sign of disagreements with other editors. For best results, focus on creating quality articles, and avoiding the personalization of disputes. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC) While I see no problem with accepting GregJackP's statement that he was not intentionally misrepresenting the sources, his alternative that his "interpretation was consistent with that of other published sources that cited the article" is an issue that has been discussed at Talk:PD with no evident clarification responding to the concern that the "new references also do not support the text either". It should be emphasised that the initial step should be to present and discuss sources on the article talk page to get agreement that they do indeed support what they're being cited to support. If something on those lines can be added to the recommendation, I support the suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) That's a good idea. What a source says is something object that can be discussed rationally without any use of rhetoric. All parties, not just GregJackP, need to use the talk page instead of the revert button when edits are challenged. Should discussions fail to resolve differences of perception or opinion, then recourse to dispute resolution should be the next step. I find that WP:3O is very efficient for simple, one-dimensional issues such as whether a source is being summarized accurately. Jehochman Talk 18:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure if this section is part of the uninvolved admin section or not - it doesn't look like it is, but if it is, please refactor my comment to whatever section it needs to be in, I'm not trying to put my comment in the wrong place. I don't have any problem with the DR/30 comments JEH suggests being included. I also agree with Dave - and I was trying to take it to talk for discussion, so I don't have a problem with a statement that discussion is the preferred way to handle things. GregJackP Boomer! 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Additional evidence found by closing admin It is wrong to start with a conclusion and then go digging through the available sources to find bits and pieces that support your thesis. Instead, Wikipedia writers should read the sources, and then summarize them, lending most weight to the most authoritative sources. From the above conversations it appears that GregJackP has decided what the article should say, first, and then manufactured support by cobbling together bits from the sources. Apparently lacking scientific expertise, he has misunderstood, misinterpreted and misused sources. There are potentially excusable errors. What's not excusable is stubbornly clinging to his position when such errors are pointed out by other editors and even the author of one of the sources! Wikipedia is not for ideological battle. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC) GregJackP refuses to drop the matter. This means external controls are the only hope of preventing further disruption: Roll over and play dead? Not happening. Battleground behavior: Of course, that won't matter, you are looking to lynch a skeptic. Why is this here? This looks like something that belongs in Arb enforcement, not ANI. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation explicitly gives ANI as one of the avenues for appealing sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Also, Arb enforcement hasn't begun yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) (ec)I brought it here for the reasons Boris noted, that it is the specified venue, and I noted that WMC brought the appeal of his last CC sanction here. GregJackP Boomer! 17:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) @ GregJackP, are you sure? As far as I can find, the only recent instance of a CC sanction against WMC being appealed was brought here by Bishonen.[117] . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I think so. Didn't he bring the block for refactoring comments on his own talkpage here? If I'm wrong, please let me know. Or is that the same one? GregJackP Boomer! 18:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) That's the one brought here by Bishonen, check the link. Boris's logic can still apply. . . dave souza, talk 18:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC) OK, well that won't be the first (or last) time I was wrong. Same general principle, although I'll strike that part of my earlier comment. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) <ec> No problem, just thought it was worth clarifying. . dave souza, talk 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC) If GregJackP takes this matter to ArbCom, he should be aware that ArbCom will not feel any responsibility to address his appeal, but will take it as an opportunity to review any behavior of any kind (real or imagined, germane or otherwise) and act according to their whim upon their perception of the matters that they have chosen to consider. Here's a quote (italics mine): “ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the cases it hears. This may not always be clear, but anyone who fails to resolve matters at the community level and comes to ArbCom is running the risk of not getting the case or result they wanted. We define the scope of the case and the possible remedies, and have wide latitude to impose what we see fit.” Brews ohare (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Isn't that a little premature? Let's see what happens here first. GregJackP Boomer! 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) GregJackP: You may not be considering such an action at the moment. You are nuts to ever consider such an action. Brews ohare (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Seriously? I agree with Shell Kinney here. This was a ridiculous edit war, and I believe GregJackP (and Cla68) to be at fault for it. If the author of a scientific paper disputes an editor's analysis of that paper, then the appropriate step is to begin a talk page discussion, not to reinsert the disputed information. By reinserting it, you were edit-warring and being highly disruptive. If I had noticed this first I probably would have blocked for edit-warring and then issued the topic ban. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The first revert was carried out by WMC, and it appears he has more total recent reverts on the article than GregPJack. Why are you ignoring his role in this? Fell Gleamingtalk 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think people are ignoring it. They're just digging a bit deeper into the substance of the dispute as opposed to superficial revert-counting. We generally encourage that. MastCell Talk 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Its already been dealt with at AN3. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with WMC's specific edits in this case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Also note User:Cla68's involvement which he defends here. While we cannot rule out anything deliberately provocative about these actions to influence the ArbCom case, we also have to recognize that these editors do believe what they were editing, otherwise they would know in advance that they were shooting in their own feet. That's why I think a 0RR restriction on climate change related articles for Cla68 and GregJackP is more suitable to deal with this problem. Count Iblis (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't edit war, but I stand by my interpretation of the paper as a source for the article. If you check the article's history, you'll see that Count Iblis added text which was contradicted by at least two of the sources. I tried to correct that, but was reverted by WMC which counted as his 4th revert within 24 hours. Also, WMC implied that me and Tillman were sock puppets with his edit summary. WMC has since explained that that wasn't his intention and has accepted a voluntary 48 hour ban from the article. I think there are several appropriate outcomes here, lift the inappropriate ban on Greg from the article, warn him, WMC, and Wikispan not to edit war, and remember that NuclearWarfare is not an uninvolved admin. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Cla68, these are only symptoms you are experiencing of the real underlying problem. The real problem is described by Jehochman above and by Shell Kinney here. This applies to you, Greg, User:ZuluPapa5, User:GoRight, User:Thegoodlocust, User:Marknutley, User:Minor4th, User:A Quest For Knowledge, User:Ed Poor, User:SEWilco, User:Sm8900, User:Blue Tie, User:UBeR, User:Tjsynkral and the many other editors I can't remember the names of right now that we've had to deal with over the years. Many of these editors have made good contributions to politics articles, so one can ask why they have caused trouble in the climate change area. The reason is that editing in the way Jehochman and Shell Kinney describe to be fundamentally flawed, does not typically cause problems in case of politics articles. This is because if you have a strong POV on something, then that strong POV must have come from somewhere. Usually it is then some notable POV that exists in society. If this is about politics, then that notable opinion will usually meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. In case of science topics, you can't do this. But then, usually, there are no strong POVs in that area. If there are strong POVs, the articles are still written by scientifically minded editors who are used to dealing with this in proper way. It goes wrong in the climate change area, because we have editors who are mainly active in the politics or other non-scientific topics, whose interest in the CC area is motivated by the politics of this subject. Then, complain about William all you like, but he has been working with all these "politically minded" editors since 2004, encountering frequent problems like this current flare up with Greg and you. He was able to confront these editors in a mild way. Of course, his opponents complained about "foul play". But things went along quite well, the articles were of good quality. In 2009, it was decided to have a "regime change" so that the perceived foul play ends and everyting will be done by the book. But what this had led to is that instead of William reverting and using "soft power" to make sure that articles are not subverted, there is now adminstrative intervention. And this happens via topic bans, blocks and ArbCom cases, i.e. "hard power". You will note that in the old days, no one got topic banned or blocked (except Scibaby). Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC) As a general theorem, it is inadvisable to involve ArbCom in such matters. The editors should elect to settle matters among themselves, with ArbCom intervention only to enforce WP:Civil, elimination of sock-puppetry, and other infractions that impede Talk page discussion. The editors do not need ArbCom to decide among themselves what rules will be followed to keep discussion sensible, and that process proceeds much better if resort to inastute and ill-informed blunt force is taken off the table. Brews ohare (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) To Cla68's assertion of my involvement, I refer people to this section on my talk page. I picked an administrator who I had barely interacted with in the past and asked him to look over my edits. You are free to judge for yourself, but I don't think on this basis I will be recusing myself from acting as an admin on these articles without further community input (in the form of an RFC preferably). NW (Talk) 22:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not the usual AFD

Resolved

 – Complainant is a sockpuppeteer who got himself and his socks blocked.  Sandstein  11:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I fear the AFD discussion [118] for an article I have written on a new book has degenerated into a chance to take a dig at me, rather than a discussion on the article itself. I have offered the required two RS-agreed (by Wikipedia) reviews, as well as US and English newspaper and radio coverage. However, the majority of, um, "regular" contributors to this discussion are choosing to make rather personal remarks directed at me, rather than the book. Indeed, it has come to the point when I have had to offer myself up for an SPI investigation - such is the ferocity of the allegations against me. Please could you tell me where to make a complaint?--Itshayfevertime (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reading through that AFD, the arguments being made for deletion appear to be reasonable and based in policy, and I didn't see any attacks being made against you; in fact, if there are any attacks, they're by you. Accusing other editors of an organized campaign against the article is not really a reasonable response to be making in this case. Other admins want to weigh in on this, though? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• The complainant is an s.p.a. who has no interest in any other topic. These articles have been created and recreated under a variety of names. I do suspect some sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but no SPI investigation has been instigated yet. The argument so far has been policy-based, and there certainly is nothing even remotely resembling a cabal involved (at least on the "delete" side of the argument). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusing others of orchestrated campaigns against some book, and telling others I know your game sort of indicates you're the one making the personal attacks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, it does look like that. Toning down the rhetoric would help. The only admin action that might help would be semi-protecting to stop the SPAs and sockpuppets. Fences&Windows 21:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I left a {{notaballot}} template on the discussion to discourage that behavior. To note about the allegation of an "organized campaign", I wouldn't have known about the AfD if it wasn't for this ANI post. -- Atama頭 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the backstory will help. You'll find it here:
      • User:Beehold (MfD discussion) (another discussion)
      • Fledgling Jason Steed (AfD discussion) (another discussion)
      • Jason Steed (AfD discussion)
      • Jason Steed (Young adult novels) (AfD discussion)
      • User:Itshayfevertime (MfD discussion)
      • Mark A Cooper
      • Mark A. Cooper (author)
      • Jason Steed (Book series)
      • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 12#Fledgling Jason Steed
      • User:Onthemap
      • User:BonfireCharlie
      • User:Many A Flower
      • User talk:Many A Flower
      • commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cooperfledgling.pdf
      • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#Continual Recreation of Article under different titles
    • Yes. All that. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And User:Beehold/Sandbox. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This edit seems problematic. Removing an afd tag isn't done. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Sure it is. Bad-faith nomination, WP:SPEEDYKEEP.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Itshayfevertime (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Missedcall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Functionalskills (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ihatejasonsteed (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What about User:Onthemap? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears  Unrelated, but of course there's always WP:DUCK. And perhaps there is some meat puppetry involved as well.  Frank  |  talk  04:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to sprinkle some salt on the Jason Steed articles? And is this an admin impersonation? MER-C 01:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It clearly is.--Crossmr (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 3 months for admin impersonation. That's an open and shut "no". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel the need to ask,

What's going to happen to the master account?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Itshayfevertime is now blocked indef by me for abuse of multiple accounts and likely also the IP stunt above. No objections against an unblock after some months and a convincing unblock request.  Sandstein  11:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Beehold the Master account (It was certainly the first)? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by user admission.  Frank  |  talk  12:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but we already have a Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Itshayfevertime, so it's probably easier to treat Itshayfevertime as the main account for administrative purposes.  Sandstein  13:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now also indeffed Beehold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  13:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Junk uploading by Marcus781

Resolved

 – Marcus781 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked and uploads nuked.

Marcus781 is uploading lots of files, all with no source or licensce infromation, and with spam names. I've given him an only warning for disruptive uploading. Could an admin delete the files and block if he continues? Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The article on the supposed gang that he's writing has some suspicious hoaxaliciousness to it, as well. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indef'ed for disruptive editing ( attempting to promote a street gang, real or not, is not vaguely OK here ). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, could you also delete these files:

• File:Xcghxfnw6ywwyysdhsdfhfghghghghgghghtytytyu78787878787878.jpg
• File:Walkingbridge.jpg
• File:Fddfh6666fghghjgh.jpg
• File:Dfgdfgdfgdehgrfgj55555.JPG
• File:Ca576fdfghsdfsdsdssseD109.jpg
• and File:47467547fgfgfhf.jpg

Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

These are all useless images with no source and copyright info. I'll nuke them all.  Sandstein  11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar nit-picking on discussion pages

Resolved

 – User blocked for one week by Fram and cautioned against future similar behaviour. –xeno^talk 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been an ongoing kerfuffle involving Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs) at the Reference Desk, where any errors of grammar or spelling draw him to offer sarcastic corrections, disingenuous questions feigning confusion, or even long-winded tirades wherein he insists that other editors are deliberately misusing "it's" versus "its" (or is it the other way around?) in their writing. C3 has been encouraged to vent his grammatical spleen on Wikipedia articles to his heart's content, but advised to leave minor errors in discussion pages and talk page posts alone: User talk:Cuddlyable3#Reference-Desk woes. Currently, he's actively harassing User:APL on his talk page (User talk:APL#Bottle shape) where he has continued to post on APL's talk page despite being twice told not to (in that thread). APL made a third, explicit request yesterday to C3 to either cease and desist or take the matter to a higher-level forum ([119]); I was hopeful that that would settle the matter. Unfortunately, today C3 instead decided follow up with another salvo on APL's talk: [120], [121].

While I would normally just write this off as a contributor being silly over nothing and encourage him to have a cup of tea, this particular case is part of a pattern. In the last week or so, C3 has started at least three threads on Wikipedia talk:Reference Desk, bemoaning the state of grammatical knowledge among Wikipedia editors in general, or specifically attacking and belittling other Reference Desk volunteers.

• 30 August: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#IT'S is the contraction of IT IS
• 1 September: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#In the beginning was the Word (uncollapse the box for absurdity).
• 6 September: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Unpopular guideline? (uncollapse the box for more absurdity).

Additionally, on 30 August I asked him not to make snide posts on the Ref Desk itself when other editors made minor (but utterly comprehensible) errors of grammar. The thread is currently at User talk:TenOfAllTrades#Please don't post snide comments about other editors' grammar on the Ref Desk, as C3 is unwilling to retain any posts critical of his conduct on his own talk page.

Despite being told repeatedly to just move on, he just can't help trying to keep making a disruptive WP:POINT. I was on the receiving end of attacks from C3 in July (in yet another, similar overreaction, C3 responded to an editor calling him a "grammar nazi" by slapping up pictures of Gestapo victims, called another editor who removed a non-free image a "Holocaust denier", issued a timed ultimatum for another editor to consent to mediation over unspecified issues, and called me a "Nazi trivializer") so I don't feel it would be appropriate to issue blocks myself.

Regrettably, C3's grammar obsession has reached the point where it is disruptive to the Reference Desk — not only is he repeatedly clogging the talk page with long screeds on the same topics, but he is also harassing the other volunteers who offer a great deal of their own time and effort to help respond to visitors' queries. Asking him over and over to stop hasn't worked; I am now asking for a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you pointed them to the talkpage behaviour guideline section, where the first two sentences are, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. "? As it is part of the WP collegiate environment not to harrass other editors on grammatical lapses, then it might be pointed out that they are being disruptive rather than just pointy - and that sanctions are a real possibility. Personally, I think they should be given one more chance, now being aware that it is they that are in violation of WP practice, to amend their behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I issued such a warning. I should think that if it continues, any admin may enforce a short block in the first instance. LessHeard vanU (talk)

He is well aware of that guideline. He reads it as only prohibiting outright editing of others comments, while providing unlimited license for snide remarks and ranting tirades. Algebraist 13:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I likewise don't feel I'm in a position to act as an administrator, but I think we're easily past the point of initial awareness. C3 knows, and has known for some time, that the community disapproves of his behavior, finds it disruptive, etc, etc. His response has been to escalate the conflict, twisting policies to support his crusade. I'm not objecting particularly to "one more chance", just noting that the rationale LHvU has offered is (while worthwhile) not terribly applicable. — Lomn 13:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

((edit conflict) I am slow to post; I had written this in response to LHvU's note.) Not to mention that this is a serious problem under the civility policy: "belittling a fellow editor". For one example, "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English". This is absolutely unacceptable. I agree with LessHeard vanU, but if this contributor has already been specifically advised of WP practice would think immediate sanctions not amiss. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) He has posted at least twice a selected quotation from elsewhere in that guideline (the 6 September thread on WT:RD, and the thread linked on my talk page); I don't think the problem is a lack of policy awareness. He reads the passage "Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say" as meaning that he can and should post an snide question in response whenever he sees a grammatical or typographical error, no matter how unambiguous the meaning of the passage might be from context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ten... please tell me the section title was meant as sarcasm?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good lord — I wish it were. That's what I get for typing before coffee. The worst part is that C3 will think I was being an idiot deliberately. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, with an anchor so I don't break any incoming links to the section. Gah. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators may refer to the talkpage guidelines from which LessHeard vanU has correctly quoted.

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.

