Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578

User:Nirvana888, who was temporarily banned for sock puppetry, seems to have yet another sock account, User:Zhonghuo, as both accounts have an exact edit history, and the User:Zhonghuo account was created just after User:Nirvana888's previous sock account, User:Poliphile, was indefinitely banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.231.244 (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Zhonghuo was registered in July, two months before Poliphile was blocked. If you have actual evidence, file a sockpuppet investigation.--chaser (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

98.177.155.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is wanting to do nothing but mess about. I have issued the full spectrum of warnings in less than half an hour, but he/she/it still persists in:

• removing the WP:Sandbox header
• replacing his/her/its talk page content with completely irrelevant article content.

-- Smjg (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded it to

WP:AIV. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G

) 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. "he/she/it"? Since when?--chaser (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This user claims to be the owner of the image File:SBS_badge.gif which is being used to illustrated the article Special Boat Service under fair use.

The user removed the image, leaving messages about copyright (see diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7)

I left a message on their talk page here with a brief ps here

They have also left messages on the talk pages of users who reverted the edits, as well as mine:

• on Fetchcomms' talk page
• on Fetchcomms' Sandbox
• on my talk page and again and again
• on IShadowed's talk page
• on Javierito92's talk page

I replied here and added further thoughts and mentioned that I was going to report it here in this post.

Any advice/help? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NLT? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G

) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I did think of that, but I'm not sure it quite falls into that category - that's partly why I brought this to ANI. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it does, with the last line of the third edit to your talk page where he says "Incidently this is my copy right so unless you want to have the cost of compensation sent you you as well keep out off this". Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then all we need is for an administrator to block the IP for legal threats. They only made what may be counted as an overt threat to me - the others are pointing out what kinds of infringement they are, although I do not see that they are. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would view it as a legal threat, not stating action - but pointing out potential damages to you in an attempt to intimidate. He likely should be blocked until he clarifies his intent with that statement.

Although, even if an admin views it differently, the user has exceeded 3RR after a warning, so should also be blocked just for that. As it's an IP, shouldn't be a permanent block regardless of the reason for the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that this isn't the first time someone (I guess the same person) has made the same claim - 212223sassbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some related IPs did last year, and don't seem to have been interested in dialog about the niceties of fair use, instead issuing dire warnings of legal consequences. This is a general BT ADSL IP, so Barek is entirely right that a lengthy block will be both ineffectual and inappropriate. Semipro and/or RBI is all we can do, until the person deigns to engage in discussion rather than just reverting. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, once the 24h block is over, they may be willing to engage in dialogue - although I don't hold out great hopes. If the user reads the messages I left at both the IP talk page and at my own talk page, they will know how they can contact WMF and ask for the image to be removed, as long as they can provide sufficient proof that the person named in the IPO entry is themselves. I'm no legal expert, but I thought that "IPO" <> "Copyright". I think that in this case, although the person may have intellectual ownership of the design, the copyright is held by the Crown. There is also the fact that the design listed at the IPO records is the original design - the one we have is the current, slightly modified design (there are small differences). I'm not sure if this means that we can use the current design regardless - or if the IPO includes minor modifications, such as the SBS's current logo/badge. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from my usual admiring fans, I got a lovely email from [email protected] this evening saying that someone from a specific IP address "requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia" and that I now have a new temporary password. Lucky me. I suspect the correct answer is ignore, but since I hadn't seen this discussed anywhere I thought I'd bring it up here. A CU isn't appropriate for this IP, is it? The IP hasn't been active anonymously for months. Toddst1 (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I get one a week if not more. I wouldn't sweat it -- Samir 07:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I was special! Toddst1 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, this has been discussed numerous times and while it is inconvenient, really who ever attempted to reset your password did no damage. Best to just ignore. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not wishing to stir the pot, but when you checked the whois of the ip did it give any indication that it was one likely to be often re-assigned - or was it a dedicated one? If dedicated then a review of the articles edited might give some clue as to identity. However, the best option is likely the one given by other respondees; ignore it for the minor irritation it is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In the course of editing articles and doing significant work on them, I have changed "References" to "Notes", since by my reading of WP:Citing sources either is acceptable, and I believe "Notes" is better descriptive of a list of footnotes than "References" is. Just now, User:Jeni dropped a note on my talk page telling me to stop [1], calling it "disruptive editing", and threatening to come here if I didn't.

She is now reverting my changes en masse, and according to this discussion on her talk page, cannot cite a consensus for her to do so. Since both forms are acceptable, my thought was to make the change and allow editors who work on the page over the normal course of time the option of leaving it or changing it back. I had no plans to edit war to keep in that change, and have not done so. By going through my edits and reverting every single instance, Jeni is subverting the possibility that editors will like "Notes" better and leave it in.

Since Jeni cannot cite a consensus decision allowing her to change my edits en masse outside of the normal course of editing -- well, should she be doing this? Thanks for any help. Sach (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have let you know that your changes are potentially disruptive and that you need to gather consensus for such mass changes. I see no attempt by you to achieve such consensus, so your changes are now being reverted per the

BRD process. I have even given you a hint on where to go to gather that consensus, but I doubt you'll get it, looking through the archives. Not to mention in many cases the change has already been reverted (it was someone elses reversion of your edits that alerted me to what you were doing) Jeni ^(talk

) 10:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

But I am not making "mass changes", I'm doing it in conection with my normal editing of articles. I'm not using automation or semi-automation to plow through hundreds of articles making the change, I'm doing it as I edit -- so I don't think "mass change" is the right description, since that's what it implies. (It is, in fact, more precisely descriptive of what you're doing.)

In any case, in what way is changing "References" to "Notes" disruptive? I don't see it. Maybe if I was edit warring to keep the changes in, that behavior would properly be described as disruptive, but I'm not doing that, I'm just changing from one perfectly acceptable form to another in the normal course of editing articles. How can that conceivably be disruptive? Sach (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always found it odd that WP jumbles footnotes and references. Footnotes are simply explanatory comments or pointers to a citation, references are details of sources used. Not really the same thing. I much prefer 'References' for a list of cited sources and 'Notes' for genuine footnotes. Most articles seem to have a single section with mainly citations, usually as 'References'. I don't think it's a good idea to go changing these to 'Notes' simply due to personal preference as the preference of editors who have done the bulk of the work on those articles should be respected in the absence of any clear guideline either way. --Michig (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(

this. Most articles seem to survive with the pre-existing header, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there are numerous footnotes and citations, there is an arguable case for separation into distinct section, IMO. Rodhullandemu

10:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are numerous footnotes and citations, there is an arguable case for separation into distinct section Yes, I do that as well. Sach (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where your link supports what you're saying. It says

The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic: "Sources" may be confused with source code in computer related articles; "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; "Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography. The header should be plural, even if it lists only a single item.

Where does it say that changing from one form to the other is "disruptive"?

You folks seem to be saying that the first person to add a notes section decides what it's titled and it can never be changed, but that can't possibly be right, can it? Sach (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But ... changing things to make them better is what we do here, isn't it? Sach (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Michig: As I said, if editors who work on those pages change them back -- so be it! I'm not disrespecting their work, I'm showing them another possibility that perhaps they hadn't considered, and just like any other stylistic edit to the article, it can be accepted or rejected by the people who hang out there or casual passers-by. I have absolutely no problem with that, what I'm concerned about is the a priori decision by another editor to override that natural process and change them back by fiat, as it were. It seems to me that Jeni really needs a consensus to do what she's doing, not the other way around. Sach (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am not changing Notes to References where the existing title was Notes, only where the above user has made the change. There are examples in your contributions where all you have edited is the references section to change it to notes (plus or minus a few pointless spacing comments here and there). If that isn't changing to suit your personal taste, then I don't know what is? If this was a one off change of a few articles over the course of a few months, there'd be no issue, but this is changing multiple articles per day at a fairly high rate, I'd call that mass changes. Jeni ^(talk) 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are several examples of articles where changing "References" to "Notes" was all I did, because I couldn't see anything else the article is needed, but the salient point is that I'm not trolling around looking for those instances, I'm going to articles that I'm interested in editing, and, as part of the editing session (most of which make significant changes, and some of which are extensive), making that change as jsut another part of the session. (It's never the reason that I'm editing the article.) Then, as part of the BRD process, if another editor comeos along who is intersted in editing the article, or someone whose been editing it extensively over a period of time, and changes it back, fine, that's the BRD process.

What you're doing is, it seems to me, totally out of process. You've decided that what I did was "disruptive" (and you still haven't said why that is the case) and you're changing them back en masse. You're not part of the normal bottom-up editing process, you've a top-down outside element inserting yourself into the article for no other purpose than to revert my changes. If you're going to do something like that, you really should have a consensus to do se, and be able to cite that consensus well it's asked for. You have yet to do that. Sach (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"changing "References" to "Notes" was all I did, because I couldn't see anything else the article is needed"' - Well why did you change it then? If you are only making the change as part of your normal editing, then you wouldn't be making edits specifically to change the title. You still haven't shown me anywhere which shows consensus to go around making this change en masse? Anyway I have to go out now, so I'll have to finish clearing up after you later tonight. Jeni ^(talk) 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're going around in circles. I don't need a consensus to do what is a normal part of editing, but I believe that you should have one to go around and delete my edits in bulk. If I was editing against policy, you'd be right in reverting my edits en masse, but you haven't cited any policy that says changing "References" to "Notes" is forbidden, so you should stop, and revert back the ones you've changed.

As far as my "high rate" goes -- it's only because I'm editing a lot at the moment. I have a hole in my schedule and I've elected to fill it in this way. (Silly me!) If this were a different time, when I was editing less, the rate would be a lot lower. But neither would be making "mass changes" because changing from "References" to "Notes" isn't the purpose of my editing, it's just one of the things I did in the course of editing the article. Sach (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) What we're talking about here is, essentially, the changing of a section title. That's a toally normal part of the editing process, it happens millions of times a day here. People change them, sometimes they stick, sometimes they don't. Editors don't need a consensus or special permission to do that, it just... editing, and it's not in any way disruptive. The same holds for changing "References" to "Notes" -- maybe it sticks, maybe it doesn't. The give and take of normal editing will determine that, it doesn't require someone to revert them in great bunches, because it's not disruptive and it's not diallowed. Sach (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeni, can you please tell me:

• How is changing "References" to "Notes" disruptive, as you several times have claimed?
• What policy is it I am overriding by changing "References" to "Notes"?

If I can get the answer to those two questions, I think it would go a long way towards my understanding your take on this. As it is, I really don't get it. Sach (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you're wikilawyering. There's Policy and then there's Consensus. Consensus in this case has said "cut it out". That means one thing: cut it out. (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not wikilawyering, they're quite simple questions. Until your comment just now, two outside people expressed opinions. I'm supposed to take that as "consensus", without knowing why what I'm doing is "disruptive" and why it goes againt policy? Doesn't really seem reasonable to me. Sach (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)'

(ec) Wouldn't go so far as calling his responses wikilawyering (brd, among others, has been known to be a complex concept that many users can manage to go without understanding for a long time). That said, I agree with the rest of the comments expressed here to Sach: he needs to take all of this on board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me comment as an uninvolved admin. We have a very general principle regarding this sort of stylistic issue: leave the article the way you found it. Even if you think your way is better, just leave things alone. This applies to things like American/British spelling, reference style, citation templates, whether to call a section "Notes" or "References", and all other trivial stylistic matters for which

WP:MOS

allows more than one choice.

The motivation for the principle is that it reduces the time wasted on this sort of discussion, and increases our productivity for things that actually matter. In general, we do roll back edits that violate the principle, to keep everyone on an even footing. On the other hand, when you start a new article, you are free to pick the style that you like.

My advice is to drop the matter here; there are few less important things than whether a section is named "Notes" or "References". — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So, in fact, you are saying that once someone chooses "Notes", "References", "Citations", "Sources" or whatever in creating a notes section, it can never be changed? Sach (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In the hope that perhaps a compromise might be reached, may I suggest the following:

• I will pledge only to change "References" to "Notes" in the normal course of my editing an article.
• I will not revert to keep the change, if ts changed back in the normal course of editing, that's is.
• When I come across an article that there's nothing for me to do, I will not change "References" to "Notes"
• I will not make insignificant "busywork" changes to an article to try to justify changing "References" to "Notes"

In return, I would like Jeni to:

• Revert back my edits she's already changed, except those in articles where I did no other editing except to change "References" to "Notes"
• Not continue to change my edits, and not to go looking for them. If she happens, in the normal course of her editing articles, to come across one of my changes, she is welcome to change it back, but she won't go out of her way to do so.

Would that work? Sach (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not something to negotiate over. As you have been advised, the ORIGINATOR of the article determines "References" vs "Notes". Leave it as it is unless the section is actually not made up of external references. Indeed, if there are NO external references, you may change away. (Then again, if there are no external references, we need to delete). (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no real reason to be so pugnacious. It seems to me that this conversation has been relatively civil throughout, and it would be a good idea to keep it that way. Thanks. Sach (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point. You should generally not be changing this sort of thing even in the course of normal editing: just leave the style established initially in each article. It would be no different than an editor who changes all British spellings to American "as part of general editing". The correct solution is to leave these sorts of things the way they are.

In the meantime, it is reasonable to roll back such changes you have already made to their initial state. I apologize if nobody ever informed you about the stability principle; it is described in the first section of

CBM · talk

) 12:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So, as I asked above, you're saying that the stability principle mandates that once the intial editor has chosen a name for the notes section it can never be changed? I find that astonishing. Sach (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has said that it can never be changed. However, the

Manual of Style states that if no preferred usage is specified in the Manual of Style, discuss the issue on the talk page. Contributing constructively involves respecting and adhering to Wikipedia norms. Ncmvocalist (talk

) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Sachs: Yes, that is basically correct. The same is true, for most articles, if the initial editor uses British, or American, spelling, or uses footnotes, or uses Harvard references, or uses citation templates. In practice, when someone changes these even in good faith, it just leads to a lot of discussion that churns water and wastes time. So the solution is to avoid that discussion by not making changes to these things when the MOS permits them.

Maybe this explanation will make more sense: if choosing the "right" style were important, the MOS would pick that style, and we could reference the MOS when making the change. If the MOS permits more than one style, then it really isn't that important, and so there is little justification for changing from one style to another. In such cases, it is better not to change it at all, to avoid discussions such as the one higher in this thread. It's like arguing over which end of a boiled egg to crack: better to disagree in silence than to go around flipping everyone else's egg upside down. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Well, color me absolutely astounded, the second section on MOS does indeed say:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Frankly, I find that pretty ridiculous, but it's certain clear -- so, I will cease changing "References" to "Notes" for all eternity, and Jeni can fire up the rollback machine and change my other edits, if she hasn't already finsihed.

What a world, what a world. My apologies for not knowing about this earlier. Sach (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to apologise. You had good intentions, and I wish that someone else had pointed out the MOS earlier, since that could have changed the tone of the earlier discussion. Best, — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nokilia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Luminita Soare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nokilia says he is the husband of Luminita Soare whose article he created. It was twice speedied and on the third go was taken to Articles for deletion/Luminita Soare, where the decision was delete. He has now recreated the article a 4th time to post a message in which he appears to want the deletion discussion deleted. (I can't be sure as he posted a very garbled machine translation from German.) He also left a message on Talk:Luminita Soare in German. The upshot of both was that if the AfD isn't deleted as well, he'll sue Wikipedia: "Falls ich diese Noten über Sie in den Archiv noch finde, die bei Ihren gelöschten Biographie zugefügt sind, werde ich Sie klagen und Schadenersatz anspruchen zu müssen."

Perhaps someone who can speak German could communicate with him to explain and/or offer courtesy blanking? Voceditenore (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The legal threat, he says, applies to anything in our archives, so that won't suffice it seems. In any case he can be told to withdraw the legal threat or be blocked. I've copied the ANI notice to his user page as that seems to be the page he is using to communicate.

talk

) 11:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The user has no productive contributions. I've indef-blocked him per NLT, explained this to him in German and courtesy-blanked the AfD he seems to complain about. That should do it, I think.  Sandstein  13:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is a bombshell in itself IMHO, in the sense that it appears as yet another attempt to give credit to Islam for everything Western civilization can be proud of. But the real cherry on the cake is a quote by a senior politician masqueraded as a "modern acknowledgement". I have removed the quote twice ([2], [3]) and justified my gesture on the talk page ([4]). Now, i am afraid that this degenerates into 3RR or an edit-war. Could an admin have a close look at how the page evolves? Thank you, RCS (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article, which seems to be quite ok. I don't know what your culture war attitude is all about - even if (some) Muslims would bomb the West completely off the map, that would not change the significant contributions of Islamic civilization during medieval times. The Obama quote is possibly undue weight, but that's an editorial decision. I suggest an RFC. And it might help if you refrain from loaded words like "ridiculous", "career politician" and "pandering to" in talk page discussions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all irrelevant but highly provocative parts from your statement. Please refrain from introducing your personal opinion about people or groups of people when it is certain to only increase the tension instead of solving the problem. A neutral statement increases the chance of you finding a sympathetic ear here.

Fram (talk

)

It didn't take long to guess from the title of the article who

the author was :) Mathsci (talk

) 10:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading through the article and it is indeed a disaster area, as RCS characterised it. It is full of falacies and distortions. Some of its inventions are breathtakingly inaccurate. Best way to face it down would be to fact tag every dubious claim and insist on sources written by proper art historians. Meowy 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was and is a problem with

User:PHG. Besides he still uses sources from the mid-19th century in some articles. No comment. Mathsci (talk

) 02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The only admin problem is the rationale for bringing this here --especially in the form originally edited [ [5] I would add to Fram's comment the strongest possible warning about the expression of political and religious prejudice DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no real administrative issue here, it's a content dispute. Dispute resolution's

thataway.--Cúchullain ^t/c

16:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there is an administrative issue at stake here, and a very serious one: how could an article appear as a DYK without having been properly checked? Compare the version that had been greenlighted with the revised version as it stands now: [6]. Too easy just to wash one's hands and shoot the messenger (me). --RCS (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, i originally warned of a risk of 3RR or edit-war, so this was an administrative issue all along. Keep on firing on the messenger. --RCS (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This user claims to be the owner of the image File:SBS_badge.gif which is being used to illustrated the article Special Boat Service under fair use.

The user removed the image, leaving messages about copyright (see diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7)

I left a message on their talk page here with a brief ps here

They have also left messages on the talk pages of users who reverted the edits, as well as mine:

• on Fetchcomms' talk page
• on Fetchcomms' Sandbox
• on my talk page and again and again
• on IShadowed's talk page
• on Javierito92's talk page

I replied here and added further thoughts and mentioned that I was going to report it here in this post.

Any advice/help? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NLT? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G

) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I did think of that, but I'm not sure it quite falls into that category - that's partly why I brought this to ANI. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it does, with the last line of the third edit to your talk page where he says "Incidently this is my copy right so unless you want to have the cost of compensation sent you you as well keep out off this". Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then all we need is for an administrator to block the IP for legal threats. They only made what may be counted as an overt threat to me - the others are pointing out what kinds of infringement they are, although I do not see that they are. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would view it as a legal threat, not stating action - but pointing out potential damages to you in an attempt to intimidate. He likely should be blocked until he clarifies his intent with that statement.

Although, even if an admin views it differently, the user has exceeded 3RR after a warning, so should also be blocked just for that. As it's an IP, shouldn't be a permanent block regardless of the reason for the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that this isn't the first time someone (I guess the same person) has made the same claim - 212223sassbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some related IPs did last year, and don't seem to have been interested in dialog about the niceties of fair use, instead issuing dire warnings of legal consequences. This is a general BT ADSL IP, so Barek is entirely right that a lengthy block will be both ineffectual and inappropriate. Semipro and/or RBI is all we can do, until the person deigns to engage in discussion rather than just reverting. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, once the 24h block is over, they may be willing to engage in dialogue - although I don't hold out great hopes. If the user reads the messages I left at both the IP talk page and at my own talk page, they will know how they can contact WMF and ask for the image to be removed, as long as they can provide sufficient proof that the person named in the IPO entry is themselves. I'm no legal expert, but I thought that "IPO" <> "Copyright". I think that in this case, although the person may have intellectual ownership of the design, the copyright is held by the Crown. There is also the fact that the design listed at the IPO records is the original design - the one we have is the current, slightly modified design (there are small differences). I'm not sure if this means that we can use the current design regardless - or if the IPO includes minor modifications, such as the SBS's current logo/badge. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to get consensus to reverse this block. The summary a few lines down, where EyeSerene de-intended, is helpful to explain it. In brief, Ophois reverted two times each on several (apparently three) pages. Although I concede that this behavior is not helpful, during previous blocks Ophois didn't get any warning that he could be blocked for less than 3RR. I know it is in the edit-warring policy that 3RR is not an electric fence, but in light of his only going to 2 reverts (which is two less than a 3rr vio), it seems too much to block him instead of warning him specifically that a block was imminent. One of EyeSerene's comments makes my point well: "you were reverted back at 10:04; your second revert at 10:11; reverted back at 10:12. I have no doubt that, had I not blocked you at 10:15, you would have reverted again.". Fair enough, but would a warning at 10:15 not have had the same effect?--chaser (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse unblock Although I see where the blocking admin is coming from and I agree that there seems to be a trend of reverting by Ophois, I do not see any real bad faith reverting. He never actually violates the letter of

talk

) 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Chaser. You're right, I went offline and hadn't seen Ophois's latest. I don't find the "they didn't know" argument convincing; Ophios has been here long enough, and been sanctioned for edit-warring enough times, to have read the policy for themselves and been aware that 3RR is not an entitlement, and their reversions across multiple articles indicate an ongoing pattern that needs to stop. I also think TParis00ap may be confusing my mention of the revert tool with rollback (though I admit that I phrased that sentence poorly; I should have said simply "reversion"). However, because Ophois has indicated that they'll try discussion sooner in future, and given the time already served, I have no objections to an unblock. Since it now looks like Chaser may be offline, I'll go and do that now. EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

...although this portion of their unblock request "the admin appears to have a habit of just blocking without any warning at all. One user blocked today didn't even realize that what was happening was considered an edit war, and was blocked out of nowhere. Personally, I see this as a possible abuse of power" probably did not help their case overall :-) I agree with both the block, and the unblock, based on the circumstances. (

BWilkins ←track

) 14:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking EyeSerene.--chaser (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I hope the message about being too quick to revert has sunk in. It's a particular annoyance of mine because of its destructive effects, especially when it happens to new users that we need to be encouraging, not dismissing. Re Bwilkins, show me an admin who hasn't been accused of misusing power and I'll show you one who's never used the tools :) Cheers all for the comments. EyeSerene^talk 16:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok he is blocked now but this is really ridiculous. He was reported at 2:24 and was finaly blocked at 2:46. That's 26 minutes of pure havoc that this IP made! since his reporting he made 7 more edits, (2 of which were against me) (on top of 7 edits that he made before hand, of which he vandalisem my page 1 time) all of which were disruptice. Just take a look at his contribs here. The time that it took to nab this guy is not aceptable. We need either more admins in general or more admins who watch the AN/V page.--

02:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's Friday night in the US and early Saturday morning in the UK. Response times will be slow. I've seen reports three times as old.--chaser (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means that we need more Australian editors! But still, something must be done about this. Its this time of day that the vandals go home and have nothing to do, so they get on wikipedia and vandalize untill they'er blocked.--

Let's talk

02:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it seems an acceptable amount of time. The vandals have to be identified, the appropiate stages of warning applied -- so 26 minutes from vandalism to block seems actually pretty speedy on this Friday night!

talk

) 03:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh well I guess we cant really do anything about time-zones now can we. Just thought that it took a long time to nab this guy. (He vandalized my page 3 times in less than half an hour!)--

Let's talk

03:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your userpage. User talk pages generally have to stay unprotected for legitimate messages.--chaser (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chaser!--

Let's talk

03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is

) 03:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I knew NoR in reall life and as far as I know, he gave up on wikipedia after the ban. Its porbably a troll as the editing habits of this IP have been seen on other IP addresses before. Just look at my userpage history.--

Let's talk

03:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, NoR self-identified as American on his userpage and the IPs in this report resolve to the US. 65.92... resolves to Canada. Not related.--chaser (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Imjust glad that its not NoR or else we would have to have a litle chat about not trying to take me down with him. Anyway like I said its probably just a troll who like seeing all of this drama unfold on the AN/I--

Let's talk

03:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that this is ScienceGolfFanatic, a vandal whom I've been seeing a lot of since May, and not related to Nemesis. ScienceGolfFanatic seems to get a kick out of imitating various other vandals, getting them further in trouble than they already are. Though there are other reasons for my believing that this is SGF, which I could explain if necessary. I've also written up in my sandbox a list of other IP ranges that he uses. I'm using the sandbox because I know I would have a difficult time making a case for why I'm so sure of myself, but again, I can explain if anyone thinks I'm jumping to conclusions. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mr.Snoppy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think this is a new user here from looking at the contribs. Nearly all the edits have been !votes on the current RFAs. This edit [7] says that it was used via AWB, but, first, the user cannot use AWB nor was he approved to use it, and if you click on "AWB" in the edit summary, you get sent to AWB instead of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, which is what the script does by default. MuZemike 05:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Very odd indeed. At this point, I can really only recommend we keep a close eye on this user.

Tan | 39

05:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That edit I mentioned above is also not an edit normally made with AWB, either. MuZemike 05:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the editor immediately declared themself retired after being notified of this discussion, it appears this temporary SPA was here with only an attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia - specifically the RFA process. Should the edits be reverted as such? Toddst1 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless a Checkuser wants to look into this account (which would be my recommendation, BTW), one should probably inform the bureaucrats about this at the

bureaucrats' noticeboard, especially since one of the current RFAs are within that "grey zone". MuZemike

08:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

...which I just did [8]. MuZemike 08:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the IP. This appears to be a reincarnation of the banned user SOPHIAN, whose edits dealt primarily with race and genetics. Other socks I have found so far include TESTY, Mtdna77, The Indian Chief, Subcladista, Berber Pirate, Theblankerbot, Azkoitian-Brahman, and Babyaministraor. I am still looking at a couple of other accounts that may be involved. Dominic·t 09:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed - what he said. There are others and we're looking into it right now - Allie ^❤ 09:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok - between Dominic and I, the following accounts are now  Confirmed to be socks of the one editor;

• The man of contrasts (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Azkoitian-Brahman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SOPHIAN (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - already blocked
• Babyaministraor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Theblankerbot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mtdna77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The Cro-Magnon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dr. Szląchski (
  talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki
  )
• The Indian Chief (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Subcladista (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Berber Pirate (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thatsure speed (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Makesdaysthatsure (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The Article Creator (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Doneitit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Eletricman77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TESTY (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Man of Seven Steps (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dr.Szląchedzki (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mr.Snoppy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

- Allie ^❤ 10:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a mess. I've started blocking a few and deleting some poor-quality articles they started, but I'm not through with them all yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The rest blocked and tagged. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In the course of editing articles and doing significant work on them, I have changed "References" to "Notes", since by my reading of WP:Citing sources either is acceptable, and I believe "Notes" is better descriptive of a list of footnotes than "References" is. Just now, User:Jeni dropped a note on my talk page telling me to stop [9], calling it "disruptive editing", and threatening to come here if I didn't.

She is now reverting my changes en masse, and according to this discussion on her talk page, cannot cite a consensus for her to do so. Since both forms are acceptable, my thought was to make the change and allow editors who work on the page over the normal course of time the option of leaving it or changing it back. I had no plans to edit war to keep in that change, and have not done so. By going through my edits and reverting every single instance, Jeni is subverting the possibility that editors will like "Notes" better and leave it in.

Since Jeni cannot cite a consensus decision allowing her to change my edits en masse outside of the normal course of editing -- well, should she be doing this? Thanks for any help. Sach (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have let you know that your changes are potentially disruptive and that you need to gather consensus for such mass changes. I see no attempt by you to achieve such consensus, so your changes are now being reverted per the

BRD process. I have even given you a hint on where to go to gather that consensus, but I doubt you'll get it, looking through the archives. Not to mention in many cases the change has already been reverted (it was someone elses reversion of your edits that alerted me to what you were doing) Jeni ^(talk

) 10:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

But I am not making "mass changes", I'm doing it in conection with my normal editing of articles. I'm not using automation or semi-automation to plow through hundreds of articles making the change, I'm doing it as I edit -- so I don't think "mass change" is the right description, since that's what it implies. (It is, in fact, more precisely descriptive of what you're doing.)

In any case, in what way is changing "References" to "Notes" disruptive? I don't see it. Maybe if I was edit warring to keep the changes in, that behavior would properly be described as disruptive, but I'm not doing that, I'm just changing from one perfectly acceptable form to another in the normal course of editing articles. How can that conceivably be disruptive? Sach (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've always found it odd that WP jumbles footnotes and references. Footnotes are simply explanatory comments or pointers to a citation, references are details of sources used. Not really the same thing. I much prefer 'References' for a list of cited sources and 'Notes' for genuine footnotes. Most articles seem to have a single section with mainly citations, usually as 'References'. I don't think it's a good idea to go changing these to 'Notes' simply due to personal preference as the preference of editors who have done the bulk of the work on those articles should be respected in the absence of any clear guideline either way. --Michig (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(

this. Most articles seem to survive with the pre-existing header, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there are numerous footnotes and citations, there is an arguable case for separation into distinct section, IMO. Rodhullandemu

10:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are numerous footnotes and citations, there is an arguable case for separation into distinct section Yes, I do that as well. Sach (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where your link supports what you're saying. It says

The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic: "Sources" may be confused with source code in computer related articles; "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; "Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography. The header should be plural, even if it lists only a single item.

Where does it say that changing from one form to the other is "disruptive"?

