Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605

There still seems to be a problem with the

have been attempting to control it for some time. It would appear to have been going on for years.

It is hard to see how they can be trusted to be NPOV whether they are working directly or directing others. --The Golden Circle (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This account is most likely a another sockpuppet of User:Lucyintheskywithdada and a report has been filed [1].

Lucy keeps re-incarnating with about 2 or 3 socks in immediate succession every week or every few weeks to disrupt the article. This is obviously loading the

WP:SPI process. I would appreciate any suggestions on how we can reduce the disruption he is able to cause while the SPI process in in progress and the overhead in filling in reports etc. The time window between him appearing and being blocked provides him with an opportunity to troll. Is there any way we can close that time window? He is very, very predictable and obvious. Regards Bksimonb (talk

) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dwm Deletion Proceedings and User:Blueboy96

Hello. I've been contributing anonymously for a few years now, infrequently enough to never bother registering an account. I'm also a Reddit user, where recently two articles have been popular, Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software and the follow-up to it.

They struck a chord with me, and while I can't readily check my past contributions, it saddens me to learn that many lesser-known articles I've contributed to may have been deleted.

As per the two pages I linked to, I'm here about the dwm proceedings.

I think it's very unfortunate that the first AfD was closed and reopened at all, to me it seems like an attempt to quieten outside voices and go back to business as normal.

The semi-protection of the second AfD also makes me uneasy, as though the Wikipedia deletion process does not respect or want outside input. I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy, so please forgive me if I make errors.

In specific, I came here about the blockings surrounding the dwm proceedings, and the conduct of the administrator responsible for them,

. The following users were blocked by him on February 28:

Special:Contributions/0xd34df00d Registered in December 2007, voted in dwm AfD.

Special:Contributions/DoctorSinus Registered in October 2009, voted in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Gleb-ax Registered in October 2008, did not vote formally.

Special:Contributions/Grasagrautur Registered in February 2010, attempted good-faith source addition to dwm article, voted keep.

Special:Contributions/Ingwar-k Registered in January 2010, voted keep in wmii AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Iorlas Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm, QVWM, Evilwm, Aewm, wmii, Oroborus AfDs. Unblock requested and denied.

Special:Contributions/Jasonwryan Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Jeuta Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD.*

Special:Contributions/Necrosporus Registered in February 2010, voted keep in dwm AfD. Unblock request repeatedly denied after the AfD ended.

Special:Contributions/Thayerw Registered in September 2008, did not vote keep in dwm AfD, had made several good-faith edits prior.*

• Users that I marked with an asterisk only commented once.

The administrator also made several comments that I would deem objectionable in the second dwm AfD, such as "Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event." and "Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue." as if people being interested in something means they should be completely ignored.

User:Anselmgarbe and User:ArneBab were also both blocked. The former is the developer of dwm, and was unblocked on March 3 after substantial discussion. Despite being a contributor dating back to 2004. Following false accusations, he was indefinitely blocked on March 4 following a discussion full of bad faith assumptions, and the block was not repealed nor justified despite opposition by User:Kim_Bruning. User:Henrik unblocked ArneBab today, 17 days after the block was added.

I don't think making one comment (or several) in an AfD discussion merits losing your account permanently (and having unblock requests denied very quickly), and I question the judgement of an administrator who bans so many users without investigating them individually. What happened to assuming good faith and all contributors being valuable?

I question the "meatpuppet" policy in general, it seems to severely punish people who were asked to come to Wikipedia despite not knowing all the policies, and I don't think they should be punished at all for attempting to preserve an article they happen to be passionate about. None of these users were vindictive or made personal attacks. Is it really necessary to ban a dozen users for a small policy violation like this?

At this point I don't think many (or perhaps any) of them will come back. They came to try to save software they enjoy and were met with extreme hostility, with attempts to keep them out of the discussion ending in bans for all of them. If I were in their position, I would not return.

Why is it that the only two who were unblocked had their blocks removed because of further scrutiny? I wonder how many unnecessary permanent blocks are given out every day. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This was exceptionally poorly handled by us, and a massive

User:Blueboy96 or any other user in particular, but surely we can and must to better than this. henrik•talk

07:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not just by us, since the user persisted in recruiting meatpuppets long after it had been explained why that was not a good idea. I would, though, only have blocked any accounts until such time as the debate was finished, since the locus of disruption was the AfD. I also think the AfD was closed wrongly as the loud assertions of "it's teh notable!" were not, as far as I recall, matched by, you know, reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is a valid point. And yeah, the AfD should probably (objectively) have been closed as delete - but we can't go around pissing off everybody who isn't already an editor and knows the details of the system all the time. That is far more important than whether we have an article about an obscure X window manager or not. You and me and all other admins are already getting a poor reputation as needlessly bureaucratic jerks who delete stuff for just the hell of it.

