Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639

Vandalism at Jewish Internet Defense Force

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.

---

he has proven he is a nazi at JIDF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jews 4 Wiki Justice (talk • contribs) 03:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time, use WP:AIV for this. In other news, I think User:Weaponbb7's account has been compromised... Grandmasterka 04:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think its odd that that accts only edit is this report? Anyone else smell a User:DavidAppletree sock here? Heiro 04:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who made the edits, regardless of where it was reported, and regardless of who reported it, the edits in question are absolutely horrific and I hope they can be oversighted or otherwise removed from the edit history. Neutron (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's either Appletree or Einsteindonut (assuming, of course, that Appletree and Einsteindonut aren't one and the same as well). Stonemason89 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They've been REVDELed, so nobody but administrators can see them. If you want them completely expunged from the edit history, e-mail User:Oversight. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No Malik, that seems fine. As far as I am concerned the edits are now invisible. What administrators can or cannot see does not really concern me. (I hope nobody takes that the wrong way.) Neutron (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Weaponbb7 and David Appletree have a recent history together. I'm guessing Appletree compromised the account and then made this report. Grandmasterka 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a very wild guess, and I believe it is rather easy to check. The only thing that should be done is to compare IP of User:Weaponbb7 before the vandalism and during vandalism and then compare IP used to vandalize the article to IP used by Appletree. I agree it looks like User:Weaponbb7 account was compromised, but to claim that Appletree has done it, there's no reasons for this whatsoever. Let's AGF and check all IPs.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

EC. I totally agree, it should be revdeleted. I just think its suspicious. Considering our own article has this nugget : "the JIDF "prefers the terms 'seize control,' 'take over' or 'infiltrate' to 'hack."[1] concerning their methods on Facebook and the fact that User:Weaponbb7 was one of the editors involved here with the David Appletree mess several weeks ago, it just seems suspicious that User:Jews 4 Wiki Justices only edit is this report.Heiro 04:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, by the time I found that cite, wrote that, and ec'ed a bit, its been handled. Heiro 04:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be in response to JIDF's call in Twitter and Facebook to create accounts and send login info to them. Bejinhan talks 05:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that, considering some of the things that went on between Weaponbb7 and Appletree, as referenced by another user above.Heiro 05:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed The IP that made the horrific edits was that of User:KatWomanUSA and User:Jews 4 Wiki Justice, who may not be Appletree, but is/are (a) known JIDF supporter. Unfortunately, as the account is compromised, and User:Weaponbb7 has neither a cryptographic commitment nor GPG key, I'm not sure if we can restore access to the account. -- Avi (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  It is strange " who may not be Appletree". I believed CU is capable to provide a positive answer for such a question. If those edits were made by Appletree, the article about the site he runs, should be deleted once and for all. On the other hand, if it was somebody else, who made the edits, those accounts should not be marked as socks of Appletree.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  Having been a wikipedia checkuser for about 2 years now, I can tell you that it does not always give clear answers. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Weapnbb7 has a userbox that says has has multiple accounts, so he can either edit from one of them or they may also be compromised, if his account has been compromised. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps under the circumstances you should full-protect the page in question. One account has been hacked already to get access to it... HalfShadow 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Or, perhaps delete and SALT the page in question, since it's turning into such a magnet for hackers and trolls. As I always say, if the heffalumps are trying to steal your hunny, it's best to get rid of the hunny pot. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose community ban of ALL editors connected with JIDF

They're hijacking people's accounts now (as well as using them to make horribly offensive comments)? That's disgusting. I'm not sure if we've ever community banned an entire organization before (rather than a single editor), but I'd like to propose a community ban (or some sort of sanction, at least) for any and all editors who can be shown to be members of, or have links to, the JIDF. That way, it won't matter whether Kat WomanUSA, Einsteindonut, etc., is David Appletree or not; they will all be banned and we will be able to revert and revdel their edits. The group has shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of hackers who have no respect for Wikipedia; they've essentially declared war on us and have been causing nothing but disruption. I don't think any of their contributions have any redeeming value. We shouldn't have to put up with their antics. Stonemason89 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Apart from the obvious fact that we have no way of proving that a user is associated with the JIDF, what level of involvement would be required? And how can we justify not only blocking, but banning all members of an organisation on the actions of a small group of individuals? This proposal wasn't very well thought out. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not "the actions of a small group of individuals"; the organization itself has encouraged its members (on Twitter and Facebook, as mentioned above) to create accounts for the sole purpose of sending information to them. That's basically espionage, and it runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Like I said before, I don't think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, since this group is all bathwater to begin with (has no redeeming value). Also, the JIDF accounts we've encountered so far are quite DUCKY; they're single-purpose accounts that are quite obviously pushing the group's agenda. It shouldn't be too hard for us to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a JIDF editor. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence. Much hysteria. No ban.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Users who edit controversial articles with obvious issues should take care not to have identifiable details available that allow themselves to be compromised, that should be obvious. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You might want to read the article on blaming the victim. While Weaponbb7 might have been able to protect his account from being compromised, that does not mean that David Appletree/JIDF/Einsteindonut (whoever was responsible) aren't to blame. It's still 100% their fault, not Weaponbb7's, and they should face the consequences, regardless of whether or not Weaponbb7 secured his account or not. Hacking is never acceptable or justifiable, regardless of whether the victim failed to protect their account or not. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See, there you go again, there is no evidence at all that the account is under anyone elses control, it could just as easy be an 11 year old editor that is venting off. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See the checkuser results above. The account has been compromised, and is being used from an IP address associated with 2 other sockpuppets of David Appletree. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I am confused as to what is guack results and actual checkuser results. I don't think that is as clear cut as that to allege this action is absolutely an identifiable person. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Avraham said that it is  Confirmed that the IP on Weapon's account making those accounts matched that of two other accounts which are suspected sockpuppets of David Appletree. Avraham is a checkuser. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob, AGF and prior behaviour suggests strongly this is an account compromise. Lets assume it is that until better evidence appears (if it ever does) - casting aspersions like you just did is a personal attack! As it is I have had a hacking attempt from someone associated with the JIDF (earlier last week) sadly for them they musn't have realised I work in computer security/forensics :) so it is reasonable to assume this is a similar result. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - completely unworkable, much better to block/ban disruptive editors as they appear. I am certain most of this is born from a single person anyway (and the JIDF is almost certainly just him) plus a few die hard Twitter followers. It's untenable to ban all of them, and the results would be no different --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's not necessary to save the 'pedia, but it would save us the disruption. It has become very quiet around the "JIDF" recently, and their recent activities here seem to be an effort to get a greater mindshare again. In other words: We are being abused for advertising. Even these ANI threads are advertising for them. The best way to stop that nonsense is if we can revert obvious JIDF edits on sight. – Anyway, technically banning the whole bunch is not necessary because it has long been established that if a user is indistinguishable from an earlier user who was banned for the same behaviour, then we simply treat them as the same user. The reason this isn't sufficient in this case is that the ultimate aim of the banned user seems to be not so much to change article space but rather to get the JIDF mentioned before the worldwide audience of ANI. Hans Adler 13:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The worldwide audience of ANI that is the exaggeration of the day. This is a totally ridiculous unworkable attack on a legitimate group of people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "legitimate group of people"; though. See below; it doesn't even have dues, bank account, headquarters, officers or elections, etc. I don't know how you could possibly call a group like the JIDF "legitimate", considering what they have been doing. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They can not all be tarred with a evil people brush either, they are a loose Knit bunch of people with a similar aim, a very small number of them have caused some disruption here, those that have caused the disruption also claim their group was being negatively portrayed and biased against here at wikipedia. Lumping them together is clearly imo another attack on the group and will likely attract more attacks like this which we can do absolutely nothing to defend. Portraying them all as evil and asserting they just walked up and started attacking wikipidia without any cause is imo false portrayal of the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Off2riorob.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Many FRINGE and extremist groups claim to be "negatively portrayed and biased against here at Wikipedia". That doesn't mean they deserve our sympathy, or that we shouldn't ban or block them when they are flagrantly violating the rules and acting like huge dicks. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary; we don't go against our own WP:NPOV policy to prove a WP:POINT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Desirable, but not feasible unfortunately. I'd like to send the article to AfD though and see if it can survive a liberal application of WP:EVENT (all they're known for is hacking or shutting down facebook groups), though I fear we'll just see the partisans come out to play as they did at DRV recently. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Long rambling comment. The proposal itself seems a little overdramatic, but if the group is indeed organized around the common purpose of bad faith editing on Wikipedia and other community-generated content sites, then declaring oneself a member is more or less an admission of bad faith. It doesn't seem to be a real organization - no dues, no officers or elections, no bank account, no membership criteria, no headquarters. Rather, it's just a self-declaration on the part of people who want to identify with its apparent aims and tactics. If it is a legitimate group, then members who edit articles about the organization and its activites would have a COI, and organizations do indeed get banned from editing their own articles when they persistently misbehave. Adding racist garbage to the encyclopedia in order to blame it on someone else is about as bad as it gets. If it is simply a declaration that one is not here to improve the encyclopedia, then it is reasonable to show people the door if they say it like they mean it. In practice that would probably require some underlying misbehavior, not a casual comment. No prior consensus or discussion is really needed. Any administrator observing clear misbehavior has the mandate to take reasonable, appropriate action. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd love to support this, but don't see how it could be applied within policy or gain the consensus needed to be passed. The editors associated with this group seem to be especially nasty pieces of work, what with the User:Davidappletree fake User talk:Scott MacDonald post a few weeks ago and now hacking anothers account to post Anti-Semitic rants. By policy, I think the only thing that can be done is play whack a mole when they show their heads. Heiro 13:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I just blocked three socks that showed up on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)As it is I have had a
    • Unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing (or have done it already) you should contact a checkuser. The IP you blocked is from a university, and the account you blocked was Weaponbb7's legitimate second account. Hans Adler 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes i noticed that the Weaponb7-2 (or whatever) account had only made one previous edit, in April, to its user page declaring itself as an alternate account of Weaponbb7. Seems unlikely that Appletree was planning this for that long. However, I don't really understand how the password was hacked by Appletree (virus installed on a computer to visitors of his site?) If that was how it was done, then it's possible he has the password to all of weapon's accounts and we could presume them all compromised. But I don't know if that's how it was done (or if that's even feasible), and it puts the actual editor in a terrible bind; all efforts at communication are presumed to be the troll appletree; what avenue does the actual editor have to communicate? Presumably CU can confirm previous IPs of weapon from before this happened, and determine if posts are coming from those IPs. I propose restoing talk page access on the alternate weapon account (if it was taken away in the first place) and seeing if this can be worked out on that talk page (given long enough conversations, i think we'll get a good read on whether it's actually weapon or not).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Talk page access is available. We have no idea what happened, but when somebody comes to my talk page and posts with at least three different accounts or IPs in rapid succession and claims to be the same user as an IP that made a trolling post on WP:ANI about purchasing of sex toys,[2] I am pretty sure that blocking all the accounts until somebody sorts out the matter is a very good thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Bali: Unfortunately we can't really be sure which method was used: if Weapon uses one password for several sites, he could have registered on a dodgey website and had his password stolen (or simply a site with very poor security which allowed the password to be cracked by brute force or a dictionary attack), or any number of other ways, especially if the password was low-strength. I wonder if Weapon frequents IRC and has a wikimedia IRC cloak? Either way I think the combination of checking IP addresses and conversing with the user should start making it clear when it's actually Weapon doing the talking. The recent IP pretending to be Weapon had a very different manner of writing (especially grammar). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
          •  Confirmed Wbb7-2 geolocated to WBb7 and not KatWomanUSA. I have unblocked accordingly. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Unenforceable. What we have is banned User:DavidAppletree who in turn appears to be a return of banned User:Einsteindonut (cu found this connection "likely.") either by himself or with a few confedorates (the pseudonymous appletree has vowed to vandalize wikipedia and sought to recruit others to do this) driving editors in good standing away from the project. We have the weapon account hijacked, for the purpose of making antisemitic edits in order to falsely smear that user. Appletree earlier spoofed a post of an admin to try to make him look antisemetic (so we now have at least two JIDF postings of antisemitic material here, notwithstanding that the group says it's interested in stopping antisemitism) which speaks to Appletree's low tactics and interest in fighting a propoganda war, not improving articles. What to do? Block the socks of the banner user(s), revert all their edits, and block the meatpuppets/sockpuppets as they come along. As for banning "all members of the JIDF," well, who are the members anyways? It's just some internet yahoo and people he occasionally convinces to follow along. Much larger and better organized groups have been a problem in the past (the scientologists come to mind). This one is a minor nuisance.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unnecessary and redundant - The user is banned. If they appear, or convince a friend to appear on their behalf, the new account(s) can be blocked. No additional authority is needed. I am not sure JIDF is a group at all. It could just be one lone person on a bizarre mission. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose absofuckinglutely not. Unwritten rule #1 of Wikipedia is that we don't care where you come from, you're welcome here as long as you behave yourself. All disciplinary actions are taken against the individual for the behavior of the individual. Period. --Jayron32 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed to ever blocking anyone by a racial litmus test, which is precisely what this boils down to; it prejudicially assumes this group is not here to contribute constructively. I'm appalled this would even be proposed. No witch hunts. No assumption of bad faith. No prejudice. We always start by assuming someone is here to be constructive, until proven otherwise by measurable action. I seriously question the neutrality of the person proposing this...   Thorncrag  18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Racial? The problem with the group isn't the "Jewish" part of its mission, it's the next three words, "Internet defense force", coded language for hacking Wikipedia and other sites. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"It prejudicially assumes this group is not here to contribute constructively" ? In the last few weeks editors associated with this group have faked anothers post with antisemitic remarks( the User:Davidappletree fake User talk:Scott MacDonald post a few weeks ago), outed and threatened users(User:Jewdefence remarks to Weaponb77 back on the 30 or 31st of August[3] revdel between these 2 edits), offwiki attack pages and lists of editors they disagree with, twitter posts calling for people to vandalize wikipedia, calls on twitter for people to set up accts and forward them the passwords so they can vandalize wikipedia, and now hacking anothers account to post Anti-Semitic rants. Exactly how constructive do you think they will become in the future? AGF isnt a suicide pact. Heiro 18:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Racial litmus test? Puh-leeze. First of all, Jews are not a race. Second of all, I harbor absolutely no ethnic, religious, or racial double standards whatsoever. If there were a group calling itself the Palestinian Internet Defense Force and it were to act in exactly the same manner that the JIDF has done, I'd have proposed blocking the "PIDF" too. No "litmus test" whatsoever. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh "Jews are not a race"? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The United States Census Bureau only recognizes white, black, Asian, and Native American/Pacific Islander as races. Hispanics are not considered a race (most list their race as white); the same is true of Jews. I believe the situation is the same in most other countries, too. Ethnicity, yes. Race, no. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter how you define Judaism. The point being made was that banning members of this group was banning them based on their identity as Jews. I disagreed, saying it would be based on their declaration that they intended to edit in bad faith. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was already established above that this is not an "official" group; therefore, how can you categorically lump anyone who happens to slap what amounts to a "JIDF" user box on their userpage as automatically here to behave unconstructively? Further, it is basic common sense and logic that this would be completely unenforceable, not to mention the fact that it would be completely unprecedented for Wikipedia. Your efforts seem disingenuous at best and call your motives seriously into question. I'm going to go make up a JIDF badge and slap it on my userpage, should I be summarily banned too?   Thorncrag  21:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that you would even consider putting a JIDF badge on your user page calls your motives into question, not mine. Why would you defend a group that hacks into people's accounts and has caused nothing but trouble for Wikipedia? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

...I rest my case.   Thorncrag  22:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If the JIDF's proponents have something constructive to add to the article, that's fine. This is more about creating drama to get publicity. Perhaps more like a little kid screaming for attention. WP:TROLL and WP:DENY apply. Revert, block, ignore. Don't take it too seriously. --John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As "unfeasible". However, deleting and salting the JIDF article is not a terrible idea, IMO. Any group who deliberately targets WP editors for purposes of outing (and then "smearing" them) based on alleged biases doesn't need a platform here by having this page, and they are using this page to do it. It's abundantly clear what their goal is. It shouldn't matter what their particular POV or rationale is: I think it's wrong and potentially dangerous (as cases of compromised accounts have shown). The fact that any editor not connected to the JIDF should have to change their passwords as a result of editing there is quite disturbing. Are they notable enough to cause the growing damage? Maybe, but this "cyberterrorism" can't be tolerated. And I agree that it is cyberterrorism... Doc9871 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I somehow get the impression that deleting and salting the article would, in some way, just be giving them what they want. HalfShadow 00:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course, it would not be for alleged anti-Semitic reasons (which is preposterous): but for extreme disruption. They can "tweet" about it all day long, but deleting the page would be denying them on this site the recognition they seem to crave so much... Doc9871 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A note to JIDF related editors

As I mentioned above, last week someone made a reasonably sophisticated (but, note, unsuccessful) attempt to compromise my Facebook and Gmail accounts, the target appearing to be my WP account. This week we tracked it to an individual in the UK who appears to have JIDF connections (in that he follows the JIDF twitter feed etc). This appears to be another example of the same thing; the inference here is that it may not (even probably) be "David" doing the attacking, but others reading his material. Obviously I can't provide any more details about the person who attacked me until it gets sorted the poor sucker obviously had no idea I was a digital forensics analyst :P but if anyone is worried about being compromised drop me an email for general advice. I recommend anyone involved with the JIDF article consider changing all their passwords (or at least the most insecure ones) as a safety measure. this account is not compromised and was not close to be, I have safeguards in place for these instances due to the fact that my job makes me something of a high profile target and these stopped the attempt fairly quickly --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Really these are measures which should be recommended to all users, especially having seen the potential results of using a non-secure password. The internet as a whole tends to drum basic security into users these days; another recommendation (albeit from an esteemed digital forensics analyst ;)) is unlikely to get the attention of anyone who doesn't already listen to the advice. There's not much more to say on the matter of account security. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Heh, well at the very least it makes me feel better if it happens to someone else now :P We get an awful lot of work from companies who lost XYZ website/profile or even have their networks compromised due to a lack of simple common sense security (like, uh, not using your company name as a password.... :P). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I got a refreshingly high number of mails related to this (usually people don't care! so that is great). Just a note to say replies will come but it may take some time, I have work shock horror to get done before my boss fires me :D --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that administrators had to have a strong pass? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 18:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's an explicit requirement, but as I recall, in the past, the developers have gone through and invalidated passwords of administrators that would be considered weak, and require them to change them. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I didnt change mine after my RfA. I only changed it a month or so ago. —Soap— 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I changed mine to "tiger". Seriously, though, the advice above was to change all passwords, or at least weak passwords, not just Wikipedia passwords. If the IP who posted earlier is to be believed, Weaponbb7's account was compromised because they used the same password on Facebook and Wikipedia, and their Facebook account was compromised. Whether or not that's true, tmorton166's advice is sound. Passwords should be strong, they should be changed periodically, and different passwords should be used on different sites. TFOWR 20:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Boy, and I thought all info on Facebook was totally safe! /sarcasm. I wonder what kind of script was used to dig out the password? Or if it was truly via facebook or some kind of spoofed e-mail or even a browser hack? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• The best advice is be vigilant: that means keeping a strong password, but also watching out for obviously suspicious stuff, because bruteforcing the password isn't the only way to be compromised. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, for a site that's "against terrorism", they don't seem to get that hacking someone is itself now technically considered a form of terrorism. Irony, yes? Or does it only count if they're brown and blowing up airplanes? HalfShadow 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, I definitely think they'd qualify as a cyberterrorist group. Which is why I think we ought to do whatever we can to stop them from attacking Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Anyone want to take a look at the user contributions[4] for the editor that just closed this thread? Maybe I'm wrong, here, but... Doc9871 (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's Weaponbb7's new account. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:50, 18 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.

Pesf and non-free images

Pesf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is largely a SPA on Boyzone related articles, has had many warnings over their editing, including inappropriate use of non-free images. Today right after a two-week block, they are back to the same disruption. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also this. O Fenian (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

this is not helpful either. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

this is stale but I am increasingly concerned about this editor's behaviour --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely. I considered just blocking for a month or two but those edits very blatantly vandalism, a couple of them involved BLPs (and were nasty ones to boot) and it seems like whatever this editor used to do they are only interested in vandalism. -- Atama頭 23:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User Talk:Josh Rumage

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

This editor has uploaded multiple images of dubious provenance, yet has failed to heed many warnings about providing copyright information, and recently has taken to blanking his Talk page on a daily basis. Whereas he is entitled to do this, I've sufficient experience to think that this is an attempt to "make it go away". I'd block, but I prefer to give an opportunity for this editor to explain himself. Comment welcome. and I am about to notify of this thread. Rodhullandemu 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Josh has replied on my own Talk page, and I have responded. If outside eyes think this is adequate, please feel free to mark this thread as closed. Otherwise.... Rodhullandemu 23:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary of the week/month/year

Please share a healthy moment of maniac laughter on that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viviane_Reding&action=historysubmit&diff=385289523&oldid=385223200. Cheers to all, --Insert coins (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Some things are just too weird for words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that friggin' Space Knight. Who does he think he is, anyway? HalfShadow 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to have a rom chip on its shoulder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because you're giving him grief. Don't Byte the Newbies. HalfShadow 04:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Oclupak

Resolved

 – User notified of the existence of discretionary sanctions. Report may be reopened if issues persist. NW (Talk) 03:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak has been warned multiple times not to use article talk pages as places to make comments better suited for forum. This editing goes far back in his history, such as [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. The editor also ignores calls that his sources be reliable, and continues to push youtube links: [13], [14], [15], [16]. His personal attacks on editors he claims 'owns' the pages he edits is also a problem: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Lastly, he has latched onto MONGO as someone to harass about his previous employment, even though the discussion was resolved. [23].

This user has a long history of pushing POV, writing rants and forum like posts, pushing youtube links where they clearly don't belong and are not welcome, and refusing to work with the project, instead of against it. I request action to remedy this problem. I am aware I can take this up on the 9/11 admin board, but since this editor dabbles in fields outside of 9/11 with the same furor, I felt this would be the better place to debate it. The links I have posted only go back to last year. There are FAR more examples of blatant disregard for the pillars of Wikipedia, but I don't have the time to research them all. --Tarage (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the "9/11 admin board" (I can't find it), since the major issues with this editor appear to revolve around that subject and it would be pertinent to see what remit that board may have? I think there is a case for bringing the matter here, providing ANI will not be stepping on anyone elses' toes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

[24] This is the general board for arbitration. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Meantime, throwing unsubstantiated allegations around is probably best avoided. --John (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I back up everything I say. However it was marked resolved before I could get back to it. But that is neither here nor there. --Tarage (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is no 9/11 admin board I can see...so the place to ask for admin intervention is here...any admin can apply discretionary sanctions to those that aren't following the ruling set forth by arbcom two years ago...as shown at the 9/11 arbcom case regarding 9/11 articles. I have restored this section from archive 638 since it wasn't addressed....and this appears to be the only forum to notify uninvolved admins about an ongoing problem.--MONGO 10:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Has the user been informed of the existence of the 9/11 discretionary sanctions, or otherwise indicated that he is aware of them? The sanctions cannot be applied if he has not been so informed. I could not find any evidence that he had been so informed, so I have notified him now. NW (Talk) 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he was. I notified him myself. He ignored it. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I could have sword I warned him. I guess I'm still in a haze. --Tarage (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel like digging into ANI's history, but can someone explain the timestamps in the comments before MONGO's? They range from the 14th to the 15th of September, but this thread would be out of place if they were really posted then. Was this thread resurrected or moved from before? I'd like a clarification so that we don't have edits that are misplaced and/or represented, and that the parties who appear to be participating in this discussion prior to the 17th know that it's even happening here. -- Atama頭 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The thread was resurected because it was archived with no form of closure. I have been sick the last few days, or I would have protested. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd missed that MONGO had already declared that in the first post, never mind. -- Atama頭 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:212.156.67.30

Cross-wiki harassment and personal attacks. For details, see: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Personal_attack. If you need further information, please feel free to ask me. Your assistance will be much appreciated. Pinar (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that either you or Yabanci did anything here to provoke the IP, so it looks like they're just dragging whatever issue you're having on tr.wiki here. Which isn't cool. I'm going to block the IP for a week for disruptive editing, attacks, harassment, and pulling too much dirty laundry around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And just in case, I translated the block message into Turkish using Google. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please sanity check my behaviour

There is an ongoing dispute on Talk:Libertarianism that has tended to be a little uncivil and get massively derailed into comments about editors and OR discussion. In an attempt to reign this in I have quite heavy-handidly closed down off-topic discussion and tried to force the use of sources in discussions. However two editors have notified me they are unhappy with this approach (one here and another here). My thinking here is that the talk page needs a serious hammer brought down on it to help keep things civil and avoid blocks/sanctions; I'm aiming for a sort of neutral, hardline mediator role. I'd really like some uninvolved admins to take a look at this and tell me if this is an appropriate approach or not. Also, ideally a couple of other uninvolved editors to help out would be great :)

It's worth pointing out that BlueRobe also warned me for vandalism both with a template and here, I think for my talk page actions today. And has accused me of threatening and harrassing him (here). Could someone please check my messages to BlueRobe now and let me know if I am harrassing or threatening him - I believe this is not the case but wish to be assured one way or the other :) (here are my messages to him: [25], [26], [27], [28]).

I raise this myself because I have told both editors that if they disagree with how I propose to handle the talk page discussions they are welcome to take it to the community - and if I am advised not to, then fair enough :) However, neither have come here and I wanted to raise the issue and get it cleared up now... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly nothing but good faith efforts at neutral moderation of the talk page, and all justified actions as informal mediator, per WP:NOT#FORUM / WP:NOR / WP:TPG. Efforts such as Errant's can only defuse the continual stream of noticeboard complaints stemming from the Libertarianism article -- my only wish is that we could get one or two more editors to volunteer outside eyes on that page. Sadly, I don't think Errant's efforts alone will be respected (and, in fact, there's evidence that even the overwhelming voice of the community will be rejected by some of the involved editors), but, all the same, I'm glad as hell that he's willing to try. I commend him. Also unfortunate is the certainty that this commendation of Errant's policy-justified actions will be seen as evidence that he's a card-carrying member of "the Cabal" that is supposedly arrayed against the vocal minority on the Libertarianism page, instead of more evidence that their arguments are flimsy and their talk page posts disruptive. BigK HeX (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Their arguments are flimsy and their talk page posts are disruptive. Errant is taking precisely the right approach. TINC. Yworo (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I likely shouldn't say this as an involved editor, but ... as for the complaints of incivility, User:BlueRobe seems to think that relaying one's opinion on violations of policy -- no matter how politely worded -- amounts to incivility. Incivility and informing a user of potential policy issues are not the same thing. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, as I have already noted to Errant here, I have zero confidence in Errant's ability to be a neutral mediator. And, without meaning to provoke any tangential disputes, I view the eager endorsement of Errant by BigK HeX - Talk:Libertarian's resident serial Wikilawyer - with deep suspicion. Indeed, the greatest irony of Errant's sudden attack against a productive, intelligent and civil editor like Toa Nidhiki05, who has remained relatively calm in the face of some pretty antagonistic discussions, is the way Errant has completely overlooked the constant WP:HARASSMENT of other editors by BigK HeX, a user who virtually embodies WP:BATTLE with his constant Wikilawyering.

Further more, as I have noted here, Errant's attempt to control and moderate Talk:Libertarianism have ground all discussion on that page to a standstill (during its busiest time of the day).

I noted Errant's threats against me here. There are one or two others, but I don't have a clue how to find the diffs of another User (Seriously, how can Wikilawyers be bothered with all that crap?).

I apologise in advance if my formatting of this post has some errors - I'm not as experienced with diffs and Wiki-litigation as some. BlueRobe (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you can find my contribution list here. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Errant's posts as attacks. I've been reading that page for about two days or so. I was tempted to share my opinion once or twice, but the veritable battlefield that it has become always turns me away. I can't imagine what mediating that talk page must be like, but I believe Errant is doing quite a reasonable job. Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of discussion is about the meaning of the topic and there is a lot of original research presented without reference to sources or policy. It would be helpful to have an administrator who could threaten to block editors who stray into OR. TFD (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No way am I getting involved at the talkpage, but I looked at it yesterday and it did seem that Errant's collapsing of the off-topic, WP:OR, WP:FORUM cruft was extremely useful for keeping things focussed. My experience of doing similar things elsewhere is that it immediately attracts shrill cries of "censorship", so Errant seems to have escaped relatively unscathed, all considering ;-)

In the absence of any diffs demonstrating "threats" or "attacks" by Errant I'm going to have to assume that this is just part of the usual baggage mediators have to carry. What I have seen done by Errant is useful and valuable mediation.

I did see things that concerned me, but it was from other participants - editors basically saying "no, I'll continue to post original research here", some casual homophobia, some bizarre synthesis (a Right-Libertarian website in New Zealand being used to claim that "libertarian" in New Zealand meant something quite different to the usual, wider meaning), etc. This did seem to be from a small but vocal minority, so I'm hopeful that these are not insurmountable problems.

I agree with TFD that refs and policies are key. More admin eyes would be useful, too. Just not mine. I see attempts to redefine "libertarian" as purely a right-wing current as a US-centric, recentist development, and it annoys me too much. This is just one of those areas that I don't believe I could be useful in: I'd cause more problems than I'd solve ;-) TFOWR 12:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded sockpuppet accusation from suspicious account

Resolved

 – User indef blocked as sock of User:Wikipedian05.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A seemingly suspicious account, User:Brownspite, has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. The user has tagged my user page, as well as created and tagged a user page for the alleged sockpuppet at User:64.131.34.149. I believe this user has ignored proper Wikipedia policies and guidelines with these actions. My response to Brownspite is on his talk page is here, in which I illustrate that I am not operating from this anonymous IP. Upon consultation with a former Wikipedia administrator, I was advised this could be considered harassment, and due to the suspicious nature of user account, that I should post this incident immediately to ANI (see here for that dialogue). Please take what ever actions are necessary to rectify this situation, or give further advice on action that I should take. Thank you. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The recommendation of said former Wikipedia administrator is to remove Brownspite templates and to warn him that his action can be seen as violations of WP:HARASS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that editing pattern looked familiar. Checkuser has  Confirmed that Brownspite is actually User:Wikipedian05, along with a slew of other accounts I will now be blocking. I haven't CU'd you, Crazy (I've no reason to), but I'm quite more than willing to take your word that the accusation of your socking is false, given the witness's history. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem being CU'd. I do not believe in hiding my edits. In fact, by logging out of my account, I had purposely displayed my current dynamic IP located in the San Francisco Bay area in my response to Brownspite on his/her talk page. I will be away from Wikipedia over the next couple of days so I will not be able to reply further until then. Thanks for everyones' help. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot archiving to wrong place

Resolved

 – In future, you should post to the bot operators' talk page in the first instance. There are a number of people watching Misza13's talk page that could've helped with this. –xeno^talk 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot II appears to be archiving form Wikipedia:New_articles_(Australia) to the wrong spot, Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)/Archive 2008 (2008 instead of 2010) eg [29]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because the counter is set to 2008, whereas really, to get the year, you should be using the %(year)d variable, in the archive parameter, rather than the %(counter)d variable. So get rid of the counter parameter and change the archive parameter to Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)/Archive %(year)d. I think, I'll try this in a second :/. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

Edits by IP User:66.66.47.209, Special:Contributions/66.66.47.209, appear to show a similar pattern of interests and behaviour to those shown by User:NYScholar who received a community ban on 3 July 2009.[30]. Could this be checked out? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

She may also be editing as User:24.213.147.7. (See: Special:Contributions/24.213.147.7). -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

While banned users are not meant to be welcome to edit here at all, a series of entirely benign minor copyedits is not quite time to ready battle stations. If indeed this is NYScholar, it's worth monitoring to see if the edits get more involved: if so, it might be worth contacting him to see if he fancies appealing his ban through the proper channels. It's been a year, after all, and until now he's behaved himself in absence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more than "a series of entirely benign minor copyedits". The size of Harold Pinter has increased by 20kb since 13 September as a result of edits by the two IPs cited above. The necessary pruning agreed by consensus after NYScholar's ban, and in fact discussed repeatedly before it, is being steadily reverted with the re-introduction of repetitive material, unnecessary detail and minutiae. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jezhotwells - the streamlining and pruning that we so painfully accomplished a year ago is being reversed, and this editor's obsessive editing is following the same unfortunate patterns as before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what next? Should a sockpuppet investigation be launched? Should we revert the edits? I am looking for guidance here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that User:66.66.47.209has been blocked for a week. I have reverted their edits and am going through them, salvaging any useful content. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

 – Obvious sock is obvious, blocked

188.23.178.232 is currently blocked for edit warring. S/he has now switched IP addresses to 188.23.180.208 in order to continue engaging in edit warring as well as to continue adding unsourced information about people's religions. Brian the Editor (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It gets worse. Looking a little deeper, he was already blocked for harassment (not to mention the gross anti-Semitism) as 188.23.191.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note this request. (For those who don't know about it, this is a useful tool.) Antandrus (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And I keep finding more. Persistent POV-pusher and anti-Semite; RBI. Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Need extension of range block.

There is a persistent date change vandal problem in India related articles coming from the IP range 117.204.112.0/20. This IP range was blocked four times for a total of six months and the block expired on Sep 11. The vandal is now back [31] [32]. He is a subtle vandal, who masks his disruption with some legitimate edits. I request an extension (last block was for 3 months) of the block. There are only 4096 potential IP addresses affected.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year. NW (Talk) 17:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Periodic vandalism

Resolved

 – blocked Toddst1 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I request the attention of administrators to this article Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish and Shopnomukarji (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly removed a large amount of data at periodic intervals - [33], [34], [35]. At the first instance, I asked him to explain his action, letting him know that such unexplained deletions would be seen as vandalism, but he/she did not respond and continued to remove the data in intervals. I gave him a a more direct warning, but as this user appears every 3-4 days and does the same thing, without making any attempt at explanation or communication whatsoever, I request an administrator to take the appropriate action. Shiva (Visnu) 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot

So it appears that SmackBot (talk · contribs) and WP:REFLINKS are fighting each other. SmackBot changes cite to Cite and Reflinks changes Cite to cite. It seems to me Cite is correct being the actual name of the template, but we need to pick one and make sure that all of the automated tools are doing the same thing. --Selket ^Talk 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a rule that any edit that only changes the capitalization of templates is an edit not worth making. The bots are only allowed to do that if they are changing other things in addition (which they are). It might be nice if they could agree on which spelling to use so that they arent constantly changing each other's edits, but I'm not sure it actually slows anything down when it happens. I think actually if I had a choice I'd prefer the lowercase version since it's one less keystroke when you're typing it manually, and it looks better, esthetically speaking. —Soap— 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Barring that, we could just watch until one of their heads goes "BOING!" HalfShadow 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If they are making another entry they are allowed to fix capitalization though. It's fine to have them fixed once, but every time SmackBot touches an article after someone Reflinked it the changelog is going to be a mess. -Selket ^Talk 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Consistent lowercase (at least as far as bots are concerned) is far less likely to lead to long-term problems, especially when interacting with new, case-sensitive bots. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure it actually slows anything down when it happens" An edit with more diffs is going to take slightly more storage and thus time, but I doubt its anywhere nearly enough to worry about. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall which bot it is that changes "wpbs" to "WPBS", which always seemed like a waste of time to me. Perhaps the bots are infected with editcountitis and are driving up their numbers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, if the bots run for adminship they'll get rejected for having too many automated edits. -- Atama頭 00:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Reflinks' RfA. While I note the concerns of the opposers (too many automated edits) I've always found Reflinks to be an extremely helpful editor, and I think they'd make a great admin. I am concerned about apparent edit warring with another editor (SmackBot (talk · contribs)) but I believe the positives outweigh the negatives, and I note that Reflinks has a clean block-log, unlike the other editor. TFOWR 09:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with thumperward - consistent lower case is best. Also, capitalizing Cite or Dead or whatever follows a double bracket is small but pointless complexity when filling in cites by hand. KeptSouth (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Core war! Oh, wait. Oops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, keep them lowercase. I like it both personally and because of the benefits Chris mentioned. —fetch·comms 03:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I happened to notice the notice on Dispenser's talk page, but didn't have time to chime in. I'll drop a note. Rich Farmbrough, 04:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

• SmackBot is my wikistalker. It has been stalking my contributions for years. Others may edit with impunity. I make an edit to an article, however, and, sure as sausage, along comes SmackBot. Optional question from Uncle G: What is the candidate's view on wikistalking?

  On a more serious note: I agree with thumperward, too. I've noticed the change from "cite" to "Cite". When SmackBot stalked my contributions to hake, I noticed that it was changing "for" to "For" as well. So this seems to be an across the board change. I agree with Selket as well. The 'bots should all be on the same page, because on a wiki without $wgCapitalLinks=false, such as the English Wikipedia, this is just senseless to-and-fro. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I think there may actually be something to be said for Cite rater than cite in that Cite is actually the name of the template. At the template documentation page the usage is inconsistent but Cite seems to be favored. I'm kind of surprised we don't have a policy on this yet. Here's how I see the easiest way to resolve this. 1) Open up an RfC for broader community consensus on what should be the policy going forward. 2) add it to WP:MOS. 3) Enforce the policy against all the bots making edits on en. Any thoughts? -Selket ^Talk 16:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If someone comes up with a policy saying Thou Shalt Spell It "{{Cite" Lest Thou Suffer The Stalk By The SmackBot, it will be ignored by most editors. In fact, such a thing probably won't even get a consensus to be a policy in the first place. The best thing to do, I think, is just to get the 'bots to agree. As long as the 'bot owners and the 'bot writers make sure that we coördinate, there's no need for something formal. And in general we do try to make sure that we don't have 'bot wars. Lots of clashes and conflicts are sorted out without need for formalities.

      See the Wikipedia:Bot owners noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inés Sainz

Resolved

 – Jets need to work on their skills at making a pass; in the meantime, we're keeping the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn the request and there is only one delete !vote. It was initially non-admin closed, but by the primary editor of the article who withdrew the close when I asked. Could we get an official "close" by a non-involved party or decision that it should run the full length? ThanksActive Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have closed it as keep in my adminly capacity. Not something I do every day, but it's taken care of. Go Jets!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden seems to be having difficulty grasping the main points of WP:BLP. I lack the necessary tact and patience to deal with the situation at Ines Sainz (reporter), a biography they created in response to a minor incident a few days ago. I believe that the editor has been convinced that that particular incident should not be included in the article per WP:UNDUE, but they seem to be insistent on introducing poorly sourced or unsourced material (mainly relating to the subject's physical appearance) into the article. Note that the Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden is not a new user, but someone who has "retired" with another account, so they really ought to know better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is Delicious carbuncle who is unconstructive through being overly heavy handed and uncommunicative about editing issues.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is purely a content issue, why don't we just leave it out for now and have a nice discussion on the article's talk page about whether to add it in or keep it out? —fetch·comms 03:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If Delicious carbuncle lacks tact and patience, perhaps she/he should consider taking up a new hobby. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.69.23 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good advice. I find that occasionally certain editors are difficult for me to deal with and I acknowledge that it is better if I let someone else intervene. No one has come forward in this case, but I am hopeful as always. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Threat to conduct to massive attack by IP???