You folks seem to be saying that the first person to add a notes section decides what it's titled and it can never be changed, but that can't possibly be right, can it? Sach (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But ... changing things to make them better is what we do here, isn't it? Sach (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Michig: As I said, if editors who work on those pages change them back -- so be it! I'm not disrespecting their work, I'm showing them another possibility that perhaps they hadn't considered, and just like any other stylistic edit to the article, it can be accepted or rejected by the people who hang out there or casual passers-by. I have absolutely no problem with that, what I'm concerned about is the a priori decision by another editor to override that natural process and change them back by fiat, as it were. It seems to me that Jeni really needs a consensus to do what she's doing, not the other way around. Sach (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am not changing Notes to References where the existing title was Notes, only where the above user has made the change. There are examples in your contributions where all you have edited is the references section to change it to notes (plus or minus a few pointless spacing comments here and there). If that isn't changing to suit your personal taste, then I don't know what is? If this was a one off change of a few articles over the course of a few months, there'd be no issue, but this is changing multiple articles per day at a fairly high rate, I'd call that mass changes. Jeni ^(talk) 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are several examples of articles where changing "References" to "Notes" was all I did, because I couldn't see anything else the article is needed, but the salient point is that I'm not trolling around looking for those instances, I'm going to articles that I'm interested in editing, and, as part of the editing session (most of which make significant changes, and some of which are extensive), making that change as jsut another part of the session. (It's never the reason that I'm editing the article.) Then, as part of the BRD process, if another editor comeos along who is intersted in editing the article, or someone whose been editing it extensively over a period of time, and changes it back, fine, that's the BRD process.

What you're doing is, it seems to me, totally out of process. You've decided that what I did was "disruptive" (and you still haven't said why that is the case) and you're changing them back en masse. You're not part of the normal bottom-up editing process, you've a top-down outside element inserting yourself into the article for no other purpose than to revert my changes. If you're going to do something like that, you really should have a consensus to do se, and be able to cite that consensus well it's asked for. You have yet to do that. Sach (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"changing "References" to "Notes" was all I did, because I couldn't see anything else the article is needed"' - Well why did you change it then? If you are only making the change as part of your normal editing, then you wouldn't be making edits specifically to change the title. You still haven't shown me anywhere which shows consensus to go around making this change en masse? Anyway I have to go out now, so I'll have to finish clearing up after you later tonight. Jeni ^(talk) 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're going around in circles. I don't need a consensus to do what is a normal part of editing, but I believe that you should have one to go around and delete my edits in bulk. If I was editing against policy, you'd be right in reverting my edits en masse, but you haven't cited any policy that says changing "References" to "Notes" is forbidden, so you should stop, and revert back the ones you've changed.

As far as my "high rate" goes -- it's only because I'm editing a lot at the moment. I have a hole in my schedule and I've elected to fill it in this way. (Silly me!) If this were a different time, when I was editing less, the rate would be a lot lower. But neither would be making "mass changes" because changing from "References" to "Notes" isn't the purpose of my editing, it's just one of the things I did in the course of editing the article. Sach (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) What we're talking about here is, essentially, the changing of a section title. That's a toally normal part of the editing process, it happens millions of times a day here. People change them, sometimes they stick, sometimes they don't. Editors don't need a consensus or special permission to do that, it just... editing, and it's not in any way disruptive. The same holds for changing "References" to "Notes" -- maybe it sticks, maybe it doesn't. The give and take of normal editing will determine that, it doesn't require someone to revert them in great bunches, because it's not disruptive and it's not diallowed. Sach (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeni, can you please tell me:

• How is changing "References" to "Notes" disruptive, as you several times have claimed?
• What policy is it I am overriding by changing "References" to "Notes"?

If I can get the answer to those two questions, I think it would go a long way towards my understanding your take on this. As it is, I really don't get it. Sach (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you're wikilawyering. There's Policy and then there's Consensus. Consensus in this case has said "cut it out". That means one thing: cut it out. (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not wikilawyering, they're quite simple questions. Until your comment just now, two outside people expressed opinions. I'm supposed to take that as "consensus", without knowing why what I'm doing is "disruptive" and why it goes againt policy? Doesn't really seem reasonable to me. Sach (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)'

(ec) Wouldn't go so far as calling his responses wikilawyering (brd, among others, has been known to be a complex concept that many users can manage to go without understanding for a long time). That said, I agree with the rest of the comments expressed here to Sach: he needs to take all of this on board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me comment as an uninvolved admin. We have a very general principle regarding this sort of stylistic issue: leave the article the way you found it. Even if you think your way is better, just leave things alone. This applies to things like American/British spelling, reference style, citation templates, whether to call a section "Notes" or "References", and all other trivial stylistic matters for which

WP:MOS

allows more than one choice.

The motivation for the principle is that it reduces the time wasted on this sort of discussion, and increases our productivity for things that actually matter. In general, we do roll back edits that violate the principle, to keep everyone on an even footing. On the other hand, when you start a new article, you are free to pick the style that you like.

My advice is to drop the matter here; there are few less important things than whether a section is named "Notes" or "References". — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So, in fact, you are saying that once someone chooses "Notes", "References", "Citations", "Sources" or whatever in creating a notes section, it can never be changed? Sach (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In the hope that perhaps a compromise might be reached, may I suggest the following:

• I will pledge only to change "References" to "Notes" in the normal course of my editing an article.
• I will not revert to keep the change, if ts changed back in the normal course of editing, that's is.
• When I come across an article that there's nothing for me to do, I will not change "References" to "Notes"
• I will not make insignificant "busywork" changes to an article to try to justify changing "References" to "Notes"

In return, I would like Jeni to:

• Revert back my edits she's already changed, except those in articles where I did no other editing except to change "References" to "Notes"
• Not continue to change my edits, and not to go looking for them. If she happens, in the normal course of her editing articles, to come across one of my changes, she is welcome to change it back, but she won't go out of her way to do so.

Would that work? Sach (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not something to negotiate over. As you have been advised, the ORIGINATOR of the article determines "References" vs "Notes". Leave it as it is unless the section is actually not made up of external references. Indeed, if there are NO external references, you may change away. (Then again, if there are no external references, we need to delete). (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no real reason to be so pugnacious. It seems to me that this conversation has been relatively civil throughout, and it would be a good idea to keep it that way. Thanks. Sach (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point. You should generally not be changing this sort of thing even in the course of normal editing: just leave the style established initially in each article. It would be no different than an editor who changes all British spellings to American "as part of general editing". The correct solution is to leave these sorts of things the way they are.

In the meantime, it is reasonable to roll back such changes you have already made to their initial state. I apologize if nobody ever informed you about the stability principle; it is described in the first section of

CBM · talk

) 12:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So, as I asked above, you're saying that the stability principle mandates that once the intial editor has chosen a name for the notes section it can never be changed? I find that astonishing. Sach (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has said that it can never be changed. However, the

Manual of Style states that if no preferred usage is specified in the Manual of Style, discuss the issue on the talk page. Contributing constructively involves respecting and adhering to Wikipedia norms. Ncmvocalist (talk

) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Sachs: Yes, that is basically correct. The same is true, for most articles, if the initial editor uses British, or American, spelling, or uses footnotes, or uses Harvard references, or uses citation templates. In practice, when someone changes these even in good faith, it just leads to a lot of discussion that churns water and wastes time. So the solution is to avoid that discussion by not making changes to these things when the MOS permits them.

Maybe this explanation will make more sense: if choosing the "right" style were important, the MOS would pick that style, and we could reference the MOS when making the change. If the MOS permits more than one style, then it really isn't that important, and so there is little justification for changing from one style to another. In such cases, it is better not to change it at all, to avoid discussions such as the one higher in this thread. It's like arguing over which end of a boiled egg to crack: better to disagree in silence than to go around flipping everyone else's egg upside down. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Well, color me absolutely astounded, the second section on MOS does indeed say:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Frankly, I find that pretty ridiculous, but it's certain clear -- so, I will cease changing "References" to "Notes" for all eternity, and Jeni can fire up the rollback machine and change my other edits, if she hasn't already finsihed.

What a world, what a world. My apologies for not knowing about this earlier. Sach (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to apologise. You had good intentions, and I wish that someone else had pointed out the MOS earlier, since that could have changed the tone of the earlier discussion. Best, — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 12:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned over ten times going back to May 2007 about removing sourced information[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20], yet continues to be disruptive. Enough is enough!Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Skateremorocker about this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin have a look and issue necessary warnings for the various acts of vandalism? I am not even sure who did what. I did what I could to fix it. Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned IPs and users. GedUK  19:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'll take a look at the history and hand out warnings and reports to

WP:AIV accordingly. That's really all that can be done. ArcAngel (talk

) 19:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Block required

Resolved

Please block 84.13.255.122 (talk · contribs) as a self-admitted sockpuppet of a banned user. Majorly talk 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Thanks Majorly. Tiptoety ^talk 19:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

) 21:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple advantages to filing an

long term abuse can be tracked easier, and possible further action can be taken. When someone just pops in to ANI and asks for a block, it is much harder to do all of these things. Please file an SPI request ASAP so this can be dealt with. --Jayron32

22:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the advice. Wasn't sure what to do as I've not dealt with many sockpuppet cases.

talk

) 22:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been active enough on the article

) 21:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left them a thorough warning about the relevant policies.[21] Hopefully that will have a positive effect. Otherwise, if they continue causing trouble the next admin should feel comfortable blocking the account. They've been told what they need to do. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - first of all, is it OK if I add my two cents here even thought I'm not an admin? Secondly, I just wanted to point out that I reverted Ott_jeff here [22], without realizing I was walking into an ongoing issue (it just looked like he was deleting well-sourced info to push a POV), and he reverted me after Jehochman's warning. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the user in response to two reports at the edit-warring noticeboard. It might be worth watchlisting the article for future similar editing. (Edit: predictably, an IP carried on the edit-war, so I've semi-protected for a week as well). Black Kite 23:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

the article on

is full of lies to say it has a 92% success rate is ridiculous of the hundreds that go in every year a small handful will be clean 3 years on : the article states that they have been around for 36 years and have 152 facilities and 28,000 people have been cured that means 28,000 cures/152 centers/36 years = five cures a year per center/ hundreds of people enter these centers every year and dozens graduate so how does this 92% percent have any realiy

this organization is a racket and makes the directors rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creano88 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So. Get some sources together and go rewrite the article. I see online newspaper articles and rehab forums reporting on this organisation, particularly the Pennsylvania chapter. Rewrite the article with verifiable information,. and take out the unsourced stuff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Over at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isaac Asimov on Throne.png, there's an image nominated for deletion. The licence information refers to the deleted English Wikipedia page Talk:Isaac_Asimov/Archive_1#Image, where there is apparently some documentation of a GFDL attribution.

Can an administrator who also maintains an account at Commons verify the contents of the deleted talk page and comment in the Commons deletion thread. (And maybe log an OTRS ticket to avoid future questions about this file?) TheFeds 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the image's talk page - File talk:AsimovOnThrone.png - so that everyone can judge for themselves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently, User:Elonka placed User:Domer48 on probation with regards to the Troubles Arbitration Case. Domer has stated that he will not accept Elonka's actions (aided and abetted by at least one other user in the area, Vintagekits) and intends to continue editing like nothing happened. I urged him to bring this to ANI or AE rather then do this, but it's his decision, and thus forces my bringing this here myself.

Now the reason that I bring this here, instead of an ArbCom clarification, is two reasons, time wise. A) The sanction is only for 90 days, and by the time ArbCom can clarify if Elonka can place Domer under the probation, a good chunk of the probation will have already expired, and B) This has the chance to devolve very quickly. If Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and gets blocked, well, we have excessive drama.. and if Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and doesn't get blocked.. well we have excessive drama from the other side.

My personal opinion is that Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator. any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. (per the terms of the Troubles ArbCom). I do consider it valid (and note that Elonka did apply it to one of the other frequent targets in this area, from the other PoV, so it looks like she's not favoring one side or another), but again, this is my opinion, and Domer has decided to ignore my note as well..

Pre-emptive edit: For VK's continued hostility in the same discussion User talk:Domer48#Probation, I have blocked him 48 hours. I leave it open to review, but VK's taking a volatile situation and trying to see if he can light it on fire. SirFozzie (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

VK is getting blocked so often these days he hardly has time to update his little counter! [23]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely its about time an indef block was considered for VK? His incivilities are too frequent, despite being warned/blocked about it so many times. He is obviously never going to learn. Jeni ^(talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

His user page states he is retired, & he's been blocked three times since he claims it took effect. As an uninvolved Admin (his name is familiar, but I don't remember having any interaction with him), I second Jeni's suggestion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd note that both Domer and Mooretwin, aware of the 1RR on the article, simply made sure their reverts were spaced at least 24 hours apart, and continued to edit war with each other [24]. Which is exactly what the ArbCom remedies were supposed to prevent. If editors game the system to evade general restrictions, there is little option but to add specific restrictions. When you consider how many fronts this same sort of problem editing is occurring on from some of the same editors, I can't really see any other option. Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator, therefore I see no basis to discount her probationary measure. I'd also note that this pattern is depressingly familiar. Every single time an uninvolved admin makes a sanction on one of them, the same invested group of editors claim bias and insist that admin is involved. It happened to me (Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)), to Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)... Either the entire admin corps is involved in a grand Anti-Irish conspiracy or else we have to begin to see this tactic for what it is. Rockpocket 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer to persistent edit-warring in this area: Troubles topic bans. It has worked in other areas, I am already considering proposing this for the endless British Isles naming dispute edit-warring, and I see no reason why it would not work here either. Black Kite 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite. Note that I am not uninvolved as have previously blocked Domer and have been accused of harrassing these partisans per RockPocket. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with SirFozzie, Rockpocket and Black Kite. Elonka is perfectly neutral in this and has made a good-faith effort to enforce our norms. In a scenario that has become depressingly familiar, she has been greeted with abuse and accusations of bias. I'm afraid 'partisans' is the right term per Toddst. Sad. --John (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, agree. I've not looked at the specific case, but a general topic ban would seem to be a reasonable approach to the problems indicated by the block logs of Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some other regular participants in these disputes. Such a ban would need to be community-imposed, though, as the case remedies do not allow for it.  Sandstein  21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree that it's high time action was taken against a number of editors who've learned to get around the current restrictions. Elonka's 90-day 1RR per week probation on Domer is a start. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for Troubles topic bans, starting here and now with Domer48 and Mooretwin, and hopefully ending there too. Not only are they perennial edit-warriors, they often seem to bring out the worst in other editors. The Socratic method may be fine for teaching face-to-face, but it really doesn't work so well on Wikipedia talk pages and especially not when Socrates is selectively deaf. Both of these editors have not hearing things down to a fine art.

The only concern I'd have with a broad topic ban is that the boundaries of the Troubles could conceivably be stretched to cover most Irish topics in the last two centuries or so along with no end of foreign ones. Dedicated edit-warriors could even find things in the realms of myth, pre-history and archaeology that need the Truth adding to them, just as they can in EE or A-A topics. I'm not sure what the answer would be here except that it would not be defining the topic narrowly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind backing up your allegations against me, specifically that I do not hear? Domer48 is a problem editor who is unwilling to collaborate with other editors. I have often been the only editor to have the patience to confront him. Yet because I am the only one doing this, I get punished - but if several editors confront him, then that is OK. There are several articles on Wikipedia where I have been faced with the choice either of leaving an article under Domer's

ownership or reverting him. The former choice is not in the interests of the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that it is convenient to tar me with the same brush as Domer so that admins can say they are "treating both sides equally". I resent the implication that I am on anyone's "side". I am merely opposed to articles being written from a particular POV. The elephant in the room here is that there is a group of Irish-nationalist-inclined editors who have, over time, succeeded in inserting nationalist POV into Ireland-related articles. It is a logical fallacy to argue that someone seeking to redress this must be pushing the opposite POV. Mooretwin (talk

) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit unfair on Mooretwin. I have problems with his editing as he is aware, specifically the slow edit warring. But in talk page discussions Mooretwin is civil despite provocation, contributes constructively and is willing to compromise. Domer, as noted by several other editors in the past, is almost impossible to work with. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Vintagekits has asked for an unblock, would a completely uninvolved administrator (if there's any left) review his edits on Domer's page and review his unblock request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not just ban him, per this edit summary. This user celebrates his disruption and we are feeding him. I am tired of the abuse the

AGF receives here. We try to be nice, form a community, and provide for dispute resolution and then we let users like this abuse the system and our good will. I propose a community pan on Vintagekits and then we can move on with our live.--Adam in MO Talk

22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed his unblock request, and declined it. Since he referred to the blocking admin's logic as "retarded" I think it's safe to say unblocking would be a mistake. I've never come across this user before, but I'm astounded that they have been blocked 31 times. It may indeed be time for a indef block/ban, but for now I am simply declining to undo the current block.
  talk
  ) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: He is now simultaneously saying he is once again retired, and asking to be unblocked again, based on some hair-splitting about what exactly is a personal attack. He's also refactoring the conversation on his page to remove references to this thread and explanations of why he was blocked. I'm done, good luck finding another uninvolved admin to look at this.

talk

) 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't as done as I said I was because I still had his page watchlisted. After yet another declined unblock, I have revoked his talk page access for the remainder of the current block.

talk

) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

More bad block, bans and probation

I was recently page banned here on a very dubious pretence by Angusmclellan. Their ability to this was questioned and it was pointed out to them that they were in the wrong here,here. Because I would not accept their improper ban, I was blocked by them, but this was immediately overturned here because it was wrong. This was then followed up with my being place on probation here all of which is related to the above?

I’d now like both of these actions addressed and removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This comment here may be agreement to drop their baseless ban? It may need to be clarified. If this is the case it needs to logged. This would just leave the probation to be addressed.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Peter Hart article, and indeed pretty much any article related to The Troubles is under an arbcom restriction as noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. You have been clearly edit warring at that article, which means your own actions have made yourself under the jurisdiction of that arbcom case. I see no admin that has acted inappropriate in enforcing the above arbcom ruling. --Jayron32 15:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide the Diff's to support your claim. Thanks--Domer48_'fenian' 15:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[25] shows troublesome exchanges where you have made several different attempts to work contested material into the article in question. On September 5, on September 8, November 2, and November 9 you made repeated attempts to make contested changes to the article in question. The probation placed on you seems necessary to stop you from continuing to do this. --Jayron32 16:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommend merging this thread up to be a sub-section of the "#Request for more eyes on a volatile situation regarding The Troubles" where this is already being discussed. --Elonka 00:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(followup) Merged. --Elonka 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Block Vintagekits indefinitely

I may be one of the few left who hasn't participated in this discussion (or what has led up to it), so I am, as stated by LessHeard vanU, going to grasp this nettle. This issue is not going to be resolved here, and while I note Georgewilliamherbert's request for the discussion to continue longer and believe this request to be in the best of good faith, I do not believe that continuation here will generate any more light or any less heat.

There is clearly not consensus to reverse the block on Vintagekits. At this point, it seems that Vintagekits has exhausted the patience of a good portion of the community. He may, as normal, appeal to the

regarding the sanctions imposed. If he would like to put together an appeal on his talk page, I will move it to the arbitration requests section.

While I would like to say that this is the end of the issue, I unfortunately cannot do so. This issue was a real world conflict that caused a great deal of suffering for everyone involved. The real tragedy here is that we have an article on The Troubles to write at all. But we do—and the importance of such historical records cannot be overstated. It is my hope that everyone involved here can set aside their differences, and create a neutral and accurate record of what has transpired. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandal-socking

Resolved

User talk:The Fuher Of Putkas User talk:Dick Into Putka User talk:Wet Putka Switches to new username after 4th warning... ...and will probably keep going. Now what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked all those (and two others that hadn't edited yet). The ACB autoblock will stop any more from the same IP address, but of course that's easily circumvented - these are high visibility articles though, so any vandalism will be rv'd quickly and we can always throw in a short semiprotection. Black Kite 02:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thx. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Those are all obvious
      <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk
      ) 05:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The banner,

Is rather childish, and doesn't reflect the view of wikipedia by the community. In fact, it has met strong opposition at the meta page discussing the banners. Since there was no consensus for it's conclusion, why go ahead and do it? As to the matter of placing it here, on this noticeboard, the only way to deal with the banner is with admin privilages, hence the need for admin intervention. That aside, I will be dropping Jimbo a note on his talk page concerning this thread, for various reasons.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs to be completely hidden for those who choose to do so. People will donate if you have a little thing next to "Try Beta". There's no need for a big ad right at the top of the page.--

WP:CFL

) 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dito. It looks rather ugly to me, and does it have to be so big.--

Talk

02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Would highly recommend against that course of action. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Daedalus969. It is also a bit too big. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  ^Talk 02:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does the Foundation need our permission to use a banner to encourage contributions to support this project, which the Foundation owns and finances? —Finell (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's "the Foundation?" I don't work for them. They don't pay me to do this. Yes, they keep servers going, but if it's truly here to maintain a popular endeavour, presumably it is responsive to constituents, no? Steveozone (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

More comments from editors at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Fundraiser. You might like to add thoughts there. 86.133.51.201 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia Forever is probably a better place to go. Rd232 ^talk

20:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that everyone stay calm and cheerful. It's ok for us to insist that the Foundation do the fundraiser in an effective and tasteful banner. It's ok for us to ask for information on performance. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, hit save on the wrong version. Hang on a minute, I'll write more. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Grr, and then I wrote a long thing and thought I hit save... now I have to run. :-( Will write more soon, so sorry. Anyway the gist of it is this: let's relax. I expect the Foundation to be accountable to community concerns - and they are. I've talked to Sue and Erik, and I agree with them completely - because they are taking community concerns seriously. Let's let some data come in and then have a real discussion with some facts in hand. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait im confused. So your re-writing the banner right? If so Thanks! (Excuse me for my ignorance as I still ask newbie-like questions)--

Let's talk

23:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... if they are taking our concerns seriously, they are rewriting the banners. The entire community is against their wording. When was the last time that happened? —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hide]

ARTHROPODS  FOREVER

Jimbo, would the statistics being collected include vandalism stats, possibly? The slogan resembles a formula frequently repeated on high school lavatory walls: Stacy + Tim Forever, Josh + Courtney 4ever, etc. It's not the type of suggestion the volunteers relish seeing the Foundation convey. Durova³⁶⁴ 00:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I never really thought about it that way but yes. It does make since. Another name would be good.--

Let's talk

00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from my dislike of the name, it looks really bad on Opera browsers, just fyi (especially the donate button, and yes I know Opera shows stuff weirdly despite having 100/100 on ACID3). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't work for the WPFoundation, but they certainly do work for us. The user/editor of Wikipedia, the most important information source on the interweb. If I had any money, I'd give them some of it. I read it all the time. It's the same thing as going to a bar to see a band you really like, and handing them $20 bucks for all the stuff you've downloaded (you guys do do that, don't you?)

I don't even think it's a serious question of a concensus issue on this. It's not a plea for filthy lucre. It's only a reminder that the project is community driven, through our efforts editing/administrating/patroling, and through our financial contributions. Maybe someday, restauranteurs will start paying their chefs what we're worth, and I'll write the WMF a cheque. Banner or no banner, I think it would be a good thing to do. It couldn't hurt, and could only help. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything against the banner in concept but the execution is ugly and amateurish. Clean it up and you're likely to get less complaints and more donations. Win-win, as they say.

talk

) 08:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The comments above indicating that the entire community is against this are not accurate. I can't be the only one who really does not give a shit about the banner. The psychology of fundraising is complicated, and the foundation is trying something they believe will work. If it doesn't they probably won't use it again next year. Honestly, would you stop watching a show you enjoyed on
  talk
  ) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What if someone set up a secure poll, like those used for the Checkuser auditing?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference in your examples, Beeblebrox, is that there is no relationship between me & PBS except I use their product -- when I bother to watch PBS. They broadcast what they will, whether I watch them or not, give them money or not. I contribute content because I believe in the ideal of a community of volunteers who produce an encyclopedia. Paying some advertising agency to define their market & write their banner ads tells me that they don't share this vision. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am another exception to the "entire community": I hate flashy stuff (I have scripting disabled 99% of the time), and I did not even see the banner. On hearing about the fuss, I enabled scripting to view the banner. It was fine! It's impossible for a slogan to convey much meaning, but I imagine the suggestion is that readers of Wikipedia want it to be "forever", and so they should seriously consider financial support. After deciding the banner was good, I clicked "Hide" and it went away. One could argue about the all-caps (normally I would hate that, but again, it was ok). I suspect the banner, if given a chance, may be quite effective, and it certainly was not childish. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess the question is would you rather want a flashy banner now, or a McDonald's-Pepsi-WalMart ad five years from now. I can live with the wiki-puffery, but I'd hate to see Coke'nFries slapped on every page... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just collapse it and move on. Yes the marketing message is a bit duff this year, that's a great reason for volunteering to help with next year's fundraising drive so that the banner is less lame next time. The sky is not, however, falling, as far as I can tell. No articles were harmed in the creation of this banner. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Reporting on A Sniper

Resolved

Please look at the comments A Sniper left after his edits on Ashkenazi Jews article since November the 11 [32]. As for the point, the Ashkenazi Jews article photobox suffering from ongoing edit wars for months if not years. We had a very long discussions there, involving with at least 4 other editors as well and we agreed that notability is the key for inclusion in the photobox and that controversial figures would preferably not be included. Anne Arendt is controversial for reasons I explained at the least weeks ago on the article talk page and anyway, no consensus was achieved about her inclusion. We did decide that more women should be included in the photobox. Against consensus A Sniper entered Anne Arendt photo, hurl at me that I've POV against her (ignoring my attempts to aware him to WP:CON) -he didn't even botherd to explain himself. Then, after he continued with this line, I put a notice on his talk page (which he removed with a beautiful comment | diff1, asking him to avoid persoanl attacks (maybe it's not the best notice nut it's not too far I guess) . A Sniper also left a nice response on my talk page diff2 and then I conatct him again, a bit irritated-but still civil I guess [33] and asked him specifically not to use derogatory nicknames (specifically "whining"). I also removed the photo of Arendt from the photobox of the article and replaced it with those of Anne Frank which was highly consensual on previous discussions which took place month or two ago (aside for one or two opposers, and we considered them then). Here [34], A Sniper choosed to use this word again and to discuss offensively. Now I see that it become to be a soap boaxing arena and he realy overdid it. More, I don't know if it's the right place to mention it, but first I enetred Rosalind Franklin to the photobox (other users supported her) and then A Sniper removed her claming that Arendt is more notable (without providing any source of course)-I removed the photo of Arendt but didn't return this of Franklin, waiting for an agreed solution. Then, after another editor which supported Franklin and was not involved in the conflict wrote me that he can't find any photo of her that's for free use, A Sniper wrote that we have no free use photo of Franklin and that until then -Arendt is in the photobox. I also rememberd his words that any other famous women is acceptable by him and I enterd Anne Frank, and now he tell that we need fourth women (in the discussions we have on this talk page with many other users 3 photos were obvious, and fourth one mean that removing another, agreed photo, is needed) and that he will insert Arendt if fourth women will not be found. To me it seem pretty abusive manner of editing and discussing. It seems like this rude or accusive manner comments are not hard to find in other of his relatively recent edits with other users involved. I'm waiting for your intervention.--Gilisa (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, and although there is an element of bad faith name calling it is best for this to be put before an appropriate process of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may note: First off, I hope other editors can see that, at one point, this editor showed up at

ownership). There had been relative calm for some time over the issue of the photoboxes until a) one editor queried the use of photos of living persons, and b) this particular editor started challenging the individuals in the photoboxes, and made it a mission to bring the subject up on almost a daily basis. The editor is actually referring to Hannah Arendt, the internationally known, influential female Ashkenazic Jewish political theorist, whom she has mistakenly referred to at various times as Anne Arendt, Ana Arendt, etc. I have indeed called it a POV because this editor has written paragraph after paragraph in attempts at characterizing Arendt as too controversial to be considered a candidate for the photobox. Isn't this POV? Maybe what sems to be a language barrier is at fault. All I know is that I am trying to follow edit protocols but this editor is taking everything so personally. Bottom line: whether or not Hannah Arendt is significantly known as an Ashkenazic Jewish female to be included...not whether or not I need a whipping from an admin. Best, A Sniper (talk

) 01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my last comment here, just to take the sting out of your baseless accusations about POV: First, you seem to continue with this vulager language on other edits you have (I pretty sure I also saw one in which you refer to one vandal (?) editor as retard). Second, indeed I made few edits a day-then, but you totaly took it out of context, and I have the right to assume little good faith here: I contributed content in the body of the article (including one "edit war" with a user who insert false information to the article by mistake and it took me time to make it clear for him where he was wrong) and become involved with the photobox only after I saw it's changing on almost weekly basis. when I jopind the discussion it become evident that this edit war last two years or so. Then I decided to take Mendlson out of the photobox (as he converted to Christinity and as we was advised as well, he was therefor much less representative and yes, controversial as Arendt and Otto Weininger (which was not a candidate there, but made some comparsion to Arendt-as I wrote, Arend was criticized by many, including Gershom Scholem and the English historian David Szrani for being hostile through Judaism and for explicit rasict views against other Jewish groups-Ashkenazi and non Ashkenazi)). One editore jept reverting my edit, she also insert Arendt with a consensus of her own and had what you would refer as strong POV for Mendlson even when other users suggested and supported other figures, some was already in the photobox, consensual and all (e.g., Golad Meir) but she removed them for Mendlson (claming that Meir was a faliure as the Israeli Prime Minister and that Anne Frank wasn't that important-which A Sniper didn't call POV) . I warned her time after time, try to discuss with her and etc-but for vain, so please don't take it out of context-and again, I didn't "Just appear" in the article, and unlike others I made much efforts to lead for consensus (it doesn't mean that I've to agree to every candidate, I have not disqualified more candidates than others). So please stick to the point arguments instead of accusing me for POV. I don't think the language barrier is what disturbing here , it's true that English is not my first, not even second, language, but you used pretty much clear and blatant wording that you can't now just tell that "I'm taking everything to personaly", espcially not after I present here the entire discussion between us (which include explicit statement of you disregarding my arguments). Now, many notable Jewish people were rejected from the photobox, and notability by itself is not the only key.--Gilisa (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This most recent entry to your complaint against me illustrates that this is all about content, not about me. Now, please step down from the soapbox. That you have a POV about Hannah Arendt is contained in your own words on the subject. A Sniper (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As I told, I finisuhed discussing with you. And cease your provoking, basless and not even explained accussions for POV. For the record, you have no consensus on Arendt and stick to that instead of hurling accusations and totaly disrespeting others (which is about you your style, and not only the content). Not turning it to soap boxing, this was my last comment here for this case.--Gilisa (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Listen - you have made this formal complaint against me. Instead of seeking Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, since you are fixated on me, you have taken the bold step of coming to the Administrators' Noticeboard with a complaint...and instead it is filled with a rollicking story about content. As is traditional in jurisprudence, a person makes a complaint, and then the accused states their defence. You made your "last comment", and then I replied to it. So let's now let this be looked over by an Admin...and we can then return to our daily lives, free of incoherence. A Sniper (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm already in my everyday life. P.S. Just saw your last edit-you continue balming for POV (while you don't even once seriously addressed my arguments), article owenring and with your disrespectful manner of editing. Realy want an admin to see it[35] --Gilisa (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I sincerely don't know what you're on about. Focus on the editing and not on the editor. Please. A Sniper (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I and A Sniper have agreed to resolve the issue in a more constructive manner. Please see the issue closed.--Gilisa (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox again

Resolved

 – Blocked; request for unblock granted.