WP:RFA used to have a dozen candidates at the same time, now it's frequently empty. Our user base has plateaued. We need to do more to help people get involved and lower the initial hurdle. Sure, they'll make mistakes. Sure, they'll try to promote their own stuff initially. But we need them. And we need to figure out how to explain our policies in a way that make sense. henrik•talk

12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To close that AfD as a delete after the discussion would mean a complete redefinition of "consensus", or even

WP:CONSENSUS. It would reduce commentators to the status of "suggested argument providers" and leave the final decision fully in the hand of whoever manages to sneak in a close first. Of course, that person then applies a magical process that gives hir perfect knowledge of all policies and guidelines, the ability to evaluate all sources with perfect understanding and unanimity, and to come to a fully justified decision. If we have those wondercreatures among our admins, why not let them come up with the input, too, and bypass all that nasty discussion in favour of admin fiat? We can assign AfDs round robin, or have a lottery on who gets to close what. By the same logic we could have bureaucrats appoint admins without those pesky and divisive community discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 12:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be an entirely valid interpretation of consensus, which is explicitly not a vote. There have been plenty of deletion debates closed against the majority vote where the minority correctly cites policy and the minority only blows smoke. That's why we have the whole "not a vote" thing, because votes can't override policies and AfD debates can't override the much stronger consensus that underpins guidelines like

WP:RS. Guy (Help!

) 18:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing against majority is something I've always been critical about. Closing against an overwhelming majority would be abuse of process. Consensus is the source of our rules, and the ultimate arbiter, not the other way around. If the rules were unambiguous, we could just write a small program to apply them. Since they are not, we rely on people to interpret them. And in this case, even discounting meatpuppets and even counting aggressive whiners, there is certainly no consensus to delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Except the majority doesn't exist only on the AfD, it exists in the policy pages and guideline pages that have been discussed. Just because everyone who helped form those pages doesn't show up at the AfD discussion doesn't mean their opinion on what kind of articles should exist here should be ignored. Yes, you and many others would be quite happy if they could meatpuppet any article they wanted into a keep on wikipedia, but that isn't the way it works. That isn't what consensus says, and you have had a serious case of

Crossmr (talk

) 06:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My silent majority is bigger than your silent majority. And thanks for the personal attacks and the good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How so? There was absolutely nothing in policy nor guideline supporting this article and it was allowed to be muddled into a false no consensus by a bunch of meat puppets. You've had consensus explained to you several times now, but more than one user. I find it rather disconcerting that an administrator apparently has so little grasp on what it is. Local majority has absolutely zero bearing on consensus unless you had hundreds or more users showing up at that discussion. The silent majority behind policies like V, NPOV, Consensus, and guidelines like RS and Notability far outweighed the few people who showed up at the AfD and promised on their mother's grave that it really was super duper important. As would they outweigh just about any AfD going. That is why

Crossmr (talk

) 05:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I've made my points at the AfD, and I refuse to repeat them over and over again because I have learned that it's pointless to debate with someone who ignores arguments because he already knows the

WP:TRUTH. Do you ever take a breath while you write? Or maybe a think? Note that the No consensus close was endorsed unanimously at DRV. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that removing the blocks would be a good minimal first step, perhaps accompanied by an apology. Going past that, the "meatpuppet" policy should be closely examined. Wanting to save something you care about is not a heinous act. The canvassing policy reads like its main purpose is to prevent people who care about something from being notified about its impending deletion. Having completely disinterested people debating is biased towards deletion because few of them will spend much time looking for sources if they don't care about the topic at hand. Deleting an article doesn't need to be a bad experience. If the passionate community is simply told that if they can find good sources, the article's exclusion will be reevaluated, they will do their best to find sources. If you attempt to reduce the debate to an echo chamber by protecting it, and ban users that did their best to present arguments for keeping it, that community starts to loathe you. I don't even think User:Mclaudt should be banned. His actions are barred by current policies, but the policies are broken. He was just a passionate user trying to prevent a deletion, who had no recourse on Wikipedia, so he had to go outside it. I think that most contentious deletion debates should end in a keep if there are any verifiable sources at all. By blocking users and preventing them from participating in a debate, yet another community is alienated and the potential base of editors becomes smaller. 69.196.147.65 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with largely everything you said. I propose to unblock all these accounts. The likelihood of any further disruption is low. Being passionate about an article is certainly not an offense worthy of an indefinite block, and treating infrequent contributors like some sort of second class citizens leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

The way you describe how deletions doesn't have to be a bad experience is already how the deletion process is supposed to work. It's supposed to be about working together to find sources and improve the article, or collectively deciding that it can't be done. We need to do a better job of explaining that. henrik•talk 06:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit, the mass blocks in this situation were rather heavy-handed. But considering the situation, there really was no other choice. Many of these users hadn't contributed in one or two years, then suddenly reappeared to contribute in the AfD. That, to my mind, is even worse than newbie accounts popping up simply to vote in AfDs. Add to it the fact that he continued to canvass even after being warned--and there was really no other option but to drop the hammer in my mind.