If anyone feels I have violated "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" then I offer my abject apology, which they may have directly if they will be kind enough to provide a diff that shows the offence. A separate subject of apparent mistaken homophone contractions, or more lucidly "messed up apostrophes", is addressed in the last two sentences of the guideline quoted above. I think it would be good now for any admin who is not involved in work at Ref Desk to advise whether the guideline is adequate. Until that happens, it is a guideline that was kept up to now by consensus. I have no argument with that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That guideline should be understood in context with other policies and guidelines - such as WP:CIVIL, which asks us to participate in a respectful and considerate manner - deriding other editors with rude and disrespectful commentary about minor grammar isn't really on board. Kindly cease out the behaviour in question. –xeno^talk 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Firstly you seem to be being awkward and violating the spirit of the community. It could even be judged as uncivil. Secondly the first line states: so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. This is quite clear in not referring just to editing but to correcting someone generally. Persistent correction of their grammar in the wrong forum is definitely uncivil and in violation of that guideline. Is what you are saying adding to the conversation? Is it helpful or constructive? Is their meaning unclear when you make these comments? From a quick review the answer is no, not really. Such action is, again, against policy. Finally, there seems a strong consensus for you not to do this, I advise you stop. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel you have violated the policy Wikipedia:Civility by belittling fellow editors and have linked to an example above where you said to an editor "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English". Contributors are not required to be perfect in writing; however, we are required to deal respectfully and civilly with other contributors. In addition, your persistence seems problematic under the policy Wikipedia:Harassment, as it "appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor (Cuddlyable3) for one week for harassment and disruptive editing (including continued wikilawyering). His comment in this discussion makes it clear that no change in behaviour is to be expected, despite the multiple discussions about this and the fact that many editors have indicated that his behaviour is unacceptable or at least very unproductive. As always, if there is consensus to overturn this block, or if someone feels that a reasonable unblock request is made, then I have no objections to any admin changing this block. Fram (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's some indication of understanding the issue, that seems reasonable to me. Previous history of harassment blocks suggests that this is not a new approach to working with others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Reference desk (the main refdesk project-space pages, not just their WT: counterparts) are discussion pages, visited by lots of non-fluent English speakers (including some very knowledgable mathematicians at the math desk) and nobody should care about imperfect use of English there. If someone ask an English grammar question at the Language desk, that's the right place to address the fine points. Otherwise don't worry about it. There's enough trolling at refdesk already without this extra nuisance. Endorse WP:TROUT with admin sanctions to follow if the problem goes on. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Fram's block (with the conditions specified) is fine. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuddly's argument seems to be that we need to respond to questions in perfect English, in order to (subtly) better educate the questioner. I think that's a laudable goal in theory, but that he carries it too far in practice. As discussed on the ref desk talk page, he should take his complaints to the responder's talk page rather than doing it on the ref desk, and he should be much more gentle about it. And if someone tells him to stop correcting his usage, he should stop, with that particular user. Correcting other people's usage "in public" is extremely rude. I'm also kind of a stickler for usage, at heart, especially my own, but I almost always let it slide when I see it in others. I'm always glad to hear from Cuddly when I make an error. But some others would just as soon be left alone, and that's their right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That argument sounds close to trolling. I'm a mathematics refdesk regular, and several math experts answering questions there are non-native English speakers who make English errors all the time, but their mathematical advice is invaluable no matter how bad their English is. Bugging folks about their English in contexts like that is about the dumbest thing anyone could do. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." –xeno^talk 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually, yes, surely; I merely plead that we not robotically slave the RD rules to whatever policies have been agreed upon for article talk pages, which exist for a very different purpose. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In any event, WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT are universal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes; as I wrote above, I'm not disputing any measures taken above. I'm only trying to head off any future classification of the Reference Desk as an article talk page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The ref desks are kind of a special case. They are clearly not articles. They're structured like talk pages. But they're not quite talk pages either. Cuddly's error is in his notion that the rigors of English usage in articles should apply to the ref desks just because they are technically not talk pages. But they are closer to being talk pages than to being articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support this block. Pages and pages of interminable pointless conversation have made it clear to this user that his behavior is disruptive, and she's been warned to stop by several people, including myself. Since neither discussion nor warning has been effective in stopping the unpleasant behavior, the block is necessary. (To be honest, I had rather thought she would stop, and stopped reviewing her edits after a few days past my warning. I'm disappointed to have been wrong.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

She? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose a novel solution. Unblock the user, and allow them to continue on their former path. If any of their posts contain a grammatical error or spelling mistake - even the most trivial typo - block them for a week, and then a month, two months and so on. That'll learn 'em. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a fantastic idea. → ROUX ₪ 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside frombeing both punitive and pointy, you mean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TenofallTrades has posted a condition for unblocking on User talk:Cuddlyable3. As of this post, he has not indicated acceptance or rejection by commenting on his talk page. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he has said something, which could be described as incivility. It seems they don't care that what they did was wrong. A week almost seems too short, with the above. Even after a block, they're still nit-picking peoples' grammar/spelling, and even further, poking fun at it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask the user that Cuddlyable3 mentioned whether he thinks it is incivility. I do not view it as incivility. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

BennyTV

Resolved

 – Blocked by Selket. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone set BennyTV (talk · contribs) straight on what is and isn't original research? He keeps re-adding unsourced information on Kenny (album), claiming that his own two ears are a source. See this diff as an example; and even after my explanation that "The album's opening track "You Turn The Light On" does, however, and features Rogers atypically-singing such lyrics as "ooh baby." "Santiago Midnight Moonlight," "She's A Mystery" and "In and Out of Your Heart" are also disco-esque. " is unacceptable without a source has done nothing. I count at least four reverts on his side, so he's already gone afoul of WP:3RR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for edit warring. -Selket ^Talk 20:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Prince of Kosova

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked.

Prince of Kosova (talk · contribs) has been a very disruptive influence in an either way rather heated RfC discussion. Aside from an extremely disruptive, fervently nationalist tone and POVWARRIOR mentality, he has removed other users' comments and votes several times, despite several warnings at his talk page. He is also very uncivil, insulting other users in his latest comment: "idi u picku matera Serbsko govno" (if I understand it correctly, "go f*** your mother, Serbian shit") or "Fige, Pussi malaka Ellikina" (bad Greek for "sod off, Greek fags") [122]... Although a new account, he appears to be at least familiar with Wikipedia jargon, judging by his use of "WP:Not a SOAPBOX" in an edit summary [123], possibly indicating a sockpuppet. Constantine ✍ 12:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what it meant, I speak English and Albanian, I was told they meant "you have lost your argument" in Serbian and Greek, I never knew it meant that. Please realize I am fighting an uphill struggle against a block formed entirely by Greeks and Serbs who are POVWARRIOR pushing themselves against sources and neutral info. Prince of Kosova (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Riiight, yeah, that's believable... And it still fails to account for repeatedly and despite several warnings removing others comments, which is a blockable offense all by itself. And edits like this only worsen it. Constantine ✍ 12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the wider issue, but I see nothing wrong with the redirect: per Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Neutrality of redirects, "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy", "The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms". TFOWR 12:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I merely added it as a reflection of his mentality. Constantine ✍ 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...however, edits like this, this, this, and this are a very real cause for concern. Prince of Kosova, you have some explaining to do. TFOWR 12:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I think explanations are not needed: this is just a standard aggressive nationalist POV-pusher. I especially like him issuing "Barnstars of Neutrality and Fine Editting" (sic) for "your works for telling the truth to brainwahsed Greco-Serbs". Very amusing, but not needed here. Blocked indefinitely per WP:BATTLE.  Sandstein  13:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Top marks for innovative use of barnstars... However, I'd agree: any explanation can be in the form of an unblock request. I'm sure it's not required but I endorse block. TFOWR 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism/sockpuppet edit stood for 45 minutes

When I came across Winnipeg Folk Festival after hitting Random Article, there was a long personal diatribe inserted at the end that had stood for 45 minutes, so I reverted it [124]. Looking at the page history, there seems to be a long history of socking on this article. I'm wondering if an admin who is familiar with the sockmaster, whoever it is, can deal with the blocks? Access Denied 17:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That same material was repeatedly added by a number of IP editors last year. What I'm curious about is how four IP addresses are still showing as blocked after their blocks should have long expired: [125] [126] [127] [128] —DoRD (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's very strange, though the IPs (or at least the first one) are rangeblocked according to a check of Special:BlockList. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a block message like that always indicates a rangeblock of some sort. The other three seem to be listed on Special:Blocklist as well. —Soap— 18:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at some incidents relating to Swamilive, and he seems to be pretty good at evading blocks. Access Denied 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again) - Yet again

See also: Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes § pifeedback.com as a source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 68 § Pifeedback.com, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625 § Problematic user: ChaosMaster16, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626 § Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again)

Long story short: Use of TV ratings figures from pifeedback.com, a forum, was challenged at List of Ghost Whisperer episodes. ChaosMaster16 argued that pifeedback.com is reliable and a discusssion at WP:RSN ensued. Consensus was pretty strong that it was not reliable but ChaosMaster16 refused to accept the consensus and went so far as to spam several user pages with requests to join the discussion, resulting in the first ANI discussion. He continued to refuse to accept consensus and this resulted in the second ANI discussion. Eventually ChaosMaster16 agreed to remove the pifeedback.com sources and the issue was marked as resolved. Tonight I received a query on my talk page about pifeedback.com which led me to find that ChaosMaster16 is once again adding pifeedback.com sources into articles,[129][130] even arguing that the pifeedback.com forums aren't forums.[131] I reminded him of the results of the RSN and ANI discussions[132] and, surprise surprise, he argued against the consensus.[133] He's now decided a straw poll will fix everything and created Wikipedia:Pifeedback.com source/Straw Poll, an isolated page (the parent page Wikipedia:Pifeedback.com source does not exist) which will obviously not achieve anything at all.

Clearly this editor just does not want to accept consensus but he needs to, even if it means forcing him to. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted the spurious straw poll, will look at the edits and warn the user if necessary. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

It's not like I did not say it wouldn't happen again. I honestly do not see why we cant just leave the source alone, reliable or not. ChaosMaster_Chat 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Because we remove unreliable sources from articles. That's not a difficult concept, surely? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:213.33.31.120 @ Gaza War

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

I am requesting the rollback of IP User:213.33.31.120 and a short preventative block on editing from the address. The IP has made very questionable edits:

• [134] (removal of sourced info with additions of unsourced info contradicting it)
• [135] (what appeared to be more trolling)
• [136] (some more with the removal of a source)
• [137] (the only edit that isn't blatantly terrible. The POV is a little much, though)

I have asked the IP to provide reasoning numerous times.[138][139][140][141][142] It might be a troll, it might be a sock (he appears to know about templates), or it could just be a new IP. Regardless, the edits are just too questionable.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And now the IP is edit warring to get something he deems as most important to the top of an article regardless of general layout practices.[143][144] The whole Yesha Council thing was his provided reasoning over at Gaza War.

This is an obvious case of disruption and needs to be taken care of.Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And this one doesn't even make sense [145]. Obvious disruption is obvious. As the diffs pile up I might just take it to the vandalism board.Cptnono (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are starting a vandal witch hunt. It is way past midnight your time, go to sleep. It will clear your mind. --213.33.31.120 (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for vandalism. Competency and POV may also come into it, but vandalism works for me. The IP's comment above sealed the deal. TFOWR 09:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He is back now to try avoid his block. [146] LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • 213.6.11.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      • Blocked for 3rr from this IP itself, I didn't look at AN/I or its nearby IPs for a deeper pattern or evasion. Other admins feel free to lengthen or rangeblock. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He is continue to edit war and vandalise can someone please do something about that? LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Also this one is another [147] LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • 213.6.46.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      • Was blocked recently. This is either a sockfest or IP rotating or somesuch. Loooong-term problem with similar wording in talk-page whines (in addition to WP:DUCK of the edits to several settlement articles). WP:COMPETENCE indeed. If the settlers aren't people (NB: not even "people who happen to be settlers), there's really nothing except WP:RBI and move on. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Sheesh, give these twits access to the internet and you never hear the end of 'em... HalfShadow 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
          • The IP 213.6.11.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back simply ignoring warnings and blocks: [148]. [149]. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Level4 warned. Not sure why I bothered, but whatever... DMacks (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Widespread canvassing by User:WritersCramp

Resolved

 – Content fork turned into redirect, AfD closed, canvasing user blocked for two weeks. Discussion seems to be over, too. Hans Adler 23:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone AfD'd an article that WritersCramp (talk · contribs) created and was a major contributor to (see AfD here). In response, WritersCramp tagged the article for rescue, and then went on a huge canvassing spree, notifying well over 100 editors about the AfD. See his message to me here, which is identical to the message he sent everyone else. While his message is not explicitly asking for a particular !vote, it's clear these messages are completely inappropriate. Looking at the four criteria at WP:CANVAS, I would say it fails Scale (100-200 editors, so far), Audience (since a disproportional number of the editors he notified are ARS members, who are generally inclusionists), and Transparency (since the only way to find the canvassing is to look through his contributions). WP:CANVAS also lists this as an example of inappropriate canvassing: "Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages." WritersCramp was warned by another user about canvassing here, but continued to canvas after the warning.
So, I think we can all agree that this behavior is inappropriate canvassing. The next question is, what can be done about it? The AfD is hopelessly tainted now. I'll add the {{Not a ballot}} template to the top, but I doubt it will accomplish much. Should the AfD be closed and restarted at a later date? Should WritersCramp be temporarily blocked for continuing to canvas after being warned (probably a bit harsh)? Will the closing admin be able to distinguish which !votes came as a result of canvassing and discount them? SnottyWong ^babble 14:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing that has been bugging me about this whole thing is this. Assuming that User:WritersCramp is canvassing by informing those who are likely to !vote "keep", why did he inform you? No offense intended but that just doesn't seem like smart "votestacking". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing the AfD would seem to encourage rather than discouraging such canvassing. I agree it's a problem that should have been stopped when the contributor was first notified. Beyond the canvassing, there is some concerning edit-warring with tags on the article in question: [150] (rvt. 1); [151] (rvt. 2); [152] (rvt. 3). This edit shows the contributor is aware of the "bright line" and not unwilling to solicit others to enforce his actions to avoid crossing it. Some of the tags may be excessive, but the article clearly is an {{orphan}}, and I can't see the value of reverting the correction to the formatting of Portal:Christianity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And because he is about to be hit by 3RR, he's asking at the AfD for someone else to to a revert for him [153]. I'm very concerned about this canvassing. I don't know if these are all ARS members, but putting 'Rescue' as the section heading is clearly asking people to support keeping the article. I also think that if we have ARS, there should be no separate posts to ARS members like these. This is clearly not helping the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He canvassed me, too. His conduct is unacceptable, and I urge Administrators to take the appropriate actions against him. On the merits, the Armageddon theology article should be deleted soon.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommend Block for disruption and asking someone to be his meat puppet. It's edit warring plain and simple. this process simply can't continue with his continued participation if he keeps this up.--Crossmr (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the AFD, I think the boomerang has come back around--while there are more editors involved than might otherwise be the case, the AFD doesn't really seem tainted to me. I'd hate to see any tea spilt as a result of this tempest. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

taint is not necessarily an issue. His behaviour is disruptive, even if it's not getting him the result he wants. I wasn't going to recommend a block, but asking someone to join his edit war steps over the line. the process needs a break from him. He can self-impose or someone can do it for him is my recommendation. and his insistence that people who want to delete it not edit it during AfD is a violation of WP:OWN. Strongly support a block. He misused the help template on his user page to try and get an admin to enforce that.[154]--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit. I have no position on whether or not a block is appropriate--I've looked over WritersCramp's contributions, and while clearly s/he's been around long enough to know policy, and seems in general to be a constructive editor, the canvassing and asking for another editor to revert is troubling. My point was simply that the AFD seems to be proceeding in a reasonable fashion. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What's done is done, and unfortunately we can't do anything about it for this AFD except hope that the closing arguments carefully considers the canvassing. A block is one option for settling this, however I do wish to propose this sanction: WritersCramp is prohibited from mentioning or linking to any open XfD or DRV discussion, except to the significant contributors of the page in question. Violations of this sanction as well as wikilawyering about the sanction will be dealt with severely. NW (Talk) 15:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would support both. There's a significant sign of WP:IDHT in this, and this was disruptive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. It appears as if something significant will have to happen just to get his or her attention. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I was about to block him for a week after he removed the 'not a ballot' template, but as I'd voted... but I would support both a block and the ban proposed above. Maybe letting him back in February was not a good idea (he'd been indeff'd for sock puppetry & loads of blocks in 2005/6). Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted the page back to a redirect. This is what the page originally was and the vast majority of people commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology want it reverted to one. Sort of s 'SNOW redirect'. HalfShadow 16:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked WritersCramp 2 weeks for disruptive editing, opting for a longer block due to his history of disruption ([155]). –MuZemike 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Great minds and all that. My own block for 2 weeks was just beaten by yours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Question - Wouldn't it be better to delete the article and re-create it as a redirect with no edit history? Among other things this version contains a link to an executable file (see footnote 8, but be careful about clicking on it), which shouldn't be anywhere on Wikipedia, even in an edit history. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's a word document file. Is it forbidden to link to one of these? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I misinterpreted a warning box that firefox put on my screen when I clicked on it. It's just a word file as you say. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Question I just noticed that this user was engaged in some abusive sockpuppetry in the past and had this account unblocked only this year. He had a rather extensive block-log prior to this. Given that, I wonder if 2 weeks was enough or should we have gone longer?--Crossmr (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

From my previous interactions with and then research about this user it seems clear to me that he means well but just doesn't get it. Arbcom allowed him to return under certain very specific conditions, and while his recent behaviour is similar to things he used to do, it doesn't really break these conditions. I have already contacted John Vandenberg by email, and I trust that he/Arbcom will do whatever is appropriate and necessary. I guess they are already aware he isn't a net benefit to the project, but want to be pragmatic to contain the socking. Hans Adler 23:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to confuse other users/trolling

Special:Contributions/62.188.122.162 Special:Contributions/62.188.105.142 (and probably some other IPs) is spreading misinformation about overscan in the article talk and here.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat from an IP

Figure someone might want to take a look at this, there's a legal threat although I'm not sure to whom it is directed, nor as to how seriously it should taken. Kind of funny read, really. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That was fast, looks like Sarek and Grandmasterka took care of things, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is related to an OTRS ticket, contact Ironholds (talk · contribs) for more. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I arrive. Essentially, to break it down, there are two concepts of the same name. The IP came up with the second concept, which is not covered. Apparently, if I'm following his logic, our coverage of the first concept constitutes libel and defamation, because any negativities associated with the first subject make him look bad. I have been completely unable to identify if the IP's concept is notable or even has coverage, and it may be that the law of diminishing replies should take hold. Ironholds (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that "sovereign citizen" types are pretty well known for undertaking bizarre litigation at the drop of a hat. We ought to be certain that the article isn't being adversely affected by this, so I advise going to legal threat blocks sooner rather than later. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Odokee

Odokee (talk · contribs) is continuing to be an annoyance when it comes to romanizations of Japanese text which may or may not include aspects of the English language. I am aware that this style issue is currently at ArbCom but as it currently stands, the arbitration committee is not taking the case on those grounds. Odokee has consistently been the least helpful in this whole situation, and has repeatedly removed the romaji on several articles, despite repeated requests to cease. His manners have also devolved. In addition to having used misleading edit summaries the last time I reported him, these activities continued on these articles. When I discovered those two edits, I undid them, and notified him on his talk page that he should cease these disruptive activities. He responded by removing the section and going on a revert spree. Everyone else in this whole debate has been cordial and helpful, but Odokee can't seem to even bring any sort of etiquette to the table. He should not go "lol japanification" or "rinse, repeat, remove bad edit", or "rv japanification vandalism" to edits made in good faith and those that help the project, even if he disagrees with their usefulness as he has plainly exhibited in his contributions to the long and winding discussion on WT:VG/GL and WT:MOS-JA ([156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]). I am most certainly tired of arguing with this user, as he does not bother to respond back, and I am definitely tired of edit warring over something as simple as the text "Āru Pī Jī" or "Dī Esu Ai".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

More evidence of the impossibility it is to talk to this user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And more. After this, I have truly found that it is pointless to talk sense into this user, as he reverted what he thought was a WP:3RR violation, thereby violating WP:3RR himself. I've posted on AN3, and I sadly expect that I will not be able to respond to this later on because both myself and Odokee will invariably be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are in violation of 3RR too - so both of you will likely be blocked by AN3. Is there a consensus on which format is to be used? I took a look but it was unclear whether one exists or is still under debate. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the inevitable happened. Both editors blocked for 24hrs. Close out? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

also Ryu called Odokee an asshole on his talk page I think, or something along those lines.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

he did LiteralKa (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a long standing consensus, one which has been violated by ryulong hundreds of times in recent days as part of an attempt to change policy through brute force and get affected communities to kowtow to the requests of a single person. He knows it and the affected communities know it, but he thinks he is flying under the radar, while it is evident that most just don't want to react to petty demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.251.111 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend a much longer block for Odokee, it's quite obvious he's editing in bad faith and constantly referring to other's edits as vandalism if he disagrees with them. He's uncommunicative and I might recommend a week long block along with a topic ban on any changes relating to changing of romanization/romaji of japanese text.--Crossmr (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a longer block for Odokee. He blanks messages on his talk page and refuses to cooperate with people. He just insists that he is right. A much longer block is definitely needed. Avindra talk / contribs 14:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As it is quite obvious, Odokee has been repeatedly evading his block. I discovered this edit last night and brought it to User:MuZemike's attention and asked for a checkuser. He just did a WP:DUCK block. And now he's made this comment here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I poked Muzemike and asked him to reconsider the block length.--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ZirconiumTwice - disruptive or within the bounds?