Per this statement, the IP editor (71.178.55.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), now blocked for 24 hours, which IMO should be 31 hours instead) is threatening to conduct such an attack. Can any other Admin please take a look into the matter? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Admins and CUs please take note, the IP has started to make his move per this latest edit. Help? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This vandal/troll has used at least the following 9 IPs: 68.171.233.199, 68.171.235.155, 68.171.233.214, 68.171.234.204, 71.178.53.60, 71.178.55.113, 71.178.64.210, 71.178.146.183, 71.191.119.34 and the registered account User:Skruphie. At least 36 user talk pages have been affected. I have placed a couple of range blocks which cover most, but not all, of the vandal's IPs, but I am reluctant to make range blocks either too extensive in range covered or too prolonged in time because of collateral damage. It may be worth making sure that all the IPs are blocked at the time of the threatened attack ("noon eastern time tomorrow"). I wonder about semi-protecting the relevant user talk pages briefly around that time, but I am not sure about doing so without consulting all the users affected, and I am certainly not in favour of doing that, as comments about this on all of the pages attacked would be feeding the troll. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed per WP:RBI. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is a little ambiguity in the threat. If my understanding is correct, the threat linked above was made at 4:10 18 September Eastern Standard Time. At such an early time of day "tomorrow" could actually mean "during the daytime of 18 September", or it could meant "19 September". Or it could, of course, mean nothing at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If the IP's keepjumping, use an edit filter. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out they meant today (September 18). I was, apparently, one of their many targets (link), and by the looks of their contributions they sent the same troll message to half a dozen editors. The Utahraptor^{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"massive" was overly hyped, even by web standards. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true that only a small amount of users were affected, but the real question is how persistent is this person? I've met some pretty persistent people in my time, both on and off Wikipedia. If they're persistent they'll continue to ignore the warnings and range blocks and keep attacking and trolling. But if they're not then we have nothing to worry about. The Utahraptor^{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Zarapastroso doesnt appear to be very committed to vandalism. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You could be right. Or they could be bluffing. I think they should be kept blocked as a precautionary measure. The Utahraptor^{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I love you! You know me! And what my name means! FFuyscr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isvie Mandalov (talk • contribs) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple solution is WP:RBI. No other response is needed or warranted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Grundle

Resolved

 – 02:16, 19 September 2010 Timotheus Canens blocked Great Pumpkin (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600)

Great Pumpkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Don't know if somebody is pulling our collective leg, or if he's really that dumb. Have at it. Grsz¹¹ 02:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved, user indefinitely blocked, see above. Exxolon (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Hoary

Background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive281#Legal threats: User:Opinoso & User:João Felipe C.S, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538#More article ownership by Opinoso' Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Personal threats from User:Lecen, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#White Brazilian, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#Latin American demographics again, revisited (son of), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Removing informations and edit-warring

I do not know if this is the correct place to talk about an administrator's behaviour. I'm here to talk about Hoary.

This administrator has some personal problem with me. He already claimed that he "deslikes me" and accuses me of being a "child" and being a "false" person.

This administrator is always protecting another user, named Ninguém. Ninguém is always asking this administrator's help in his talk page, and Hoary is always helping him, and always against me. Since Hoary already said that he "deslikes me", of course he is not able to be neutral when it comes about conflicts between me and Ninguém. He abuses of his administrator condition. The newest case is going on in article Afro-Brazilian. This article was full of "fact tags" added by user Ninguém. I added sources to those tags, and user Ninguém reverted me (he asked for sources, but doesn't want people to add them). Hoary, as usual, is now helping his friend to keep that article with all those fact tags, after I spent several minutes looking for sources.

Hoary doesn't respect my work of Wikipedia and protects his friend Ninguém. I ask an intervention, and that Hoary from now start to be away from conflicts where his friend Ninguém is involved. Opinoso (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the editors mentioned here regarding this thread. Also, some diffs to back up your statements would be useful for admins looking this over. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not a dispute involving administrative tools. This board is just about the worst place to resolve a content dispute, because the administrators who respond here are going to look at conduct. I have no particular expertise on the subject under dispute; I'm just offering you some friendly advice. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are required to notify other editors you discuss here, but I've taken the liberty of notifying Hoary for you. —DoRD (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No redundancy there, DoRD! Thank you for the notification.

I strongly dislike various aspects of Opinoso's approach to editing articles, yes. I'd be interested to know how I have abused my position as administrator.

To me, Opinoso is no more or less than the sum of his edits. He has of course made some good ones in his time. But as for his recent ones, please see this for the specific and this for the sweeping. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A cursory read through the thread on that talk page should be enough to dispose of this section. While content is at issue down the chain, it's also about adherence to WP's sourcing policies and guidelines, which I have advised Opinoso to read carefully; and it concerns Opinoso's tendency to launch personal attacks, although at the lower end of the intensity spectrum. (Disclosure: I am a wikifriend of Hoary's.) Tony (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would say Hoary is a bit involved to make it preferable if other Admins were active in that area. They may well come to the same conclusions as Hoary but imo it would be better if someone else took any Administrative actions required in that area. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd welcome the attention of other administrators. Incidentally, I haven't used any of my administrator superpowers in that area for quite some time, as far as I remember. Possibly some sprotecting and wrong-version-full-protecting, but even that wouldn't have been recent. -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Cool thanks for that, then user Opinoso has little to complain about then, you oppose his position as an editor just as you are free to do. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "position as an editor". I have no ideological or similar beef with him. (I continue to take a dim view of his methods and standards: his misreading of sources that I can find and read, his refusal to specify page numbers within large books in Portuguese that he cites [books that I neither possess nor would be able to read, but that others editing the article would], his unwillingness to discuss, his tendency to revert others' reasoned and thoroughgoing edits, and his eagerness to label as "vandalism" what clearly isn't vandalism.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Psst! "you oppose […] as an editor". Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass removal of tfd templates required

Resolved

 – Task done. Thanks, ---Taelus (Talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello - in the late of August, a tfd-discussion was held regarding all the language icon templates, and as a result, all the language icon templates (see Category:Language icon templates) were slapped with {{tfd}} to notify passerbys that the templates were up for deletion. However, after the discussion was closed on August 27, no one removed all the tfd-templates from the language icon templates. I was planning to run through them all and remove them through AWB, but alas, all the templates are fully protect, so I cannot do so. Is anyone here that is capable of doing so willing to clean them all up (or give me adminship powers )? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've just picked four templates at random from that category, and they all had the TFD notice removed on 2010-08-28 by MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs). None of the four were protected, either. Please point to an instance of the problem. Uncle G (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, the several that I had looked at were protected and had the tag, so I assumed they all were like that. Guess not. Thank you to Taelus below for taking care of it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, all templates in the category checked, old TfD templates removed from 89 of them. Regards, ---Taelus (Talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's some attention being paid to the matter, can anyone work out what's causing {{zh-hans}} to break? I don't have any more knowledge than is required to remove the TfD template from a bunch of unprotected pages, so I can't tell where the issue might be myself. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooeer... Very odd. I must admit that as I swept past it, I assumed it might be something to do with a language pack, as I have experienced oddities and unreadable/broken things before which others users assured me rendered correctly with the relevant language pack. However, looking at the content of the page when it is being edited, I cannot see anything in non-english characters... Anyone know where that ISO number might be coming from? ---Taelus (Talk) 23:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Upon some messing around, the issue is caused by zh-hans not being recognised as an ISO language code. If you change it to "en" it says "English", "fr" to "French", etc... Thus I assume that the template is rejecting zh-hans as not existing. I did a search to try find the language code for Simplified Chinese, and found it to be zh_CN or similar, yet the template didn't like any of these either. Anyone know the exact ISO code? ---Taelus (Talk) 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Intelligentsium got to it and fixed it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Salt required? Meredith and Springlyn

A many times recreated article by an editor who from the looks of it [36] [37] [38] isnt going to take no for an answer and is going to be very impolite about it on their way out. (and those pages linked could probably use a bit of cleaning themselves) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 02:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See also the WQA I've opened as I'm willing to give the user an opportunity to improve their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're an optimist. This deleted edit suggests that the keen author of this article is troubled to an unusual degree. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

AGF untill the user demonstrates that they are not worthy of AGF. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Amply demonstrated. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User in question has been indeffed, but salting the article would still be a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Salted. —fetch·comms 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know what people think of me... I guess I'll see you all in hell. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks?

Can anyone check these two edits [39] and [40]. They look like a coordinated campaign. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

QUACK! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds (looks) like it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they're  Confirmed; I could not help but think that this is somehow related to the Dr. Leigh-Davis hoax perpetrated by CreativeEndeavors (talk · contribs) (but I could not find a technical connection there); the type of complaint is almost spot-on. –MuZemike 08:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much MuZemike. I didn't know about the hoax background but when I saw the type of claims they didn't look very good for sure. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

please delete my account and my other two accounts

Resolved

 – User and socks blocked

• User:VTomi
• User:Xx.tom.green.xX

i dont like wikipedia anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simcontributor (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, sorry. Tommy! 13:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then just stop editing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your accounts cannot be deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Jamie jca: compromised account?

• Jamie jca (talk · contribs)

User:Jamie jca has been a productive editor since 2007, a few featured lists, a featured topic etc, until recently when he vandalised the article God with this edit on 23 August and then the David Cameron article today with this edit. For what its worth I removed the reviewer user right today but should the account be blocked? Woody (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a bit drastic. Did anyone try to talk to the user re: the god edit? If his account is compromised then i'd expect blatant vandalism, meaning, blatant page blankings, etc, like the crap I revert with Huggle. AGF for now is my opinion. Tommy! 14:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But he's been blocked anyway.. well I guess we'll find out either way with an unblock template. Tommy! 14:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to try emailing the user but no email address specified. Woody (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible in that Jamie's account was compromised in a number of ways: someone could have gained access to Jamie's computer via a sale, a roommate be vandalizing Wikipedia with her still being logged in, etc. So blocked for now, let's see where this goes. NW (Talk) 14:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888 misusing Vandalism Templates

Resolved

 – Reviewer privs revoked. User agreed to mentoring. WP:CIR problems are evident. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Inka 888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing Recent Changes patrol, but doing it very poorly. The user reverted this edit and this edit, an anon user removed outright vandalism. He reverted him and then warned the user, an inproper user of warning templates. Moments later, he did the same with this edit and this warning. He also reverted a block template here from User:HJ Mitchell, an admin. When I gave Inka 888 a warning, he posted on my talk page that I "[had] no idea what [I was] talking about" and was "way too emotional". This user obviously hasn't gotten the last two times there were at ANI that Wikipedia isn't a game and to slow down. This is in need of an admin's attention before he messes something up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this, the third time in a month? I'd block for incompetence or something like that, but I think I'm a bit too involved with him. Although a block is in order. —fetch·comms 03:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not RC patrol. Reverting reverts of vandalism is comparable to reverting removal of copyright. Just as the latter is still copyright infringement, that's simple vandalism, really. Also, considering Inka 888 has outright ignored Neutralhomer's warning (and even accused him of harrassment), there is no question he's not here to be conducive. Would also suggest removal of reviewer rights. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Competency is required. This person has taken up way too much space here due to either not listening, or not understanding what they've been told. At this moment, they're a net drag on our resources, and a short block to get their attention would be completely justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I have also notified HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of this section on his talk page as he is in some way involved. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, forgot to notify him. My apologizes on that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason reviewer rights can be removed is if the user is misusing them, I'm not so you can't remove them. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are misusing them. And you're misusing warning-templates. And you're wikilawyering. And you're being stubborn. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Competency is required, if no one is willing to mentor them they need to be blocked until they are competent enough to edit constructively. Heiro 04:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's they, and several people have his talk watched and have been giving advice. I'm practically his go to now for questions. Sooo... Me? :D--intelati^(Call) 04:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another user and I both suggested a couple weeks back (at his first ANI thread) that he get a mentor and he quickly turned it down. I brought it up again, it was slammed back at me. This user is confident they know what they are doing, which is dangerous since they have proven they don't and want no help learning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you were the first one to suggest it that is why I brought it up to you. --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So once again it's about Neutralhomer? Would you please convince us that you're not going to blatantly screw up again -- or would like to have yet another one of your rights removed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Yeah and you outrightly turned it down. User:RobertMfromLI suggested it too, turned him down. I suggested again, you said you knew what you were doing. If you did, people wouldn't suggest mentors and take you to ANI three times in under a month. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentor problem solved. Inka accepted my request to mentor him after his one week Wikibreak.--intelati^(Call) 04:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Solution

Inka 888 has said he "will work on [his] mistakes" while User:Intelati has extended an offer to be Inka 888's mentor. Inka 888 has accepted mentorship after a Wikibreak (good idea).

With Intelati's mentorship, I think he should be watched closely by other users. Mistakes, like marking people for vandalism that isn't vandalism, should come with a consequence, be it a block or not, I leave that up to you all. I recommend the Reviewer access be removed as the user isn't ready for it at present and is possibly misusing it, though they may request it back after a reasonable period of time (2 months sounds good). What say the community? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Inka 888, on their talk page, has stated agreement with being mentored: "Go ahead and mentor me when I get back from my wikibreak." 12:30 am, Today (UTC−4)
  
  I still believe Reviewer rights should be removed until intelati and others believe their return is warranted. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support As mentor :D. I am watching him closely--intelati^(Call) 04:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support under the above conditions. Heiro 04:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Question - Should a consequence be a block, warning, what? Want to make sure that is established before we put this into effect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably depends on the offense. More major offenses call for a block, minor offenses call for a warning.?.--intelati^(Call) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time Inka 888 re-instates vandalism, it should be treated as vandalism by Inka 888, as should misuse of warning templates, starting with a level 3 warning. That should do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree--intelati^(Call) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Good plan. Gives the user a warning and a consequence. Same should go for other instances where problems arise. Warning issued for the problem, re-instate of the problem, goes to a Level 3 warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Heiro 05:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree and support overall proposal: I'm a bit late joining this discussion but as an ANI regular and a stalker of Neutralhomer's talk page, I've seen the disruption the user's been causing with apparently good-faith editing, and their refusal to accept that their actions haven't been constructive. they've now had it made very clear that undoing a vandalism revert is vandalism itself, so a level 3 warning if it continues will be appropriate: we have no choice but to believe that continuing to do so now would be intentional disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries on being late. An admin would have to notify the user of the community's position (unless I am misunderstanding some rule) before this can be put into effect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've resolved this thread and issued what can be construed as a final warning with what I hope is blunt and constructive advice. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support, with reviewer rights removed. If Inka wants them back, he should have to re-apply for them rather be handed them a second time without question. Also, if he reverts reverts of vandalism, he should be blocked for vandalism (because that's what it is). Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I am agreed with intelati, I also propose that Inka 888 be instructed to simply ignore any revert work that he is not 1000% sure of how to handle - or ask intelati (or someone else more experienced) to help or offer advice. If that rule is followed, there shouldn't be any mistakes other than very minor ones. On the other hand, with such communicated (again, but this time as the terms of this ANI), it means it will give Inka 888 no leeway for any excuses for a major mistake, as the proper route would have been to ignore the issue or ask intelati for help/advice.

Also, reinstating vandalism, or warning a user who reverted vandalism, or warning someone who made an obviously good faith edit, to me, is a major mistake; and if not retracted immediately by Inka 888, should be treated as such (IMHO). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I resent that. :( JK :)--intelati^(Call) 05:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support and Agree Being involved, I'm familiar with this editor: and he needs a "wake-up call"... Doc9871 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I suspect that this is a competence thing. Tommy! 13:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support and I have removed the reviewer flag. Inka can have it back when his mentor says he is ready. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I agree with Tommy that it seems a competence issue; and I endorse removal of reviewer flag: user can't be trusted to recognise vandalism and other violations, so he's not yet ready for the ability to review someone else's edits... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:53, 19 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.

Edit war at Apollo TV camera

There's an edit war breaking out at Apollo TV camera. One of them might have broken WP:3RR, but only reporting one would seem unfair, as they both/all appear to be misbehaving. They have also started fighting on the Talk page. I'm just about to inform the two main protagonists. (Didn't know where to take it, as it potentially covers WP:AIV, WP:3RR, WP:RPP, so I brought it here instead). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally these reports should go to the edit warring noticeboard. They've both demolished 3RR, though, so I'll be blocking both for 24 hours. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - didn't know of the WP:AN3 noticeboard (but I do now). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Anishviswa on Mayuri Kango/Mayoori

Resolved

Recently, an AfD discussion was closed as a speedy keep, a discussion that I was deeply involved in (having improved the article in the interim). After the AfD discussion ended, User:Anishviswa posted a comment on my talk page and on the article talk page. I replied both there and there.

My reasoning is that, there has been no proof in reliable sources shown that they are two separate people. All we would need is a reliable source showing something that Mayuri Kango had done since 2005, but that hasn't been given. And, as can be seen from a Google News Archive Search, Mayuri Kango's last news bit was in January of 2005 (the two 2008 things just being discussions of things Kango did in the mid-90's). So, it reinforces the idea that Mayuri Kango and Mayoori are the same person and did committ suicide in 2005. I have seen nothing to the contrary thus far.

After my reply to his comment, the user, about an hour later, tried to Speedy Delete the article under A7. This was promptly denied.

And, then, I woke up this morning to find that the user had moved the article name to Mayoori and then deleted most of the content. I still have not received a reply on my talk page or on the article talk page from this user.

It seems quite clear that this user neither wants to submit proof or discuss the issue, since they are clearly carrying The Truth. Silverseren^C 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Silverseren^C 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Anishviswa (talk · contribs) is clearly correct here, even if you just look at the sources in the diff you submitted above. One set of sources about Kango clearly list a distinct set of movies compared to the other set of sources about the actress who was 22 when she died in 2005. We need to make sure that the sources are about a person, not the other way round. It's not synthesis/OR, based on the available sources, to say that these are two different people, quite the opposite in my opinion. I'm moving back the article to Mayoori (actress), the other one - Mayuri Kango is a BLP unless proved otherwise and we shouldn't have any dubious death dates under that title. —SpacemanSpiff 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I added all of the references that are in the article, and i'm not seeing the differences that you are talking about. Could you explain more, please? Silverseren^C 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way, please give one source that says Mayuri Kango died in 2005. None of the sources you've added say that. Filmography in the article was based on "Mayuri Kango", marriage was based on "Mayuri Kango"; death date and name of "Shalini" was based on "Mayuri" with no mention of Kango. Two distinct sets of sources that have no overlap. —SpacemanSpiff 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. But...question...I thought you were going to split the two articles, not delete the Mayuri Kango article? Kango is the far more notable person than Mayoori. Silverseren^C 17:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left the content intact on the current article for you to split it out (since you were the originator of the content), it's just been commented out, as I mentioned on the edit summary; the reason for the move was because the "dead" actress was the one sent to AfD, not the BLP (although it appears that there was confusion at the AfD on this count). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Paste move

Resolved

 – Article histories are where they are meant to be Woody (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone has a free moment could they please fix a copy/paste move error General list of masonic Grand Lodges -> List of Masonic Grand Lodges :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My error... I thought I was moving the page correctly, but apparently not. My apologies. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI: There's a page specifically for this sort of request at WP:REPAIR. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wicked! Had no idea of that one, thanks --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User claims to be friend of an X Factor finalist and isn't prepared to listen

Justtheme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding information to The X Factor (UK series 7) about how allegedly contestant Nicolo Festa has made it through to the live shows. See here, here and here despite me reverting it twice and also leaving multiple messages and three warnings on his talk page. He then posted on my talk page several things which need addressing:

• He said "I am Nicolo's friend!" → meaning he has a vested interest in/has a common interest in the subject and therefore lacks neutrality
• He then says "And of course Youtube and Twitter are verifiable sources. His Twitter account has been verified." → blatant ignored wp's policy for reliable sources and verifiability.
• He's also said "And if this was speculation, there are tons of other Wikipedia articles that have it," → blatantly doesn't understand WP:OTHERSTUFF / WP:WAX.
• When I pointed out that if he refuses to remove the information then inline with policies I will have to ask administrators to get involved he said "I will report you for removing content that is perfectly written, with sources that say exactly what I'm posting, nothing more, nothing less." → a complete lack of care of encyclopedic content.

I suggest the content is removed from the page because it is in complete violation of all wikipedia policies. Youtube and Twitter are not verifiable sources. Furthermore the twitter source he's used doesn't even verify the claim he's making. Finally as he's claiming to be best friends with the alleged finalist perhaps a topic ban is in order as its obvious this user is going to prove problematic? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

note 2 minutes after this thread was posted and following the notification that Justtheme has been reported to WP:ANI he has magically removed the paragraph himself [41]. Do I need to say anymore? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"2 minutes after this thread was posted and following the notification that Justtheme has been reported to WP:ANI he has magically removed the paragraph himself" means that this is resolved. I don't think it's wikipedia policy to block or ban new editors for beeing unfamiliar with our policies. Taemyr (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He isn't that new... he says he's been editing for a while and has just threatened on my talk page to report me to administrators once Nicolo has been confirmed as a contestant. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He is new enough that he is obviously confused about our RS policies, also he has less than 30 edits. Threats are obvously bad, OTOH what he is actually threathening to do is to bring more eyes to the issue before reinstating the content, so I would recomend that you shrug those threats off :) Taemyr (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ignore those threats but in relation to his edits... But let's disect his/her edits for a moment: 1) the first source added allvoices.com only confirms that Nicolo audtioned in London but instead was used to claim something else. 2) The official youtube source confirms what song Nicolo autioned with [42] and the third source is twitter simply speaking about an airport. There is a large constitution of WP:OR here. And whilst I accept I might be seen to be harsh with the relatively new editor, he/she should be made to understand that threats (however idol) are not WP:CIVIL. Additionally someone needs to explain why his/her edits are incorrect per our policies as they don't appear to understand the warning templates. Thirdly it needs to be explained to said user that there are neutrality issues because he/she is claiming to have an affiliation to the subject being edited. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple accounts all spamming references to a single book

The following IPs and accounts have all been adding references to a particular book to various articles about drugs, the British penal system, and towns in Yorkshire and Humberside over the past couple of days:

It's probably not a good case for a sock puppetry report, because the socking is so blatant. These are edit-only accounts following a pattern of edit warring and sockery:

• 86.139.198.225 (talk · contribs)
• SteveDollarPound (talk · contribs)
• StanCrafti (talk · contribs)
• MikeyJBC (talk · contribs)
• DaveyBoy12 (talk · contribs)
• Nailclipper1 (talk · contribs)

The book is "Lowlife: Life in British Prison with Drug Dealers, Gun Runners and Murderers" by Simon Eddisbury (John Blake Publishing). The editor is using the book as a source for facts on a number of articles, but the pattern seems to be consistent with a spamming campaign to advertise the book.

The book's official release date was a couple of weeks ago but the publisher's website doesn't even mention the book on its front page. There are no published reviews yet and this is the author's first work so there's no way of assessing the book's reliability. --TS 17:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate use of Wikipedia, whether the book is reliable or not. I've reverted the outstanding edits you didn't get from the above, and warned them all about promotion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See also:

• GarryHomestead (talk · contribs)
• BeverleyStandChair (talk · contribs)

 Confirmed:

• MikeyJBC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DaveyBoy12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SteveDollarPound (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BeverleyStandChair (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• StanCrafti (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GarryHomestead (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nailclipper1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-working bot code snippets

I want an outsider(s) to comment on this dispute. --Kslotte (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, and doesn't seem to require admin attention. Is there a particular complaint which does? Also, the request seems to be the very definition of a request for comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, a RFC suits better. --Kslotte (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are:

• Mis-attribution of vandalism: [43]
• Inappropriate canvassing: [44]
• Repeated personal attacks in article talkspace, calling people "clowns", "delusional", "lunatics", "you are slimy and insincere", and other abusive language: [45] [46] [47]

[48] [49] [50]

• Repeated reversions without talk page discussion: [51]
• Edit Warring to the point an article needs protection: [52].

I admit I am partially to blame for the last item, however I have a total of 3 edits to that article in the past week, whereas Screwball23 has 20+, the majority of them contentious reverts against multiple other editors. I am not asking for the user to be banned; I simply ask that an administrator reacquaint him with policy so we can continue work on the articles in question. This user has hardened his position to the point that discussion or compromise just isn't occurring; every action is a total revert, followed too often by abusive language. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Several other editors here have noted other recent cases of Screwball exceeding 3RR and making personal attacks. He has also apparently been banned several times for similar actions in the past. I feel compelled to change my earlier opinion, and now feel action stronger than a warning is necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball does appear to have rather more then 3 reverts in one day. As to incivlity. Sorry but calling an edit or comment garbage is not a PA (however I may feel about this thats the rule) he does appear to call two eddds clowns, that may be PA but I doubt it. By the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3 is where you report edit wars (and this seems a very valid concearn).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the vast amount of issues appears to be stuff you'd report here; the edit-warring is just the icing. HalfShadow 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that saying something is vandalism when its not is reportable (unless done on a very regular basis (and I doubt it would be even then). The canvassing is an issue, but I think we really need more then this for sanction here. Most of the PA accusations will fail to convince (only one actually seems to be about the users not his comments and half appear to be difs of a history page, and i can see no PA’s there. The edit warring (and blatant 3RR violation) appears to be the only real issue here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Screwball23 has, indeed, used grossly incivil terms repeatedly with any who fall into his path. He does not, apparently, understand just why NPOV is quite so important in BLPs. Further his edit history, amounting to hundreds of edits in single articles, shows him to be a very single-minded person when it comes to inserting material he wants in BLPs. Further, he inserted a great deal of improper material into the History_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment article [53] , and asserted that WP:BLP did not apply there This is not a BLP article, and I have no idea why you think this page is a BLP was the claim Screwball23 made. See also [54], [55], [56] etc. Multiple warnings over edit warring. Multiple extended blocks. Multiple civility issues. In all of under 3K total edits - of which over a third are about a single person! Not to mention an extraordinary block history (three times in the past few months, not to mention civility and canvassing warnings, etc.). As many know, I always oppose draconian punishments here. I might not comment on one here. Collect (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, calling anyone "delusional" or "insane" is, by any logic at all, a PA. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Three blocks, plus additional warnings in the last few months? I had originally thought this was an isolated case, but it seems it may be part of a much wider pattern. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Better diffs are needed. I have had to dig to find him calling some one delusional (its not in the diifs above but is part of the discussion the difs relate to) [[57]]. It might help matters then if we see the actual comments.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

[58] if you think there is no support for it being in the infobox, you are delusional; [59] Collect is delusional to think that his view is unanimous on this issue. Sufficient? Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think its clear he has made PA on at least two users despite previous blocks. its not as if he is a new user either. He must by now kow his actions are unaceptable (or is unable to learn).Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't enough to warrant Admin intervention, I don't know what will. Frankly Collect, I don't know why you didn't just delete the section at its inception as clearly in contravention to WP P&G (WP:TALKNO) on talk page content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the record of the person. 3 major blocks in under four months is likely to indicate Screwball is a problem. That he used a section to attack me shows I have a fairly thick skin which he has finally breached. Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When an editor brings a complaint to ANI they should get their facts right.

• "Mis-attribution of vandalism" is a refer to an edit summary saying "POV vandalism" - not the same thing
• "inappropriate canvassing" is asking for advice by someone confused by WP dispute resolution processes
• calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[60]
• complaints of edit-warring should be addressed at the edit-warring noticeboard

Based on the above, this discussion thread should be closed.

My advice to Screwball23 is to read all polices and procedures, and use content dispute resolution. That will bring in other editors who understand procedure. The article involved is the biography of a controversial politician running for office. The article must present the subject as they are being reported in mainstream media. If the media give little coverage of some aspect of her biography then that is what we do as well.

TFD (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I have to agree. He has however called users delusional. There are also otehr PA's.

:*calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[61] Read further down in that same link. To quote: "You're incredibly slimy and insincere". This is not an attack on an argument. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited edits are full of blatant personal attacks and edit-warring, and this editor has been blocked three times over the past few months, the most recent in July, for two weeks. A one month block would be appropriate at this point. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, TFD, this does appear to be a part of a larger pattern and "garbage" does not appear to be even close to the worst things that have been said and directed at users, not arguments. Silverseren^C 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can dismise "Mis-attribution of vandalism" and "inappropriate canvassing" I don't think these hold up really. The issue of PA is different and there does indead appear to be an issue here. He has called users Slimey, Delusional and insincre are PA. I also have to say that as the usre has been repeatedly blocked to do so again seems a waste of time, if he has not learnt by now he nevert will.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm INVOLVED, in the sense that 1) I've warned him for BLP violations, 2) He's called me "Collect's lackey", and 3) he's tried to start an ArbCom case against me on the basis of my cleaning up History of World Wrestling Entertainment. Diffs aren't that hard to dig up, and I can do so if desired, but I'm not seeing how this user is in any way, shape, or form a net positive to Wikipedia. I'll be happy to vote for a topic ban from the Linda McMahon or professional wrestling arenas if he continues to not get it, or an outright ban once he exhausts the patience of the rest of the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 just yesterday: [62][63][64] On the procedural side, the editor has already been blocked twice for violating WP:3RR. On the content side, the editor appears to be adding content to the article that doesn't match what the source says (e.g. the source states "person1 said..." but the editor adds "person2 claimed..."). I think at the very least another 3RR block is warranted. This has been going on for a while. As you can see by the contributions the editor had reverted six times on 9/16 alone. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack by user:72.183.253.122

72.183.253.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just posted this to user talk:Paralympiakos. Even if the IP user and Paralympiakos were haveing disagreements, that doesn't excuse "your not the boss. you should stop before your account gets deleted for being such a fag." Some admin intervention would be appropriate, in my view. EdChem (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, I don't really know who this IP is. I've had limited discussion with him/her and that was of a friendly nature (him/her asking if I was attending an upcoming event and me responding). Paralympiakos (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommend the anon be blocked, rangeblock if possible to keep the from popping up on another IP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

After some looking into it, this is about this issue. Currently, the official website doesn't say which fights will take place on the main card and which are not going to be shown. I came up with that compromise as it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL which the IP is crossing. (Excuse the MoS heading problem by me though, that was collateral damage in the undo). Paralympiakos (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, what's going on with this then? The user has stopped editing since and I'm fairly indifferent about seeing them blocked, considering they can on occasion come up with positive quality edits. It's just that I'd like to see resolution one way or the other. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a single instance of a violation of WP:NPA? Could this not have gone to WP:WQA first if it is? Especially considering the normal "good edits" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of Twinkle by Typ932

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding of twinkles purpose. Typo932 did not violate any rules --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, WP:Twinkle should be used to revert vandalism only. Well, here's an incident where User:Typ932 used it to revert good faith edits that are definitely not vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAutomobile_classification&action=historysubmit&diff=385386899&oldid=385379686 Please do something about this. Netrat (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Have you discussed this with Typ932 before raising this here?
2. Have you notified Typ932 that you've raised this here?
3. The edit in question provided an edit summary - it wasn't a "vandal rollback", which I agree would be inappropriate use of Twinkle. Twinkle has options for "Good faith rollback", "Rollback with edit summary", and "Bad faith/vandal rollback" - this was not the latter.

TFOWR 10:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Typ932 of this thread--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this edit. Since the user provided an edit summary, this is no different than using the undo button. AniMate 10:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary ("reverted to revision xxxxx by user so-and-so") is obnoxious even if there is some text after it. It tells the user that their (ahem) carefully written edit got zapped by some kind of machine in a fraction of a second, instead of by another person. Better to just use normal editing for non-vandal reversions. 75.62.108.42 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle is not a machine, it is a script that does the same thing as the undo button, it is just faster. 75.62.108.42, the edit by twinkle can be undone by clicking the undo button in the page history. Typ932 provided a edit summary of why he/she reverted the edit. He/she didn't break any rules by using twinkle, it is a valid tool made to make reverting faster. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Obnoxious? The purpose of "reverted to revision xxxxx by user so-and-so" is to just have an informative edit summary about which edits were reverted. --Stickee (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IP75 - you do realise that with twinkle the decision to press the button is a human one, don't you? No machine is making any judgement. The script automates some manual tasks that would happen anyway. It's useful, not a way of bypassing individual judgement.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems no further administrator attention is needed here. Report here was a result of a misunderstanding of Twinkle's tools. --Stickee (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lex and Terry

Resolved

 – Lex and Terry Deleted underCSD G11 Criteria The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else take over monitoring the mess at Lex and Terry? This violates damn near every policy I can think of. – iridescent 13:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD G11 Nommed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Including a pretty obvious copyvio photo that's existed on Commons for ages... Black Kite (t) (c) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And Deleted under CSD G11 criteria by a third party The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Another look at AN3

I need to run for a bit. Can someone please take a long hard look at the last entry on WP:AN3? I mean the one about Jet Engine. There's clearly a 3RR violation, but since this seems to really be a nationalism dispute (a la Chopin) it may fall under digurwen or arbmac. --Selket ^Talk 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it justified to remove a deletions nomination when the nominator doesn't know what a page is about?

Resolved

 – Sock blocked, puppeteer community banned, AfDs allowed to run their course - Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently an editor User talk:Donald Schroeder JWH018 has nominated a bunch of Transformers articles (again). This guy doesn't even seem to be reading the articles or know what they are about, as he says in every nomination that he wants to get rid of "Gobots crap" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razorclaw, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groundshaker (Transformers) and there about nearly a dozen other times. I've asked directly if he's joking about thinking they are Gobots, he isn't. He does point to a link about some character who did a "gobot" rant from some movie. ("And you know what Randall Graves said about the Go-bots.") Can a deletion nomination be closed early based on clear proof that the nominator either doesn't know what the article is about or that he's making a joke out of the nominations process? Mathewignash (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can argue that the AfD be speedily closed as keep, and if the reason for listing is blatantly unfounded I believe an admin can close it as such. I'm not 100% on that though; it may be necessary to allow the 7 days to expire to gain consensus on closing it for such a reason (or per WP:SNOW). Someone else should be able to confirm or deny that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what the articles are about. They are "about" failing the WP:GNG standards and having no reliable sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that both of the AfDs linked to here have at least one additional, justified, delete !votes; such AfDs certainly can't be closed in such a way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 judging from his edit history and his talkpage appears to have some civility and ranting issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be on to something there. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

These nominations for deletion are all perfectly acceptable AfD nominations that should be discussed on their own individual merits. There is no ill faith on the part of the nominator, and as far as I can see there is no "speedy close" reason applicable. Let the discussions run their own course; the closing admins will be perfectly able to gauge the consensus. Filing this AN/I report is an example of frivolous forum shopping. And oh, by the way, if you are keen on Transformers, the Transformers Wiki is that-a-way -- I am sure they would be extremely appreciative of your efforts to enlarge their database. But Wikipedia is not a fanboy's magazine. 80.135.18.50 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything? Concentrate on the issue at hand, the continued failure for the majority of our Transformers coverage to have significant secondary sourcing, rather than constantly running to ANI to get people un-personed for raising that as an issue. Saying "gobots" instead of "transformers" is not in itself a flagrant example of bad faith nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3)Donald Schroeder's civility issues are not a reason to declare an AFD invalid, and even if he is mistaken about the cartoon series involved he is actually right about the lack of reliable, independent sources. And since there are good-faith delete votes at both AFDs now, an early close is ruled out. This recent spate of Transformers-related deletion discussions is the inevitable consequence of nearly two years of legitimate concerns about these articles. You should have made an effort to fix the problems when they were brought up, but you didn't. Ignoring people for two years and then whining loudly everywhere when the community finally gets fed up and gets on with things without you is not very constructive. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where all that came from. You seem to have a personal problem with me. I had a legitimate question about nominations from someone who seemingly was just ranting about gobots in the nominations rather than addressing the articles. Mathewignash (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was intended as an honest criticism of your attitude towards this issue, not a personal attack. I do not have a problem with you personally; I just want you to understand everyone else's point of view on this, and that your unwillingness to discuss and compromise with people like Sarujo is part of the reason all this Transformers stuff has come crashing down all at once. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) The deletion nominator ought to be perma-banned for confusing Transformers with GoBots. Back in the 80s, them was fightin words! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your Cy-Kill and raise you Megatron. I find it disturbing that it seems that the recent response to Transformer AfDs is to attack the nominator. Sure, one nominator was abusing multiple accounts but that doesn't mean that anyone that nominates the articles for deletion is doing so in bad faith. -- Atama頭 23:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In all seriousness, some of these nominations are absurd. Nominating Cliffjumper for deletion? I realize only nerds like Transformers, but that character was central to the first 2 seasons of the TV show. I can see nominating some of the less-known characters (some of them even I've never heard of), but Cliffjumper is absolutely notable as a central character in the TV show, in the comic books, and for being voiced by Kasey Casem (who left the show with some controversy). I would advise people nominating these articles to 1) make a more thorough and legitimate rationale for deletion other than "contested prod, gobots crap", 2) Please be civil, and 3) don't nominate things for deletion when sources can be found. AfD is not for cleanup, it's for nominating things that truly are not notable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cliffjumper notable? Never heard of it. Still Wikipedia's 'notability' inclusion criterion demands the use of reliable sources and the ones in that article don't hack for me. Jon.

Cliffjumper was Bumblebee, basically, but colored red. (I was really into those toys as a kid.) He was one of the main characters from the original show. My biggest complaint about this nomination is the lack of edit summaries, when an article is nominated for deletion it makes it really handy to be able to see later in the history (if it's kept). Many admins don't bother putting an oldafdfull tag on the article's talk page after closing an AfD. -- Atama頭 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cliffjumper was one of an, errr, ensemble cast who were given rotation in the stories so as to ensure kids bought the toys. If you were billing the G1 "cast" in order of plot importance he'd be well behind Prime, Wheeljack, Ironhide, Bumblebee, Ratchet and half the bad guys. The most notable thing anyone's ever found a secondary source saying about his is that his toy is a recolour of Bumblebee's. That's not exactly standalone article material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of Torkmann (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Someone else may want to consider whether the AFDs should be closed as initiated disruptively by a sock of an indeffed user. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the SECOND banned sock puppeteer making mass deletion nominations of Transformers Wiki Project articles in the course of 2 weeks. Both of which came from me asking about incidents of weird mass deletion nominations. Both of which had many accounts and seemed to love to nominate for deletion and vote to delete articles. Yeesh. Does this happen often? I've never seen it before, then TWO in 2 weeks? Mathewignash (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not happen often. Usually when people use sockpuppets at AFDs they use them to stack the vote but it doesn't look as though these people have double voted. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting this from all the TF articles. Everybody is crying notability for everything with ponying up the proof when asked for it. It seem that everybody has no real clue as to what notability is or they wouldn't be so quick to deem the articles as such. Ignash and I will not see eye-to-eye on what these articles need. Ignash just claimed here, "we are not establishing article notability". When what are they trying to establish??? To me Ignash seen to be exploiting editor faults to save unnotable articles. To me that practically game. Sarujo (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another sock: please also block the original account name DeepAgentBorrasco (talk · contribs). After his account was renamed he went and recreated the old one [65]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, that the previous statement was written before the news of socking. Now I feel sick. Sarujo (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I know the feeling. You agree with Person A about something. Person A turns out to be a ratbag. You feel dirty by association. Still, we had no way of knowing Donald was a sockpuppet and voted on those AFDs in good faith.