96

14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What's occurred here goes beyond heavy-handed. 11 indefinite blocks laid out in 34 minutes, 6 of them within 1-2 minutes of the previous. Five of the users are established Russian Wikipedia editors in good standing: ru:Участник:DoctorSinus, ru:Участник:Gleb-ax, ru:Участник:0xd34df00d, ru:Участник:Necrosporus, ru:Участник:Ingwar. Three others (User:Jasonwryan, User:Thayerw, User:Anselmgarbe) are free software developers with domains similar to their Wikipedia usernames. Note that the latter is the developer of dwm. The outlier, User:ArneBab was blocked several days later despite a lack of consensus and no actual proof of his biased canvassing. These aren't vandals, they did not register random strings as names and vandalize the AfD repeatedly; they merely made their best arguments for the article's inclusion. Several of these users have been around for some time, and to throw good faith out the window so readily despite their transparency is alarming. Really, they were worse off than vandals - At least most vandals tend to get a warning first. You then voted delete 8 minutes after finishing the mass-blocking of the "meatpuppets", using their existence as a justification for the delete. Adding insult to injury, User_talk:Necrosporus was denied an unblock four times by other administrators who likely assumed the block was there for a good reason... and unlike most of the others, he's still blocked. Eleven ill-conceived blocks in half an hour constitutes far more than a momentary lapse in judgement. Fedbn (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, my blocks in this case were a knee-jerk reaction to what I saw as blatant votestacking by sleepers. If I had known that there were users in good standing from another project contributing to that AfD and not just mere sleeper accounts, I wouldn't have blocked. I just wish someone had informed me of this earlier. Had I known this, their statements would have looked more like people trying their hardest to contribute in a language they didn't know well, not just disjointed attempts to clog up the debate.

96

13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to prevent deletion discussions from becoming

16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with that “fact”. I was blocked, too, and the purpose of my account was and is to be able to contribute where I see errors I can fix quickly. I am no mayor editor, because I also work on other projects, a lot of them in free software, and want to spend time with my wife, too. But most times when I see an error and am sure that I can fix it properly (and have enough understanding of the topic to bring a real improvement) I set aside some time to fix it. Contributing to the AfD discussion might have taken much more time than a simple fix, but that was unintended and the result of seeing a glaring error in an area I am knowledgeable about. So please take back that remark. It’s unwarranted — and not only towards my account. Draketo (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Details of Blueboy96's handling of Anselmgarbe

It's incredible that we still have experienced editors here who are defending what happened. Let's take the example of Anselm Garbe, the developer of dwm. He:

• used a real name account and said openly who he was; [2]
• came to the AfD to provide information, nothing else;
• said openly that he was canvased; [3]
• introduced some borderline reliable sources into the discussion;
• did not insist that the sources he introduced were reliable sources;
• did not make any disruptive contribution whatsoever; [4]
• probably had a calming influence on the angry users who tried to save the article;
• did not make any attempt to !vote (unless you count "neutral"); [5]
• reacted positively to a proposal to merge the article into Tiling window manager and made an open-ended comment that might have resulted in a merge to a different article instead; [6]
• was polite, considerate, reasonable and intelligent throughout; [7]
• stopped commenting on 25 February. [8]

Then, half a week later on 28 February, Blueboy96:

• blocked User:Anselmgarbe;
• blocked him indefinitely;
• used the totally bizarre and counterfactual block summary: "Abusing multiple accounts: Self-admitted meatpuppet of Mclaudt";
• left no block message at all on the talk page.

When this was noticed and two editors asked for an unblock (Pcap and Psychonaut), instead of immediately unblocking Anselm Garbe and apologising, Blueboy96:

• wrote: "If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked." – note that this was completely delusional as Anselm Garbe never did anything wrong in the first place;
• wrote: "Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing." – Note: 21 hours later, Anselm Garbe replied to my email and was confused because he had never received Blueboy96's email and did not even know that he was blocked;

I can confirm this, I wasn't aware that my account was blocked and I learned about it from a mail of Hans Adler on 3rd March 2010. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• did not apologise, or at least not publicly, after Anselm Garbe was unblocked [9] (this clearly doesn't count.

I thought this was an isolated mistake, but now, with the knowledge that Blueboy96 handed out indefinite blocks en masse for the egregious "crime" of being canvased, I think this is firmly in desysop territory. Hans Adler 11:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This as punishment for this and this after two years of inactivity is also totally outside policy.

How hard is it to read a short guideline such as

11:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem here, as already mentioned above, is that WP:CANVASS is one of the dumbest and most misguided Wikipedia guidelines (not policy). Why this is so can be seen by the history of its development. It was spun of off WP:SPAM, initially called "internal spamming" the policy on canvassing originally referred only to unwanted notifications (i.e. spam). Then someone who had just lost some AfD or something, with an axe to grind [10] realized that it provided a convenient stick (or a heavy bunch of sour grapes) to beat their opponents on the head with and thus WP:CANVASS was born [11] (note how obvious the sour grapes are there). Basically a bad selfish guideline conceived and written for less than noble reasons from some long forgotten deletionist vs. inclusionist debate. And then it got ossified as status quo.