ZirconiumTwice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has done some really odd, complex stuff with his userpages. He moves them to sandboxes and then moves those sandboxes to other sandboxes and then redirects other sandboxes to sandboxes. At the moment (14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC), in case it has changed since I wrote this), clicking the talkpage link in his signature takes you to one of his sandbox pages. The problem with that is (1) if one left a message to ZirconiumTwice they wouldn't see the 'you have new messages' orange box and (2) all the associated toolbox links for ZirconiumTwice such as contributions or block logs don't show because it isn't really their talk page. They also appear to have several archival copies of existing articles as well as the main page for 'Symbipedia' [172], which seems contrary to WP:UP#COPIES.

In addition, ZirconiumTwice seems to have a problem editing collegially. At the moment, he has a 'blacklist' on the sandbox that his userpage redirects to that lists PaleAqua (talk · contribs · count) and Strange Passerby (talk · contribs · count). He has brought a complaint about Cameron Scott (talk · contribs · count) [173] that was closed with no admin action needed and a note that ZirconiumTwice's warning were inappropriate. When I made a note to another user on ZirconiumTwice's talkpage and called myself a talkpage stalker, ZT responded with the section User_talk:Syrthiss#Don.27t_call_me_a_stalker.2C_please on my talkpage. My response on his talkpage trying to clarify was unanswered.

I'm bringing this here because (1) I don't have a lot of time to dig into this at the moment and (2) because I don't think I have any path available to myself that would lead to a productive outcome. I don't know if these behaviors are from a cultural difference, but ZT's edits are becoming increasingly disruptive in my opinion. I'm not sure if this is a matter for ANI, or for a RFC/U, so I'm trying to get some opinions here.

Going to notify the user on their 'talkpage' now. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous talk page history that he was trying to hide is here. David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about just 'fixing' it all for him. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you speedied User:ZirconiumTwice/Sandbox, Chase me. How about all of these? Should they be MFD'd (WP:FAKEARTICLE) or, as I think, are they (and especially User:ZirconiumTwice/Sandbox/Symbipedia:To do) equally speediable as the main sandbox page? Strange Passerby (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the user in question once left me this little nugget on my talk page after I warned him on 3RR at Manila hostage crisis. Strange Passerby (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely weird. Probably headed for more trouble. No strong opinion on whether his weirdness is actionable yet, but I wouldn't object to someone giving him direct guidance on collegiality. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the "blacklist" listing me for me. I assume it was related to my suggestion that some color navigation templates that he worked on be deleted, see series of edits. In response he left me message telling me not to distrub his user page despite my only edits to his user space being leaving a message albeit mostly templated at his talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the copyright claims, since they don't own the copyright of anything they add to this site.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like his userspace is now up at MFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My suicide has been requested

Resolved

 – user indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just received this bit of unpleasantness from an editor, who I recently blocked for a week because of vandalism. I'm not usually keen to block people because of incivility, but an invitation to commit suicide is a bit much. Since I'm obviously not objective in this matter, I leave the decision to others. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given a 48 hour NPA/Harassment block, because that's pretty egregious. I have no objections whatsoever to anyone lengthening that block, but would appreciate conversation before it is shortened. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick intervention! Favonian (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MRG, I block conflicted you. I was going to indef as a VOA. Courcelles 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I was going to escalate the length from the previous 1-week block and give a 2-week block, so he's lucky you got there first. I don't see any need to lengthen the block, though, since we can always block him again if he doesn't cut it out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also about to indef the account, but agree with FisherQueen.  Sandstein  16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, y'all can lengthen if it seems appropriate. The only reason I didn't indef myself is that this seems to have attempted to be constructive, even if it doesn't meet sourcing standards. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted quite a bit of that. 'Barabara Steele' - Barbara Steele is still alive, and the bit about her was unsourced... Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear to this user that they can now consider themselves permanently at "final warning" status for incivility and that another comment like that, ever, is grounds for an immediate indef block. Actually I just went ahead and did that, we can't have this kind of nastiness.[174] I think we can leave it at that for now, they will be under the microscope when the block expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

* Comment- Well, this case seems a bit *awkward* to me, As everyone said, the user came to Favonian's talk page in a uncivil manner and threatened to commit suicide. I agree with what Moonriddengirl did. She gave a 48 hour NPA/Harassment block, which was an appropriate thing to do. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Nikko told Favonian that Favonian could become a "better person" by committing suicide. Nikko should have been put on ice for a lot longer than he was, unless he retracted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ooops - it appears i've overlooked something here, at least something was done. Comments like that will not be tolerated on Wikipedia and it's a good thing Moonriddengirl blocked em'. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Or it could just be someone having this old elementary-school-level joke in mind:

Q: How can you get rid of 10 pounds of ugly fat?

A: Cut off your head!

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the tone of his unblock requests, I'm taking Moon at her word and extending the block to indefinite. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely concur with the indef, especially given the further commentary. That's not someone that's here to be constructive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious enough to everyone now, the correct action would have been 1) indef, 2) indef without talk page access. Time does not cure egregious behavior. Blocks for such should only be lifted based on sincere, apparently contrite unblock requests. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to get an outsider view from some experienced administator?

Resolved

 – Not an administrator issue. Try the WP:NPOVN or WP:Content noticeboard. Fences&Windows 17:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Restoring_Honor_rally I have the strong feeling that some neutral outsider view would be very helpful. Now the page is protected, but the discussion on Talk is getting more and more absurd.
At the end the simple question is: If one reliable source is providing quite detailed information about calculating the size of an event, referring to scientific methods, while another reliable source does provide only a number without further explanation, should Wikipedia take this into account or hide completely?
I think for every neutral outsider the answer should be clear, but there is so a strong fight, dominated - in my view - by absurd and unfortunately dishonest arguments (e.g. claiming that someone wants to add some information as fact, whereas in reality it is only about reporting this information as "source X says ...").
Maybe some administrator is willing to take a look at it? (I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for it, but I'm just trying it...) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is essentially a Request for comment about article content. That's not especially an admin thing. The way to do it is make a section of the talk page titled "request for comment", explain the question you want comments on, and then list the question at WP:RFC (see the instructions there under "Request comment through talk pages"). 67.119.12.106 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You live and learn. I created such a RFC. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

An IP has threatened to "sue my ass" for reverting a BLP violation that he inserted into Antonio Banderas. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He has also threatened to sue Tommy2010. I've notified him of this thread. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked- 55 hours. We indef accounts for this, but the IP will likely be reassigned in two days. Courcelles 20:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good thing he didn't threaten to sue the rest of him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'd get your pound of something ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly compromised account?

I'm concerned to see this edit by Adam Cuerden: [175]. It's not really in character for him to make edits that basically amount to vandalism of a project page, and reviewing his recent edits, they seem to both be appropriate in tone and not to have any negative interactions with WP:FU that would've brought this about on his behalf. It was also out of character in that the edit summary does not contain just a section heading with no edit summary, but is rather entirely blank. That's also unusual for Adam. I'm rather concerned that the account has been compromised, and that someone else may be using it periodically without his knowledge. If this is not the case, and Adam did make these edits, the issue of vandalizing a project page is probably also one that needs to be addressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's just an example of bad humor, not an account compromise. I can even see where it's coming from, even though I don't think that edit belongs there. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just talked to him today on commons, I'd assume he's in charge of the account. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had travelled by bus, rail, and car for 11 hours that day, had gotten completely travel sick, and had been up for about 22 hours at that point. It is what I always think when I visit that page, and I thought it was effectively harmless. (yeah, pretty much drunk logic, only without the alcohol.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

24 hour church of elvis

There was a wiki page that came up under the search term "church of elvis" and "24 Hour Church of Elvis* that was on wikipedia for almost or even over a decade. I am the inventor of the church of elvis and I found out the page has been deleted through facebook. At the time I looked about two weeks ago there was still a log that said advertising was the reason for the deletion. I DID correct incorrect content but there were many many versions of the page before that that could have been reverted to rather than deleting the page. All I did was correct inaccuracies, but it seems draconian to delete the entire reference. It is a work of art and the original page was made without my input and before I had ever heard of wikipedia, with gross inaccuracies that were on the internet for years before I learned of their existence. Since I put up with the consequences of the inaccuracy for so long, why can't I reap the benefit of an accurate page now that I have a new location and the likelihood that people will want to use wikipedia for information about my artwork--the world's first 24 hour coin-operated art gallery--will increase. THank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.40.185 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To save people some time, the article which was deleted had its contents moved to User:WWB/24_Hour_Church_of_Elvis. There was certainly justification for deleting the page. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was actually created six years ago, and it seems it hasn't had references for all that time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"The article" we're talking about was 24 Hour Church of Elvis in mainspace before being userfied. DMacks (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uh, Fastily did reply. It looks like they were as confused as I was when I tried to work out what was going on ;-) (And thanks to BW and GW for their comments - I am now slightly less confused). TFOWR 10:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Could the original poster clarify if the issue is resolved now ("where the content went") or if there is still a question of whether it should have been removed from mainspace (should probably go to WP:DRV)? DMacks (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Boatscaptain and Black Mesa (video game)

Boatscaptain (talk · contribs)

I am starting to lose my cool over an issue with this user, he has been trying to insert a link [article and talk page] to images hosted on a user submitted website which are not licensed by the copyright owners, a direct violation of WP:ELNEVER point 1, see whole discussion here. User is not listening to what I have been saying to him, even now going on the tangent insisting the images are public domain. User is making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith, even early on describing legit edits as vandalism [176], agenda accusations when asked to explain his own edits [177], problematic biased edits such as this [178]. Rehevkor ✉ 03:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As a party who has at times been involved in this discussion I'll add that Boatscaptain at one point responded to my placing a 3RR notice on his Talk page[179] with reciprocity. At this point it is very difficult for me to believe that Boatscaptain is intending to edit with good faith rather than being argumentative. Unfortunately other editors have not gotten involved in the current discussion regarding Boatscaptain's edits, which might relieve some of the tension, or at least provide stronger evidence of consensus that the edits are inappropriate. Doniago (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to those that chimed in on the discussion and his talk page, hopefully he'll drop the stick now. Rehevkor ✉ 11:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV troll running a move proposal

this is a copy and paste from the help desk

Is it possible that a different admin can over look this move proposal, as you can see here it is currently being lead by a liar.--intraining ^{Jack In} 09:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you being incivil both there and on the help-desk, and then even here after help-desk called you on it. I see people (including you) posting opinions on how they'd like something to be but without providing rational support even though it's a discussion not a vote. I see people (including you) posting data/evidence and rationally discussing it. I don't see a need for admin action at this time. DMacks (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now there is really no point of putting any rational behind any discussion as anthony appleyard just goes about his own agenda, all i'm asking is for a nutrel admin to over-look this move proposal, i'm willing to accept any result as long as it's not by someone who says they have never heard of Bing (search engine) and is clearly lieing.--intraining ^{Jack In} 09:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Req-moves aren't led by someone, they are proposed and then someone else handles the closure a week later based on the strength of the reasons given. I see a legitimate dispute over page-naming, and a discussion started to sort it out (getting input from uninvolved editors). Isn't that exactly what you want: others' input on the topic and uninvolved-admin handling of the result? It shouldn't matter who has heard of what at all...that's WP:OR and opinion. Consider this your final civility warning--we comment on article content, not editors. DMacks (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

O.K that sounds good I didn't know someone else handles the closure, my bad i'll crawl back under my rock now:).--intraining ^{Jack In} 09:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd better do that as I will block you if you continue these personal attacks. Anthony simply moved a dab page to a different name last year, and accusing him of lying because he didn't remember one of the entries on that page is asking for a block. Please strike through your comments. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I missed this [180] where he undid a redirect in June 2009 that someone had made. But he still can't be expected to remember reverting someone on something trivial, and he did not change Bing to this disambiguation page, his revert there simply restored the status quo. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Refering to Anthony Appleyard as a blatent liar is and was totally uncalled for on my behalf. I obviously don't have all the facts and even if I did it is way over the top; after all we are all Wikipedians here we can work this out without having to call people names, I feel bad I know AA is a admin here and has taken on alot over the 5+ years he has been here. I don't mean to come across as an asshole and i'm sorry that I come across that way sometimes. At the end of the day it doesn't mean jack shit to me wether Bing (search engine) is redirected to Bing or not but I am still entitled to my opinion and I do feel that the search term Bing should show up as Bing the search engine. I will stay out of it from now on. Anthony Appleyard I am sorry mate.--intraining ^{Jack In} 11:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Lists of names of non-notable people

When I encounter long lists of names of people, if the names are redlinked, or sometimes not linked at all, I remove them. I also usually have to put an "unsourced section" tag on the section of the page which contains the names. This is usually on school articles or town articles. If there are redlinked or blacklinked names which include sources which indicate that they are notable, even if they don't have articles, I tend to leave those alone. But I'm always getting into edit wars with people who revert me without discussion, or who seem to think that long lists of non-notable people, non-linked people, non-sourced people, are perfectly acceptable. Now tonight I've come across the Fraţii Buzeşti High School article. I did my usual, removing the non-notable people and putting an unsourced section tag. I was immediately reverted by User:Bci2, who didn't just restore the list, but removed the unsourced section tag, with the only explanation that "This is not original research. Please see cited references and also links. More will be added.". There are no sources, there are no links. There should not be more added until this is cleaned up. The most important thing, from a Wikipedia point of view, is the removal of the unsourced tag. Am I wrong here? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, some of those people aren't notable. And the links to the Romanian Wikipedia are untidy and in my opinion should be removed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with Everard and 'Chase me ladies'(!). Surely notable alumni are what is wanted here? And linking to a non-English language Wikipedia just disguises that there is no En.WP article on that person. If the editor intends to add articles on all those people perhaps? There are references now. For the record, Bci2 (talk · contribs · count) is an experienced editor. 8k+ edits edits - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 03:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what makes it even worse, not only an experienced editor, but a reviewer. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List of names of non-notable people is an article just waiting to be written. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the links and instructed the editor to stop. A full class roster certainly flouts at least the spirit of BLP's requirement for privacy. If the person already has an article here, that's one thing, but we don't need everyone who ever went there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see many additions of redlink names to lists of residents of some town, with some assertion of notability such as "Founded Mudville Bank" or "Vice President of Caterpillar" or "Member of such and such famous band (no article) or some other plausible job which might have allowed creation of an article, but without any reference. These pages often have a box at the top requesting that only names be added which have articles or are notable enough for articles. I consider removing them, with a note not to add them until the person has an article, since vanity additions or hoax additions would be very likely if it is a free-for-all as at present. Edison (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a common problem, there must be thousands, maybe tens of thousands of promotional or hoax entries. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NLIST. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I remove any name from a list of people that isn't either blue-linked or has a reliable source. I usually site WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NLIST, and/or WP:NOT. Myself and another editor are trying to systematically remove people without asserted and verified notability from TV station alumni lists; I think it's worth doing any time we have a list anywhere. While a person on a list doesn't have to meet the full WP:BIO notability criteria, there has to be some verification that the person 1) actually is an alumni/resident/former employee/etc. and 2) that they're more notable than Joe/Jane Average. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually the individual related wikiprojects will have an outline as to who should be considered for inclusion in their "alumni" or "notable residents" etc. sections. For example, Wikiproject schools keeps a detailed criteria for inclusion here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility of User:Kitchen Knife

Resolved

 – Nothing for an admin to do here - Needs to be taken through the dispute resolution process, rather than ANI. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

This user has been engaged in a dispute of wether the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was actually "bioterror." which has gotten quite Tedious and demanding his OR be included over reliable secondary sourceing and now engaging in personal attacks Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC) user notified Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a PA, but given Ling Nut's accomplishments, it is surely way off base!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you find that [[User talk:Weaponbb7|] is a little biased and his introduction of this complaint is incivil and manipulative. I have stated as have others that the article uses the emotive and depreciated term terrorism. There are several references which uses other terms. A discussion has been going on, not for that long, but recently user User:Ling.Nut joined in and immediately became incivil. I believe the Weaponbb7 should be censured in someway for trying to use this process to end and debate in favour of the POV he holds--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see diffs showing Weaponbb7's "bias", because looking at the talk page I'm not seeing it. I am seeing several editors (Ling.Nut, Cirt, Weaponbb7) trying to explain why the article is titled as it is. Note that this page will not consider content disputes, so I do not believe that Weaponbb7 could use this process to end the debate in favour of "his POV". Also note that, in my (limited) experience with Weaponbb7, they have been unfailingly neutral - I encountered them through a WP:3O request affecting a page I'd protected, and was very impressed with their handling of the WP:3O issue. TFOWR 14:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

He states "demanding his OR be included over reliable secondary sourcing" I have not demanded anything at all. I have provided reliable references of my own, so characterising my comments as OR is very biased. He states "and now engaging in personal attacks". He could quite easily end the debate buy getting me blocked. What his enactment of this process does is bring unwarranted pressure to bear on me and would at the least give some credence to his claims that my view was OR all of which would count against my comments in the debate. It is this that leads me to beleive he has a POV to protect--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Weapon is a bit fast to pull the admin switch, but most likely he will learn. I see nothing to be done here. KK, if you are making no headway with your arguments, there are times when you should just realize you aren't going to gain consensus, and move on to the next area.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

user:69.227.69.115

I'd be tempted to block 69.227.69.115 (talk · contribs) for this edit [181] if I wasn't involved (i.e he reverted me calling my replacing a tag vandalism). That's really OTT. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling you a faggot wasn't too bright either. FWIW, the article is about a living person and has no secondary sources, so I blp-prodded it. WP is not a press agency. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the name was aimed at OlEnglish. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given the IP a 4im warning for personal attacks. Banhammer primed and ready. Favonian (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed that it actually does has a source, so I took out the prod and cleaned up some promotion in the article. I suspect the original contributor User:Zos128 has a COI.[182] See also the cited interview,

HipHopCanada: Do you think that having a presence on-line through multiple mediums has played a major role in building your career?

Snak the Ripper:For sure, the Internet is my prime tool. Without YouTube, Facebook and MySpace, it’s like the caveman era. A lot of rappers these days aren’t even up on their Internet game.