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

In a recent discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Likebox and tendentious_re-insertion of original research) User:Likebox was placed under permanent sanctions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Results. Specifically,

If

disruptive

by an uninvolved administrator, Likebox may be blocked. After three incidents the block length may increase to one year.

Since then he has continued to act disruptively in exactly the same manner, on the same topics. He has pushed the failed

WP:ESCA

guideline, hoping to permit via the back-door the exact kind of OR that got him sanctioned in the first place. In addition, he insists that the failed ESCA guideline/essay contain wording that directly contradicts policy, and edit-wars to keep that material in. As an example, note the following paragraph:

When editing or creating an article of any type, editors are expected to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies.

neutral point of view

.

One would think that this is a simple and uncontroversial statement of basic policy, but User:Likebox cannot abide it, since it contradicts his own preference to be allowed to introduce OR. Thus he has reverted it out of the failed guideline/essay 3 times[36][37][38] in just over four hours. I noted on his talk page that I considered his behavior in violation of his restriction, and requested he revert himself or I would request administrative action. He rejected my statements, removed my post from his talk page, and told me not to post messages to him any more (as far as I know that was my first and only post on his User talk: page). I'd appreciate it if uninvolved admins could discuss this issue. I'd also appreciate it if his fellow ESCA creators User:Count Iblis, User:Michael C Price, and recently blocked User:Brews ohare could stay out of the discussion, since I'm looking specifically for the views of outside admins, rather than entirely predictable support from like-minded collaborators. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was one of Likebox's principal opponents in the discussion that resulted in his sanction, and I inveighed against the OR-enabling aspects of the now-rejected ESCA guideline proposal on the ESCA talkpage and elsewhere, so I'm certainly not a like-minded collaborator of Likebox. So I hope Jayjg doesn't mind if I weigh in.

As I see it, Likebox's sanction was intended to stop him from disrupting articles and from wearing out article editors on article talkpages. While edit warring anywhere is never good, I don't think this incident with the ESCA page rises to the type of disruption he was sanctioned for, now that ESCA is an essay.

WP:TROUT from me (and more TROUT for making drama bringing it here to ANI). Likebox is entitled to his opinion even if it's an unwise opinion that contradicts policy. As long as he's not disrupting article editing, if he wants to write essays til hell freezes over, I don't have a problem with that. We don't POV-fork articles, but POV-forking essays (or ignoring them) is a longstanding practice, so warring over essays and bringing down heavy sanctions over them is not that helpful. Less drama please!

I do agree with Jayjg that Likebox's version of the essay is better suited for user space than project space, so maybe the next step is to propose userfication. 69.228.171.150 (talk

) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a lot of drama over an essay; essays are specifically designed to represent minority viewpoints. I suggest that Jayjg just

Michael C. Price ^talk

09:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked Likebox for one week - given the sanctions detailed above, and their previous history of edit-warring, I don't regard the fact that this isn't occurring in mainspace (ie on an article) as any mitigation. Likebox's edits have been resisted by other editors, yet they have kept reverting; a clear breach of both their sanctions and the collaborative, collegiate spirit that we are expected to adhere to. Edit-warring isn't a natural, or acceptable, part of the development of policies/guidelines/essays, any more than it would be for an article. Review welcome, as always. EyeSerene^talk 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg was clearly behaving in a similar way as Likebox as far as reverting is concerned. If we say that Jayjg's behavior is ok. then surely we cannot sanction Likebox. I think the one week block encourages more edit warring by Jayjg. As Michael said, we need to calm down here. On my talk page I proposed to SlimVirgin that I would be ok, if she would edit the essay in such a way so that in her opinion it could be an essay.

I also urge everyone to take a look at Jayjg's comments on the talk page. He clearly does not understand what the essay is about and he is reverting on the basis of his misunderstanding. E.g. as Likebox tried to explain to him there are no POV issues w.r.t., say, a topic like enthalpy. Jayjg insists of construing everything in terms of the editing disputes on politics pages he is so familar with and refuses to accept that there may exist other kinds of problems on other articles that he is unfamiliar with. The effect of this is that a revert by Jayjg is then seen to be edit warring instead of constructively contributing to the essay. Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the only people who actually "understand" the essay are you, Likebox, Brews ohare, and Michael C. Price - the people who authored it, and zealously revert out any contributions by other editors. The many other people who opposed it, failed it as a guideline, and resisted its spamming onto Talk: pages(see here), must all be stupid, I suppose. And the 29 people who !voted to delete the related Template here, versus you, Likebox, Michael C. Price, and Bduke who !voted to keep it, must be similarly impaired. Anyway, I specifically asked that you not comment, for precisely this reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea that there are no POV issues on articles related to apparently long settled unambiguous scientific fact is unfortunately naive. Some people do not understand the science. Some people are exploring new approaches to the science. Some people believe the "long settled unambiguous scientific fact" is simply wrong, or incomplete, or inappropriate for children under the age of 18. The policies have to apply evenly all around, even in articles where they "should not" be a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right here. What Likebox and I mean is that the typical problem on such articles is usually of a different nature. Of course, there are also controversial scientific topics, but that is not what the essay addresses. Also you can have problems with cranks etc. But we already have policies to deal with those problems. The essay does not say that other Wiki policies do not apply. I now remember Jayjg saying to me that: "If the essay is not about editing disputes then what problem does this essay address?". And that right after I explained that in detail.

Anyway, when Likebox was put under restriction, I actually argued in favor of a 1RR restriction for Likebox, instead of the vaguely worded probation. Because now if Likebox acts in good faith and Jayjg is edit warring, Jayjg can come here, misrepresent the facts, point to Likbox's probation and bring in other irrelevant arguments so that it looks like Likebox is the bad guy yet again. In theory 1 RR could still mean that you can disruptively revert once per day, but I think in practice a sensible editor would see that this is futile. Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the people currently edit-warring over the failed proposal appear to be Michael C Price and you.[39][40][41][42] Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I only edited ESCA once today. I try to stick to 1 RR too. I gave a detailed explanation of my action on te talk page. I invited my opponents to make edits that explain in detail potential problems with the given points and how one can deal with that.

You also asked that I don't comment, but that is a non-starter at AN/I. You can, of course, request that others besides me, Likebox etc., take a look and comment. You want others to take an independent look that is not coloured by our POV. That's perfectly understandable. Now some others who we all know were not big supporters of the essay have already commented here, particularly the Anon who has complained several times about Likebox and Hans Adler. Then, having got those comments, you choose to reply to me instead of to them. I find that very strange. Count Iblis (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment here because it's a bit hard to get an overview of the situation. But now it appears that everybody else felt the same. I must say that what Count Iblis says seems to make a lot of sense. Among the editors working in a specific scientific field there tends to be a general consensus about things that may not be at all obvious to editors from outside that field. E.g. in WikiProject Mathematics, most questions that come up are resolved unanimously with regard to what is best for Wikipedia and its mathematics articles, and with little regard for what the policies say. That's the ideal state. If it worked like that everywhere, we wouldn't need policies.

Sometimes editors who are not experts in a certain science edit in that field anyway. Some are confrontational, and so it becomes necessary to follow standard wiki procedures. But some are editing in order to learn something about the subject, and are happy to learn from the experts: details of the subject itself, but also how people practising the subject approach their field and hence also Wikipedia. It may not be necessary, but I don't think it's totally wrong to write an essay for this situation that explains the scientific method as applied to Wikipedia. Hans Adler 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ban Review - Abuse of Topic Ban

This admin User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise banned me 4months in order to stop discussion in Kosovo talk page about Dardanian Kingdom This admin have Conflict of Interests in Balkan issues he abused his privilege he used the Topic ban of another user

User:Hxseek

to ban me without any warning or notification check it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Proposed_topic_ban_for_User:Hxseek

This kingdom was removed by hxseek

I'll list some facts (all history books) here to clarify my actions after this kingdom was removed from Article also to explain facts about Dardanian Kingdom since im banned and i cant post on kosovo talk page and still some admins and editors have no information or lack of information about this kingdom all 3 other user (all of them from ballkans) posted after my reply contests this kingdom here are some facts about Dardanian Kingdom and his Kings

I'll start with Kings since there are some fake statements about Dardanian Kings calling them tribal chiefs (BATO , LONGARUS , BADRYLIS , MONUNIOUS) Dardanian Kings

A History of Macedonia: 336-167 B.C By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, Frank William Walbank page 420 Bato King of the Dardanians

Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C. By A. E. Astin, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen page 262 Bato King of the Dardanians

The Cambridge ancient history, Volume 8 - John Bagnell Bury - Page 262 page 598 Bato King of the Dardanians

Bibliotheca classica: or, A classical dictionary, by J. and T. Dymock - By John Dymock, Thomas Dymock page 145 page 507 Longarus King of dardanians

The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and Alexander the ... James R. Ashley - Page 112. Bardylis King of dardanians

Hippeis: the cavalry of Ancient Greece By Leslie J. Worley page 153 Bardylis King of dardanians

A history of Greece, Volume 2 - By Connop Thirlwall page 366 King of dardanians

The Illyrians - By John Wilkes page 164 Monunious King of dardanians

Alexander the Great - By Peter Green Bardylis King of dardanians

In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon - By Eugene N. Borza Bardylis King of dardanians

Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C.: a historical biography By Peter Green Bardylis King of dardanians

Diodorus of Sicily, Volume 7 page 424 Bardylis King of dardanians

DARDANIAN KINGDOM

The central Balkan tribes in pre-Roman times: Triballi, Autariatae ... By Fanula Papazoglu page 137,141.445 [43]

The history of Greece - Ernst Curtius page 136 [44]

A companion to the Hellenistic world By Andrew Erskine page 152 [45]

Michael Waller page 9 [46]

I would belive that 1 historian is crazy but all of them? i dont think SO I think that they have Lack of Knowledge about this Kingdom

Please Serious admin without any conflict of interest review this ASAP.thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  21:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you were banned for ethnic insults and false accusations of vandalism -- see here. Since you're continuing to misrepresent facts, I'm forced to conclude that it was a good ban to place. (Lontech will argue that I'm an involved admin for blocking him before, so someone else still needs to review this.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This sort of typical tendentious editing is unlikely to "stop" after 4 months - I'd endorse an amendment to make it indefinite. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noting here that Lontech forgot to notify me of this thread. Given the amount of disruption this user has continued to cause after I imposed the topic ban on him – leading to a total of two weeks block time for personal attacks – I would tend to agree that the only issue to be discussed here is a possible tightening/lengthening of the sanctions, not a lifting of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No sarek check the ARBMAC and my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision

Lontech topic-banned from Kosovo-related pages for 4 months, for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks on talk pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

some explanation: I do believe that he made a mistake ( for personal attack ) since he cited the diff the insults of HXSEEK for me check here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lontech than later he try to correct the mistake by citing another diff wich has nothing to do with personal attack

about disruptive edit and pov: i think ive listed enough books to support my decision to keep the Dardanian Kingdom more over ive reverted only after some experienced admins and familiar with topic like dab reverted his edit

the block for ethnic attack came after ban ( after i stated from where the user is coming from and support for other users ) and i fail to see how citing where the user is from has anything to do with personal attack ( i used it to describe the connection between him and other users)

as stated above this admin has conflict of interest in ballkan issues ( if you need explanations i'll add but i would like to leave this for higher levels ) and he abused admin privileges he used the topic ban of another user to ban me more over without any warning or notification regarding ongoing discussion about my ban. the notification came after he made decision

he is being completely one sided

the core of the problem here was this KINGDOM check my talk page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lontech and hxseek talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hxseek also check the kosovo talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo to get a clear view about the situation. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, the core of the problem is that you are unable to work productively with others and when you are prevented from disrupting the talk page with your endless circular argumentation you come here and make the same content arguments all over again. You are very obviously completely convinced that you bring
  The Truth™ and are unwilling or unable to accept any dissent from that. You are currently in a hole and digging vigorously. If you carry on as you are - that is, continuing to assert your side of the content dispute rather than telling us how you will change the way you edit so that it's no longer a problem - then you will end up with a much longer content ban or simply a site ban. Guy (Help!
  ) 02:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

the block was completely one sided

I've opened discussion for every change in Kosovo article you can see that in kosovo talk page you can see a lot of open discussion in talk page that ive opened even with consensus i dint do the changes without discussion .

while hxseek in his first edit in kosovo article came and started to change and revert article without discussion

if you find just 1 change that i did in kosovo article without discussion then block me and i will leave wikipedia-- LONTECH  Talk  02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• You are still missing the point. It's not what you do, it's how you do it. Aggressive defensiveness is unlikely to win support, but many people here will help those who recognise their errors and ask for help in working a better and more productive way. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If we talk about me i do accept that i did errors, i am not wikipedia expert i am newbie I've joined wikipedia 3 months ago I dont know all wikipedia policies, procedures, hierarchical structure of wikipedia etc.-- LONTECH  Talk  13:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. So now you need to start asking how you can surmount the issues you've had. Don't try talking about the content, or if yu do then pick a single unambiguous example of a paragraph or fact, but see if you can recruit help so that the proble is fixed. The text you began with here looked like a denial of a problem, which was a bad idea, your last somment is likely to inspire some kind-hearted soul to come and help. You could also try talking to the relevant WikiProject and asking if there are experienced editors there who will help you to learn how to work here without problems. I'm not a great candidate in that respect, having no experience of the subject area and a long history of beating my head against brick walls, but I see your latest comment as much more positive. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ahmadbatebi--should he be unblocked?

talk

) 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support an unblocking, along with the user being fully informed of all relevant policies relating to their editing of the article about themselves, and all avenues of remedy open to them in respect of correcting inacurracies in the article about themself. This issue deserves to be fully debated before the user is unblocked though. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there is movement on the editors talkpage to get the account unblocked. I think any further discussion should be directed there, where other assistance can also be provided should the editor choose to comment there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Adamantius (journal)

Resolved

 – salted by

talk

) 18:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Adamantius (journal) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I would appreciate some attention from other admins to the deletion review discussion for Adamantius (journal) - as Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has twice already recreated content that was deleted by two different admins per site process. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I will comment there as well, but what is the goal of the deletion review?!? The article is currently deleted, and you seem to be asking for it to stay deleted? Why not just
  salt it and get it over with? Deletion review is usually undertaken to reverse a current status quo. It is highly unusual to start one with a request to maintain a status quo. --Jayron32
  06:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, you think I should just salt it? I have no objections to any other admin doing that also. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Salted. DRV can be closed. --Jayron32 06:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32 (talk · contribs), I agree with your action. As I started the DRV itself, could you close it? Cirt (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: It appears John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) has stepped in at the DRV. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais--should he be blocked?

Resolved

 – Nope, he shouldn't.

Tan | 39

16:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to report an incident that occured on

11 November. On that day User:FkpCascais posted a very insulting note on User:Avala's talk page. That note was in Serbian

, but I translated it on English. This is that note:

Fuck the King who never learned to speak Serbian (I live abroad for 30 years, all my life, and I didn't forgot to speak Serbian), and monarchic family wich instead of Greater Serbia made some shit of Yugoslavia, only because they (House of Karadjordjevic) can said that they are Kings of Serbs and also of Croats and of Slovenes. They shall not be my Kings anymore. I studied in Spain, so if you want I can reply to you... FkpCascais (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

I was extremely provoked after I saw this uncivil and rude message, and I entered into some form of edit war with User:FkpCascais, and for my part in that, I was blocked from editing for 48h by User:Rettetast. I aknowledge that it was my mistake to enter into edit war instead to report User:FkpCascais in the first place, so I am doing that now. I think that he also should be blocked from editing for his part in this issue. With many thanks, yours truly --Иван Богданов (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified FkpCascais of this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the problem?

Lèse majesté? --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I ran random parts of that conversation through Google's translator and from what I can tell, the only one making personal insults towards the other was you. His comments, while rude and truly provocative, weren't targeting you specifically. He perhaps shouldn't have made them. Your comments, however, targeted him specifically, and they were pretty raw. I think Иван is hoping to get FkpCascais blocked for a similar period because they were engaged in the same activity; however, again this is based on an online translator, they weren't. And, anyway, it's far too late now. We block to prevent, not to punish. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a colleague of FkpCascais over at

WP:FOOTY, and so have frequent dealings with him. While he sometimes lets his heart rule his head - he once took great personal offence that I PRODded an article he created, for example - he is an excellent editor. I agree with Golbez's view that FkpCascais's comments were rude and probably not needed; but it was certainly not a personal attack and not a blockworthy offence. GiantSnowman

17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn

Resolved

 – User warned. henrik•talk 22:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(continued editing (and incivility) on my talk page following request to stop, which followed warning of Waterboarding article probation violation)

Events:

• Waterboarding is on probation (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding). User:William S. Saturn was a party to this arbitration.
• An editor edit warred Waterboarding against consensus and in contradiction of Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ on the topic of "Torture" (see [47], [48])
• To try to avoid future
  WP:DIS, I created a new section on the talk page, Talk:Waterboarding#Torture
  .
• User:William S. Saturn re-raised the issue he has raised on before, namely that as Waterboarding is used in training by the military, it cannot be torture [49].
• Following some additional
  WP:DBF
• WP:CIVIL edit to my talk page ([52]
  )
• I replied ([53]), clarifying my remarks there and on the article talk page. I also asked that future replies not be made to my talk page, and closed the thread.

Note: My reference to

WP:BROTHER

defense.

• User:William S. Saturn made another edit to my talk page ([54])
• User:William S. Saturn made yet another edit to my talk page ([55]), after being reminded again to not edit there and being asked to revert his edit ([56]), stating "No. Why should I follow your orders? You are powerless."...

--

talk

) 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just move the new comments into the hatted section, and if he continues to comment you can move the new comments there too. You might also try not responding to him further there. I'll bet if you do all that, this will all go away pretty quickly. If he keeps posting again and again despite the request, despite your ignoring him, and despite being notified of this thread, then an administrative intervention would be called for. But I'll bet that won't be necessary. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I let my talk page as is, since I was posting this ANI request. However, this issue is not just incivility, it is:

1. Violation of the Waterboarding article probation, on which any uninvolved administrator can act
2. A continuing pattern of
   WP:DIS
3. The never-sanctioned (despite
   sock-puppetry
   .

I want to

talk

) 19:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think William S Saturn is doing an extremely good job of ensuring that everybody knows what his POV is and that he is utterly determined to have it reflected in article space. I think that needs to change some. He seems to be engaged at multiple loci, but always with the same issues and the same strong POV. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As described, that is sanctionable behavior, yes? --

talk

) 19:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was and currently am, engaged in a civil discussion with

User:4wajzkd02 was being disruptive on the thread, therefore I asked him to desist so that the civil and constructive discussion could continue. He didn't like it and posted his issue on here. --William S. Saturn (talk

) 19:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your version of events is missing some steps, as noted in Events. --

talk

) 19:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your verison of events is missing your disruption of the talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but (a) I provided diffs. Missing some? Add them. (b) Per the FAQ, your raising this issue again, in a topic open for another reason, with no suggested change, fits

talk

) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, stop sniping at each other before you both get hit with

sharp objects

.

4wajzkd02, you've made your report here and asked William S. Saturn to disengage from you. I suggest you do the same.

Pardon, but I replied. Why are disruptive edits to my talk page allowed? What would happen if I did the same to someone else's talk page. I am concerned by the apparent coddling of a disruptive editor. --

talk

) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

William S. Saturn, I don't believe your current actions rise to the level where administrative intervention is needed, but I agree with Guy that you're definitely editing with a POV. Please try to take a step back and try to make a distinction between your personal opinions and neutral coverage. henrik•talk 20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed

• Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs)
• Tombaker321 (talk · contribs)

Apologies for posting here but I'm afraid the talkpage on Roman Polanski is rather spiraling well out of any semblance of collegial cooperation. I've personally been accused of many things but being thick (stupid) is pretty low on the list, yet two editors Proofreader77 and Tombaker321, seem to be locked horns with otherwise other well-intended editors seem to be trying to untangle a mass volume of verbiology - IMHO from Proofreader77 - to try to step through any solution. I think there actually is some NPOV dispute on this BLP but after many days of trying to get a clear/concise "I think this sentence should state XYZ instead of XXX" we still seems to out of balance on the signal to noise measures.

I've first experienced what I feel are some

WP:Original Research

concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that. I found that annoying but the talkpage on adding or removing content. Whatever subject along with many others was archived away as the volume on the talkpage can be measured in truckloads, mostly from this editor and those trying to sort out what's going on with them. (Note: struck example that was clearly a different editor)

They may be making good points but it seems veiled in layers of discussion including mark-up and redirects and frankly is all a bit

-- Banjeboi

23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77

NOTE ADDED AFTER REACTION: re markup at ANI
A submission to Signpost "opinion" request. Read the one on the left:
User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility"

• Quick acknowledgement that I am aware of this ANI topic. Agree it is certainly time for broader scrutiny. NOTE: The underlying issue may better be addressed at
  WP:BLPN (a NPOV clarification in the context of a BLP), but the path of how this is progressing amidst some admittedly extraordinary measures (arising from the highly culturally contentious current-events inflamed matter of the Roman Polanski case) certainly has aspects which can well, and perhaps should, be addressed here.

  NOTE: I must deal with some real world matters for a several hours, but will return to give my perspective.

  FORMAL REQUEST: If acceptible, I would ask that complex discussion of the matter be delayed until I provide my more complete initial response. Proofreader77 (talk

  ) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Banjeboi: paragraph 2

“

I first experienced some WP:Own-erish issues with Proofreader77 when trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article, something that apparently happened many times before. The article seems well sourced but they cited WP:Original Research concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that.

”

Mistaken (wasn't me)

• Probable intended editor 18 October 2009 Sinneed EDIT SUMMARY: (The refimprove was lost repeatedly in the edit warring over the arrest. Restoring it, with its comment.)
• See: Archived discussion: Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_5#Refimprove restored - lost in the edit warring after the arrest

(Response status update: I am currently preparing response with diffs/data etc. A complex matter.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• ABOUT / WIKIBACKGROUND: Proofreader77 (me) sometimes does current events wrangling. EXAMPLE: The weekend of the
  BLP reasons.

  re Roman Polanski - Very contentious edit-warring/personal attacks ... full lock from Oct 1-8. I began doing what I sometimes do on Oct 3. Lots of energy arrived determined to make the BLP as negative as possible. Lots of aspersions on the character of anyone appearing not in agreement with villification. STORY: I noticed one new editor was so upset by the atmosphere, they erased their user and talk page and began undoing all their Roman Polanski talk page edits that could be undone. I had not witnessed something like that before, and it hurt to watch. So I left them a note, put a picture back on their (erased) user page ... and they came back. Probably first and last time I'll do that. Extraordinary circumstances.

  Extraordinary measures: Banjeboi doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'm not at all surprised. What I do is a complex response to the situation (no, not the cause of it). Although it may not seem like it, I am a sort of practical expert at rhetorical interaction. The BLP NPOV issues of Roman Polanski are very complex, and affected by the set of editors who arrive, given the givens.

  I would like for you to pause now and imagine that I know what I'm doing. That there is a hard BLP NPOV issue to solve ... which has to be solved more complexly than usual. That complexity involves, of course, the editors at hand.

  And what all that text on Talk:Roman Polanski is ... is documenting the issue so it can be resolved.

  The arrival of this at ANI followed the final steps of documentation—including my warning[s] of Tombaker321 for disruption.
  (1st)
  (add documentation +3RR)
  (2nd)

  On that note I pause, save this here, and go to gather the next part of this response. Less words,:) more diffs and data. (to be continued in the next few hours) Proofreader77 (talk

  ) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• What came before:

Stages - how we got to here

(Stage 1) 75K "discussion" of a block quote (lots of logic) Tombaker321 v Proofreader77's blockquote (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)] (Archive/locked unresolved) “ Unresolved Current discussion is locked in repetitive unproductive loop filling up the talk page. Broader issue of NPOV balance probably to be continued in NPOVN in due time. ” (Stage 2.a) TomBaker321 begins to reword and expand (summary) section of Sexual assault case (note: case has own article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case—detail of summary version should be appropriately limited) Proofreader77 documents changes/expansion with topic: :Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree) (Stage 2.b) Proofreader77 adds {{POV-section}} - Impetus: Tombaker321 had so-far expanded the summary section ~25% ... and Proofreader77 had experienced what kind of "discussion" would ensue to balance (given that there is no clarification yet of the NPOV interpretation differences which would make discussion something other than futile). (EVENT - Stage 3.a) Banjeboi (as doppelganger: Benjiboi) condenses summary to ~400 words—an acceptible consensus size for summary (which has a main article) (Comment: Tombaker321 believes this to be part of NPOV dispute. But Banjeboi/Benjiboi has no horse in that race. Tombaker321 is outraged.) (3.b) Tombaker321 edit wars to undo Banjeboi/Benjiboi condensing (with another editor - not Proofreader77) 08:48, 6 November 2009 NOTE: characterizes exp. editors condensing of overgrown summary as "weed whacking" 21:41, 6 November 2009 NOTE: Mistakenly believes condensing is part of NPOV process 02:27, 7 November 2009 (ditto) (3.c) Tombaker321 edit wars to remove POV tag (with Proofreader77) 12:20, 8 November 2009 01:41, 9 November 2009 04:46, 9 November 2009 (Stage 4) ANI - Banjeboi goes to ANI to cast aspersions on Proofreader77 :) [stop Proofreader77 from confusing Tombaker321 with all those words?] [for the good of the community!] ... but that is exactly what needed to be done next. The universe works. :)

• What now?

1. Tombaker321 is an articulate new Wikipedia editor who, I would say based on our many hours of interaction, believes strongly in his powers of judgment—and that his interpretation is actionable, and if his interpretation is not being followed by others (at least on some matters), drama will ensue. (NOTE: He has been encouraged rather than restrained by a more experienced editor—who will not be named at present.)

   Guidance: Adjustment of perspective re enforceability of one's judgement. Admonished not to edit war over a tag which says "don't remove until the dispute has been resolved." Do not assume you may make those you disagree with comply with precise specifications defined by yourself. Do not assume everything is such a rush.

   And specifically be informed that a section of an article which has its own article should not be expected to keep growing.

2. With disruptive patterns calmed, we can move to the getting on the same page with respect to what NPOV in a BLP means—as the specific selection of facts are balanced (in the sentences of the summary). At this moment, we are not. Perhaps incommensurable. :) Perhaps
   WP:BLPN? Or something.

   [CODA] It has repeatedly been said (misleadingly) that I have not provided any specifics. Of course it depends on what the meaning of "specifics" is. The demand has been repeated (as a rhetorical hammer) that "specifics" are completed rewrites of precisely what one wants to see with final refs. Let's be very clear. There would be no POV tag if that was the requirement before one placed it.

   The specifics I have provided are sufficient to convey, most surely to those who have seen the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (as Tombaker321 has) the information that should alter specific sentences I've enumerated (based on information provided in spoken interviews with prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton). I have also specifically mentioned that if the summary of the grand jury testimony in sentence 2 is included, then a similar condensed summary of the probation report should be included providing the rationale for why not prison. Or, as alternative, remove it altogether.

   Those are specifics. But the specific that determines all is the meaning of NPOV in a BLP of Roman Polanski

   in the culturally contentious matter of the Sexual assault case.

BOTTOM LINE: An experienced editor posted a (primi facie ridiculous) "drive-by tagging" response when I first opened the NPOVD. Tombake321 has kept up the chant as a rhetorical hammer. Demanding "specifics" by his definition. That's really the issue. Tombaker321 appears to believe that he has perfect discernment of what the "NPOV" facts are. We disagree.

“

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. (FROM: WP:NPOVD)

”

That's my POV. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker321

• I am researching Polanski, and editing the topic. I believe a certain base level of information needs to be within the main Polanski reference, that it have quick encyclopedic information regarding what is in the news now, about the events 30 years ago. The content was about 4 paragraphs, which had be hammered out over the course of weeks in discussion. The 4 was reduced to 3 paragraphs, for economy of words only. These deletions were never reviewed, however they instantly became incorporated into a NPOVD which used the 3 paragraph version as the base line. I do not believe this was the intent of the editor who compacted the entry, by deleting specifics. The original NPOVD then suddenly starts with this 3 version as its baseline. I tried repeatedly to restore the 4 paragraph version, as the version for whatever this NPOVD process would be, but could not. I then attempted to gain clarification of what the NPOVD was asking for. I looked at the information about NPOVD and asked for specifics. Bear in mind the NPOVD was raised by the formation of Sonnet couplets.
• After not being able to get specifics, and my requests wholly ignored and the substance not replied to...I removed the NPOVD tag, and gave long details to as to why it was removed. I would spell out my concerns and they simple were not responded to in substance. There was nothing being asked to be done to remedy the NPOVD. However, there was an attempt to cap the amount of words able to be used to 500.
• Proofreader77 started a new NPOVD, to which I tried to show was new, and for the dispute to go forward without the anchorage of the past. Lets start over and move forward, is my logic. I created a new section for the new dispute to go forward. Fresh slate was my thinking. It seems like this olive branch is not being accepted. As it stand now, without clarification of what the NPOVD dispute is....I think the Tag is not serving any purpose....yet the implications of some amorphous dispute, hangs over all. I simply want to know what is the NPOVD? What specifically needs revising, inclusion or deletion? I do not see the 500 word rule as being mandatory. In sum, I want the normal talk and discussion process to work, as it did when we were able to provide 4 concise paragraphs with exceptional review and citations. Much of this sea-saw is simply if we can include, about 5 lines of information that is from reliable sources and well cited. As to the NPOVD dispute, 1rst or 2nd or same, I just want the specifics of what is desired or disputed to be raised clearly, so we can address them.
• I think Benjiboi's raising of his concerns here to be earnest, and well stated. Beyond saying what I have said, and then the history of the talk page, I don't expect to have anything else to offer. I have said what I needed to. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have someone here who is familiar with Proofreader77's native tongue and can translate what this editor is trying to say? Thank you. Hans Adler 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the note on my talk page reminding me the formatting is unusual. See this submission to Signpost "opinion" request. (Read the one on the left:) User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility". Proofreader77 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That one also lacks translation. This is a collaborative project. Please try to communicate rather than show off your superb obfuscation skills. Hans Adler 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your response seriously, but also suggest that, as a collaborative project, allowing for the variations of speech of different people is perhaps worth considering. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, have a look at the edit history & discussion concerning Boke -- which includes this discussion. A few minutes of your time will suffice. -- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was very helpful indeed. Hans Adler 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion (1) Advise Tombaker321 not to edit war over POV tags. (2) Admonish me for my excessive markup and verbosity. (3) Admonish Banjeboi for casting an aspersion on Proofreader77 by forgetting it was someone else they were thinking of (paragraph 2). (4) Mark it resolved. (I believe this trip to ANI probably set the stage for resolving the BLP NPOV issue—or if not,
  WP:BLPN is the place for that matter. And surely you don't want to read all that, do you.) Proofreader77 (talk
  ) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  (Must now sleep a good while. Excuse delayed responses.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate all those who have interacted with Proofreader77 so far on their extreme patience. Is this editor currently under any editing restrictions? I am thinking of something like the following:

• Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space.
• Proofreader77 is not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes and is not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.
• These restrictions can be relaxed on a case-by-case basis by a consensus of involved editors.