In the real world, informing people who are potential stakeholders in a particular issue is seen as a *good thing*. If I remind somebody that a city council election is taking place and they should go vote (even if I know that person's political affiliation) that's usually considered "good citizenship". But here on Wikipedia, where apparently it's considered a good thing that many proposals are "flown under the radar" to get a particular result, it's all topsy turvy.

talk

) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the problem here, since Blueboy96's actions were in no way justifiable even by

WP:CANVAS. Hans Adler

12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that it's the misguided nature of the guideline itself which is partly responsible for these kinds of "misunderstandings".

talk

) 13:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully apologize for my handling of Anselm Garbe. Having always been militantly anti-spam in any online community (not just Wikipedia), my block of him was purely reflexive. However, it wasn't within the spirit of

96

12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no worries. Apology accepted. Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just in case my remarks got lost in the ether ...

When I was alerted to what was going on in the first Dwm Afd, I thought I saw egregious votestacking, a good bit of it perpetrated by sleeper accounts. However, if I had known that those five .ru users were contributors in good standing on another wiki, I definitely wouldn't have blocked. Seen in light of that fact, they were merely trying to make a case for keeping the article in a language they didn't know well.

The Anselm Garbe case--it was a reflexive reaction on my part to block, as I have always had zero tolerance for spamming and votestacking. HOwever, I freely admit that he made a good-faith effort to suggest improvements. For that reason, my block of him wasn't in the spirit of

, and I apologize for my reflexive block of him.

Hopefully this clears this matter up.

13:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly a good sign when an admin admits to blocking due to a "kneejerk reaction". Surely a certain amount of reasoned thought should precede any blocking? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no way anyone could have known at the time that we were dealing with users in good standing from another project. As far as Anselm goes, as I said earlier, while it was grounded in policy, it wasn't within the spirit of the rules.

96

21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn’t say how you will react should something similar happen again. And you only offer excuses to the ones who ‘were in good standing in another project’ as well as Anselm. What about the other blocks? And why is the treatment people got suddenly only wrong when they turn out to be ‘in good standing’? If it was wrong when done to people in good standing, how could it be right when done to newcomers? Draketo (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Blueboy96 needs to avoid repeating such scattershot blocks of alleged 'meatpuppets', or I'll happily pick up a torch and pitchfork and call for his desysopping. Remember: you are not Judge Dredd. Fences&Windows 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that some of the users blocked happened to be users in good standing on another project is beside the point. Draketo here has been a user since 2004 and was still summarily blocked. If you've been fighting vandals and spammers for a long time it's easy to become jaded and hard to remember that all new and infrequent users deserve the same

here to help. However, that is no excuse. We should always be careful not to create special rules for some in-clique and other rules for those not already in the group. who I don't think it's productive to call for someone's head, but some sort of acknowledgment that you'll treat similar situations differently in the future would help. henrik•talk

10:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are intended to be a last resort, when a user's disruptive activity continues after warnings. Indefinite blocks doubly so. The assumption of good faith should be granted, with the status of most of the users herein merely reinforcing it. It did not, however, appear to be present in your actions. In this case you played judge, jury and executioner. Given that you played all three roles, it was your duty to inform yourself as to the status and outside connections of these users, but you did not. To not evaluate each of these indefinite bans carefully before placing them is a massive breach of the trust instrinsic in the community selecting you as an administrator. Apologies are insufficient - If this issue hadn't been illuminated recently these innocent contributors would have remained permanently blocked. Lastly, you have yet to address the misinformational block summary left for User:Anselmgarbe, nor the serious accusation that you claim to have communicated with him, which Anselm apparently denies. I've asked him to come here and clarify. Fedbn (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I took Anselm's statement on the AfD that he'd been alerted to the discussion as an admission he'd been canvassed. That being said, in the future unless an account that appears to have been canvassed to take part in an AfD is being clearly disruptive or it's unmistakably obvious that they're SPAs, I'll simply warn them on their talk page.

96

13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That Anselm said he was canvassed is completely irrelevant. The fact that you are repeating this now in this way makes me wonder if you have understood this. There was obviously a problem at the last ANI discussions with several editors who thought being canvassed can be held against someone. It cannot, as it is simply not their fault. The idea that someone with a block button might remain under this misconception even after the fact has been pointed out to him makes me very uneasy, so please clarify. Hans Adler 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize now that accounts that come here in this way have to be looked at on an individual basis, and can't automatically all be assumed to be disruptive.