I'm thinking of prodding the article even though the contributor unprodded it right after it was created (but hasn't been around since then). It looks like a hit and run spam, more or less. 67.119.12.29 (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR and Afterwriting

Sometime ago, I blocked an editor for "personal attacks or harassment". Since then I've had both their talkpage, and the talkpage of other editors involved, on my watchlist. Earlier today I saw this comment and a short while later issued this warning. Since then there has been some back-and-forth between Afterwriting (talk) and myself, at both Afterwriting's talkpage and at mine. Afterwriting is clearly unhappy with my handling of the incident, so I'm raising it here for review. TFOWR 13:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think threatening a block after a single instance and a single warning for repeats is a bit too rash (I think a warning was enough, no need to mention anything about blocking), but I think the claim you quote is way overstated. Nothing to worry about here on your part, from what I can see. On the other hand, I'd suggest their attitude towards you is getting quite heated, so it may be time to just stop responding and/or let another admin handle it. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree with StP. If they keep their grousing to their own talk page, as long as they are not personally abusive, I'd ignore it. We do not insist on perfect harmony here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am appalled at user's behavior.TFOWR is none of the best admins it has been my pleasure to deal with. YOu have been disrespectful user and she will very politely block you, sometimes with tongue in cheek humor. Give it up. Be civil. You lost this battle with your first comment. DocOfSoc (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Strange Passerby; you may have jumped to warning about a block too soon, making the user defensive; it probably would have been better to use something like {{uw-npa1}} or a handwritten message to that effect. I've been watching the discussion on your talkpage though TFOWR, and Afterwriting has been pretty uncivil and made some pretty bold accusations when I don't see anything wrong with your actions except perhaps slightly jumping the gun. I would suggest simply ignoring or reverting the comments on your talk page until the user calms down enough to take part in civil discussion. Another admin can handle it in the meantime, if necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I certainly don't intend to exacerbate the situation further, and I take on board the (several) comments about rashness - I shouldn't have mentioned blocks in my warning. Thanks again. TFOWR 13:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine for me; Afterwriting should take his admonishing in good faith. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I stand by every comment that I have made about this administrator's appalling behaviour - regardless of how "heated" you imagine that I have expressed them. This administrator should also take such "admonishing in good faith". Wikipedia can do without administrators who react in this way to ordinary editors. My description of a persistently disruptive and abusive editor as an "immature twirp" ( on my talk page page and to another editor ) may well be uncivil - as I admitted in my original response - but unnecessarily provocative reactions by an administrator that far outweigh the crime are also uncivil and an abuse of other editors. Administrators aren't above the policies on incivility and they should be taken to account for their own mistakes when required - which is what I have done. You can legalistically refer to all the policies you like but there is still no excuse for this administrator's behaviour - and the attempts by some of you to do so only indicates how out of touch some administrators can be with the difficulties that regular editors have in dealing with persistently disruptive and abusive editors. Afterwriting (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion was virtually ended, Underwriter. Why continue to attack? I again vouch for this Admin's integrity and fairness. Your attack above is rash and uncalled for. Admin is human , never abusive and had already backed down. YOU need a chill pill.DocOfSoc (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Before this is archived, may I suggest a change of header as it is clearly over the top, and definetly uncalled for. I don't understand why this was not immediately changed.DocOfSoc (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, Afterwriting, the issue is that calling another editor an "immature twirp" isn't simply uncivil, it can also be interpreted as a personal attack. Looking at your interaction, you have been repeatedly uncivil to TFOWR and their responses have been perfectly civil, including advising you of the proper procedure to seek community opinion on their behaviour. Now you have that community consensus: you need to calm down and stop accusing TFOWR of being an evil rouge admin because they warned you that you could be blocked for making personal attacks when perhaps a simple warning that it was against policy would have sufficed. You're quite right that TFOWR isn't exempt from WP:CIVIL, and neither are you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in the heading Doc; it's a quote from Afterwriting, and TFOWR, the target of the comment, was the one to make it the heading. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The heading could well be more neutral; I've amended it to reflect the editors involved. I've added an {{anchor}} lest anyone worry about links. (Unlikely, but possible). TFOWR 00:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pagemove vandalism needs repair

Resolved

 – —Soap— 18:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

GM 2.5 Liter inline-4 engine (Iron Duke) needs to be moved back to its original title at GM Iron Duke engine. I reverted this move once, and the user who moved it proceeded to move the page several more times to muddy the edit histories and make it impossible for a non-admin to fix.

Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page back to its original location. I am not sure that the user was vandalizing the page, but it would be nice if any further moves were held off until a move discussion was opened and closed. NW (Talk) 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jaranwala

User:Ndhaq-[183][184] [185] [186] has added these promotional materials to the Jaranwala article. Some other I.P.s have also been adding similar material to this article. I have left their diffs on the article talk page. This user was previously blocked for similar activities and is now back to his antics. It appears to be a single purpose account. The other I.P.s may or may not be his socks. It appears that his I.P. was also blocked previously.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see User Talk:Ndhaq, Permblock may be merited.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon 75.142.152.104 redirected a bunch of articles for no reason

If you check out the recent activity of user 75.142.152.104, he just redirected a BUNCH of Transformers articles that are currently under nomination for deletion, but no decision has been made for them yet. Many of these articles were overwhelming keep too, like Grimlock and Beachcomber (Transformers)! Mathewignash (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Welchs12

Resolved

User:Welchs12 has been determined to be a sockpuppet here, but there is a backlog at SPI so he has not yet been blocked. He is now removing info from his own case. Will an admin please block this editor? Thank you, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been resolved. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Palenque Island Conflict of Interest

Resolved

 – HJMitchell has reexamined the issue and ended up removing the offending material and blocking the editor who added it. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Palenque Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need some admin help on a serious conflict of interest and defamatory practices from Factorx1983 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure how to properly notify him, so someone please fix this is it's wrong. {{Factorx1983:ANI-notice}}

This person is known to me and my company, and has been harassing our employees and customers for months, in the flesh and now in this forum. Despite intervention from the courts and the police, they continue to find ways to attempt to discredit our legitimate business on Palenque Island, also known as Isla Palenque. Yes, my company is building a resort on this island so we definitely are not impartial, but we created this page over a year ago and we have always tried to contribute in a way that is informative and in keeping with the encyclopedic style, as you will see when you review it. All we have done is remove content from the last 48 hours that is clear misuse. We have made no attempt to tell our side of the legal story on the page. I know it's not Wikipedia's job to settle legal disputes, so I have not made an attempt to explain our side of the story here. However, I would be happy to if anyone thinks it's important.

I have reviewed the conflict of interest page and I am sure that any neutral editor would agree that their edits are a clear conflict of interest and defamatory and are not in the best interest of Wikipedia. They are posting false information to further a personal grudge and talk about their side of a legal dispute - that is conflict of interest. They have put my name and my husband's name in the post - those are personal attacks. They are posting false information about us and our company - that is defamation.

The page was protected today, I'm sure in good faith by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). That would be a relief, except it got protected with all this awful content on it. This is doing great harm to me personally and to my company.

Can someone please review the edits from the last 48 hours? I think it will be clear what it going on. And please accept my apologies for any errors in procedure, as I have never used this page before. Flimoncelli (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

•  
  1. Wikipedia:No legal threats — Don't bring Wikipedia into your external legal dispute, in any way. Even trying to explain your "side" of the dispute is probably unwise, since it will of course prompt your opponents to try to oppose you here. This just isn't the place for any of that.
  2. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons — HJ Mitchell has already, and correctly in my and Looie496's views, made sure that The Wrong Version is one without the libellous statements about living people. No further action seems warranted here.
• Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• And the process for notifying another user is to paste {{subst:ANI-notice}} on the other user's talk page. I have done this for you at User talk:Factorx1983. David Biddulph (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help, and I will take your advice. Sincerely, Flimoncelli (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

EmausBot creating pages with only interwikis

EmausBot (talk · contribs) has been creating empty pages and marking them for A1, without an edit summary.

• List of pages:

• 1936–37 La Liga
• 1937–38 La Liga
• 1938–39 La Liga
• 1999–100 Eredivisie
• 2007–08 French Division 1

 ℳono  02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• It was probably a bot failure, and it seems that the bot operator is fixing the issue. Will check if this is cross-wiki or just on the English Wikipedia. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  Not according to Luxo's tool. Mono, try contacting the bot operator. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to do so (language and account barriers). If anyone wants to ask the user, please do so.  ʄlame (report mistake) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Err... Emaus does speak English. Anyway... HJ Mitchell blocked the bot until the problem is fixed. Diego Grez (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• (ec w/Diego) I've nuked the pages and blocked the bot (ABD) pending an explanation or a fix. Any other admin should feel free to restore the pages and unblock the bot as and when necessary without further consultation with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I gave explanations on HJ Mitchell's talk page --Emaus (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of the section. As far as I know it is not possible to create an empty page, that is, a page with 0 bytes of content. You can make an existing page into a 0 byte page but the system won't let you create them out of nothing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty with User:Hushpuckena

This user has been editing articles about cities, counties, et cetera in what (initially) was probably a good-faith attempt to fix perceived grammar issues: singular versus plural when referring to a measure of area. I have questioned this via the user's talk page because I felt that the grammar was actually being broken by some of these edits, not fixed. I still believe that, and provided supporting information for this in some of my comments; but the main issue here is this user's complete failure to engage in any discussion, and to continue making the questioned edits even after six separate attempts to elicit comments over a period of two weeks. I feel I've made a strong effort to communicate about this politely and to give ample opportunity for the user to respond and discuss; but there has been no response at all, except that the pace of these edits has slowed (which may or may not relate to my queries -- there's no way to tell as there has been no discussion). Certainly the edits have not stopped.

On 25 August, this edit was one of a batch which prompted my initial query. Several more edits were made with no response, and about half an hour later I made another query. A few more edits were made; this edit was the last in that batch. I had hoped that these edits would then stop, despite the lack of response.

On 28 August, another similar edit was made. I queried the user again but got no response, and later proceeded to revert the relevant portions of the user's previous edits as I had stated I would. On 2 September another such edit was made, and I queried again. No response. On 8 September, another edit and another query -- no response.

Later that day, User:Huwmanbeing questioned a slightly different aspect of this user's edits, involving singular versus plural when applied to fractional measures of area. Hushpuckena made another such edit the following day and still there has been no response.

Under the circumstances, I'm not sure what else to do. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe a {{uw-mos2}} warning on his talk page would start to get his attention: but maybe not, apparently. His listed "copyedits" are really just not correct - so just undo them with an appropriate edit summary. Edits like this[187], on the other hand, are entirely appropriate and constructive: maybe a "trouting" for the bad edits? If he simply won't discuss it (or even acknowledge attempts at discussion), and continues in this editing vein, it's pretty obvious what will eventually happen, now isn't it? Yup... Doc9871 (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Bad news, Omnedon. I think that Hushpuckena has the grammar right, and you are in error here, in all of the edits you mention. That's not reason to ignore you, but I can understand the mindset of someone who corrects a fairly obvious grammatical error only to have it undone, and who concludes that Wikipedia can just suffer from the errors being reintroduced, since xe's done xyr part in fixing them once. I can also understand the mindset of someone who decides that it's not xyr responsibility to teach everyone else on a wiki grammar, or who has no desire to spend xyr time arguing about grammar with pseudonymous people on a wiki. I don't particularly agree with it (such editorial discussions being part and parcel of collaborative writing), but I can understand it.

  "square miles" is more than one "square mile" and takes a plural "are". You misapplied your own authority, moreover. The sentences in question do contain an "of phrase". See the "of which"? That's the "of phrase". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, he is wrong over the singular/plural thing (i.e. changing miles to mile for units less than one) but I think "are" is the correct grammar. Although it was shoddy sentence construction in the first place. For example it is much better to say of which 3,179 square miles (8,233 km²) consists of land and 29 square miles (75 km²) (0.90%) of water --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

G: The conventions of English grammar don't support Hushpuckena, but as Omnedon points out, the grammar itself isn't the issue (and doesn't appear to be the point of this incident). The subject in question is Hushpuckena's unwillingness to discuss things with other editors, or to acknowledge other editors' polite posts, or to cease making edits about which there's clearly some disagreement. I personally don't think that this is behavior that should ever be winked at as "understandable", regardless of how one feels about the grammar. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 13:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

UncleG, first of all, the grammar is not the primary issue here. The issue is this user's behavior. Wikipedia is founded upon collaboration. In this case, edits have been questioned (and very politely). The issue of which user's opinion is right is irrelevant to the issue at hand, in that under these circumstances the editor is expected to respond before continuing. This editor refuses to say a word, and continues to make edits that have been questioned. That's unacceptable in a collaborative environment. You are essentially defending this by saying it is understandable. It is not understandable, hence the request for administrator assistance.

However, to address the grammar issue, you're mistaken; you are mis-applying the Yale reference I supplied. Example 2 directly refutes your statement that "'square miles' is more than one 'square mile' and takes a plural 'are'." Example 3 does not apply in this case; the "of which" to which you are referring comes before the definition of area. The text reads like "X square miles is land"; there is no "of" phrase there. However, even if there was an "of" phrase, it would read something like "X square miles of the area is land", and thus it would still be singular based on this reference.

Errant, the grammar in those geography sections has been bad for years, ever since it was automatically generated from the census data. I have been working recently to fix those issues. For that reason Hushpuckena's edits came to my attention, as I have lots of these articles on my watchlist. Many of this editor's copyedits are good; the only content problem I'm aware of is the incorrect change from singular to plural. Omnedon (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I was unaware of the deep intricacies of the plural/singular argument before I whacked Hushpuckena upside the head. I thought his changes were wrong grammatically... whatever. He's still quite actively editing[188], and apparently ignoring this thread (and the real basis for it) completely, despite being "informed" of it. A good editor who simply refuses to communicate with others in the community. Why can't he respond? There must be some classic previous cases like this. What to do? Doc9871 (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is deeply intricate, and these particular changes are indeed wrong grammatically. In general, it would appear that other edits made by this editor are of good quality and tend to improve the relevant articles. I just would like to discuss this specific issue with him/her and can't because the editor is ignoring this. Omnedon (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As a followup, I see that this editor has asked another editor about this issue and has received a response. Clearly this editor is aware of the issue. Omnedon (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

His edit history in general looks very good, actually: he's a valuable editor. His communication skills are terrible (two total edits to his talk page, both of them reverts of other editors), but I don't think it's against policy to be a "shut-in"(?). He's not being disruptive. This thread should probably be closed, and Hushpuckena should hopefully come out of his shell and do the old "meet and greet". Doc9871 (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It actually is against policy (specifically WP:Civility), which requires editors to "resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion." To completely avoid/ignore discussion of any kind is to make that impossible. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is disruptive. He's not just being a "shut-in"; he's making edits that break article grammar, he won't discuss it, and he continues to do it even when questioned. Omnedon (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is: what should be done here? Should he be blocked for a short time for not discussing things, to "send him a message"? You're both right, and he does certainly meet the fourth criteria of disruptive editing: "Does not engage in consensus building: * repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits." The fifth criteria also seems to apply here. Something should get his attention... Doc9871 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The thing about grammar arguments is that sometimes grammar is in the eyes of the beholder. My take is that Hushpuckena is probably technically correct (I only say that he probably is; my own mother used to correct my grammar on certain points in a similar manner that I resisted at first, and I still think that she's often a smug smartass), but the problem that Hush has found involves more than the "fix" that he has chosen to address it. Put simply, the template is worded in an awkward mannner, and therefore may cause an awkward use of grammar by some of those who attempt to use it. If someone were to change this often-repeated language to something like "the area of land is <x acres> and the area of water is <x acres>" we'd all be speaking the same language, no? As Doc is saying, Hush should be talking. Let's get him talking, and the best way to do that is to address the concern that he has noted. Are we all so caught up in the ANI "NO CONTENT DISPUTES" rule that we can't even look at a simple content issue that can be fixed without visiting some horrid grammar manual that most of us would wish never to see again? Really? Just change the template to avoid the debate and move on.... Steveozone (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been trying to get Hushpuckena talking. My first request did not say "I'm right, you're wrong", but politely registered a concern and requested discussion. This request has been ignored. That's disruptive, and that's the reason for this ANI discussion. In any case, the information in question is not delivered via a template; it's text embedded in each article. The text was auto-generated by a bot years ago. Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

<lose indents for clarity>I understand that. I'd like for him to talk, as well. I even teased him about his own (inadvertent mis-)use of grammar. Hushpuckena shouldn't be blocked for trying to deal with what he saw as a grammar problem, and I hope that "we" don't decide to just block him, and then move on after he's shut up. People who can only find ways to criticize somebody's grammar are irritating, and they ought to be shown their own hypocrisy. But, nevertheless, grammatical error should be corrected, and those who are passing on the worth of someone ought to recognize the value of grammarians here. He is communicating, by acting. I'm not approving his communication method, but then again, I suspect that most of us have let this particular grammar error slide (and thereby let the encyclopedia slip in its potential quality. His communication method may not be conventional, but there you have it (grammar is very "rule bound" after all). I would hope that there would be no need to block until and unless and only after he for some reason persists in misbehavior after the community actually makes some effort to address the problem that he saw; a problem that he tried to address, in his own peculiar way. Yes, the problem is content based and doesn't belong here, but it's real, it was generated automatically and thus is pervasive, and it really ought to be addressed sensibly. Without arguing grammar. Let's just rephrase so that we don't have to bend our brains around the ridiculously subtle grammatical points being debated here. Steveozone (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one more point. The grammar might be wrong, it might be right, but c'mon now, how "disruptive" can it be for Hush to pervasively insert his arguably ungrammatical phrasing to replace another arguably ungrammatical phrasing (which itself was pervasively created in an "automatic" manner)? Is this debate over blocking him really any less disruptive than finding a way to avoid the grammatical ambiguity? Steveozone (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Ok, how about if I just say it:

Hey, Hushpuckena! I know you're watching this. Say, my friend, how about you just replace the ugly phrasing that you found all over the place with "Gooberville includes a total area of <w acres>. The total area of land is <x acres> and the total area of water is <x acres>". I think that probably deals with the ugly phrasing that you've found, no?