Would that have a chance to work? Hans Adler 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would. First off my apologies for misplacing the odd ref tag issue at Proofreader77 when it was clearly someone else. I was using that as an example of

-- Banjeboi

00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with your assessment, based on what I have seen so far and my own reactions to this editor's output. This seems to be headed to a siteban, but preceded by a lot of drama due to obvious good faith. In my opinion, if Proofreader77 is unwilling or unable to change their communication style, they will have to be excluded per

WP:COMPETENCE. This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler

07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The

-- Banjeboi

11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe

WP:HEAR

has been a factor, and will continue to be. Proofreader77 said:

"I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child."

He wants to mitigate in the readers mind, an impression of a child of 13, by inserting in the text of subjective POV appraisals of the girl's appearance. I spent huge time refuting this with pictures of the girl, who really looks 13, and objecting on the concept. The consensus was drawn that appearance of the victim would not be appropriate.

Proofreader77 then asserted that Polanski stated that she looked older, and advocated that the Polanski POV Defense needs to be maintained for NPOV. Problem: Polanski never said this, and actually under oath said he was aware she was 13. Proofreader77 just ignored this (5) or so times I asked him to back up this claim. Again

WP:HEAR

Proofreader77 refused to acknowledge his own error.

Now we have a general banner of NPOVD, with Proofreader77 saying its all about the "general issue of the POV of Polanski's Defense." What I believe will happen is these already rejected items will be inserted as a defense to balance out POV. Further than a defense position will be crafted out of thin air. Polanski plead guilty, he did not defend the charge of his conviction, the rest are procedural disputes post conviction. The urban myth that Polanski had a plea bargain regarding his sentencing, is 100% refuted by court documents, the entirety of the plea bargain was to drop 5 of the 6 charges. Full stop. Speaking of consensus so few want to get engage in this muddy froth, voting is rendered meaningless.

I believe that the flag waving banner of NPOV dispute without specifics, will be used to

foot in the door technique, YES. Finally, yes, I do feel played with, I am pretty sure I am on the wrong side of some bad rolls of a (20) sided dice. --Tombaker321 (talk

) 13:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From reading your comment, Tombaker, I think communication is an important piece of the problem here. First, you appear to explain your opponent's position far more clearly than s/he seems to have, & if you are correct i believe I remember what Proofreader is alluding to: many years ago, in either Time or Newsweek, Polanski was quoted as saying he thought the girl in this case looked much older. (Whether or not this ever was claimed in court is another point.) If I am right, then there is a case for saying there is a NPOV dispute here; if a source can be found for Polanski actually saying this, may I assume you would agree that this should be included? Second, & perhaps more important, a reliable & verifiable source must be provided for including alternative points of view, especially when the matter is controversial -- as in this case. One can't simply say "I remember reading in either Time or Newsweek", & expect everyone else to admit there is a dispute. (Along the same lines, if a reliable source were found showing that Polanski claimed he had sex with the girl because he was being blackmailed by the Bavarian Illuminati, then it would be a NPOV violation not to include it.) And lastly, if Proofreader could be succinct in her/his comments & specific in her/his objections, his fellow editors would be more likely to be comfortable agreeing with them, & not suspicious about "foot in the door techniques" because they'd know exactly what he wanted. -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, llywrch, for clarifying some perhaps confusing aspects of NPOV. (I.E., Some may believe that information that is controversial/contested must not be included—and as you point out it is first a matter of reliable sources (and, of course, who the information comes from is important.) With respect to the particular issue of looking older, there was a long debate about that (finally archive locked as futile until NPOV concept clarified). As for sources, there are solid sources (Polanski in interview, police investigator Philip Vannatter's description, as well as Judge Rittenband's summary of the probation report's description from Philip Vannatter in open court—covered by LA Times and repeated in smaller papers via AP).

That debate illustrated the NPOV problem of different interpretations of NPOV, but the information I am most referring to is the information from interviews with prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton in the documentary

BLP).Proofreader77 (talk

) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77, you completely misunderstand what I wrote. I honestly can't believe I was that unclear. My comment was not what you & Tombaker disagree about. If it were, we would refer you to dispute resolution because content disputes are not something resolved here. My comment was about your inability to communicate. Hans Adler has proposed some severe restrictions based on his understanding of your inability. I was providing a more nuanced description, in hope that a better solution can be found. I strongly suggest that you review this thread, identify the problem we are discussing, & start working to address it. Because if you continue to miss the point of discussions you take part in (as you have in your response above) the community may take harsher measures than what Hans Adler has proposed. -- llywrch (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Below text was being written, before the comment from llywrch immediately above ^ --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker321's content-related arguments in response to my post 22:38, 12 November 2009

llywrch: I am going to respond in bullet format to hopefully make it clearest. 1. Proofreader, said the reason he wanted to insert the subjective remarks on appearance is to mitigate the impact to the readers mind when they see "13 year old". Proofreader77 goes on to say "neither was she child". This is not NPOV, is adding selective information to create a defense case, which does not exist in actual history. 2. Proofreader77 adamantly stated that Polanski thought she looked older, as further justification for inclusion of subjective appraisals of appearance. When asked for sources by his fellow editors, he ignored them. I asked him well over 5 times and he never responded WP:HEAR 3. No source information exist to suggest that Polanski thought she looked older. I have looked, simply don't see it. I would welcome seeing any citation. The baseless assertion that it somewhere exist keeps this available for use by Proofreader77. I think he would have shown the source by now, if it existed. 4. Proofreader77 states above "With respect to the particular issue of looking older, there was a long debate about that (finally archive locked as futile until NPOV concept clarified)" A. Proofreader archived that discussion over the protests of other editors...he just declared it as futile. B There is no need for "NPOV concept clarified". WP:COMPETENCE C. By virtue of WP:HEAR the issue is portrayed as not resolved. 5. But this is all moot, and it was clearly pointed out to Proofreader77, with him never responding. Bigtime WP:HEAR. Reference http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html A. Polanski says he understood that if she appeared to be older and he believed her to be 18 or above, that it would be a legal defense to the charge. B. He answer's "She was 13" when asked how old he believed her to be. C. When asked if he understood her to be 13 an the day of the crime, he says Yes, this is all under oath. And you can see it clearly done consulting with his lawyers. IE it false for Proofreader to try to show the defense position of Polanski, when his lawyers are right there in 1977 with the judge. D. Confronted with the facts that she was 13 and Polanski knew it, and never used that she looked older, or that there is any record of Polanski saying this.....given all that...Proofreader77 opens up a NPOV Dispute. When challenged for what this NPOVD was, he simply never says. NPOV is not a complex topic that only a few editors grasp. 6. The documentary through the power of film creates strong false impressions, which become repeated in Reliable Sources. Specifically the Plea Bargain never had promises of time in jail or any other things. See the bottom of the link above and then the next pages. A. The terms of the plea are stated, in the only place that counts...Open Court. B. Polanski under oath says he understands that no other promises are made. C. Polanski lawyer, states under oath there are no other promises made in the Plea Deal. D. A few pages prior, Polanski under oath state he understand its the Judge who will decide his sentence. E. The entire concept of reneging on the Plea Bargain by the Judge is false. The Judge indicated with all counsel present what he was leaning towards, but those remarks in chambers are not binding on anyone. Its also commonplace for a judge to lean on lawyers in chambers to get things moving. Nevertheless the Movie make Reliable Sources believe a Plea Bargain was going to be reneged. F. The entire crux of the documentary is the Judge reneged on the deal. However the documentary can not even read the actual court documents to define the plea bargain. The documentary actively does not communicate the best information. Seriously the director does not show the facts of the plea deal, which is a simple court record. 7. Proofreader77 is using the NPOV "storyline" to create out of thin air, a defense of Polanski, where the historical record of that defense does not exist. He states the NPOVD is the "general" contention the Polanski viewpoint/defense is not reflected. Yet Polanski offered no defense in actuality, he plead guilty to the charge. The other charges were to be dropped...and WP does not at all give the 5 other charges too much weight. 8. Going forward, the most critical thing will be the continuous [WP:HEAR] issues, particularly not responding to being asked questions. And most importantly the offering of the Documentary as a Reliable Source. The documentary is a highly biased work of art. It concludes that in chambers arguments are binding. They are not. It has a newspaper reporter talking about the laws for Judges, but does not show any lawyers making the same assertions. It has Polanski's lawyers saying the plea bargain was reneged upon. It was not. Polanski's lawyers want to suggest that the in chambers talks, were out of line, but at the same time wants them to be binding to have modified the plea deal. The photograph was published in the Santa Monica paper, it was going to get to the judges eyes. I can go on.

Summary: Proofreader does not answer questions to him. He has chronic and perhaps incurable [WP:HEAR] issues. He is thrusting the appearance of the girl to mitigate the readers mind of the crime, he states as much. The actual records reflect that Polanski and his lawyers knew the victims age, and the exact details of the Plea Bargain. The documentary actively miss-portrays the record. He has [WP:OWN] issues, makes declarations at other editors such as "CEASE X", and uses the talk pages a plaything of this own, noting things "for the record", makes summaries of others remarks by reframing them to his own ends, archiving content, then saying the archiving evidences X.

Simplest recommendation: Ban Proofreader77 from any Polanski content, in its main and related pages. "BOKE" is a clone of Polanski. His continued justifications, and apparently thinking it just about "font choices" just shows intractable [WP:HEAR] issues.

Whether or not the circular self linking maze of highly formatted collapsing expanded Sonnet-ized commentary is allowed to surface again is not my choice...but enough of this for Polanski.

Sorry for the extend remarks here. FWIW, getting to read the remark: "This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism" made all the time spent seem worthwhile. --Tombaker321 (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(

assuming good faith

on my part (which does not appear to have been raised as an issue), let us briefly, if we may, hold in abeyance the characterizations of Proofreader77's clarity and their (very serious) implications, to focus on the parts of what llywrch wrote which very well illuminate the basis of the NPOV dispute which eventually led us here.

Proofreader77's continues making content-related arguments, ignoring or not understanding Llywrch's post at 06:21, 13 November 2009

The benefit of llywrch's NPOV expertise should not be lost amidst the other matters—which we can surely get to in due course. My response was specifically to the following assertions. llywrch wrote (in response to Tombaker321) [excerpt, letter section references a-d and vertical spacing added]: "... [a] i believe I remember what Proofreader is alluding to: many years ago, in either Time or Newsweek, Polanski was quoted as saying he thought the girl in this case looked much older. (Whether or not this ever was claimed in court is another point.) [b] If I am right, then there is a case for saying there is a NPOV dispute here; [c] if a source can be found for Polanski actually saying this, may I assume you would agree that this should be included? [d] Second, & perhaps more important, a reliable & verifiable source must be provided for including alternative points of view, especially when the matter is controversial -- as in this case. ..." Quickly, in the context of [a-d]: Quotations with source links re victim looked older “ The explanation comes quickly. It needs no more than a single paragraph. On 11 March 1977, Polanski was arrested in the lobby of the Beverly Wilshire hotel by Detective Philip Vannatter (a cop who would figure in the OJ Simpson case). The Polish film director was charged as follows: giving Quaaludes to a minor; child molestation; unlawful sexual intercourse with that minor; rape by use of drugs; oral copulation; sodomy. The girl was 13, though Polanski would say that she looked older. (Guardian.co.uk) ” “ G: She was thirteen years old. P: She was about to turn fourteen. Three weeks later to be exact. G: That's no excuse. P: If you had seen her, you would have thought she was at least 18 years old. ” (Polanski interview with Franz-Olivier Giesbert) Roman Polanski: Interviews, p 110, By Roman Polanski, Paul Cronin “ Sergeant Vanatter stated, "I have no doubt the events happened." He described the defendant as "extremely hyperactive." He described the victim as looking between 16 and 18 years old but acting only as if she were 13 or 14 years old and, "not really knowledgeable."Probation Officer's Report, page 20 lines 26-29 to page 21 line 1 ” “ The probation report discloses that although just short of her 14th birthday at the time of the offense, the victim was a well-developed young girl who looked older than her years ... ” From Judge Rittenband's summary [of probation report in open court reported in secondary source - The Spokesman-Review, 9/20/1977 [Note several articles written due to AP coverage. L.A. Times not used here to illustrate due to paid archive status] Returning to [c] - The question posed by llywrch to Tombaker321 was: ""if a source can be found for Polanski actually saying this, may I assume you would agree that this should be included? While Tombaker321's answer to that question is posited as peripheral to the serious matter of Proofreader77's communication competence, civility suggests a brief pause in the proceedings for the response to that question is not unreasonable. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The sound all of you just heard was my head hitting the desk hard. Hard. (Yes, it hurt -- almost as much as my brain after reading the slabs of text I have collapsed.)

Tombaker321: I was worried that you would respond to the content examples, not to what I was illustrating. Although I believe it can be can argue that there are other explanations for what Polanski did, for it to be credible one must provide sources. If these were provided, & they haven't been discussed to death before this, then the NPOV dispute tag is legitimate; if they aren't provided, then there is no credible NPOV dispute. Whether they end up in the article is a matter for the Talk page -- not here.

Proofreader777: I have been assuming good faith on your behalf. In truckloads. My initial observation was that you did have understandable grounds for placing the NPOV tag. But my latest observation is that you have a problem communicating and you need to fix it.

Until you do, I propose the following restrictions, modified on what Hans Adler proposed above:

• Proofreader77 is not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes (or 100 words, whichever is easier to enforce) and is not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.
• If Proofreader77 exceeds that limit, any editor is encouraged to use {{collapse}} or related templates to redact this.
• Admins are instructed to modify or remove the tags & templates of any post Proofreader77 makes, specifically those relating to color, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page.
• If these restrictions encounters resistance from Proofreader77 (e.g., edit reverts), enforcement may include blocks of increasing length.
• If Proofreader77 seeks and successfully obtains mentorship for help with his idiosyncratic style, & makes clear progress improving her/his communications skills, these restrictions may be lifted by a consensus of involved editors.

Any objections? If none are forthcoming, they should be enforced immediately. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Objection: Administrator llywrch raised the content issue, directed a question to Tombakder321 to clarify the NPOV dispute. NOTE: I will be preparing documentation of improprieties of this ANI topic (inappropriately initiated without first discussing matters on Proofreader77's (my) talkpage. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  You'd be better off, Proofreader77, cutting your losses & moving on. You've said enough here. -- llywrch (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Explanation: I had just written a logical proper outline response to both the case and style of Proofreader. I thought about just deleting it, after seeing the reply by llyrch, but it took 40 minutes to write, it did cover the editorial style too....so I just....

• Objections:

1. Because of Reference http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea10.html the "consensus in Talk" was clear, to not add appearance, Proofreader77, never responded to questions asked to him, his first response of sources was withheld to this ANI page. I asked for this over 5 times. I removed the NPOV flag 3 times because of lack of specifics. If this was raised in talk it would have been sorted out, if not sorted out, a NPOV flag could have been used, because it was specific. Proofreader77 is

WP:POINT

2. Proofreader messes around with talk pages. Please note he is housekeeping and collapsing comments in this ANI page. I don't see how your proposed response will solve this.

WP:DIS

3. Proofreader77 archived an active discussion, where the consensus and facts did not go his way. This was objected to by another editor. Proofreader responded to them with

" Cease making bad-faith assertions immediately. (We will [take] that up elsewhere.)"

I believe you have remarks in the same category in this ANI discussion.

WP:EQ

4. I believe the admins on this actual page have seen all of the

WP:EQ

that constitute Proofreader's style, which by BOKE and POLANSKI are displayed in full.

Since these "style" items are not even controlled on the ANI page. I believe the current measures stated to address won't be significant enough to help. I don't think the Admins see any 'acceptance' that there is a even a problem, by Proofreader77 "Seat belting them in and turning on the lights for a drunk driver, does not really minimize the risk to others" --Tombaker321 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I collapsed the comments made by both of you in the last 24 hours; I felt it was the least disruptive way to keep this discussion on track. (As for the two earlier collapsed sections, I don't think it notably helped either party in this thread.) As for your points 2-3, please supply diffs -- or indicate where you have provided them above, since there's been a lot of text added here. As for point 4 -- if the problems can't be handled by the restrictions proposed, then we are talking about blocking him. I'd rather offer Proofreader77 a chance to solve the problem first.

Do any uninvolved Admins care to comment? Or is everyone else more interested in following the "Wikipedia forever" page banners drama? -- llywrch (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Briefly: #2 As the original poster Benjiboi said, Proofreader overwhelms the pages until its a
  WP:TLDR
• #3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_6 see very bottom for CEASE usage...that tone is repeated many times elsewhere.
• Hans Adler suggested siteban, I think BOKE, and POLANSKI, THIS THREAD are strong evidence of methodology, and nothing Proofreader has offered indicates he see any issue with his methodology. Do you think Proofreader, thinks there is a problem with his editing? I don't see any acknowledgment. If he is going to change, is an open question. However, I would simply like the evidence of that to occur on anything except Polanski related pages. There are 3.
• Last comment unless requested. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Necessary FYI [57] --Tombaker321 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Having been asked to say what I think about this, I have done, here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Request for recusal of administrator llywrch from this topic due to a previous involvement in issue with Proofreader77. While llywrch may respond that that experience provides insight for taking action now, the fact that neither she/he nor anyone else involved/present brought that matter to ANI suggests there may have been good reasons why not. The improper conflating of that old matter and this Polanski ANI topic is noted with strong objection. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put Pf77 under editing restrictions. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've come here after reading the Polanski article, and then making the mistake of checking the talk page. From some of Proofreader77's posts above (specifically this and this), it appears that that he understands full well that his communication style is problematic, but that he has no intention of addressing that, and will instead just continue wikilawyering around the content issues and the proceedings of this ANI report. I support the restrictions suggested above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Administrator Cuchullain and Proofreader77 have previously been in conflict. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Requests:

1. As far as the restrictions I don't see how they will significantly stop, or slow Proofreader'ss disruptions on Polanski. He does not acknowledge the problem, and has forum shopped, and done wiki-lawyering, all in an attempt to keep his methodology. So these restrictions almost set him up to fail, because they don't conveyed to him he has a problem to fix. . With the restrictions he will be back at it on Polanski. IMO

2. Hans Alder's proposed: - - - - "Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space." - - - - - was lost in the mix.

3. To give Proofreader a chance, and also for my plea for relief from his methodology. I request he be banned from edits on Roman Polanski, Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case , Roman_Polanski:_Wanted_and_Desired . I think its fair to say his has significantly disrupted the Polanski items. A simple "keep away from" condition. --Tombaker321 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker321, please allow me to advise you on this. Let it go for now. This issue seems to have been presented, heard and addressed. Allow Proofreader77 the dignity to regroup and move forward from here. I'm fairly confident they heard what the core concerns were and from folks they feel compelled to at least give some heed to. If the situation devolves again, which no one wants, we can revisit to see if something else should occur. What we need to do, despite the recent history, is extend good faith that everyone involved means well and will try to work with one another. Take a break and allow things to reach a new normal so we can simply go forward.

-- Banjeboi

23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans Alder's proposed: - - - - "Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space." - - - - - was lost in the mix.

Reading this, give me great faith the problem is not resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Loan_me_a_besom_:.29 (Since I am targeted within his response, which is only justification etc.) If Hans Alder's recommendation is not used, and this becomes resolved at this point I will deal with it.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic/site ban proposal for user Spectre7277

Spectre7277 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

See also - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spectre7277/Archive

See also - Spectre_Publishing_LLC

Proposing a topic ban for Spectre7277 (talk · contribs) on Jimmy Hoffa(including talk) and related pages, or a site ban. History of this user can be found in the links above. Spectre7277 has a long history of self promotion, sockpuppetry, deception and disruption. I'm not convinced this user is here to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively. Perhaps a 3rd/4th/5th chance should be considered if the user can demonstrate he can contribute to wikipedia withought editing Hoffa related articles and does not promote his own work. I am seeking a community discussion in order to determine if a site ban, topic ban, or to placing other restriction is appropriate in this case. --Hu12 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Would not a topic ban be a site ban in everything but name? The non Hoffa edits are a few years back, and since this is an irregular editor there has been nothing in the last 2 years except a couple of dozen edits to Hoffa or to other editors regarding that subject and the COI website. I think it would be more honest to promote a site ban, since a topic ban only invites the account to edit around it in trying to subvert it (although socking might be a consideration, too). In view of the disruption, I would support such a ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I appealed to you to have the sockpuppet banner removed from my talk page. Now you want to have me banned from wikipedia altogether? If this is what wikipedia is about,then obviously I've been wasting my time here. I do not want to be a part of a community that supresses information that the public would like to read about. Self-promotion has been around long before me and quite a few wikipedia articles about corporations, people, etc. were started by folks who were involved with those corporations or people. I have attempted to give the latest information about the Jimmy Hoffa case that I personally work on. So what. If you must ban me, go ahead and do it. I obviously have better things to do with my time then to worry about what you people are going to do. --Spectre7277 (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was no reason to remove the sockpuppet banner, given you (a) abusively used alternate accounts, and (b) lied about it when confronted. As far as self-promotion is concerned, that you somehow think other articles were started by people involved with the topics of those articles is hardly permission for you to promote your own research on Wikipedia. It happens that sometimes people do self-promote; when we discover that's happening, we ask them to stop, and if they don't stop, we ask them to leave. If you're interested in editing other articles on Wikipedia that's fine; and if you're interested in putting material into Hoffa articles that doesn't cite yourself as a source and doesn't promote your own work, you can do that too. If that's not possible, you'll need to find another venue to promote your research. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on sockpuppetry and ongoing behavior, you must not have better things to do. As an involved admin/user, I obviously support a topic ban. I'd be very happy to see Spectre7277 resume productive editing in unrelated areas of Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Tedder I concur with the topic ban. I guess I got a little miffed at the suggestion of a Site ban. I felt the sockpuppet tag to be something that I did not want to be stuck with for the rest of my Wikipedia life. On my own talk page, I will even add "reformed sockpuppeteer" if that will show that I am trying to make amends. I have made some genuine edits to the Hoffa page, for example regarding the Machus Red Fox. There is other information on there that needs to be editted that I know for a fact is wrong. I can cite references, however I fear that it would be seen as an attempt to link the information to my investigation. (it's hard because Charles Brandt and I worked very closely on the information in my book.) I feel that even if some other editor or administrator on wikipedia were to see merit in my book and all of the media it has generated, that they have been gun-shy because of a few editors like yourself and Hu12 who feel that my information is "not-notable" simply because it is self-published. Think about it. Wikipedia for all intents and puposes....is self-published. I hope that you guys do not Ban me from the site, because I feel that I have more good to add to it. --Spectre7277 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you understand the restraints we all work under here. Many of us have lots of information that we don't get to share on Wikipedia because of the original research, reliable source, and conflict of interest issues. Regarding Wikipedia being self-published -- of course it is. Which is one of the reasons that we don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jp I'd like to apologize to you, Tedder and Hu12 for masking my identity. It was childish and will not happen again. I've learned my lesson. I guess all I can hope for when it comes to the Hoffa page is that someone who reads my book finds the information in it to be notable enough for addition into wikipedia. Again, I do think that it will just be editted out by folks who do not care about the information, or do not feel that self-published works have merit, which we all know is not the case. I am very passionate about the subject that I have now spent the last three plus years of my life working on and let that passion get the best of me when it comes to sharing the information. I truly believed that the media coverage links that I added in the talk page of Jimmy Hoffa would be sufficent enough for folks to add on their own. --Spectre7277 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It could well be that the whole reason for the maze of policies we have on Wikipedia is to dampen the chaotic effect of thousands and thousands of people with intense passions. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Huntsville (game)

Resolved

 – No admin action required here. Discussion has been moved to

WT:NEWT --ThaddeusB (talk

) 22:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved to

Wikipedia_talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD#Magic_pen_.28software.29_.26_Huntsville_.28game.29 per request. --ThaddeusB (talk

) 22:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, I'm too lazy to fill out a SPI form, so could someone just block the obvious sockpuppet of Samlaptop85213 (talk · contribs) that just showed up on my talk page? Thanks, Majorly talk 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Done by LessHeard vanU. TNXMan 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Editor is still unblocked. The master is obviously blocked already. Majorly talk 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I say LessHeard vanU? I meant to say me. (Which means, of course, that I misread your original post.) Sorry for any confusion. :) TNXMan 23:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gigantomastia

Could an admin semi this article. Quite a bit of vandalism. Hard to keep up with it all. Quite a few IP's active. Thanks - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I reckon Wikipedia:Requests for page protection would be your best bet. GiantSnowman 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Reubzz

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.

---

Discussion continued at

WT:MEDCAB, as no admin involvement is necessary. The Wordsmith^Communicate

00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This user has edited WP for 10 days with a total of 419 edits. Nevertheless this completely inexperienced editor has put themselves forwards as a mediator for the highly problematic article Race and intelligence. Nobody has so far noticed that the mediator has no experience with wikipedia; the user has failed to mention this himself/herself. I have invited the editor to explain himself here. I will remove myself from this mediation process until someone with a small amount of clue volunteers themselves. Reubzz has wasted several people's time. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Reubzz aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be more patient in future, Giant Snowman. [58] I know how ANI works. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Ramdrake also noticed this problem before me. I agree with him that the procedure for initiating the mediation has been correct. Reubzz should explain/excuse himself and an experienced mediator should be found to carry on the process of mediation. I will then reinvolve myself in the process. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also know how ANI works. There is a guideline not to

bite newcomers; I would suggest you also refrain from biting more experienced editors as well. GiantSnowman

23:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't bite you then as a relative newcomer. Your comments, however, are not all helpful here. Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Relative newcomer" where? - Wikipedia in general, or just ANI? And what comments of mine are unhelpful? All I did was notify a user that someone had started a disussion about them...GiantSnowman 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you assumed, by not leaving 2 or 3 minutes, that I was not going to inform this user myself. Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been a number of ANI threads started recently where the 'defendant' (for want of a better word) has not been made aware by the thread starter. I thought it was better to be safe than sorry - that is all. GiantSnowman 00:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we all agree that a) GiantSnowman meant well, b) Mathsci would have notified the other user as well, and c) this is completely irrelevant to this thread? Singularity42 (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This greatly upsets me. While it was deleted from my profile page, I noted there that I was a "snooper" around WP to get a sense of the structure, the rules, and the guidelines. With this understanding, and a real world series of expierence in matters resolving conflicts, I thought the Mediation Cabal would be the perfect thing to fit my interests. With this particular case, even with a low edit count, I have managed it efficently. I have already delved great amounts of time into this case. I have ready lengthy statements, reviewed long-winded debates that are achieved for many years, read online articles (off-WP) on the disputed subject, read lengthy statements, and read and analyized the relevant guidelines. So far, the case has been managed professionally. I have sent out notifications to the parties involved when deadlines were present, I have managed a process that so far has been civil and in good-faith, and I have even been able to (for the time being) make the disputed content on the page at issue stable.

With all due respect, what more can you ask for? I have done so much to prepare, I really think a low edit count is not a controlling issue in regards to this. I have managed the case with all professional ability I have. What more? Reubzz (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reubzz, I'm sorry, but it is completely inappropriate for you to involve yourself in mediating such a controversial article as this with so little editing experience on articles. How can you possibly manage with such a small amount of experience? Please step down, or the process will temiminate now with my withdrawal. You haven't the slightest clue of what is involved in editing articles like this. I'm sorry, but editing wikipedia is more complicated than you think. Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking over Reubzz (talk · contribs)'s contributions (particularly, this thread that he started on day the user created the account), I believe the editor is acting in good faith and trying to help. However, I don't think mediation in general, and this case in particular, is an appropriate place for a new editor to jump in, since despite the best of intentions they are unlikely to have a deep understanding of wikipedia's policies, traditions and the editing environment. Also, they are unlikely to command the trust and respect of the parties involved. So I would suggest that Reubzz voluntarily withdraw from the case, and let a more experienced editor take over. Btw, I don't see any disruption by Reubzz, and commend the enthusiasm and clue they have shown till date. Abecedare (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alright, this is not a meta-discussion about biting or notifying people. This is about a mediation case where the mediator is probably too inexperienced to handle such a complicated issue. Rather than let this turn this into the shouting match that ANI usually devolves into, I'll propose a solution: I, as an experienced mediator, will supervise the user in question regarding the case. With his consent, I will add myself as a co-mediator and make sure that his handling of the issue is appropriate. I am offering to provide him with guidance during the case, and I am also willing to take over if it becomes clear that he is in over his head. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As one of the coordinators of MedCab, and upon reviewing the mediation attempt (

Xavexgoem (talk

) 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion should probably continue at

WT:MEDCAB since there is no need for admin intervention. Abecedare (talk

) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say for my part (as one of the parties in mediation) I'd be satisfied that one or more, more experienced mediator(s) would co-mediate with Reubzz. I must ascknow;ledge that he has done everything by the book so far, but I too am somewhat concerned that he may not have the familarity with Wikipedia policies which is absolutely necessary if we want to stand a chance of resolving this issue. I warmly invite Mathsci to reconsider his withdrawal in the light of The Wordsmith's and Xavexgoem's offers.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2009 (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.

Rfc - Is it consensus that Proofreader77 has abused ANI?