Although it is not allegedly important, steady 4000 views a month for Cliffjumper. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• These nominations are tainted and cannot reasonably result in a clean outcome for deletion. As such, all of them ought to be speedily closed as keep for procedural reasons, whether or not there is any legitimate commentary. That doesn't take an administrator to do, although some sense of the community's consensus would be helpful. Sock-gaming of deletion nominations seems to be a persistent problem, and the best response in some cases is to simply undo the damage, get rid of the socks, and if warranted start the deletion process again. Continuing a tainted process to a tainted conclusion is a big waste of time. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'd probably revert a non-admin that tried to pull that sort of stunt. We had this discussion last week, where consensus was that even if an AfD was initiated in bad faith, there's no legit reason to abort it if good-faith !votes have already been entered. Same logic for article creation by socks; if they ar the primary/sole contributor then toss it, but if others have made significant edits in the meantime, then it's no longer appropriate. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Agree : good-faith editors' contributions shouldn't be rejected simply because the nominator opened an AfD in bad faith. A single user's argument made against policy doesn't "taint" the AfD: it's simply ignored. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Edit warring in support of socks is not a cool thing. The wording of the AfD policy page is misleading on the point and doesn't reflect actual practice - there is no blanket consensus for keeping bad faith AfDs open after the first good faith comment. I've been in these situations before and they all end up with the article kept, the socks blocked (eventually), and lots of heat. Flawed nominations need to get shut down. Anyone who gets suckered into supporting someone else's process games ought to reserve their indignation for the socks, not the editors trying to clean up the mess. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought we'd heard the last of this old "AfDs started by socks are tainted" chestnut after Le Grand Roi left the building. These AfDs have been a long time coming, and it is a waste of the community's time to procedurally close them when editors have already engaged on them in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a case by case matter. If the nomination is viable and there's a manageable amount of misbehavior, then an AfD can reach a viable conclusion. At the opposite extreme, when an editor banned or blocked for making a string of bad faith deletion nominations starts creating socks to re-nominate the same articles, those are best reverted on sight. That goes for other process gaming too, not just AfD. Sock-filed reports on the help desk and 3RR notice board occasionally get deleted too, or bad faith soapboxing on article talk pages, whether or not a passerby unaware of the problem has innocently offered their opinion. When socking gets particularly disruptive, WP:DENY and WP:IAR are much more fundamental and important than unwavering adherence to procedure. I'm thinking of a case from a couple years ago where a very strange editor was creating socks to nominate a series of articles about primarily African-American urban neighborhoods and nearby geographic features for deletion. These wasted a heck of a lot of time. I don't know about the exact circumstances here, but in general it is best not to humor sockpuppets, or waste much time hand-wringing over undoing their process games. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Here it is, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Qrc2006, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogtown, Oakland, California, one of their many nominations that were deleted or more commonly speedily closed by non-administrators. Speedy closure is in fact the correct result there, not posturing over deletion theory. After the socking itself, the worst disruption and biggest time sink arises out of the tangential administrative complaints. If the articles truly need to be deleted it won't kill anybody to wait a week in order to go about it the right way. The encyclopedia won't sink in the meanwhile. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Community ban

Resolved

 – Community ban enacted per unanimous consensus - Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This level of abusive sockpuppetry and gamesmanship is repugnant. I propose a community ban for the puppetmaster Torkmann (talk · contribs). This will allow us to automatically revert all of his sock edits without violating 3RR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support- Socking is not on. It's dishonest and disrespectful to everyone. However, the freedom to instarevert should not apply to the currently open AfD discussions, because a lot of good faith editors have already expressed opinions on them. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is obviously due. That said, let's not prejudice these (rather overdue) AfDs on that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Reyk; clearly there are a lot of socks entering play now, and the user has already proven themselves disruptive. The currently open AfDs have good-faith !votes in them though, and this should have no bearing on them. The nomination reason in each case was not based on policy anyway (mainly WP:IDON'TLIKEIT), and will be disregarded by the closing admin anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Almost seems like a campaign to remove this wikis transformer articles.Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Which is not a bad thing at all, just that this is the wrong person to be doing it. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No. This is just preying upon a revealed weakness, in this case Mathewignash's ill-considered and poor responses to anything dealing in Transformers articles, as revealed by the previous AN/I discussion. At one point it was Richard Arthur Norton who was the target. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And while it's deeply unfortunate that people resort to hounding people's contribs through socks, the community still hasn't come up with a proper solution for that. Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted is not likely to work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Need to move forward with the AfDs without the taint of socks. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Socks suck mark nutley (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support The socking is not good. Purely disruptive behavior. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I am in favor of this, but I am involved with the "user" as I have put an article up for nomination and the user was the first and only keep on the AfD. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - And don't I feel like a dimwit after arguing to assume good faith about these nominations. Sigh. -- Atama頭 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Quite ironic that the OP can complain about people not knowing what AfD nominations are about when he appears to not be able to read the nominations himself. Call me insulted *stomps off in a huff* Black Kite (t) (c) 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Inexcusable behavior. Dream Focus 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What is his newest incarnation? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 probably, look to the thread above. -- Atama頭 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I guess User:DeepAgentBorrasco was created more recently although that account doesn't seem to have any contributions (deleted or otherwise). -- Atama頭 23:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • A bureaucrat renamed "DeepAgentBorrasco" to "Donald Schroeder JWH018". –MuZemike 05:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Psst! MuZemike! Kindzmarauli caught this above. ↑ Atama is right. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I encountered this user about a month ago and my experience with him was less than pleasant. His attitude and socking is only disruptive and detrimental, and a ban is necessary. —fetch·comms 02:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here for the right reasons.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Not a big fan of the behavior shown. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This is not acceptable behaviour. Ban 'im. --Divebomb (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This user has exhausted community's patience. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus here seems to be clear. I will place the ban notice. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't watch him or those other articles, but I do watch Human pretty closely, where, it's no secret, I have come to the conclusion that he's nuts. I wouldn't mind, because I feel confident that he's under control there, so I don't think anything has to be done about him. But again, I don't know what else he gets up to, you might want to keep an eye on him. But so far as Human goes, as I see it, the answer is not to humor him on the discussion page. Stop entertaining his suggestions, and you'll stop entertaining him. Then he'll get bored and go away. Where he goes; I don't know, but someone (not me please) might want to follow him and revert every violation he does without discussing it with him any more than the minimum and he'll either eventually get with the program or quit and go start a blog or some such. So I don't know what you're suggesting be done about the problem, but my solution for Human is for everyone to stop humoring him and he'll go away. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IP user 74.170.0.95

Resolved

I know this is the wrong place, but there's a back log at WP:AIV. The IP user has made three acts of vandalism after their final warning. Two of those have been to my user page after I gave him/her two warnings for vandalism. Could someone please take a look and block them? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Has been taken care of now. ([66]) Thanks a lot. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Request review of Sal the Stockbroker

I dislike semi-protecting talk pages, so wanted to request a review of my actions at Sal the Stockbroker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The talk page consensus was to convert to a redirect about a year ago. Since then, IPs have repeated edit-warred over restoring the content, and vandalizing the article talk page. Both have had protections applied for this, the article multiple times.

I haven't yet blocked any of the IPs - I'm suspecting a range block would be most effective for most of them, but I'm uncertain how wide of a range to address, or how heavily the range is used by legitimate users. Additional eyes and input would be appreciated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and protect both the redirect and the redirect talk page. A redirect doesn't really need to have a talk page of its own. Any discussion of the redirect or consensus to undo it should instead develop on the target page's talk page. If such a consensus does emerge, then tl:editprotected or wp:rfpp should be able to get the protection handled. 69.111.195.229 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The IPs are also hitting other pages, so I've begun doing short-term blocks as they continue. If others determine a longer-term proxy block is warranted, I don't object to a change in the durations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Wiki Historian N OH

Ferocious osmosis (talk · contribs) About an hour ago User:Wiki Historian N OH was indef blocked under this SPI. The user is back under the User:Ferocious osmosis account (another SPI pending) creating POINTed articles in violation of his block. Could the articles be SALTed, the account blocked and a rangeblock put in place? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear; he's been found guilty of sockpuppeting two accounts already [67] and shows no sign whatsoever of letting up with his agenda. KaySL^talk 04:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. Someone else can block after they confirm the SPI report. Just as a minor future note, please keep all sock reports for the same individual under the same title, in this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki Historian N OH. The two cases noted above should be merged with the older report. --Jayron32 05:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to request a retrospective review of my block back in January for edit-warring with this user, who was persistently and disruptively introducing contentious material into Socialism?

Impersonation and harassment by socks of a banned user

Resolved

 – The socks have been dealt with. Also, Pfagerburg has agreed to a complete interaction ban with any socks of User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and will focus on editing articles instead. Reports about socks can be made to the appropriate venue, after which Pfagerburg will disengage so other users may deal with the problems. Any violation of this interaction ban will result in an extremely long block up to an indefinite one. AniMate 06:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently, PaulFagburg (talk · contribs) was created as an impersonation and harassment account, see for example [68]. A sockpuppet investigation revealed that the account was probably a sock of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), and revealed several other co-located socks.

What can I do to expunge the account that was used to harass and impersonate me? Can I force a username change of that account through WP:CHU?

More importantly, when are admins like SlimVirgin and JzG going to stop trying to tie my hands when I deal with repeated ban evasion? At the time of SV's message, I was reverting 2-year-old edits from socks of a banned user, and SV, JzG and Rkitko stepped in. That same rationale would not apply to the fresh edits I just finished reverting; "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." Pfagerburg (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know little of the case, but have been musing on a solution to this. I will post on the talk page of Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask a crat to rename the impersonation account. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the request is pending. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not free to revert any edits you please, as has been explained to you on your talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument there, which derives from opinions on a talk page, is incorrect. By policy, banned users are not allowed to edit, and any edits identifiable as being in defiance of a ban are subject to reversion or deletion, regardless of their alleged quality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've been getting at - there are admins on here who believe that I'm not allowed to revert edits by banned users, and are willing to threaten me and misquote me to make their point. Pfagerburg (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, you misrepresented what I said. I was pretty sure I was clear that I was addressing a violation of policy, in one of the few instances where one does not need to be an admin to act. I'm an equal-opportunity WP:BAN-reverter; if I see a sockpuppet of another banned user, I'll revert them, too. It has nothing to do with whether I dislike the banned user in question here. Pfagerburg (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also notice I said identifiable. Obviously, if a sock goes to some new area to work, and behaves himself, he'll stay under the radar, and theoretically wikipedia will benefit. But socks usually can't resist going back to the same places that led to them getting banned, and some way or another they make themselves known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like you said, "if a sock ... behaves himself," and that's the key. If he had kept his head down, instead of impersonating and harassing me, then an SPI would not have uncovered the apparently unrelated sockpuppet Aporocactus.

As you can see from comments on the talk page, Aporocactus has promised to come back again in defiance of his ban. And it looks like Petri Krohn will help him evade his ban, even though "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." [69]

Petri Krohn has gone in and restored content that the banned user created after I reverted it per policy. To me, this looks like editing on behalf of a banned user, and by an admin who should know better, no less. I would like to see Petri Krohn admonished for helping a banned user evade his ban, and prohibited from restoring that banned user's edits back into articles. Pfagerburg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

Petri Krohn is not an admin, and any threats he's leveling against you are a bluff. It is within policy to revert any entries by a banned user, regardless of the alleged "quality" of those entries. And if Krohn is acting as a proxy for a banned user, he needs to stop it or he himself may have to face some consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I thought he was an admin. He sure acted like one. Well, then, check his contributions and see how he restored almost everything I made to revert out the banned user's edits. Pfagerburg (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a few diffs of some of Petri's acting as a proxy, then I would think this is a good place to start the process of a formal complaint. If he won't stop, then other levels of complaints can be brought against him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See history of articles below. If I go back and re-revert the banned user's edits, wouldn't that be edit-warring? Pfagerburg (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would probably get us right back here, so it needs to stay here until some actual admins weigh into the discussion. I've also asked Petri to come back here, because he's got it wrong. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will leave the banned user's content (through Petri Krohn's restores) in-place for now, until/unless we get a resolution that the content should be removed. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think there is something wrong with the content, there are multiple ways you can flag it for review. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The content is not relevant to the discussion. Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] Pfagerburg (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Pfagerburg for pointing out the previous AN/I discussion. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive624#IP sock of Jeff Merkey active again. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This Merkey character was indef'd two years ago the 8th. Assuming he was also banned, edits he made prior to that point, if legitimate, could stand. Any edits a user makes once he's banned are subject to deletion regardless of their supposed quality. Arguing that a banned editor's edits should be allowed to stand, under any circumstances, is wrong-headed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He was banned, see User:Werdna/JVM Block. I never reverted anything he wrote prior to being blocked (by Arbcom) and then banned (by the community). Pfagerburg (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He and you were both banned for a year, 3 years ago. He's indef'd, but is he banned? The two are not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that your edits serve no other purpose than a personal vendetta against Merkey. You are not allowed to edit in bad faith. As was pointed out to you last time, you can only edit Wikipedia if you aim to improve the encyclopedia. Besides, considering your ever more apparent conflict of interests you should stay away form anything associated with Merkey. If you really think there is something wrong with the articles or the edits, there are multiple other ways to alert the community of the problem. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong that reverting edits of banned users serves no purpose. It does serve a purpose: It enforces policy. Banned users are not allowed to edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"No other purpose?" Yes, I have made a lot of edits regarding this banned user's evasion. However, I have made plenty of other edits over the life of my account, and even now, I am not exclusively editing in relation to his ban evasion. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, you're mixing up two separate issues, and you're dead wrong on the one. If Pfagerburg has a conflict of interest, then that's an issue. However, if Merk is on a permanent ban (and I'm waiting for evidence on that key point), then he is not allowed to edit, regardless of the alleged quality of his edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:List_of_banned_users and search for "Merkey". Pfagerburg (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he was permanently banned on June 29th. That means any edits made by his socks since then are fair game for reversion. Unless he was under a different ban prior to that point, I would recommend leaving the older edits alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I have not (and will not) reverted anything made by that user when he was not under a block or ban. Even the 2-year-old edits I was reverting this summer were made under IP socks of the banned user at the time he was blocked. Pfagerburg (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarify - I am lobbying to revert only the very recent edits by socks of this banned user. Even though I believe that the 2-year-old edits are still "revertable" under policy, it has caused too much disruption to the project. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am hopeful Petri will come back here at some point and explain why he thinks it's OK for banned users to violate their ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And if he continue to stonewall the discussion, I would recommend that an RFC/U be filed against him, for proxying edits of a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not say so. I said, it seems like Pfagerburg is acting in bad faith. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edits of a banned user. I did this without reading the contribs, because it's policy that banned users are not allowed to edit. You restored those edits, also wholesale, which implies that you didn't care about the content, just preserving the edits of that banned user. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and this is enforced by reverting their edits on sight. The end. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did review the content. However that is totally irrelevant. My actions are not under discussion here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what you think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Merkey case, or why Pfagerburg is so fixated on him, but I noticed in July that the account was being used almost entirely in pursuit of Merkey, so I advised Pfagerburg that if the situation continued, I would consider blocking him indefinitely. He agreed to stop, and more or less stopped editing, and now I see it has started up again. Given that he's already been banned for a year by ArbCom in connection with this, I've applied an indefinite block to the account. Whatever the fixation with Merkey is about, it's not good for either party or for Wikipedia. If Merkey's edits need to be reverted someone else can do it.

I've left a note on Pfagerburg's talk here. If any uninvolved admin wants to review and overturn the block, please feel free. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since banned users are not allowed to edit, should I take your comment above as permission to revert the banned user's edits? And are you going to also block Krohn for proxying a banned user's edits? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, now look what you have done! Your continued trolling has lead to your friend being indeffed. I was about to warn you, but that would have looked like I was proposing it. I strongly suggest that you end now, or you too may be facing sanctions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

YOU are the author of this mess. You had no business restoring the edits of a banned user. And belay the threats. You have no ground to stand on. I never heard of either you or Pfagerburg until today. But it is YOU that continues to violate policy. However, I take SlimVirgin's comment to be permission for a disinterested party to revert your policy-violating restorations of edits that cannot be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't interpret my post to say anything it didn't clearly say, BB. :) My own view is that the edits should be left alone if they're good, and reverted if they're bad. I realize that others take a different view. My only involvement here is that Pfagerburg's account was almost a single-purpose account used in pursuit of Merkey and that had to stop. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You said, "If Merkey's edits need to be reverted..." Well, they do need to be reverted. Banned users are not allowed to edit. "Your view" is incorrect. Banned users' edits cannot be allowed to stand. That's the rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad". We don't keep only the good edits of a banned user who has resurfaced: it defeats the purpose of banning them... Doc9871 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. Thanks for reiterating that. And that's the green light. I've reverted a handful of Petri's policy-violating restorations, and I will continue that process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing two issues, Doc. A banned user must not edit at all, and any accounts should be blocked. But that doesn't mean his edits must be reverted no matter how good they are. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If one can't even break 3RR by "reverting actions performed by banned users" (says nothing about the "quality" of the edits), I'm not quite following. Banned users can make "good" edits under a ban that we should consider keeping, but not bad ones? Why are they banned from editing? So they can't edit at all. I've seen WP:DENY arguments used to revert any edit from a banned user/their socks on sight...Doc9871 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. So if they do edit, their edits can be reverted. And by re-posting them afterwards, a user such as Krohner flaunts the rules. He has been quoted this rule over and over, and won't pay attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the items that were specifically on Pfager's list. I have also posted a note on his talk page opining that the block was improper, and that if anyone should be blocked, it's Petri, for flaunting the rules. I don't expect that to happen. But Pfager needs to be unblocked, and Petri needs to stop stalking him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So how on earth do these articles ever get improved then? If a banned user corrects a typo, then must the typo stand forever? Is anyone who corrects the typo then breaking the ban? How different do you want the content? Much of the material is pretty straighforward biology and uncontroversial. I am happy to 'swamp' the changes in an overall improvement of plant articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles get improved by editors that aren't banned. If a sock of a banned user sticks to grammar corrections, they might never be detected. When they are, we revert any edit to deny them recognition. That is how they remain effectively banned... Doc9871 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)There's an additional factor to be considered: as Bugs and Doc have said, a banned user's edits can be deleted without respect to their quality. But if another editor chooses to re-add the information in one of those edits, then that editor takes responsibility for the edit themselves. The edits of a banned user are poisoned, but the information is not, if it is (essentially) vouched for by another editor. If there's a pattern of an editor doing this, then the edtor can be sanctioned for proxying for a banned user, but that doesn't hold for an occasional or incidental edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - According to the banning policy, typo and vandalism reverts are not required to be reverted, but it is presumed. While Pfagerburg should have checked the edit summaries, he was completely in the clear by reverting those edits. While there IS a conflict of interest here, I don't think it deserves an indef unless the ArbCom stated that he was to have NO contact with the banned user. Ishdarian|lol^wut 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an indef here is absolutely appropriate, as indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If Pfagerburg agrees to not revert any more edits by Merkey's socks he should be fine. If he spots any edits, he can report them here and a neutral editor without a conflict of interest can revert them. Continuing their dispute in this way is not acceptable, and he needs to disengage. AniMate 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion of an interaction ban between an editor and the sockpuppets of a banned editor? Is that even possible? You mean edits of "past" socks or "potential future" socks? Sockpuppets of a banned editor shouldn't be continuing a dispute on WP at all... Doc9871 (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the same question I have. I do not understand why an editor that reports and identifies a banned editor that is using sockpuppets in violation of an indef ban is blocked. Illogical to me. To go along with DENY and BAN, the sequence of events here and the actions of admins really has me confused. Dave Dial (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's say it started with a "brilliant scientist" who had and article about him on Wikipedia. The scientist was not Pfagerburg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I see where you're going here. Please, continue... Doc9871 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Searching the web for Merkey brings this page as the number 2 result. I do not know how Merkey is related to the SCO / Linux disputes, but it sure the hell has nothing to do with cacti -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Banned users are not allowed to edit" are you unable to understand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinion as a third party: indef block was not necessary. Strong warning followed by first 24 hour block would've sufficed. And definitely should not have been blocked by an admin listed above by the user as being involved in the issue.

Further, Petri Krohn's repeated threats (eg "I strongly suggest that you end now, or you too may be facing sanctions") here are unacceptable, especially from a non-admin. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in any way involved here. My first and only previous interaction with Pfagerburg was in July when I warned him he risked being indefblocked. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Merk had already been banned by June 29th. Any edits Merk made after that were subject to removal, and if you threatened to block Pfager for such removal, you were in the wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, Strange Passerby, Doc9871, Ishdarian, Dave Dial, et al thank you for your support. I have resolved this issue with the blocking administrator, and no further comments are necessary. Pfagerburg (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kovac09

Resolved

 – Indef blocked as sock by Selket. TFOWR 09:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Kovac09 (talk · contribs) to use edit summaries, not mark all edits as M, and pointed him to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, to no avail. Can someone else have a go? I'm also wondering about all his category work, but they may be fine, I just don't know. I'll notify him now. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to block him as a sock of Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs) per WP:DUCK. -Selket ^Talk 16:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

intermittent vandalism account

Resolved

 – IP blocked for three months by DoRD. TFOWR 09:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

the IP 216.157.214.236 (talk) seems to pop up once a month or so to make two or three obvious vandalism edits - it's been doing this for a year now. I have mixed feelings on what should be done about this: part of me wants to ignore it as a triviality in the hopes s/he will someday take a more proactive interest in the project, and part of me wants to request a slightly longer block for the IP for being a nuisance (three months, maybe, just to break the rhythm). at any rate, I'd just thought I'd toss the matter out here and see what people think. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like kiddy vandalism, ie from someone too immature to change soon, and I'd back a 3 month block, doubling if they continue this when they get off the block. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It might also be a school IP, but in any case, I've anonblocked for 3 months. Every single one of the edits I examined was vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a school-IP; Lansing School District in Michigan. HalfShadow 21:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please delete and forever purge this article >>> Río Bayagan

Resolved

 – Redirect created (thanks, DuncanHill!) TFOWR 09:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Río Bayagan is a duplicate of Río Bayagán. Please note they were both created by the same good faith editor on teh same date and time. The correct name (and thus, article) is Río Bayagán. I will be working on expanding Río Bayagán. The incorrect Río Bayagan should be deleted. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've made Río Bayagan into a redirect to Río Bayagán. DuncanHill (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Two articles I've started

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue. Good advice from Neutralhomer: Use {{cleanup}} etc. TFOWR 09:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could someone please clean up and fix 2 articles I've started: 1. A lGBT centre in Vancouver Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qmunity. 2. A autistic group in Gibsons Canada. Naturally_Autistic Thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You should add {{cleanup}} to the top of each page and someone will come along and help out. This doesn't require immediate admin assistance. ANI is just for problems that require assistance by an admin like vandalism, sockpuppetry, and the like. If you do need help, please add {{helpme}} to your talk page with your problem and someone will be along within a couple moments to help out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Found Errors

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue. Good advice provided by Someguy1221: WP:Help desk is a wonderful resource. TFOWR 09:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whom to contact for errors that I have found, please email contact info to email redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.149.149 (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're unsure of what to do with something, or how to do it, leave a message about it on the help desk. We do not get back to people via email, however. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

Resolved

 – PhanuelB indef'ed. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher to save space on this page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

• Update. Since the accused blocked editor is still working on his draft in response please do not add a timestamp until this matter is solved so that uninvolved admins who are not aware of the sub page can still see it and comment. --TMCk (talk)

• Update 2: PhanuelB has finaly submitted his response. Admins and editor are ask to please take a fresh look at it so a decission can be reached. Thanks,--TMCk (talk)

User:Screwball23

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are:

• Mis-attribution of vandalism: [86]
• Inappropriate canvassing: [87]
• Repeated personal attacks in article talkspace, calling people "clowns", "delusional", "lunatics", "you are slimy and insincere", and other abusive language: [88] [89] [90]

[91] [92] [93]

• Repeated reversions without talk page discussion: [94]
• Edit Warring to the point an article needs protection: [95].

I admit I am partially to blame for the last item, however I have a total of 3 edits to that article in the past week, whereas Screwball23 has 20+, the majority of them contentious reverts against multiple other editors. I am not asking for the user to be banned; I simply ask that an administrator reacquaint him with policy so we can continue work on the articles in question. This user has hardened his position to the point that discussion or compromise just isn't occurring; every action is a total revert, followed too often by abusive language. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Several other editors here have noted other recent cases of Screwball exceeding 3RR and making personal attacks. He has also apparently been banned several times for similar actions in the past. I feel compelled to change my earlier opinion, and now feel action stronger than a warning is necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball does appear to have rather more then 3 reverts in one day. As to incivlity. Sorry but calling an edit or comment garbage is not a PA (however I may feel about this thats the rule) he does appear to call two eddds clowns, that may be PA but I doubt it. By the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3 is where you report edit wars (and this seems a very valid concearn).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the vast amount of issues appears to be stuff you'd report here; the edit-warring is just the icing. HalfShadow 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that saying something is vandalism when its not is reportable (unless done on a very regular basis (and I doubt it would be even then). The canvassing is an issue, but I think we really need more then this for sanction here. Most of the PA accusations will fail to convince (only one actually seems to be about the users not his comments and half appear to be difs of a history page, and i can see no PA’s there. The edit warring (and blatant 3RR violation) appears to be the only real issue here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Screwball23 has, indeed, used grossly incivil terms repeatedly with any who fall into his path. He does not, apparently, understand just why NPOV is quite so important in BLPs. Further his edit history, amounting to hundreds of edits in single articles, shows him to be a very single-minded person when it comes to inserting material he wants in BLPs. Further, he inserted a great deal of improper material into the History_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment article [96] , and asserted that WP:BLP did not apply there This is not a BLP article, and I have no idea why you think this page is a BLP was the claim Screwball23 made. See also [97], [98], [99] etc. Multiple warnings over edit warring. Multiple extended blocks. Multiple civility issues. In all of under 3K total edits - of which over a third are about a single person! Not to mention an extraordinary block history (three times in the past few months, not to mention civility and canvassing warnings, etc.). As many know, I always oppose draconian punishments here. I might not comment on one here. Collect (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, calling anyone "delusional" or "insane" is, by any logic at all, a PA. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Three blocks, plus additional warnings in the last few months? I had originally thought this was an isolated case, but it seems it may be part of a much wider pattern. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Better diffs are needed. I have had to dig to find him calling some one delusional (its not in the diifs above but is part of the discussion the difs relate to) [[100]]. It might help matters then if we see the actual comments.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

[101] if you think there is no support for it being in the infobox, you are delusional; [102] Collect is delusional to think that his view is unanimous on this issue. Sufficient? Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think its clear he has made PA on at least two users despite previous blocks. its not as if he is a new user either. He must by now kow his actions are unaceptable (or is unable to learn).Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't enough to warrant Admin intervention, I don't know what will. Frankly Collect, I don't know why you didn't just delete the section at its inception as clearly in contravention to WP P&G (WP:TALKNO) on talk page content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the record of the person. 3 major blocks in under four months is likely to indicate Screwball is a problem. That he used a section to attack me shows I have a fairly thick skin which he has finally breached. Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When an editor brings a complaint to ANI they should get their facts right.

• "Mis-attribution of vandalism" is a refer to an edit summary saying "POV vandalism" - not the same thing
• "inappropriate canvassing" is asking for advice by someone confused by WP dispute resolution processes
• calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[103]
• complaints of edit-warring should be addressed at the edit-warring noticeboard

Based on the above, this discussion thread should be closed.

My advice to Screwball23 is to read all polices and procedures, and use content dispute resolution. That will bring in other editors who understand procedure. The article involved is the biography of a controversial politician running for office. The article must present the subject as they are being reported in mainstream media. If the media give little coverage of some aspect of her biography then that is what we do as well.

TFD (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I have to agree. He has however called users delusional. There are also otehr PA's.

:*calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[104] Read further down in that same link. To quote: "You're incredibly slimy and insincere". This is not an attack on an argument. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited edits are full of blatant personal attacks and edit-warring, and this editor has been blocked three times over the past few months, the most recent in July, for two weeks. A one month block would be appropriate at this point. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, TFD, this does appear to be a part of a larger pattern and "garbage" does not appear to be even close to the worst things that have been said and directed at users, not arguments. Silverseren^C 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can dismise "Mis-attribution of vandalism" and "inappropriate canvassing" I don't think these hold up really. The issue of PA is different and there does indead appear to be an issue here. He has called users Slimey, Delusional and insincre are PA. I also have to say that as the usre has been repeatedly blocked to do so again seems a waste of time, if he has not learnt by now he nevert will.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm INVOLVED, in the sense that 1) I've warned him for BLP violations, 2) He's called me "Collect's lackey", and 3) he's tried to start an ArbCom case against me on the basis of my cleaning up History of World Wrestling Entertainment. Diffs aren't that hard to dig up, and I can do so if desired, but I'm not seeing how this user is in any way, shape, or form a net positive to Wikipedia. I'll be happy to vote for a topic ban from the Linda McMahon or professional wrestling arenas if he continues to not get it, or an outright ban once he exhausts the patience of the rest of the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 just yesterday: [105][106][107] On the procedural side, the editor has already been blocked twice for violating WP:3RR. On the content side, the editor appears to be adding content to the article that doesn't match what the source says (e.g. the source states "person1 said..." but the editor adds "person2 claimed..."). I think at the very least another 3RR block is warranted. This has been going on for a while. As you can see by the contributions the editor had reverted six times on 9/16 alone. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

KaySL behavior

While in the midst of working on Dulcis foetidus, trying to save the article from AfD, I was rollbacked by KaySL with the ad hominem edit summary "If it's false, then rewrite it properly, genius." I restored the version I was working on, with the edit summary "disruptive; please stop". KaySL reverted me a second time, with the edit summary referring to "childish hyperbole". Etc. KaySL is preventing me from working on the article at all. Surely this is not acceptable behavior? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is under discussion for deletion and should remain in its original state, otherwise all arguments become invalid. I made one revert and you accused me of wilfully and presumably maliciously disrupting your ability to edit at all. That is hyperbole, as is referring to this as if it's a long-running issue. It is not, and you didn't even make the effort to resolve the issue with me before bringing it here and wasting admin time. Opening an ANI entry on me for this is quite frankly ridiculous. My first revert summary was unfortunate though, I admit. KaySL - 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhh "The article is under discussion for deletion and should remain in its original state"? This is incorrect. AFD more often than not leads to improvements in the article that attempt to correct the shortcomings. Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I wouldn't have even reverted but for the nature and quality of the edit in question[108]. In any case, this is an extreme overreaction to an event that could have been uneventfully resolved had the editor but discussed it civilly. KaySL - 17:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Kay, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion - David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's been quite a while since I took part in deletion-related discussions, so I concede I was wrong on that point. But as I've said, I'm not best pleased about the frankly feigned horror that the complainant is projecting here. I'm fully prepared to take this to ArbCom if need be; I'm not going to accept my reputation being tarnished by this editor's jumping of the gun and accusing me of preventing him from editing, which he knows to be false, and which I would have stated to be false had he approached me civilly. KaySL - 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This diff by KaySL deletes an apparent good faith contribution about a tragic accident, and the edit summary mocks the contribution. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The content of that edit was a wholly unsuitable and of course unsourced story, and no doubt false, hence the joking summary. If you're going to dredge up irreverent edit summaries, at least find more than one or two - which incidentally were made today. Is this how you resolve disputes? Making contrived attacks on my character with the sparsest and most circumstantial of evidence? This is beginning to feel more like an attempt at character assassination than it is bringing any real grievance up, on a board which is generally reserved for serious complaints. KaySL - 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) - KaySL, you probably could've avoided this escalation by using better edit summaries - civility cuts both ways. Threatening ARBCOM is overkill and bitey. Belittling him ("feigned horror") isn't useful either. Exxolon (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He's evidently not going to give up beating a dead horse, and I don't take lightly the kinds of personal and character attacks that he's continuing to make. He's a good editor judging by his contribution summary, but I'm not going to sit idly by and allow him to slander me. Of course the summary was stupid, but not everyone's infallible or in a great mood at all times. The moment he brought this to ANI rather than making even a single attempt to discuss the issue directly, is the moment it went too far. As to the ArbCom 'threat', I meant more that I will take the matter there if the editor pursues this matter beyond ANI, or if his complaints take on much more of a personal dynamic. KaySL - 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

69, why did you not attempt to discuss this with KaySL before bringing it to ANI? Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I brought this here after seeing this, and seeing the treatment KaySL gave User:Dcpcall. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, you didn't feel it was important enough to try and work out with KaySL first. Seems a lot more like trying to get someone in trouble than trying to resolve a misunderstanding. Syrthiss (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• KaySL, please try to pay more attention to Wikipedia's standards of civility (WP:CIVIL) and AGF (WP:AGF). I think you're also under some misconceptions about WP dispute resolution if you think arbcom would ever listen to a case about something like this. There are multiple earlier stages of DR (you're in one now) that are basically mandatory, and they are likely to come the same conclusion: your edit summaries cited were inappropriate and you should tone them down, and stop dwelling on past errors (and don't worry too much about others dwelling on yours). It's all part of the process of gaining experience editing here. I agree that the other IP should have discussed the edits with you before coming here, but that too is a common error that's not worth making a fuss about. Just look over the resulting discussion and try to take the comments to heart. 69.111.195.229 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I clarified my ArbCom position just after you made your edit. Anyway, I've admitted that those two summaries were ill-advised, and I'm willing to drop the matter if he is. I made a couple of editing mistakes, and he completely bypassed civility in his own way by bringing the matter straight here and attempting to cast my character in a bad light. Essentially, it's up to him now. KaySL - 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

KaySL seems to be using Wikipedia:Twinkle a lot to revert good faith contributions, perhaps without sufficient understanding of Wikipedia policies. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, honestly folks, I seriously think a process/step was missed, and I understand each of your reasons why. But, since we are here, and since this conversation seems to be (or is getting) somewhat civil, then perhaps both of you can stop to realize a few things:

• The article is up for deletion review: This means any (every) interested editor should be doing their best to try to prevent that by improving the article.
• Both parties seem to have an interest in improving the article: that means perhaps, through working together, you can both salvage this article from proposed deletion
• In any such situation as this: you should have opened discussion on the Talk Page and discussed the proposed reversions/inclusions before going any further. This is a simple step most people forget. One of you (either of you, not pointing fingers or picking on anyone in particular) should have dropped the other a note saying "Hey, let's discuss this on the Talk Page... and maybe even get other editors involved to come to a consensus on this"

Both of you have the opportunity to save this article from deletion. I hope you can both work together, involve the other editors who have contributed to the article, and actually manage to do that. It would probably be a better use of everyone's time than going back and forth here. If you run into disagreements, get the other editors involved to form a consensus. If one of you "loses" that consensus, so be it. You win some, you lose some. That's really irrelevant to the grand scheme of things here, as what's important is the community wins. Or even better, you may find that parts of both of your suggestions are incorporated via getting a consensus and other contributors involved; which will make the proposed contribution/changes all the more stronger.

Hope you both can work together and get other editors involved and save this article. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite correct, Robert. Like I said before, I have little interest in continuing any bad blood here, though baseless allegations such as the one the editor made just before your comment are most certainly not helping. I'll leave him to edit away to his heart's content; I'm not getting involved with his personal project, as we've seen where that gets us. Whereas I'm fully content to let him get on with it, he's just continuing to engage in a slagging match against me here. I'd say that by any reasonable reckoning, this is becoming very dirty. KaySL^talk 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I liked RobertMfromLI's idea. Oh well. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough. Let's agree to let sleeping dogs lie and get on with our respective business and not further waste other editors' time. KaySL^talk 21:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, with no more parting shots, can we (you two) decide this issue is resolved and simply waiting on an Admin to review and close it? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's resolved as far as I'm concerned! Thanks, Robert. KaySL^talk 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When WP touches a raw nerve at an international level

For the last five days, several new user accounts and IPs have appeared with the sole purpose, or almost, to erase an information about the Council of Europe that is not exactly positive but nevertheless true (until proven otherwise): [109], [110], [111], [112]. This is not a request for semi-protection (yet) but a reminder that WP is vulnerable and will remain so to concerted attacks by well-organized and otherwise respectable people just as it is to attacks by racists or extremists. --Insert coins (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement removed seems unnecessary, and based purely on speculation by the source. Some of the other edits I'll agree were obviously biased, but the statement "As the new Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Jagland is expected to steer the upcoming, drastical reduction of the Council's expenses and activities." should go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But this is exactly, almost word for word, what the newspaper article says. It has been reworded by another user now - thank you - but it was nevertheless absolutely true to the source, which is a reliable media outlet. --Insert coins (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP. Speculation is still speculation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourced speculation about the plans of a leader with respect to the group he is leading isn't in general a BLP violation. I would like more than one source for that to show it is a widespread belief, but that's an editorial issue, not a BLP one. Hobit (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. It's not a BLP issue, but just a general one of this source speculating on what he's going to do. It may be "true to the source," but it's just one source stating an opinion, really. Plus, once he does implement policies, the statement will be moot (either redundant or flatly incorrect), so it'll be removed anyway. There's really no point putting that statement into the article at this time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing complaint

I'm going to be away from my computer for a while, so can someone please look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barry Wellman where there is an outing complaint and the edits and edit history of the IP there and what I assume is the IP's account MultimediaGuru (talk · contribs). I think there's a case for some rev/del and possibly a block, which I would support (and might have done myself had I more time to check again) unless there is compelling evidence not to block. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I redacted the info that attempted to out an editor, and then had to rev delete 2 days' worth of edits to that noticeboard. What a mess. :( -- Atama頭 17:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking into MultimediaGuru's editing history, I see outing of this particular editor going back to 2008. This is a huge mess. This editor has also attempted to out another editor as well. I'm going to clean up everything and then I'm indefinitely blocking the editor, I'll look into the IP in a bit too. This is unacceptable behavior. -- Atama頭 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cleaned up Talk:Barry Wellman from MultimediaGuru (redacted stuff and did some revision deletions, 2 years' worth in fact) and cleaned up what the IP did at both WP:BLPN and User talk:Antiselfpromotion. I blocked the IP for a week. -- Atama頭 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And even more at User:MultimediaGuru and Talk:Virtual community. I think that's the lot now. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, I was afraid I might have missed something. I've never deleted so many revisions at once before! -- Atama頭 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you both for this, sorry I wasn't in a position to help. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You missed one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the IP there is outing someone. Sigh... I'll zap that one too. Thanks for pointing that out. Let's see how many more revisions need deleting to get rid of that one... -- Atama頭 15:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is 10, 10 more revisions deleted to hide the info. -- Atama頭 15:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over cleanup templates

Resolved

 – User:Mcorazao blocked for 24 hours for edit warring.