How hard is that, folks? Really? Steveozone (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

Well, as I've mentioned, I've been working to correct these very issues, which involves many thousands of articles. I'm sure that Hushpuckena also fully intended to make improvements; and some of his edits to these geography sections did indeed accomplish an improvement, as did his copyedits to other unrelated articles. I ran across his edits in the course of my own work. It's just this one issue that is problematic; and once again -- the problem is not so much the grammar, which normally users could work out among themselves, but the simple fact that discussion was impossible -- Hushpuckena wouldn't respond. Period. Omnedon (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Naturalpsychology

Moved from WP:AN

User talk:Naturalpsychology has used an example naming me in a false and inappropriate way.[189] He has compared actual accusations made again JWs with hypothetical accusations against me in a manner which implies that both accusations have been made. I would like the edit deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have some issues with this complaint; first, is that it is on the wrong noticeboard - WP:ANI is where admins look at issues regarding possible policy violations - and, secondly, that the other party has not been notified as is required on either board. The third, and in my view most relevant, issue is that the complaint is groundless (which is why I am not inclined to transfer this to ANI); It is a simple content dispute in which the other party is suggesting that noting allegations without good sources and no allowance for any rebuttal may result in an unbalanced article, by way of exampling that if they were to write only allegations regarding you without any rebuttal that you would feel that the content is prejudiced. Nothing that they have said indicates that the comments they made regarding you were in any way correct, or that they were going to place the allegations in article space. This is a frivolous complaint, as well as being in the wrong place and not advised to the other party. I suggest that you continue to civilly discuss the issue regarding the content dispute, without the distraction of misrepresenting the other party and WP policies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I would hardly call it groundless. It was a severe personal attack, as well as being very WP:POINTy. I'm going to move this to ANI now. Whether it was intended as an actual accusation or not, the user themselves admitted that their own statement was "slanderous" (though libellous would be more accurate), which makes it a pretty clear WP:NPA violation and a WP:POINTy comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be a severe personal attack if he wrote at Crticisms of Jeffro that the account holder was alleged to do those things (with a reference), but there is no such article and they have not been made. It is an example, used to illustrate a point (not a WP:POINT) regarding placing unrefuted allegations into article space leading to possible WP:NPOV concerns. Where is the "admission" that such allegations were slanderous/libellious? There is a difference between saying "If I were to allege..." and "I allege..." when illustrating an argument. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also updated the editor concerned with the new venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quotes that the user admits it's slanderous: That is not damaging your reputation or slandering you? Posting that in public? ... So, it most definitely damages your reputation.

How you can claim that an attack is not an attack if they make "hypothetical" insinuations that another editor is a paedophile, felon, etc., I'll never know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The question marks at the end of the first two quotes is indicating that the remarks are points of discussion, not allegations of themselves. If I were to ask you if you would feel anxious if you were in the path of a runaway truck, I am not threatening to run you down - I am using an example to make a point. Same thing, Naturalpsychology is asking Jeffro if they would be comfortable to have allegations made against them with no countering rebuttals. They are not saying those example allegations have any basis in truth, they are making a point about npov when serious allegations are noted without any regard to a response. It is a content dispute. Really. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology is clearly advancing a hypothetical situation - "If I said this about you, you wouldn't like it. If I said that someone had said this about you, you wouldn't like it any better." He's not saying that Jeffro is any of these things, in fact, the whole point is that Jeffro isn't any of these things. He's objecting to the addition of allegations about JWs where the alleger (not the editor adding it) has not given any details to support the allegation. No comment as to the reliability of the sources that the editor adding the information is using, but they need to be good ones. The only time it could be construed as some kind of PA is when he asks if Jeffro has had a problem with JW's in the past, but I would have said that was more of a hypothetical query myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd point out that it appears likely that the editor under scrutiny here went to some effort in phrasing the subject comment in the english language, but of course, someone might point out (in similar fashion) that the OP is only concerned about two of the hypothetical assertions ("both") and not all four. This is easy -- both parties (perhaps others) should relax with some tea, and AGF. Steveozone (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's not an attack, just imprudent language. The ed is commenting that accusing the JVs of what they are being accused of in the article is just as absurd as accusing one the the WP editors with being [all sorts of nasty things]. Irony like that around here tends to be misinterpreted, not matter how obvious it is--as seen here. The solution is to avoid using each other as examples about article content, even ironically or in jest. In commenting, it is necessary to assume that nobody here reads carefully, has a sense of humor, or is willing to consider the possibility of innocent intentions. This does rather inhibit the way many of us talk, but that is the way it goes, apparently. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • DGG, those comments were somewhat unnecessary. I read the comment carefully, I have a sense of humour, and I understand the intentions. But that doesn't change the fact that making such claims, "hypothetical" or "ironic" or otherwise, was unnecessary and could easily be interpreted as a personal attack. Of all ways to illustrate the argument, why was it necessary to choose to make unfounded (albeit "hypothetical") claims of another editor's illegal activities? It's simply demeaning and if not an outright personal attack, then at least uncivil. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's still none of those things. It is no more than an extension of the simple English expression "You wouldn't like it if I said that about you." The whole point is that NP does not believe that JWs (or Jeffro) are wifebeaters, child molesters, litterbugs or whatever else it was they were accused of, and it is really hard to see how that paragraph could be read any other way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware that it was purportedly intended as an example. However, that example is entirely misleading in whichever way it is examined. If it is taken to mean that such accusations have been made about me, it is clearly libellous. But if it is taken to mean that such accusations have not actually been made about me, it is not consistent with the comparison it seeks to make, because the accusations in question (regardless of whether they are true) have in fact been made about the JW religion (there are organisations and websites devoted to that purpose), and are considered sufficiently notable by the religion to provide a rebuttal at their media site[190]. (By extension, all of the 'accusations' are cited in the body of the article.) Because the 'example's' alleged purpose therefore makes no sense, it seems clear that its only real purpose was to offend.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to rethink "libelous", as you're walking into WP:NLT territory. You are an anonymous person behind a userid, how can you be personally libelled? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of "libellous" is simply echoing what another user said above. No legal threat is intended or should be inferred.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus related articles - an anti-Iranian conspiracy?

I seriously doubt it. However, see this blog The Cyrus Cylinder, Wikipedia and Iran conspiracies which may explain the sudden changes in articles such as Cyrus the Great, Cyrus Cylinder, etc. Some eyes on these articles might be useful, and if there are any problems we may need semi-protection. We're even getting deletions at other articles which may be related, eg removing a mention of one of the earliest examples of propaganda, the Behistun inscription. [191]. This [192] has an edit summary "Bringing back section which was removed by anti-Iranian racist" which is a clear attack on one of our editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great? I am sure there is enough material here for a novel. Hans Adler 12:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Revelation of personal identity, and lot more

User:Sulmues reveled my personal name, changed other people comments, remove strike from the comment of the blocked indef DE sockpuppet, and all of that on the Kosovo talk page, that is part of the ARBMAC restrictions. My real name was my username before, so he know it from there. I request urgent action, and deletion of my personal name from this comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=384295234

For more, i am here. WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've revision-deleted the edit summary. My reading ot WP:OUTING is that this incident was likely inadvertent and non-malicious, and so I have not blocked the editor responsible. As always, I defer to more-clueful folk than what I am. TFOWR 11:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would ask from you to inform user that i dont want this to happen never again. And what about the rest of my post? Also, more-clueful folk? What? :))) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

O, you did! :) Thanks! :) -WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already done ;-) The "more clueful folk" comment was addressed to those editors who know more about WP:OUTING than me, or editors (like yourself) who may know whether Sulmues has done stuff like this before. I've assumed that this is the first incident: if not, a block may well be in order. TFOWR 11:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea that this would be sanctionable: The only time I have seen this is when another user (a Greek editor) was called by a name other than his prior nick. I dropped by WhiteWriter's talkpage to ask him about how he can make [[193] such an edit], and called him by his prior nick: had no clue that was his own name. I have been editing in two years now and saw WhiteWriters's prior nick hundreds of times. His track is still there in his history and his signatures are written thousand of times with the old name. I have communicated with him under that nick dozens of times. His edits can still be seen under that nick and the signature is there. What I advise to him is Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#CLEANSTART if he wants to lose all his prior track. Lots of other people that have long time known him like I have may fall under the same trap. Still, I apologize: if that's what WhiteWriter wants to be called now, that's fine with me. Thank you for letting me know. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFOWR that it seems inadvertent, it looks like a one-off remark. Sulmues' explanation above sheds more light; if that was a prior username (which means that you once chose to reveal your own name) then that makes it even less likely that it was an act of malicious intent. With the promise not to refer to that name again I'd consider this resolved. -- Atama頭 17:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Gypsydog5150 sock?

Resolved

 – Blocked Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistersmiley69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account, same interests, knows how to use references... HalfShadow 15:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Blocking the account now. Sockpuppet investigations is down the hall, second door on your left, by the way. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Elazar Shach talk page

Closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IZAK (talk · contribs) has been changing a header on the talk page of Elazar Shach from "Smurf Shach" to "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach". See [194], [195], and [196]. His explanation, as stated in the first edit summary is "fix sub-heading for better language that is not offensive". I have reverted this because 1. one should not change header titles lightly, since they might be linked 2. as the original post stated clearly, no offense or disrespect was intended 3. this is plain censoring out of misplaced reverence to a person whose picture just came out lousy. In addition he continues his irrational prejudice against Chabad editors mentioning a "Chabad POV hatred of this rabbi". I remind you of the ArbCom case in which he also made accusations about Chabad editors which were not found to be true by ArbCom. When will the community force this user to abide by the "assume good faith" rule? Not to mention that the original poster is not, to the best of my knowledge, affiliated with Chabad. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) What, you want editors to be allowed to mock a person on the talk page of their article, and are upset that people object? Do you not have anything useful to do? Fences&Windows 17:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I've collapsed that thread, discussing a bad photo on an external page has nothing to do with improving the article. Fences&Windows 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) You seem to miss the point, that he does look like a smurf, and that the original editor stated specifically, that no offense was intended. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC) How absurd. You insist on labeling and defending calling a WP:NOTABLE person a "smurf" and then you have the chutzpah to say "no offense was intended"? Just how illogical is that? Just how dumb do you think people are? Or why should I or anyone be surprised, when I recently left you a friendly message/reminder on your talk page and you retorted "Go fuck your righteous self" (pardon me for quoting you verbatim) with absolutely no justification. Mind you, I did not take offense, even though you were asked by others to tone down (User talk:Debresser#AFD notification for Significance of numbers in Judaism) because by now that is just what one can expect from you, using and supporting of offensive words (e.g. User talk:Debresser#Personal attacks on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson) when you "defend" your favorite topics you give yourself lots of leeway, even if it means crossing all lines of decency, that are then "defended" with illogical and irrational and unreasonable lame rationalizations and WP:LAWYERing in the hope of getting your way. You need to stop this type of behavior ASAP. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Problem was started by in this diff when User:Insert coins needlessly demeaned the subject of the article by opening a section with a demeaning title that had no intention of anything to do with improving the article. User:IZAK was totaslly correct in his alteration of the header and additional reverts back to the demeaning header by User:Debresser were also bad judgments as was the opening of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) User:IZAK was totally correct in his actions. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No, he wasn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No, he wasn't. The rabbi (who is deceased, so there is no BLP issue) appears in a poorly-toned photo that the initial editor thought made him look like a Smurf. Evidently y'all don't know what Smurfs are. They're blue-toned cartoon characters. Tinkering with the editors comments was out of line, and ignores the real issue - namely, that that website that's supposedly honoring him has some really lousy photos (not just that one). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No one mentioned BLP, it is possible to demean a dead person also. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Funny. There seems to be more than one opinion as to how this issue was resolved. :) Debresser (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) All that's left is to find what section to post this in at WP:LAME. If we can't make a lighthearted joke about a photograph that came out wrong, I don't want to be here. The comment referenced the photograph, nobody is suggesting that the rabbi is actually a smurf, he's clearly far too large to live in a hollowed out mushroom. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Precisely. The initial comment was about the photo, and some nanny with no clue about the subject decided to "censor" the section title. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) My point precisely. Although I feel User:IZAK was acting according to his renowned anti-Chabad agenda. Again. I really think Wikipedia would do best to ban this user from all Jewish -related articles. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with a light-hearted comment per se, but there were some special circumstances here: The whole thing was rather gratuitous. The photo in question (very obviously the fifth from bottom here) doesn't just give the rabbi a blue face; it simply has no red tones at all. That's blatantly evident, and the question really wasn't about the rabbi's blue face but about the quality of a site that uses such a photo when it also has so many others that are obviously superior. (I am not sure it's a very good point, since there may well be a specific significance to this specific photo, which his adherents may know shows him on some special occasion.) The light-hearted comment was in the title, where it was misleading. The entire situation looks like a calculated provocation. When it became apparent that IZAK found this light-hearted joke in bad taste and redacted it, Debresser edit-warred for its inclusion on the talk page. We must have a free climate, where we can make harmless jokes without fear of retribution. That doesn't mean that deliberate provocations of an opponent are acceptable, or that ostensibly harmless jokes are immune from being redacted per WP:TALK#Others' comments/Section headings. Hans Adler 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I posted an "anchor" so that both "Smurf Shach" and "Blue photo of Rabbi Shach" should still work from editors' history lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC) - This thread is a perfect reflection of everything that is awful at the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Second rio. It's just battlefield bullshit that has zero to do with article content (as opposed to the battlefield bullshit that at least does have something to do with article content). Debresser requesting a ban from all jewish topics for a long-standing opponent of his for the crime of "complaining someone compared a rabbi to a smurf on a talk page" is an interesting new tactic though.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) This doesn't appear to require administrator attention, and I firmly agree that this would be a candidate for WP:LAMEST. In any case, the thread doesn't seem particularly offensive, but surely the best response to "I find the title offensive" is, "I'm sorry you feel that way, I'll change it to something just as descriptive which doesn't make an unnecessary joke"? I don't see the need to edit war over the title and then take it to WP:ANI because of a disagreement over a poor joke. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Not everything, surely. It does hit most of the checklist, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The fact it engendered a dispute illustrates why it shouldn't have been messed with in the first place. And since it was, the editor should have placed the "anchor" template so as not to mess up links to the original title. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Your pointy anchoring of the objected to smurf title is one the low points of this awful thread. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, what I anchored was the revised or "softened" version, as the "Smurf" thing is currently the section title. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Only now I've had to anchor the other title too, since someone de-titled it. Oy! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Please, could we get over it? I'm sorry that I displayed my bad taste by using a title that made me smile while thinking of what I was writing about: a photo that I found deeply disconcerting. Because, honestly, I thought and still think he may have been photographed on his death-bed (the expression of the face, the position of the head, the blue skin). Or maybe the rabbi was made up for Purim and this is an incidental photo taken by on of his grandchildren? Anyway, I wanted to know if there was something special with this shocking (to me) picture. The title was meant to cheer myself up, and rise some smiles, nothing more sinister. --Insert coins (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC) "No offense intended", but it would probably be better if people use their own web sites to cheer themselves up and "raise some smiles", and use this one to help write an encyclopedia, especially when it involves calling someone a "smurf" because some outside web site has a photo of them with a blue face. If I may comment as a non-administrator passerby, it is clear that IZAK acted properly and there is no point to this thread. Neutron (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Is this thread a prank? My understanding is that Debresser is a Chabad rabbi, and today is Saturday. It is beyond belief that he would be editing on the Jewish sabbath. Vasio (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC) This thread is both the most ridiculous, vaguely disturbing and yet the funniest thing on ANI in a long while. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I've been waiting for someone to say that it's the Smurfs that were dissed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that BLP doesn't apply to blue-toned cartoon characters, but the way this thread is going ... Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't realize BLP applied to dead people, either, but I'm learning all kinds of new things today. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Yeshiva Smurf! No, Torah Smurf! Oh, pretend you weren't thinking it. 195.200.82.161 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC) "Say the secret word and divide a hundred razzbuckniks. It's a common word, something you hear every day." (Today's secret word is "proletariat".) Perhaps I need to make the point more plain. Debresser would not under any circumstances be editing today because it is a religious prohibition for him. It appears that someone has hacked his account and used it for this prank. Vasio (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No need to make a non-existing point. Shabbath is over here in Israel. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC) ברכת שנה טובה 195.200.82.161 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Can we please get back to the real point at hand- are Smurfs (Smurves?) Jewish or not?! They wear head-coverings in-doors, someone is always trying to kill them (and he does seem like he might be German or at least with that robe maybe a member of the Spanish Inquisition!), Brainy Smurf- come on he's a typical stereotype!, and Papa Smurf (perhaps a rabbi?) has a good Hasidic beard going on and very wise, his sayings could be coming straight from the Talmud!Camelbinky (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) That post is highly offensive to Gargamel and I demand that you be publicly horsewhipped for posting it. (and , everyone knows, the smurfs are godless communists and Papa Smurf represents Karl Marx) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Am I now in BLP-trouble with my offensive comment against Gargamel? Karl Marx was in fact Jewish... so we still can say Smurf's might be Jewish by heritage... Someone needs to write a book title- Smurfs and the Jewish-Communist Conspiracy... then I'm sure someone on Wikipedia will then use it as a source to show that Smurfs really are Jews and Communists.Camelbinky (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Karl Marx, although assumed to be atheistic, observed the Sabbath regularly. Every Saturday, he would point to a calendar and say, "There it is." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC) The late Rabbi Shach obviously doesn't stand accused of structuring, orchestrating a denial-of-service attack, deceiving online gamers or supplying pseudoephedrine to illicit methamphetamine manufacturers (thanks to Breaking Bad for bringing that one to my attention), so I'm struggling to understand why the term would be deemed offensive in this context. At the same time, I'm unable to ascertain why maintaining that wording remotely warranted an edit war, let alone a thread here. Honestly, this is one of the most inexplicable conflicts that I've encountered at Wikipedia (and indeed seems quite "lame"). —David Levy 04:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) When I think of "Smurfs" I think of these little blue cartoon characters, and that's presumably what the OP thought of when he saw that photo (one of several poorly-reproduced photos in that link). The younger kids might know the term "Smurfs" only from those derivations you posted, and thus didn't get the joke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Here is a Smurf, wearing an official Smurf yarmulke. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, exactly, and with all that I still don't know what moment this photo is meant to represent or on what occasion it was taken. I should have chosen a boring title, that's for sure. --Insert coins (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I can understand a lack of familiarity with the internationally famous characters, but unless the word "smurf" is primarily a slur in some culture(s), I cannot understand why anyone would assume that its use on that page was intended as an insult. But I also fail to understand why there was any need to restore that description after it was replaced. What difference does it make? —David Levy 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Colloidal silver - There, I said it. [197] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) According to Hebrew Wikipedia, the Smurfs were accused of perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes.[198]. No source is provided for this accusation. RolandR (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Translated. The (Smurf) series has been accused of being anti-Semitic . According to this charge, Gergmal greedy, which deals with magic, with the even the big black hair, in fact reflects the anti-Semitic stereotype of the Jew who tries to take control of the Smurfs, the Gentiles seemingly harmless to anyone. Azraelא And, Ahatahthol English version is called Azrael (Azrael). Another fact that turning the evil smurf kind, with black hair color change in the "Indian" blond "Aryan." . In addition, all Smurfs wear on their heads caps, a cap similar to the Ku Klux Klan. There are a lot of web hits to this ant semite regard to Smurfs. Funny isn't it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC) What's funny (NOT) is that if people go looking for insults, they are certain to find them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Well, that's the problem with Google translations. The word "af" can indeed mean "even"; but in this case, it meant "nose". By the way, my Israeli wife has just reminded me that the (very short) Yitzhak Shamir was frequently referred to by opponents and satirists as "the smurf". RolandR (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Response by IZAK Hello to everyone and thanks for your input. The sub-text of this thread is troubling and its evolution is fascinating to watch: Insertion of irrelevant, silly material that will obviously be offensive, the usual tactic of blatant trolling covering it up with pseudo-self-righteous justifications incorrectly citing WP policies that are not to the point. Then when a justifiable and rational objection is made, and an attempt to correct it is made, something that's done thousands of times each day on WP, with no display of respect and no room for discussion is made, a mischievous and frivolous case is brought to ANI no less, falsely claiming "censorship" and wasting everybody's time. Then false charges are made against a user, in this case me, that have nothing to do with what is happening here. I never have been "anti-anything" on WP, unfortunately Debresser imagines himself to "embody" Chabad on WP and "therefore" falsely assumes that any edit that he dislikes is somehow "anti-Chabad" which is obvious hokum. It has been a busy time on the Jewish calendar, and I have urged Debresser to seek input from experienced Judaic editors first, some being admins, at WP:TALKJUDAISM before running to ANI any time he wants to get his way, and which I will now do seeing that he hasn't, so that we can get some more serious input how to resolve this matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC) It may be worth noting that IZAK has just canvassed eight editors plus Wikiproject Judaism to come and weigh in on this discussion.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Which is not OK. On the other hand, this entire section is in incredibly bad taste. I have already commented about this above, and am not going to repeat myself. Hans Adler 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Well, if we need, per Debresser, to ban IZAK from all Jewish-related articles for altering the heading on the talkpage, we must surely at least defenestrate him for his terrible terrible canvassing. Please don't be ridiculous on ANI, Debresser, it doesn't even have the virtue of originality. Agree wholeheartedly with Fences and Windows: Do you not have anything useful to do? Bishonen | talk 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC). The Talk page is for improving the article. Therefore a reference to a photograph could be "Photo with blue cast" or something like that. I don't think censorship is a factor because this isn't in reference to article space. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Elen: Please be accurate and do not exaggerate. As I had asked him, which I repeated above as well that I would do, the logical and rational thing was for Debresser to go to WP:TALKJUDAISM in the first place and get some input from long-time mature and seasoned editors who work with this kind of material, and get their response first if name-calling a rabbi or anyone WP:NOTABLE for that matter a "smurf" is acceptable writing for a serious encyclopedia, instead of running to ANI on the drop of a hat to waste their time with false accusations. I have openly asked five (not "eight" editors) to ask for their input, four of those I asked for input are also admins, so there is nothing untoward either as I am keeping this in the open, as well as informing WP:JUDAISM which should have been done first. This topic effects many more editors who would normally take offense at Dbresser's antics should they become aware of it, so contacting five fellow-editors is nothing out of the usual in editing and responding to any article or topic. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) There is nothing defensible in this edit. The choice of naming in that section title is fanciful and gratuitous. I think that when the objection was raised to that section title it should have been changed. From the point of view of using the Talk page to work on the article, there is nothing necessary in the wording originally chosen for the section title. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Honestly, "build a bridge and get over it", as the saying goes. It was a humorous take on a very unfortunately blue-tinged photograph. WP:BLP doesn't apply to a dead person, no one was harmed by this, and it was a very lame issue to edit war over. Tarc (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Bus Stop: I joined in the objections you raise, and when I did Dbresser became "alarmed" and threatened to run to ANI as he has done. I am the one who is being criticized by User:Dbresser for removing the offensive description "smurf" for a photo of the rabbi, so I agree with your view. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Tarc: I agree with you. The problem is that Dbresser has decided to declare any place he dislikes my comments a WP:BATTLEGROUND while he fails to acknowledge his own support of controversy, that he needs to stop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I believe this edit serves the purpose of reining in extraneous implications. In so doing I think it brings the Talk page back to its intended purpose. The photo in question has a blue cast to it, so the section of the Talk page was renamed to a reasonable wording, "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach." In my opinion all that transpired from that point on was totally uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Agreed 100% IZAK (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Let's wrap this up, shall we? This entire thread is obscene. I highly suggest we wrap this up. Below are a few remedies I highly suggest the community come to consensus on: Rename the talk page thread something that is appropriate Dbresser try to first discuss these issues with the editor in question before coming to ANI or attempt at mediation, either through the Mediation Committee or MedCab IZAK needs to stop canvassing, as he has done in the past. Quite frankly he might be in need of a short-term block for this. IZAK and Dbresser shall have no interaction, broadly construed, at all. They are fire to one another. Please feel free to add, subtract or ignore my suggestions. Basket of Puppies 04:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Well I agree with hardly any of those positions. This thread is a bit obscene, and I closed it soon after it was opened, this was reverted by User:Baseballbugs , and other users have enjoyed the hilarity, as for the original thread, Baseballbugs has added the insults as anchors so thats all right then, so this is safely linked in case anyone searches for the insults they will be linked straight to the discussion.'''Smurf Shach''' {{anchor|Smurf Shach}} {{anchor|Blue photo of Rabbi Shach}} - Off2riorob (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Like I said, please feel free to add, subtract to or ignore my suggestions. I don't really care, other than closing this obscene thread. Basket of Puppies 04:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Oy caramba! This thread is obscene in the same way Showgirls is pornographic. I've changed the thread heading, no offense to Buggs, because "Jewish censorship" or whatever it was is a little too weird and might upset some delicate people who are more inclined to find offense than humor. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If anyone thinks this discussion is "obscene", they must have lived a sheltered life. As for re-opening it, it was clear it was not over yet, and Rob was out of line trying to force his opinion on the matter. Regarding the anchors, that was to avoid breaking links. Anytime you change a talk page section name, you should anchor the previous one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Basket: You forget to mention that you cite a case from over 5 years ago where the situation was entirely different it involved about 25 editors, and the issue there being an editor who was bordering on antisemitism and who has subsequently thankfully withdrawn and retired from WP. I should be thanked for my prescient warnings. So I am well aware of what goes and what does not. Now, however, placing a note at a WP Project and asking 5 editors for input does not qualify as either "canvassing" or "spamming" of which I am well aware. To repeat, I openly asked 5 seasoned editors, 4 of whom are admins, who are familiar with this field for their input, that is within reason and violates nothing. Debresser's note here has drawn more attention from more editors in any case just because of its absurdity and comicality alone. That is neither "spam" nor "canvassing" unless you can come up with a definitive amount of messages that are allowed when trying to bring together any group of editors. Furthermore, how would anyone enforce an artificial "separation" when either Debresser or myself cross paths.? It is not enforceable and the only thing that can keep order is a willingness to act reasonably and not set every act into a conflagration which is the way Debresser functions as far as anyone can tell. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) IZAK, you "notified" several editors who you are friendly with and know would side with you. Plus, your notifications did not adhere to the strict neutrality that is required of any notice. As well, Wikipedia is a large project and there are no vested editors. Why don't you spend time editing something else for a while, on a completely different topic? I suggest the same for Dbresser. Basket of Puppies 05:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Good suggestion Basket, but right now we are in this thread here at ANI because Debresser has dragged us here, and as you may see, once he causes this to happen, he takes off and just let's others stew in it typically from the stream of complaints he files at ANI, so it was not me who decided to insert the offensive description of "smurf" and all I did was replace it with the neutral wording of "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach" at which point Debresser claimed I was "censoring" which is silly. I now contacted 5 expert editors I know, I stand by that, I cannot contact editors I do not know and know little about. Doesn't that go for anyone? Those who oppose them monitor their pages and can respond too, that's the democratic idea of contacting someone via their talk page. I feel absolutely sure that I speak for and represent many other editors who would be offended were they to know about this situation. So I am one voice so far speaking on behalf of others not aware of this situation. Should I also call in a few anti-Jewish or anti-Haredi Judaism editors? What was not "neutral" about my message by the way? Please show me how you would have worded a message, I would like to learn from you. I mean how absurd is this going to get? Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It occurs to me that you would be better off directing your irritation toward the website that posted that ugly photo and a few others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Dear Baseball Bugs: WP is not in the business of "policing" or commenting about what is posted on the Internet at large. This discussion relates to a sub-title on a WP talk page that described a WP:NOTABLE rabbi as "Smurf Shach" and once that was done on WP, it became subject to WP conventions that require that subjects of articles not be mocked or derided on their related talk pages, no matter what the subject may be. No one would tolerate an encyclopedia article's talk page about a Nazi becoming a venue for calling such a person a "smurf" let alone a talk page for a rabbi who has done no proven harm to anyone, is not a criminal, and should not be subject to gratuitous caricaturization simply because he is hated by Chabad for his criticism of that movement (that in any case is discussed in the body of the article with proper citations), but who has expressed his views on matters that some may agree with and others don't, which is fine, but allowing subject of articles to be foolishly denigrated on WP talk pages is a slippery slope that, if allowed everywhere on WP could create bedlam and destroy the spirit of WP:CIVIL and much more. So please stop with the red herring distractions, and no the photo itself does not interest me, it is what was said on WP and the way it was used to "make fun" for no good reason, and let's focus on why this is relevant to WP and not to what is or is not posted on external web sites that WP does not control and has no interest in. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) He was making fun of the picture. You were out of line changing the heading. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Calling a notable subject a "smurf" in any heading is out of line and can even be deleted on sight, I was kind, I merely changed it to "Bluish photo of Rabbi Shach". Obviously you disagree, but so far the admins and the consensus has been not to allow the word "smurf" in the heading and it has been changed accordingly. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The OP was making fun of the photo. You got a problem with that, go to the website that posted several photos uglier than that one. Your obsession with this term "Smurf" is silly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC) To repeat: WP and its editors are not the policeman or commentators on what gets posted on the World Wide Web's billions of pages. On the other hand WP editors are responsible for what gets posted and stated on WP pages solely. It is not an "obsession" to know that calling anyone a "smurf" is not a "compliment" it is an insult and if it's a "joke" then it is in very poor taste and unbefitting a serious encyclopedia's content either on a talk page or in an article. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Your lack of perspective on this is almost as funny as the comment that started all this. But it's plain to see there's nothing to be gained by keeping it open. Feel free to re-open if you disagree with the closure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) However, if you're really concerned about the rabbi being demeaned, then remove that link from the article, with its photos that practically beg to be ridiculed for their amateurish appearance and the unflattering way their subject is portrayed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The rabbi lived to well-over 100 years, so he is entitled to look very old in his photos and he, depicted in candid photos some of which may be of poor quality, does not deserve to be pilloried by anyone for any reason. IZAK (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Debresser This is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. While Debresser makes up wild accusations on a whim, he forgets that it is he that is on probation from the ArbCom who ruled in January 2010 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings: "...if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed." Debresser has indulged in much of his own outright censoring of what he deems as the "anti-Chabad" symbols, as enumerated (as of January 2010) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs that leaves no doubt where his POV and prejudices are, while he wastes no time in disparaging anyone (either subjects of articles or WP editors) that he deems to be "censoring" him when it is just the opposite as he continues with his own agenda. Based on this he should receive a serious reprimand and block. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) IZAK, go write an encyclopedia or something. Debresser, you too. And you - yes, you, reading this because the section title popped up on your watchlist - go write a damn encyclopedia, or at least improve one if you find it lying around somewhere on this website. Don't write anything here - write things in the encyclopedia. Don't tell me I've got it all wrong - go prove me wrong, by improving the encyclopedia, instead of lengthening this crawling horror of a thread. If the other guy's a shithead, go improve the encyclopedia. If you're despairing because other people can't quite see how badly you've been wronged, go write an article. If you can't let things go because someone else might have the last word, go add references where they are lacking. Stop posting here. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Gavia: Welcome! Kindly see WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTCENSORED and well as WP:CIVIL. No one is forcing you or anyone to be here. Otherwise please contribute constructively. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Gavia immer—you say, "IZAK, go write an encyclopedia or something." But that is what he is doing. The Talk page of an article is involved in the process of writing an encyclopedia. It isn't a creative writing forum. Within reason, merely tangentially related comments can serve a useful, even if not direct purpose. We can even extend our principle of assuming good faith to the first section title. But a point came at which the Talk page was reverted to a point closer to its primary purpose, and that should have been recognized. Bus stop (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Not yet I re-opened it again because I don't see consensus for closure; what I see is certain editors trying to impose their will on the matter. If there's an actual admin out there, he could close it if he thinks it's appropriate. Rob and Puppies were out of line. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Speak for yourself, its not out of line to good faith close a thread, repeatedly reopening a thread could well be, but that is you that is doing that, I suggest you stop playing games here and get over it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Take your own advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) And by the way, if a certain few nannies here had left the original section alone in the first place, this whole megillah could have been avoided. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You should also get over yourself and stop referring to good faith users as nannies, just because you see nothing wrong with insulting labels doesn't make you correct. Off2riorob (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Look who's talking. You were out of line closing the thread, and IZAK was out of line for changing the header in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I am not out of line and neither is a good faith request to make a header more neutral, when he altered it the users like you and the other guys who insisted on ignoring his request and your repeated reopening and closing of this thread are all bad judgements. The correct response in the first instance would have been , yes no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, the correct response would be to remove the external link from the article, since the link itself demeans its subject by posting so many amateurish and ugly photos, and invites the ridicule that you so deplore. A first-grader with magazines and scissors and construction paper could do a better job than that website did. Unless you all are really that desparate for free photos? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The link you refer to has many photos, perhaps around 20 or so, and you are referring to one that is far down the list, and you make such a fuss over such a minor detail? All that was requested was that the demeaning word "smurf" not be used, just as no one would like it to describe any religious or important figure. IZAK (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Proposed Closing This whole ANI has broken down into a drama club meeting. I'd like to point out a few things: User:Insert coins has already admited that the title was a light-hearted joke [199]. User:IZAK was justified in this aspect for changing the title. User:Debresser jumped the gun by going straight to ANI. He made one comment to IZAK, telling him that if he reverted the title again, he would go straight to ANI, rather than discussing the issue on the article's talk page. User:IZAK did participate in votestacking AFTER this issue was brought to ANI. He did not relay the information to the other editors in a NPOV fashion. I propose that this ANI should be closed. The incident on the talk page has been archived for having not relevance to inprovement. Ishdarian|lolwut 06:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You're wrong. It is relevant. It has to do with policy issues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Please stop accusing editors of being "right" or "wrong" based on your obvious POVs. Step back and let the process proceed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Delete the link to that ugly website and you can consider the matter closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) *Oppose unless an uninvolved admin closes it - IZAK is the culprit here. He was out of line changing the heading just because he was reading things into it that weren't necessarily there. Someone made fun of a photo. Big deal. Get an uninvolved admin here, and he/she can close it if appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I've reclosed it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Support because the problem was already on the go before I took note of it. Time to close as things are going nowhere. The photo is of a very real and highly WP:NOTABLE rabbi, it's not just about a blue-tinted "photo" somewhere out there in cyberspace. It was Debresser who really inflamed this entire issue by cutting off any dialogue on the talk page and dragging it into ANI instead of trying to work to defuse things. For the record, as of this instant not a single one of the 5 editors I contacted have even commented here so far. In addition, the entire discussion seems to have grown over the past 3-4 days when the Jewish Holiday of Rosh Hashanah was being observed followed by Shabbat, thus depriving almost all observant Judaic editors or those admins active in WP:JUDAISM from having a chance to respond here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Still not yet OK, there's some serious hypocrisy going on here. Someone posts a link from that article that has ugly photos. Someone on the talk page points out how ugly they are, how they make him look a particular cartoon character. The editor gets yelled at for "demeaning" the subject. Yet the link remains in the article. The photo page itself demeans the subject. Get rid of that link, unless you think it's OK for some external source to demean the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC) The pictures of Rabbi Shach being referenced do nothing to demean the subject. It is the editors who choose to post irrelevant comments about a page who are demeaning. Wikipedia is not a forum and the comment that started this debate had no purpose here in the first place. BB, please stop accusing editors reverting your edits of bad faith. This is doing nothing but inciting drama. Ishdarian|lolwut 09:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I was asking knowledgeable editors what this outlandish photo was meant to represent (not "whom", but "what"). Was that irrelevant? I don't think so! --Insert coins (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, it was irrelevant. Like I stated above, Wikipedia is not a forum. If you had a question about a picture on an outside source that is not Wikipedia, there are places to go and ask about it, like WP:Help Desk. It really isn't the place to discuss that kind of stuff on the talk page, especially when you're trying to make a joke out of it. Ishdarian|lolwut 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) They continue to defend garbage photos while criticizing those who dared to point it out. I can't think of any other reason to defend keeping that website as an external link except that the photos are "free" (and not worth the price). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If anyone still cares about this matter, here's the website in question:[200] First, it's apparently in Hebrew, and foreign language sites are typically not used in wikipedia. If there were an English version, maybe it would have some useful content, such as explaining the photos? The so-called "Smurf" photo, which looks to be just a really poor quality TV screen capture, is down near the bottom. There are some other bad ones in there, like a black and white shot from his youth that looks like a xerox copy of a school photo that's blown up to a hundred times its original size; and the "good" ones are at best Polaroid quality. I didn't think "Smurf" when I saw that blue-toned photo - I thought about the fat kid in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory who ate too many blueberries and turned blue himself. (I wonder if the rabbi knew the words to the "Oompa Loompa Song"?) If that kind of photo is the best y'all can come up with, for this presumably important and dignified man, then you're better off just not using that site. There's no rule requiring photos in these articles. If someone could find ONE good photo and then post it directly in the article, and delete that link, that would be a significant improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Comment - Looking at the revision made BEFORE this discussion was closed by BB, it seems that now he just wants the pictures removed by any means neccesary. Ishdarian|lolwut 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, because the hypocrisy of all this finally dawned on me. If you're going to leave that link there, then you can expect further ridiculing of those photos in the future. Get rid of the link, and that problem goes away. And don't repeat Izak's bogus argument about how we shouldn't criticize other websites. This is America, and we can criticize anything we bloody well want to. And we're not required to keep links to websites whose photos make the subject look like a cartoon character. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Please take this to the talk page. AN/I is not a forum for content disputes. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It's also a policy dispute, as you yourself cited "not censored", yet this discussion began because of Izak conducting censorship. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Quote bug, "This is America, and we can criticize anything we bloody well want to" - this is getting more and more ridiculous, what a silly comment. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe to a non-American, but we Americans cherish our right to criticize. And you all engaged in censorship by deciding that an editor had no right to comment on an ugly photo. You're dead wrong. It's not just a content dispute. You keep insisting the rabbi was "demeaned". It is THE PHOTO that makes him look stupid. It is THE PHOTO that demeans him. Get through your head, will you? It's about THE PHOTO. You had no right to censor a valid criticism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Yawn, you've lost the plot here, you would do well to move back from the dead donkey. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If you, the one so concerned about "demeaning" this rabbi, is OK with having a photo of him that looks like a Smurf, or like Violet in the Willie Wonka movie, then I don't know what to think. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Baseball bugs is, IMO, becoming disruptive on this issue. This closure has now been reverted a number of times (the last time by GiftigerWunsch arguing that an admin needs to close it [I disagree but nvm :)], which is why I have left it open). However the discussion is clogging AN/I despite not being an AN/I issue (and mostly consists of a content dispute masquerading as Bugs beating a dead horse. Unless an admin issue can still be shown to exist I don't see why this cannot be closed. It is, frankly, getting silly. --'Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If an admin (which you ain't) thinks it should be closed, OR if the original poster thinks it should be closed, that's fine. Curiously, the admins have done nothing. Maybe they're getting some laughs out of this whole mega-megillah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) While the quality of the photos at the web site are a nonissue, I think they are fine photos. I don't have a problem with them. Are we allowed to alter them? If a blueish cast is found to be objectionable are we permitted to color-adjust it? But this man is not a celebrity. He's not youthful. He is not a sports figure in his prime of life. Though he is notable, he is probably obscure to most people. I don't know what criteria should apply to man of his identity. But subjective evaluations of pictorial images aside, a section heading was put in place that was fanciful, to say the least. There was no harm done—another editor came along and replaced that section title with one with more restrained implications. This was done because the section heading first in place led to associations that were too erratic and extraneous to the discussion that needed to take place on that Talk page, in that section, about a choice involving photos of the subject of the article. A new section title was in order to help us focus on what at least one editor felt was wrong with one or more of the photos at that web site. A dispassionate discussion of that issue concerning the qualities of the photos was called for. Hopefully we can get back to discussing the issue concerning the photos and any accompanying qualities; that should be done on the article Talk page. But this thread is not about whether the photos are of a quality to warrant their placement in our article. This thread is totally about the derailing of efforts to write an article. Efforts that are scattered this way are a waste of everyone's time. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC) OK, you are one editor I respect. Feel free to box up the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (outdent) This whole charade needs to be listed at WP:LAME. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Indeed. I think that was even mentioned earlier. It could have been avoided altogether, had Izak not decided to be a nanny. My assumption at this point is that the admins kept it open for amusement's sake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hey Mr. Baseball Bugs, feel free to act irritated but you have no right to cross the line and violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by calling me a "nanny" oh, and when did that become an "American" expression? Cool it, you are going to far with your WP:SPIDERMAN routine here, as more than one editor has already pointed out to you. IZAK (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Huntlands

Resolved

 – This has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia articles. No admin attention required. Fences&Windows 19:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This user says she writes under the pen name J S Huntlands and has written a series of books called "Me and my best friend". This evening on channel 5 (UK) she claims that her son (aged 6, name Leo Hunter) has written "Me & my best friend". Something wrong here. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nipples - I have two, how about you?