Resolved

 – Should be addressed on administrator's talk. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: If you believe so, my sincere apology. I had never been subject to scrutiny at ANI so had no idea of what's usual. (The matter had not been discussed on my talk page before ANI was initiated, and with so many watching Roman Polanski assumed a problem would have been brought to my attention [on my talk] before ANI.)

Why ask?: Procedural clarification. Should follow up be warranted on the matter, I seek clarification that the community wants to hear no more from Proofreader77, and so any issue would go to Arbcom. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[Clarification: There had been this mention of a concern on initiator's talk, but a neutral exchange after: me / them prior to ANI topic. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)]

From what I have read, you are guilty of not much more than using way too much "mark-up" in your posts. Assuming this is quite clear, "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" would seem to apply. Collect (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to post here if need be. However, if you need help, you may want to try posting first to either my talk page or that of another admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Proofreader, I think that starting self-referential threads like this one, and the one before, while your conduct is already being

mentor, who can better address your process questions. Abecedare (talk

) 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. I simply wish to clarify that if there is an issue it should go to Arbcom, not here (due to consensus at ANI). Proofreader77 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No. If you have any more questions, please ask them on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request discussion closure

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close discussions at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD:

• Merging during live AfD: close without a conclusion, but with reference to additional discussion immediately below at [[#Revisiting Merging during live AfD]]
• Revisiting Merging during live AfD: close according to consensus
• A deleted article has useful text, so...? and Alternate attribution: leave open

Let me know if these directions are unclear. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Stalker

I've got a problem. LAz17 (talk · contribs) follows my edits and is reverting them (like Central Bosnian canton) trying to start another edit war (that is the page in which the guy did not had any previous edits) and is stalling on the discussion pages. The guy is also very rude [59]. Can somebody tell him to watch on his manners, and that this is an encylopedia, not his personal forum? Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at both of your edits, I hardly believe that Laz is following you. Your edits focus mainly around Bosnia, and the only place I can see the two of you interacting outside of the page you mentioned is on a back and forth on a user page about different maps. This certainly doesn't qualify as

WP:WQA if you are concerned about their behaviour, or try to gain consensus for your changes on the article talk page. Frmatt (talk

) 04:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - This [61] is worth reviewing by anyone commenting on this thread. Frmatt (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceha is simply angry because I am pursuing the final removing of his other unsourced maps of bosnia and herzegovina. In the case of the Central Bosnian canton he changed the number of croats from about 131 thousand up to 135 thousand. It was not sourced, I reverted his problematic unsourced edit. He accused me of edit warring, argued much, and removed all data. Then he put data back to 131 thousand croats, not the 135. I think we can see who is causing the problems here. (LAz17 (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

That discussion is clearly seen on [62], what really Laz said. And the guy admited stalking on me [63]. Frmatt thanks for the advice I' am going to try WQA. If you, or someone else can do anything about this I would be gratefull. Also I do not see how my behavior is equal to his? Here [[64]] is just a quote of what user Laz said. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I did follow him. He is talking shit behind my back, both here and on the croatian wikipedia. He is a problematic editor. I do not undo his stuff for fun. He put some fraud up, and admitted that it was wrong afterwards. He is angry that his fraud was undone, because he is a croatian nationalist, who almost always tries to increase the position of croats in bosnia and herzegovina. This is why he bumped up the number of croats from 131 thousand to 135 thousand. Instead of apologizing he is attacking me. Your behavior is like mine, as you followed me to Direktor's talk page. (LAz17 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

Again user Laz uses the word shit. I notifed user Laz about this discussion [65]. The guy is a comfirmed liar. Only thing I want from that guy, that he stops stalking me and stops talking about me on other people's pages (like Director's, Producer's and list goes on).

Prior to my edit that guy did not had anything to do with that page (check history, and Laz even admited that [66]).

The guy is convinced that I'm a Croatian POV warior which has some holy fraud on wikipedia here, and that is his holy duty to stop me. I would like this to stop. Permenatly.

Laz, leave me alone. I'm not interested in any of your wild theories.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You have admitted to deliberately ommitting countless serbian and bosniak villages on your map of bosnia. This showed the croats as grossly over-represented. When you defend such an awful propaganda map, how can you or anyone else be surprised that I will be offended at such wrong unsourced bullshit? It is shit, and there is no other word that is more appropriate for it - perhaps fraud is just as good of a word. Direktor, the mediator of the discussion has told you that it is very plausible for people to have issues with your problematic map. Your actions on the central bosnia canton page only further enforce your POV. You put, in the first place, unsourced data on there. Then you changed that data by bumping up the numbers of croats significantly. When I undid that you exploded in rage and attacked me, only to later put the number back to 131 as it was before you bumped them up. You have clear POV. Sorry man, the evidence is against you. On top of that, you have a history of being a croatian nationalist. You have been banned from wikipedia in the past, if I am not mistaken, and I do suspect you to be a sockpuppet of some one of the numerous banned croatian propaganda artists - like user afrika paprika. (LAz17 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

As anyone can see it is like this. This are my problems with this user. Every sentance in this upper post is a blunt lie. Course of events of CB canton can be seen on talk pages [67]. As for deliberately ommitting countless villages I never said (nor done) that. No one ever said that. Except maybe you Laz. But that is your POV. Some restriction notice, please?

The guy's follows me in circles and writes that I'm a holy Crotian POV warrior. Or is accusing me of sockpupetry. Do I realy must to listen that kind of behavior? Is there some measure in wikipedia which could make this stop? Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a liar. It is Ceha who is a liar.

1) Fraud put in on CB Canton page... [68] Now how do we know that it was deliberate? Because he changed it on the croatian wiki too and has not put the right data in!!! He leaves it frauded on the croatian wiki, and so we can discredit the croatian wiki - especially considering that POV nationalists like user Kubura are admins there. Yes, the experience with Croatian wiki members has been pretty "bad" for me. To be precise, Ceha is a detriment to the wellbeing of this encyclopedia. For croatian interests he is probably very welcome and loved on the croatian wikipedia, but on the english wikiepdia we are more interested in non-biased material, so his pro-croat propaganda must not be accepted. We must be free of biase, be it pro-serb, pro-croat, pro-anyone. Ceha's actions have shown strong disagreement with this principle.

2a) He has addmitted to deliberately excluding serbian and bosniak villages. [69]

To say what the mediator has said, That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased"? Faced with accusations of taking sides in an ethnic conflicts, your map needs to be 100% by the book - or it really is unacceptable by encyclopedia standards. (This is all primarily because you made a map of one of the most ethnically complex and belligerent areas of this planet.)

Of course everything is true that I say, and that this fraud creator is lying to "us all here" when he says that what I say is not true. What I say is sourced and confirmed. He is the liar and a threat to wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

1)Laz if you had negative experiance on Cro wiki, do not put that on me, just because I'm a croat.

2)This is director's statment, not mine. Who confess here what. Where is the word numerous? Director told me that I must show every small village on that map, no matter how small it is, and that (because I'm a Croat) must take a special care of showing Serbian and Muslim villages. Otherways it can be seen as POV. Which I tried to do. Laz, where is my confession here? --Čeha (razgovor) 02:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1) is about CB Canton, NOT about cro-wiki. Please, do not deter the argument from the fact that you reported me for undoing your fraud on the CB Canton.

2)When I made this map plan was not to include every little village in it. is what you said. Basically, most of Bosnia and Herzegovina's territory is small villages. You admitted to excluding on purpose. (LAz17 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)).

(undent) Ummm...I'm hoping that someone else can take a look at this thread as it appears to have degenerated into a war of words between these two editors. That being said, Ceha and Laz: Cease and Desist immediately. Either find a way to work together or take it to

WP:DR. This is a content dispute, nothing more. Frmatt (talk

) 05:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User User:Igoopy

Resolved

 – User blocked and page fully protected (which may be a wee bit overkill) NeilN (talk)

The user User:Igoopy is incesently vandalizing the Taylor Swift page by posting article updates about her supposid death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebkos (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Melop Disruptive Editing

Melop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on Guangzhou resulting in an open 3RR report [70] and the page being move protected [71]. He's now creating a content fork of the article before [72] and after [73] being warned [74] and changing redirects to the fork [75], [76]. Discussion has been taking place on Talk:Guangzhou and three other editors have rejected the page move [77]. As Melop is trying to get around page move protection and has been warned, I believe the next step is a block. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect NeilN et al. had violated wikipedia's neutrality of view point, by actively suppressing presentation of one of the two English names of the same city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melop (talk • contribs) 05:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer

WP:3RR and given multiple warnings at the user talk page

and on article talk pages by a large number of editors.

Neuromancer has also contributed several copyright violations, cutting and pasting from copyrighted sources without quoting or citing. This edit contains nine paragraphs copied verbatim from avert.org and a sentence and references copied from another website without citation. Warnings and explanations (Talk:HIV#Copyright_violations_by_Neuromancer, [78]) were ignored, with the user later performing another unreferenced copy and paste from a copyrighted website.

Neuromancer, after threatening to wikistalk ("However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well"), has begun to make good on this threat by becoming engaged at Magnetic water treatment (an article on my watchlist), Cancell (an article contributed to by User:MastCell, [[79]) and Medical uses of silver, following talk page interactions, including an accusation of censorship, with a regular silver editor, User:Hipocrite. Each of these editors has warned Neuromancer about a variety of behaviours in the past, with invariably hostile response. The diversity and scope of Neuromancer's disruptions suggests that intervention could be appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice, as an involved editor/admin, to the request for some outside eyes here. Neuromancer (talk · contribs) has been active in pressing an AIDS-denialist agenda across numerous articles (representative edit). Issues include:

• Persistent edit-warring (block log)
• Canvassing potentially sympathetic editors ([80]), [81], [82], [83]).
• Most of his non-HIV-related edits seem to be based on
  Dennis Ketcham ([84]
  ), etc).
• Creation of numerous POV forks, including
  HIV dissent
  .
• This sort of thing - not that I'm fussed about having my IQ questioned - it's probably barely above room temperature anyway - but it's a bit grating coming from someone who's constantly accusing others of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith.
• Constant references to a "WP:HIV cabal", by which Neuromancer presumably means editors who hold the "POV" that HIV causes AIDS.
• Very basic
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - despite extensive forum-shopping, and hearing a universal rejection of his proposed edits, Neuromancer keeps repeating the same arguments (see the last 5 or 6 threads at Talk:HIV for examples). He's indicated that he's "not going to stop" just because a "cabal" opposes his edits
  .
• He's cut-and-pasted a long section from an AIDS-denialist website, and then complained of having "hours of research" erased when this was reverted (will find diffs).

I would like some outside eyes on the situation, if anyone's willing. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these are the sorts of challenges that Wikipedia needs to handle effectively if it ever hopes to achieve its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, talk pages, and assorted miscellany included here, this looks like a case of POV-pushing, with some intransigent statements by Neuromancer. I fear that this is just a continuation of a problem we've seen several times here over the last few weeks (and probably longer) where people with a strong, but minority or fringe POV feel like they are backed into a corner by consensus against them. While I'm not sure that their behaviour is indicative of a block, is there someone who would be willing (and more knowledgeable than I in these particular subjects) to work with Neuromancer to help them understand why their view is

fringe

and that this isn't personal, its just community consensus that happens to disagree with what they believe? I would also appreciate hearing from both Neuromancer, MastCell, and Hipocrite about their opinions.

On a semi-related note, how do we allow users such as Neuromancer to feel like they have been given an adequate opportunity to have their point of view heard and discussed and not simply swatted out of the air (not that this has happened here...but can happen very easily). While their points of view may be fringe, and not follow community consensus, how do we continue to honour their contributions while maintaining the integrity of WP, and without driving them away?

I'll return to this conversation a little later...its supper time! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Neuromancer has been resistant to guidance, and has been very confrontational at times. The exchanges on Talk:HIV have been lengthy, but I do think some have been constructive - they've dealt with substantive issues, and resulted in edits that improved the article (only incrementally, though). I have not followed the activity outside Talk:HIV, but those diffs are disheartening. The WP culture takes some getting used to, and plunging into HIV was probably a mistake for a new editor. I'd like to see Neuromancer get some guidance, to understand the difference between disagreement and conspiracy. It's tiring and disruptive when an editor insists that others formally prove numerous well-established concepts that are already supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who's interacted extensively with Neuromancer on Talk:HIV, I agree most with Scray's characterization. Emw (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has interacted, discussed, argued, and usually reached something of a consensus with both Scray and Emw (both of whom I have come to admire for their ability to semi effectively deal with me), and whom I have had much more interaction than anyone else involved in this discussion, I would like to to put out there than I am more than open to discourse of policy, disagreement and conspiracy.
• Additionally, I would like to point out that I do not believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of me, or I would already be gone. My references to the HIV cabal are due to this post on my talk page, and is mostly an attempt at humor, not an impassioned belief that "you are all after me..." Thank you for your patience, and I agree, perhaps HIV was not the place to jump into the Wikipedia as I have. But I am here, and trying to make the best of it. Neuromancer (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who posted that, it was really in response to Mister Hospodar who happened to post some paranoid kind of stuff on Neuro's user talk. It is supposed to be a smidge humorous; it's actually a rather long-standing joke turned wisdom on wiki. However, I chose that link of all the essays on non-existent cabals to highlight that there is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. I guess it didn't take the desired effect as Neuro began referring to cabals afterward, rats.

I full well admit that I took and ran, more as humorous jab back at you, and a few others, than anything serious. I don't think there is a cabal, HOWEVER, there are a group of you who very adamantly defend and revert edits on a number of similar pages. After reading your posted words of wisdom, I thought it humorously appropriate to throw it back at you in kind. My references to a cabal have never been more than half-hearted humor in an attempt to lighten the situation. Seeing as how you are the only one who got the joke... Well, crap! Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, good to know now then! Thanks for clarifying. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, here are my words on the subject. Neuro isn't the only fellow who's made himself heard towards AIDS denialism on talk pages over the years. In particular though, there has been a lot of passion from him that is very accusatory, and this more than anything began sparking contention.

I really tried to steer the conversation as much as possible to specific constructive discourse about articles in question [85], but largely this opportunity was not taken advantage of. Instead, in response to his broad debates, there have been several clear, spelled out arguments highlighting the faults in the particular angle he takes on AIDS denialism ([86], [87] to name a couple i did). The AfD for the content fork of AIDS denialism alone should be a pretty clear wake up call.

I think he hears and sees them but is still trying to game policy/guidelines in his favor, such as omitting "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below." to the

WP:YESPOV quote in his response below, etc. There has probably been a bit a wikistalking, and cries of censorship/this must be heard/you can't erase history kind of brew-ha-ha, but I like keeping editors more than loosing them so I would love to see mentoring or fostering of better habits than blocks. JoeSmack ^Talk

02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears in regards to his below YESPOV quote with relevant (e.g. oppositional to his motives) info omitted, his response is this: [88]. A fairly by-the-book

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It could be that mentoring/fostering isn't an option after all. JoeSmack ^Talk

09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Special:Contributions/24.251.114.169 and probably Special:Contributions/174.17.102.170 are Neuro, but he denies the latter here. Sockpuppety. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Loudly claims the 24; the 174 geolocates to Phoenix, AZ, where the Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company is located. - 2/0 (cont.

) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an

WP:SPI warranted, perchance? Crafty (talk

) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuro emailed me a protest. If it puts one of these many issues to rest (either way), I think it would be worth it. However, this is right on the line of

CheckUser criteria. Up to you. JoeSmack ^Talk

02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt CU would be informative. Neuromancer just posted on their

RBI any account unwilling to discuss and let the AfD run its course would be my advice. - 2/0 (cont.

) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic part, my bad. - JoeSmack

Oh, and I'd like to respond to Frmatt above because I think it is a step we need to discuss too. For one, I would say that there has been so much effort by AIDS denialists over the years to bend NPOV of HIV/AIDS articles that it has left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. I've been patrolling for about four years now, and the last conflict that was this big was

WP:BITEY, I would say so, at least for me. Can someone not previously involved in this incident maybe provide how they'd deal with it better? JoeSmack Talk

03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oooh..."Specious" and "Spurious"...I'm impressed by your vocabulary! lol In all seriousness, though, I will admit that after four years of that type of thing, my response would probably be very similar. In response to your question, I think that you were surprisingly civil, not overly bitey and all in all gave an appropriate response. I wonder if there might be a solution in creating a subpage that is permanently linked to the talk page...something like Talk:HIV/Other Claims with the notation that this page would contain discussion of other claims about HIV that have previously been discussed, and been excluded as a result of consensus...including the appropriate sources that were considered. This would allow users to see the arguments that have already been made, what the consensus was, and how the consensus was achieved. This would also allow users the option of adding new information and sources that may have come to light recently and provide a talking area that wouldn't necessarily clog up the main talk page. I know that as a (relatively) new user, I would appreciate that, especially in some of the articles that I edit which contain some controversial topics. It may also give new users (at least to that page) the knowledge that there is a place for them to express their points of view and to see what the consensus about them is. Frmatt (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on AN/I, but my sense is that we should be focused on the concerns raised here about Neuromancer's editing, rather than a side discussion of how to make it easier for new editors of HIV (even though this is very constructive and well-intentioned). -- Scray (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and I've added it

elsewhere

.

Brought this offtopic, my bad. Frmatt, that is one idea but i'm wary of having subpages as they tend to get abandoned, and subtalk pages do even more so. I'll look at the username project link you provided, thanks for the feedback. Ok, i'm gonna whisk this into a collapsebox. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that ANI is not necessarily the place to propose any type of restrictions, I would like to ask Neuromancer if they would be amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with them to help them understand the policies? Specifically, that when Neuromancer finds themselves in an edit/content conflict, that they would invite their mentor/coach into the conversation as someone who is relatively impartial and working to ensure that they understand the policies about

WP:POV, especially when they find themselves in conflict. Frmatt (talk

) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I would be most amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with me. I am certainly not trying to cause a disruption to WP. Perhaps an experienced editor/admin, who has not previously been involved in the topics of this debate, would be willing to work with me to fix what appears to be flawed logic. Or at the very least be able to show me a more constructive manner in which to present information that won't be as disruptive as it has been. Who knows... Maybe I'll bring em around to my side? Haha, joking.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If an appropriate mentor steps forward, this would be possibly the best solution, and could be implemented in tandem with or in lieu of the sanctions I propose below. Neuromancer is a bit forceful and currently frustrated, but I think could be an asset to the project if given a little time and help to come to grips with the peculiar sourcing and neutrality requirements here. Any takers? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

• First and foremost, I have edited in good faith, with the intent to better the Wikipedia in general.
• Secondly, I am not trying to push a fringe POV. This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken...

• Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”

That being said, I have also reviewed WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which states:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I fully understand that there are those who think that questioning the science behind HIV is ridiculous and worthy of censoring, however, there are those in the scientific community, who have published peer reviewed papers, questioned many aspects of HIV, AIDS, and the connection between the two. While the cabal[90] currently editing the

AIDS denialism

articles claims a NPOV, and that they do not have to give equal eight to fringe POV, a simple review of their resistance to the inclusion of balanced information, whether it be in those articles, or in separate articles, seems very clear that they are not willing to be neutral on the subject.

As far as "Wikistalking" as Hipocrite has accused me of, I cannot even begin to express how petulant that statement is. While I will admit that I have reviewed other editors contributions, and even weighed in on a couple of the articles that they have been involved in, I am not now, nor have I ever, edited an article simply to "frustrate" another editor. This accusation was posted to my talk page by Hipocrite just this morning. While I do tend to have an interest in alternative health treatments, such as HIV, cancer, etc, I have also edited such articles as the Fort hood shooting. I think it is an unfair characterization to say that I am stalking anyone.

When it comes to canvassing... I fail to see how mentioning to another editor that a discussion is taking place that they may be interested in, is somehow a bad thing. I in fact copied this practice from such editors as Verbal and Hipocrite, who routinely post messages on one another's talk pages requesting input regarding a particular topic of debate throughout the Wiki. I have not requested that they take a particular viewpoint, merely that they have expressed interest in the topic in the past, and may be interested in the current conversation. Here is the most recent example I can readily find [91], or Nunh-huh, JoeSmack, TechBear.

I have not cut and pasted long sections from denialist web sites. I did take a list of factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody tests, which had 64 references, and use it in the site, and the original compiler was given credit. The references did not have any DOI or PMID information, let alone being suitable for Wiki formatting. Each and every one of those references was researched, updated, verified to be on point, and formated by me. I would call that hours of research.

As far as the "creation of numerous POV forks... I cannot agree with that. I have created 3 articles here. 2 on the topic of HIV. Initially, I un-forwarded

HIV dissent and created article content there. That was nominated for deletion, and reverted back to a forward, the next day, prior to a discussion or consensus being reached. So I then created a new namespace, Alternative HIV viewpoints

, where I published relatively the same article, which has also been nominated for deletion. Again, prior to the AfD discussion closing, the article was wiped and forwarded, and for trying to prevent this, I received a 24 hour ban. How is consensus and discussion supposed to take place when there is no article to discuss?

So, salient points:

• Always in good faith...
• Been Bold
• Ignored all rules, except for personal attacks. (Never have I personally attacked an editor)
• Modified behavior as users have brought potential violations to my attention.

Neuromancer (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone realizes that it is highly coincidental that a user who has edited what - 5 mainspace articles has somehow overlapped and edit-warred against people he has disagreements with on 4 of them - and those 4 are in totally disparate subjects, with the note that he has expressed an interest in a 5th, totally disparate subject here. How far does AGF go? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I became involved with Dennis the Menace because I was following AfD, not you. When you nominate an article for delete or merge, it is common courtesy to allow the discussion to take place for the requisite 7 days. Blanking and forwarding is just rude, and makes any discussion difficult. Neuromancer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Colloidal Silver has been used in Alternative HIV and Cancer treatments. It is not, as you say, "disparate." I have not intentionally edit warred with anyone. After it was brought to my attention, I changed my behavior. I have been involved in edit controversy in HIV and Alternative HIV Viewpoints. If there is another article you think is relevant, please list it. Neuromancer (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Neuromancer's edits: article coincidences

Neuromancer has to date edited 59 unique articles. Comparing edits with the people notified of this discussion by Keepcalmandcarryon indicates that 54 of those have also been edited by at least one person on the list (I am making comparison using different tools and a little inclusion/exclusion counting, so bear with me as they may measure unique article in different ways; also note that I am involved in several places). Subtracting the AIDS-related articles, usertalk, and a few obviously benign cases gives: Aspartame was edited by Keepcalmandcarryon two days before Neuromancer's first edit; Cancell was not edited by anyone on the list in the days preceding Neuromancer's first edit; Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company was created by Neuromancer; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination) is clear, though Denialism itself was edited by Verbal the day before; Kristian Ayre and AfD are clear - Nm probably got there from ARS; Talk:Dennis Ketcham was edited by Hipocrite earlier that day; Talk:Medical uses of silver was recently edited by Hipocrite and MastCell; Talk:Magnetic water treatment was recently edited by Keepcalmandcarryon, Someguy1221, and me; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catbus had been recently edited by me, but had also been tagged for ARS; Fort Hood shooting and talk had been recently edited by JoeSmack, though that article is highly active right now.

Article Rescue Squadron (none of the contributions were particularly combative except at Denialism which is a mess all around), this leaves: Aspartame, Medical uses of silver, Magnetic water treatment, Dennis Ketcham, and Fort Hood shooting. The last I think can be ignored, as everyone else is editing that article too at the moment, and Nm's edits were not obviously antagonistic; although I do think that there is some confusion regarding wikt:duplicitous and wikt:duplicative. The Ketcham very much looks like an attempt to engage with Hipocrite. For the other three, I do not find the assertion that they were selected without reference to editor to be credible, though I am willing to believe that they find such things interesting. This is again based on X!'s namespace counter, which shows an edit to Talk:Fascism as the clear outlier. - 2/0 (cont.

) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

Based on the behaviors outlined by Keepcalmandcarryon, MastCell, and myself, I propose that Neuromancer be indefinitely topic banned from all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages; I further propose that they be admonished to avoid extending conflict to unrelated articles and to not seek out or harass any of the above mentioned editors. These remedies to be subject to review at AN/I or ArbCom, preferably less frequently than every three months. I would explicitly leave my talkpage open for any discussion, as we have open threads there and I am still willing to discuss with Neuromancer.

Alternatively, given the failure to follow obvious community norms such as engaging productively with other editors and not seeking out confrontation, multiple attempts to add content in an end-run around consensus, and multiple instances of copying without attribution, including from patently unreliable sources including virusmyth.com and IMDB, a full community ban may be in order. Please discuss these proposals below. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As Neuromancer has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, I have volunteered to relay their concerns here if necessary. As always, please refrain from piling on while Nm cannot edit here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I am repeatedly requested to find consensus before edits, which I have done on

AIDS denialism, Fort Hood shooting

, etc, etc.

The only real issue regarding disruptive editing has been in regard to Alternative HIV viewpoints. I understand that I do not own the article. I understand that it may very well be deleted in the near future. However, here are the salient issues that I have:

• [92], [93], [94], [95] In these edits, the exact same information has been removed each time. Please review the diffs. The entire chapter is properly referenced to scientific publication such as "Applied Environmental Microbiology," "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences," US patent #4520113, etc. In this edit, there was no regard for the information. There was no consensus reached, or even discussed on the talk page. There is no synthesis. This is not an article that falls within the purview of Medicine. This is an article entitled "Alternative HIV Viewpoints." As it was created, it is not a POV Fork. The idea was to present the claims of scientists who disagree with the current HIV community. There are films being made about these topics. There are papers being published in peer reviewed journals, such as this one in 2008, which dissent on the currently accepted HIV hypothesis.

• • No consensus was reached before wholesale deleting MASSIVE amounts of information. No attempt was made to clean up language accused of being POV. Rather, it was just deleted. Not one person who has attempted to keep this information off of WP has been able to provide a SINGLE citation discrediting the information in this article. Yes, there is a reference to virusmyth.com. It is to source the quote of what certain dissenters believe was wrong with the current information. It's not synth. It's not there to support a medical claim. The reference is there to show where the idea came from. It is one of MANY ideas.

• Rather than editing the article, it is deleted, forwarded, called synth and POV fork, and unsourced. This is not the case. I have spent hours reading medical journals verifying each of the actual medical claims on this article. Granted, I did start with Christine Johnson's list, which she was credited for. But that is a list. Journal references that were no longer valid, or since debunked, were removed. Each citation was verified and wikified so that others could simply click on the ref and be taken to the article.

• I am being accused of doing EXACTLY what my accusers are doing. Except that if you actually read the article, and the references, you will see that this is not synth, or a POV fork. Compare it to
  HIV denialism
  focuses on a POV that HIV denialists have caused harm, have been debunked, disproved, etc. Yet there are no references to where they have been disproved. I have looked for these references, and have been unable to locate any. I have found NON scientific articles, written by journalists, and judges, but not anything from the scientific community. Yet when I present actual scientific published works, I am POV pushing. This is not the case.