96

21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Heaqwe (talk · contribs)

Whether or not they are a sockpuppet of Serafin, they should be blocked permanently for

• nationalist comments on their user page [12]:
  • I beleave you Germans are suprised that evrybody dislike you.
  • German character which of course is known best in Poland. This is the main reason I opose the bargan/manipulation. The bourder is on Oder and Nyse do not allow one foot step over it - it will be the same like many times before. They will keep the foot arogantly and atempt to put second at nearest occasion.
  • chauvinistic German attempts it cannot be allowed. And you help them pretending that you a Polish. 4) As you perfectly know Silesians were originally a Slavic tribe and were part as well as creators of Polish nation. I think you and Germans should be ashamed after what II WW cost Polish nation to attempt steel what historically belong to Polish heritage
  • This is propaganda of German separatists who call themself often Silesians.
  • Krasicki was a Germanized Pole – in my perception a snake.
  • Germans!!!!! Stop insolting Dzierzon as he dislike you.
• similar comments on their talk page [13]
• and contribs focussing exclusively on
  WP:THE TRUTH
  about the nationality/ethnicity of a bee keeper.

User is notified of this thread. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Content removed per

WP:SOAP. Only question remaining is, "Is man descended from angels or apirists?" LessHeard vanU (talk

) 12:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - yes, this user seems pretty intent on pushing some irrelevant and unsupported nationalist views, though I don't see that the actions of his German counterpart (who does much the same thing in the other direction, but has learned to be a little more subtle with his conversational style) are any better. I would like to see all those who have been using this innocent biographical article as a nationalist battleground to be compelled to stay away from it, and from similar topics.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From Heaqwe's userpage, I thought his opponent was you, but from the article's edit history, I guess "German counterpart" refers to Matthead? If you are certain about Matthead likewise "pushing some irrelevant and unsupported nationalist views", then please provide evidence, as this is a pretty strong claim to make without supporting diffs. That aside, I agree with you that prejudist POV pushers who are sophisticated enough to game the wiki-bureaucracy are a

WP:PLAGUE

, but that won't be solved on this board.

What can be solved here is to at least block the openly nationalist accounts. And maybe have a Serafin expert comment, since Serafin abused the article ever since, and has used similar account names earlier? Regarding the underlying ethnicity dispute, I agree that the article is in bad need for outside input, this seems to be going on ever since too, involving Serafin, the

) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things, firstly, we don't block accounts for having nationalist views - we block them should their nationalist viewpoints become disruptive to the general project (but not because they offend the sensibilities of other nationalistic viewpoints), and, secondly, the issue of disputes regarding East European articles is covered by

WP:DIGWUREN and other ArbCom related decisions, so these should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Finally, there appears to be an ongoing SPI case, so perhaps that should be concluded before other concerns are investigated. As far as I am concerned, I removed the soapboxing on the accounts userpage per policy; there are other avenues for dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of any ongoing SPI case, just of the "suspected Serafin sock"-tag on Heaqwe's user page (and from the article's edit history, and the account's name and behaviour that makes sense, but I am not a CU). If you could link the respective SPI that would be great and render this thread moot.

I agree that in theory, nationalism alone does not make an account disruptive. In practice, the nationalists who register accounts here do so not because they want to edit funghi taxonomy. Heaqwe is an openly Polish and anti-German nationalist solely editing a German-Polish ethnicity dispute and judging the editors by nationality and not by strength of argument. That is disruptive, reasonable discussions are not possible on that basis. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no SPI going on, I filed one here. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The "soapboxing" was just a discussion between me and him (we just happened to have it on his user page rather than the talk page). A similarly unproductive attempt took place between Matthead and me at my talk page (User talk:Kotniski#no real doubt). Other than that, it's been Heaqwe and Matthead alternately making edits to push their respective lines (only Poles can be natives of Silesia vs. there were no Poles when there was no Polish state), and me and one or two others trying to curb their excesses. Last time I looked the article seemed OK (there isn't any underlying reason why it should be controversial), so maybe the problem would be solved, as Skap suggests, by having a few sensible editors with their eyes on the page.--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history, it seems that the dispute goes back at least to 2007 (I did not look it up any further). You said "last time I looked the article seemed OK" - does that mean that there actually is a revision that has the consent of all involved editors (excluding Heaqwe)? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, possibly excluding Matthead as well, I'm not aware of anyone who has a problem with the current version of that page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Serafin apparently has worn out all admins, as noone seems to be willing to look after the Dzierzon article anymore. On the other hand, Polish editors often find an admin willing to block me. As for the article, it's current state and title is a shame. It is