Moved from WP:AN

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, and simply generating more heat than light now.

Resolved

 – Users unblocked GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has indef blocked User:Nipples20 and User:Nippletaco for violating our username policy ("Your username is the only reason for this block"). Per earlier ANI threads (Block review of User:Nipple37 and Haven't I seen your nipples somewhere before), the inclusion of the word "nipple" is not a violation of WP:USERNAME. These users should be unblocked. Hopefully this thread will serve as a reminder for admins that they should be blocking based on violations of the community's standards, not their own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This should be on ANI, you should have informed Cirt, and most importantly, you should have discussed this with Cirt first. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, unblocked. Confused as to why Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) failed to approach me at my user talk page, first. :( -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If they wanted to make an announcement like this, the UAA talkpage would have worked best, or else it's a massive failure to AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't an incident report as such, since based on the previous two discussions on ANI, this seems to be a recurring issue. Cirt is only the latest admin to block users whose usernames contain the word "nipple". I started this thread on AN quite deliberately so that it would be seen by more admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This latest comment from Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) neglects to explain why the individual reported (myself) was not notified, and why zero attempts at resolving this were made, prior to speedy reporting to an admin board. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, you were notified fairly quickly, which is why I struck my comment; I replied within about 45 seconds of the thread being posted. It should have been discussed with you first though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nod, yup, should have been discussed with me first. Should have at the very least attempted to have discussed with me first. No prior attempts at dispute resolution were made, whatsoever, before coming straight to an admin board. :( -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I have no doubt that you would have unblocked if asked, but as I've said here and on my talk page, and as should be clear from reading the original post, this isn't specifically about you or your recent blocks. I hoped it would serve as an apparently necessary reminder that the word "nipple" is not considered offensive by the community and is not a violation of the username policy. There was no "dispute" to attempt to resolve with you on your talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh come on Cirt, you made bad blocks and your only defence is to moan about it being pointed out? Did you bother with "prior attempt at dispute resolution" before making the bad blocks? DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  Please see WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Frankly it's not required to mount a "defence" for exercising admin discretion in interpreting WP:USERNAME, without knowledge of prior (old) consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to AGF if Cirt had bothered to tell the editors that he had unblocked them, or apologised to them for his mistake. Instead he came here to moan about DC. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Suggestion for this page?

Please excuse me if this is the wrong venue. My rationale for posting this here is that it would affect those(meaning admins) that commonly check this noticeboard.

.. To the topic,

I notice that time and time again, users post here when there is an AIV backlog. What if we simply used a template to post a notice to the top of this page when AIV became a certain size in bytes?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Without dismissing this idea, it is not a case of administrators simply being unaware that backlogs exist; we already have WP:BACKLOG for that. In many cases, a personal plea, for all its admitted faults, is a lot more effective in drawing volunteers (speaking from personal experience). On another note, the header sections of these noticeboards are bloated at least five times more than is appropriate; if there were an automated digest, I'd rather it was added as a section or footer. Skomorokh 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BACKLOG doesn't appear to contain lists for administrative-based things, like AIV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How often is it really backlogged though? They may pile up every so often, but does it ever get out of hand to the point of being truly backlogged? Jmlk17 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See the administrative subcategory and linked pages. Skomorokh 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Daedalus raises a good point, even though those other mechanisms exist, it's clearly not preventing the frequent backlogs that arise.   Thorncrag  21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely my point above; ceteris paribus, no amount of automation will. Skomorokh 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it  :-)   Thorncrag  22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are also probably right, but I'm not convinced this is a better way of not ignoring it than the existing method as described by the OP. Cheers, Skomorokh 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What if we used a div to float a box in the bottom left, or right, displaying the notice?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

With a hide option?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like there are already places where the backlog notifications get posted--the backlogs happen anyway because nobody looks in those places. That includes the headers of this page (which probably don't get looked at much either). So they get posted as ANI threads, because people do notice those. Main alternative I can think of is a subscription bot that delivers notices to usertalk pages of admins and others who want to receive them. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've whipped up {{AIVBacklog Notice}} which will place a floating notice in the bottom-left corner if AIV is 6000 bytes or more.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this thread by Daedalus969. Just in passing, I do not have much to add, but would not be opposed to the idea. I doubt it will really get in the way, and it may prove helpful to those who choose to head over to AIV when the see it. Just my 2 cents though. Tiptoety ^talk 07:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It would also be useful if other admins commented on the template c.c, and maybe tried to reach a consensus on whether or not it should be transcluded c.c— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I rather like the idea. AIV backlogs need taken care of quickly, and it would be helpful to have an immediate reminder to go help out there when it does back up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to give this a trial run then; do I have permission to add it to the header for this page? I would like to wait longer, but it doesn't seem this thread is attracting much attention.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to get it to appear on my screen when I do test edits in a sandbox; is it just something about my browser? I'm still on Monobook. Also Im not sure why you have a link to edit AIV there, since you can't block someone from an edit screen unless you're using WikEd or some similar tool, and even for those people I think it would be better to just have a normal wiki link. —Soap— 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix that in a second, but it only appears when the AIV page is 6000 bytes or more. You can, as a test, get it to appear if you just change the location of the double closing curly brackets, turning off the #ifexpr.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I did those things and it still didnt appear unless I pushed it up higher on the page. The version you've made at Template:AIVBacklog Notice/sandbox seems to work though. —Soap— 22:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If no one is objecting then..

Might I edit the header sub-page to include this template for a trial run?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose/etc c.c— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, and if you could whip up something similar for RfPP (number of oustanding reports > 6 for example) that might be good. GedUK  12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, if it turns out to be a problem we can always turn it off again and figure it out. But it's worth testing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ged, I actually don't think the RfPP one could be done, since when a request is fulfilled/denied, it isn't removed from the page like user reports from AIV. It would require a bot to update the template in regards to finding how much requests were still open.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

..Alright, since there has been no objections, adding it in, then.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with slow-motion edit war

I may be completely wrong here, so I'll accept chastisement if I am. I put Colony High School (Alaska) on my watchlist when I removed a bunch of copyvio from it (to make sure that the kids who are the main editors of the article didn't just readd it). Since then, I've reverted several times the addition of the name of a minor—in the age sense—person identified as a student at the school. We don't have an article about the person, and although the fact that the person attends the school can easily be found in a web search, I don't think we should be in the business of divulging personal information about nonnotable underage students in this way. Could an admin take a look and either read me the riot act or, if I have a point, revdelete the relevant edits (and perhaps the copyvio stuff as well)? Whatever the result, I'd like to think that I'm not the only one watching the article. Deor (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - According to WP:BIO, just because she is a politician's daughter does not mean she is notable. You're on the right track, but make sure when you revert something like that to use the warning templates found at WP:WARN. Using these might help deter the vandals and guide those who aren't too sure of the policy. Also, if you're certain that a copyvio is taking place, delete it. From the edits I've looked at, you've done a good job so far. Keep it up. Ishdarian|lol^wut 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you seem to be doing the right thing. As for any possible admin actions, the details in the revisions in question are not particularly personal and could easily be found elsewhere, so revision deletion doesn't seem to be applicable. If the insertion of this material accelerates, then you could request temporary semi-protection, since the insertions seem to always come from IP addresses and non-confirmed accounts. But an edit once a week or so doesn't seem to justify that either, at the moment. --RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a few months (mainly due to the repeated copyvios). However, it needs a fair amount of work to knock it into something encyclopedic. For full disclosure, I intend to make some content edits with that aim in mind; I don't believe this crosses the bounds of WP:INVOLVED. EyeSerene^talk 12:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, EyeSerene. Deor (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance, Deor :) EyeSerene^talk 12:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

99.90.197.244

Moved here from WP:AIV EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 99.90.197.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – not exactly vandalism, but this user seems to be asking for a WP:COMPETENCE block. Hans Adler 10:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support from this list alone.   — Jeff G.  ツ 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  What length of block would you support? My gut feeling is that this person probably shouldn't be editing here, but I thought it was a bit complex for AIV and wanted additional opinions. EyeSerene^talk 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  They just replaced some copyvio (YouTube) that I'd told them was copyvio, with typical nonsense on my talk page. Seems to be a stable IP, 6 months? I was about to bring him here myself. Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  And again. I've hardblocked the IP for a month. Thanks all for your input :) EyeSerene^talk 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see that while I was writing the following comment the IP has been blocked for 1 month. However, having taken the trouble to write it I may as well post it.

I have made extensive studies of edits from this IP right back to its first edits in January 2010. The editing history is full of problems of many kinds. There is the editor's very poor level of competence at English. There is original "research", or rather original opinions which seem to be unbacked up by anything. There are bizarre edits that add text that does not appear to mean anything (and I am not referring here merely to incompetence at English: even where the English words and phrases are comprehensible it is sometimes impossible to tell what they are intended to refer to). There are additions of copyright-infringing material. There are minor changes to wording which make nonsense of previously clear sentences. There are postings of material of little relevance to the subject of the article, or the section in which it is inserted. There are deletions of text apparently based on misunderstandings of what the text means. There are (occasionally) remarks which appear to be intended to be offensive. These problems go back at least as far as April 2010, when the IP first started editing frequently (there are a few earlier edits from January 2010 on). Unfortunately it is clear that the editor is not competent to edit English Wikipedia (nor, I suspect, any Wikipedia, as the language problem is only a part of it). EyeSerene asks "What length of block would you support?" My feeling on that is that, since the editor has been editing in this problematic way for at least six months or so, a brief block might merely bring about a brief break, and the same pattern might return. I tend to think in such cases that to be effective such a block has to last for at least several months. The fact that the same type of problem editing has continued for a long time, with no evidence of anyone else editing from the same IP address, suggests that this is a static IP used only by one user. In this case the risk of collateral damage to other users by a prolonged block is minimal.

Here are a few diffs to illustrate the problems: strange addition of a word not having any clear relevance in the context, largely incomprehensible, and also containing material apparently intended to be offensive, not really relevant (not about book burning), and a copyvio of http://ko-kr.facebook.com/pages/Lt-Col-Anthony-Shaffer/137955399561386, incomprehensible, rather incomprehensible, and poor grasp of English, not supported by the sourced cited, Original research and English, Incomprehensible, destroys the meaning of the sentence, includes a copyvio of http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/09/science/la-sci-hominid9-2010apr09, etc etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Their edits are certainly very odd. My only real reason for pause was whether or not this individual would benefit from something like mentoring, but given your advice and those comments others have left, I think that probably isn't a useful option. I have absolutely no objection to you tweaking my block (or, if you're involved in some way, to doing it myself). However, if the block length is increased I might be tempted to make it a soft block instead - every hardblock I've ever issued has caused unintended collateral damage and justifiable complaints :) EyeSerene^talk 13:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Although my inclination was to block for longer, now that you have blocked for a month I suggest leaving it at that for now. We can always consider a longer block if and when the problem returns, and meanwhile we can hope it won't. There is not really a single correct thing to do in a situation like this: it's just a question of making a judgement. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

True :) I guess we'll wait and see how things pan out then. EyeSerene^talk 13:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the IP is probably a troll presenting themselves as incompetent. It doesn't matter either way so far as the block goes, but it's something to think about if they reappear. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Blocked one week by Admistrator EyeSerene for using Wikipedia as a discussion forum and making personal attacks against other editors.

confused editor, keeps posting rants and dumping enormous reams of text to my talkpage,[201] I tried to be patient, but user is now beginning to call me "an aryanist racist" and "playin racism and fascism!?" and similar things, and I do not think that I am expected to weather this sort of thing, so can please somebody ask him to tone it down or else. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Humanbyrace notified. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that type of name calling is without doubt an unwarranted personal attack. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Because there's a history of WP:FORUM/WP:SOAP and a previous block, with the personal attacks I've given the editor a week off. Should further blocks be necessary I have no doubt they will be much longer. EyeSerene^talk 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it - good block. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Wiki Historian N OH

Wiki Historian N OH (talk · contribs) has been engaged in many incidences of abusive editing, edit-warring, POV-pushing, and extremely rude communication with his peers - including, but not limited to personal attacks and often irrelevant, trolling comments. See for a small sample: [202][203][204][205][206][207]. He has been adding quite controversial and often misplaced and irrelevant material to various articles for some time, and has already been on the receiving end of at least 2 blocks so far that I can see, showing complete disregard for the warnings given to him by admins and regular users alike. There is plenty more to see on his talk page and a routine check through his user contribs. This user seems to have no intention of adhering to even the most basic tenets of Wikipedia, and seems to view anyone who disagrees with him as targets for ranting and edit-warring. Any help would be appreciated. KaySL (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the targets of Wiki Historian N OH (talk · contribs)'s attacks, I definitely agree. The addition of biased and controversial content in Bisexual community and Bisexuality would have better been discussed in the talk pages. Furthermore, edit wars seems to be nothing new for the user (see previous blocks). Kedster (talk / contribs) 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The user has previously caused the same level of disruption at the Marysville, Ohio article and was blocked there. Watch for sockpuppets from this user as he has a history sockpuppetry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this coming up now? Except for one incident, everything that you cite is at least four months old, and this user isn't on such a short string that we block for a single incident. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's coming up now because he continues to make disruptive edits, as well as personal attacks against fellow editors and completely disregards their constructive efforts. Add to that the fact that on numerous occasions he has blanked large sections of articles with no justification... Take a look for yourself, even if just at his talk page. This user is patently not going to pay heed to any consensus and will continue to edit-war on the articles where the consensus is against him. Also, are you saying that those older offences are to be overlooked simply because nobody reported them sooner? Is "LOL! Some people need a woman. And that doesn't mean going and raping them like a Bolshevik because they wouldn't touch you otherwise." an acceptable slur to be hurling at his peers? Or calling them homosexual supremacists simply for excising completely irrelevant cruft from an article? You'd think the two previous bans would've kicked some sense into him, but apparently not. To Neutralhomer: thanks for the info on the sockpuppetry; it's news to me. KaySL (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

He has done the "Bolshevik" line with me as well at Talk:Marysville, Ohio. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So what? If this happened months ago, it's not an issue now. Nobody's shown any evidence that he continues to make disruptive edits or personal attacks. What's more, as far as I can tell, he's never been banned. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Months? Try hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend, are you kidding? The disruptive edits continue to this day as SarekOfVulcan pointed out in just one example, and that's not even taking into account his absolutely shameful treatment of anyone who takes exception to said edits! I can only assume you haven't looked at his user contributions, otherwise you'd very quickly see all the evidence one could ask for. But I ask again anyway, are you saying that the older offences should be completely ignored even in spite of their recent continuation? This seems pretty open and shut to me, and in response to something you said in your prior message, I'm not asking for him to be blocked (for a third time), I'm just asking that something be done to straighten the guy and his attitude out. Whether that involves an admin going to his talk page and having a frank discussion with him, or him being blocked for a time for perpetrating more of the same that he was blocked for in the past... I couldn't care less, I just want him dealt with so that he ceases to be a disruptive presence. KaySL (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Bisexuality, Bisexual community

Adding a new section so I can use bullet points. This isn't something that happened months ago, it's something that happened the moment KaySL posted it. Wiki Historian N OH (talk · contribs) has a long history of vandalism and edit wars, and in the information I'll add below, I suspect there's a sockpuppet account involved. The user began an edit war with unverified material that seemed to introduce bias on the Bisexuality and Bisexual community articles, and I politely asked about it on their talk page and was called a disparaging name. Here's a history of the edits that bring this issue here:

• In the first edit (diff), Wiki Historian N OH changed the commonly-accepted bisexual pride flag to one that included a pi symbol, which is used by a subset of the bisexual community that believes in polyamory (multiple partners). Furthermore, the user removed text describing the bisexual pride flag and added text: "A common symbol of the bisexual community is the pi polyamory flag ... Other polyamory flags include..." First, this change introduced bias and had the effect of communicating that most people who identify as bisexual are polygamists. This is an unsubstantiated opinion and not a verifiable fact. This change would have had less of an impact had the flag been added to existing material, but it removed what had already been accepted as fact — in fact, it removed two commonly accepted symbols and replaced them with polyamory symbols.

• KaySL reverted the edits (diff), suggesting that the symbols be added to LGBT Symbols, likely because the only reason Wiki Historian N OH changed the flags and symbols was biased.

• Wiki Historian N OH then edited the page again (diff), replacing the common and recognizable flag with the polyamory flag, this time stating that it's common in Europe. Wiki Historian N OH added a reference to a magazine article, then added back information about the original flag, adding in political opinion ("It was designed for the purpose of political activism.") Additionally, there was material that was copied and pasted from another page that was solely about polyamory and not at all associated with the bisexual community.

• I reverted the edits (diff) and left a message on Wiki Historian N OH's talk page.

• Then, Wiki Historian N OH called me a "homosexual supremacist" in response (diff).