Mcorazao (talk · contribs) has been edit warring over the addition of a {{globalize}} cleanup template on Ancient Greece. He continues to add it to the top of the article against consensus, despite multiple editors removing it. At this point, it has been reverted and re-added a total of seven times in the last few days. The other editor who has been removing the cleanup template, RJC (talk · contribs), asked for a third opinion at WP:3O a few days ago. I provided the third opinion and clearly explained how the {{globalize}} template doesn't apply to the problem that Mcorazao has with the article. I asked Mcorazao to stop adding the cleanup template to the article, and suggested the {{dubious}} template as an alternate way of expressing his objections in the form of a cleanup tag. The dubious tag was removed by RJC (probably rightly so) as being irrelevant, and Mcorazao re-added the globalize template again. He continues to characterize the removal of these templates as "vandalism" (he has even gone so far as to post a vandalism template warning to RJC's talk page).
Mcorazao's complaint about the content may or may not be valid (although I haven't seen anyone agree with him yet). It has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page. The issue regarding the cleanup templates has been discussed at Talk:Ancient Greece#Revisiting Western bias. Instead of continuing the edit war, I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at it and ask/force Mcorazao to cease the edit war, leave the cleanup tags off the article, and continue his content discussion on the talk page until a consensus is reached. Thanks. SnottyWong ^yak 22:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Note for admins looking into this: If you are looking for a past case to refer to, a similar tag warring event happened over on ADHD a year or two ago. Disagreement around the need for article tags was part of a set of issues that led to an arbitration case. 152.16.15.144 (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The activities mentioned here have already been brought up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-18/Ancient Greece. I honestly have no idea why SW is bent out of shape about this and why he continues to advocate violating Wikipedia policy. --Mcorazao (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. For the record SnottyWong technically was the one who engaged in edit warring but I did not choose to file a complaint. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao has reverted the article nine times since 15 September. The discussion at Talk:Ancient Greece#Revisiting Western bias makes clear he does not have consensus, even if it were not obvious since a variety of different people have undone his tag. Since he is an established editor (2006) he can be assumed to be aware of the WP:Edit warring policy. I have notified him that he may still avoid sanctions if he will undo his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, please act in good faith here. The discussion has only just started. There is no basis to artibrarily shut down the discussion prematurely regardless of any individual's opinion. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, to be clear 3RR applies to content reversions. Cleanup banners cannot be reverted as long as they are placed in good faith and there is a discussion being solicited in good faith. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mcorazao, please take a deep breath and take a look around yourself. In the past few days, three different editors have reverted your addition of the {{globalize}} cleanup tag. You have re-added the template nearly a dozen times. Every editor (so far) who has looked at the situation has come to the same conclusion: the cleanup template is irrelevant, inappropriate, and unnecessary. No one has sided with you, and I would hope that you could be more mature about this. The focus of your efforts should be your content dispute, not the cleanup tag. I would urge you one last time to stop your disruptive edit warring behavior, but continue your content dispute until consensus is reached. If you're unwilling to take that advice, then I would like an admin to judge whether a temporary block would be appropriate. SnottyWong ^express 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • SnottyWong, ask yourself why it is so important to you to close down this discussion. The very purpose of the "globalize" template (as is the case for all of the cleanup templates) is to invite discussion. I don't know your background but I can tell you from experience that when talk page discussions turn acrimonious, as is the case now, many editors who would otherwise want to participate in the discussion stay away. Look at the discussion. Almost none of it has actually discussed the issue (I appreciate that you finally attempted to actually talk about just now). Ask yourself how you are helping Wikipedia by making threats and accusations on that page. All I ever asked for was a discussion and instead I've had to defend my right to ask a question.
  • As I've said before, Wikpedia's policies are there for a reason. I understand the frustration with seeing a banner you do not agree with. I have had people do that on articles that I was working on (RJC did that to me before) and I had to grit my teeth and accept that I had to leave it there while we discussed the issue. The reason for the prohibition against individuals arbitrarily removing cleanup banners that they do not agree with is explicitly so nobody can choose to limit a discussion they don't like. Discussion is the very basis on which Wikipedia is founded. Ask yourself why you are so desperate to change that. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I have been very clear that I want the content discussion to continue until a consensus is reached. Therefore, I am not trying to "close down this discussion". However, the content discussion has been effectively railroaded by your insistence on publicly labeling the article as defective in some way, despite the fact that there is no consensus that the article is defective in the way you describe. Furthermore, the template you have used to label the article as defective doesn't even match up with your description of how the article is defective. The only things I'm trying to "close down" are the superficial things that are disrupting the actual content dispute and pushing it off on a tangent. The harder you push to keep the cleanup tag on the article, the more everyone is going to focus on the cleanup tag and not even discuss the perceived problem with the article. So, please stop adding the cleanup tag, stop making false accusations about how I'm "threatening" you, and just continue the discussion about the content of the article. SnottyWong ^speak 16:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao has been blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Any admin may lift the block if M. will agree to wait for consensus before placing any more templates on the article. The alternative is to allow any editor to place a tag, and maintain it there for several days by reverting, even when that person is alone in their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion

This revision [113] on Diego Forlán would seem to fall under the RD2 criteria for revision deletion, as it's grossly offensive and degrading material. KaySL^talk 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Selket ^Talk 16:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone with a button, help

Can someone please rev-delete this edit summary? There may be more than meets the eye there as well, but I don't have my reading glasses with me. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, I notified the editor--though there isn't much discussion possible here, I think. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• And the editor notified me of the same content on my talk page. Should that be stricken from the record as well? Drmies (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I revdeled the edit summaries. I wasn't sure it could be classed as "grossly insulting", but it sure wasn't anywhere near civil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek. Since some otherwise perfectly sane folks left me some notes on my talk page I'm being extra careful. BTW, it's fascinating how this ethnic stuff plays out on Wikipedia. Things would be very boring if it hadn't been for the nineteenth century and its rise of nationhood. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Distruptive user making too many controversial edits

Based on his personal POV, User:JCAla has made so much controversial edits here, here, here, and here. I tried but was unable to verify his information because nearly all the sources he cited are ambiguous, invalid and lacking verification. I tagged the 2 sections that he named ("Islamic State, Foreign Intrusion and Civil War" --and-- "Taliban Emirate/Pakistan against the United Front") on the Afghanistan page but as soon as he was unblocked he again is removing the tags.[114]. Without explaining why, he is removing my edits which are well sourced.[115] I don't mind him being a strong follower of Ahmad Shah Massoud but his behaviour and edits are not helping Wikipedia. Being a part-time analyst on the current Afghan situation, I followed JCAla's edits very carefully and it appears that his agenda is to bash the Sunni sect of Islam, the states of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Pashto-speaking Mujahideens (Gulbuddin and Haqqani), and on the other hand, praise Ahmad Shah Massoud and the Northern Alliance group of northern Afghanistan. Your help will be very appreciated, thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The same issue again ... Everyone just have a look at WP:ANI: Afghanistan article vandalism by user Jrkso and WP Content noticeboard: Afghanistan. Every source (mostly academic, Human Rights Watch and media reports) has been provided there in all its detail including page numbers. Thanks for wasting our time again, Jrkso. You are the only one pushing an agenda here based on ... well, based on what?—JCAla (talk) 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rev-delete needed for personal information exposure

Resolved

 – already done. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

[116] delete this rev please. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Globalstatus

User:Globalstatus is a relatively new WP:SPA who for the last month and a half has been pushing hard a single point at Russia and Talk:Russia: to add a statement to the article lede that Russia is a recognized superpower. I feel that this is a fairly bad case of WP:PLAGUE POV pushing and the user's presence at the Russia article has become considerably disruptive. The relevant threads there are: [[Talk:Russia#Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 8 August 2010]], Talk:Russia#Article is being abused request to close editing again, Talk:Russia#Superpower status, Talk:Russia#A proposal to settle down the superpower issue, Talk:Russia#Requestioning sources on Russia as great power. A number of other users in these threads have been engaged in working out a reasonable compromise but User:Globalstatus would not budge and keeps repeating the same thing ad naseum, even though objections to his position have been raised on several grounds (that there are a number of sources disputing designation of Russia as a superpower, that some of the sources cited by Globalstatus are themselves biased, that the term "superpower" is POV laden and its discussion may not belong in the lede, and others). User:Globalstatus has been engaged in attacks and questioning good faith of other editors, e.g. [117] and inserting his comments in the middle of other users' comments rather than below them (see the same diff). He has also been trying to ram through actual edits to the Russia article that do not reflect consensus at the talk page, e.g. his recent edits here[118][119]. I feel that this editor's presence at Russia and Talk:Russia has become seriously disruptive and threatens to derail the ongoing GA reassessment where more serious issues have to be dealt with, see Talk:Russia#GAR and urgent work needed. I think there is sufficient evidence of tendentious editing by User:Globalstatus to justify a block for disruption and/or a topic ban for a couple of months for Russia-related topics. In any event, I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Globalstatus' involvement in the dispute is disruptive, especially his edit warring. I hope an uninvolved admin will do something about it, but I'd like to remind that Globalstatus is a new user and in the spirit of WP:BITE we should not treat him too harshly because it could cause him to leave the project completely. I already asked him to step back from the dispute for a week and take a break, but I guess it did not help. Perhaps if an admin asked, it would have more effect? Or perhaps a short block is in order if he doesn't listen. Offliner (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As s/he is a new editor, I have tried reasoning with Globastatus on how to behave (see here). Others have tried similar approaches. But s/he will not listen at all. S/he continues to take matters all over people's talkpages, with a clear POV, and a lack of interest in working with others. The comments from Globalstatus are becoming more and more incoherent, suggesting a rather heightened emotional involvement. I think a block might very effective at bringing him/her to their senses, calming down and either realising that wikipedia doesn't work the way s/he thought, and so work differently, or find another forum.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a short block is probably in order. It should be supplemented with a note on how the user should improve his behaviour. After the block we will see if it helped. Offliner (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from User:Globalstatus

I am responding to discussion as User:Globalstatus- here is my side of the story:

I have mentioned this to User:Nsk92 here about the new intro version [120] and I have posted it on the talkpages here too [121]. The intro is confusing because I have asked and asked questions in favor for sources and no sources have been provided but only comments without sources instead[122][123] here I mentioned that there was no sources under United Nations Security Council by User:Greyhood I replied again to User:Nsk92 and User:Greyhood under the talkpages and ask before these questions by making a new topic of request for answers here[124] and before that I even provided my own listed sources[125] that really went unanswered, I even sent this over to User:Greyhood asking him for more answers [126] but simplying was not providing sources[127][128] and going back to the talkpages asking here[129] and I provided there sources here [130]

In my case for appealing this block I have tried to get the heart of the answers but the content in the intro was changed marely overnight without acedemic sources and not enough time to consensus [131] done. In most cases it should be given sometime to over the talk than rushing to change the intro as User:Nsk92 do not respond with answers but undoing the article [132] (but Nsk92 said it was before 1991 cold war that but there is current superpower status article in the earlier situation which is misleading the reader) even when the consensus was not final. Originally it was User:Nsk92 who wanted to call Russia a great power back in August 8th 2010[133] providing non-acedemic sources on to the intro page. I commented then [134]but I allowed it even though I disagreed with it.

Now that the issue has come back User:Greyhood first went changing the intro page before consensus [135] which stike my attention to stop. User:Greyhood carried on with the editing but less than 24 hours the intro is changed without a single source stating Russia is a great superpower, no one source. Between User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner have not provided a single source of acedemic sources or even some sources to the article. It seems unfair that we have a open article that confuses the readers when Googling "Russia Superpower" [136] but under articles Superpowers, potential superpowers Russia is considered a emerging superpower and no sources but under great powers there is no acedemic sources Russia being a great power either as User:Greyhood said to find the information but he has refused me to look up acedemic sources but he has not replied anything. I even replied to look under United Nations Security Council but no sources of anything that says Russia is a great power which User:Greyhood said there was and nothing exist there either.

I am appealing as I think there is a misconeption here that as much as I have tried to ask I have been denied the answers from User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner but editor User:FellGleaming undid the intro himself and admitted there was a problem[137] by agreeing with me[138]

I also asked User:Nsk92 to respond in providing sources here [139] but he did not respond in anyway.

Like post these sample sources to see my point on Russia as a superpower with titles dates, authors and media sources below here: "Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear" - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010[140], "Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls"; Foreign Policy By Steve LeVine Friday, June 18, 2010 [141] or "Georgia: An Insecure Foothold for the United States" - The Globalist - Martin Sieff June 02, 2010 [142] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament by Sergei Karaganov" - Project-Syndicate News April 4, 2010 [143] or "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az - March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov [144] or "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News Az - June 2010 by Vafa Guluzade[145] or "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News May 1, 2010 by Sergei Karaganov[146] or "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: 05 May 2010 Sergei Karaganov [147] or "Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms" -San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische April 6, 2010 [examiner. com ] or "Right after the uprising" - Sunday's Zaman April 17, 2010 by Dogu Ergil Kyrgyzstan conflict [148] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010[149] or "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric - Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010[150] or "Russia’s mission is Eurasian integration" - RIA Novosti by Xing Guangcheng August 8, 2010[151] or "Guam Back to Life" - RIA Novostiby by Bogdan Tsirdya August 3, 2010[152] or "Armenian base part of Russia's quest for 'superpower' status" - News.Az By Leyla Tagiyeva August 30, 2010[153] or Boost for nonproliferation - The Japan Times April 10, 2010[154] or "Syria asks Russia to lean on Israel" - Asia Times Online By Sami Moubayed May 14, 2010[155]

Now this is 17 sources, I have about 110 total on Russia being a superpower but what gets me is no one is replying to these sources as these are recent sources from this year. I am confused to User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner they are imposing on me as asking too many questions but they don't supply back with any sources to say that Russia is a great power over what I have provided as Russia as a superpower for example. Seems very unfair to me but also to the readers this is confusing them and willing to provide sources to state my claim here.

So I ask is there needs to be either more consensus on this topic to have editors supply answers with sources. If you look at the article currently there is not sources Russia after the works Russia is a great power, not a thing said and User:Nsk92 erased my version when I added this recently twice [156][157] which said: Russia is a great power although such characterization is disputed by some analysts Russia is characterized as a superpower by a number of sources

User:Nsk92 said I was pushing the edits is not true when you see my discussions on the talkpages here[158] yet User:Nsk92 originally wrote this clause back in August 8 [159] by saying: although such characterization is disputed by some analysts.. Which I am writing what he put on the article intro back then applying it again but now he is opposing it. I think User:Nak9 is failing the complaint against me when he was originally apart of this edit conversion from Superpower to Great Power back in August 8, 2010. Seems he is blamming me for something he orginally wrote himself in August 8 but I provided sources to the text for example. You can compare the examples here - this is User:Nsk92 version [160] and mine here version [161]. I am questioning this as it seems User:Nsk92 is more concerned with Russia being called a great power than reading new sources on Russia being a superpower or even them providing sources to other editors vice versa on this discussion. I feel there is something is bothering in this intro because it says Russia being a superpower and User:Nsk92 User:Greyhood rightly oppose it but they did not provide any sources back to support their edits to the article to change Russian from superpower to great power.

I have not bothered anybody but tried to get realible sources using the talkpages (and talkspages on Nsk9, Greyhood and Offline) and I have been denied requested source from answers concerning this matter. I ask for is some from of resolution for a continuing this intro section on the talkpages so sources can be reviewed and able to see and agree in some fashion as there is no sources here and I rightly disgree to this article as it stands which should be addressed. Also the big issue too is allowing acedemic sources and media sources to support Russia being a superpower or even a great power in that in regards too. Can we simply then use sources such as media sources if any sources such as acedemic sources are not available to promote the article? I think this would probably give the article a chance to base it on its available sources to agree with or not depending who provides the sources if Russia is up for being displayed as a superpower or potential superpower or emerging superpower for example? --Globalstatus (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Global, you've made 10 edits to your response. I'd request that in the future that if you're making addendums to your comments, you not refactor what's already on the page as it makes it easier for other users to see what you've written without having to reread six paragraphs and figure out what the difference is by memory. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Elektrik Shoos - Sorry I was only trying to fix my add ins I found on my edits I have added to my case for example. I also have made a few misspellings and some words I missed as examples.--Globalstatus (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Globalstatus is continuing to edit war, and I think he's over 3RR now. Can we get a block please? Offliner (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please. S/he's rejecting academic books published by OUP as sources, for Heaven's sake, and is spamming talkpages. Either a POV warrior, or through incompetence and pigheadedness is a bull in a china shop. There's a very productive GA-focused re-write/clearout of Russia going on to bring it down to an appropriate length, and Globalstatus' interventions are causing havoc. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My reply as User:Globalstatus

I disgree. I have seen some edits that were done without consensus, never broke the 3RR rule either. I am simply questioning some of the sources as seeing some edits made without valid sources to the article. I have posted on the talk pages requesting further sources and acedemic sources to see if the edits were necessary. No abuse at all here to protect the article from lack of sources and questioning the edits done to check if they have their information that's all.--Globalstatus (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My reply as User:Globalstatus

Replying to User:VsevolodKrolikov that I User:Globalstatus have not rejected any OUP sources, there no information that I did that I an object to that statement. My editing history is right here [162] and I have not been spamming the pages either. I have bought up new topics of discussions for editing done on Russia to question the editing when no sources were provided. I have replied to every comment on my talkpages and I have stayed within my own grounds to ask questions on sources. The main problem is there is editing abuse on the article Russia which I will report my information on this page for abusive editing that is a big concern to the viewers and Adminstrators. For now as my response I am not spamming and nor am I doing any 3RR either; I object to User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Offliner comments that is simply untrue.

--Globalstatus (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Here Globalstatus rejects OUP published (and other university imprint) sources without reason - those being the sources at the Great power article, which Globalstatus refuses to acknowledge (bear this in mind when s/he repeats the allegation that no one has offered sources - there are other occasions like this as well, such as here. S/he really is a bit deaf. Here, here, here, and here s/he spams usertalk pages with basically the same message. An inspection of the edit history of the Russia page will show the pattern of editing.

The basic problem is that Globalstatus does not understand that Wikipedia does not take sides in disputes - this one being whether one calls Russia a superpower or not. I don't think s/he understands the topic at all well (what is a "Great power", for example), and it's having an impact on his/her behaviour. S/he shows no signs of understanding how consensus works, and is currently trying to add multiple sources regarding the same speech given by Netanyahu ("one of the world's most important people") on a state visit and in the presence of Vladimir Putin, in which he says some very nice things about Russia. Such a source is superfluous, being the fourth (fifth and sixth) additions tagged to the same POV, and we're trying to cut down on the article's size. Editors have made several efforts to explain matters to Globalstatus, and nothing has had any effect whatsoever.

Establishing 3RR is technically messy, as it's been reverts to several different edits (in addition to fending off the POV attack, editors are also trying to excise material from a very long article), but there have certainly been at least five in 24 hours which undo other editor's work, and more edits that have been clearly against talkpage consensus. Please would an admin deal with this? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have again fixed your posts, Global, per WP:TPO; I've already explained to you that user pages exist in the user namespace, and that if you want to link to them, you must put in the User: prefix. Please either do it correctly or don't do it at all. Users pages are not articles, and are found in the userspace. It's just confusing when we all have to sort out when you are, and when you aren't referring to a user, and not an article. One reason amongst many userpages exist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I as User:Globalstatus am replying to false information by User:VsevolodKrolikov

I object to User:VsevolodKrolikov comments to say about OUP pushing, to say that changing misspelling on by correcting topic title “Requestion sources on Russia as great power from Request sources on Russia as a great power”--Globalstatus (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) is wrong[163]? I am doing him a favor by correcting the title so it can be read properly and that’s all. Second when the discussions pages have been ignored on sources to ask under Russia talk pages about “Requesting sources on Russia being a great power” [164] but the editing is going on the article at the same time with no sources to the article about Russia being a great power and no one is answering to the facts. The viewers have no information on Russia being a great power because this is no information there, nothing! I posted a topic on the discussions pages first here[165] but no one provided any sources. I asked User:VsevolodKrolikov the same question here[166] but nothing, no answers. I asked User:Offliner here[167] but nothing either. I asked User:Nsk92 here [168] and nothing not a single answer. I even asked User:Greyhood too but he didn’t provide any academic sources or any sources either. The issue is that User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have all called Russia a great power but none of them have provided any sources to the article Russia but when I gave them some examples of my own sources they all rejected them for some reason. Hearing User:VsevolodKrolikov in his complaint about me above by supplying one of my own sources on Russia being a superpower by Prime Minister Netanyahu on a visit to Russia in Feb. 16, 2010 in this media statement source why Russia is a global superpower, here is the source I provided here [169] but reading User:VsevolodKrolikov his disruptive comments above in his complaint here - S/he shows no signs of understanding how consensus works, and is currently trying to add multiple sources regarding the same speech given by Netanyahu (one of the world's most important people) on a state visit and in the presence of Vladimir Putin, in which he says some very nice things about Russia. Such a source is superfluous. What a hurtful comment on a valid source and then User:VsevolodKrolikov goes on to say here - being the fourth (fifth and sixth) additions tagged to the same POV, and we're trying to cut down on the article's size. That is false too. If you look at the massive editing history on Russia ‘s article here [170] you will notice the massive changes in the last few days, especially by User:Greyhood who is editing and editing on the Russia article and doing so with not much sources to his edits. But then User:VsevolodKrolikov goes on and says here - Editors have made several efforts to explain matters to User:Globalstatus, and nothing has had any effect whatsoever. - Again this is another false statement completely. Editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have been engage together on Russia article saying Russia is a great power without a single source of information and they refused to believe Russia is a superpower, refused the facts with valid credited sources, all refused to corporate with this matter. But when the terms were switched from Russia is a superpower to great power edited by User:Greyhood here [171] which editors User:Offliner , User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 they all defended the article and refused the sources otherwise that Russia is a superpower. Even today when I tried to add a new area of Russia being a space super with this source [172] and what happens 3 minutes later User:Nsk92 erases it here [173] and says - stop your superpower POV pushing already! I find that very offensive because I edited a brand new source under a different area of the article and I am being threatened by User:Nsk92 which he even writes here on September 18 this comment here [174] which is really uncalled for. I have never called any of these editors anything but asked questions on facts but now I have been threaten by Editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood , User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 because of asking for questions on needed sources to the article Russia and they have all denied the truth. This is really uncalled for that the article Russia is being called a great power and they refuse to change the content and they refuse to give sources why. This is extremely unfair and I feel it is bullying the article because they are misrepresenting the article to the readers reading it and I am simply doing the right thing by asking for their sources and they will not provide anything. It is like they do not want to answer anything in regards to Russia being a great power but they take so much offensive for Russia being called a superpower through when the sources say that.

Hatting long list of sources which are causing sideways scrolling. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a strong believer of sources in this matter and because the sources on massive general note what is mostly common source of information on Russia is that it is being called a superpower today in the media and not a great power. Here is a library of several sources of over 90 sources that say Russia is a superpower of the 21st century, here is my information right here to read my sources: [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237]

I remain defending myself here and I speak the truth of my questioning the article and I have done so in way to properly ask but this guys User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have treated me with no respect in this matter to ask for the facts. I think personally the article should be closed for editing for a while until we can the facts sorted out but also the disruption of these editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have caused to the article and is simply unfair. Please if you can make some time to read my sources I have provide above and then read the intro section on article Russia under great power to see my point why it is completely misleading that should be fixed as there is no sources at all supporting it. Thanks--Globalstatus (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Will an uninvolved admin PLEASE take a look at the situation? The disruption and relentless POV pushing by Globalstatus is causing significant problems at the Russia article, in the middle of GA reassessment. A block for tendentious editing is long overdue. Nsk92 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am reporting User:Nsk92 to admin for harassment and for making false accusations to this complaint, seems he is hiding the truth here and is contining to this disrupt edits and is lying by making false accusations on POV pushing. User:Nsk92 has been undoing edits and making threats to editors on Russia and refusing to work on consensus among editors. Requesting a block on User:Nsk92 for disruptive conduct on Wikipedia.--Globalstatus (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent to Nsk92's statement here, Globalstatus has placed a warning for edit warring on Russia on user:Nsk92's talkpage. This is a clear abuse of warning templates. Nsk92 has edited Russia twice in the last three days. It would be really, really, nice if an admin could address the issue of Globalstatus' behaviour. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am responding to these false accusations by User:VsevolodKrolikov defending User:Nsk92 for creating conflicting edits here[238] and here [239] and again here [240]. That fact that User:Nsk92 is pushing POV without reading the consensus first and leaves it like it is when there is an error on the article Russia. User:Nsk92 has blocked my edits without consensus and rudely defiant in his comments saying this -POV pushing edits against consensus at the talk page; in any event the sentence in question talks about USSR being a superpower while the refs added are about modern Russia stop your "superpower" POV pushing already and then sayaing this - rv POV pushing edit against consensus at the talk page and saying this - no consensus for such edit at the talk page. The fact is there is already consensus first but User:Nsk92 is ignoring them, as I put on consensus this[241] which User:Nsk92 has no comments but he acts like this [242] [243] [244] [245] is very uncalled for but User:VsevolodKrolikov is defending him because both User:VsevolodKrolikov User:Nsk92 have not comments on the talkpages with sources needed to defend Russia being a great power (which is not true because on reliable sources[246] say Russia is a superpower) to go over the consensus but User:Nsk92 is in reverting edits and that is unjust to the article.

The censensus on the talkpages of Russia has not been effective as the article remains misleading because User:VsevolodKrolikov User:Nsk92 have ignored sources any sources in that matter trying to pretend they have finalized that Russia is a great power when sources say it is not and the consensus is not finalized. I think the consensus should continue with more discussions and I think possibly putting a edit block on the article Russia because it has been numerous times blocked for editing vandalism in the past and I am seeing a pattern of this now how by User:Nsk92 , User:Greyhood User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Offliner are abusing the article. I am going to make a case on a edit block on the article simply because the consensus is being ignored and the article is being edited against consensus at the sametime. I defend myself from these false accustions from User:VsevolodKrolikov User:Nsk92 as both are defending the misleading intro without sources. Please have an Adminstrator view the article Russia and the consensus pages on the to request for sources that are being ignored by the editors User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Nsk92 , User:Offliner and User:Greyhood . There should be an Adminstrator come in the discussions on the article Russia and mention what kind of sources (with a new topic from the Adminstator explaining to the editors that what is acception for sources)if acedemic or different valid sources, such as imedia sources are ok or if media blogs if in case there is a limitability on acedemic sources to sort out this matter then what sources would be allowed for example. Because User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Nsk92 , User:Offliner and User:Greyhood are making it a railroad block on saying they will only accept acedemic sources but when User:Nsk92 added his sources here [247] these are not acedemic sources at all. Then you have User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Nsk92 , User:Offliner and User:Greyhood say I need to have acedemic sources to say Russia is a superpower but is ok for User:Nsk92 to use non acedemic sources[248][249][250] on the article to say Russia is a great power? That's the abuse on this article and it simply needs to have a Adminstrator outline what type what sources is acceptable for reliable sources because these editors User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Nsk92 , User:Offliner and User:Greyhood are ingoring the rules of reliable sources[251].

Please have an adminstrator review this article and consensus as it is not working because there needs to be some alerts basis of editing abuse on Russia and talkpages.

--Globalstatus (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image from GA with no explanation.

Hi. I was just wondering if anyone knew why File:Cheryl cole 3 words video.JPG was deleted, even though to my best knowledge it was properly accredited. It would be appreciated if when images like this from the music video section are deleted from GAs or FAs, someone makes it a point of courtesy to inform the user who took the article to GA. If not for this reason its at least good, for a user such as myself who contribute to lots of articles, to know the error for future reference. In no wat I'm I having a go at whoever deleted the image, rather the opposite. If there was a genuine issue its useful for me to know for the future when uploading images. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons, not here, so we cannot see the reasons for its deletion. Better to ask an admin there. Rodhullandemu 00:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware it was moved to the commons. Thank you anway. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm now not so sure about that; I can find no reference to that image even in your deleted contribs; but neither can I find any deleted uploads from you of similarly-named images. Do you have diffs to show that the image ever existed? Rodhullandemu 00:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Local log shows it deleted by Fastily, who is now retired. The specific reason he used was "Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding." If someone wants to dispute this further, an admin might as well undelete it; I don't think it's a huge deal if it was used in the appropriate section of the article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a really rotten screen grab of a video. I really can't see what value that could possibly add. Out of curiosity why are we promoting articles to GA if there are issues about the use of non-free images in them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

GA has guidelines but not fixed criteria. Promotion is up to the people who conduct GA reviews, although it is subject to later review if there is disagreement. In any case many GA's have issues of one sort or another -- GA means good article, not perfect article. Looie496 (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I enjoy seeing as many images as possible of girls that look like that, the article looks fine as is with the other images. It might have been polite to give a heads up to the other projects that it was being deleted but these things happen.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're having a laugh aren't you Spartaz? We've promoted articles to FA before with non-free image issues, let alone GA. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether fair use images are used in a GA or FA, it's whether their use is appropiate and within policy. Exxolon (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That was Black Kite's point too, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Hence the word "issues". Clearly no-one is saying they should never be used in a GA or FA, that would be ludicrous. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not an image expert, but I don't think this was a speedy case. You could take this to WP:DRV for discussion if you were so inclined. My guess is that it would end up deleted anyways based on Spartaz's comments, but it might be worth a try. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

either way this shouldn't have been made into a big issue. The image was present for a long timeand it was used in the music video section as a visual representation of Cole's platinum wig which features prominently in the music video of the song. Whilst i respect comments made about articles being promoted to GA and FA without images or when images have issues it is frequently brought up by reviewers, who often say "Why is there no image of the music video"? I think the current guideline is not clear enough. The judgement of "whether the image adds contextual significance" is subjective to each individual reviewing editor. What constitutes a contextual significance? surely "Cole dressing up in a platinum wig and using make-up to portray a pale complexion" has contexual significance because in the video she looks different to who she normally looks in real life. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And things that require judgment aren't good candidates for speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Its ok the image has been replaced with alternative and with a better description that has more of a position in the article and its significance has been better explained. I just want to end by saying that really something should be done when images like this are considered for deletion. As there is an element of judgement the controlling admin should have nominated the uploader and started a discussion. Anyway that is all. Thanks for everyone's comments/help. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Qwasty

Qwasty (talk · contribs)

Does anyone have prior experience with this user? Goes on bizarre campaigns of "reverting vandalism", dumps unsigned final warnings on my talkpage[252] (and apparently others[253][254][255][256][257][258][259]). Fails the Turing test: apparently revert-wars based on byte-counts (reducing article size = vandalism), does not appear to be willing or able to consider the issue or the argument presented.

Probably just an overzealous kid, but imho it's an ANI item because of the bizarre final warnings and the silly cries of "vandalism". WP:BATTLEGROUND. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing seems like a content dispute. The only problem is that User:Qwasty ignores WP:AGF and WP:DTTR. Instead of attacking everyone who reverts his edits, he should be told to bring his dispute to the talk page first. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of dispute it is. So far, hundreds of edits that aren't even mine are being reverted without any justification (mostly bot formatting edits). Verbal abuse similar to the above does not constitute discussion: "Fails the Turing test", "overzealous kid", "silly", etc. It's tough to assume good faith from a fountain of insults and mass destruction of hundreds of edits from numerous editors, with no edit summary. Dbachmann SEEMS to have concerns worthy of discussion, but I haven't been able to get him to discuss them in the appropriate talk page sections. Qwasty (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your complaints about the US and UK undue weight tags, they were discussed above your new sections.

Also, all the examples given of the improper use of warning templates, while inappropriate, are from four years ago, except for Dbachs. Ishdarian|lol^wut 10:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The undue weight sections weren't discussed. They were created immediately after the tags were placed, and they are still almost entirely empty. After that, the tags, the sections, and every edit in the days prior which were done by myself, the approved bots, and other users were all mass reverted to Dbachmann's last edits. What little "discussion" there is consists mostly of personal attacks and red herrings about subjects other than mass revert. No one has been able to focus on a single relevant topic of discussion yet. Dbachmann even went so far as to try to consolidate the discussion topics I created under a heading "Qwasty", which I find to be merely further flippancy that does not aid discussion. In essence, the only clear message I'm receiving from Dbachmann is his desire to dominate the article, including in such minor areas as bot formatting edits, by reverting all edits made after his own. The rest of his communications are so rife with angst and vitriol, it's difficult to extract further meaning from them. Qwasty (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not super-impressed with the accusations of vandalism and verbal abuse, nor the edit warring at witch-hunt. So far most of the discussion seems to have been about the abusive actions of dab rather than the edits themselves. It's possible the edits are justified and the references are there to support them, but so far I've yet to see them. Dab's actions are perhaps slightly controversial, but not outrageous and certainly not vandalism. I repeat here my suggestion made to Qwasty at talk:witch-hunt to calm down, present sources and discuss. It is possible there is information that could be included on the page, but that depends on the sources and I've yet to see them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, there's been little to no complaint about statements that are unsourced. On top of that, I have been doing the research and adding sources on my own. That process was halted in mass reverts. Dab/Dbachmann has provided no avenue of resolution other than to insist on destruction of all edits. Each communication from him is provocative in nature. Hostile, minimal communication immediately precludes a presumption of good faith, and combined with groundless wide-ranging destruction can reasonably be construed as vandalism. Perhaps vandalism targeted to me personally, or the bots, or the other editors affected - but still vandalism. Qwasty (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read the definition of vandalism. Seriously, you are quite, quite wrong.

I have now complained about a lack of sources. Dbachmann has engaged on the talk page, now it's up to you to do so as well. Despite claiming hostility and ridicule, the comments aren't particularly offensive - especially given your own behaviour. Please calm down, and assemble the best sources to substantiate your point. Then present it for discussion to the three people who are waiting to see the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This diff seems like canvassing. Ishdarian|lol^wut 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested, this has reached an edit-war level with a 3RR violation in the works. Over the past three days there have been no less than eight reverts ([260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267]) to the same version, with Qwasty being the only editor in favour while three have actively reverted the changes (myself, Dbachmann five times and Huon twice). Despite requesting "substantive discussion" on the talk page, the actual "issues" raised consist mostly of accusations of vandalism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by an anon user

An anon user has made a lot of troubles during the last week in some articles, using several IPs and probably his account. His edits have almost always to do with Piraeus, he adds or removes it in these articles according to his personal point of view, he has started several edit wars reverting any other user. The IP address he has used recently are 79.107.161.144 (talk · contribs), 79.107.65.171 (talk · contribs), 79.107.4.49 (talk · contribs), 79.107.39.246 (talk · contribs). There is a suspicion that he is Pplatis (talk · contribs), edit warring mainly as an anon user to avoid punishment. User:Pplatis has a long history of disruptive editing and edit warring in the same or related articles in the past, he has been warned a lot of times by different users (see his talk page) and his account was blocked for a while. He obviously has some kind of obsession that Piraeus is neglected in wikipedia articles in favour of Athens, while it should be treated as the centre of its own metropolitan area, not as a suburb of Athens (he has stated in the past that he lives in Piraeus [268]). He had the same behaviour in the Greek wikipedia, he used alternatively his account or IPs to revert the others in the same articles, thus his account is permanently blocked [269]. Another IP address (109.242.142.28 (talk · contribs)) helped him in an edit war ([270], [271]) and posted a weird message in his talk page [272], which means "Mate we'll upset them". The articles of his interest are:

• Piraeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he constantly renamed the Athens urban area to Athens-Piraeus urban area or denying that Piraeus is part of the Athens urban area reverting other users ([273], [274], [275], [276], [277]), until the article was semi-protected.
• Patras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he changed the part that Patras is the third largest urban area in Greece, since in his opinion Piraeus is a separate urban area and larger than Patras ([278], [279], [280], [281]). The article was semi-protected.
• ISAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he always renamed the Athens metropolitan area to Athens-Piraeus as well ([282], [283], [284], [285], [286]). The article was semi-protected.
• Athens Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He moved in an inappropriate way this article twice ([287], [288]) to Attiko Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was eventually deleted, because in his opinion the article should be called Attiko (from Attica) instead of Athens Metro, since it serves the metropolitan area called in his mind Athens-Piraeus. The correct name of the metro system is "Athens Metro" [289], while "Attiko Metro" is the company that operates both the Athens and the Thessaloniki Metro.
• Olympiacos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He constantly removes the word "Athens" from the leading paragraph, according to his view that Piraeus doesn't belong to the Athens urban area ([290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295]).
• He has also posted an abusive message here, while he named himself an expert in my talk page, both in Greek. Another offensive message [296] was posted in the same talk page during a discussion by another IP (91.140.87.179 (talk · contribs)).

Could anyone help with this? - Sthenel (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

After the recent edit war that he started in Olympiacos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the page was semi-protected. Now he uses another IP address 79.107.187.145 (talk · contribs) and began the same work in Olympiacos CFP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). - Sthenel (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive activity at AfD by User:Figmentary

Figmentary (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account adding almost textbook-case against-policy and deliberately vague (or even nonsense) !votes to AfDs: they've hit 3 AfDs with the only three contributions they've made, at the time of this writing. For example, they said that wikitruth "only lasted a couple of years and did nothing important" and that Goatse Security "only ever did one thing, and even the article says that was hardly newsworthy", which is patently false upon reading the article. The user appears to be a troll, and given their familiarity with AfD, may also be a sock of another user. I'm not sure what exactly could or should be done about this, but perhaps someone else is familiar with another user that this might be a sock of. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Personal attack by User:Figmentary removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not something I recognise, but I agree that their post here (since removed) was unacceptable. GW has issued a WP:NPA warning, but I'm not confident that this editor is here to be productive. A new editor who heads straight to XfDs...? Stranger things have happened but it tends to be a bad sign. Coupled with their post here - very troubling. TFOWR 19:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with the user making policy-based arguments, whether I disagree with them or not. In fact, I don't even have an issue with them making arguments against policy; they'll only be ignored anyway. But using their first three edits to state blatant falsehoods and arguments in three different AfDs with no grounding in policy at all, strikes me as simple trolling. The comment left here which I redacted seems to make that all the more likely. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Require someone with more patience than me at the moment....

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks. -Selket ^Talk 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor User talk:68.7.231.244 has just returned from a one week block for harassment and has 'hit the floor running' so to speak. On September 14, this editor was twice warned by me for re-adding unreferenced BLP list material to articles. Their response was a series of postings vandalizing my user page threatening an "edit war" [297]; indulging in a bit of gratuitous 'gender slurring' [298] threatening to "UNDO ALL YOUR EDITS. INDEFINATELY"(sic) [299] and several subsequent and equally sordid postings [300] [301][302] [303], all in the context of vandalizing my user page; not my talk page. I attempted to communicate with this editor via both warning templates and a more personal 'note' [304] on their talk page and was met on September 14 in both cases with more vandalism. The editor was subsequently temporarily blocked. This editor has resurfaced today and has begun again re-adding the same unreferenced BLP list materials to articles without benefit of an edit summary. I'd appreciate it if someone with less bias than I have in this case have a look at the matter. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this; it's genuinely appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Another incident on Talk:Halo: Reach that needs redacting as per RD#2 [305]. KaySL^talk 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

More on these requests at AN, where it seems a useful conversation needs to be held. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if this is the wrong place to post such requests; lacking knowledge of anywhere else to go, here seemed the most logical. KaySL^talk 19:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all - ANI seems to be currently the best place. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 123.198.8.94 at List of Donkey Kong characters

• 123.198.8.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• List of Donkey Kong characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can some administrator kindly look at this IP's behavior? Every one of their contributions revolves around the addition of a hoax character to the list, and they have repeatedly reverted attempts to remove the hoax. At the moment, they haven't quite been warned enough for AIV, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs; welcomed with an anon-vandal welcome template. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Incredibly Obese Black Man

Resolved

 – IOBM apologized, Jpg accepted. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 01:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Two days ago, Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a request to rename My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult. After receiving some oppose !votes, he comes back and posts a long, abusive rant where he says "fuck you" to everyone who disagrees with him. Can somebody block him? Thanks. jgpTC 03:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): If anything, that would be a block for a mass personal attack, but since it was two days ago, it would be punishment at this point in my opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you directed him to WP:NPAand WP:CIVIL? As a relatively new user, he may be unaware of Wikipedia's policies and conventions and perhaps it would be good to refer him to those policies? Except in the really eggregious cases, we generally don't block without warning. His rant is certainly inappropriate, but is it inappropriate enough for an instablock, with no warning or chance to fix his behavior or apologize? --Jayron32 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits by User:Incredibly Obese Black Man were not made two days ago, but were in fact made three hours ago. I recommend a block for a mass personal attack. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...didn't realize he was new. jgpTC 03:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Overt troll...probably a previous ban...see "first edit"...doesn't even know how to fudge a new user account.--MONGO 03:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the user about NPAs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Might want to alert him to this discussion...maybe he'll come here and make nice-nice like he did earlier.--MONGO 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do believe he is aware, he has posted on my and User:Jgp's talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jgp had already warned him. David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I;m aware. Not a troll. I started to contribute to KMFDM's discography and some other bands. Even wrote some software to help. I wanted to contribute to a topic that a lot of people aren't familiar with. Sorry you guys disagree. Maybe I'll put this behind me in a month and finish contributing to the discography I was working on. Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See, the deal is, we want your contributions. There's nothing wrong with them, on the balance. What happened here is that you made a suggested change, two people disagreed with that suggestion, and then you went off on a curse-filled rant over what was essentially two good-faith opinions over your proposed move. That was way out of proportion to what was going on there. There's no need to pitch a fit, and its counterproductive to working with others when you do that. If you have things to add to Wikipedia, please do so, but you can't say "fuck you" to everybody as soon as they disagree with you. You just can't. Try to be more civil and try to work with others, not in opposition to them. --Jayron32 04:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not a troll; he was editing as an IP for a week or two, and I suggested he get an account to edit with. He's been a good contributor, and has done a lot of tedious clean up on a lot of pages in the last few weeks. Definitely no need for a block. He just needs to chill out and get back to productive editing. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well--since he's apologized, and I accept the apology, can this be marked resolved? jgpTC 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Sv1xv (talk · contribs) and Sthenel (talk · contribs)

Vandalism Sv1xv (talk · contribs) and Sthenel (talk · contribs). Sthenel and Sv1xv removes from Piraeus, ILPAP, ISAP, Olympiacos F.C. etc the Athens-Piraeus urban area or Athens-Piraeus metropolitan etc. There isn't Athens urban area where included Piraeus urban according to laws of Greece State (ΡΣΑ and 3852/10 etc). Sv1xv also made troubles in article ILPAP together with a anonymous user, even if Zappeio is not written on the trolleybus and in official ILPAP website 21-trolley-[306].--79.107.161.144 (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pplatis (talk · contribs), who is hiding behind this IP address, insists in adding a reference to the city of Piraeus, Greece, in any article he likes, whether it is appropriate or not. Frequently he edits or reverts anonymously. He is permanently blocked on el.wiki for sockpuppetry [307]. Since then he protects himself by editwarring anonymously. However the pattern of his edits is clear enough and his identity is obviously confirmed by this post above.