• As far as the mad props I have received for being Superman, please review my talk page.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer indicates above a willingness to work with a mentor to help them contribute within the project's policies. I think that this could be productive, but am myself both too involved and too unskilled in the area. If anyone is interested in the role, please step forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer's willingness to accept mentorship is encouraging. However, Neuromancer has yet to recognise their problems with straightforward policies such as copyright violation and sockpuppetry; their insistence that the "other" Arizona IP is not a sock or meatpuppet is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These aren't subtle matters in which a mentor's guidance could help, but I would be pleased to find out otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not terribly encouraging. I am going to ask the people who have commented on this thread to take another look. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I presented my view of what happened. I presented what felt, as that is what I was asked. I was posting that in an attempt to gain a mentors, and their view of the situation. How is that "not terribly encouraging?" Neuromancer (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I found it discouraging because your portrayal of the situation continues to be dominated by a sense of persecution, rather than humility and introspection. This doesn't bode well for an effort in which the goal is to engage more constructively with others in the future. You are an incredibly intelligent and talented editor, and it's frustrating for me to see you occupied so much of the time in conflict. -- Scray (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is canvassing:
  • 11:11, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: oops - redundant section, sorry)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:MastCell ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Scray ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:JoeSmack ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Emw ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Craftyminion ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Frmatt ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Hipocrite ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:10, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Neuromancer ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
  • 11:09, 2009 November 12 (hist | diff) User talk:Keepcalmandcarryon ‎ (→Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer: new section)
• Neuromancer (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not canvassing, as 2/0 explained to you here, with valid citations of applicable policy. -- Scray (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite broad topic ban per all above, and 2/0. Support full ban as 2nd choice if problems continue on unrelated articles (non AIDS/medical/science - broad topic ban). Verbal chat 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• For the record... I did act in good faith. I never got into an edit war on
  AIDS denialism. Ban me. But before you do, go look at my edits to those two pages. Perhaps someone who didn't engage in the same behaviors I am being accused of, such as Verbal, Hipocrite, etc, should weigh in on this before a decision is made. Neuromancer (talk
  ) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for acknowledging I didn't engage in the behaviours you were blocked for. I've already weighed in above. Verbal chat 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I think you misunderstood. I was accusing you of the actions I am being accused of. You have followed and edited other articles I have been involved with, for no other reason than I have been involved. You have elicited the assistance of others in trying to ban me. What I meant was that people NOT involved in this topic look at the situation. IE: Scray, Hipocrite, Keepcalm, JoeSmack, 2/0, TimVickers, etc. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. I agree that Neuromancer would benefit from mentoring, but I don't think the latter obviates the former. Neuromancer made some serious mistakes, and has been consistently argumentative in discussing those. Failure to demonstrate insight regarding past events, and pertinacious soapboxing in Talk space, prompt me to support the proposed ban. As I've said previously (above), I have had some constructive exchanges with Neuromancer. I hope that mentoring will help Neuromancer to recognize why this ban occurred, and to rebuild the trust of the WP community in general. --Scray (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - for reasons conveyed above by Scray. It seems like Neuro still feels like this was a personalized issue that happened because users didn't like his views. It also seems like Neuro is still itching for any way possible to get his content back in, and frankly, the reprise of discussion on why policies/guidelines don't support that is getting old. I continue to support mentorship as long as all parties are amenable to it, and additionally that we get a highly active/experienced editor to do the mentoring. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Itching? if by itching you mean that I feel that by learning the proper ways in which to introduce information to WP without causing a war... Well then yes. I am itching to learn these skills. I fully realize that I have made some mistakes, and I am working on correcting those so that they are not repeated. However, banning me is just a way to exert control over a situation. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as per previous comments. Neuromancer's comments to a potential mentor ([linked by 2/0 above) show a continuing refusal to acknowledge basic policies like
  WP:SYN. Neuro still insists that the issue with their edits is personal (it's not) and based on likes and dislikes rather than policy (again, it's not). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk
  ) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As far as my comments to a potential mentor, I told him what had happened. I was not pushing a view. I was explaining how I felt about the situation, while simultaneously acknowledging that there was an issue in my logic and requesting help to understand it. I was refusing to acknowledge anything, I was asking for assistance to better understand them. Furthermore, I do not feel that the issue is personal, nor have I ever. I feel that there is a group who does not agree with ideas that I have presented, not that they disagree with me. There is a profound difference. Neuromancer (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, widely construed. I am unaware of any successful mentorship of a disruptive editor (counterexamples welcome). I see no reason why this case would be different. I'm genuinely curious as to why the community often sees mentorship as a solution to problems like this. Skinwalker (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, as per Scray. I do feel that mentoring would be useful in this case, and in response to Skinwalker, I would say that why I support mentoring is that it gives the user who is being mentored someone who can review their edits and provide constructive criticism knowing that their mentor is on their side and trying to get the best for the person who is being mentored. This means that it is someone who is their advocate who is telling them when they violate policy instead of everyone and their brother, which can be difficult for a user who is trying to make good faith edits. I will say though that the post to the talk page linked by 2/0 above does cause me some concern, and I would strongly recommend that an experienced and senior editor/admin be the mentor in this case. Frmatt (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the ideal behind mentorship, but I appreciate the clarification. My question is more specific: can anyone name a disruptive editor who has been successfully mentored? Skinwalker (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. To me the need for this was clear since this editor created an article on
  here that this was an inappropriate POV fork by creating Alternative HIV viewpoints, which was unsurprisingly deleted as another POV fork. Neuromancer has kept a copy of the deleted content at User:Neuromancer/HIV, which indicates to me that their efforts to force this into mainspace have not yet ended. This editor is completely unwilling to abide by consensus and shows contempt for both other people's views and our policies. Tim Vickers (talk
  ) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

• Comment Before giving a topic ban any credence, I would ask that diffs be included for the topic in which it is being proposed that I be banned. The only article for which I have been banned thus far, have been deleted from WP, so I would ask the following:
  • What topic is being proposed that I should be banned?
  • What are the diffs to any "disruptive editing" of the articles that would be included in the ban?
• I feel that these are reasonable requests, as there has been no specific reference to the topic proposed for ban, nor have there been any references to disruptive edits within any articles that might implied in the above. Neuromancer (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The topic would be any HIV or AIDS related article/talkpage on Wikipedia. You can find refs to your disruptive editing documented in the start of this incident report at the top of this section here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated above and in the proposal, all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages. This would include, for instance, AZT, people whose notability derives primarily from AIDS activism, Mbeki, and pretty much any topic covered by AIDS denialist websites. It would not include other retroviruses in general, other STIs in general, or articles on people who are notable for reason unrelated to HIV/AIDS. This article is probably ok, but you should not add any HIV/AIDS related material. The community traditionally takes a very dim view of people who try to game the system by dabbling ever closer to the topic from which they have been banned for disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see a single reference to a "disruptive edit" in any of the articles you have mentioned. The only "disturbing edits" existed in an article which have since been deleted. Can you show any allegedly disruptive edits to the articles you propose I should be banned from? Neuromancer (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are quoting when you say "disturbing edit" - your use of that phrase seems to be the first on this page. -- Scray (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer probably meant disruptive; he typed it correctly in the next line it seems...I think it might have been a response to JoeSmack (and the thread he cited). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and now Neuromancer has gone back and edited "disturbing" to "disruptive", making my comment appear to be a non sequitur. This is inconsistent with

assume this is due to lack of awareness of that guidance. -- Scray (talk

) 15:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Not trying to disturb anyone with disruptive edits. I edited to clarify my original intended edit. Wasn't aware that this was a talk page, or that I was being inconsistent.. Neuromancer (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - language about Talk guideline stricken. -- Scray (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, horrible typos can happen too so it's not worth assuming otherwise over. When that happens, add a diff next to your comment pointing out that whomever fixed their comment or changed it since. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neuromancer, whether or not you agree with it, would you be willing to abide by the topic ban proposed? If so, my advice to you would be to develop your Wikipedia skills by editing other areas. After a time, you could appeal for the topic ban to be lifted. What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 16:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• While I do not see any justification for a ban at all, as no one has cited a disruptive edit to the articles proposed in the ban, a temporary ban is obviously more appealing than a permanent one. I would still like some editors that have not been involved in the topic review the situation. Neuromancer (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is for a permanent, not a temporary ban. Otherwise we'd be back here with exactly the same problems. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the pages I listed above are merely examples that fall within the topic all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages. The disruptive editing by Neuromancer has been limited primarily to this topic, and indicates a pattern that would likely continue without restriction. The ban is indefinite, though like any such ban is subject to community review at a later date. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist request

Is there some way to add "Putka" to the account creation blacklist or something? Putka is a slang word for female genetalia, and is currently being used by

<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk

) 05:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If the user is socking, it would be best to file a request at

WP:SPI for a checkuser to investigate the case. Keeping all sockpuppet information in one place is mucho bueno since it makes it easier to track behaviors and a checkuser responding to an SPI request can also block underlying IP addresses and IP address ranges to prevent future socking. --Jayron32

06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please address the question?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can also put in a request at

WT:UAA to have the string added to the bot watchlist. It will report any username creations that contain the phrase. TNXMan

14:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it. Any new accounts created with the name will be reported at UAA. TNXMan 14:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be a better idea to just have that reported to

WP:SPI/BOT as with all other accounts that utilize similar patterns. MuZemike

20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I now understand why that would go to UAA. Carry on, I suppose ;) MuZemike 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Carry on, carry on because nothing really matters to me. :) TNXMan 22:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind modifying it (if this isn't what you already did) so the bot only reports accounts that have actually made an edit? Sometimes UAA gets backlogged with reports when one user is deliberately creating offensive usernames that they never actually use. (this happened after the whole "nipple" debacle a few weeks ago)

talk

) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it's blatant enough to warrant immediate blocking, whereas the "nipple" names fell into a grey area. Of course, I'd be interested to hear what others think about the issue. TNXMan 03:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi folks, sorry for being gone all day. I actually did file SPI on Crazyer 666 with his first round of socks, but the request was declined as the accounts were all blocked already. Thanks for adding to the blacklist, hope it helps out. 07:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk

)

User:Hippo43 stalking my talk page and wikihounding me

Resolved

 – Issue needs to be brought to RFC, not ANI — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I brought Hippo43 here before for his constant watching over me and interfering and disruption to places I contribute. Now I caught him basically admitting that he watches my talk page and that he came to a place I contribute to because of he found it on my talk page. For quite awhile Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines I have been working on changing the guideline to reflect that bold and italics are not shouting and do have good purpose if used correctly; I felt the original wording to be overkill (and regardless of everyone making it about capitals I never had an opinion on that, I cared about bold and italics). From day one I was clear the reason I wanted the change was that I had recently been told that using bold and italics was "shouting", something I do feel is tweenish and teenagerish (as do alot of internet users my age). During a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means I had the caps lock on during typing for work, came back to the internet and wrote my edit summary, accidently having my edit summary in caps; not intentionally to make a point. A non-involved person "warned" me about it on my talk page. Less than five minutes later Hippo43 showed up at that policy talk page for the first time at the guideline talk page and started supporting the "status quo" side, then showed up at the "talk page guidelines" guideline and stated that I wanted to change it only because I was just warned about using caps as yelling; which he probably didnt notice that I'd started that discussion long before, when I was accused elsewhere of "yelling" when using an occasional word in bold, which is my style. This shows that he's been watching my talk page and goes around to different locations that I'm involved with for the express purpose of frustrating me; this is the very definition of hounding and is unacceptable; he had never been active in either discussion and then suddenly shows up only after noticing something on my talk page!

Now to make it clear to everone I am not talking about just this one incident! There was confusion last time I brought Hippo here. Last time I took Hippo here my case was thrown out as most of you looked only at that one case, and declared in his favor due to the circumstances and threw in as support for his side the fact that Albany, New York had a "may be too long" template. I did some editing to that article, and looked into the policy/guidelines about that issue, removed the template per Village Pump discussion in which the only two who responded agreed that the template wasnt required for Albany. Hippo of course reverted my removal. Luckily an admin and at least two or three other editors on the talk page were able to revert Hippo and give me a consensus on keeping it off.

This all started with

Administrative divisions of New York

, where he has continued to harrass my contributions. Anything that puts his "viewpoints" in past arguments in jeopardy and make me look right automatically brings him. Now any discussion I am in that in "his opinion" Im doing something wrong he shows up. I will not be wikistalked, and dont need to be "watched" by anyone, especially not him.

I know this is long, but this has been going on for over a year, I'm fed up with it; he's won arguments simply based on people not wanting to "fight" him again. I hate to bring them into this and hope they arent upset by it, but asking the following users about the issue at Siena College/Loudonville/Newtonville might be helpful in this-

Capital District Wikiproject where as Hippo's only "contributions" to those articles have been to disrupt and attack mine. I have lots of flaws, I'm agressive and abrassive; but that shouldnt allow Hippo to think he has a right to "supervise" me and frustrate anything I work on that he doesnt agree with.Camelbinky (talk

) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the relevant policy I bring this under is

WP:HOUND which states- "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I believe it is clear that this is what Hippo's intentions are.Camelbinky (talk

) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd that Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has only edited Hippo43 (talk · contribs)'s talk page to inform him/her of this discussion. That seems like the place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction - since Since April. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand Toddst1, you want me to continue to have a dialogue with someone who has failed to listen everytime I have asked him to stop this? Have you bothered you to read his archives on his talk page or the history, or the talk page discussions at the articles I listed? I'm confused as to what you wanted me to do regarding his talk page. I've asked him not to edit the articles I work on, he accuses me then of "ownership". I've asked him to stop what he does. He wont. This isnt the first time I've asked him. This has been over a year this is going on. I've been in discussions with him. Contact some of the users I mentioned. Could you clarify what I did wrong. I want this resolved but if I'm doing something wrong please tell me. Your post was a bit cryptic for me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed plenty of discussion in Hippo's talk page archives. I'm sure Toddst1 just overlooked that. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I've done some cursory checking and found that stalking is a possibility here, but I'll leave it up to better and more diligent people than I to make a determination; I'd also like to hear from Hippo43 before saying anything definitive. On Camelbinky's request that the user's be "banned from contact with each other", I'm not sure how that would work, unless you were both topic-banned from the pages where these disputes have arisen, and I don't see that happening. All I can see coming of this is a stern warning and administrative scrutiny over Hippo's future contributions, if it is determined that there was a violation. That's not say we shouldn't discuss it here -- I do think we should -- but the resolution you've suggested doesn't seem feasible. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start with this garbage. Camelbinky's sense of time, in particular, is a little out. His claims of "over a year" and "less than five minutes later" are both wildly inaccurate. His talk page is on my watchlist because of previous (disagreeable) conversations, and I noticed someone claim that there had been a personal attack (User:A8UDI), so I looked into it, followed some links and made a comment on a project talk page. I'm not sure what I'm being accused of - making a legitimate comment on a page Camelbinky was involved at? I come across the same editors all the time. Was I uncivil? Did I make a personal attack? Was I disruptive? No, no and no. If I wanted to stalk him and "disrupt his enjoyment of editing", I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, only a tiny percentage of my edits are in any way related to Camelbinky's interests. Likewise, the vast majority of his edits have not attracted any attention from me. If I had any intention to stalk or hound him (I'm not sure of the difference) I could easily take a much more active interest in topics he is active in - New York's Capital District, for example - and pick fights all the time. Again, I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, could you post a list of the pages where you believe Hippo43 has "followed" you to? It's a little confusing to dig through all of those histories and contribs. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:48, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The "warning" posted on my talk page was at 22:38 and then at 22:46 Hippo43, which is 8 minutes and for the first time, goes to

Port of Albany-Rensselaer (GA status) all articles I created or completely rewrote; all four are 90% me (with much gratitude to those that helped, I am not denigrating them, I thank them every day for their help), check my user page for others that I have done that arent "crap". He can say what he wants about my opinions, but my editing contributions by calling them "crap" is over the line and typical of his opinion about me, his problem is that he thinks I personally need to be watched.Camelbinky (talk

) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to Hippo's comment "I could watch his Capital District articles", he does! That's where Siena College, Loudonville, Newtonville, and Albany are all in! That's where it started, so his idea that he doesnt get into what I work on is ridiculous; he has never added anything meaningful to any article in that entire wikiproject (as the cofounder and one of the three most active members I should know, since almost every article with that wikiproject tag is on my watchlist). Capital District articles are the only ones I work on! So, yes if I see Hippo at an article it is going to be a CD article, which I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them, and has only gone to any of those articles after our first dispute at Siena College, any time he has shown up at any Cap District article it has only been in opposition to me, he has never gone to one otherwise. As for Siena College, it was 8 months ago. So yes I was wrong about 5 minutes and 1 year in time spans; it was 8 minutes and 8 months. Does that make this any less legitimate that he's been hounding me for over 8 months instead of 1 year, or that it took him 8 minutes after finding something on my talk page to going to where a discussion I'm involved in is located? Camelbinky (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying Camelbinky has written 'crap' was not a personal attack, but justified criticism of some of his writing. If I thought Camelbinky needed to be watched, I would watch him - I don't. His sentence "I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them" just shows his arrogance and sense of ownership of this material. --hippo43 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky wrote above "so his accusation was completely unfounded." There was no accusation - this is some very skewed thinking on Camelbinky's part. I made a legitimate and inoffensive comment on that page, to explain what I felt Camelbinky's view was about. --hippo43 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a "legitimate" comment as you were commenting on my motives, which you couldnt have known and showed your ignorance about by claiming it was because I was just warned about using CAPITALS and that it was shouting, and therefore I wanted to change the policy. By mentioning the capitals=warning problem (which occured the day before) you showed you had not even read or looked at when the thread was begun, by referring to Rd232's proposal in a way that seemed like I was opposing it you further showed no knowledge of what was going on because Rd232's proposal was in fact a compromise effort on his part to get the policy to address my concerns but still keep the essense of it. At every instance you show your contempt for my editing, I would put my best four articles up against yours any day to a judgement on who is the better editor if your problem is that you think I write "crap"; if you have no interest in CD articles, why show up at them at all? It's not ownership I'm showing, its concern for things I care about being ruined by someone who has ulterior motives. Why get involved with the

Albany, NY article's "too long" template when I removed it? I can give you the benefit of the doubt and good faith that you thought I was removing it because of our dispute, but when AFriedman, UpstateNYer, and ZooFari (people who actually work on CD articles) told you "no" you pressed it; your problem I believe is that you dont give me good faith on my editing, perhaps if you take my talk page off your watchlist and stick to articles you know about and can add constructive things to instead of worrying about "Camelbinky sticking in crap" to CD articles you wouldnt ever see me. Your job isnt to worry about if I'm putting in crap and then to stop me. All of my articles are within a very active wikiproject and all my new articles are posted clearly for them to look at, all big rewrites are undertaken with their OK, I have them helping me as I help them; no one need you "watching" me. Which is what you have done at multiple locations, if I put in "crap" someone else can take care of it. (your response now I'm sure will state "Camelbinky doesnt know what I am interested in or not or what knowledge I have", if you had knowledge about the CD area then you sure havent shown it the numerous times I've asked you to contribute any meaningful help)Camelbinky (talk

) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, do you think you could respond regarding the specific pages Camelbinky listed, and tell us how you ended up on those pages, if it wasn't due to camelbinky's involvement? PS If someone called my writing "crap" I'd take that as a rather personal attack, albeit on the lower end of the spectrum. It's uncivil at the very least. Equazcion (talk) 00:45, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right - although it wasn't a personal attack, that phrase wasn't civil, and I shouldn't have let this entirely uncivil complaint get to me like that.

I came across Siena College (about 8 months ago) because I wanted to find out some info on the college, then noticed some strange wording in the article, cleaned it up and found myself involved in an extremely lame, long-winded and unpleasant edit war/discussion. This involved me reading, and editing, the Loudonville, Newtonville and Administrative Divisions articles as they were related to that issue. It also apparently led to Camelbinky taking a dislike to me and developing a kind of paranoia that I'm out to disrupt his work. Out of my interest in these articles (I presume - I really can't remember) I made an edit to Albany, New York in July this year, adding a tag to an unreferenced section - this was two weeks and four intervening edits removed from Camelbinky's previous edit there, and attracted no comment from him, but meant the article was now on my watchlist. Then last month, Camelbinky took exception to another legitimate edit I made there, reverting his addition of trivial information about library storage. He made a complaint here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Help_again_please- - which was unanimously dismissed as unfounded, as my edit was obviously beneficial to the article.

So none of my edits to these articles were motivated by Camelbinky's involvement. I believe he sees 'Hippo43' on an edit summary or discussion page and assumes I'm out to get him, and doesn't give the slightest thought to whether my edits are valid. His long rants directed against me suggest to me that he is not thinking about these rationally. He has failed to take into account the many times that edits of his show up on my watchlist, but that I agree with, so don't revert or get involved with. Again, if I wanted to pick fights with him, I'd watch his contributions and get involved at any of the many articles he edits. Indeed, I've often avoided taking part in discussions where he is involved, particularly at content policy noticeboards. He and I generally find ourselves on opposite sides of arguments about reliable sources, verifiability, original research etc, and I have generally chosen to avoid getting drawn into this kind of argument with him, as he has tended to take disagreements with me rather personally. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, complete misrepresentation of events. He has a habit of doing that, as he has been repeatedly called out on doing, lately by

User:ZooFari at the latest debate at Albany, New York where ZooFari pointed out Hippo was misrepresenting what the guidelines actually said and stating things that werent there. His edits at Loudonville, Newtonville, et al were all in opposition to my edits which came first, I've been at each article before him and he has never never never just gone to a CD article and contributed, only to remove or "clarify" my edits. He, very late in the discussion at Siena College brought up this "I was looking for information on the college" argument for his reason there when several of us asked why he was there, we all had good reason and actual knowledge regarding the college and its location; when pressed "what information were you looking for?" his response was "it wasnt in the article", and then when asked "why didnt you add it?" his response- "its not notable"; our response was "then why were you looking in Wikipedia in the first place?" no response. He has not contributed any new information to any of these articles despite pleas to be helpful. If he had been helpful there would be no animosity; User:Doncram and I had gotten into an argument and then became good collaborators because we added information and helped each other (and bonded in our opposition to Hippo); this idea that I'm paranoid after one argument is his excuse and only something he started bringing up after I mentioned in an argument that I have a form of autism and other issues, ever since then he has this "its in Camelbinky's head" and thinly disguised it as an attack on my psychological emotional stability. He claims that the "too long" template was perfectly fine, if it was why did several other editors all agree with me that it wasnt? Why did he go to the Albany article in the first place (one I have long worked on) to put that template in and not to add any information? He doesnt contribute, he weakens and finds faults in others. As for noticeboards, he has never contributed to them except maybe twice (again in opposition to me and only on ones that directly related to our arguments and would weaken his viewpoint if it went in my favor) so the idea that wants to comment and intentionally stays away is bogus (I generally tend to be on the majority side at RS and OR noticeboards, and I dont know of any V noticeboard; so is he admitting that his views are the minority? I even got to incorporate into WP:V a new subsection based on my views I put into the RS/N). There are lots of threads at each noticeboard and VP that I dont get involved with, why dont we see him comment at any of them? I want him to stay away from any Capital District article, that is what I want. He has nothing to contribute, he has only edited to hurt my contributions or remove them.Camelbinky (talk

) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out he pretty much admitted to "watching" me as he states he sees my edits and has seen ones he agrees with...why is watching articles he doesnt contribute to? Because he does not contribute to any of the articles I have created or contribute to... so why are they on his watchlist? Most of my edits are to articles I create from scratch, I'm a bit scared that he may be watching me through the user contributions button and looking at everything I do, that's how it sounds from what he wrote; I'm just going by what he himself said and to me it sounds creepy. I'd like a topic ban keeping him from CD articles, I see no problem with that as he hasnt added a shred of information to any of those types of articles and I am one of the heaviest contributors to them; that would keep us pretty much 100% apart. I dont think that is unreasonable, and could easily be enforced as if he shows up at one I just could let an admin know to enforce the topic ban. Perhaps Hippo43 would be kind enough to voluntarily state that he would stay off any CD article?Camelbinky (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) addendum To clarify since I stuck my statements above that of Equazcion's earlier statements- Equazcion's question is directed to Hippo43, and is not in response to my question to Hippo about a voluntary ban.

What about Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? Equazcion (talk) 02:16, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I explained above how I arrived there. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it looks like Hippo43 went to those discussions to comment just after Camelbinky.

I visit this ANI discussion after noticing this rather insulting edit by Hippo43 at Camelbinky's page, and figured that meant trouble. It is similar to Hippo calling Camelbinky's edits "crap", which they are not. Camelbinky above accurately notes that Camelbinky and i somewhat bonded in response to what we both found to be obstinate edit warring by Hippo on the Siena College article. I haven't studied it, but my general impression is with Camelbinky that Hippo has not contributed meaningfully in Capital District articles and any continued participation by Hippo in anything there would appear to be more to bait Camelbinky than for any other purpose. Bottomline, I don't see why Hippo should be following Camelbinky's talk page and following Camelbinky around. Hippo, why not just agree to drop Camelbinky's talk page from your watchlist and agree to stop following Camelbinky around? It is indeed an aggravation for Camelbinky and there is no useful point to your being the one to disagree in some way with Camelbinky in conversations involving other editors who will come to reasonable decisions. Hippo should just stop it, IMHO. doncram (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if Camelbinky could explain in detail what I'm supposed to have done wrong. I simply don't have time to trawl through the badly-written rants above and try to make sense of, and answer, every point. If there is a case against me, it needs to be presented in a clear and orderly way - can you please provide a list of specific complaints, each with diffs and each quoting the area of policy I'm slleged to have infringed?

I certainly won't agree to "stop following Camelbinky around", as I've been doing no such thing. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From my own recent experience I think Camelbinky could do with some overseeing, and so could sympathise if someone was looking at what Camelbinky did. Camelbinky as far as I can see seems to divide the world into us and them and try and recruit people to fight against them with no holds barred. I think one warning on the user page would have been in order before bringing this charge. I don't believe that any apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor has been established. I think this whole business should just be thrown out and counted as a warning to hippo43 to try and avoid anything that might be construed as hounding and to be light on the edits. It seems a bit like restricting a person from doing what's right to me but one has to do that to a certain extent to get along with others in wikipedia.

Dmcq (talk

) 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't see the grounds. I guess the administrators must have some better tools for checking something like this out.

Dmcq (talk

) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

← Hippo43, you said you've explained how you arrived at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, but I don't see that explanation here. I could have overlooked it, but either way.

Those two pages are what concern me the most in relation to the stalking claim, because aside from the verifiability policy, you've never commented on or edited any other policy until you decided to dispute something Camelbinky said/did at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, nor did you participate in any essays at all, until the same occurred at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means.

I'm not all that concerned about the Albany articles. If Hippo followed Camelbinky to those, I think that could reasonably be explained as covering all related issues on related articles. There's nothing wrong, as far as I'm concerned, with addressing the same point on multiple articles, even if you're only doing it due to the involvement of one other person. If someone introduced information I thought to be false in

Empire Strikes Back

to see if the same user was "stirring up trouble" there too, and the dispute would then carry over there if he was. I'd see it as my duty to make sure my opponent in the dispute wasn't laughing and editing away on other articles with the "false info" while I sat stupidly watching a single article.

There's nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as the articles are indeed related. It's the articles that are not related that are the concern. If it's likely that an unrelated page was sought out specifically for a user's involvement in them, that's a hounding concern, and I'm seeing that at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines.

Granted this doesn't constitute something long-term or worthy of a block, however I would say it is worthy of a stern warning. Since I've not been completely uninvolved with Camelbinky I don't think it would be appropriate for me to deliver the warning, nor even decide definitively if one is deserved, so I'll again defer to other uninvolveds, if any ever do actually show up in this discussion. Equazcion (talk) 19:51, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, I explained above that I saw a reference to a personal attack in an edit summary on Camelbinky's talk page. This led me to these two pages, where I made a couple of edits that were neither offensive or disruptive, as I have every right to do. (Incidentally, that is essentially the same route that led Doncram to this discussion.) Contrary to your statement above, I have contributed to policy discussions - certainly

WT:V

if not others - as well as policy noticeboards. In any case, this makes no difference to my freedom to edit at any particular page or topic.

According to my reading of the policy, none of the edits highlighted by Camelbinky fit the definition of

wikihounding

at all. If you believe that they do (or if anyone else does) can you please explain why, with reference to the policy?

I simply can't be bothered to reply in detail to all of Camelbinky's nonsense above - it is full of lies, misunderstandings and distortions. He has made numerous unpleasant allegations about me, but has not provided a shred of evidence. In particular, I have never made a "thinly disguised...attack on [his] psychological emotional stability". I have criticised the quality of his writing, his poor editorial judgment, his dishonesty (in particular his hiding behind an IP address and pretending to be another editor), his flawed understanding of issues and policies, and his irrational and uncivil rants, but none of this has ever been intended as any kind of smear on his autism. That claim is itself an example of his inability to debate with a cool head and avoid making things personal. My experience of disagreeing with him tells me that a detailed reply would be a waste of time, and would just elicit another garbled tirade. If Camelbinky can explain his complaint clearly and comprehensibly, with reference to particular points of policy and supplying diffs, I can answer it point by point. --hippo43 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked your contribs, filtering by Wikipedia talk: and Wikipedia: space edits; aside from WP:V, there are no other policy or guideline edits, nor any essays at all.

"Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Granted, you say you arrived at those pages due to edit summaries rather than the contribs list; but

doesn't matter), it came darn close in my opinion, and I would say you're edging dangerously close to the line. Which again is worthy of at least telling you to be more careful about this in the future than you have been until now. I've felt the urge to enter disputes before merely because it would give me an opportunity to argue with someone I disliked, though at the time I would've denied any such motivation; It's an easy thing to get sucked into. Please be careful, perhaps even make a conscious effort to keep a safe distance, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety. That's all. Equazcion (talk)

17:20, 13 Nov 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I find Hippo43's comments about Camelbinky above to be offensive and unjustified. In one comment further above he sort of apologizes for the incivility of his calling Camelbinky's edits "crap", but then further above and just now he is going on with making generalizations that I find to be incivil. Also, he called for, above and just now again, for Camelbinky to provide more detailed diffs because he doesn't want to read what Camelbinky wrote before. I expect that Hippo43 would scoff at whatever new diffs C or anyone else provided as not proving to a perfect legalistic degree that H was wrong in some legal way. Again, I have been involved in one long and frustrating discussion with Hippo43 before, where in my view Hippo was obstinate in rejecting a reasonable consensus that was otherwise established. "My experience of disagreeing with him tells me that a detailed reply would be a waste of time" is what H said about C; that is pretty much my experience with H rather than with C.

About the Albany, New York article, I reviewed all of Hippo43's edits there and find most of them to be in direct response to Camelbinky's editing there. Besides a small amount of copyediting which was okay or positive, Hippo43's contributions have been mainly to add 2 different negative tags to the article, and to revert back and forth with Camelbinky about keeping one of those in the article. At the Talk page, Camelbinky opened sensible discussions, and the consensus established was the negative tags are not needed, but Hippo43 more or less only contributes to the Talk to dispute that (rather than likewise attempting to open real discussion about anything). Also Hippo43 directly edited down Camelbinky's adding material about a library topic, with a somewhat harsh and dismissive edit summary, within minutes of Camelbinky's edit. On that library material, it was perhaps a bit long but IMHO perfectly within range of editorial discretion. Discussion about that and other editors involvement led to some but not all of the material being retained. So my view is that the article is an example of Hippo43 contributing only negatively to an article where Camelbinky has contributed positively for a longer time, both in the article and the supporting Talk page. No one, including Camelbinky, "owns" that article, but the editing pattern there is evidence in support of Camelbinky's comments about Hippo43 above.

I don't know if Hippo's behavior rises to the level of being "wikihounding", but I definitely don't understand why Hippo would not simply agree to recognize some negative impacts of his editing style upon others and to back off. In particular, it would be easy for Hippo to agree not to watchlist Camelbinky's Talk page, not to follow C's contributins, and not to directly edit Camelbinky's recent contributions (allowing other editors involved in articles like Albany to discuss and edit anything that might seem a bit long). It's a big Wikipedia. doncram (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Equazcion, I have a fair history of involvement and interest in community pages such as policies and policy noticeboards, as my contributions history shows - WT:V, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, for example. Besides editing there, I also regularly pass by without editing. It is not strange at all that I would take an interest in these two pages, and not strange at all that I would disagree with Camelbinky, because we have clearly opposite views on some of these subjects. Moreover, is anyone seriously suggesting that editors can't get involved in areas they haven't previously taken part in?

In this case, I ended up at these pages because of an accusation of a personal attack, which is explicitly "proper" according to the policy ("fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy"). The insinuation that I arrived there by monitoring Camelbinky's contributions list is without basis, and in any case, that would be permissible under this policy.

I realise this may all come across as lawyering, but I make no apology for fighting my case against this attack. Can you let me know if there is a policy that prevents users from simply arriving at an article as a result of another editor's involvement? I don't believe there is, and I don't believe there should be. Given that none of these edits were disruptive or offensive at all, neither the spirit or letter of the policy have been broken. You seem to disagree, so I may be missing something - if so, can you explain specifically which part of this policy you think I have broken?

I'm more than happy to count to ten and think twice before engaging in debate with Camelbinky - I appreciate the undoubtedly good advice from you and Dmcq on this. However, this is quite different from your earlier suggestion that I should receive "a stern warning" - I deserve no such warning as I have done nothing wrong. I disagree with Camelbinky on many things, and allegations like this only encourage animosity, but I have no desire to bait him for my amusement. For the avoidance of doubt, I won't give an undertaking to avoid Camelbinky altogether, or avoid subjects that might interest him. --hippo43 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Doncram's version of his previous disagreement with me doesn't ring true to me, but there's not much point getting into that fight again. He may see some of my edits as 'negative', but so what? We could argue all day about how whether tagging articles or deleting badly-written trivia is 'constructive' or 'positive', but that isn't what this "incident" is about, and such discussion fudges the issue.