• Back at Bisexuality, Creative handle (talk · contribs) re-added some of the material (diff), identifying that it was good information. However, based on this user's creation date (the same day), contributions only to the Bisexual community, Polyamory, and Bisexuality pages, I strongly suspect this to be a sockpuppet account of Wiki Historian N OH's.

• This entire situation repeats over at the Bisexual community page, where Wiki Historian N OH adds a section for "Polyamory bisexuals" (diff), adding extreme statements. While many had references, it was one-sided and there were still references to opinions — "...a form of homosexual supremacism." (note that the article does not exist)

• KaySL reverted the edits (diff) as unverifiable and as original research. These were valid concerns.

• Wiki Historian N OH re-added the previous section, with an entire new section to the page (diff). Just look at the diff — anything that uses the socially unacceptable phrase "the gays" is clearly biased. And, of course, WP:OR.

• A few minor edits later, Wiki Historian N OH changed a reference from gay establishment to Homosexual agenda (diff), and added some weasel words (diff).

• KaySL reverted (diff)

• Suddenly Creative handle (talk · contribs) comes back and re-adds the entire section with the sole justification, "that's good info" (diff), then subsequently edits the page (diff, diff, diff). If nothing else, the timing and style of the edits confirm it's a sockpuppet account of Wiki Historian N OH's.

I assume good faith on everyone's parts up until this entire situation repeats and there's potential sockpuppetry involved. I'd appreciate someone stepping in, as these edits still appear on the referenced pages. To that end, edits can be discussed in the talk pages. Thanks! —Tony Webster (talk / contribs) 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty compelling evidence for Creative handle being a sock, and I've blocked and reverted accordingly. I'm not commenting at this time on whether WHNOH should be blocked as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Tisane?

Contact AC directly.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tisane (talk · contribs) seems to have been banned for being a reincarnation of Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs), but that account stopped editing way back in early 2008. There don't seem to be any problematic edits from Tisane here. He is the site owner of Libertapedia, uses the same username there. As we can see, he doesn't make a secret of his real life identity. So, we're dealing with a high profile person who is unlikely to cause trouble here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It's an ARbCom block, so its likely that ArbCom is privy to information that the rest of us are not. If you want additional info, you should contact Roger Davies or another ArbCom member directly. --Jayron32 02:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Ironically, the only information lacking that prevented one from connecting the dots is the information just supplied by Count Iblis. Uncle G (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I just saw "Sarsaparilla" and "unlikely to cause trouble here" in the same paragraph. Count Iblis, do your research. I'm not going to waste everyone's time and reading effort relating the entire sorry tale yet again. It's consumed much of the archives of this very noticeboard already. 1 hoax article with falsified sources, an article pointing to a joke telephone answering service, all of the voting systems messing around, "delegable proxies", and umpteen sockpuppets is not "unlikely to cause trouble here". Uncle G (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Please also note that we have the practice of "letting sleeping blocks lie" (not re-opening issues of old blocks) unless the affected user requests an unblock. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Point of information, to augment Uncle G's comments above: there have been legions of Sarsaparilla socks around since 2008, several of which were blocked for disruption before they were recognised to be socks. Very likely to cause trouble (though in my opinion not intentionally), and a review of the contributions of the Tisane account will show this. Skomorokh 15:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out the problems with Sarsaparilla. I still think, however, that Tisane could be rehabilitated. He should, of course, promise to play by the rules we have here. When I wrote that he is unlikely to cause problems now, I was thinking that whatever happened previously, happend quite some time ago and Tisane's account being linked quite firmly to his real life identity will put additional pressure on him to behave himself here. It's a bit like Jimbo on one day deciding to edit anonymously at some other Wiki and not always playing by the rules they have there (because he thinks the rules there are stupid or whatever). Then the disruption that this causes is in the eyes of the beholder. If you are involved there, you'll likely perceive a lot of disruption, while to Jimbo it may seem to be not a big deal (to him it's just another stupid website). Then Jimbo's account gets blocked. If Jimbo were to return there a few years later, but now with an account that can be linked to his real life identity of Jimbo Wales, then I think that should change the calculation regarding possible future disruption. Count Iblis (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Ordinarily I'd be sympathetic to this line of argument, but in this case, there are good reasons to believe that "rehabilitation" is an unlikely prospect. These reasons are somewhat personal to the editor (which I imagine is why ArbCom decided to involve itself) and it would be uncharitable to list them here, but if you follow the links in the original post they should become rather clear. Skomorokh 16:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I doubt Tisane is a threat to *Wiki* anymore. Tisane has showed (at least to me) that is a trustworthy person. He/she even works on the MediaWiki development! --Diego Grez (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You're hardly an authority on who is trustworthy -- your own trustworthiness is still being determined. I notice you've started taking an interest in various items here: take my advice: edit the encyclopedia and avoid Wikipedia space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Count Iblis is simply trolling in this thread, as he is here and here. Regarding the last link, someone who cares might want to ask him why he is posting other people's private communications in his user space, even assuming he has permission from the parties to do so, which looks questionable giving the wording of his preamble. All this trolling seems to be a result of a months-long campaign by Iblis to support and participate in maximum disruption by those sanctioned in the Speed of Light arbitration and associated dramafests. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC) When you logged on here, you forgot to switch from WP:ABF to WP:AGF mode. Discussions about the issues you raise do not belong here. The tone in which you raise them is also unacceptable, i.m.o. Count Iblis (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC) On the contrary Count. It's a long standing principle that if you raise something here, you risk your own conduct getting examined. WP:BOOMERANG and all that. Posting emails onto wikipedia is a copyvio unless you have the express permission of the party who sent the email. As you continue to advertise the email as 'confidential, I do not believe you have such permission. I have therefore removed the copyvio and will ask for it to be revdeleted.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC) (moved my comment to a more recent discussion below: #Counti Iblis posting email - breaching confidentiality/copyright) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Obviously, if I reported someone here because of a dispute I'm involved in, my conduct would also have to be examined. That's only natural. However, in this case, I have no stake in the case I'm rasing. I happened to stumble on the Libertapedia site a few days ago, learned a bit about the site owner and noted that he's also been active on Wikipedia, used to be a prolific editor, getting a barnstar for creating an article by a well known Admin here, just before being blocked. So, he seemed to be a good content contributor who i.m.o. could continue to conribute here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Your conduct warrants examination in this case because – as I note below – you have a history of ill-judged (and probably counterproductive) advocacy on behalf of users. If it hadn't been for your deliberately drawing attention to Tisane's identity at the start of this thread (and again in the post immediately above), I doubt that most editors here would be aware of Tisane's real-life problems. Your continued posts suggest that you're failing to take on board any of the input other editors have provided to you regarding Tisane/Sarsaparilla/etc.'s history of disruptive behavior, or regarding how we handle long-standing blocks/appeals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I fail to see anything counterproductive in discussing these matters. I raised the issue and I gave one reply based on the fact that sock case was two years old. I then decided to let others discuss further. As things stand now, all I've had to say has been said and I will read what others are saying. So, you saying that "I'm failing to take on board any of the input other editors have provided to you regarding Tisane" is just nonsense, as you can't read my mind. Also it is irrelevant, because whatever happens to Tisane is not up to me. I merely raised that issue here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:ScienceApologist

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.

---

Checkuser attention is needed here. The IP claims not to have an account, but I think there is a substantial chance this could be a banned editor, or somebody involved in the conflict playing games. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - Has been reviewed--no technical evidence of a connection to any other editor. Jehochman ^Talk 08:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Jerochman is markedly supportive of ScienceApologist and has created a baseless accusation out of thin air simply to disrupt and derail this discussion. False accusations without even the hint of evidece are patently bullshit. As is this transparent attempt to bait me in order to gain a "Quick Kill". Wikipedia has standards, perhaps someday they'll be applied without POV.99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist is engaging in exceptionally heavy-handed and disruptive behavior in a Climate 1RR article, an article currently up for GA review. He has needlessly deleted and merged it's contents. This behavior is simply Drama for Drama's sake, it's disruptive and not in keeping with community standards regarding 1RR articles, or even GA articles. His Wikilawyering to argue for his rights simply underscores his understanding of community standards and the effect wholesale deletion would have. Here are the particulars:

• With this edit 07:26 13 September 2010 ScienceApologist merged the blog Watts Up With That? to Anthony Watts.
• This was undone by Cla68 here
• Any actions on the article were clearly likely to be contentious because it was under 1RR restriction, as labelled on the talkpage by this edit
• The article is also currently GA nominated here and a peer review request had been made.
• ScienceApologist has recently been heavily involved in disputing the GA reviews and delisting of global warming skeptic articles (e.g. Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1) and also this can be seen in discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. This is to the point where SA's actions have been questioned on several occassions. This is also at the point where it is not concievable that SA did not fully realise the disruption such a merge could cause.

This activity is precisely the kind of "spanner in the gears" disruption that cannot, and should not, be tolerated as Wikipedia tries to move itself beyond the senseless "partisanship at all costs damn the neutrality" so long in command in various sub-precincts of the Encyclopedia.99.141.241.60 (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am involved with regards to ScienceApologist and I collected most of these diffs myself but I believe the background shows that ScienceApologist fully knew the disruption of his redirecting a GA nominated article which was also under sanctions and he has been acting as a negative combative influence in this highly sensitive area of wikipedia for some weeks now. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Further, I have no idea who this IP is and I was not going to report this issue to ANI myself although I don't think this is the wrong venue. Polargeo (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo is bang on here. CC has quite enough problems without people throwing wooden shoes at it. Collect (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Said the blackest kettle to the pots. By the way, the wikistalk analysis for you with regards to me is very interesting Collect. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, SA made an edit, was reverted, and the GA process continued. Is there anything more to this, aside from making assumptions about SA's motives? GA nomination is not a magical way to prevent editors from making changes or even redirecting an article. Presumably Cla68, a very experienced editor, would have filed a report if there were a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Being bold isn't disruption, it's normal editing. --TS 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yar. A single bold edit such as this shouldn't be considered disruption. It's inline with the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Rehevkor ✉ 14:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're done shooting the messenger, being bold isn't disruptive, unless it's being bold in an utterly ridiculous situation. A GA nominated article, currently under peer review isn't the place to run around being bold with a redirect. that's pure disruption and nothing else.--Crossmr (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, why isn't there an exception in the WP:BOLD guideline? Try to put one in if you think that's obvious. I do not think the majority of Wikipedians will agree with you. Additionally, the peer review can continue on the article to which we redirect the content and the GA could also be applied to the merged article if the reviewer wanted. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

it already exists. It's a guideline, not a policy. Also, perhaps you should give it another read. ...but please be careful Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. and "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold." This was reckless and too bold.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, but it's one that lacks substance as it cannot be measured. If what made it "reckless and too bold" was that the article was siting with a moribund Good Article Nomination and a doubly-commented peer review then go ahead and see if people at WT:BOLD agree that this is the definition of reckless. See if you can insert it into the guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked for the exception, I provided it. I believe one of your previous sanctions had something to do with wikilawyering didn't it? The article was not in a position to be redirected without discussion. It is quite obvious that it was going to be opposed. Making actions you know that will be opposed isn't bold, it's disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. Cla68 reverted the edit, and did not complain about it further, and SA appears not to have repeated the disputed edit. The main cause of disruption is the editor who is escalating a conflict needlessly. I believe the IP is taking advantage of our "no account needed" policy to engage in mischief. Please don't use exagerations like "shooting the messenger". Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reporting a disruptive editor isn't mischief. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill after all right? The main cause of the disruption was SA walking into an article in good shape and redirecting it.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the talkpage? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OWB#37 is in effect here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• it's not remotely in effect here.--Crossmr (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Because you say so? Wow, you don't so much opine as shoot from the hip. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• And it is because you say so? Last I checked you're not an administrator. #37 specifically refers to someone crying admin abuse.--Crossmr (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to be as tolerant as is theoretically possible, which may mean going beyond what looks reasonable. Of course, attempting to redirect a GA aticle is not going to get applause from all those editors who are fans of Anthony Watts. It may be a bit of stretch to WP:AGF here, but I suggest we still do this. Then, if SA were to ignore the feedaback he gets and persist in his efforts to get the article redirected against consensus, we reach the point where you cannot WP:AGF anymore, no matter how hard you try. We aren't there yet.

I used the same logic here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One ill advised edit is not a big problem. It becomes a problem if the user persists in spite of negative feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the block log this is hardly his first ill-advised edit.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SA was last blocked 18 months ago. We issue blocks in hopes that an editor will reform. SA seems to have done so, and we should encourage and support that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The block expired 15 months ago, not 18, it was a 3 month block. It was followed by at least 6 months of sanctions, which means he's only 9 months clear of any sanctions, but I've hardly dug that far into it to see if there were any others applied after that. This behaviour hardly shows a change.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I see what's going on here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's going on here is that you were blatantly disruptive, which shows that you haven't really changed your behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge, but... Contradictory as it may sound I think ScienceApologist was wrong in policy terms to perform it, but in intent was not out of line with the spirit of wikipedia. Articles such as these are in danger of getting frozen because of talk page conflict. Occasionally, a bold edit will help break out of the torpor of wikilawyering. This was just the wrong way of doing it. I recommend no action, save asking ScienceApologist to be more careful in future.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Which policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 99.141.241.60

I believe this account is acting disruptively. It has been deleting my comments from this page. [208][209] Should it do so again, would another administrator please block it. Thank you.

Additionally, I am concerned that this may be a sock of User:Scibaby, or another editor heavily involved in CC conflicts. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in a content dispute with the nominating editor in the section above. Note that prior to Jehochman's defense of ScienceApologist he spent a number of edits on preventing the airing of my concerns, here in the venue intended for such things. His finding of me "Guilty" of some unspecified crime, evidence of which does not exist, rests solely upon his taking exception with my filing above.

(Comment added out of sequence) Note: Jehochman's first example is the addition of comments by another user unrelated here. It involve's neither of us and are civil additions. Shoddy work, it appears to be a simple error on Jehochman's part as I don't believe he'd have produced such a pathetic ref intentionally to artificially inflate his argument.99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my error. Now fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable behavior, and actually by definition, Disruptive Editing intended solely to win a dispute by removing an opposing voice in the matter. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you deleting my comments? Doesn't that count as "removing an opposing voice"? I am not defending SA either. The objective fact is that SA made an edit, was reverted, and then business carried on as usual. The bigger problem is your attempt to stoke a needless controversy. The CC conflict is very severe, and we are troubled by a prolific socker. I'd like some reassurance you are not him, because you appear to be acting disruptively. If you were peacefully editing content and doing a good job, I would not worry about you at all. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments? You shut down the discussion entirely and unilaterally, collapsed the section, forbid comments and branded me a sock in bold red type. I removed your tags and re-opened the discussion which is ongoing above. The fact that the community, yourself included by virtue of your defense of ScienceApologists disruptive editing, finds it worth discussing is de facto evidence that your actions were wrong. Also interesting to note why you may be defending the other disruption, you apparently value and use the tool of disruptive editing yourself when it brings a means to an end you drive for.99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't have a conversation with somebody who is so vitriolic. I've been in email contact with another editor who has assembled evidence related to your account. We are going to hand that evidence over to a Checkuser for review. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Chamber time? Any hints as to who is accusing me, or of what? As to vitriolic, look first at your own actions here in which you fly off the handle and make numerous false, open and unsubstantiated accusations. Now you go off to find the crane with which to lift your lynch line. Pot.Kettle.Black. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You've made your report, it's being discussed, why don't you take a walk for a couple hours and let some other editors weigh in and then add more if you have to at the time.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You want us to assume good faith on an editor with a long history of disruptive edits and behaviour and yet you're tripping all over yourself to defend him and then can't even give an ip the tiniest amount of good faith. You might want to take a step back and give it all another read.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SA has made a successful return from some past problems. The IP is currently under sanctions for disruptive, single purpose editing on several articles. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211#BLP.2C_SPAs.2C_a_proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions which don't apply to this article. Sanctions that were made 6 months ago, and sanctions which don't include this IP. Anything else?--Crossmr (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The sanction specifically applies to the user, no matter what IP they hop to. We believe this is the same user. The topics are tangentially related. This is not ban evasion, no. I cite the ban as reasoning not to extend too much good faith. The IP is whipping up a mob, deleting my comments, then getting extremely combative in their remarks. (Thank you for asking them to chill for a while.) Let's take your advice and leave this for other editors to comment. If we comment too much, everybody will be driven off by the wall of text. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so, but then you'd have to read the link - and it's sublinks(1) You can recreate another "ban the ip that's disagreeing with me" or you can discuss the issue. Frankly this type of spinning out of orbit disruption is the point. It's also highly effective. The question is whether the community still tolerates off-topic digressions and time-wasting as efficient use of time and community resources. I've presented my complaint above because I believe the community consensus is one that does not wish to tolerate disruption as a strategic debate tactic. I could be wrong, but the question and its airing in the above section was valid. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to end discussion

Can we find some common ground, IP 99? Would you agree with me that further discussion here and now is unlikely to be productive? There is an open arbitration case. Any concerns about a pattern of disruptive editing by SA, such as Polargeo's comments, merely need to be reduced to diffs and posted with a proposed finding to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this discussion isn't going anywhere as it seems to be mainly propagated by one or two discontented editors. As for me, I haven't seen anything egregious from SA—he certainly is "motivated" or at worst "aggressive" from what I have seen so far. Not seeing the disruption here to warrant this thread or any intervention. Just my two cents.   Thorncrag  18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified ArbCom about the incident. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be shocked if they were unaware of it after 50 or so posts to WP:ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 00:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been said above, in various ways, that SA made an edit, it was reverted, and then business carried on as usual. Actually, that is not correct. SA redirected two pages (not one) (WUWT and Surfacestations)and then made multiple edits (about 23) to the combined page. To be clear, 3 pages under went major changes without any discussion. The two redirects were undone, but someone now has to undo all the other, related, changes SA made. (To be clear, this work still needs to be done! And with every one working under a 1RR restriction, no one has done it yet.) There was no doubt that this is disruptive. Q Science (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is ScienceApologist forbidden from editing this article? Reyk _YO! 03:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Q Science (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the problem, exactly? The way people are talking it almost sounds as though ScienceApologist is restricted from editing the article, that his contributions to it are disruptive by definition, and that he needs to be reverted on sight. Reyk _YO! 07:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, in the Climate Change area, editors are (I think) required to discuss before making major changes. Since this change merged 3 pages, I think that qualifies as major. In the past, any change of this magnitude would have instantly started an edit war. However, so many editors are currently banned that the rest of us would rather discuss. In this specific case, if anyone tries to revert SA's 23 or more edits, they will most likely violate the 1RR restriction and be permanently banned from wikipedia. That is why this is a big deal. We need an administrator to fix this mess or we get banned. (Yes, I think that qualifies as disruptive behavior.) Q Science (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Just a suggestion but this is all being discussed at the arbcom case at the PD talk page about CC. Can I suggest that this be closed with no actions and let the arbitrators deal with it? It seems from what I've been reading there that a lot more is coming out over there than there is here. For the record here, I am not involved in editing any articles at all in this area, just an observer who is making comments ocassionally. Thank you for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

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