Last year he created a mess with greek rapid transit articles ISAP and Athens Metro, because Piraeus is not stated in the latter article they way he would like. FYI Athens Metro and ISAP are (at least for the time being) completely separate rail systems, under different ownership. This is clearly explained in both these articles and also summarized in Athens Mass Transit System. ISAP predecessors serve Piraeus since 1869 while the two lines of Athens Metro do not (yet).

He regularly replaces anonymously the entry for ILPAP line 21, removing routing via P. Ralli avenue, disregarding the official source.

He is also involved in aggressive war editing articles about soccer clubs in Piraeus area, in which I am not involved. I cannot comment whether his soccer related edits are accurate and based on sources or not.

SV1XV (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Im not together with Skgxt, Pplatis and the anonymous users.

I do not have no relation with the recantations in article ILPAP. The user was changing Line 21 to Zappeio-Nikaia, you was changing to Zappeio-P.Ralli-Nikaia and the right according to the official web page of ILPAP in Athens-P.Ralli-Nikaia [308].

You must stop the counterfeit and you harmonize as to norms and laws of State.

--79.107.187.145 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of derogatory term to describe Irish Catholics

Resolved

 – Editor in question has removed the term and pledged not to use such language here anymore. No further action seems to be required. –xeno^talk 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please ask User:Marknutley to stop referring to Irish Catholics as "Micks", which is a derogatory term according to among other sources The color of words: an encyclopaedic dictionary of ethnic bias in the United States.[309] Here is the history (on Talk:Libertarianism#The Workers Solidarity Movement):

• User:Marknutley: ... they are a mick anarchist group.[310]
• User:Iota: Mark, what do you mean by the adjective "Mick"?"[311]
• [my comment]: It is a racial slur for Irish and I am removing it.[312]
• User:Iota strikes though the word.[313]
• User:Marknutley removes strike through with no comment.[314]
• User:Marknutley: No it`s not TFD, i` m a mick. Do not assume to speak for my people, thanks.[315]
• User:Iota: Mark, I'm sure you didn't intend any offence but please think again about using that word on talkpages. A random reader of this page would just see the ethnic slur, and would have no idea that you're Irish, until you were challenged and pointed it out.[316]
• User:Iota strikes through word with notation "Refactoring ethnic slur"[317][318]
• User:BlueRobe: As for marknutley's use of the term "mick", I am certain that he was using local colloquialism and intended no slur (especially given that, by his own admission, he is a "mick"). Let's not be too precious about our language in here. We already have enough things to argue about.[319]
• I redact struck-through word.[320]
• User:Tmorton166: Can we call this point made. Mark may have not meant harm, but here on the internet with no way of verifying any claims about oneself it is best to shy away from controversial terms.[321]
• user:Marknutley restores word in capital letters with notation, "do not redact this again, i am fucking proud of my heritage",[322] and writes on my talk page, "Oi Do not edit my comments again, we do not need anyone to take offence on our behalf and should i wish to describe myself and my people as micks then i will. Any further editing of my comments in violation of TPG will result in a report to ANI."[323]

Some other editors had also observed that the use of the term was unhelpful. I see no reason why mark nutley needs to use this slur, and even if he is an Irish Catholic, it does not excuse disparagement of them.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD you do not have the right to take offence for the use of mick on behalf of the irish people. If i want to describe myself as a mick i will and it is my god given right to describe myself as i see fit. That is all i have to say on the matter mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So if I were discussing things at the Black Panthers talk page, I could refer to them as "a nigger anarchist group" and get away with it since I am black? Tarc (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm on board with your right to not take offence, but what exactly gives you the right to decide what others might take offence too? There's no free speech, or god given rights, here. Are the words you choose to use necessary for article improvement? --Onorem♠Dil 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am Irish, it is a derogatory term and should be removed. Mo ainm~Talk 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutely, you weren't "describing yourself as a mick." Instead, you called another group of people a "mick anarchist group". Claiming you have a god given right to use an ethnic slur in such fashion makes it obvious that you're the user with the attitude problem here, not TFD.

(edit-conflict)Agree with Tarc and Onorem, just because you take no offence at using the word doesnt mean that there arent possibly millions who do. I'm not Irish, but I am Jewish and I would be highly offended if someone used the words "kyke" or "JAP" (Jewish American Princess, has nothing to do with a Japanese person!), both words were begun by Jews about other Jews (kyke by German Jews refering to Russian Jews whom they felt were less educated and backwards and with a totally non-Western culture). There has been alot in the news lately about the Jersey Shore and other such shows using the word "Guido" for Italian-Americans, this is a national debate about ethnic/racial groups and how they coopt hate words for pride. A group self-identifying does not justify the use of the word. Especially on Wikipedia. Which it has rightly been pointed out- we do not have a freedom of speech nor does the US Constitution's First Amendment apply to us (Wikimedia Foundation is a non-governmental entity, a private non-profit organization). I dont feel any derogatory words are necessary to refer to any group, whether you belong to the group or not. If there is not at least a guideline that spells this out perhaps we need to bring this before the Village pump and start along the process of discussing the merits of adding that to WP:Talk page guidelines.Camelbinky (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'll pardon a slight digression, why did "Catholic" gain a seat at this particular table? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are refering to the original complaint using the word "Irish Catholic" I am not sure but it may stem from American's hearing the word most commonly used against those Irish that are Catholic and less likely to hear it about Protestants (from Ireland or N. Ireland). Historically in the 1800s during the large waves of Irish immigration starting with those to Upstate NY to build the Erie Canal in the 1820s to the building of the eastern section of the Trans-continental RR in the 1860s and the Potato Famine and such, the Catholics tended to be the ones who assimilated slower due to ethnic discrimination "No Irish need apply" signs in NYC as example. Those that were Protestant assimilated quicker because in America the discrimination against Irish tended to be because of American's (and English/British) long-standing anti-papist sentiments. (See: Al Smith's presidential run in which Long Island was burned end to end with crosses; the KKK's anti-Catholic sentiments, even the fears of Americans that JFK would "take orders from the Pope).Camelbinky (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Some quotes:

together with the explanation in OED that mick is 'applied jocularly to an Irishman' and '[a]lso sometimes applied derogatorily'...This occurs most frequently in OED, where many essentially 'negative' words (e.g. mick, clot, bird, hussy, minx, jade, bounder, skunk) are said to have also a playful, jocular, friendly or familiar application.

— Norri, J. (2000). "Labelling of Derogatory Words in Some British and American Dictionaries" (PDF). International Journal of Lexicography. 13 (2): 71–106. doi:10.1093/ijl/13.2.71.

The hurt inflicted is all the more painful when the individual is a member of a minority or suppressed group. Chink for Chinese, Wop for Italian, Spic for Hispanic (Spanish-American), Yid for Jew, Mick for Irish, Hunk for Hungarian—all are words more or less insulting. The newer dictionaries have, in fact, accepted this viewpoint, and now, if they list such words at all, indicate that they are offensive.

— 

For example, in the United States, a list of DELs [derogatory ethnic labels] would include the following, among others: “beaner,” “camel jockey,” “chink,” “frog,” “gandhi,” “gook,” “guinea,” “honky,” “jap,” “kike,” “kraut,” “mick,” “nigger,” “nip,” “peckawood,” “polack,” “spic,” and “wop.”

— Smitherman, Geneva (1988). Discourse and Discrimination. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 9780814319581. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Therefore, while it is understandable (per the first quote) that Mark might not find the use of the word "Mick" offense, it is also unrealistic to assume that other editors will not. (A black editor referring himself as a "Nigger" might be a similar analogy). Therefore, I would strongly advise Mark to refrain from using "Mick" to describe himself or anyone else. NW (Talk) 17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I already said on my talkpage [324] i will not use it again. A fact TFD was well aware of when he posted this complaint here [325] mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Except you came to this AN/I and said it was your "God given right" to continue to say it. So please understand if we were a bit confused.Camelbinky (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the removal of the racial slur Xeno? Mo ainm~Talk 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky i said it was my god given right to describe myself as i see fit, i said on my talkpage i would no longer use mick. See the difference there? Mo ainm, it is not a racial slur mark nutley (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It may not be in your eyes, but it is in the eyes of others. So yes, don't use it again, and yes, any usage that isn't specifically referring to yourself gets removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is, I listened to right wing fascist arseholes in England use the term to describe me and I for one am not happy with its use to describe a group of people from Ireland. Mo ainm~Talk 18:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

@Mo ainm, seeing as it spawned a long conversation about the use of the word on the talk page, removing it outright would be confusing and I will not strike someone else's words (but do encourage Mark to do so in the interest of harmonious editing). –xeno^talk 18:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Mark has removed it though it remains in the followup conversation. Removing the entire thread seems pointless if Mark has promised not to do it again. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats fair enough. Mo ainm~Talk 18:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the conversation is interleaved with on-topic talk about the article, so the thread should not be removed wholesale. Mark has removed the word altogether, so this seems to be even more resolved than before. –xeno^talk 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kerrist. I was raised as a 'Mick' and if 'Proddies' took the mickey out of 'us', we laughed and gave as good as we got. We took pride in it, and used it among ourselves as a term of self-identification. What happened to the good old days of English humour where Steptoe and co., made us laugh at prejudice by laughing off the stereotypes? What is scandalous here is not people plying the worrybeads of politcal correctness, by now the disease has set in, and everyone seems infected. Rather, I'm worried that some Micks appear take offence these days. They didn't in the past. We musta been made of sterner stuff, with tougher ribs for ribbing. We're going to the dogs, fast.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Either that or the world has changed. English humo[u]r is one thing, but this is not a English people-only site--others participate here as well. Some of the things you might call political correctness are what I might call civility, and more civility and fewer racist and ethnic slurs, that is a good thing in my book. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for NPA: [326], A bee up someone's ass. Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, as someone who supported Mark being blocked for 24 hours if he didnt understand what he did was wrong and thought it ok to continue to use the word I feel dirty now opposing this 72 hour block for NPA but in all fairness I must. The bee in his ass comment is hardly a personal attack, and definitely not one needing a 72 hour block... can another admin please review that block. Doesnt seem right.Camelbinky (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I work with a bunch of Irish people. "Bee up his arse" is about as offensive as "Got his knickers in a twist." There is no personal attack there; this is a bad block. → ROUX ₪ 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The comment may or may not be offensive, but, more certainly, mark nutley's insistence on deflecting any blame and speculating on the motivation and disposition of another editor is clearly not meant to de-personalize the issue. BigK HeX (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad block of User:marknutley

Resolved

 – I've unblocked; see User_talk:Marknutley#September_2010 for detailed rationale Rodhullandemu 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

In a thread above we discussed Mark's use of a derogatory word. He was not blocked for that. He was however blocked for 72 for saying the editor who brought him there had a "bee up his arse" about him. This is equivalent to be saying to another user- you have a bee in your bonnet. It is saying someone is upset. There was no personal attack. At least one editor in that thread agreed with me. Can a NON-INVOLVED admin please review the block. I informed Mark on his talk page and as I assume that is being watched by the blocker that he has been informed as well.Camelbinky (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was the user who agreed. There is no personal attack there whatsoever. Admins who are unfamiliar with UK and Irish colloquialisms should refrain from blocking when such colloquialisms are used. Marknutley should be unblocked immediately. → ROUX ₪ 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• While not one hundred percent civil this is no where near a "egregious" personal attack and warnings should've occurred rather then a hasty block IMO. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I originally declined the unblock. My reasoning in the unblock decline is clear, and I encourage looking at that before anyone comments here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say taking everything into account, a block was jutified, but in this case could've been shorter, 24 or 31h. (Non-administrator comment) --Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) The diff in question is clearly not a personal attack and he shouldn't have been blocked for it. BWilkins, I noted your decline reasoning before commenting here, but I hardly think that saying that someone's annoyed at him (which is essentially what the phrase means) can be called a personal attack. There's no doubt that there is a lot of tension between the two users, and I don't see how that statement could be construed as anything other than a harmless statement to that effect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• A poor block, and a weakly-reasoned decline IMHO. Saying "User X appears to be annoyed with me" is not a personal attack against User X, and employing a colourful but non-offensive colloquialism to express the same sentiment doesn't turn it into one. Thparkth (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• The statement was rude, and an editor with nine blocks in the past year (not counting the one withdrawn as incorrect) has hit the zero-tolerance point. Looie496 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, all those blocks are for edit warring. –xeno^talk 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Blocks are preventative, not punitive: the user's block history may serve to aide a blocking admin in deciding how long a block is appropriate to prevent further disruption to the project, but it doesn't mean that we block users for something which no one else would be blocked for. Rude is one thing, a personal attack is quite another. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Block not necessary. Marknutley would have been way wiser to have gone for a beer at that point (as he once advised me in similar circumstances), but he had already backed down from the original issue, and it was definitely not a personal attack. Does the US not have an equivalent expression "got a bug up his bum"? I'd reduce it to time served and a warning to mind his gob (as the saying goes). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Block inappropriate. Escalating disruption that needs to be dealt with is one thing, but this was an extremely weak rationale for an NPA block (or any block for that reason) and it wasn't a particularly disruptive thing to say, especially considering it was to their own talk page and taken in context of a euphamism.   Thorncrag  23:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Strong expressions of opinion are not uncommon here. They are part and parcel of the discourse between editors, but we are not a senior common room in some college somewhere. However, when the line is crossed between rough and tumble debate is grossly exceeded, warnings and sanctions should follow. It's unfortunate that the editor in question here has an unenviable block log, but that is IMO no reason to block for a strongly-worded opinion which does not personally attack an opposing editor. People might accuse me of having a "bee in my bonnet" about enforcing WP:BLP, but I wouldn't take that as a personal attack. Similarly with content disputes, which this board is not intended to resolve. Unblock, forget, and move on, please. Rodhullandemu 23:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm here on other business, but I would remind people whose particular flavor of English involves colloquialisms referring to people's private parts or comparing them to animals, that they may wish to use less colorful expressions in the interest of international understanding. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "A bee in one's ass" is indicative only of commitment, arguably misguided, but not necessarily. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Having a pointy stingy animal there is not a pleasant thought. I would avoid all object-up-the-rectum comments about other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Unless you're being satirical for comedic purposes, and it is late where I am, I can only say "Jesus H. Christ in a bucket"; see metaphor. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• BTW - my bad on the IP blanking, was trying to fix the teplate in my comment but used the wrong mobile browser (I use one to compile edits and one to save them). Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 23:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• It would behoove an oft-blocked editor to be scrupulous about word usage, especially when using colloquialisms that could be viewed more seriously in some places, but this isn't a close call. Not uttered in anger, not directed to the "target" but mentioned in passing, and on his own talk page. A friendly "this could get you in hot water" might be in order, but that's about it.--SPhilbrickT 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken redirects

Someone deleted a talk page and consequently there are now nearly 300 broken redirects[327]! Would someone be able to easily and quickly delete them all (or do something else with them)? Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.240.4 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why were nearly 300 user talk pages being redirected to a single user talk page? Socks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Account renamed; subpages were moved. Subpages deleted; Xbot fixed redirects. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, 300 accounts? Nevermind, I see, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Long-term sock puppet issue involving deliberate factual errors

I've come across multiple IPs from multiple ranges making very similar edits, but with a distinct pattern (below). After looking into it I discovered links between the IPs and an old SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190fordhouse/Archive

Some of the main ranges were blocked and a few specific IPs were blocked for longer in early September, but the user's used at least 5 ranges, all of which geolocate to the same area. More recently I came across more IPs, and discovered a few more similar edits also from user accounts and in previously unreported ranges (some of which had been warned extensively, but without the connection being made). One of those is a user account that's been on the site since May 2008. That user, User:Miguelg, has made over 1600 edits, many of them (from what I've sampled) involve the same sort of edits at concern in the 190fordhouse case (190fordhouse had over 2000 edits at the time of the indef block) (User:Statmo1921 had 1683 edits at the time of that indef block). Starting in March of 2008, a variety of IPs and accounts (mostly named in the SPI history) made the same sort of edits. All in all, I can quickly find over 4,000 edits by linked accounts or IPs.

The edits in question have a pattern. They almost all involve changing, or in some cases adding, specific dates to music articles, none of which are verifiable. Some of those are verifiable wrong, but most aren't easily available or published. Most of the music articles are hip-hop or modern R&B artists, although there's some cross-over with older mid-90s R&B and latin music. From what I've seen, almost all of the known IPs locate to the Houston, Texas area. There are also some linked edits to schools around the area. The editing time-frames are consistent as well across a few that I've sampled (approximately 3pm - 11 pm local time). The date changes appear to be the vast majority of the edits.

I did find one additional question that's unanswered. Early on 190fordhouse made some changes to music articles involving the track-length. I discovered User:Limmerine (account created July 2008, a similar time) editing some similar articles, and whose almost exclusive edits history involves altering the length of tracks or albums. That SPI report is stale, but it opens up the possibility of other varieties of vandalism. I don't have any other indication they're linked, but I would be cautious of unverified or unexplained changes to similar facts on music articles.

The Miguelg user has a host of very recent edits of the same type that haven't been rolled back. I have held off in lieu of this report, but if others share this concern they should feel free to roll those back. One issue is finding latent changes that have persisted in articles. Due to the scope that's going to be nearly impossible (many edits were undone by regulars on those pages, but there was never a connection made that the edits were related), but especially with the recent ones, if others would help review that would be appreciated. I'd much rather have a vague, but accurate date than a made-up date. Shadowjams (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for ban IP

92.70.53.99 - Permanent vandalism, perhaps it is only one person, possibly from the Netherlands.--Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1. AIV is thataway.
• 2. If you bring up a topic here, you need to warn any involved users, for example using {{subst:ANI-notice}}.
• I would recommend that you read the information at the top of this page. David Biddulph (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for some page like AIV, but failed --Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't indef IPs, even if they are static, since it is an inappropriate thing to do. If they change ISP, then someone else may have "taken over" their previous IP. And this IP hasn't made so many edits. In this case, I believe WP:AIV should be more than enough, assuming that you have correctly and sufficiently warned the user, including a final/only warning. HeyMid (contributions) 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Maria_Theresa

Can somebody take a look at this requested move closure please. Four editors wrote in favour of a move; three editors wrote against a move. User:Born2cycle closed the requested move as "The result of the move request was: Moved". Does this really seem like consensus? Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, consensus is WP:NOTVOTE, it's strength of the arguments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Texarkana Symphony Orchestra

I created this page way back when because I saw a red link, so I did some research and etc etc etc. It has recently been modified by someone who obviously has an interest in the organization, even going as far as to state things like "our mission is to..." in the article. Shoul it be reverted? Should the individual be blocked? It's been turned into an advertsement. Andy Johnston (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the public affairs office of the organization has found the article. If I were you I would warn them of their obvious conflict of interest and clean the article of the most outlandish of statements. I would then offer to work with them to improve the article so you won't alienate a potentially useful editor. Good luck. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Texarkana Symphony Orchestra has been reverted, & the editor warned about advertising and WP:COPYVIO. Andy, you ought to remember that if you raise a topic here you need to notify any affected user, for example by the use of {{subst:ANI-notice}}. David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

Resolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/September 2010 to reduce space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

So where does that leave things now? --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've apologised (on my talkpage) for the indef block, and I'm happy to repeat that apology here (and leave timestamps in this thread, so it gets archived). As regards the future: avoid the behaviour that led to the past blocks, and you'll avoid further blocks. There seems to be a consensus that doubling block-duration is more appropriate than a "one day, one week, one month, one year" approach, and I'll certainly follow a doubling approach if necessary. I hope it won't be, however. TFOWR 09:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker seem to have not learnt anything from his block. See here for another insertion of BI against his topic ban. Bjmullan (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Bwilkins (talk · contribs) blocked Triton Rocker for this violation of the topic ban. TFOWR 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Got a bit of a situation here....

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.

---

Got a bit of a situation with the Dr. Mario (video game) article. The two players are User:Odokee and User:Ryulong. Odokee apparently keeps removing the japanese characters from the article. Ryulong keeps putting them back. This has been going on since September 9th. No effort has been made to discuss the issue on the article's talk page but Ryulong has tried, several times, to talk to Okokee ([328] [329], [330] on his talkpage only to be dismissed and ignored. Both editors have apparently been blocked once this month for edit warring over another Mario Brothers article for the same reason.--*Kat* (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like each editor has 4 or 5 reverts total over the last 10 days, and at least some appear to be over different material. It doesn't appear to be serious enough for sanction at this point. Have you tried talking to the editors involved yourself? Fell Gleaming^talk 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

At present, both users are at 2RR today. Recommend locking the page down to force these two to the talk page. This has be done with other users and other pages and has worked successfully. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody removed any Japanese characters at all. - Odokee (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Japanese words then. Not sure what to call it. Romanji maybe? But you and Ryulong are clearly in an ongoing edit war over the existence of that text and you're not trying to compromise with him or even talk about it.

As for me intervening before bringing it here: I thought about it. Then I looked over the edit history (not just the summaries either, I looked at the actual modifications made), the talk page history, Odokee talk page's edit history and Ryulong's talk page and decided that it would be like banging my head against a brick wall. That's why I brought it here instead.--*Kat* (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy requires the users to be blocked before the page is locked down. Just saying....Basket of Puppies 06:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to discuss things with Odokee (regarding Dr. Mario (video game), Game Boy, Super Mario RPG, etc.). I have been civil. I have been blunt and not civil. Odokee keeps unnecessarily replacing the text "Dokutā" with "Dr.", and has now been doing that while simultaneously performing other large scale edits on the page. This is not the first time he has done this and I am fucking tired of his methods. I have attempted to bring up his behavior and inadvertantly bring up my own in response on this board three fucking times and the last time there was a ban suggested that I did not want to agree to because it would have prevented me from editing constructively in other subject areas. Odokee has been almost entirely unresponsive to my messages on his user talk. The only way I can communicate with him is apparently when we edit war over this style/content/whatever the fuck you want to call it. And even with his comment here he is trying to say that there is nothing wrong with what he has been doing by being obtuse and saying that he's not doing what you're saying he's doing, exactly. The last time, we were both blocked and he socked and performed a revert during the block. Odokee is a net loss to this project and needs to be given the boot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

His latest response to my request. At least he attempted a response before removing my section entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On this board, we consider "making the beast with two backs" to be more genteel. In any case, the proper response to such acts is not to edit war, but to request conflict resolution. Requesting assistance from other editors is a much better solution. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary? It's called being correct. That's what I am doing: fixing the mistakes of others. - Odokee (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no mistake in my using the text "Dokutā" in the Hepburn romanization section of {{nihongo}} on Dr. Mario (video game). The mistake is you replacing it with "Dr." which is not a romanization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, you of all people should know that edit warring is bad, but to do so to make a POINT is just a double no-no. If the behavior is bad enough, take it to ANI or AIV, do not edit war.

Odokee, you need to chill. If you don't get your behavior is a problem by the number of times you have been to ANI, then you don't need to be here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to get outside input. The most input I got was in the third thread I made (first link) where it was suggested that both Odokee and myself be banned from doing anything regarding romaji which would severely hamper my ability to edit other pages I regularly edit. And I am not trying to make a point by edit warring as being the only method to talk to him. It was just an unfortunate realization on my part that it's the only way to talk to him, aside from the fact that he responded on his talk page for the first time ever this morning, but then proceeded to blank the entire section from his talk page before I would have any sort of attempt to respond.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a style issue right? And one currently before Arbcom? Don't you think that's not nearly a major enough issue to edit war over? Why (and this is a question for both of you) is a stylistic difference important enough to go to such lengths? Fell Gleaming^talk 06:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was put up at ArbCom prematurely by someone who was planning to put it up before ArbCom because there is no grey area to make a compromise in in the discussion that stagnated two weeks ago. ArbCom is also not taking the case because there has been no outside mediation and the RFC was useless apparently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And if this is how he responds, he should be banned. There have been de-adminings for the same behavior, if I recall correctly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a style issue in the least. - - Odokee (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad populum? really? - Odokee (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, you say above In any case, the proper response to such acts is not to edit war, but to request conflict resolution. Requesting assistance from other editors is a much better solution. I warmly agree. You are right. Allow me as an entirely uninvolved editor (I don't even play computer games) to assist, and to resolve the conflict.

And so: This is a unusually straightforward matter. Ryulong is right, and Odokee is wrong, simple as that. Reason being that Ryulong is compactly providing a small amount of useful and highly relevant information (the Japanese pronunciation of the Japanese name of a Japanese product), and doing so in full accordance with relevant guidelines. Now, Odokee may have some reason why these guidelines should, extraordinarily, be put aside for these particular articles; but until he puts this forward, lucidly and persuasively, we needn't trouble ourselves to try to divine his reasons.

(Oh, in case anyone is wondering, there's nothing personal here. I'd never heard of Odokee until a few minutes ago, and Ryulong is a user who I think was fairly recently in some dispute with me, though I really don't remember what it was.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [slight tweak 07:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)]

(We had been discussing the merits for and against the use of tildes in the titles of Japanese media; a matter I would still like to discuss because I feel that they have some use).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Providing the wrong info is the issue here. One I am trying to correct. - Odokee (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And what, precisely, is the "wrong info" here? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is Dokutā/Dr. in the romanization section of {{nihongo}}. Hoary and I believe that "Dr." is wrong, while Odokee believes that "Dokutā" is wrong (and is a fake word).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the standard "everyone is wrong but me" defense. Odokee, just knock it off, move along and edit constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and Odokee, it isn't a "fake word", see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he can edit constructively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sort of inclined to agree. As I said above, the reason why I didn't try and intervene on my own before coming here was because, after reviewing Odokee's talk page history and the article's history and other stuff, I decided that it would be like banging my head against a brick wall. Odokee makes no effort to communicate with others. He just does things the way he thinks it should be done and to heck with anybody else's opinions. That would be fine if this was the Encyclopedia Britannica but it won't work on Wikipedia.--*Kat* (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand what that means. But, needless to say, it doesn't affect this in the least. - Odokee (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember the underlying principle in WP articles isn't truth or accuracy, but verifiability. Do either of you have reliable sources that validate your interpretation? Fell Gleaming^talk 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong wrote the Japanese pronunciation. What has "interpretation" got to do with it? Do you want reliable sources saying that what he says is the Japanese pronunciation is indeed the Japanese pronunciation; and if not, what do you want? -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. One user says the info is correct. Another says it's incorrect. But what do the sources say? If there's a RS for one interpretation, it should be used. If no RS at all can be found, the material should be excluded, whether or not we think it's useful. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot an apostrophe. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources that say that the Japanese derivation of the English word "doctor" is parsed as ドクター which would be interpretted per our guidelines on transliteration of Japanese as "dokutā". The issue is that rather than saying "dokutā" is wrong, Odokee is saying that it is not a real word and therefore should not be used on Dr. Mario (video game). He is instead replacing it with "Dr.", because the Japanese title of the game does not explicitly feature the text of ドクター, despite that being the intended pronunciation of "Dr." in the Japanese market. He has arguably done the same sort of edits to articles on other video game related topics that also feature English text in the Japanese title (such as スーパーマリオRPG, ゲームボーイアドバンスSP, etc.). And while he performs these edits, he does not respond to criticism on his talk page, and generally continues to make these bold edits, despite being reverted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I previously recommended a 2 week topic ban for both editors which gained traction, but wasn't implemented. I further recommended and even longer topic ban from article space for odokee because of his non-communication. It's obvious he's continued that, and now I'd recommend he be blocked. The topic ban should still be in place, but Ryulong has at least tried to communicate. I recommend Odokee be blocked for a week, followed by a 1 month article topic ban on anything to do with changing the romanization (broadly construed) of anything to do with video games, japanese, etc. Ryulong should be topic banned for 2 weeks, and as I previously recommended both should write a well thought out proposal for the conclusion of this situation, including compromises. If one or both parties can't engage in constructive debate then they need to be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth should Ryulong be topic banned for a day, let alone two weeks? -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Because he's been edit warring and blocked over the topic. You can see the previous discussion we had about this, I believe it's linked above.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree per Hoary. --*Kat* (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer requested temporary full protection at RFPP about ten hours ago, a bit after this thread was posted. Since then, the edit history has been fairly quiet, and discussion has begun here. Is this protection still needed? Airplaneman ✈ 17:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, with eyes on the page, that protection is not needed at this time, but should be used if the edit war starts up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

I've never typed one of these up before, but here goes nothing.

One week full ban for Odokee (to get his attention) followed by a month long topic ban on Romaji and Mario Games. If Odokee wishes to edit in other areas during the topic ban and after the topic ban, that is fine, but he needs to find himself a mentor.

How does this sound? --*Kat* (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but I would also add in that Ryulong will not edit war on any article....period. He should know better since he is a former admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I sort of thought that that went without saying.--*Kat* (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war and have a content dispute, and Ryulong does not have full consensus for his edits. So no, without a remedy applied to him to curb his behaviour and actually find a solution to this as I proposed above, it doesn't fix the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Odokee's behavior has been proven time and time again to be inappropriate. He needs a flat out ban. He is in the wrong and I am in the right. This has nothing to do with the arbcom shit. This is something else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? I don't really think you demonstrated where this supposed Japanese of "doctor" came from. It's a transliteration, not a translation. You can't go from japanese to english when there is no japanese. So yeah, it's a fabrication. I've proven this time and time again, and your behavior has clearly been disruptive. Does this mean you should be banned? - Odokee (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are all statements from users who (for the most part) are involved in the dispute. Adding neutral and verifiable content is not disruptive. Repeatedly removing it is. Several times, Odokee, uninvolved users have called you out on your behavior, particularly in this thread. And let's not forget that you were found to be socking during our last block to perform the same revert that got you (and me) blocked in the first place. And there was a link from Neutralhomer in this very thread that shows that "doctor" has been made into a Japanese cognate, which is rendered as "dokutā" in Hepburn. Seriously, stop trying to change the subject to make it seem that you are right.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All misleading and beside the point. You are hypocritically ignoring the inverse of bad edits. Simply adding material doesn't make it acceptable. Is adding any sort of trivia to any article completely acceptable? Can it not be reverted? You simply don't make a good argument here. And this is after the fact about how you've been purposefully going against the grain of consensus in the VG community. How many people said you were disruptive and asked you to stop? I guess in your mind it doesn't matter, since you just ignore everything around you and BRRR at every chance and claim good faith. How can I assume good faith when you deliberately edit war to keep in dubious content? I still haven't seen anyone agree with you where it counts. What I do see is that you keep making the same awful argument about a japanese word that does not exist in the article. Why should it be translated into something that isn't there? You have once again ignored your previous points in lieu of whatever fits you at the moment. - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted it does take two to tango but Odokee was the primary instigator and perpetuator. Something should be done about him. If you would like to propose a separate sanction or remedy that will apply to Ryulong, then be my guest. But this is my solution for Odokee's unacceptable behavior.--*Kat* (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your claims simply aren't true. I don't even need to go into it. - Odokee (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I added content in good faith. As we can clearly see from your edit summaries, you have constantly been removing content in bad faith: rv japanification vandalism, rinse, repeat, remove bad edit, lol japanification, Undid revision 383787215, undo japanifications, Undid revision 383787091 by Ryulong (talk) fake japanification, Undid revision 383787092, remove japanification and bad edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, simply dreadful. I don't know how you can sleep at night. Or maybe it helps that you try to game the system to remove competition and cuss them out when it doesn't instantly work? - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support *Kat*'s proposal, with a reminder to Ryulong regarding warring. Any sanction on Ryulong should be discussed separately; as a number of us who are uninvoled here have said, on this occasion we can't find what Ryulong has done wrong. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support the ban proposal per the above suggestion by *Kat*. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support *Kat*'s proposal. With the proviso that Ryulong be explicit in his understanding that repeatedly "Adding neutral and verifiable content" can indeed be disruptive when it becomes edit warring, and as such should be avoided. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Strange Passerby. I think Ryulong's in the right here, but an edit warring reminder is appropriate. Kcowolf (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Although I don't approve of the edit warring from Ryulong either, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT language I see repeated from Odokee is particularly troublesome. -- Atama頭 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So basically while a content dispute, something that no one has demonstrated to be incorrect as far as my edits went, none of that matters when one person cries louder than the rest and claims to be innocent/in good faith. I guess no one noticed how Ryulong's attempt to gain consensus with several users had ended in failure, considering there isn't enough substance to his proposals. How does that end in my actions being malicious? Seems rather counter-intuitive, but I guess assuming that people would be generally intelligent can result in the downfall of good intentions. - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So your response is to continue the dispute despite being told that you should stop by people uninvolved in the dispute?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the above broad community consensus, can we please get an admin to do the necessary? The fact that Odokee continued his ways (per Ryulong's diffs) even while being discussed for a community ban over it is not encouraging. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have requested that User:TFOWR, an uninvolved admin, review this and decide if it's time to apply the community consensus. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to do so. However, I'm time-poor right now, and it's likely to be 17:30 UTC at the earliest before I can take a look (this is a discussion I've not been following, which I suppose makes me eminently uninvolved, but also makes me completely uninformed right now). So, if anyone else closes in the meantime I won't be upset. TFOWR 13:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Don't support - I don't see this as a solution to the problem at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a pretty clear consensus here. This resolution leaves open the opportunity to modify these sanctions, if required. Off2riorob, I hope this addresses in part your concerns. TFOWR 18:34, 21 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.

Related issue: revert request

Ryūlóng has raised an interesting question on my talkpage. In light of the resolved discussion above, Ryūlóng would like to revert this edit. I've suggested that it would be wise to seek outside advice, in order to avoid any appearance of edit warring. This, obviously, is tricky: it's an extremely specialised field. What are the community's thoughts? Should this edit be reverted as an exception to the sanctions applied above? TFOWR 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To me Odokee's edit was little more than simple vandalism. I see nothing wrong with treating it as such. Dokutā is a real word. Google found over a hundred thousand results for it. Neutralhomer found an entry for it in some sort of dictionary. That is one, if not two, reliable sources. So yes, I believe that the edit should be reverted.--*Kat* (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've told Ryūlóng to go ahead with the revert, and I'll take responsibility for it. TFOWR 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are:

• Mis-attribution of vandalism: [331]
• Inappropriate canvassing: [332]
• Repeated personal attacks in article talkspace, calling people "clowns", "delusional", "lunatics", "you are slimy and insincere", and other abusive language: [333] [334] [335]

[336] [337] [338]

• Repeated reversions without talk page discussion: [339]
• Edit Warring to the point an article needs protection: [340].

I admit I am partially to blame for the last item, however I have a total of 3 edits to that article in the past week, whereas Screwball23 has 20+, the majority of them contentious reverts against multiple other editors. I am not asking for the user to be banned; I simply ask that an administrator reacquaint him with policy so we can continue work on the articles in question. This user has hardened his position to the point that discussion or compromise just isn't occurring; every action is a total revert, followed too often by abusive language. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Several other editors here have noted other recent cases of Screwball exceeding 3RR and making personal attacks. He has also apparently been banned several times for similar actions in the past. I feel compelled to change my earlier opinion, and now feel action stronger than a warning is necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball does appear to have rather more then 3 reverts in one day. As to incivlity. Sorry but calling an edit or comment garbage is not a PA (however I may feel about this thats the rule) he does appear to call two eddds clowns, that may be PA but I doubt it. By the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3 is where you report edit wars (and this seems a very valid concearn).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the vast amount of issues appears to be stuff you'd report here; the edit-warring is just the icing. HalfShadow 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that saying something is vandalism when its not is reportable (unless done on a very regular basis (and I doubt it would be even then). The canvassing is an issue, but I think we really need more then this for sanction here. Most of the PA accusations will fail to convince (only one actually seems to be about the users not his comments and half appear to be difs of a history page, and i can see no PA’s there. The edit warring (and blatant 3RR violation) appears to be the only real issue here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Screwball23 has, indeed, used grossly incivil terms repeatedly with any who fall into his path. He does not, apparently, understand just why NPOV is quite so important in BLPs. Further his edit history, amounting to hundreds of edits in single articles, shows him to be a very single-minded person when it comes to inserting material he wants in BLPs. Further, he inserted a great deal of improper material into the History_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment article [341] , and asserted that WP:BLP did not apply there This is not a BLP article, and I have no idea why you think this page is a BLP was the claim Screwball23 made. See also [342], [343], [344] etc. Multiple warnings over edit warring. Multiple extended blocks. Multiple civility issues. In all of under 3K total edits - of which over a third are about a single person! Not to mention an extraordinary block history (three times in the past few months, not to mention civility and canvassing warnings, etc.). As many know, I always oppose draconian punishments here. I might not comment on one here. Collect (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, calling anyone "delusional" or "insane" is, by any logic at all, a PA. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Three blocks, plus additional warnings in the last few months? I had originally thought this was an isolated case, but it seems it may be part of a much wider pattern. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Better diffs are needed. I have had to dig to find him calling some one delusional (its not in the diifs above but is part of the discussion the difs relate to) [[345]]. It might help matters then if we see the actual comments.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

[346] if you think there is no support for it being in the infobox, you are delusional; [347] Collect is delusional to think that his view is unanimous on this issue. Sufficient? Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think its clear he has made PA on at least two users despite previous blocks. its not as if he is a new user either. He must by now kow his actions are unaceptable (or is unable to learn).Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't enough to warrant Admin intervention, I don't know what will. Frankly Collect, I don't know why you didn't just delete the section at its inception as clearly in contravention to WP P&G (WP:TALKNO) on talk page content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the record of the person. 3 major blocks in under four months is likely to indicate Screwball is a problem. That he used a section to attack me shows I have a fairly thick skin which he has finally breached. Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When an editor brings a complaint to ANI they should get their facts right.

• "Mis-attribution of vandalism" is a refer to an edit summary saying "POV vandalism" - not the same thing
• "inappropriate canvassing" is asking for advice by someone confused by WP dispute resolution processes
• calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[348]
• complaints of edit-warring should be addressed at the edit-warring noticeboard

Based on the above, this discussion thread should be closed.

My advice to Screwball23 is to read all polices and procedures, and use content dispute resolution. That will bring in other editors who understand procedure. The article involved is the biography of a controversial politician running for office. The article must present the subject as they are being reported in mainstream media. If the media give little coverage of some aspect of her biography then that is what we do as well.