to start the intro with "was a Pole from Silesia." It's like opening a bio on Abraham Lincoln with "was an Illinoisian from Kentucky. He became a Republican politician and a distinguished president." How childish is that? Apparently, Serafin/Heaqwe, veteran edit warrior Space Cadet and Kotniski like it - no wonder, as it starts with "Pole", which is their highest priority. BTW, I've just expanded the German article with some Polish sources (mis-)quoting him in German, and with a link to a pic of the tombstone of "Johann Dzierzon", with the Polish plate added in 1966(!) pronouncing "Jan Dzierżon" an "ardent patriot and defender of Polish Silesia". P.S. did you know that in 2003, Jan Dzierzon had been a vice-voivode in Opole Voivodeship[14], until a media campaign had forced him to resign? [15] [16] The problem for the Poles was that Dzierzon represents the German minority there. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can add sourced information to improve our article, that would be great. (But not irrelevant stuff about someone 100 years later who happens to have the same name - why do you waste our time referring us to such links?) "Pole" is not the same as "Illinoisan" - it's perfectly normal, and not at all undue, to mention someone's nationality (not the same as citizenship, or the language he later came to speak and publish in) in the lead of the article. Also the lead of the article should reflect the content - and at present, the sourced content of the article make his Polishness quite clear. If you have other sources that cast doubt on that, or consider that the present sources are unreliable or misused, then let's hear. I certainly wouldn't want the lead to describe him as a Pole if he wasn't one; but we should all want it to describe him as one if he was. The problem you seem to have is that you are on the same kind of crusade as the Polish editors you continually criticize - you want everyone to be German at the slightest excuse (I note your recent attempts to expand the scope of List of Germans), to use German names and delete non-German ones, etc. Often your changes are right, since there are plenty of anti-German editors around, but that doesn't mean you can do the same in the other direction.--Kotniski (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Heaqwe has been blocked, and constructive discussion is now underway at the article talk page, so I'm marking this thread as resolved.--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ramnareshyadav1982 consistently uploads images lacking appropriate licensing information or questionable claims of fair use as well as the addition (and re-addition after warnings) of copyrighted text to webpages. Most recently re-uploaded a file that was just deleted this morning for lack of license. They appear to not understand that we simply cannot accept copyrighted material. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he claims to be the owner of the material. Should be direct him to

WP:OTRS so he can release said material from copyright and placed under a free license? –MuZemike

20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to what he needs to do have been repeatedly included on his talk page with all of the copyright violation and fair use rationale templates. I can put a new hand-typed one on if you think it would help. I just haven't already because I doubt it would be any different than the notices he's already gotten. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Consider reporting the user to

WP:AIV if the disruption continues. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK)

03:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Done and blocked for yet another issue since your warning, I'll just take similar concerns to

WP:AIV in the first place next time. Somehow I forgot that repeated copyright issues counted as vandalism. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk

) 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted comments on my user talk page

) 04:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor warned -- ball's in their court now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The ball's in my court? OK! OberRanks posted a response to my post; then threatened to delete anything else that I put there. So, he gets the last word, and I am not permitted a rebuttal? Furthermore, isn't he in violation of policy by posting a comment about me here, and not notifying me? This user has a habit of running to administrators when he dosen't get his way to the letter, which can be seen in the

talk

) 04:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Any administrator may review my contributions on the John Pershing discussion, I have nothing to hide. The discussion at the JP article is unrelated to uncivil talk page notes on my own user page. -OberRanks (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, here he is. He just has to get the last word. He claims he wants to be left alone, and then comes here to stir the pot. Please take note, as an administrator, that OberRanks has now granted you permission to review the Pershing article.

talk

) 05:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this edit will be of particular interest, given M5384's statements that I am having a temper tantrum regarding material in the John Pershing article. As far as the track record of "civility and compromise", the user's talk page has two warnings of edit wars as well as the recent thread regarding inappropriate posting to other's talk pages. There was also a recent 3rr warning as well [24] which the user removed without comment [25]. I think the pattern is clear. -OberRanks (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, you don't really have a leg to stand on. I'd advise backing down. Jtrainor (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 began in January and his 7th edit was to try to slip "N*gger Jack" into Pershing's list of nicknames. Lately he's made it a crusade, for reasons unknown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons unknown? OK; I'll assume good faith. It was his name.

talk

) 12:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. In any case, your latest reversion in this edit war is here,[26] and provides no justification for adding it back. Posting that justification here doesn't count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK; this has just gotten silly. No it wasn't? Despite 62 sources listed there, you're actually going to defend yourself with the comment, "No, it wasn't"?

talk

) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a common nickname. "Black Jack" was. Hence the footnotes explaining its origin... and the article text explaining its origin. To push the N-word into the infobox is unjustifiable and incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be resolved on the talk page. Admins have no special competence here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree. As to the original issue brought here - typically if one asks you to stop posting to their talk page, you should respect their wish. Any outstanding issues can be taken up in article talk, ANI, or other relevant venues. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. –xeno^talk 13:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Except for the crusading user's potential for escalating the edit war. That's the admin attention that may be needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if there is ongoing edit warring, note it here or