If an editor thinks I'm annoying, or doesn't like some of my edits or my style, and we don't exactly get along, that is one thing. Camelbinky, however, didn't politely raise this issue on my talk page - he came here and claimed that I am stalking him, citing a specific policy - a claim which is, frankly, horseshit, and against which I have every right to defend myself. --hippo43 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to Hippo's comments then await for an uninvolved admin, so any more responses and insults to me and "my horseshit" and "edits that are crap" will have to wait until after that. I have indeed many times asked Hippo to stop, after 8 months of this getting worse each and every time he feels "vindicated" and then he escalates with the next wikihounding, I did not feel it was necessary to contact him again. I am sick of these insults that my editing is crap, or my edits are "badly written trivia". I would love for Hippo to find one article that he has written over 90% of the content of that can rival

WP:V policy was written for me based on my (and others) ideas at the RS/N, but I am the one who asked for the original essay to be written and what to put in; with that one contribution I have been more constructive at policy-making than Hippo has EVER with all his contributions put together. Ask User:Blueboar whether or not I have been a plus or minus for RS/N and OR/N. I would put my edits against those of Hippo any day on whose more constructive at Wikipedia if this is how he wants this decided.Camelbinky (talk

) 00:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, I'm a fairly inactive Wikipedia user (not by choice, but I just don't have the time), but I have contributed under IP addresses at times. As a completely objective third party, I would submit to hippo43 that referring to anyone's work as horseshit isn't going to get you very far with anyone- it only debases your arguments. I helped to reconstruct a couple of pages unrelated to those mentioned above, and it's not easy to do at all, let alone if someone is being overly negative. As a Wikipedia user with no power to do anything whatsoever, I'd suggest that simply being civil would go a long way. I did sift through the history here a little bit, and if someone said to me about the Sven Erik Kristiansen page that I resurrected what hippo43 said about some of Camelbinky's contributions, I'd probably feel the same way. If someone wants to say that I'm out of line, by all means do, because I may very well be. But maybe hearing from the perspective of someone who is just an average contributor would help some. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was the allegation of stalking that was called horseshit

Dmcq (talk

) 12:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke, I came here on request from Camelbinky, because I don't follow AN/I (this discussion is a good reason why). I'll give my 2¢ and most likely won't offer much more here, because again, AN/I annoys me. Camelbinky has been a great editor, especially for

WP:NYCD, in which he is one of our most active editors. Yes, his arguments go long, as shown here, and he has threatened to leave the project (WP) twice. I've had to coax him back here, because his retirement would be a huge loss for WP:NYCD. He adds so much good content to these articles and helps me learn so much that I can't imagine articles on our hometown area being anywhere close to the quality they are today without him. Since our arguments with doncram back in the day, the two of them have worked feverishly on CD and NRHP articles at an astonishing rate. For all of Camelbinky's faults, they are far outweighed by his content additions in our project. WP:NYCD would be much less without him and our articles would be much worse (I mean for christ sake, he created Timeline of town creation in New York's Capital District

- look at it and you'll understand my astonishment).

As for hippo43, he has been the equivalent of a fly at a picnic; I'm not offering proof diffs because as a relatively uninvolved editor (I haven't gotten too into these ridiculous discussions), I'm giving you my feelings on the situation, which literally boil down to the fly at a picnic simile. The argument at Siena College was annoying and really unnecessary. I suggested replacing Loudonville and Newtonville with the town of Colonie. In his edits there and at Administrative districts of New York, he seems to have proven that he doesn't know the legal definition of city, town, village, and hamlet in New York State, which is well defined in state law. This is annoying, because Loudonville and Newtonville aren't towns and have no legal boundaries. I see I'm ranting now, and I apologize, but I found that situation extremely annoying. I don't follow hippo around, so I don't see his edits until he hits an article on my watchlist. Albany, New York is one of them, and his reverts of C's library addition was something I was a bit unsure about. I know that C added that because there was an article on the front page of the Times Union (Albany) around that day, so I wasn't surprised; the info is somewhere above trivia but less than essential. What really annoyed me was addition (and readdition) of the length tag at Albany. That was completely unnecessary and hippo blatantly ignored contributor consensus (of the people that know the most about the article).

So, do I care about this whole situation? Not really. But for any negatives that C may be responsible for, they are nothing compared to his positive contributions. That being said, C would do well to try to consciously avoid these types of arguments. As for hippo, his contributions to CD-related articles are few, and while I have no problem with wikignoming at random articles, when they begin to annoy the regulars (who know what they're doing, regardless of

NYer

05:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is veering away from the issue at hand. The claim made by Camelbinky is that I have been

hounding him. This is without basis and it was this claim, not his work, that I described above as "horseshit". This "incident" is not about whether Camelbinky's work is valuable, or whether my editing some articles is "positive" or "constructive" in the eyes of some editors. It is about whether I have been hounding Camelbinky. Again, I have not, and nobody has brought forward any evidence that fits the definition of hounding, or detailed which part of the policy I'm supposed to have infringed. --hippo43 (talk

) 09:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the light of Camelbinky's unfounded statement about me a while back of "Bad faith when people take their issues to multiple locations trying to find more people who view the same as them and bring them here" Camelbinky might care to explain upstateNYer's statement 'Okey doke, I came here on request from Camelbinky'.

Dmcq (talk

) 13:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that in the interest of peace and staying on topic. I would like to say though if you really want to alert people I think it would be best to put a message on a project talk page or talk page of the main associated article rather than appealing to specific people directly which seems more like cherry picking.

Dmcq (talk

) 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is cherry picking bad when you're asking the opinion of people that are familiar with the situation and in the know on the articles affected?

NYer

15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See

Dmcq (talk

) 11:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Equazcion has already showed that Hippo's conduct in going to the two policy/guideline pages from my talk page was in bad faith, it does in fact meet the criteria put down in policy about hounding. Hippo has lied in this thread about having contributed in policies and guidelines alot in the past, Equazcion has also proven that false. Hippo can say whatever he wants but its not the truth, he has a habit of that as
  Albany, NY and many admins called him out on that at Siena College
  .
• This thread is not just about ONE incident, it is the ENTIRE history of Hippo's conduct, UpstateNYer and Doncram's opinions are very relevant as to Hippo's conduct. Hippo tries to make it out to be about "one incident" as that makes it easier for him to "get away with it" as he learned the last time I brought him here. Hippo learns each time he thinks he's "vindicated" and then you see him regurgitate the things he "learned" the last time, and then the next time he "pokes" at me it is escalated and more brazen and he tries what happened last time to get away with it. Hippo, you think you have the right to go anywhere and comment on anything, you do not have that right if the only reason you are going to certain places is to comment in opposition to an individual on purpose because that individual is there, you've basically admitted to violating WP:HOUND by admitting you went to these places because you fundamentally disagree with my views and wanted to post in opposition to me.
• If no admin is willing to step in, and it really is bothering me inhibiting my work on here and my personal life that no admin has stepped up, Im quite disappointed; I dont know what the next step I can do is, because this will happen again and I'll be bringing Hippo back here each time.
  WP:HOUND are quite clear, and he has violated it and will continue to follow me and "watch" me and get involved where he has no reason except to be in opposition to me (which is not his right as he thinks, it is clear violation of WP:HOUND). I emplore PLEASE for an admin to end this now. Im seriously getting physically sick over all this and I'm getting disillusioned with Wikipedia if it cant deal with something like this.Camelbinky (talk
  ) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you're unhappy with the "results", and you're trying to show a long pattern of issues, then perhaps

BWilkins ←track

) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and Threats

talk · contribs

) 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that pointing out that mediation is needed is a threat. I do not believe that questioning an editor's ability to educate the Semantic Web community about search tools is the kind of personal attack that Wikipedia policy is against. I do not believe that Wikipedia should be ignoring academic citation and peer review as instruments of assuring notability. If I'm wrong, and if moreover deleting my opinion is appropriate behaviour, then I have nothing to lose from the 'threats' made by Collectonian anyway as there's no point in my being here. BarryNorton (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Somewhat uncivil comments" in a somewhat heated deletion debate are not something I consider actionable. I also think User:AnmaFinotera's nomination of the article for deletion is extremely misguided. So far it has been an unanimous snow-keep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether you feel it was misguided is not a reason for Barry to make uncivil comments, nor were they made only within the context of the deletion debate. The AfD is a valid way to address the issue of notability when the discussion on the talk was almost entirely attended by DBpedia members and those too related to it to be considered fully neutral. AfD gives a way to have the community as a whole to determine if the topic is notable, not just those involved with it. --

talk · contribs

) 21:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but one look at the Google Scholar results establishes notability beyond reasonable doubt. I know you disagree - but you're plain wrong about this. You, on the other hand, have mass-templated an inexperienced editor (while the account is old, he barely edited except for the last few weeks) instead of explaining the issue in more details - either its a case of

WP:DNTTR. It's an unfortunate situation, but one that could have been diffused with more flexibility on either side. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 22:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the AfD, Google Scholar results are not infalliable nor does it produce only reliable sources. Simple pointing to search results does not show notability. And he'd already had more than enough warnings from other before blanking his own talk page that it was neither bitey nor

talk · contribs

) 22:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

More than 800 Google Scholar hits, with over 200 references to the main paper, are plenty of evidence. Add in the coverage by SciAm, the BBC, and 3SAT, and there should not even have been a discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That is your view, which is best expressed in the AfD. I've already addressed those issues there. Thank you. --

talk · contribs

) 22:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd note this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DBpedia&action=historysubmit&diff=326006572&oldid=326006397 - removal of a 3rd party review request, followed by a request for deletion probably wasn't the best idea. Nloth (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

30 was clearly not valid for the discussion, which involved half a dozen editors. --

talk · contribs

) 06:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked BarryNorton for 24 hours for this, which is reverting the removal of what Collectonian regarded as a personal attack. As per my rationale, even if not intended as one the revert was inflammatory and disruptive -
  WP:AGF would require the comment to have been either discussed or rewritten to ensure it was not percieved as negative commentary upon the individual. However, as ever, I am not wedded to my actions and if there is consensus to overturn then my input is not needed to act upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk
  ) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but bad block. The comment is barely even incivil, much less a PA. Removing in the first place - and by an involved editor - arguably violates

WP:TPG. Restoring it may not have been wise, but is hardly a blockable offense. Compare the alleged attack to what Giano wrote in his latest spree... --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 22:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I entirely disagree (well, obviously). If someone takes offense at what is written, even if no offense was intended - in fact, especially if no offense was intended - then the last thing a well meaning editor would wish to do would be to compound the misunderstanding. No, the comment of itself was "barely even incivil" and deserving of little more than the warning provided, but re-introducing it without change in the knowledge that it was considered (mildly or not) offensive is

harassing. However, if other uninvolved editors or admins, practiced in the neutral application of policy, feel it excessive then I have no objection to it being varied or lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, his last remark here (as well as the others above) does not give me much confidence that this user desires to play nice with others. I can sort of see why the user was temporarily blocked. MuZemike 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schultz's comments so I'll undo the block. This seems like a storm in a teacup, and even that only thanks to some hard work by Collectonian. It could and should have been a complete non-event I feel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to throw any roadblocks up over it. I just hope we didn't make the situation worse by unblocking though. However, I will note it's about downright impossible not to bite a newbie who is so darn hypersensitive and defensive from the get-go. MuZemike 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how it works out. Or rather, the Westpondians and Antipodeans will see; I'll be off to bed shortly. I haven't marked this resolved in case anyone would now like to kick me over this. And if it all goes Pete Tong you'll know which idiot to blame for the mess: → Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the unblock. All editors involved in this contentious AfD and on Talk:DBpedia should however remember to maintain civil discourse. To the DBpedia/Semantic Web folks, I am an academic and am often frustrated by AfD's, uninformed edits, or even speedy deletion requests to articles in my sphere of expertise. I have had high-schoolers argue with me about topics in gastroenterology that they have no knowledge of (or even threaten me with blocks). But understanding that well-meaning efforts (including article improvement and deletion discussions) can be made by individuals with no particular expertise in a given subject matter is part and parcel of editing material on a general encyclopedia as an expert. -- Samir 08:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to point you guys to
  WP:POINT, and reverted the removal of that nomination when someone pointed it out [100]. Everyone in that discussion had a pretty thick skin, and nobody saw any need to bring it up here, but I think most people found his behavior rude and disruptive. I can see how a newer or more sensitive editor would be offended, and it would at least be nice if BarryNorton acknowledged that maybe he went a little bit too far. If you're reading this, please realize that nobody is out to get you, and there is no campaign against academia behind these two recent deletion attempts. If you avoid attacking people's motives just because they disagree with you, people will listen to you more and the whole discussion will be a lot smoother. --Jonovision (talk
  ) 12:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

USer: 86.133.125.152

edit war. What should I do? Tim1357 (talk

) 22:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made the IP user aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 23:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Might I recommend

WP:AIV? I would consider their actions vandalism. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G

) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Earwig told me that here would be a better place because the edits were more controversial. And they are not necessarily vandalism. ( A blatant attempt to undermine to credibility of Wikipedia) Tim1357 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice no attempt whatsoever to respond to the notices on the talk page, and no explanation for any edits. I say a 24 hour block may get the point across. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a response. Should the block remain? (I removed the Resolved template) Tim1357 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What did he say? (I read his response, but don't understand what he means) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but it is still a response. Tim1357 (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If I'm parsing it right, s/he is saying that people with the name "Sarder" or "Singh" are part of a "Jatt" clan, rather than "Khatri" clan. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rockwick spammer tries again

The Rockwick Capital spammer (see

User:Rockwick for the history) is back.[101]. They got around the blocklist entry for "Rockwick" by using the name "RockwickCapital" with no space. Irunijvnfdivu (talk · contribs) is the latest single-purpose account involved. They're also now promoting "Cohen & Jewison" (it used to be "Cohen & Stein"). They seem to try this about once a month. --John Nagle (talk

) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Redvers. TNXMan 12:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal threats from User:Lecen

I was personally attacked by User:Lecen. He wrote: "This time I will ask for you head. Hear my words: I will not give up until you are expeled from here." [102].

This user is promoting a campaign against me, leaving messages to other users, with personal attacks, to rise disruptions. [103];[104];[105].

This is all because the user is trying to get the Ownership of article Brazil. He revertes and criticizes anybody who tries to contribute for that article.[106];[107]. Since I was trying to discuss the dubious informations he added to that article [108] he decided to open a campaign against me. Opinoso (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lecen has been notified here. Singularity42 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given the hostile environment and ongoing edit warring at the
  talk
  ) 01:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the User:Lecen think the article is his own. Acting on their own political ideologies and ignoring the opportunity that we have in editing "Brazil", this user does not allow any audacious collaboration that goes against his ideals (for example, I wrote a section on the leisure in Brazil, and cited the country's dictatorship - Lecen saw this as a political act, when in fact I didnt say that the dictatorship was good or bad...) I think the best way to resolve this situation would be to construct a space for users to leave their ideas and others users to intervene with votes and comments ... Excuse my English. Auréola (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, you write: This user is promoting a campaign against me, leaving messages to other users, with personal attacks, to rise disruptions. [three diffs]. I've read these three diffs and they do not constitute a campaign, they do not contain any personal attack, and they do not disrupt. Clearly Lecen does not like your edits, and is alerting a small number of other editors to new developments in them. Like it or not, doing this is within Lecen's right. Indeed, you have issued alerts about other editors in a rather similar (and legitimate) way. Now, you may have a genuine beef with Lecen's comments and edits, and if so you are welcome to express it, but exaggeration does not make you more persuasive. ¶ So "I will ask for [your] head" might in another context be interpretable as statement of intent to have you executed. Here it pretty obviously does not. He hopes you'll be blocked. Of course anybody is free to hope that anybody else will be blocked (on occasion I've wished that three or more energetic editors on Brazilian matters could all be blocked), but expressing such an idea is uncivil at best. That's the kind of matter that you are welcome to bring up here; please don't muddy a complaint with additional dubious allegations. -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am at full disposal of any Editor or Administrator who has the desire to know anything regarding to the matter itself. All it has to be done is to warn me in my talk page. Regards, - --Lecen (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the problem is Opinoso's behaviour, always insulting other editors, accusing them of racism, distorting sources, calling bona fide edits vandalism, and generally trying to avoid anyone else from editing the article he "owns". Ninguém (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot removing valid language links

• JAn Dudík (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On List of Wikipedias; vandalism after final warning. His bot continues to remove valid language links from this page. After getting in touch with the bot owner, he still left his bot unadjusted, and the bot now again has removed valid language links from the same page. Amsaim (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're going about this the wrong way. You don't warn the bot owner for vandalism. Rather, you have them shut down the bot (or block the bot) and have them fix it. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 15:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed only links to Project (Wikipedia) namespace, these pages have its own group of links. JAn Dudík (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a policy dispute to me: The Swedish version of List of Wikipedias is sw:WP:Lista över Wikipedias språkversioner. Is it OK to have cross-namespace interwiki links? I have no idea. Is the right place to discuss this on the English Wikipedia or on Meta? I have no idea. But these are questions that need to be asked and answered. Meanwhile, edit warring is not acceptable. Hans Adler 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

page:

Diamond Twister

Resolved

 – User took care of it ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This page has been locked (or something to that effect) by admins. The game is similar to Bejeweled, but published by Gameloft. Can an admin create a redirect from Diamond Twister to Bejeweled? Thanks, --

talk

) 16:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tamil religious poetry

Contributions from 213.55.76.18 et al. There's a long history of additions from related multiple sources on a few related pages, esp.

Campantar and Manikkavacakar, each adding the same type of material, which is NPOV OR only tangentially related to these pages. User has been disruptive and uncivil in communication and destrucive in editing; cannot be induced to seek citations or better pages for these contributions. Redheylin (talk

) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for community ban of User:Eloquence

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of

WP:RFC/U

.

Community consensus is nearly unanimous that this year's fundraising banners are atrocious. In accordance with this consensus, the messages were disabled in the site-wide Common.css file. Unfortunately, that change was rolled back by User:Eloquence, under the claim that "fundraiser sitenotices aren't subject to community consensus". Other statements by this user, who apparently was appointed to some kind of position by Jimbo, exhibit further contempt for the Wikipedia community. Examples: [109] ("community members hating a banner tells us very little about how well it works or how the general public perceives it ... removal of the site-wide fundraising messages by community members isn't OK"), [110] ("fundraising banners have always been Foundation decisions"), [111] ("the parts of a message or banner that make you hate it are also the ones that make it work"), [112] (insisting that banners need to be as obtrusive as possible).

We must emphasize that this site belongs to the Wikipedia community, not Jimbo's cronies. At this point in time, it appears that the only way to effectively communicate the depth of our feelings in this matter is to community-ban Erik Moller, aka Eloquence, from the English Wikipedia. Time to reassert ourselves and take back this site. It's a drastic step, but it is the only thing we can do, unless Wikipedia is to degenerate into just another closed, top-down website. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Erik Möller is the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation. –xeno^talk 18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• This is the wrong venue for these concerns. WMF has the right to execute official actions on WMF sites. This site is literally owned by WMF. Administrators here do not have the power to overrule official actions. Please take your concerns to WMF. I am closing this discussion as it is not an incident that can be handled here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 16 November 2009 (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.

The Troubles - Editors and Admins appear to be expanding Arbcoms rulings to non troubles related articles

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

.

I am not sure if this is the correct place to comment on this matter but there is a problem over at British National Party that needs urgent attention.

An Admin has come along and claimed that this article is all of a sudden now "Troubles related" which means there is a 1RR imposed on it. The BNP have NOTHING to do with the troubles, and if this is not dealt with its clear admins will go around imposing their own views on any articles that could be mildly related to Ireland. That would include the United Kingdom, and all UK political parties which have a policy on Northern Ireland.

How is that reasonable? Who decided this and where was it decided that the BNP is related to the troubles? The BNP is not a loyalist group associated with nothern Ireland, it is a far right British nationalist party which is completely different. Please help thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, BNP doesn't fall under Troubles. Having said that, the edit-spatting there, needs to be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree although i only made to reverts, well within the reasonable limit and that was because people changed the article with no agreement originally. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the other suggested places to post placed above this queestion however, requesting a clarification from arbcom is going to take a long time. I need admins to look at this matter and i would like to see exactly where in the past hour the BNP has become a "Troubles related article". There is no justification what so ever for this. This appears to be one admin deciding for themselves that its suddenly troubles related, and there has been a pattern. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since one of their principles is to welcome Eire back into the United Kingdom, I'd say that falls under the "closely related" description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

like i say if we are apply that as the required standard for "troubles related". then place the 1RR on every single article to do with the United Kingdom, Ireland and their political parties, they all have policies on northern Ireland. This is shocking. The BNP is not a loyalist paramilitary group from Northern Ireland it is a far right racist political party. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What can I say?! I predicted exactly this problem when some Admins compared Ireland/Britain disputes to those about Macedonia! At least I guess this is at least as much a "troubles related" article as the M50 motorway. Sometimes all you can do is laugh. Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Atleast the Motorway fight was between Irish and British editors. I do not think Irish editors are involved with whats happening over at the BNP page although now its been labelled as troubles related it will act as a magnet. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is extremely likely! As so a new front will open. This is more like the Americans stepping into Vietnam than Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made edits to that article going back to beginning of 08 and BW maybe it was your edits and not as you call Irish editors that brought Elonka to her decision. BigDunc 19:40, 16 November 2009 (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.

This page needs Oversighting - desperately!

Resolved

 – Revisions partially deleted by User:Alison

.

The edit summaries that the vandalism-only accounts included need to be obliterated - now! GiantSnowman 20:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries appear to have been deleted already...I don't think oversighting would add anything to the solution.

talk

) 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits were removed after I posted this...and oversighting/deleting - whatever, it all has the same outcome in the end! GiantSnowman 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, emailing User:Oversight is a faster way to handle this that doesn't broadcast the fact that there is oversight-worthy material sitting out there for people to read. NW (Talk) 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all worked out well in the end, but I'll use that method in future! GiantSnowman 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry - it's all good :) - Allie ^❤ 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Submarine Communications Cable

At WP:Editor_assistance/Requests#Submarine_cables I have provided the details of an incident which was previously mentioned on this noticeboard. Sorry if this is not the proper way to alert you to this, but I can't find the previous discussion. NathanielDawson (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, block evasion, spamming and disruption. Wikipedia is not a place to to promote terabitconsulting.com. --Hu12 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notified others involved, Seems NathanielDawson (talk · contribs) is continuing his disruption pattern, Ive had to close several discusion by request. Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, spamming, block evasion and disruption.

Accounts

• NathanielDawson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• CasesBased (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 24.203.133.136 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 83.170.113.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 83.170.113.97 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 174.132.254.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• American1heavy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 66.131.119.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Misinterpretation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Antiquity10091 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

User

disruptive and unproductive. At this stage, more apropriate measures may be warranted.--Hu12 (talk

) 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the posts. There is no promotion of that website taking place. There are reasoned discussions about actions that have taken place since the external links were removed. An involved admin, Hu12 continues closing these debates. NathanielDawson (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should point out to User:Hu12 that the links themselves were never seriously considered to be spam; instead it was the manner in which I inserted them that was spam. I've long since given up trying to insert them, even though I think their removal, after more than two years, was inappropriate. My primary concern now is ensuring that the two new sections which I added to the article are correctly sourced. Note that rather than deleting the new, irrelevant sources, I have left them on the page and tried to seek consensus via the above debate. But User:Hu12 saw it more fit to close the discussion rather than allow it to play out. Perhaps he or she would prefer that I delete the references without discussion first?

Why are legitimate discussions being stifled by involved admins?

NathanielDawson (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Two-year-old spam is still spam. Sometimes it can go under the radar for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that really contributes to the discussion. By the way, Baseball Bugs, I do admire you; I actually laughed out loud when I read your posts about "legal threats" below. Thank you for lowering my blood pressure, honestly!

My point is that the references, which happened to be up there for two years, to this day were never considered to be spammy in and of themselves. They were blocked on the spam list only because of the way in which I kept on reinserting them.

Back to my original point, which is the way in which the references were replaced with completely irrelevant and illegitimate ones. A debate about this was taking place until User:Hu12 closed the discussion.

Anyway, it's clear that nobody who has commented on this issue today knows anything at all about the actual topic. Whatever, fine; let the page suck. I did my best to improve it, first with updates to the external links, then with references to peer-reviewed sources. But I was prevented from doing so. It would be nice if the page could be cleaned up now, but absolutely nobody has shown an inclination to do that. These noticeboard pages are really a whole other universe of confused logic and people looking to exert their control over this increasingly sad and agenda-driven community. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Links that are spam can get inserted and it can take awhile for them to be uncovered. Their long-term presence does not legitimize them. Anyone can raise issues about the legitimacy of links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. How old are we? I never said that the links' longevity proved that they weren't spam. Anyway my wife says that I'm nuts to be even participating in this discussion and she's absolutely right. This is a magnificent forum for ten year olds to exert power and vanquish all attempts at logic. Maybe I can spend the next two years editing pages about the X-Men and then become an administrator. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current article. The terabit consulting links were replaced with better links, and all of the other map links you were attempting to remove look fine to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the references. The references have been replaced, that is the issue. I wish there was someone who could follow this debate from its beginnings, but its impossible because User:Hu12 closed the debate. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP 92.252.45.229

Resolved

 – User:Martinj Hoekstra got 'im. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Anom user is continuing vandalizing user pages adding question: "I want to know, if

bisexual. Is there anyone who can answer these question ?" The example is here, but there are lot of similar acts. Beagel (talk

) 20:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You need

^Speak.

21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to the IP's irrelevant question, at his IP page & at the Pope's article. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat on users talk page

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

---

Resolved

 – An actual admin came along, and said he's just taking the mick (whatever the hell that means). Let's go spend our time on some other ANI thread with more staying power. In a pinch, someone could start a kmweber thread or something... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gatemansgc&diff=326241312&oldid=326240368

User_talk:66.177.73.86

Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the exchange there; this was obviously a joke. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a joke... If it's not, then there's not much in the way of legal action that he could take...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Legal threats are forbidden. Block it. Especially be mindful that he admits to being a sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of the 3 non-admins in this thread are you commanding to block the user? He put a tongue-sticking-out-smiley after the legal threat. That means he's just taking the mick. –xeno^talk 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're the only admin within 50 miles of this thread; he must be talking to YOU. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't command anyone, I merely advise. And part of that tongue-out was likely related to his boasting about sockpuppetry. Have fun! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the fact that anyone actually thought I was being even remotely serious is downright saddening. I've just lost faith in humanity, people. The joke could not have been any more obvious. My 3-year-old brother could tell I was joking. Good LORD, people.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I read your whole exchange from the beginning and realised that it was nothing but friendly banter. However, I totally agree with Bugs. Rules are a lot easier to enforce if they are zero tolerance so as to remove any potential for 'grey areas' or discussion, so the moment we make an exception (even for such an obvious joke) the whole concept of WP:LEGAL is thrown into jeopardy. RaseaC (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

However, I've just seen we have an incompetent admin so, w/e. 'Sue me'. RaseaC (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG IM GONNA SUE U!!1!--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So... if I told you "lol dats so mean i oughta kill u for saying dat XD", I would be thrown into Wikipedia court? Blocking me from accessing the English Wikipedia for such an obvious joke is beyond absurd. The more time I spend here, the dumber it gets.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, I don't think a block for legal threats makes any sense. However, the insults you seem to be flinging at everyone at every opportunity are getting quite old fast. If you aren't going to improve the Encyclopedia, could you please find another website to play on? I note you said earlier today that if someone gave you a warning, we wouldn't hear from you anymore. If you aren't going to stop the nonsense, then please keep your word, and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am archiving this thread for the second time and I do not think that edit-warring with an admin on an admin noticeboard about this now-non-issue would be advisable. Please move along somewhere else, as Floquenbeam so rightly says.

Bencherlite^Talk

00:24, 17 November 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AzaToth

Resolved

 – Kicked into the dustbin Rodhullandemu 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone run a beady eye over this?. There was also a patent nonsense CSD tag on AzaToth's page placed by the same user which I have removed as being applied in bad faith. I suspect douchebaggery is in play. Crafty (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu just blocked indef. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good. I think I saw Triplestop close down the MfD too. Mark this one as dead? Crafty (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article subject (living person) at AFD

I've just redacted some nasty, personally directed comments in an AFD nomination (

WP:BLP, and whether additional/alternative action would be (more?) apropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• A polite note on his tlak page might well have achieved the desired result. Better to have him refactor his own comments than include an aggressive statement of redaction within the text of the nomination (which is really not a lot better than the nominator's comments about the subject). Guy (Help!) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps it might also be an idea if an admin were to close what should have been an obvious G11? Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I closed this AfD as delete. I agree with Guy; I don't think this was as egregious as it's being painted to be. A polite request for redaction was the better option. No real harm done, though.

Tan | 39

21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I really can't fathom the responses here. Flagrant BLP violations are to be removed "without waiting for discussion." The user in question has a significant history of incivility and derisive comments violating BLP, and as recently as a few days ago did not respond to similar claims of incivility in an AFD discussion [113]. The article subject is a political activist who has self-published books relating to his political advocacy; there was no justification for the comment that his purpose in publishing the books was to "go around posing as an author." There was also no justification for the (transparently false) attempt to out the article subject as a blocked user. It's not appropriate to use AFD as a

coatrack to attack the article subject, notable or net, particularly when the attacking comments are so far from accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason BLP doesn't give us leave to do that is demonstrated here. You have interpreted an attempt to be funny or witty as defamation (I'm referring to this revision, and have refactored another user's comments and left a somewhat hyperventilating comment here and at the AfD. AfD nominations like that are not OK and should trigger some response, but that response is best left to discussion and warning, not immediately escalated.