TFD (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I have to agree. He has however called users delusional. There are also otehr PA's.

:*calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[349] Read further down in that same link. To quote: "You're incredibly slimy and insincere". This is not an attack on an argument. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited edits are full of blatant personal attacks and edit-warring, and this editor has been blocked three times over the past few months, the most recent in July, for two weeks. A one month block would be appropriate at this point. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, TFD, this does appear to be a part of a larger pattern and "garbage" does not appear to be even close to the worst things that have been said and directed at users, not arguments. Silverseren^C 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can dismise "Mis-attribution of vandalism" and "inappropriate canvassing" I don't think these hold up really. The issue of PA is different and there does indead appear to be an issue here. He has called users Slimey, Delusional and insincre are PA. I also have to say that as the usre has been repeatedly blocked to do so again seems a waste of time, if he has not learnt by now he nevert will.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm INVOLVED, in the sense that 1) I've warned him for BLP violations, 2) He's called me "Collect's lackey", and 3) he's tried to start an ArbCom case against me on the basis of my cleaning up History of World Wrestling Entertainment. Diffs aren't that hard to dig up, and I can do so if desired, but I'm not seeing how this user is in any way, shape, or form a net positive to Wikipedia. I'll be happy to vote for a topic ban from the Linda McMahon or professional wrestling arenas if he continues to not get it, or an outright ban once he exhausts the patience of the rest of the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 just yesterday: [350][351][352] On the procedural side, the editor has already been blocked twice for violating WP:3RR. On the content side, the editor appears to be adding content to the article that doesn't match what the source says (e.g. the source states "person1 said..." but the editor adds "person2 claimed..."). I think at the very least another 3RR block is warranted. This has been going on for a while. As you can see by the contributions the editor had reverted six times on 9/16 alone. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Rev-del question - "... is openly gay"

Resolved

 – No, they shouldn't be revision deleted. IP blocked, and their edits here have been deleted. TFOWR 10:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

66.69.210.3 (talk · contribs)

OK, quick question. The above user has gone through a few articles adding either "...was openly gay" or (more troubling) "...is openly gay". The claims are - naturally! - uncited and have been reverted. So far, so good.

Should these be rev-del-ed? I tend to think that criteria 2 does not apply, but I don't regard "openly gay" as "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" - the BLP subject may beg to differ. What does the community think? TFOWR 08:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've noticed that the pages he added that to were of people of a conservative persuasion so I think they would take issue with that if they saw it. In my opinion calling someone that is kind of insulting but not grossly, I think it is degrading as it could be classed as a slur and I don't really think in context it is too offensive. In the end I think redacing may be best. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that this noticeboard may require revdel as well as he's hit the same claim at TFOWR here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I've rev-del-ed some of the edits. I can't be bothered deleting the IP's refactoring of my post. I don't personally regard the claim as offensive, but I understand that other editors may well be offended, and have deleted several other refactorings by the IP. TFOWR 09:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:RBI – Rev-del all of those edits, block the IP. HeyMid (contributions) 09:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note IP blocked for 24 hours. HeyMid (contributions) 09:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that there's no reasoning with him. The comment he did with my sig I find very insulting. I must request that his comments be redacted with haste and I think a block wouldn't go amiss. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Done and done. I've revision deleted the refactorings of your signature and posts, and another admin has blocked the IP. TFOWR 09:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Yes, I've already mentioned the block in my above post. Also, I am getting tired of the ANI ECs. HeyMid (contributions) 09:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Reginald de Dunstanville, 1st Earl of Cornwall is not a living person, by any stretch. ☺ George B. Hartzog, Jr. is another not living person, who'd probably object more to the statement that xe was fired, if it were false. But it's (a) supported by his obituary and (b) supported by his obituary. Shahbaz Khan Bugti is also very probably dead, given that he was created Knight Commander of the Indian Empire in 1901. Whilst this is vandalism, this is not BLP vandalism in most cases. Uncle G (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Erring on the side of caution, I've revision deleted two instances ("... is openly gay") and left the rest ("...was openly gay"). I'm sure the articles' subjects are above all this: as a society we've pretty much reached the point where trying to disparage people by calling them gay is... well, gay. And that's the only time "gay" works as an insult. Review, as always, is welcome. TFOWR 09:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Too much revdel in my opinion. We usually just revert stuff like this, in part to make the actions of vandals easier to follow. There seems to have been a real increase in revdel lately (policy change I guess) and it doesn't seem good. More drama, and the stuff getting revdel'd is just run of the mill crap. 66.127.54.226 (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a frequent huggle user, I revert quite a lot of edits to BLPs stating that the subject is "gay". I think it would be unfeasible to have to rev-del each and every one of these. --Stickee (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I agree; and would add that it doesn't really seem to meet either RD2 (speculation about one's sexuality is often unwelcome, but certainly not "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive"), or RD3 (while it probably has little or no merit to the project, the examples it describes are significantly more serious: malicious websites, threats, etc.) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Stickee, 66.127 and GW. I've un-revision deleted the two articles' edits. @ 66.127: revision deletion is still fairly new, and I think we're all a little unclear when it can and can't be used. Threads like this - and input from editors like you - are extremely useful in helping to define the "cans" and "can'ts". TFOWR 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The rev-del feature (the admin one), isn't it only 1 year old? I believe it was added in October 2009. HeyMid (contributions) 14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even more recent than that, I think. I'd need to check but I think it's been introduced since I became an admin, and that was only in ... June? July? of this year. TFOWR 14:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugely off-topic, and we should probably continue this on my talkpage, but May 2010 at the earliest is my current best estimate for the rev-del rollout. TFOWR 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, on or about May 18 (as evidenced by the deletion log for our most active non-oversight revision deleter). –xeno^talk 14:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

S-VHS

Their is a problem right now. Someone is adding a teamplete that says "It does not site any reffereneces" When the article does. Somebody do something about this. Hinata talk 13:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the article in question, and added refimprove to the existing {{articleissues}} tag. The article unquestionably needs more references, but it does have two (the quality of which I did not evaluate). Hopefully that will defuse the situation? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hinata is misrepresenting the situation. It was in fact Hinata who began by removing[353] the "unreferenced" parameter (which had been there for a long time), reverted[354] my first revert[355], and summarily declared[356] on my talk page that that was the end of the matter. Now it is true that "unreferenced" was not a perfect fit (I was unaware that refimprove was valid for {{articleissues}}, having missed that one among its dozens) but certainly two references for a 20-paragraph article, neither really on point for the article subject, are insufficient; leaving the article with no notice at all regarding references is far worse than the slightly overstated "unreferenced".

I explained this on the article talk page[357] and changed the parameter to "citations missing"[358], as the text for that is a better fit; Hinata removed that too[359] with the comment "It does site [sic] refferences [sic]; add more refferences [sic] needed templete [sic] if you want to", having completely ignored the article talk page. Why not just make that change, instead of insisting on removing the parameter completely?

And then Hinata has the crust to open an ANI and ask that "something should be done" about my edits? But referring only to "someone", thereby avoiding notifying me of the discussion. Nice.

I consider the specific matter of the template in S-VHS closed, but I believe Hinata should be advised that a more cooperative attitude would be both more appropriate and more productive; and in particular, that "Hinata has decided" does not mean that Hinata gets Hinata's way, and that running to ANI when Hinata does not get Hinata's way, particularly when Hinata has not even bothered to engage on the subject article's talk page, is not how editors are expected to behave. Jeh (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cleanup requested

118.136.156.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP user has been changing the information in F1 articles to show incorrect details. The edits to 2010 Spanish Grand Prix were undone yesterday by Bretonbanquet and earlier changes were fixed by Cs-wolves but the history shows many more changes since. I have corrected errors introduced at 2010 Hungarian Grand Prix and 2009 Belgian Grand Prix today but further changes have been made at 2002 European Grand Prix, Minardi, and 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. This is clearly an ongonig vandalism campaign, yet no one has een warned the user. I will post a notice to this discussion, but meantime, will an admin please look at systematically cleaning up the mess (I think there are tools that allow it to be done much more quickly by you than by me), and issuing a block or a very vehement warning? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his edits on two of those articles; another editor caught the third, and the IP has been given two warnings. I'll keep tabs on the IP address in case of more vandalism. KaySL^talk 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be significant that a number of the pages concerned had been targets for Fooied123, indeffed a week or 2 ago. David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who the IP editor may be, but I think multiple vandalism edits to 12 different articles in two days warrants more than warnings, but then I'm not an admin. I do appreciate that the edits have now all been cleaned up, thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Two days? Six hours on the list I'm looking at, but I'm surprised that it went for that long with edits being reverted without anyone warning him. David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a 4 h gap in edits that crossed midnight in my time zone, so they were on two different days, hence my mistake. You are right, it was 6 to 7 hours total. I too was surprised at how many reverts hhappened without the IP being warned, that's why I came here rather than just issue a warning. EdChem (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would have gone straight to a final warning, but that may have been seen as excessive by some. Regardless, he need only make one or two more ill-advised edits and he'll be fair game for an IP block request. I'm a little surprised too that nobody warned him before now. KaySL^talk 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been at least two other IPs making vandalism edits like these recently: Special:Contributions/109.154.108.230 (Geolocates to London, England) Special:Contributions/94.196.234.160 (Geolocates to Sheffield, England) Maybe we have one vandal hopping IPs? EdChem (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson and Civility, Again

Last week I posted this complaint about User:Pmanderson's incivility at Talk:Aorist. He was warned by admins User:Georgewilliamherbert here and User:Maunus here. While every other editor is being careful to avoid incivility (as here), PMAnderson is diving right back in as here and here. I politely warned him again here, but I would appreciate if the admins pay very close attention to him at Talk:Aorist (which, according to his contributions log, seems to be where he spends most of his time lately.) --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt to settle a content dispute by a factitious civility complaint.

Taivo is one of a pair of -er- enthusiasts who have pushed a point-of-view for weeks now: that their pet field within linguistics includes all others (including poetics and rhetoric); that it has the only correct terminology; that all others must defer to it whether the readers will understand it or not. . Follow the links and see if I could have described this point of view any more temperately than I have.

I have offered to leave the article as long as the two of them will; I have offered space for their preferred mess of obscurities at aorist (general linguistics); neither is acceptable to them.

They are two editors; their ideas are opposed by Radagast, Akhilleus, Dbachmann,Wareh, and Cynwolfe. They now seek to equalize numbers with this bogus complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only diff that concerns me at all is this one, where PMAnderson said, "It is quite true that Taivo and Kwami revert-warred against the clear statements of a source they have not consulted - because it did nbot support their point of view." Is there evidence of this behavior? Unfounded allegations of misbehavior can be construed as personal attacks. -- Atama頭 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly true, only allegations not made in good faith cold conceivably be considered disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That kind of philosophy works for vandalism but not for personal attacks. Personal attacks can be made in good faith; you might really feel, sincerely, that another editor is a complete and utter bastard and you're being sincere in saying so. That doesn't make it less of an attack. Regardless, accusations without evidence are defined as personal attacks (read the link I'd provided) and it's hard to call an allegation "good faith" when it's made of whole cloth. I digress, but I felt the need to respond. -- Atama頭 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit is one of a series of such edits; since this one put the reverter beyond 3RR, it was self-reverted. But this was one of several efforts to remove sourced material because the two editors disagreed with it. There are more reversions listed here, ending in the latest of several protections arising from their behavior. That has largely stopped; but the comment in question was a response to the suggestion that the respected linguist in question had been ejected by consensus - which is only true if the two of them are consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that the alleged edit warring was responsible for the protection of the article is a falsehood. The article was protected by Maunus because PMAnderson three times moved it without getting consensus, twice against the express warning of the admin User:Maunus. It was PMAnderson's move-warring that led to the locking of the article. My recollection was faulty. --Taivo (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, as you are alleging "falsehood", here is the diff for the relevant protection, which was not the one arising from the move war. David Biddulph (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my recollection placed the move war immediately before the protection--all these things were happening very close together. But this present complaint isn't about the edit warring or the protection or what happened to initiate the protection, that is just PMAnderson's attempt to deflect attention away from his incivility and place the blame for the discussion problems entirely on others and not shoulder any of the blame himself. This is PMAnderson's usual method in these AN/I complaints--take no responsibility for his own incivility and blame others for all the problems arising in the discussion. Notice the progress of this AN/I complaint--I documented nearly a dozen instances of his incivility in a 24 hour period, but his comment in defense was "It is true that I tend not to back down when faced by revert warriors with an agenda" after which he listed his charges of edit warring. He later pulled up two examples over the course of two weeks of my incivility. This is PMAnderson's way of defending against incivility charges--to deflect. --Taivo (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to PMAnderson's previous complaint about Kwamikagami and myself. Note that the complaint was deemed "frivolous" by the admin User:Maunus and that PMAnderson's claims were false. This complaint isn't about edit warring, but about PMAnderson's continued incivility. Note that after this stern warning from User:Georgewilliamherbert, PMAnderson offered neither contrition nor apology for his uncivil actions and personal attacks. This AN/I is not PMAnderson's first. Here he was warned that future incivility would result in penalties. This is not a content dispute, as there are editors that disagree with me on content. But only PMAnderson crosses the line into incivility and personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And I have not been uncivil - except in the view of an editor who thinks blocking me will reduce the opposition to his exaggerated claims for his obscure subfield. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I truly believe that you don't recognize incivility, PMAnderson. Accusing me of edit warring when the claim had already been called frivolous, calling me a pedant, and labeling my opinion as blather, are all cases of incivility. If you are unable to recognize incivility or couch your comments in a polite way or show contrition when two different admins sternly warn you against incivility, then perhaps your presence in Wikipedia is inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is uncivil to mention your revert warring against Rijksbaron's Syntax and semantics of the verb in classical Greek , when this edit from last week shows your exact reversion removing a mention of the book in question? Are you pleading in Wonderland? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When your unjustified claims of edit warring were called "frivolous" by an admin, then continued reference to your accusation as if it were relevant can be considered uncivil when it is used as an ad hominem argument, as it was in the case I cited above. The point here is that among all the problems that the previous discussion at Talk:Aorist ran into, there were only two specific warnings issued by admins directed at an individual for their actions--both were directed at you for incivility. Everyone else has been able to discuss the issue civilly. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) All due respect to Maunus (and I really mean that) the interpretation of WP:3RR in the report linked above is flawed. As stated in our policy, "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." Having said that, the overall determination of the situation seems solid, and the decision to just protect the page rather than to block is one I agree with. So it looks like my question was answered; yes, there is evidence of edit warring behavior. There doesn't seem to be any personal attack, but just the same I still see too much of a focus on what other editors are doing or have done wrong, and not enough attention to the content. Whether or not a person has edit warred in the past, yes it is uncivil to bring it up.

PMAnderson, I have another question for you... You've claimed that in this dispute there are only two editors with a particular viewpoint, who are countered by more than twice as many other editors who disagree. Why then is it necessary for your language to be so aggressive? They are at a disadvantage, so is it necessary to belittle them? Generally, in a content dispute if one "side" is in a disparate minority then they have a greater hurdle to clear in order to convince a reasonable number of people in order to achieve a compromise that satisfies their viewpoint. It shouldn't be necessary for you to criticize them personally if you already have overwhelming support. Is there a reason why you need to respond as you are doing, especially since it is bringing such negative attention to yourself? -- Atama頭 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Because extraordinary conduct requires extraordinary measures. These two (what shall I say?) unhelpful editors took over an article that was developping peaceably and more or less successfully up to August 16th last (the version to which Maunus reverted for the protection). They ignored the two then active editors, who protested on the talk page and went to the point of reverting (in an effort to invoke BRD). Their response was to launch a revert war. When third opinions were called for, they proceeded to attack Wareh (a scholarly editor, and even a scholar in their field) for suggesting that the situation was more complicated than they allowed the article to say.

All this was before I arrived. Since then they have ignored the advice of about five or six editors that the language of the article should be less dogmatic and more accessible to readers who haven't studied their particular school of linguistics - and they have consistently revert-warred with any and all efforts to make it so.

If the five or six objectors were a nationalist faction, this would resolve itself in the normal unpleasant but decisive manner by outreverting the two determined editors - but they aren't. Therefore we have an article which is seriously flawed, in the opinion of most observers - and on which the only active editing is making it, in the same opinion, actively worse.

Protests are continually met by these claims, quoted above, that their pet school of linguistics is the only science, all of linguistics, and the rest of it - and therefore the other editors should be ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not deem the complaint frivolous because it was not true that Taivo and KWami had reverted more than they should according to the letter of 3RR - but because they had clearly been put in that situation by deliberate gaming by the complainant who instead violated the spirit of 3rr by repeatedly intorudcing edits that he knew would have to be reverted.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I totally agree with. It's easy to count reverts and block, but to look at the overall situation and make a judgment takes a lot more wisdom. My only complaint was in the suggestion that for 3RR to apply, the same information has to be reverted, but our policy clearly states otherwise. Again, I agree that the edit war was a two-sided one even if one side was clever enough to avoid the letter of the policy. One thing to remember is that even though the policy states 3RR as a bright-line rule, it's not an entitlement, edit wars of any kind are discouraged and administrators will do whatever is prudent and necessary to stop them. Provoking someone into 3RR is as bad as doing it yourself. -- Atama頭 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for sake of completeness, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson is a relevent read. I am officially neutral on this issue. --Jayron32 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion: I don't see incivility in the two diffs in the complaint. In one, The use of terms like 'provincialism' and 'blather', while harsh, are fair use as rhetorical devices. Democracy in Britain would be long gone if such terms were considered uncivil. In the second diff, Pmanderson states his belief that the two editors have not read the source. Again, it is up to those editors to show that they have read the source, perhaps by quoting relevant sections from it, rather than bringing this up on ANI. Repeatedly accusing an editor of incivility does not incivility make but does lead me to question the purpose behind these accusations. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that they haven't read Rijksbaron is based on their own statements; one of them has an (uncited) quote of a second-hand account of Rijksbaron saying something different from - but compatible with - the sourceable assertion - and nothing else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This process began with others here and is an ongoing examination of PMAnderson's behavior in Wikipedia. There he was warned that his behavior would be subject to very close examination in lieu of sanctions at that time. He has since been warned by admins of his uncivil behavior at Talk:Aorist here and here. PMAnderson has neither shown contrition in the face of these warnings, nor taken responsibility for his part of the negative aspects of the discussion at Talk:Aorist. His behavior at Talk:Aorist is in very sharp contrast to all the other editors there, no matter what position they take in the content issues--all are civil and strive to keep the discussion at the level of the issues without making personal attacks or implications. Unlike Parliament, incivility in Wikipedia cannot be tolerated or else the discussion devolves into a polarized quagmire without the possibility of consensus-building. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, it's funny because my first reply to this thread was originally going to be exactly what you said. On the surface, the diffs provided didn't appear unduly uncivil. My only problem was the accusation of an edit war which the other side denied, and I questioned whether it happened (it did). But while not the kind of diffs I'd usually look twice at, they are antagonistic and not helpful. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, because a democracy thrives on conflict. Opposing sides keep each other in check, and it works because most decisions are decided with a vote. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, voting is very rarely used anywhere, and conflicts can only be decided when people agree, not when one side "defeats" the other. Language that works in a democracy doesn't work here, nor do tactics like trying to belittle someone you disagree with.

All that aside, though, ultimately I think this post on ANI is premature. I do think that commenting on another editor's perceived flaws is at the least not civil, if not entirely uncivil, and PMAnderson should make a better effort to compromise. But I also think that there's nothing actionable here, and there already seems to be eyes on the conflict, and I've probably already spent way too much time talking in this thread. :P -- Atama頭 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Atama that Pmanderson does come across as unduly harsh. However, clearly this is an ongoing content dispute, and in the context of an ongoing dispute, these words, while harsh, don't, I think, constitute incivility. My larger concern is that, even though this is a clear content dispute that should be resolved in other channels, the matter is repeatedly being brought to ANI. Along with statements like 'Civility, Again', they appear to give the impression that pmanderson is a problem editor. Which, I don't think is borne out on an examination of the diffs in this report (as also in the previous report). Not that I'm implying that Taivo is such an editor, I don't know enough about the dispute itself to do that, but this ANI bombardment is a common tactic used by some editors when they fail to get traction in the content area. I think Taivo would do well to take this dispute elsewhere and, perhaps, open an RfC if he/she feels that there is a pattern of hostility in Pmanderson's editing behavior. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's always difficult to know when the time is right for X action or Y action regarding civility issues. One person's outrageous incivility is another person's acceptable behavior. PMAnderson has already been the subject of another RfC (cited above) from the early summer so the time is probably not ripe for another. The difficulty in discussions on Wikipedia, as alluded to by Atama, is how quickly a discussion can become hopelessly polarized when one party becomes uncivil, as it did at Talk:Aorist. PMAnderson reaches for the sarcastic remark, the cutting innuendo, the personal accusation too quickly. This AN/I wasn't intended for action or decision (see my first post above), but more of a request that senior people keep an eye on Talk:Aorist to nip any further incivility in the bud. User:Maunus is already looking in, but more than one pair of clear eyes is welcome. --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you're acting in good faith here. But, repeatedly posting incivility notices on ANI is probably not a good idea. It gives the impression that you're unable to deal with content disputes and that you might be attempting to create a negative aura around the editor you have a dispute with. You might want to consider taking the content dispute to WP:3O or opening a WP:RFC on the dispute itself. Attempting to get more eyes on content is always better than attempting to get more eyes on an editor. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't sidetrack this into a content issue. All I care about here is getting PMAnderson's behavior under control. PMAnderson has been reported before from other articles so that is evidence enough that content is not the issue. Indeed, the behavior issue is often the cause of not getting to consensus or developing compromise because of its polarizing effect. --Taivo (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sidetrack anything. Just suggesting that repeatedly bringing civility accusations up at ANI gives the impression that you're trying to sidetrack a content issue into a civility issue. Again, I'll reiterate that it is a far better thing to get more eyes on content than it is to get more eyes on an editor. Unless you believe that the content issue won't stand up to scrutiny, of course. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, I have to side with RegentsPark on this. You're really shooting yourself in the foot by trying to force this into a civility issue. Yes, PMA has had civility problems. But this is not one of them. He was blunt, but not incivil. If you keep pushing this point, it looks like you're just piling on, and trying to shut down another editor by crying wolf. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to evaluate and close a merge request so we can begin to move on an issue

For those who don't follow Twinkle and Friendly, there has been discussion of a merge between the two tools lately, with the proposal being to merge the two tools as Twinkle. Discussion has been going on at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Merge Twinkle and Friendly into one tool? for more than a month. At least to me, the result seems fairly straightforward, but as the initiator of the request, it would be somewhat untoward for me to close it. Would someone please evaluate the discussion and close it so that, if the result is to merge, we can start making the necessary changes? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no input from those who have developed and maintained those tools. Could that be gathered please? NW (Talk) 13:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Ioeth/Archive 7#Twinkle merge for discussion between Ioeth and myself about the technical bits of the merge. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Jillian Hall

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at the edit history for Jillian Hall. For a GA article, there is a lot of activity. I only noticed this because a link to a dab page keeps getting added, I fix it, the material gets deleted and then re added with the bad link. Since I have edited this, probably best if I don't deal with the warring going on. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The massive edit warring appears to be between WWEsnoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SpeakthTRUTH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and what are probably their IPs). Both accounts are exclusively dedicated to adding or removing dubiously sourced biographical details to Jillian Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in violation of WP:BLP and WP:EW. Since neither account is doing anything remotely useful, I am blocking both indefinitely. They can be unblocked if they convince us that they understand the applicable policies and want to do something useful on Wikipedia.  Sandstein  19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IP User:79.106.109.119 v

User:79.106.109.119: see their recent edits in Tomori. User:Kedadi already did bulk-rev earlier, but I cannot. Sorry for not using the bigger linked template and so, but it seems clear cut to me. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Notified the IP by non-template. There is a last warning already, btw. The Tomori-disruptions are older (>1 week), I missed that. Just wanted to be a first OK? I was triggered by this single [360], already reverted. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait again. It's about 79.106.109.xxx. Is why I mixed up things.

rv in Unicode: -.33

Bad behaviour in Tomori: -.110, -.115, -.119. -.114, and more

I'm lost from here, but a look from someone else might be needed. -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more clear what exactly the problem is and which action you request. It's not apparent to me. 79.106.109.119 has an empty talk page.  Sandstein  19:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I'll be back. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what happened.

• 79.106.109.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did a v. This single edit I reversed.
• When checking Xis other edits, I saw this history. There was a bulk-revert by User:Kedadi today.
• My eyes missed the difference in IP's: it is 79.106.109.xxx allover. I have checked one more IP (unknowing I clicked a diff one), and saw a sad contribution history. Is how & why I got alarmed. I wanted to report a big fish here once. Well.
• So, no fire burning, I misread the IPs. Unless a more IP-savvy admin wants to take a look at it (not too many warnings in this IP-group?), no big deal. We could close & go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

AlMaghrib Institute

There is an editor, User:AlBaraa who keeps removing referenced material from the above article, although objections to his edits have been raised at the article talk page Talk:AlMaghrib Institute#Recent edits and consensus on how to proceed has not yet been achieved there. The last such edit is here[361]. He also tried to remove the discussion thread from the talk page itself[362]. I am already at three reverts in relation to his edits and do not want to break the 3RR rule myself. However, I'd like a previously uninvolved admin to take a look at the matter, talk to User:AlBaraa and see what could be done about the material he removed. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Carrite

Is something like this acceptable? Just a few minutes ago he blanked his talk page and replaced it with "Due to ongoing harassment by Trolls and their Minions, I will be neither reading or responding to User talk messages. Those with Wikipedia business interested in contacting me may do so directly at MutantPopaol.com" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• He's free to blank his talk page, although I do agree it's not conducive at all. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He's not free not to communicate on-wiki with other editors. Such behavior has gotten others blocked in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And similarly, others have been allowed to blank their talk pages in the same vein without getting blocked before, so... I think it's fair to say it's not conducive to the wiki to do so, there's no consensus on whether or not to act on something like it. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was unclear. Carrite has every right to blank his or her talk page, that's true even of IPs (although I don't agree with policy in those cases), but if an issue comes up, and an editor tries to communicate with Carrite, and Carrite refuses to answer or insists all communication has to be off-wiki -- that kind of behavior has gotten people indef blocked in the past. So, there's nothing for admins to do here, there's been no breach of policy at this time, and quite possibly by the time something comes up, Carrite's attitude about communicating on the talk page may be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• What is concerning is that Carrite is basically refusing to address any concerns on-wiki. This also goes against the open nature of the wiki to refuse to address any concerns anything on-wiki (that is acceptable to discuss on-wiki, that is, to separate from privileged communication between two users via Special:Emailuser or other sensitive information). –MuZemike 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• And others have been blocked for it. You have a problem with individual editors and don't want them on your talk page fine, closing your talk page to everyone is a no-no.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• This approach clearly didn't work the last time that Carrite tried it. So stop worrying about it. This isn't what this AN/I report is really about, anyway. There's an unstated core to this report.

  This just isn't pretty in any way. The personal attack in the edit summary by Carrite is not good. But your part in it wasn't good either, TenPoundHammer. Yes, there are people with bad rationales at AFD. That's not the way to go about changing their minds. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict times about 50) I let Carrite know about this discussion on their talk page. As Ken says, though, it probably isn't something to worry about now, but if later this user needs to be discussing and isn't, blocks may be in order at that time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess he can be blocked without any warnings then, since it's pointless giving warnings to someone who has said they won't be reading them? (a bit tongue in cheek, but still...). And last time he didn't flat out say he wouldn't read his talk page, he said it would be quicker to email him. I'm not emailing warnings to anyone. Normally of course we escalate warnings, but that wouldn't work here. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that reading this as we-can-now-block-without-warning, just to make a point, wouldn't be the best course of action. The request was ignored last time. It will be ignored this time, and already has been once. If Carrite decides to cut xyr nose off despite xyr own face if it should ever come to the point that interaction via xyr user talk page is warranted, then the outcome is fairly obvious. But this isn't really the meat of the issue, here. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#AMuseo, this, this, this, and (now) this. (I'm particularly drawing attention to the contents of the discussions.) Carrite obviously feels beleaguered. (If xe thinks that that's bad, though, xe should stand in some administrators' shoes some time.) Carrite's response is not the best response in such a situation. We all know that it's not going to be an effective one. Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I stopped short of leaving any templated warnings on Carrites talkpage, preferring instead to remind him about civility (here and here ). One reason for this is that I don't like to template regulars. Another reason (the second time) is that TenPoundHammer isn't exactly the least confrontational person on wikipedia in the first place. Trouts all round if you ask me. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I find the complainant's conduct here far more deserving of censure, if not sanctions, than the target's. TPH announced rather clearly a few days back that he's ready and willing to defy policies like WP:CIVIL when editing disputes aren't going his way [363], and this appears to be nothing more than a case where TPH deliberately, even petulantly, annoyed a user he was in conflict with until he succeeded in provoking an untoward response. It's certainly also relevant that TPH refused/failed to notify Carrite of this discussion as required, but shortly thereafter restored a deleted post to Carrite's talk page with a profane, uncivil edit summary. I have great doubt that the complaining editor's recent behavior genuinely complies with our good faith standards and note the repeated number of warnings and cautions from experienced editors posted recently on his talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Like it's any frakking better to IGNORE ME OUTRIGHT when I ask you a simple question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for deletion of email from history

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted AniMate 01:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A piece of minor vandalism at Imperial cult (ancient Rome) leaves an email address in the article history. Could an admin please conceal the offending diffs? Thanks, Haploidavey (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible RevDel material

Resolved

 – thanks --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted these two edits. I'm not sure if they warrant revdeleting or not - the second strikes me as a pretty strong veiled suggestion, while the other is pretty rude (I'm not sure that is a revdel candidate). Just throwing them out there (as they are BLP's) for someone else to decide --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The first diff is content that, if it were supported with solid reliable third party sources, would be discarded as not germane to the subjects notability. The second is simple bad mouthing, with perhaps an attempt at humour thrown in (though it is so unfunny I cannot be certain). Your actions in reverting and warning is all that was needed in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

well I wasn't sure if the first one was making a not so nice suggestion about the guy, usually i wouldn't have thought so but in the context of the second one it seemed good to double check. Fanks :)--Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with LessHeard vanU; definitely not a candidate for RevDel. Also, the first one doesn't seem contentious: it mentions that he made a cameo appearance for a local drama club. The second is a WP:WEASELly BLP violation, but not worth revdel, just reversion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also agree; RevDel is surely intended for gross material rather than merely unsourced drivel; the test I apply is "could they sue for this?", and if I think it's a contender, it goes. Let the editor seeking to include it justify it. Rodhullandemu 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I was concerned that given the context of the second edit the first was making a stress on the word "kiddie catcher" (I was trying to avoid explaining it :D) for.. well.. the obvious connotations. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal returns

For about a year now, following a BLP-related dispute leading to the elimination of the freestanding "Sal The Stockbroker" article (see Talk:Sal_the_Stockbroker for background), a determined Howard Stern fan has returned from time to time to harass editors involved in that dispute, of late mostly me (see this charming post on my talk page [364] as well as the edit history of my user page). Over the last week or so, beginning, it appears, as User:Perthmonsit, more recently as a string of IPs, the user has been periodically following my edits, and reverting a large number of generally uncontroversial ones (mostly adding inappropriate content back into BLPs). Admin Barek, who's done a lot of the heavy lifting over the last few days in dealing with this, recommended that I bring the matter here and ask whether it's appropriate/useful to impose some rangeblocks to put a halt to this, so I've taken his advice. The user/vandal seems to have a habit of using User_talk:98.117.34.180 as a test page; the edit history there gives a lot of examples of IPs involved, as well as indicating just how long this vandalism has been going on (I'm hardly the only target). What should be done next? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing this thread I had already placed range blocks against this vandal. I have placed two-week blocks on 98.143.146.80/28, 96.44.132.0/27, 96.44.133.0/27 and 204.152.215.96/27. Two weeks is an arbitrary time. At the time I placed the blocks I was only aware of vandalism over a fairly recent period, but since Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reckons that the problem has been going on for about a year, more may be needed. However, I am always reluctant to place long term range blocks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Alleged admin abuse: EdJohnston

Resolved

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Edit warring over cleanup templates|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Edit warring over cleanup templates]]

Though it seems rather surreal to have to do so I am obligated to register a complaint against an administrator for abuse of his role. For the record, the following was the basic sequence of events:

• Last week I added the cleanup banner {{globalize}} to Ancient Greece and posted my concerns on the talk page. To be clear my concern was that the article should avoid biasing itself toward the influence of this culture on any particular segment of the world population. From previous experience on this article I was prepared for an ugly response but I tried to be optimistic. When the issue had been briefly discussed many months back there was some support expressed for making a change (at that time I did not pursue it further as two editors at that time had turned the discussion immediately ugly). Mind you, I used the cleanup banner rather than editing the prose to avoid triggering any sort of reversion controversy.
• Almost immediately another editor removed the the banner against Wikipedia policy and posted an ugly response. The response did not address the issue I had raised at all.
• I restored the cleanup banner asking the editor not to vandalize leading to a back and forth on the banner.
• I filed a request for mediation to help in stopping the edit war and asking that we actually discuss the issue.
• Another editor suggested using the {{dubious}} tag on one particular statement in place of {{globalize}} on the whole article. Though this was a less accurate characterization of the issue I accepted it as a compromise. The first editor rejected this compromise so I returned to using {{globalize}}. The edit war continued.
• I placed an Rfc to try to attract editors who might actually want to discuss this issue. The two editors dominated most of the talk page arguing about templates. I tried to avoid addressing debating about templates and tried to return the discussion to the issue. Still the issue was almost never discussed nor was even one source offered in support preserving the disputed wording. From previous experience on other articles I knew the ugliness of the discussion was likely frightening away editors with a scholarly interest in the topic. I hoped the mediation request might kick in before the situation got any more out of hand though my hope was fading.
• One of the editors filed an ANI seeking to try to close down the discussion (mind you this editor explicitly refused to discuss the issue I raised at all).
• Administrator EdJohnston decided to get involved and attack me claiming I had violated reversion rules. I reminded Ed that the 3RR is intended for content reversions. Cleanup banners, Afds, and the like cannot be arbitrarily reverted until there is consensus on the issue raised (or it becomes clear that there is no good faith reason to continue). Given that this issue was only a week old and virtually no actual discussion of the issue had taken place, there was no good faith argument that the banner had outlived its usefulness.
• Despite my request for Ed to explain himself he chose to abuse his authority to bar me from Wikipedia.

I honestly don't know the reason for Ed's behavior, be it a personal relationship with some particular party or simply being swept up by mob mentality. As Ed is an experienced editor I think a misunderstanding of the policies can be ruled out.

I am not requesting any particular action in this matter; I am only providing notice. The damage is done insofar as it is unlikely that any serious scholar will want to get involved in the discussion (or perhaps even the article) at this point. I don't know anything about Ed's past behavior but certainly this can't be allowed to continue in the future.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Though these are technicalities it should be noted that:

• At the time Ed barred me the banner was not present on the page. He claimed that he was waiting for me to remove the banner which obviously can't be true.
• At the time Ed barred me I had already shut down the discussion including the Rfc since it was clear to me that editors who might have a serious interest in the topic were almost surely frightened away by that point.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• You said... "I reminded Ed that the 3RR is intended for content reversions. Cleanup banners, Afds, and the like cannot be arbitrarily reverted until there is consensus on the issue raised (or it becomes clear that there is no good faith reason to continue)." which I find to be interestingly at odds with what I understand of 3RR. Can you please cite a policy or guideline that makes tagging or detagging an exception to 3RR? Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• You have nobody but yourself to blame given that you consciously chose not to self-revert. The issue is you misunderstood the reversion rules so your reminders were not in synch with policy that was enacted by the Community. In other words, the issue isn't EdJohnston. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to note that I was one of the many editors who removed the globalize tag from the article, as it wasn't applicable and there was clearly no consensus for it to remain, and that when Mcorazao reverted my edit, he labelled it as "possible vandalism", which, of course, it wasn't, and which, I believe, he knew to be untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I have read extensively on various pages relating to this incident. There are numerous issues in the editing concerned, but as far as this discussion is concerned the issue is whether or not EdJohnston was abusing administrators' powers by placing a 24 hour block on Mcorazao for edit warring. The reason advanced for suggesting that there was abuse is that Mcorazao suggests that edit warring applies only to textual content, not to "cleanup banners". Mcorazao has also expressed various other grievances, including questioning EdJohnston's motives, but these are irrelevant to the issue in question. I find no basis whatever for the idea that these templates are exempt from the prohibition of edit warring, nor has anyone else supported this view, and Mcorazao has produced no justification except his/her own assertion. The error in understanding WP:3RR was pointed out, but Mcorazao persisted in their belief. I have no reason to doubt that Mcorazao was acting in good faith, but there is no basis at all for the view that their action was exempt from WP:3RR, and so there is no case at all against EdJohnston. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Though it is long after the fact I feel obliged to offer a comment. Granted the 3RR policy does not explicitly go into distinctions about different types of edits. But it is clearly focused on content disputes, not requests for discussion. I think every contributor here is aware that cleanup banners are a standard way to attract attention to a concern. Applying the 3RR in this situation is saying that an editor cannot raise a concern if his/her opinion is unpopular, which counters Wikipedia's concensus-based principles. And certainly it goes against standard Wikipedia practice (meaning how administrators normally apply the rules). If some of you want to change this practice and amend the 3RR rule then that should be done formally (though I cannot see a reason for such a change). But trying to push such a change in this way is "legislating from the bench" (and again goes against Wikipedia's principle of concensus). And claiming that you don't know this is intellectually dishonest.

I'll reiterate a point I have made before. If WP cannot begin to apply its standards consistently including managing abuses like this case then its going to be hard for the project to really ever achieve its ultimate ambitions. The project is already suffering from a decline in interest and I would speculate that part of it is frustration about these types of things. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Herostratus

This is an odd one, User:Herostratus has recently made this edit [365] - basically adding a bunch of smiley faces to an image of a sex act. I can personally see no reason for making this change yet the user has attempted to justify the change on the talkpage Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image in what I read as a tongue-in-cheek post (with a sprinkling of maliciousness - the user dropped in a link to some weird wiki-like site). I was just wondering if I'm missing something here, maybe it's all in my head? At any rate, the user has reverted my revert and I'm not interested in getting in to an edit war so would like some sort of intervention, though I'm unsure what options are available. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's supposed to be a bedspread. I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't read the talkpage, though, so I'd say if Herostratus wants this image maybe he could try to draw it better and then start up the discussion on the talk page then. —Soap— 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How is a bedspread relevant? This is obviously an editor who is childishly trying to vandalize a sexually explicit article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think he meant well. There was also a similar discussion a few years back, anyway. I agree we should stay with the plain background image though; if someone wants to add a bed it should be in the proper perspective (which is not easy to do with SVG). —Soap— 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus seems to have issues with sexually explicit visual media on Wikipedia - this looks like another manifestation of this. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is this not an ANI matter. ANI is not generally used for discussion of details of article content, and ANI is not RFC for content. Don't you folks have enough to do? If not, I would be glad to direct you to some backlogs and stuff where admins are needed. I am surprised that you didn't direct the poster to the dispute resolution process (beginning with, say, a note on my talk page before going to ANI). I have responded to the poster on his talk page, and I would suggest that anyone interested in this article go to the article talk page.