WP:AN3. –xeno^talk

13:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, whether he's crusading or you're censoring is not a dispute that AN/I should be handling. Please work it out with him. There may be a middle ground if the nickname exists per RS but is not common, like a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no censorship in the article. That's a false claim by the crusader. We'll see if Mk5384 backs off or accelerates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears there's another edit war brewing, Fully protected, please continue discussion on talk page. –xeno^talk 13:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Also, although Mk5384 has not (yet) violated 3RR technically, he reverted 5 times in 39 hours. And if he reverts again right away, that will be 6 in about 41 hours, which would probably put him in violation, so I'm guessing he'll wait until a total of 48 or more hours has passed from his first revert. (Moot) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would remind everyone involved that

WP:3RR#Is not an entitlement. –xeno^talk

13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

Resolved

User informed of policy and appears to be discussing. SGGH ^ping! 12:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to look into a case of what appears to be blatant advertising of a website. The spammer in question, User:Keithwatt, continually adds a link and promotional text to the article Wireless Set No. 19, as seen here. While I consider this beyond obvious, I would appreciate another opinion/set of eyes since I'm now involved and thus consider it inappropriate to take action wrt this editor. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Final warning added, obvious promotion with no attempt to communicate or acknowledge the problem. If you are not comfortable dealing with it (which is fine) either flag up here or

WP:AIV if he/she does it again and one of us misses it. SGGH ^ping!

10:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact someone has blocked him. SGGH ^ping! 10:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He's spaming - edit waring - and ignoring all attempts to warn or discuss. No brainer. The account has no other uses, so blocked indef. He can be unblocked if he starts to talk to us.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, once I've entered into opposition against another editor, I will not in any situation (save for particularly vicious stuff) use the mop and bucket. Thanks SGGH for your second opinion, and to Scott MacDonald's third. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now unblocked since he's started talking. Someone might like to go and help him understand things a bit.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone seems to have engaged him. I know it is confusing but

you have to take some responsibility for understanding things I believe. But if he is pointed in the right direction policy wise, things should be fine. I'm marking as resolved. SGGH ^ping!

12:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Suicide threat

I'd like to write up a report on the spreading disruption and insulting behavior of User:FkpCascais. Regardless of the fact that he thinks himself the very image of neutrality (as indeed, most Balkans nationalist accounts do), this user is undoubtedly in the middle of a campaign to promote Serbian nationalist POV. I say "POV" because his position and his edits are obviously contrary to truly numerous university sources, while he of course, has yet to present a single source for his disruptive editing. In addition, his behavior towards me has just reached a stage at which I feel it needs to be reported to you guys. Not that I am holding this against him in some way, but his English skills, and thus the quality of his edits, are also noticeably sub par.

• On
  Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, User:FkpCascais has repeatedly removed half a dozen university sources along with the information they supported in spite of warnings and discussion. [27][28][29] When inquired as to the reason for this vandalism, the only answer was that he personally disapproved of one of the authors (a professor of history at Stanford) on the grounds that the person is of Croatian ancestry [30]
  (also conveniently forgetting that this is only one of the sources). I am Croatian as well, and taking into account his hostile behavior towards me, I can't help but feel this user has a problem with Croats. Balkans ethnic hatred.

• On the Draža Mihailović article, the user repeatedly entered numerous badly written alterations, and then proceeded to edit-war in order to keep them in. He was successful. I won't go into the details, suffices to say that he edited contrary to a great many references in the article. He wrote-up the ethnic ancestry of any scholar who's origins he did not approve of, implying their bias along national lines for no other perceivable reason. He inserted the word "communist" at every conceivable opportunity, and most interestingly, he actually altered the text of quoted documents because he felt it needed "clarifying". All in plainly bad English. [31]

• On the Chetniks article, he engaged in an edit war to rearrange the alphabetically sorted "See also" section the way he felt was more appropriate, and kept removing a template linking to the article.[32] The number of articles affected by the disruption is bound to rise.

As for his behavior: 1) He stated that I am "shitting out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". [33] This was because I was doing my best to explain

) 22:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In future, please notify the user involved that you have opened this thread. I have done it for you this time. SGGH ^ping! 23:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, the user instructed me not to address him. --

TALK

) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, this is fairly obvious even in the minefield that is EE politics. [37] and [38] are exceedingly obvious, without even going into the attacks on other editors. Black Kite 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, in the words of Eye Serene, the User "edit-warred, removed sourced material because he did not like what it says, and made personal attacks against another editor". This is not the first time that FkpCascais engaged in disruptive editing on Eastern European articles: he was reported and warned by