WP:BLP is an astonishingly powerful policy and requires that we be responsible enough to invoke it only when necessary. Protonk (talk

) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that "an attempt to be funny or witty" by ridiculing the subject of an article is exempt from BLP. And I don't believe, given similar edits from the nominator elsewhere, that the nominator's primary motive was to do anything but ridicule the subject. And what is funny or witty about making a transparently false allegation that the article subject had posted "racist rants" to Wikipedia, a claim added after the revision you link to? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The AfD opener might have, by AGF of bring specific and grabbing attention, accidentally been in not quite the best of faith. The editor does actually have Wikipedia guidelines to back it up; This[114] (deeper in)

(talk)

08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange vandalism

Some how someone is running something that is deleting words that come after the word accidently. I probably made 40 reverts in the last like 10 minutes to several IP's and registered names. I don't know where else to report this. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a malfunctioning bot trying to correct the spelling "accidently" to "accidentally", or something like that. Could you give us a couple of diffs, or mention a page or two where this has happened? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So I see: Very odd: [115], [116], [117], [118], [119]. CIreland (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the edits I am referring to. There are hundreds of reverts now by myself and a few others. Kinda weird - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More examples: Special:Contributions/Takk825 and Special:Contributions/Sxy jay. I tagged those two as socks. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like deja vu all over again. I think I can guess who the responsible party might be and he is on irc right now, so someone might want to have a word with him. Sigh. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And who would that be? Wknight94 ^talk 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting up again now if someone has time to watch. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I only have a guess. I have no direct knowledge so I don't want to make accusations or name names. It's just a pattern of errant bots that regulars here have seen before. Someone else who recognizes it could ask the person nicely if they know what's going on. If it's what I suspect, it's not deliberate vandalism but it's definitely misconduct. Alternatively, go on #wikipedia-en and mention that this incident is taking place. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being coy, why don't you let the rest of us in on the secret? It's apparent that most of us (perhaps all of us) don't recognize what's going on. The next step is to indef-block all of the accounts in question... Horologium (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do indef all those accounts. I'm not trying to be coy, I'm trying to not get someone in trouble if they aren't actually the responsible party (which might be the case). The account name is something like "Zetarequest". 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already blocked. And the IPs are hard-blocked for a time. Wknight94 ^talk 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's subtle enough, 68. I don't think that individual is foolish enough to start playing with bots at this time. (At least, I hope not.) Horologium (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are right. I actually like that guy despite all his foolishness. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a *channer. Clever, although annoying. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's possible, though I wouldn't have placed it as their usual MO. Anyway, if it's still happening then maybe someone can add a rule to the edit filter for it. Running a checkuser also seems advisable. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It feels like a script-raid in reference to the "I accidentally x" meme. Can we confirm that it stopped? I haven't found any in the last few minutes. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't know about that meme. My apologies to the person I mentioned. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that a couple of people on the chans took notice, but it doesn't appear to have started there. Probably a lone person. If it's stopped, then we should be fine. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the meme assessment. Its the first thing I thought of.--

Crossmr (talk

) 10:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ex-Cubs Factor

A little minor assistance needed. An editor changed it to

Ex-Cubs factor (lower case) and made the original a redirect. I advised him (in vain) that this is not correct, as the main source capitalizes all the words - because it's a title. I would like for someone to undo that redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 04:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, though that page needs a ton of work. The only thing sourced is the name. Everything after the first section seems to be OR/essay. Resolute 04:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Justastud15 and persistant copyright violations

I'd like to raise my concerns regarding edits by User:Justastud15 and persistent copyright violations. This user has on about six occasions copy and pasted material from other websites; they were given warnings ([120], [121], [122]) and has received two blocks of their editing privileges as a result ([123] & [124]). In addition, User:Justastud15 has a history of uploading images claiming that they created the work however the images appear to be taken from other Internet sites; they have been warned about uploading images taken from other sites ([125](4 images), [126], and now [127]). In my opinion, this creates possible problems with other images the user has uploaded, though no match is immediately found for them.

Following User:Justastud15's last problem with copy/pasting text, I approached User:Moonriddengirl directly about the problem. I explained([128]) I was unsure of the appropriate place to raise this issue. She said I could take it here but would address that problem herself. Since User:Justastud15 has once again uploaded an image that's in violation of copyrights after having been warned several times in the past I figure it's time to raise the issue here. If there is a better place, first, my apologies, and second I'll take my concerns to the appropriate place (once I know what that is). --TreyGeek (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the right place for a copyright block. Images like

contributor copyright investigation and we'll have a look at these users' other edits. MER-C

09:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No need for extensive investigation on the one you noted, it's easily found here [130] by an image search (see the second row of photos from the bottom). Will tag as a copyvio, I agree that any other image uploads need to be carefully examined as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

←I support a CCI. This contributor has been blocked twice previously for copyright violations. The last time he was blocked, I advised him to familiarize himself thoroughly with copyright policies as future blocks could be extended or indefinite. If he did as advised this note is highly implausible. WP:C says, very clearly, "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement...." Furthermore, with respect to the now deleted File:NOsipczak.jpg, he said, "I (Justastud15 (talk)) created this work entirely by myself." If he found it on Facebook, as he said to TreyGeek, then he knew that was untrue, and this was deliberate deception. I believe an extended or indefinite block may be warranted at this point, but since it's already at ANI figured to discuss it rather than implementing it directly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Remind me again, what was the other username in the deleted diff I posted above? MER-C 13:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hornswoggle93 (talk · contribs). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As requested by MER-C and supported by Moonriddengirl I've submitted a request for CCI. My next question/concern is with this type of investigation or inspection of a user's edits how important is it to raise the possibility of a person editing 'outside' of their username. Say, for instance, it is suspected that a user has, at least in the past, made edits as an IP user while not logged in; is it important to raise this suspicion and, if so, at what point would it be appropriate to do so? (BTW, I'm not accusing anyone of intentional sock puppetry.) --TreyGeek (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally when involved in these, I have attempted to identify all identities under which a contributor has added substantial content. Unfortunately, this isn't always possible. If a contributor is believed to have used an IP that has been widely used by others, it may be easier to list articles of additional concern for evaluation than IPs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose to be more specific, the person behind 68.188.29.77 (talk · contribs) is the one that I am bringing up. The connection is from a post I made to the IP's talk page([131]) thanking them for one of their edits. Minutes later User:Justastud15 responded([132]) on my talk page specifically to what I said to the IP.

The edits made by this IP, the last was at the beginning of August, number over 1000. Most of the edits are to MMA record tables, which are likely not a problem. However, I haven't had time to examine all of the edits. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Over 1,000 isn't that many. I'll run it as well. This contributor has introduced both textual and visual copyvios, as you know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the listing is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Justastud15. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Review requested of a block by a possibly involved adminstrator

Otterathome (talk · contribs). They have a disagreement about appropriate talk page material. This has now escalated to a block imposed by Sarek. This is inappropriate use of admin tools in a dispute. [133]. I previously asked Otterathome to stop edit warring on talk pages, and he DOES need to take the hint - but a 48 hour block is abusive, especially when imposed by someone involved with the discussion. Miami33139 (talk

) 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment that Otterathome repeatedly tried to eradicate was related to the topic at hand (the notability of the

point, and a good block. -- Scjessey (talk

) 19:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was not about the article. It was a sarcastic comment directed at users. I do not disagree that Otter should have left it there, but a (1) block by an (2) involved administrator is not appropriate. Miami33139 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are

disruption they should do what is necessary to stop it - involved or otherwise. I cannot see how it can be "abusive" to apply a good block of an appropriate length for disruption. -- Scjessey (talk

) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This was not a disagreement; this was a user breaking policy and an admin upholding it. That this admin has had impose sanctions on this user in the past is not what "uninvolved admin" is meant to prevent. This is wiki-lawyering at its worst. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarek was involved in the conversation where the revert took place and has been itching to impose bans on Otter for a long time. Miami33139 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Advocating for blocks of disruptive users does not disqualify one from actually carrying out those blocks. Your are purposefully and intentionally warping the "uninvolved admin" concept into directions it was never meant to be taken. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

cf. my comment related to this issue here --Tothwolf (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have renamed the title of this thread to "Review requested of a block by a possibly involved adminstrator". Carry on. NW (Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a good block, but Sarek ideally should have asked someone else to do it, just to avoid this sort of question. It saves trouble in the end. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per DGG. This block cannot be lifted completely unless he fulfils what John specified when declining unblock request. I don't approve of this wikilawyering over involvement; but only thing that could possibly be done to remedy that is for an admin to lift and reimpose the block for the remaining duration, because it was a good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest waiting to see if he can work things out with John: if he can, no need for a reblock, we can just skip straight to time served.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree; that is the most preferred course of action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IP-hopping user at article Lupe Fiasco

There's an IP-hopping user over in the article

Allmusic, also verifies the same. I don't want to inch closer to my third revert, so I'd appreciate another uninvolved admin to give it a look. Thanks. — ξ^xplicit

03:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this one. Reliable sources trump an unsourced "interview" any day.

(talk)

11:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week.

(talk)

12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

main wiki page

Русский on mainpage is wrong translation of 'Free Encylopedia' it should be 'bezplatnaya'(free from payment) not 'svobodnaya' (Freedom) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.227.26 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in a way, they're right with the "freedom" translation, but, stuff on another wiki has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno ... it's "free for everyone to edit", which suggests "freedom" instead of "free from price". Might be a symbolic choice of wording. (

BWilkins ←track

) 14:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean, the main wikipedia landing page for the entire project, or just for the English? The main www.wikipedia.org landing page isn't something we can control. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's intentional. It's not just "free from payment", it's also "free to edit and republish", which many would argue is a bigger deal. --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hobbit films

I requested a move over a redirect to

The Hobbit (films) and after seven days passed and a consensus was reached (which supported the move) I closed the discussion not knowing it was improper of me to do so since I was a participant. So I am here to ask an admin to close the discussion properly and move the page. Thank you -TriiipleThreat (talk

) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

Moved to

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles

.

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

While we have eyes on this ANI thread, I wanted to bring up something else for discussion, the subject of authorizing administrator discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. These sanctions are now routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as

Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case

is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom didn't start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[134] and October-November 2009.[135] Now, I'd like to propose one more amendment, as follows (this is mostly copy/paste from other discretionary sanction cases):

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to the Troubles ArbCom case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Thoughts? --Elonka 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Wording of proposal slightly tweaked per comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Discretionary sanctions have worked well in other contentious areas. It should work fine in this one too. NW (Talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Could we drop the "or normal editorial process" part? It's a problematic (and cloudy) expression. The most recently closed case adopted a "or decorum" provision instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. I have no objection. --Elonka 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support formally now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose; it is unreasonable to expect uninvolved admins to sanction misconduct in this area or uninvolved users to spend any time attempting to resolve it further. It's ArbCom they want; let them have it then. No need to continue to force the community into this impossible situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Rockpocket 06:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A necessary tool for intractable disputes.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support we need something without any question. However we have people gaming the 1RR system by making multiple different POV changes to different parts of an article that should be reverted, but given the 1RR restriction on an article as a whole any editor taking action risks sanction. We also have editors such as Irvine22 who are regularly banned for varying periods and then simply come back and start again, but move over many articles to do with the Troubles making POV edits, interspersed with reasonable or marginal ones. Any uninvolved admin, unaware of the total pattern of edits might interpret action against such editors on a single article as disruptive. We've also seen confusion over what is or is not a good faith edit with consequent issues over if reversion is legitimate, or if the edit should be amended for a compromise. Sorry to go on a bit, but for something to really work here the "uninvolved" admins are going to have to do some detective work rather than just react to an individual article and the need for that is not clear in the above draft. --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Totally oppose - this merely extends the arbitrary powers of Admins who overwhelmingly come from one side of this "cultural" dispute. The wording is so vague it is a charter for the multitude of editors conditioned by Anglo-pov to impose their perspective even further on Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the other disputes mentioned there is a much greater likelihood that Anglosphere Admins won't be conditioned to a particular perspective. That is manifestly NOT the case in Irish v. Britain issues - across a swathe of subjects, not all "troubles-related". This is proven beyond argument, over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah-Nothing else has worked, that is why this is being proposed. If the editors involved in The Trouble would behave in an appropriate manner things like this would not get proposed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah: Discretionary sanctions are deployed against conduct, not article content, that an administrator finds to be irreconcilable with our community's policies. With that in mind, I don't see any merits to your argument. It's also worth noting that, with a pre-defined framework (namely, that disruptive conduct must be taking place in order for a sysop to be allowed to sanction), these provisions are anything but arbitrary.

AGK

13:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: why has this outrageous proposal that will affect dozens of Irish editors not been notified to the people it will affect? Were it not for Vk's latest flip I'd have missed this entirely. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support and proposal. The method used in
  WP:ARBMAC2 worked really well. Macedonia is also a hotbed of ethnic warring. Ethnic wars are one of if not wiki's biggest problems. The time for stronger measures is long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk
  • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem here is the complete absence of a neutral police force. The current situation is way more preferable from a WP:NPOV than the blanket imposition of Anglo-perspective on all Irish articles. The failure to define what a "troubles-related" article is guarantees that we will end up with all Irish-related articles classed as troubles related. You folk simply aren't thinking. This will be no Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So - who will notify the Irish editors who will be victims of this regime? And when? After the deed is done? Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, given how the same group "debating" on my page ended up here so quickly (though there was no notification) can I assume that Vk wasn't the only one writing emails last night? Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose for now. Additional powers (including initial page bans rising to topic bans) are needed, but deciding them here and now is rash. Firstly, the editors involved in the problem should be given the chance to be part of the solution. As Sarah says, no one has been notified. I'm not saying there should be a vote on the content or a three month long discussion on it, as we need the situation to improve now. But at least give editors the chance to comment and make suggestions. Also, as per Snowded I see no specific solution to the slow edit warring issue. I also have issue with these sanctions being left to "uninvolved" admins. We need input from involved admins who are familiar with the editing of VK, Domer, Irvine, Mooretwin, myself or any other editor involved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We should only support extra arbitrary powers for Admins if we are convinced the net result will be good for

WP:NPOV. I'd suggest we'd get a better result in the end with yourself and Domer warring than we'd get from some of the Admins seeking god-like powers. Sarah777 (talk

) 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support A necessary tool for an intractable dispute.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh...which "intractable dispute" do you refer to? The proposers don't make that at all clear? Off2 - Do you regard Kilmichael as part of the troubles that occurred 50 years later? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dislike all of the nationalistic issues that attract opposing sides and constant editing disputes.

Off2riorob (talk

) 12:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, this is a rush job and involved editors have not received any notification, have to strongly disagree with Stu on the issue of involved admins, some are an integral part of the problem. BigDunc 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending proper and timely debate Things seem to be moving here with obscene and seemingly planned haste.
   Giano 
  12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question - what exactly is the problem which this remedy is supposed to be addressing? We need a clear understanding and definition of what the problem is, before we can decide what the solution is. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• No surprise to see some of the usual suspects opposed here. Will Domer48 be along in a day or two to add his disapprobation to the list? Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. Support of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would wish to amend working in the area of conflict to working in the area of conflict or the attempted bullying of those that do I personally have been bullied by both sides at differents stages in my Wikicareer. Bullying is a catch all term and we should all know it when we see it. Maybe a Wikilawyer will show VK was not directly insulting Elonka; maybe Elonka is a strong enough Character or has amassed sufficient mates to brush off attempts at bullying such as this, but many others (including myself) are not in this position. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with the suggestion that any appeals of such sanctions should be handled as proposed in
  Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein 
  13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is an unacceptable "solution" given the events that are responsible for its proposal and continuing support vary in their placement by many in the timeline of history. Cloudy definitions and reactionary sympathetic (or is it systematic) endorsements abound here. Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia are all well outside the normal personal involvement of major chunks of the sysop corps. The Troubles are much "closer to home" and can't be handled in the same way. I endorse Sarah777's view in her "Totally oppose" statement. Statements from sysops such as "Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas" are inappropriate, inflammatory and unhelpful to say the very least. Sswonk (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous rationale. This is not a matter to be decided on a discretionary basis; the facts must be teased out from the rhetoric, prejudices and bias' disregarded, and only decisions made as dispassionately as is possible - with the widest consenus available - enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain this rationale in a bit more depth for someone otherwise uninvolved like myself? My understanding of this is seems to be quite a bit different. The first time I commented on anything related to troubles was a few days ago at an AE request and I noticed there were some flaws not just in some established users own understanding of the sanction scheme, but in the very nature of the sanction (which only specified blocks). Other than the problem of editors repeatedly engaging in problematic conduct in that area, what was also clear was that there was a woeful amount of input from the community (which negates the possibility of having a widest possible consensus). On that basis, I supported giving admins the discretion to let editors be subject to page or topic bans rather than outright blocks for the conduct issues in this area. Why should editors from either non-English or English speaking backgrounds be considered differently on this basic conduct issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My rationale is that this is not a matter where the discretion of an individual admin is going to be accepted by all or even a large majority of the English speaking editing community. Ever. The issues relating to anything relating to Ireland and its culture for the last 400 years is steeped in cultural, religious and political perceptions of the rights and wrongs of events within that history. Any discretionary (for which, read "unilateral") action by any admin is going to be lauded by certain interests and decried by others, depending on what "faction" is being sanctioned. The few truly independent admins will soon be reluctant to act, when their efforts will be viewed and commented upon within the microcosm of (anti)Irish nationalist sentiment. It is, regrettably, an area of such potential disharmony that only truly consensual decision making is going to provide the basis by which resolution will be of any effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that the issue here is not comparable to Armenia/Azerbaijan or other ethno-religious conflicts. First, the Troubles are thankfully over and receding into history. Second, as Less Heard van U points out, this is a controversy between Anglophone editors for whom Freud might have coined the phrase "the narcisscissm of minor difference". I think the first thing that needs to de done here is to clearly define what is meant on Wikipedia by the Troubles and articles related to the Troubles. I would suggest that the Wikipedia article on the Troubles, which dates them from (if memory serves) 1969 to 1997 would be a good place to start. I would also suggest that every article that is determined as being related to the Troubles be tagged with the handy template Rd232 came out with a wee while ago. He's full of helpful ideas that fella. So he is.Irvine22 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • • The problem is that both sides of The Troubles have proven themselves incapable of solving the problem themselves, which is why we're here again. Any admin trying to help in The Troubles is viciously attacked by the "wronged" side, so most avoid The Troubles like the plaque. So it continually descends deeper into the abyss. Since they won't solve it themselves, and this applies to both sides, those few hardy enough to venture into The Troubles are about the only hope we have. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rlevse; utterly fed up with the endless conflict in this area (generally from a very predictable set of editors). That they have taken this long to finally exhaust everyone else's patience is a credit to the tolerance of their peers, but it's long overdue that we do something to salvage this area and open it up to editors who can contribute without bringing along their baggage. To quote Antandrus's perceptive essay, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The ethnic/culture (pick your term of choice) wars are wiki's biggest long term problem. The Troubles is a prime example of that. Editors on both sides push their POV convinced that they are right due to centuries of ethnic/cultural conflict. Massive time and effort by many editors has not helped much in The Troubles. Business as usual will not help. Editors continuing the old conflict in the same old way will not help. Until editors on both sides of any of these disputes finally decide to change, nothing good will be accomplished. Until that time, stronger measures are needed to maintain an atmosphere on en wiki where editors can collaborate productively to improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly bickering at the other side and wasting other users' time and and effort in trying to solve intractable disputes because the editors on both sides of these disputes can't learn to get along and produce quality articles because they're more worried about their view not being "twisted". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose due to involved admins wording. We've already seen a grudge bearing admin issue a ban he had not authority to issue then abusively block the editor based on this non-existent ban, then he has the audacity to troll this noticeboard during this discussion. The idea that admins like that can issue draconian sanctions in future disputes on their own initiative is ridiculous. There's other involved admins who claim to be all neutral and above board and pretend to be guardians of neutrality and BLP, a laughable suggestion if ever I heard one. Would a guardian of neutrality and BLP claim someone who was in custody awaiting extradition is unemployed? Using that edit as a measuring stick, I presume Nelson Mandela was also "unemployed" for 27 years? There's too many admins who are way too involved with various editors in the underlying disputes, the idea that they have free rein to start using the knives they've been sharpening for a long time is a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of reliable sources, and mud slinging? Rockpocket 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have you? Like the reliable source already cited in the article saying he was in custody awaiting extradition when you edited it to "sling mud" at a living person? Your edit speaks for itself, as do the actions of others mentioned. I note that you haven't attempted to do the impossible and defend your edit, and neither have you made any comment about "mud slinging" in reply to the comment made by Angus, which I posted a diff to so it's unlikely you can have missed it. Funny that isn't it? While the overwhelming majority of admins are trustworthy and neutral, there are select admins involved in the dispute who have significant history with certain editors, and the idea that those admins have access to such draconian and far reaching powers that can be employed against editors they clearly don't like isn't right. It's easy to see even right now that certain editors are being singled out while others get away with blue murder, or the admins singling out certain editors are not the ones taking actions against the others when needed. Take the editor you offered to advise (an offer which was accepted) for example. After that offer, he needlessly violated

ambulance chaser, and it is in fact the third time BLP was violated) on an article you have been dealing with, and what was said? And amongst Irvine22's many POV edits, there's this one

yet again on an article you've been dealing with, strange how you've said so little about it isn't it?

Just in case anyone thinks that is an Irish editor moaning about admins being biased against Irish editors, think again. I'm English and play it straight down the middle, and in fact was just responsible for the sockpuppet of an Irish editor being blocked and the currently outstanding request for Arbitration Enforcement against Irish editor Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs). Certain admins, by their actions of lack of them, are unfit to be issuing these draconian sanctions against certain editors on nothing more than their own initiative, it's that simple. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm English and play it straight down the middle. That is funny. Take the advice of your comrades and "cop on to yourself." If you have a problem with my editing,

you know where to go, if you have a problem with my administrative work, then moaning about it here is pointless because its an utter straw man. You know how to sleuth for diffs (when they suit your agenda, of course), so why don't you check when the last time I did any admin work in this area? Address the issue at hand, instead of slinging mud in any and every other direction. Rockpocket

18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Please use dispute resolution like the rest of us and stop calling for martial law. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - provided enforcement will be enacted in the same way as other cases, specifically, at
  WP:AE. Dispute resolution has been tried for years, with little really effective results. Having said that, I would like this thread to remain open for at least some days, to allow the greatest range of opinions. John Carter (talk
  ) 18:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Such "discretionary" decisions can have a great impact on the direction of content. An editor comes in, doesn't like the content, an edit war ensues, the editor get "removed" and the content stays the same. The "discretionary" action resulted in the appearance of consensus and everyone editing the article is happy but the underlying content issue is not resolved. The problem is people's approach to editing (entrenched positions, suspicion, etc.) but we are here to write and encyclopedia that is balanced and informative. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (
  coṁrá
  ) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Too many Irish-related articles have become POV battlefields and thier quality has suffered greviously as a result. It's simply not possible to develop an article when any changes contrary to a POV are immediately deleted by ideologically motivated users. The only way to deal with this is to let Admin's have some discretion as to what is good faith editing (attempting at least to be NPOV) and what is genuibne POV pushing. Let me further add, as an Irish editor that I have nver experienced anti-Irish bias from an Admin. In fact, one of the problems in this whole area is a lack nowadays of Irish Admins on WP. Jdorney (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a few good Irish admins from a range of backgrounds and perspectives would be a good idea. Also, some British specialists in the area would be most welcome - the Brits have been refereeing this thing in R/T for years after all. They'd probably have to be public school/Oxbridge types, who may be available these days with all the problems in the City. But seriously: the problem with Irish/Troubles issues is that they are simply beyond the ken of most normal, good-faith editors, including admins. You need to be steeped in it. There's a "dog whistle" aspect to this, in that there is a range of seemingly simple words - and it may often be just a single word - that a knowledgable editor may drop into an article or discussion and cause a disproportionate eruption of outrage by other editors who can pick up the dog whistle. For those without dog ears, the resulting hubbub seems utterly disproportionate and inexplicable. I think if you made, say, myself and BigDunc admins for Troubles-area articles, and nether of us could edit in the area, and neither of us could use tools without the other's agreement, you might have something workable., A bit like the d'hondt structures at Stormont really. And they work just so well, don't they? Irvine22 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And I wonder why JD?! If they like what you say why would they be biased against you! Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading of it is that the Admns have supported NPOV over partisanship. Users may check this if they want verification. Jdorney (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per current standard practice in other similar cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Good rationale by LHvU. This dispute is in too many people's DNA - unless we can get some admins from Mars, it's never going to have the appearance of unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 23:25, November 12, 2009
• Support The alternative is relying on an outdated reference to
  WP:Probation. If WP:AE is going to be forced to do his, we need as many tools as possible. You don't like it? Give us some community support.--Tznkai (talk
  ) 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's probably the bottom line; if we as admins are expected to deal with this crap (and I accept that it is part of the job description), we want to know that we have the support and means to do so. I further think that some commenters are perhaps worrying far too much about the bias issue; more admin eyes on the situation will act to counter rather than reinforce bias, and we all know that no matter what happens and how much process we follow for the sake of propriety, we're still going to hear accusations of bias. It's just par for the course, but saying so doesn't make it so. Don't let's miss this opportunity because of analysis paralysis. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'll be posting a report later. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think there have been enough problems in this area to justify the extra oversight. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think, though we need to think seriously about safeguards for bullying. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Discretionary sanctions can lead to selective enforcement. I'd rather see a sequence of RfC/U's on the most egregious edit warriors on both sides of the conflict. We remove troublesome editors one by one until proper editing conditions are established. If there has been an RfC/U to document problematic editing, the closing administrator should be able to place an appropriate community sanction. Consensus for a community sanction can be established at RfC/U the same as at ANI. The difference is that RfC/U is more thorough and allows more time for thoughtful consideration. ANI regrettably turns into
  ochlocracy. A rushed, emotional judgment of a complex matter is not good. Jehochman ^Talk
  06:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Your ideas about how RFCs work in this topic area are utterly naive. Nobody would even file an RFC against VK because he was beyond redemption, nobody could be bothered to take the time to document a detailed case just to be told to fuck off, especially as ANI never gave a crap either. Past RFC's against Domer and Sarah et al have achieved sod all in terms of change, through a combination of wikilawyering and willfull silence. These are editors who do not give a toss about what the community outside their small gang of meatppuppets thinks (this ANI thread should be evidence of that). As such, third party non-admin uninvolved editors will not touch RFCs on the matter with a barge pole. RFCs don't work here. If we can't have admins empowered to deploy discretionary sanctions from a neutral perspective, then by all means, let's have a full arbitration case covering all of them, because it is nonsense to suggest normal editors have not already attempted to deal with these intransegent and willfully ignorant people, who see cabals and conspiracies at every turn. They are here to do their thing inspite of the community, unless or until they are forcibly removed, like VK. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The potential for 'mission creep', to expand many Ireland-related articles (where there may be 'normal' disruptive editing) by classifying them as 'Troubles -related', is unacceptably high. Such special restrictions discourage bona fide editors from participating. RashersTierney (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. As proposer. --Elonka 23:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been closed as "no consensus". Is that related to the fact that most of the Admins here are one one side of the argument? Surely not? Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence was sufficient and constructive, and I happen to agree. But the remainder, much like some of your other comments in these discussions, has been unhelpfully inflammatory - it needs to stop, and I'm quite surprised at the community's reluctance to deal with it on the spot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, because it would be an example of the use of discretionary sanctions - for which there is no consensus, as indicated above?

It is also a good example of why sanctioning less than optimal conduct during procedure discussions makes for bad decisions; the people sent to the "naughty corner" have their input removed (and why there have been cases of attempted baiting of opposing view holders or allegations of improper language to have them so removed), and are not then - and certainly don't feel themselves - part of the consensus. Thus the cycle restarts, with the added problem of "extensive block logs" being of themselves used as grounds to reduce the arguments being used - which in turn leads to expressions of frustration, resulting in calls for sanctions. It is a tough job to manage these kinds of discussions, and I have been reasonably relieved that calls for warnings and blocks of certain respondents by certain parties have been absent in the Vk discussions. If we are able to discern the premise of the rationales being presented and ignore the noise of the manner in which they are presented then there remains a chance that there can be agreement reached.

Thus endeth the lesson. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate (and have appreciated) that these sorts of disputes can lead to users making a lot of noise in frustration. That said, community patience is not infinite; if my comment is not an indication of that, consider the outcome of the above topic ban and mentorship proposals. Adopting the position you've just stated for too long has effects of its own. My comment was just a hint that the level of adherance (or the lack thereof) to expected standards of behavior and decorum by some users is declining or staying at the same unfortunate level. In other words, for that to gradually improve, my comment invites admins to do their jobs (or other users to help out), with or without tools, on or off wiki, before it's too late (or beyond the point of return). Anyway, it makes me even more glad that I'm away from this topic area normally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been closed as "no consensus". Is that related to the fact that most of the Admins here are on one side of the argument? Surely not? vs. Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. (referring to several Irish editors, by Angus above): which is more inflammatory, and whose "level of adherence (or lack thereof)" to decorum and is a more likely candidate to be "dealt with on the spot", that's subject to prejudices and interpretations. I'll repeat Sarah's sentiment, this discussion was closed[136] before a plea to keep it open was made; it should have stayed closed as "no consensus". Now instead it is resurrected and masquerading as a new thread. If not for the edit summaries, this would have the appearance of being a normal state of affairs to the uninvolved observer. Admins did this manipulation of the topics and archiving, and I echo a call to question such actions. Something inflammatory about that? Sswonk (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, self-proclaimed Irish & British editors should be 'restricted' from those Trouble-related articles. Let the outsiders handle editing those articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not the nationalities of the ediotrs that is the problem, it is the utterly unchecked behavioural issues of a tiny meat puppetting minority that screw everything up on these articles. There are plenty of British and Irish editors who are able to edit civilly and within policy, yet I think most of the time, when they see the regulars appearing and getting up to the same old same old, they simply say, forget it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea, it's open to modifications. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting closure – I am requesting closure of this discussion. This topic, "Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles", was previously closed[137] as a subtopic of "Request for more eyes on a volatile situation regarding The Troubles". The subtopic was taken out of the archive and reopened separately at the request of user Elonka here. Other than this request for closure, there has been no activity in this discussion in the past 26+ hours. Sswonk (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support closure. I opened this thread, but it's clear that consensus has not been reached here. --Elonka 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(followup) I have filed a formal Request for Amendment with ArbCom:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: The Troubles. --Elonka

04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support closure. While more vigilant adminning is clearly necessary on some Troubles-related pages, my to-date experience of the admins involved stands at 1 excellent and 1 terrible, and I would like to see better indicators before granting admins more power in this area. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Belated support for proposal: I closed an AE complaint as recently as a day ago that concerned the The Troubles arbitration case, and found myself a bit lost without discretionary sanctions. Enabling them would be a good thing.
  AGK
  13:19, 17 November 2009 (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.

Who changed my use of the word "lesion" (a welt or weeping sore) to the more correct "lesson"? Is it only people with magnetic personalities that recognise irony? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive578&oldid=1144515947"