Thanks a bunch for the dig, Exxolon. I would ask you to explain your remark, please. Can you show me a diff that supports your remark? Of course you can't. In my opinion, the fact that the admins let mooks like you hang around here and pollute this board -- and render it practically useless for its intended use -- is beyond my understanding. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please knock it off, "mooks like you ... pollute this board" is a personal attack, and any editor may post here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll knock it off when he knocks off uncited remarks like "ha[s] issues with sexually explicit visual media", OK? Yes any editor may post here. That does not mean any editor can post anything here. I hope. If you people were doing your job you would have told the original poster to at least, I don't know, drop a note on the article talk page (or my talk page) first, maybe? Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Herostratus...I'm going to ask, then, what are you at here? First you change it to what really doesn't appear to be anything that's particularly relevant, and then when someone objects, you remove the image entirely, claiming it's in "dispute", though you never really did seem to dispute the original image (just changed it some). It does seem very odd, and it does look like it's already been discussed on the talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove the image, another editor did that. I agreed that while the content of the image is in dispute this seems like a reasonable move. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed the image, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the ersatz "dispute" created by Herostratus' disruptive behavior. I removed it because the quality of the image is poor, it does not adequately illustrate the act involved, and it adds nothing to the text, which is more than sufficient for the reader's understanding of what is meant. This was not done for the purpose of censorship, another image could well enhance the article in a way this one did not. Thus, the basis of the removal for me was strictly editorial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to explain my remark Herostratus - your recent posts on Talk:Gokkun on the RFC about using an image on the article where among other gems you called me "catspaw for this ongoing campaign to disgrace and degrade and the Wikipedia and damage its reputation (and drive away women and young people to boot" because I supported having an image in the article (and linked catspaw to useful idiot as well in a veiled attack), cited Wikipedia:If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas in your argument and accused me of bad faith by wanting the image there. "Mook" and "polluter" now - that's nice too. Given your stance on Talk:Gokkun and your strange edit to the image discussed above I think it's certainly arguable you have issues regarding sexually explicit media here. Exxolon (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's you. You are still mad that the RFC you initiated didn't gain the result you wanted? It happens. You have to move on. As to the rest... look, let me give you a bit of advice. It's a free world and free internet, and we have freedom of speech (and, in America anyway, the First Amendment), and the Wikipedia is not censored. However. None of that means that normal people are going to like you if you are a pornographer. I mean, you certainly wouldn't be welcome in my home, and you probably wouldn't be too popular in my town generally. But that's OK. I'm sure I wouldn't be welcome with the sort of people that would find you admirable. That is called "life". If you don't like being called a pornographer, the solution is simple: don't be one. But if you want to be one, don't worry about people like me. You're free to revel in it if you like. Get a T-shirt, whatever. You are never going to get the approval of everyone in this life. Choose whom you do want the approval of, and act accordingly. I'm sure that users 75.88.127.62, 24.143.15.253, 68.34.31.108 and so on would think that you're a fine fellow. You're never going to be short of friends like that if you push stroke pictures at the Wikipedia. So don't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Raises Eyebrow* - The RFC is still running, and I'm quite happy to abide by the result so that charge is spurious. The images is question are not for titillation but are designed to aid understanding of the subject - they support our core aim of encyclopidic articles on all relevant subjects. Trying to sidetrack the issue by suggesting I'm a pornographer is poor form. Maybe I do work in that industry, maybe I don't but it's not relevant - my aim is to have illustrative images on sexual topics that help understanding of the subject. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Exxolon (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The image activity and comments on the article talk page and here on ANI constitute disruptive behavior - disrupting Wikipedia to attempt to prove a point. I AGF that Herostratus didn't intend to push to the point of blockable behavior, but he's bordering on that at the moment. I have left him a final warning on his talk page. This needs to stop. Activity like this is supremely disrespectful to the other editors around. One can argue the points of whether the image is appropriate or not and useful or not without playing silly buggers with content or with other editors'. Chosing to make the point disruptively is not OK, and has never been. If it happens again I will issue a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also warned Herostratus for violations of WP:NPA both here and on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I can't believe that anyone is even arguing with Herostratus about this. It's so stupid. What relevance could a bunch of pixellated smiley faces possibly have with respect to an illustration of semen leaking from a woman's anus? It's clearly vandalism, and I'd suggest ending this discussion, so as to not feed the trolls. SnottyWong ^prattle 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I also can't believe anyone is arguing about this. The (original) graphic is being discussed now at the article talk page, and here's a couple of different editor's takes: "...looks, quite literally, like it came from a 7th-grader's sketchbook..." and "...image is of exceedingly poor quality (like something off a men's room stall)..." I'm a big boy and can certainly take "Your graphics skills are not up to Wikipedia standards" or "Your graphics skills suck" if you prefer, but It's not like I was trying to improve the Mona Lisa for chrissakes.

Anyway, just to finish of, three things:

• I wanted to get clear in my own head the sequence of events preceding the ANI post, so I picked through the diffs. They're here with my comments, If anyone cares. Which I doubt, which is OK, I wanted to get this clear in my own head.
• As to the events (and my behavior here) following the ANI post, well, obviously I lost my temper. I am overly sensitive to allegations that I have "sexual issues" since I do get that from time to time and it does push my buttons. However, Exxolon didn't say that (although what he did say was bad enough) So, utterly inexcusable, and I am ashamed of myself.
• However... In my opinion there is a problem (sometimes) with this page. A user came here asking for advice and assistance ("I'm unsure what options are available") and the next thing you know we're gossiping about "Herostratus seems to have issues with sexually explicit visual media". And this is allowed. So let me set this off in bold type:

If this page is going to be run like an unmoderated Usenet forum, then people are going behave on it like people behave on an unmoderated Usenet forum.

If no one is going to chastise users like Exxelon, then their targets are going to have to defend themselves, and maybe it won't be so pretty. It's pretty much human nature to defend oneself.

Meh. I have more to say on this, along with a specific proposed solution. I'll take it to the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, I'm going to offer some advice as an impartial observer. You already know you have a "button," so you have to expect it'll be pushed. Especially when you keep involving yourself in the same material that pushes said button. Even if you feel attacked, you can defend yourself politely, or at least in a restrained manner. If you keep flying off the handle, you're only punishing yourself. These pages are moderated, but it won't always be moderated in a way that you would like if you keep responding like that.

I'd suggest taking a short break for a few days and letting this subject go. When you come back, consider if you really want to keep editing materials that make you so upset. I've had to leave a few articles because of that, myself. It's not a pleasant feeling, but it's better than constant stress and risking a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sage advice, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bolitas's removal of speedy tags

Resolved

 – User:Bolitas blocked for 24 hours. – ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bolitas (talk · contribs) has continued to remove speedy deletion notices from articles they have created [366], after multiple warnings (including two "final" warnings) to desist. However, this is not really vandalism as the user has made attempts to communicate [367] and appears to generally be editing in good faith. Is there anything else to be done to get this user's attention? VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed url to second link, sorry. VQuakr (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an update. After user deleted the speedy tag 6 times at Luzon Moo Duk Kwan, 3 times after final warning, I have removed the last speedy nom and started an AfD discussion on that article. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough - I have re-tagged for speedy deletion and reported User:Bolitas to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Asarlaí at Eglinton, County Londonderry

Resolved

 – IP blocked and page semi-protected. GedUK  13:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

EditorUser:Asarlaí continues to revert agreed version of the Eglinton, County Londonderry page contrary to the 1RR rule. Discussion has taken place on the Talk Page but this user continues to push their own POV contrary to the rules. --87.113.24.44 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've restored this thread, and temporarily fully protected the article while I wade through it and try to work out what the consensus is. GedUK  13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is clearly an attempt at "revenge" by this IP, who is currently under sockpuppet investigation — see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City. The IP's edits to Eglinton are against WP:IMOS and against the agreement on the article's talkpage. They have thus been reverted (by myself and others) as vandalism. ~Asarlaí 13:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with Asarlaí and it was I who requested the protection of the article from the disruptive (and suspected socks). Bjmullan (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article doe not comply with WP:IMOS. The editors above named refuse to discuss the issue since they are clearly in the wrong and have reverted to making malicious allegations about the IP. They are typically editing contrary to NPOV policy. It is quite obvious that Asarlaí and Bjmullan are in collusion over this article. --87.113.24.44 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AJona1992

Resolved

 – AJona1992 (talk · contribs) retains the privilege to edit (from a single account only) under the guidance of RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) and is to help identify (under safe harbour) and remove any and all copyright violations they may have introduced. However, if they introduce additional (net new) copyright violations, they may (and very likely will) be indefinitely blocked. There shall be little tolerance for further incivility, personal attacks, or edit-warring behaviour. –xeno^talk 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ajona1992 has a long history of copyright problems and personal attacks on other editors, not to mention WP:OWN issues on the Selena article. He was blocked from 3rr a few weeks ago, and he refuses to listen to other editors advise. Now comes this edit, in which me and SandyGeorgia agree he should be blocked for that. He's just going to disrupt even more, especially once the Selena article gets unprotected. A block is warranteed, and a topic ban as well. Thanks Secret ^account 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified him for you, Secret... Doc9871 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

She was attacking me. I only attack people if they attack me. First of all those pics belongs to my family and me just becuz u guys found 200 of the same pics on google.com doesn't prove your right. AJona1992 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"They did it first" i not an excuse. IMO there's an inferable WP:TOV in the diff provided, and would support a block at least. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a "threat of violence", I'm quite sure. It's a little "heated", but no way is it an actual threat. A block may happen for other reasons, however... Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly I do take other editors advice! esp when people wanted to help me I LOVED it I was happy that they wanted to help me on wikipedia I needed it after being attack by all you guys telling me that my pictures are in violation, my magazines are fake, etc, etc. Once someone asked me if I needed help I always say "yes" except to you becuz all you do is this, I add a source from a magazine and all you do is REVERT IT becuz YOU don't have it or know about it. AJona1992 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I am having issues with her on here (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Selena/archive1). So maybe this can help you guys decide weather or not I should stay here. Also you guys should look at my contributions as well. AJona1992 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes also she keeps talking about me and the magazine that is not currently listed as an unreliable magazine, that's all she AND you keep bringing up. AJona1992 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has come across AJona1992 more than I want to remember, I'm not surprised to see that his behavior hasn't changed a bit, nor his has his editing habits. His continuous addition of copyright violations text here on en.wiki and copyright violations in image form on en.wiki, Commons and throughout several other different language Wikis that have yet to be deleted is just the beginning of this user's edit history. His astounding immaturity and complete negligence of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as well as his overall intolerance to admit he can be and is often wrong on multiple levels with multiple issues, whether is being sourcing issues, categorization, policies, etc., really makes me wonder if he'll end up being blocked indefinitely before the new year. His claims that his grandmother took these pictures are utterly ridiculous, as many of the admins who work with images and copyright here and on Commons are well aware of (note in point, he claims this image was taken by his grandmother and the quality of the picture is attributed to being scanned, yet this higher quality, high resolution and uncropped version was somehow published before the supposed scan, huh). You can offer him all the help in the world, but once he disagrees with you, he resorts to naming calling, personal attacks, incivility and the typical "HAHA lulz". Even with all this problematic behavior, I still haven't even begun mentioning his block for sockpuppetry and 3RR, as well as his attempt of meatpuppetry and inappropriate canvassing to push his Selena WikiProject proposal through. The community is simply wasting far too much time on this one individual. — ξ^xplicit 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Sockpuppetry as well, and claiming copyrighted photos was part of her family collection wow I'll endorse a indef block of the user right now, he's more trouble than he's worth. Secret ^account 03:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • User:CHICOGAGA should be blocked indef as a meatpuppet of Ajona. Secret ^account 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I can say to you is "wow" I tried asking advice from you, yea I bet your saying again "stop the mellow drama" but I was really asking for some advice. Anyways I understand where your coming from but the thing is my grandmother/mother really did take these pictures I mean I am not going to let you guys get away with the comments you have said about it either. The sock thingy I only did ONE TIME and I didn't know about the rule to begin with. Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards. I do have anger issues and nor should I talk about my life here becuz it doesn't involve in this. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). AJona1992 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm another thing here the people who helped me and encourage me, I never disagree with them and even if I did we never argued! you can ask every person who was willing to help me and and I accepted it I got along with them very well, you know why? becuz they never talked to me the way you guys are, they are more calm and more pleasant to talk to they don't go around here sticking their heads up in the sky thinking they run stuff, no they actually, even though told I was trouble, stood by me and helped me. AJona1992 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in California Secret! And my IP address confirms that, so next time go do some research before accusing me of something that I didn't do. AJona1992 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards—please take a look at WP:POINT. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). Well, you're not banned. And if you do something wrong, there is a negative consequence. Your talk page shows that many people have tried to help, but yet you have continued some of the things they have asked you to stop doing, like posting copyvios. You *yawn* at it here and then again (bigger) here. That's just counterproductive. If you treat others like that, who are also here on their free time, you will not be helped and encouraged much longer. It's just rude. So yea… Airplaneman ✈ 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I read a little about it after my episode to prove that "Q-Productions" was a great external link. And what I was saying there was that I was banned from sock and 3rr and I didn't know there was a rule about socking I just only wanted to get my project approved. Yea I need to work on that but I don't want to abandon the Selena article because I feel that a "FA" should include and not limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a strong warning, such a strong warning that I had to break WP:CIVIL in order to tell him the truth, but a WP:IAR could be used in my case. But with it I think he understands the situation now. I'll work with him. Thanks Secret ^account 03:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Ajona: You don't seem to understand sourcing requirements for featured articles, as evidenced by a review of the Selena talk page and FAR, and there seem to be quite a few other problems with your Wiki editing. Your participation has been disruptive, and your post to the Selena FAR was certainly a breach of WP:CIVIL, if not a WP:TOV. Wikipedia is not MySpace, and we're here to collaborate to (hopefully) produce high quality articles; editors who don't understand that might do better to spend their time on the internet elsewhere. If you don't learn and follow Wiki policies, admins will help you find another place to spend your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, folks, WP:TOV "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." See WP:VIOLENCE - do you think the local authorities should be contacted because of this "threat"? "Accordingly, if there is any possibility at all that a 'real world' threat has been made with genuine intent, the best thing to do is to immediately report it to authorities." It's not a real world threat with genuine intent... Doc9871 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Doc, again SandyG I only edit the page Selena if I find something that should belong there (most successful singles of 1994 and 1995, Best Latin artist of the decade, best 1990s singer, now don't you think these belong on a article?) with sources from Billboard. If it's to revert to prove a point than yea I have done that but I was only doing that becuz I had sources and everyone was just dead against me expanding the article which is kinda dumb (in my point of view) becuz I believe that a FA article shouldn't limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines people have cited say otherwise; it's not just what you think is correct. Please understand that this is probably why you ended up here in the first place: not taking in others' advice. Airplaneman ✈ 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I left some "friendly advice" on AJona1992's talk page and he'll hopefully consider it: and he seems to be civilly working with the same editor who reported this thread (and who intially called for a block and a topic ban). Hopefully this should cool down quickly, and time will determine if they can't work something out. His userpage (if accurate) is very open about his RL identity, and he is a young editor who hopefully can learn policy. His bad behavior is noted, and if he's disruptive again at all it will be dealt with swiftly, I'm sure. One more chance, maybe? Just my 2p... Doc9871 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will suggest mentorship to Ajona1992. Perhaps that will help. It's a tool that I think sadly doesnt get used often enough, especially for those people who seem honestly desiring to contribute, but simply cant grasp that things on Wikipedia are different than how one would write about or discuss them in the "real world" (wherever that is). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AJona1992 has accepted my mentorship on 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC). He's got an article up for GA review (that he turned from a 3K stub into an article nearly GA ready), and I've spent a few hours tonight working with him on it (providing input here and there) and going over guidelines and such. A very productive night and I feel strongly that he'll turn out to be a valued editor. I've also written this for my adoptees (I've got two) and they are following along with it fine (anyone is free to comment or contribute to it. already made some revisions based on other editors and admins feedback).

Back to the ANI at hand, at this point, I cannot claim uninvolvement as I'm AJona1992's mentor, so my recommendation should carry less weight I would presume, but my feelings are this ANI can be closed as resolved with AJona1992 being mentored and productive with me available to help him avoid any difficult situations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/Question: I have seen users banned for far less than what has been going on with this user and that somewhat troubles me. Not that this user has not been banned but how quickly other users are for doing far less. In general this user has consistently "threatened" editors with variations of "You better watch out". One perfect example is when an admin tried to explain about OTRS in relation to the Grammy photo, and how to include a scan of press passes that would have allowed their grandmother into the media room. The issue actually started earlier when the image in question (File:Selenagrammy.jpg) was tagged with an {{otrs pending}} and a search turned up nothing. (File permission problem with File:Selenagrammy.jpg) The discussion quickly saw AJona1992 re-purposing the header by renaming it to "This user who is deleting the photo loves it as a hobby", and resorting to statements such as And she's not going to that at all because that's her personal information, oh well I guess the photo is going to be deleted, such a shame that Wikipedia is so lame HAHAHAHA.; I gather that your stupid; forgive me if no one told you that if ANYONE dares to talk shit or says something to me that is offensive then I will attack back.; Oh well no one told you that I dont back down, if you want to talk things through lets do it other wise I'm not going to let some girl I don't even know talk to me like I'm a peace of shit.; I don't take shit from no one if you want to talk then talk, dont come on my talk page bringing your useless comments. and I have been trying to show proof but f*** this you was coming at me very rudely. I will just upload a new picture another day. (August 21, 2010) That conversation alone would have gotten most people blocked, but combined with repeated like comments such as Talk:Selena#Merge_discussion: Also YOU need to know that YOU should NEVER threaten me EVER because I don't play fair nor do I back down from ANYONE as you can tell on my old talk page. I know theres rules and stuff like that but once you cross me I can be just as mean as anyone maybe even worse *laughs to the floor OUT LOUD*.; Formal Copyright warning: *yawns bigger* well this is my talk page and I understand the poiclies that you guys made up but if someone is going to attack me, don't think for one second that I am not going to respond.; dont cross me DA:I want to tell you off so freaking bad but I am going to tell you this, I am the type of guy that you don't want to cross... and Review commentary: re:...if the magazine said the funeral held more than 100 million so be it, so argue with them and not talk s about me.) I agree with Explicts summary of the situation. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (Poss COI: I'm AJona1992's mentor). Hi Soundvisions1, you bring up some great points, and I probably should have addressed them in more detail above where others raised them. Apologies for not doing so.
    • Besides working on the article I mentioned above with AJona1992, we also discussed these issues in reasonable depth. I also created the "Adoptee" page indicated above with Wikipedia's Guidelines. In addition to those Guidelines, I also posted rules I expect all of my adoptees to adhere to for as long as they choose for me to be their mentor. In this particular scenario, since this is all part of the ANI, I think AJona1992 doesnt have a choice about having a mentor (involuntary mentorship as noted on the mentoring page) - at least assuming that this ANI is ended with that as part of it's terms. If that's the case, he's bound by (and very aware of such) the rules I've stated for him and my other adoptees. I know that Wikipedians are generally bound by mostly guidelines and policies, but there are some things I personally will not tolerate - and AJona1992 is aware of that.
    • While of course, I cannot guarantee that AJona1992 will not violate my rules (and thus not violate Wikipedia policies), I do believe it's likely he will not do so again.
    • As for the copyright issue, I am waiting on resolution to the satisfaction of the editor above. If it turns out AJona1992 was in the wrong, he's already been somewhat taken to task for that, and I will follow up with a stern reminder of the importance of not violating copyright law. I already did so last night. I've made it clear to him that he needs to come back here and come clean if anything he did in this nature was wrong. I think his response in this matter (or lack thereof) will be telling of a few things: (1) whether he truly understands the issue at hand, and (2) if we can have any expectation of him doing it again.
    • As for the comments made, I for one will not tolerate such, and I clearly state that on my Adoptee page. Yes, they should never have happened. Yes, some people get blocked for less. Yes, some people get away with a lot more and never get blocked. But just as in article disputes, "someone else..." shouldn't apply. Based on this situation, and this ANI, one should decide what actions should be taken. My suggestion is, as noted, that AJona1992 be required to be mentored for (a) a certain period of time or (b) longer if he chooses to remain an adoptee once that period of time has expired. And of course, the other alternatives (which I am not proposing) are a block or ban.
    • As I stated in my adoptee doc, if one of my adoptees violates certain of my rules, I may be the first one to request their block. And I meant it when I wrote it. And he's well aware that I cannot recall any of my block requests having been denied to date (came up in an unrelated conversation).
    • From viewing his contributions, it appears he has a very determined and passionate intent to make Wikipedia better - even if he was off to a rocky start with some of his comments and actions. Hardly the first valued editor who has started on poor footing.
    • Many new editors run afoul of various guidelines here. From my experience watching and using Wikipedia as an anon for years, followed by this stint with a username, it seems the more involved the new editor is, the more likely they will violate those rules until things are explained to them (or they gain a mentor). Of course, I cant justify his actions based on other's actions - but I can say (was trying to say) I do have some sort of an expectation that such will happen with such new editors. Part of the reason I jump on user creation log and send out welcome templates when I've got the time.
    • As noted above, he decided he really wanted a mentor as his disappeared, and agreed to have me as one (without it being because of any sanctions here).
    • Thus, my proposal, at this time, is still that AJona1992 be mentored for a set period of time to be determined by all of you. I would like to think that I am pretty levelheaded and good with dealing with such situations in a beneficial way - but I am biased on such matters, so, in this, please feel free to review me or discuss my level of competency in such matters with the other editors and sysops I have interacted with.
  • That's all I have to add. Also, if I am correct about AJona1992, I expect he will be making a post soon. You all can be assured I have conveyed the gravity of the situation, and taken him to task for anything he has done wrong. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Side note, AJona1992 has agreed to every term/rule in my Adoptee's page, without any qualms. We also spent time going over the importance of various ones of them (no copvio, no edit warring, no bad remarks to other editors). He's also agreed to my imposition of a 2RR rule. The only thing he asked in return is that I'd be available for any questions to help ensure he doesnt unknowingly violate any guidelines - to which I agreed. This was done via chat (my chat info is on my userpage), and I am freely willing to (with his permission, which I suspect wont be a problem) post the whole transcript if wanted. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for the rude comments that I have siad - I guess I let my passion ahead of my reason.

I have to be honest, the Grammy picture was copyrighted. I'm really sorry about that and the problems it caused. My mentor has explained the importance of never doing those things again, and I promise I wont. If I cant prove the other picture(s) are owned by me to your satisfaction, I understand and wont post them again.

My mentor has explained what edit warring is. He's got his own additional rule (that I cannot violate 2 reverts), so I wont do that again, and will instead get him or someone else involved instead of edit warring.

I also would like everyone to give me another chance as I am only beginning to learn the guidelines and rule for Wikipedia and the causes that I have done, which I did not know of until now. I won't let anyone down! AJona1992 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good! You seem to be heading in the right direction. The offer for mentorship by Robert is extremely generous, and I hope this will have a positive impact for the encyclopedia as well as everyone involved. Airplaneman ✈ 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the other participants in this ANI that I have forwarded a proposal. (I did not think it fair for this ANI to be closed or sit without their opportunity to respond, and didnt want to take the chance). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for reminding me to revisit and comment, RobertM. My experience with mentorship is that it only works (and still may not work) when there is a "good cop" and a "bad cop" on board. You can guide Ajona, but you can't block him when he ignores you or becomes disruptive. I applaud your effort, but in my experience, it won't work, and will continue to sap community time, unless an admin agrees to block according to a pre-defined plan. Good luck :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sandy, and yes, I think parameters need to be added (repercussions), but I did not feel I am the person to decide those (partially for the reasons you mentioned, partially because of possible perceived bias, and partially because it still hinges on supporters (other than me) willing to agree to the mentorship proposal). Hoping you or others can propose such (and as I let him know, I may be the first person to request the use of such sanctions if a violation occurs... and mentor (good cop) or not, I already took him to task over the copyvio issue). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You just have to find an admin willing to block, and ask Ajona to agree upon an escalating block schedule should issues recur (I see a suggestion below). It would be better if that admin followed his talk, so you (as the "good cop") don't have to "report" him-- your role is supportive. I was involved in one mentorship that turned a highly disruptive editor around, because I helped her, while an admin blocked her every time she backslid. I observed another mentorship that didn't work because the mentors were also the enforcers, no one would agree to block, and the mentee turned on her advisers, as their role wasn't well defined. It would also be wise to put an "end game" plan in place now, while everyone is cooperating :) What if the mentorship doesn't work? Cross that bridge now so you don't end up in protracted dispute resolution. Also, what if the mentorship does work? How/when do you end it? When do you decide the job is done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • AJona1992 has read and agreed to this (though I suspect it's binding even without that agreement). I am pretty sure that those admins I turn to for assistance for other things will be more than willing to enforce this if need be. In particular, I am sure I can count on User:Arbitrarily0 and User:Xeno and User:SarekOfVulcan in this matter. But as I dont want to speak for them with 100% surety, I will ask all three of them to review this and comment for themselves. Also, I've notified User:Explicit and User:Airplaneman about the proposed resolution and asked them to come here to provide their input. I'm guessing if they agree to these sanctions, I and others can turn to them for enforcement if needed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: I have some RL to take care of but I did want to make a note that I have received RobertMfromLI's courtesy notice and will respond here later today/tonight. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, so I have read through everything, including what is below and I agree with most all of it. And I agree with what Moonriddengirl said as well x10. I actually forgot to mention that element in my first comments but repeated copyright violations are very serious, both in the real world and on Wikipedia. I deal with images and find that a lot of uploader just assume that "personal collection" or "my family collection" means they own copyright. I understand that for a lot of people it is hard to fully understand, but in this case there is a track record of people actually making an attempt to explain why text and images are not allowed and yet the user still claims, very strongly, ownership and, now, the user is admitting that they were actually lying about it. That is a bit more than a simple misunderstanding. I think a 24 hour ban for the next copyright vio is extremely "slap on the wrist" like. If consensus agrees to that so be it, but I look at this way - as far as images go: User was notified once and still claimed copyright. User was notified twice and claimed copyright. User was notified a third time and claimed copyright. User was notified a fourth time and claimed copyright. These are four different images and each time it was claimed that the users mother and/or grandmother took the images in question. False claim(s) were also made via a {{otrs pending}} tag on being placed on image(s). I seriously feel between that, this discussion, and the mentorship, that if another blatant copyright vio happens a one month ban minimum should be put into place. And if there is another account doing it that comes back as a sock of this user the ban should be permanent, hopefully I don't need to explain that one. I take a much stronger stance with image copyright issues, more so with a knowingly false (repeated) representation of ownership. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on mentorship restrictions and consequences

Per the above, here are a few suggestions/my proposal on consequences for the user on violating any part of his mentorship:

• As mentor, RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) is free to ask for admin intervention at any time for any situation(s) he may deem fit
• Incivility and personal attacks will start at a level-3 warning (he's already been warned), with the next a level four warning. This provides a three-strikes-you're-out rule.
• Further incivility or personal attacks beyond that point will be met by blocks, starting at 48 hours and increasing.
• Threats of any kind, regardless of (lack of) prior warning, will be met by a 48-hour block, and increasing for more.
• Any more copyright violations found uploaded will be met by an upload ban, which if broken will result in blocks (starting at 24 hours and moving upwards). an indefinite block (added 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC) per rec by Soundvision1 --->) of no less than 30 days.
• Copyright violations in text, if any are found, will be met by a copyvio warning, with further violations resulting in blocks starting at 24 hours. an indefinite block (added 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC) per rec by Soundvision1 --->) of no less than 30 days.
• Per the deal of the mentorship, the user is restricted to 2RR. Should he break this or engage in otherwise nonconstructive long-term edit warring (say, over a few days), blocks should be applied starting at 12 hours (for 2RR) or 24 hours (3RR/edit warring).
• (Added: 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC) per rec by Soundvision1) If AJona1992 creates a sock account (or uses IP to perform similar), the sock account will be permanently blocked and the AJona1992 account will be blocked for a period of 7 days.
• (Added: 05:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)) Any block accrued due to the actions of a sock account get imposed on the main account (AJona1992) since the sock will be indefinitely blocked.

Seems fair to me, but comments? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support With involuntary mentorship (for 3 months?) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: By request of SandyGeorgia (who brought up a valid concern), I have asked Arbitrarily0, Xeno, and SarekOfVulcan to review this and let us know if they are willing to impose the proposed accelerated sanctions if the need arises. 03:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Airplaneman has agreed to impose sanctions on the accelerated time table proposed above if the need arises. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would support this. He's going to be watched carefully by editors both for and against his mentoring; and if he breaks the rules, he'll answer for doing so. I say move forward (not ignoring or "forgetting" the misdeeds) - and see what happens. If he's sincere, it will hopefully work, and if he can't abide by the rules, we all know what will happen. Doc9871 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm willing, since AJona seems eager to get things right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• xeno has added AJona's talk page to their watch list (in the event intervention or accelerated sanctions need to be applied). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm all for second chances and support this generally, except that I believe the copyright restrictions need to be considerably stronger. Please note that he has now confessed to copyright fraud in falsely claiming ownership of images (taking it so far as to write to OTRS with unprovable claims of ownership and to edit war on the now deleted image to remove evidence), and he has repeatedly restored copyrighted text in spite of warnings to stop. I support the mentorship for civility issues, but I think we need to take a harder stance on copyright violations than that. Copyright fraud isn't misunderstanding; it's deliberate disruption. Seriously, read his comments here. I think we need to make clear that this is not a wrist-slapping situation. Per the provisions of OCILLA, we are required to make, communicate and enforce a termination policy for repeat infringers. I think the next instance of copyright violation (text or image) should lead to a block, and any subsequent instances should lead to an indefinite block. Mentees need room to learn, as I know very well, but copyright violation of the sort we've seen here doesn't happen by accident. Other than the copyright situation, the rest of the proposal seems fine to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  I concur entirely. And I actually would not be as forgiving, I think that next instance of (net-new) copyright violation should result in an indefinite block. –xeno^talk 17:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: and explained to AJona1992. I've revised the proposal above. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly related note: I advised him (before his admission of guilt) that he needed to come clean, but that doing so may result in an indefinite block now. He chose to come clean anyway. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's encouraging. Hopefully the issues won't repeat. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Just to make these "restrictions and consequences" complete I think there needs to be a specific "rule" about any secondary/sock accounts and attempts at gaming the system. (See User:Jonaboy1992, User:Jenna1996 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AJona1992/Archive for more information) Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Adjusted block to indefinite no less than 30 days for copyvio, and added sock (1 week, main account, perm block sock account) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think that is fine but rather than 7 days, if it is a copyvio, I think that same "rules" for the main user doing it should kick in. In other words if AJona1992 uploads a blatant copyvio claiming it as their own and that causes a minimum 30 day block than a sock of AJona1992 doing the same thing should also result in a minimum of 30 days for the copyvio *to* AJona1992. (plus the permanent ban for the sock). For other sock uses - 3rr, threats, deletion discussions, etc the same type of block that is already mentioned for those issues should kick in. If the user gets less of a block for being a puppet than they would doing it under their main account it kind of defeats the whole point I feel. Although, with the exception of the copyvio, 7 days is longer than what is already proposed. EDIT: Sorry that may not read correct - If the sock is doing copyvios the block for AJona1992 should be no less than 30 days, not 7. For the rest 7 days is fine because it is more than the 12/24/48. Using a sock to do any of these things should have more of a consequence. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree: claiming you (or your grandma) took a clearly copyrighted photo is not excusable, and even 30 days is hardly excessive when you know you're committing a copyvio. Socking should be punished by the proven socks being indeffed (unless they are IPs), and consequences are what they are for socking. If he doesn't immediately cease thoughts of socking, I'm gonna be pissed... Doc9871 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok first of all I never knew what socking meant at the time that I was doing it, now knowing about it I won't do it again 100%. Secondly, my first user name was Jonaboy1992 but I wanted a new one and choose AJona1992 so everyone seems to be upset about the socking thing, didn't know about it and how to "delete" (per say) so anyone can know that Jonaboy was me just only wanted a new user name. AJona1992 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me! You'll be fine: just listen to everyone and take it in stride... :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted above. I simply figured it was implied (one cannot impose a 30 day copyvio block on a sock that's blocked forever, so I figured it was implied that the copyvio block would be imposed on the remaining active account). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins willing to act if the need arises, and willing to impose accelerated sanctions

• SarekOfVulcan
• Airplaneman
• Xeno
• Moonriddengirl (copyright concerns only)

(I think three is sufficient?) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from AJona1992

I understand that what I have done is wrong and I would like to take this time to say thanks to SarekOfVulcan, Airplaneman, Xeno, Moonriddengirl, Secret and RobertMfromLI who helped decide the dissenting vote. I would also like to say that I am deeply sorry to both Secret and SandyGeorgia. Sandy, I am sorry for what I have said, like I said above, my passion for what I was doing got the best of me. I took what you have said the wrong way and I deeply apologize. I also would like to say sorry to Secret for almost hurting his featured article, Selena, you have done such a wonderful job on this article that I will applaud you, being that its a very hard job to do, you stuck to it and you are turning the article back to its original status. To Moonriddengirl, I am deeply sorry about the images that I have uploaded and claimed that they were mine, its just the passion I have with the article that took the best out of me, I will never ever upload a copyrighted image ever again, now knowing of its consequences it brings to Wikipedia. To SarekOfVulcan, Airplaneman and Xeno thank you three so very much for giving me another chance at turning my attitude around. You guys have done it so that I can have another day at editing and showing my strengths at turning stub articles into GA nominations, I want to continue on that and set goals for myself here. Thank you so much for deciding to keep me here and I promise I won't let you guys down! Also a huge, huge, huge thank you to my mentor, Robert, who we didn't know about each other several days ago until this AN/I was brought up, we have become the bests of friends on Wikipedia you have teach me a lot about editing and you also helped me expand my grammar and vocabulary. I want to say thank you so very much and to your talk page stalkers in helping me see another day at editing here. Robert I am glad that we have meet because I really do feel that you have done a whole lot for me from helping me fix problems for my first ever GA article to being such a great person, even if others said otherwise. You never doubted me nor have said you had enough of me, you had stood by me and for that I say thanks. Your such a great person and I hope we continue to be buddies. Thank you to everyone who has helped me, and to everyone that I didn't mentioned and had a role in me still being here, thank you. AJona1992 (talk)

Need a DRV to be speedy closed

riffic (talk · contribs) has started the seventh DRV on Gay Nigger Association of America, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 22. The previous DRV on this article (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 6) closed about a week ago (13 September 2010). Since that time, there has been one edit to the userspace draft referenced in the DRV (User:Murdox/GNAA), which added a wikilink. Clearly, this DRV is frivolous and riffic is wasting everyone's time. This should be closed before it sucks anyone else in, and before the trolls catch wind of it and start commenting. SnottyWong ^converse 23:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that administrator Hoary (talk · contribs) may have gloated riffic into starting the DRV. riffic was a part of past conversations on Talk:GNAA and may have been encouraged by Hoary's statements. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the background, nothing much had changed since the last discussion, so I have closed this. At some point these repeated nominations will be disruptive, indeed that point may have been reached already. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:RL0919#just_a_heads_up – riffic wasn't being disruptive. He discussed this with another administrator beforehand. riffic was cautious. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Which administrator? (Not me.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

RL0919. That particular comment doesn't have anything to do with you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in any so-called "Gay Nigger Association of America", but GNAA is on my watchlist. I'm aware of the long and tedious series of AfDs on the former, but not of subsequent DRVs. What I wrote was: you are free to [...] appeal for permission to create an article about "GNAA" the troll group that's sometimes said to exist: first read about the process at WP:DRV and then do it there [...]. (I don't know what "gloat" means above, but there was no gloating" in any sense of this word that I know.) When I wrote this, I didn't know that "Gay Nigger Association of America" was an item within Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests; I think my ignorance was excusable as it's been there less than a month and nobody had mentioned at Talk:GNAA that DRV wasn't possible. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're taking your own comment out of context. Here's what you said ("gloating" in bold text): So you are free to do either or both of two things. First, appeal for permission to create an article about "GNAA" the troll group that's sometimes said to exist: first read about the process at WP:DRV and then do it there. Secondly, appeal for the deletion of every article on an episode of any obscure Japanese cartoon: the recipe for this is here. You were making a point while mocking an anonymous user's opinion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary doesn't explain your use of "gloat". (If I think that some young heir to a Russian oil fortune is a dickhead, I'll gloat at news that he has totaled the Lamborghini that papa gave him.) I can't prevent anyone from fantasizing about my motives, but I had thought that "AGF" was a WP watchword. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're accusing me of "fantasizing". Isn't that bad faith? Shouldn't sysop have higher expectations for themselves than the standard guidelines? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez clearly meant "goaded" instead of "gloated". Let's not get distracted please. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, goaded, yes. (But no, I didn't goad anyone to do anything.) And your main point is a good one, Looie496. With it firmly in mind: Michaeldsuarez, if my conduct is an issue, then create a new section on this page about my conduct. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor English vocabulary; it comes with my Hispanic Queens, New York background. I rather drop the issue; your conduct isn't harming anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, no harm done. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like this DRV to be re-opened and have it stand the full course (seven days) so I can gain the consensus required. The fact the user draft received one edit since closure is immaterial, I point out in the latest Deletion Review argument that the opposition arguments were in error and the merits of this new DRV should be based solely on that. By the way, my burrito was delicious. riffic (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request – If it's appropriated, can a sysop please list Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 22 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) as the past DRV's were? The page is protected. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Yes, I've just now done this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Riffic may indeed have a point. I don't say that his reasoning is valid, but it's not obviously invalid, and the statement at the head of this section that Clearly, this DRV is frivolous and riffic is wasting everyone's time seems harsh. ¶ But yes, it is unusual at best for a DRV to be started a mere week after another has closed, and cumulatively these discussions of this GNAA are tiresome. In the spirit of reasonableness (whether or not there's a relevant WP guideline), could a condition of the current DRV (if it's reopened) or the next one (if not) be that if it's unsuccessful there will be no further DRV, and if it's successful there will be no further AfD, for six months thereafter? ¶ We read at the head of this section that This should be closed [...] before the trolls catch wind of it and start commenting. I could guess the kind of thing this might refer to but took a look anyway. However intelligent or unintelligent the discussion within it, the previous DRV was not obviously marred my trollery, puppet accounts, etc. One person identifying himself as part of GNAA participated, but (as far as I noticed) did so reasonably and politely. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out why there was a burst of new DRV's for the GNAA after June 2010. In June, GNAA front Goatse Security gained major media attention for exploiting a vulnerability with the AT&T website. The new DRV's are a symptom of the media hype. I believe the hype will fade (unless GoatSec hack another site) and the amount of new DRV's will naturally decrease. I doubt that the current rate of new GNAA DRV's will remain constant. I don't believe that the restriction is necessary since the rate of new GNAA DRV's will decrease as the hype fades. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of "too soon" arguments when the prior close was No Consensus, and I said as much to riffic, who seems to have taken my comments as an endorsement of his plan to rush to another DRV. But what happened is essentially what I predicted: that another nomination so quickly would be decried as too soon. Out of 25 AFD and DRV discussions about GNAA, only a handful have been completed normally, mostly the early ones. Then for a long time every AFD would be closed as speedy keep because even daring to nominate it was "disruptive"; surely it would never be deleted. Until one day an AFD was closed as Delete. Then suddenly DRVs about it became disruptive and had to be speedy closed. It is as if whichever side has the default position at the moment is deathly afraid of letting a discussion run its course, lest there be some risk of the other side winning. That probably isn't the motivation in most cases, but that's the impression it gives off. --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to let this one sit in userspace for an indeterminate amount of time (say 3-6 months) before any future attempts to bring it up for review again. Again, I am willing to wait until any significant changes are made in the subject article so any future review can be closed with a clear final and determinate consensus. The reason I brought this forward for review today is because I felt that at the time of the previous review's closing, the theories presented by the opposition were invalidated by the state of the article at that time. riffic (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still arguing over GNAA after all this time. If they were anything like significant enough to justify all these arguments, we wouldn't even be having them! Guy (Help!) 10:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I already explained why the summer 2010 GNAA DRV's appeared in my last post. Look up Goatse Security. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way I would like all accusations of bad faith stricken from this thread, thank you. riffic (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Page move after discussion

Just a quick one, I'm a little out of my depth I think! I started a "movereq" discussion here. The general consensus is that the page should be renamed from Birmingham derby --> Second City derby per WP:COMMONNAME.

Is anyone able to close the movereq, and action the moving of the page, as the destination is currently a redirect and requires an admin. I don't want to mess any of it up! Thanks, _Will^Dow (Talk) 09:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's an redirect with 1 revision, that points directly at the source article. Administrator tools are not required in order to enact such a move. Uncle G (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not that this is part of the ongoing Birmingham v Manchester "second city" war or anything... Guy (Help!) 10:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Despite living less than 20 miles from Birmingham, I can count the number of times I've heard "Second City Derby" on the fingers of one hand. "Birmingham Derby"+"Birmingham City"+"Aston Villa" as a Google search term return five times the hits of the similar Second City one. This is a very dubious move, and appears somewhat WP:POINT to me. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • See Talk:Second City derby#'Better known' and 'Also known'. I don't see much evidence there of disruption to prove a point; but there is evidence there of editors trying in good faith to make a decision as to what common name something actually has, by researching it. Perhaps the people stepping in with the "second city wars" prejudices would do well to look at the actual talk page discussion that was had, where good faith and attempts to actually research the issue, as well as acknowledgements of the limitations of their research, by all participants, seem abundant. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
        • To be honest, there wasn't much of a discussion, really. The main point is that someone has cherry-picked all the refs for this particular match that say 'Second City'". Of course, the editor didn't go and look for links to that match which said "Birmingham Derby" - for obvious reasons, because there are hundreds - Times Sky Channel 4 AFP Scotsman Sky Sports The Hindu Telegraph Fox etc. The "second city wars" thing is rather WP:LAME, and I really don't see the point of this move outside that particular rather silly little battle. "Second City Derby" clearly isn't the common name, as pretty much any search criteria will tell you, so I'd have to assume that the reason for the move is part of that battle. If I'm assuming bad faith unduly, I apologise, but I'm very familiar with that part of the world, I don't have a dog in that battle (indeed, if you asked me which is England's second city, I'd say "Birmingham") and so I can only assume what appears to be obvious... Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• As an aside, as initiator of the discussion, you probably should not have been the one to close the discussion and make the move, just to avoid any appearance of COI. As it is, for someone outside the UK (like me), I'm much more familiar with "Birmingham derby" referring to Birmingham v Villa rather than the "Second City derby". Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a quote that I have taken directly from the Talk Page, posted some time ago when this discussion originally started:

"Based on anecdotal evidence (reading, watching TV, listening to the radio, talking to people, etc. etc.) , I'd argue that 'Second City derby' is the most commonly used name for games between Aston Villa and Birmingham City, and is used more than 'Birmingham derby'. Obviously there's no study performed that backs this up - but equally, this is most likely the position for Old Firm rather than Glasgow derby, Steel City derby rather than Sheffield derby, and so on. Either the popular name should be used in all instances, or, if the popular name cannot be conclusively substantiated as being so (I'd guess that this is always going to be the case - what kind of person conducts studies into the nomenclature of football matches?), then as precise a name as possible should be used, even if it's not idiomatic."

John J Bulten violated the 3-reverts in a 24-hour period rule

Greetings,

Based on the below edits, editor John J Bulten should "technically" be blocked.

1. (cur | prev) 18:36, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (Undid revision 386588496 by Ryoung122 (talk) You will be blocked next time. This is your final warning on this article.) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 18:33, 23 September 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs) (47,880 bytes) (Undid revision 386588157 by John J. Bulten (talk)this is an improvement) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 18:31, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (Undid revision 386586515 by Ryoung122 (talk) Don't grandstand, you could lose a lot.) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 18:23, 23 September 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs) (47,880 bytes) (Undid revision 386585514 by John J. Bulten (talk)undid God-complex edits) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 18:18, 23 September 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs) (51,192 bytes) (As I told you last year, wholesale reversion to the likes of 10:45, 18 September 2010 DerbyCountyinNZ is not how WP runs. State what concerns you see.) (undo)

I find it incredulous that he threatens me with a block, when he's the one reverting 3 times in just a few minutes.

I suggest an admin look into this further.Ryoung122 20:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Longevity myths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm seeing three reverts each, three for John J. Bulten (talk) and three for Ryoung122 (talk). That's far from ideal, and I'm minded to protect the article, but it's not - so far as I can at this point - a violation of WP:3RR, because neither editor has exceeded three reverts. TFOWR 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've warned both editors. Also of note is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths. TFOWR 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ryoung122, you should have notified John J. Bulten when you raised this matter. I've done that now. TFOWR 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting ready to report Ryoung122 when he made the fourth. However, Ryoung122 has agreed to mediation as TFOWR says and let's hope and pray that works. Also, User:NickOrnstein has now reverted to Ryoung122's version, and I have asked the mediator for input on that, because it reverts many new sourced comments and other editor's improvements also; but further thoughts on that would help please. Ryoung122's block log is also of note, thanks. JJB 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings:

Let's get the facts straight: I see three reverts by John J Bulten and two by me.

Also, I did notify John J Bulten. He has a confusing talk-page structure, with a "main" page, subsection pages, and a "friends" page. This means that it may not be clear where messages are supposed to go or whether a message notice was posted.

SincerelyRyoung122 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When one is 'getting the facts straight', it helps if one is correct and not conveniently leaving out their first revert:

1. (cur | prev) 13:36, September 23, 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs | block) (51,192 bytes) (Undid revision 386588496 by Ryoung122 (talk) You will be blocked next time. This is your final warning on this article.) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 13:33, September 23, 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs | block) (47,880 bytes) (Undid revision 386588157 by John J. Bulten (talk)this is an improvement) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 13:31, September 23, 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs | block) (51,192 bytes) (Undid revision 386586515 by Ryoung122 (talk) Don't grandstand, you could lose a lot.) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 13:23, September 23, 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs | block) (47,880 bytes) (Undid revision 386585514 by John J. Bulten (talk)undid God-complex edits) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 13:18, September 23, 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs | block) (51,192 bytes) (As I told you last year, wholesale reversion to the likes of 10:45, 18 September 2010 DerbyCountyinNZ is not how WP runs. State what concerns you see.) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 13:09, September 23, 2010 Ryoung122 (talk | contribs | block) (47,880 bytes) (rvt (undid John J Bulten's anti-science campaign work)) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 05:22, September 23, 2010 John J. Bulten (talk | contribs | block) (51,192 bytes) (→Commercial sponsors: delete Magee as redundant with longevity claims) (undo)

(all times CDT) You reverted at 13:09, 13:23, and 13:33. Bulten reverted at 13:18, 13:31, and 13:36. Both reverted three times. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've struck my comment re: ANI notification, I see you did notify John J. Bulten here. Turning to your "two" reverts, they were:

1. "rvt (undid John J Bulten's anti-science campaign work)"
2. "undid God-complex edits"
3. "this is an improvement"

TFOWR 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Another throwaway fact is that another editor User:NickOrnstein performed Ryoung122's fourth reversion for him, again removing sources wholesale and without explanation, and I am specifically counterrequesting guidance about that. I gave Nick a user warning but will notify him of this page now. JJB 20:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, on the sister article longevity claims, which should not be confused with longevity traditions aka longevity myths, Ryoung reverted twice and Nick once, and I've reverted all three there too and will stop now. The same sort of wholesale deletion of new sources, key date corrections, and other user input was repeated just like at the prior article. JJB 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there was an edit summary of "Bulten, OR." The edit reverted back to Ryoung122's last version, which is troubling, as Active Banana had edited the article in the meantime, including removing uncited claims that were restored by NickOrnstein's revert. TFOWR 20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• John J. Bulten, this edit by you concerns me ("Since I have one more revert on this article"): WP:3RR is not an entitlement. There's obvious edit warring at both these articles. Discussion needs to take over from reverting. If discussion breaks down I want to see dispute resolution take over. I do not want to see any more edit warring, from Ryoung122, from NickOrnstein, or from you. TFOWR 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You said it! My thoughts exactly! Dispute resolution can take over anytime there are two parties at the table, which seems to be the case today at least. JJB 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Got up too early, need a block review please

I woke up far too early this am and blocked Nfli3596 (talk · contribs) for an obviously misleading edit summary [368], where he made substantive changes, marked them as M despite warnings about that, and described them as "punctuation, grammar, syntax". But I've been editing the article so am obviously involved. Could an uninvolved Admin please review this and take appropriate action. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good block. --John (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, though I'd suggest that the more significant issue that warranted the block was what it was he did in those edits (the edit summaries were a secondary issue). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Marking all edits as he did as minor is very much disruptive. That prevents users who have the ability to track minor edits disabled on watchlists from being able to see such changes. Good block. –MuZemike 06:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will add that this is the prime reason why we need to have "mark all edits as minor" eliminated under "My preferences" for reasons just like this. –MuZemike 06:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although he evidently didn't have it set as two of his edits aren't marked M. There was a discussion maybe last month about eliminating it but I didn't see what happened to it. Shall we start it again? I also agree with Ncmvocalist. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24313 I would recommend and suggest not having a billion new comments on the bug, but it wouldn't hurt to vote the bug up.   Thorncrag  07:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. According to {{CURRENTVERSION}} we are running 1.16wmf4 (r73534), but this interface feature was supposedly removed in 1.16wmf4 (r69338). I am not sure if the change happened in a side branch and never reached us, if it was undone later on, or if the change only affected new installations and we must implement it manually by updating a configuration file that was already customised in different ways for this site. The most important thing now is to find out which explanation applies so that we can address it. Hans Adler 11:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bitey block. User account has been around for a while but used very lightly. User has total of 47 edits, to just a few articles, and is obviously inexperienced. Talkpage engagement with the user before the block was decidedly un-gentle. "Don't template the regulars" should really be replaced with "don't template anyone". I don't have the energy right now to try to talk to the person, but those who took it on themselves to template and block should try writing in english instead. 64.160.39.36 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC) — 64.160.39.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No it's not, the edit summary plus minor flag amounts to deliberate misinformation and he had been warned. Funny, though, that this IP suddenly pings up to comment. It's starting to look like the original account might be a sock... Guy (Help!) 10:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Guy on all accounts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:POINT violated, block in order. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There can be no reasonable doubt that a block was in order. Indeed, my one issue with the block is that it is only 31 hours. The editor is clearly only here to try to impose a particular fringe viewpoint on articles, and has a significant history of trying to hide the nature of their edits. Consider, for example, this edit, with the edit summary "Capitalization". Here the editor does indeed add capital letters in numerous places scattered over many paragraphs. In a case like this it takes an enormous amount of effort to search through large amounts of text containing innumerable tiny changes in order to see exactly what has been changed. however, doing so is rewarded by finding addition of POV, as in the section headed "Lack of scientific acceptance". If this edit were the only such case i might be prepared to AGF, though I would be very doubtful. However, it is by no means the only case, and I am confident that this was a calculated method of trying to hide the real purpose of the edit. here is one more example of an edit which made a more significant change than the edit summary suggested. It is clear that this editor makes regular and systematic use of at least three techniques to conceal their actions: (1) marking significant edits as minor, (2) deliberately misleading edit summaries, (3) hiding single significant changes some distance down the same edits as numerous minor ones. I think, under the circumstances, a 31 hour block is on the minimal side. I also wonder how much experience of Wikipedia it takes to be sufficiently aware of how things work to think up such a set of techniques, which encourages me to wonder about Guy's suggestion of sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree entirely with JamesBWatson. These are clearly very deliberate attempts to escape detection while pushing a POV. A block was certainly warranted, and I wonder whether a 31-hour block will really be sufficient to discourage someone who's employing these tactics? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thinking about the possibility of sockpuppetry, I have checked the history of the account. The account was created 9 January 2006, but did not edit until 12 September 2009, apart from 2 edits (both deleted) on 12 November 2007. This is an unusual pattern. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I don't know; that's not too much different from my own account. It might be a sleeper, but without a suspected sockmaster account this is little more than speculation, I think. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree. I wasn't trying to suggest that the account history was in itself suspicious, but just that, for an account where doubts had been raised for other reasons, that was interesting. I really wouldn't put it any stronger than that. I have also checked all the pages that this editor has edited, looking for anyone else that it might be a sock of, and found nothing suspicious at all. Also, the methods used to try to hide what is being done are rather crude, so maybe a new user would not find it hard to think of them. I actually think the reasons for suspecting sockpuppetry are not very substantial, but just enough to be worth mentioning. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • True, while the methods being used are more than most vandals or POV-pushers use (given that the majority of vandals don't try to hide their edits at all), using a fake edit summary and marking the edit as minor isn't exactly the most devious plot I can think of, having seen tricks employed by socks of blocked/banned users, for example. I agree that in the context it's probably worth bearing in mind, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest sock from User:Prince of Kosova

Resolved

 – Sock blocked indef GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Player (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be the latest obvious sock of the banned Prince of Kosova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Behavior is identical to previous socks such as Chetnik Serb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note the choice of nick designed to mislead editors). Major disruption across multiple articles. Please block immediately. Athenean (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reported at Sockpuppet Investigations: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sinbad_Barron. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's him, but it is Sinbad Barron, not Prince of Kosova. Prince of Kosova is also sock. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Courcelles 23:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request review of my actions

It has been brought to my attention that certain actions I carried out while being sleep-deprived may be questionable, so I'm bringing it here for community review. This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clackson scroll formula, which I originally closed as redirect due to an attribution dependency resulting from the content's merge by Gandalf61 (talk · contribs) during the AfD. I intended then to leave a message for Gandalf61 concerning their merging content during a live AfD, something that has been discussed to death before and found generally disruptive, but I forgot to do so before going to bed. I was reminded when I got up by this message on my talk page, and this thread ensued. Subsequently, per the content's removal from the merged target, I reclosed the AfD as delete. Any criticisms, suggestions, or comments would be welcome. T. Canens (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nosing in from two topics up, you have my full and unflinching support for your actions as I reviewed them, as long as I don't have to get involved. :D JJB 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) technical note: when you re-close an AfD you should:

.a) leave the old closing visible (usually stricken with <s></s>) so people can follow the drama when someone complains. I did that with you closing, I hope there is no problem.

b) add a brief explanation of why it was re-closed (in this case, at the very least something like "per this thread" could have been enough). Again, it's about leaving a track so interesed people can see what happened.

--Enric Naval (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over Randy Moss article

User:Pats1 and User:ThrashGuy have been continuously edit warring over this article. Could someone check this out. I'm not real famililar with Wikipedia. I know this should be under a different noticeboard. Thanks!161.165.196.84 (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not an edit war. User initially added sloppy/inaccurate/redundant edits to article which were briefly discussed and dismissed on talk page. However, the user persisted in posting inaccurate information and was warned that a block would occur. The next day, user returned and continued to post inaccurate information, despite a clear explanation in the edit summaries of the revert. User was reverted and reasoned with; user continued to revert calling me a "vandal" for reverting inaccurate information. User was then blocked. Pats1 ^T/C 02:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not real thrilled with communication via edit summary, and I bet many will have qualms with you doing the block yourself - but you appear to be correct on the facts. I've left a note on his talk page. If he agrees, hopefully you will unblock him. Wknight94 ^talk 02:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree on both points. Could have done it better. But I think you generally know me. Pats1 ^T/C 02:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Pats1. I didn't realize you were an admin. I just happened to notice a lot of back and forth editing between you two. My apologies.161.165.196.84 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Traffic congestion

Resolved

• Traffic congestion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a really odd place to place this, but I feel it needs to be addressed right away. I just blocked an editor for violating 3RR on this article, so I don't feel comfortable reverting. However, the additions were blatant spam and blatant WP:OR; can someone take a look at the article and revert if it's warranted? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The spam has been reverted by Qwyrxian.[369] I've added the page to my watchlist, and perhaps other admins can do so as well.   Will Beback  talk  18:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't 100% confident calling it spam, as I felt maybe plain old OR was a more appropriate label, so I didn't feel safe crossing 3RR. Ill keep watching for any post block shenanigans.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Kiljoyroy spamming a podcast

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

This editor has been here since February 2008, and virtually all of their edits since then involve spamming a podcast on the articles of American comics artists and writers. I notice that Tenebrae has recently attempted to communicate with them, but they haven't responded, and more importantly they haven't stopped spamming. Anybody think there's a reason to keep trying to communicate? If not, there's only one other option. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went ahead and blocked. User's entire contribution history was spam for one podcast, had been going on for years, and continued after warning. Someone might wanna add that link (sidebarnation.com) to the blacklist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• I've removed all instances of the link, per the above, using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.sidebarnation.com . After it is blacklisted, this page should be checked once more for any that got through before the blacklisting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• sidebarnation.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.sidebarnation.com

Also:

• 76.17.50.26 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Warned spam4im, any further spamming of this site should result in an indefinite block and/or blacklisting. MER-C 05:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IP making legal threats

Resolved

This may be seen as more simple vandalism, but User:97.106.71.200 vandalized User:Slon02's user page with a legal threat. See here. I wasn't sure where else to report this. –Grondemar 02:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That IP has already been blocked for 31 hours (although not by me) -Selket ^Talk 02:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm always impressed at how fast this place moves when it needs to. –Grondemar 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IP death threat

I just noticed 68.64.155.71 make a death threat on someone's user talk page. They've already been blocked, but perhaps someone would consider contacting the authorities on this? The IP geolocates to Glendale, California. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Glendale police notified. Please do not RevDel the threat. -Selket ^Talk 04:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Claims that my username violates WP:U

Silly thread is silly. Seriously though, username isn't in violation of WP:U. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Earlier today, during vandalism patrol, AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) edited my editor review complaining that my username is misleading. I reverted this: my editor review page is not the place for this. He then went on to report me to UAA, and the report was delisted by User:Ks0stm. He is continuing to complain about my username (see his talk for full discussion), so I'm requesting feedback here on what should be done. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I have no comments further (it's bedtime here) than what I stated on UAA and AndyTheGrump's talk page. I find the username Access Denied perfectly acceptable, and not any more misleading than the two usernames I first encountered on Wikipedia (User:Evolauxia and User:Runningonbrains). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC) It might be easier to complain about comments about a username on an editor review page that didn't include other contributions that read 'Best user name EVER', but frankly, I can't be bothered to argue over such trivialities. I'm a newcomer, I found the username misleading, and implying a position of authority within Wikipedea. If those actually in a position to decide such matters choose to rule that I'm wrong, I'll leave them to contemplate their own philosophical contradictions, and find something more useful to do with my spare time. I thought that at least in principle this was intended to be a collective effort, encouraging new input, rather than engaging in 'patrols' to discourage outsiders. Or is this actually some sort of RPG for those who can type faster than they can shoot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 05:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC) So, what you are saying is, you "can't be bothered" to tell us why you think the username "Access Denied" is in violation of WP:U. Is that what you are saying? Cause if so, we can close this now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC) WP:U says: "Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. The types of names which can be misleading are too numerous to list, but definitely include usernames that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, usernames that impersonate other people, or usernames which can be confusing within the Wikipedia signature format, such as usernames which resemble IP addresses or timestamps. I think that addresses AndyTheGrump's complaint. I agree with AndyTheGrump about Access Denied's username and signature. Username and signature drama is completely tedious--those wanting to engage in personality displays on the internet should try Myspace instead of here. This is an encyclopedia and it would solve a lot of problems if it eliminated usernames altogether. Users not wanting to reveal their IP addresses would instead get a random numeric ID assigned by the server, the same way the phone company gives out phone numbers. When it comes down to it, we don't need usernames of any sort. We especially don't need lame and misleading ones. 69.228.170.126 (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Given that this is your first edit to this noticeboard, mind telling us how you found it? That aside, the above does not address their concerns at all. I for one do not see how 'access denied' could be taken as anything close to the appearance of authority. The general statement from WP:U is not a catch-all, so let's see some specifics.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Sig complain: reasonable. Username complaint: Not really, as far as I'm concerned. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC) AndyTheGrump says he got confused it, so it's misleading. I'm on a dynamic IP but I have some other posts further up the page. 69.228.170.126 (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Comment: Also according to WP:U, As part of the rule against misleading usernames, your username must not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it may not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator". Also, unless your account is an approved bot, your name should not end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts. User:Access Denied doesn't seem to invoke the same authority as User:I.M.ADMIN, User:WikiMOD, or User:Jimbo Wales. It seems more like a joke than anything else. Ishdarian|lolwut 06:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC) 69.228, it doesn't work like that. I could claim that your username confuses me, but that doesn't make it misleading. The above doesn't fly, so please, be specific.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Anyone have any qualms against this time-wasting and silly thread being marked resolved? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC) After scrolling through this entire page, slowly 69, I see no other IP editors that could be you. Would you mind pointing out your specific contribs?— Dædαlus Contribs 07:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC) @NeutralHomer: I'm leaning towards waiting to see if 69 actually answers my inquiry, instead of giving it a vague wave like a certain political interview which SNL made fun of. Bar that, I'm fine with a close, because otherwise it's unsubstantiated, and not worth anymore time.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC) @Daedalus969: All right, I will wait until the anon replies, if it isn't anything specific, then I will close it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC) This seems like someone with a personal problem with the user; I don't see how "Access Denied" as a username could be misconstrued as placing the user in a position of authority, and the reporting user and WP:DUCKy IP appear to be avoiding answering the question. Really this should be at WP:RFCU, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Both User:AndyTheGrump and the anon are DUCKing (get it?) the question, so I am closing the thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC) FYI, the San Francisco-based IP changed in the middle of his conversation with another editor.[370] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) This diff[371] where the user called "Access Denied" first posted on his page, is probably what started this molehill. I was also kind of puzzled the first time I saw that username. But it's no big deal. Most likely Andy Gump, er, Grump was just annoyed at being warned for contentious editing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What determines backlog?

Unresolved

 – I would like some comments here, before this is archived.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently I have set {{AIVBacklog Notice}}(this was awhile ago) to show the bottom-left notice box if AIV is 6000 bytes or more. Should this number be lower? I'm asking you all here, because it affects you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The AN* boards' talk page would probably be a better place to discuss stuff like that. Usually when it comes to this noticeboard, if the thread doesn't involve either torches'n'pitchforks or a legitimate incident needing immediate admin attention, it'll receive little—if any—attention. --slakr^\ talk / 07:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RevDel on Saxo Bank ?

Resolved

 – Editor blocked, all contributions rev-deleted. TFOWR 08:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note sure where to request Revdel, but this edit and its edit summary looks potentially libelous as it contains an unsourced allegation against a named individual, together with unsourced allegations against the bank. (I've reverted the edit). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at recent edits on that article, I sense the presence of ducks, I can certainly hear quacking... --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The fowl has been throttled. Favonian (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is the place where you request Revdel, because I just deleted all those revisions. -- Atama頭 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rev Del request

Resolved

 – Revision deleted, oversight requested. TFOWR 08:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please look at [372], I believe this qualifies for RD#2. Thank you for your time - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've zapped it, but I think that it's also oversightable. I've already submitted it, but for future reference, oversight can be requested via oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. —DoRD (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Meco

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

This user first came to my attention after they edit warred to include a weird category in the article on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, making 1 addition and 3 reverts to the article. Another user posted a link to a post at WP:CAT, the other user and I tried to have a rational discussion with Meco but were basically told that we didn't know what we are talking about, then he went on creating them. After one warning here, Meco edited other pages for a bit, then posted this to my talkpage, which basically consists of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, again reiterating that I didn't know what I was talking about, followed by the rapid creation of more of these categories. I gave a {{uw-disruptive4}} warning with additional text pointing at the WP:CAT discussion that had been against the inclusion or creation of such categories, to which Meco then decided to canvass other users to try and get them to go to the discussion. The text that he left on their talkpages indicated that they all had special interest in categorization, despite the fact that none of the 3 canvassed had made any substantial edits in the last couple of years to either the project or talk page. I don't think that Meco should be blocked for a long period of time, but refusing to follow consensus, edit warring and canvassing are not things that we should be encouraging.--Terrillja _talk 20:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• When did he last edit that article? Have you advised him of this ANI filing, as required? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Prior to the final warning, left the page alone after the discussion was started on the cats talkpage. He was notified within 15 minutes of this posting.--Terrillja _talk 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Your reporting such category creation as vandalism wasn't particularly well-judged. Nor was your devolving the discussion into merely throwing warning templates around. And the idea that people who have never edited a page are thereby disfranchised from third opinion requests is somewhat strange, as well. You're making great leaps from "I disagree with this category." to "You should have obtained consensus before being bold." to "You're going to be blocked on another wiki.". Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If two editors have said that something makes no sense and that the category structure is poorly names and unneeded (WP:CAT talkpage), ignoring them and going on with whatever you feel is right is compromising the integrity of consensus. if everyone did whatever they felt, this place would be a mass, people would be deleting the mainpage...oh wait, already happened. As Meco had discontinued any discussion and gone on creating the categories, I didn't see much else to do except template him. Thought it might bring about some actually discussion beyond saying other users didn't know what they were talking about. And I didn't say that he should have obtained consensus first before doing anything, however once it was clear that I wasn't the only one who saw that the categories were unnecessary and poorly named and he did not continue any further discussion, continuing to create the categories while ignoring concerns raised by editors is disruptive. I'm not saying that the sample size was significant, but given the scale of the proposed category scheme, once a few editors have raised concerns, the creations should have been stopped and figured out before creating another 10K or so categories. As for the canvassing, leaving a note on the talkpage of Wikiproject Categorization would have been logical and could have encouraged some responses and is absolutely allowed. On the other hand, "Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming")" is not appropriate, and posting on the talkpage of users who do not have any particular connection to the subject is canvassing to try and get a view passed. If outside input was needed, we have multiple processes that could have been utilized rather than cherry picking users who do not have any particular connection to the guideline of note, in violation of WP:CANVASS.--Terrillja _talk 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is by my assertion User:Terrillja's inability to work in a cooperative spirit, instead adopting a combative and offensive posture. The "consensus" to which he refers is him and another user which were in fact the only people to comment or indeed object to the category hierarchy which I have attempted to develop as an offshoot of Category:Establishments by year, and for which I assert there is clear precedent. However, WP:AN/I is not likely to be congenial towards discussing the merits of this category structure, so I shall avoid opening up a path of substantive arguments for and against that on this page.

The core of the problem is the inability of User:Terrillja to approach the appropriate forum for his grievances. Had his strong objection to the creation of this hierarchy been expressed through a CfD nomination of these categories, clarity would surely by now have descended on the community without all the unpleasantries exerted by User:Terrillja. I direct the attention of interested parties to recent postings both at mine and his talk pages for samples of his offensive and belligerent tone towards me. I also think same parties should appraise themselves of the dialog at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Establishments by country. And I also want to point out the blatantly inappropriate report filed by User:Terrillja against me at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism shortly preceding the complaint on the present page. I have edited the English Wikipedia since February 2006 and have more than 33,000 edits to my name, still in his addressing me User:Terrillja chooses to act as if towards an oblivious, unruly newcomer. That sort of behavior, assuming I'm not the only editor subjected to it, is sure to create entrenched conflicts rather than facilitate constructive dialog. I mention this here because User:Terrillja has expressed an interest in becoming an administrator, an office which I find him wholly unsuited for.

Finally I want to point out that the alleged canvassing was a directed and limited approach towards three seasoned editors which in my experience have shown particular responsibility with regards to maintenance and policy-related issues concerning Wikipedia's category structure, a general interest which I obviously share, and its aim was to attempt to fulfill the request by User:Terrillja for an explicit consensus opinion on the existence of the disputed category structure. These three users are User:Occuli[373], User:Vegaswikian[374] and User:Good Olfactory[375]. Most surprising to me, my inquiries were promptly reverted by User:Terrillja[376][377][378] with the aforementioned claim of inappropriate canvassing. Perhaps this reaction rather than any of the other actions from this user shows an absence of a motive to find a community consensus, but rather a zealous objective of making himself respected through threats and litigious behaviour. __meco (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments – there was nothing inappropriate about Meco's note on my talk page as I am a regular at cfd and have no history of unbridled enthusiasm for the relentless intersecting of every conceivable pair of categories. In contrast Terrillja's deletion from my talk page of Meco's note was highly inappropriate. There is nothing here to detain administrators: if Terrillja objects to Meco's categories then cfd is the place to go. And Meco should take Sea Shepherd Conservation Society off their watch list. (I probably agree with Terrillja about the particular edit, but certainly not worth edit-warring about.) Occuli (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• The specific category involved is Category:1977 establishments in the United States. As we have had Category:1977 establishments for several years there is nothing remotely controversial about Category:1977 establishments by country. But on the other hand I don't see that there is much point in doing it: I look at all the subcats and the prospect of intersecting them all by country is profoundly depressing (and this is just 1977 - think again, Meco, there is more to life than this). Occuli (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Price is Right related articles

Good afternoon administrators!

I'm writing this afternoon to report a number of issues regarding at least two individual editors, perhaps more, on the following pages: Michael G. Richards, Rod Roddy, Rich Fields, Johnny Olson, and Syd Vinnedge and any other Price is Right-related page with a succession box.

Yesterday, I standardized the succession boxes amongst these articles. User:Sottolacqua reverted my edits, removing those boxes. I attempted to have a civil discussion with him, only to have my discussion removed, and my edits reverted. I placed a discussion on the talk page for Mike Richards to start a discussion regarding these talk pages. Sottolacqua expressed that if we were to have succession boxes, they should be standardized among the articles, which I did.

However, now users User:WikiLubber and User:MegastarLV have not participated in the discussion and have unceremoniously removed these succession boxes. Additionally, both users have vandalized my talk page numerous times now.

Additionally, it seems to me there are a few select editors attempting to exercise ownership over these articles, perhaps even through sock puppetry.

I have attempted to report this as a civility problem, but it is obvious that administrator intervention is needed on these articles. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Price is Right related articles (part 2)

I have been told by User:Sottolacqua that these succession boxes are unnecessary & already mention the information in the article. Also, I did NOT & would NEVER vandalize anyone's talk page. The IP user 70.242.164.14 has been re-adding the boxes over & over. I posted on his talk page that he needs to stop & he wrongfully considers it vandalism.

If these succession boxes are indeed necessary, I would need a VALID EXPLANATION (from an administrator who knows about these boxes) of why they should be added. -MegastarLV (talk) September 2010

User:Sottolacqua does not own the articles and you should not listen to him as the end-all in regarding what should be featured in an article. There is an active discussion at Talk:Michael G. Richards regarding the succession boxes and their purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.164.14 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been in edit wars with him before, and I dealt with his way. I'm afraid Sottolacqua is right. WikiLubber (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiLubber is a known sock puppet. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore. WikiLubber (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue has far exceed my interest level. Leave 'em in, take 'em out, do whatever either three of you want with regards to succession boxes – leave me out of it. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What you guys need is some sort of uninvolved party to take a look, but the way I see it, consensus at this moment seems to be to remove the boxes.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If I didn't think it was the same person or collusion between two editors to "own" an article, that might be a fair assessment. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEW? Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 02:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IP editor edit warring

Can I get some fresh eyes over at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008? An IP editor, 76.168.205.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been edit warring[379][380][381][382] to add the claim that Hillary Clinton made racist statements during the campaign,[383] a personal opinion found nowhere in the sources they cite. They've continued after multiple warnings to discuss disputed content on the talk page [384][385] If you look at the editor's activity on other pages, most all of it gets summarily reverted. It's nearly always to add poorly sourced POV content to the encyclopedia - they've racked up a number of warnings for original research and civility, and seem not to have learned anything to date about collaboration. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• You should be thinking of not using repeated wholesale reversion as your only editing style here. The part of the content that you disagree with for not being in the source is apparently the "The Obama campaign and others accused Clinton of …" part, and not the "Clinton vowed" part (otherwise you'd be taking it out of the following paragraph, too). So why not edit instead of reverting? I remind you of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Editors encouraged and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Wikidemon admonished. Edit, do not revert war. Uncle G (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll assume the above is just hasty, not an attempt to snipe, but my edits are not at issue. Please take my request at its face - we have a tendentious IP editor whose contributions consist almost entirely of POV edit warring and incivility, and who has declined all invitations to discuss and seek consensus. I'm asking for some help dealing with it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • Your edit's are at issue. You're the other party in the edit war. I repeat: If you had taken a more constructive approach to editing, and had edited the precise thing that you had an issue with, instead of approaching another editor by just reverting everything wholesale again and again, you wouldn't be here. You were encouraged to do this very thing, with these very articles, last year. Learn the lesson, for goodness' sake! Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, sorry. I assumed you were being sloppy, and still do. You're gleaning all of this from my making two reverts as one of three signed-in editors who has reverted this IP? If you're truly trying to help the project as an administrator you need to take more care to understand a situation like this before you start scolding established editors who are dealing with problem IPs. Do you actually think that quoting a botched old Arbcom decision is going to make me realize the errors of my ways? Please don't get patronizing - I have no patience here for the blame-the-messenger game. Can we please deal with the disruptive IP? We're in the middle of a sock swarm and trolling on some of these articles, so either help or not, but don't muddy the water. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem here is now twofold. First, you aren't realizing the errors of your ways, and explicitly rejecting the good advice given in the arbitration case. And second you are unhappy with the boomerang coming back to you, and trying to force your own mis-framing of the case. We're not in the middle of a "sock swarm". We're in the middle of you revert warring with 76.168.205.230 across multiple articles. I repeat: Learn the lesson, for goodness' sake! You could have avoided an edit war, by editing instead of repeatedly reverting; and you were already engaged in dialogue with the other party. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Are you here to grandstand or to keep the encyclopedia functioning? I have to wonder what your game is here. You have a reasonable point that the other established editors and I could have made further attempts to engage the IP before reverting, or should have allowed the least objectionable portion of their content proposals to stand in order to find a middle ground. I disagree with that, and I am sure other editors disagree as well. Having reviewed the entire contribution history from that IP address, as I did before reverting and as I did again before filing this request, I am convinced that the editor has resisted all attempts at engagement, that they have ignored cautions about consensus, original research, and civility, and that some intervention is necessary if we are to get things back on track. Therefore, after due notice I brought a request here instead of edit warring. Please note that in my request I asked for "fresh eyes" on the situation rather than asking for a block or article protection, meaning I was soliciting constructive suggestions. Your suggestion is noted, but not particularly constructive. If that were the end of it and nobody else commented, I could say "oh, well" and go back to whatever I was doing. Instead, you launch a broadside trying to prove through rhetorical flourishes and a distortion of the record that I am edit warring, I am the source of the problem, I need to learn some kind of lesson from Arbcom, and other stuff that I regard as complete rubbish. Whose benefit is that supposed to be for? It is certainly not going to convince me of anything. For reasons I do not wish to discuss here, the Arbcom case is of no bearing - Arbcom got it completely wrong. One thing I will discuss is that we are far from that case, and that this IP's editing issues are only partly related to the encyclopedia's Obama content. In any event, I reject any attempt to badger me over the old Arbcom case. So again, if you have some suggestions I am open to them. If you just want to accuse me of things, no thanks. He who quotes the boomerang essay while personally being the one to toss the boomerang back in the opposite direction, does not seem to understand boomerangs. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Um, Wikidemon reverted twice, pointing out in his edit summary that the content addition was disputed by himself and other edits (he wasn't the first to revert it). He also brought the issue up on the talk page, though got no response from the IP. His edits are of no issue here. Time to step off you box, please. Grsz¹¹ 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Wrong. It is ironic that this comes rapidly on the heels of Wikidemon trying to make out that people that don't accept xyr limited and one-sided framing of the case as not having looked. If you think that Wikidemon has made two edits only here, it is you who haven't looked. Wikidemon did half of the edit warring, by reverting instead of editing, at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, two thirds of the edit warring at Bill Ayers, and half of the edit warring at Jeremiah Wright. Whereas in stark contrast at Eleanor Holmes Norton, where 76.168.205.230 is involved but Wikidemon is not, there's talk page discussion with 76.168.205.230 and forward progress on the article content.

          I remind you of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Editors encouraged. That's editors encouraged. Wikidemon is the largest offender here, but all of the editors warring here could have simply (a) edited out the duplication, (b) used the newly cited source to support the "Clinton vowed" content (which was not and still is not linked to a supporting source), (c) refactored the quotation into a shorter explanation of why "Clinton vowed" (which the source supports, in its very first paragraph no less), and (d) challenged and removed the one part of the content that you had actual disagreement with. Instead, the only thing that anyone did was just blanket revert, again and again, as if that were the only method of editing available.

          I repeat for a second time the good advice that is given elsewhere many times over in Wikipedia (including here for example), and that is given in a directly on point arbitration case: You all had a constructive way out of this that you should have used, that would have meant that you wouldn't be here in the first place. Instead you knee-jerk reverted, and are trying to blame 76.168.205.230 for something that you all caused. Edit, don't revert war. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

          • Please cut out the obnoxious scolding. If you support the IP's tendentiousness, please come out and say so. If you support a content position the rest of us do not, you can take that to the article talk page. But don't badmouth earnest editors trying to deal with a real problem. Nobody has misbehaved here except the IP, who is not getting the message about consensus, BRD, and civility. I brought this here because it seems to be an ongoing problem we have been unable to fix. Perhaps you can encourage the editor, if possible, to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia instead of validating their aggressive behavior. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User Wikidemon is smearing me

User Wikidemon has been deleting my edits on the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary page. All I did was quote Clinton talking about "hard-working Americans, white Americans"; I didn't characterize her statement as "racist" anywhere on the page. Rather, I characterized it as "racist" on Wikidemon's user talk page, which I am free to do. In addition, the statement was well-sourced (I cited reliable, neutral sources), relevant (the topic was Clinton's vow to continue her campaign), and notable (it was national news). Lastly, Wikidemon has been using pretexts to delete my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.205.230 (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Have you attempted any methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before coming straight for mommy and daddy the admins? --Jayron32 03:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fairly unfair, since it was Wikidemon that brought this here, not 76.168.205.230. In the very act of doing so, Wikidemon cited at least one diff where 76.168.205.230 edited User talk:Wikidemon, and was in fact engaged in one of the very first stages of dispute resolution, namely talking with Wikidemon directly. 76.168.205.230 was also already engaged at Talk:Eleanor Holmes Norton, as pointed out above. Wikidemon isn't "smearing" anybody, but this is a limited and one-sided mis-framing of the case that xe is presenting. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I thought I was supposed to come here to discuss this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.205.230 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• You'd better read WP:DR if you still don't understand the process. (And you were advised yesterday on your talk page to read WP:EW and WP:3RR, as well as WP:CONSENSUS). By the look of the edit history of the page that you were trying to edit, it's not just User:Wikidemon that has reverted your edits. 3 different editors have reverted your change, so it looks as if you have failed to achieve consensus. David Biddulph (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• And another thing you were told a week ago was that you should sign your messages on talk pages by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ (or using the signature button). You're still not doing that. Please bear in mind the common courtesies of Wikipedia. David Biddulph (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Just to note that I reverted a new account on this article which was inserting unsourced information and opinion (I have no opinion on the subject, but it's on my watchlist because of previous edit warring and BLP issues), and when they reached the 3RR limit, a brand new account appeared to continue. I have thus semi'd the article despite having made the last revert, and am blocking the account. I don't think this is controversial, but just pointing it out. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I extended your block on what you considered to be the sockmaster; I don't think it is. I'm running through my mental database of individuals now, but I think it's pretty apparent this is not the first. Especially based on the note on the sock's talk page, I think it's better we get a response from the editor anyway, first. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)