TALK

) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Too many editors with too many over-reactions. The underlying issue for this thread has been resolved, so it's time to close down the sideshow.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ryan is a ARBCOM member. He has shown a trend of moving or reformating other's comments. I find it extremely ironic that he assuming powers not granted to him, as a matter of fact it is quite against policy to refactor or format others comments unless obvious vandalism. [[41]] like this is a great example of a post that is definitely not vandalism. talk ) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not an ArbCom member, I'm an ArbCom clerk. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Lol. Tan | 39 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) ( WP:TPG has other guidelines over-and-over obvious vandalism, though I make no comment as to whether the removal linked in the diff above is appropriate. –xenotalk 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The post you've linked to was an editor trying to call another editor homophobic without a single bit of evidence to back it up. It was an egregious personal attack - easily removable. Your shenanigans with templated warnings to regualar editors[42][43] is an issue. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) To Quote wp:dttr ... "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. The editor using the template may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not themselves consider the template use rude. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template. " talk ) 14:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC) You're certainly not saving time here. Quit templating the regulars. Seriously, cut that shit out. Tan | 39 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Seriously, there is a provision for those who disagree. Ryan is free to try and get hat changed but as is I do have the authority wiythin policy to do this. talk ) 14:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) With the greatest respect, you're cruising right towards a block at this stage. If I see you template another editor inappropriately, you'll be having an enforced break. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Can you show me a policy that specifically disallows this? talk ) 14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Well, if you were templating people for correct reasons, it would be rude, but not disallowed per se. Templating people for inappropriate reasons moves it from being rude into Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I believe it to be a correct action. You reverted a discussion that was not your own and was not obvious vandalism. You then make threats outside policy. As I have explicit allowance under policy, which you concede, why not trying to ask someone to not template you? I would also point you to the other essay talk ) 14:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Stop templating the regulars. Period. This isn't the first time this has been a problem. Ryan P and I are far from friends, but he's right. Do it again, and further disruption will be prevented via a block. Tan | 39 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Again, without commenting on the present case, TPG allows for more than removal of mere vandalism. –xenotalk 15:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: [...] Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. @taN AND rYAN. So we're making up policies now? I have specific allowance under that policy to do this. You can't show me specifically where it says I can't. Stop making threats outside of policy. talk ) 15:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC) To quote from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (the guideline for talk page comments); "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:.... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." When I was removing the post on Jimbo's talk, it was because a user called another editor homophobic, an egregious personal attack. When I was refactoring your comments on the ArbCom motions page, I was doing so because they were filled with personal attacks. Both of these are permitted reasons to remove posts, yet you have insisted on templating me 4 times, which is disruptive editing, hence why if you do something similar again, you'll be getting a block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC) And I still maintain it was innapropriate, that motion was and is nonsense. It's political posturing nothing more. talk ) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Well we'll leave it at that then. I'm slightly embarrassed to say this, but this is one of those cases where I'm right and you're completely wrong. Now, either take the advice given to you above, or end up blocked very shortly. That is the last I have to say on the matter. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not embarrassed at all to say you're wrong and I'm right. Stop the posturing. I have confidence that while not all of my arguments are calm and analytical they are correct. When they are not I will apoligize but it's hard to assume good faith to a admin that likes to threaten first and engage later. talk ) 15:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Templating someone warning him that he will be blocked as a vandal for removing a personal attack is obviously going to piss him off, isn't it? As a result, the time you were trying to save through it is now being spent in brewing a category 5 hurricane in a teacup. Now would be a good time for everyone to cool down. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Look, issuing barely-applicable templates and threatening to block for the same thing are both wrong for much the same reason. Templates and blocks both have their place, but are almost never the correct initial course of action when dealing with other good faith users. HiaB, please take the extra 2 minutes to type something out; it is less likely to escalate the problem, is more likely to be heeded, and won't make you look so unreasonable (the wording of the templates wasn't really applicable). RP and Tan, please don't jump straight to threats of blocking for (really) minor issues of "disruption"; an occasional inappropriate template can be insulting, but it isn't block-worthy. I'm still naive enough to think we could, occasionally, treat each other as grownups instead of communicating primarily with templates and blocks. <!-- Template:uw-rodneyking1 --> --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As I pointed out above, this wasn't the first time it happened. Thus, I didn't "jump straight to threats"; I threatened the block when the problem became persistent. If you want to coddle disruptive editors, that's your prerogative; I think I've made it clear in the past that I don't. Tan | 39 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC) OK, "jump way too quickly to threats". I see we disagree, but IMHO blocking generally good faith editors for minor annoyances almost always makes things worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Floquen unfortunately this is a situation that I may have caused myself. I am not the calmest of editors. I do try to do things in good faith but I do blow my stack and this is related to a long term dispute with some of the ARB practices. By doing this I gained the appellation of being undesirable. I've seen you around and would hate for you to get drug down to that crowd too. talk ) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As the party who theoretically should care most about that particular comment, I had a nice chat (no, really - WP:DRAMA? I do not see how the present focus of this discussion really gets us a better encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont. ) 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comment, 2/0. Since it's pretty clear that the whole incident was a wildly-overzealous escalation of dispute resolution based on a complete misunderstanding, apparently identifiable to everyone except the topic poster at Jimbo's talkpage, Ryan's actions were (AGF) trying to help the situation by removing some of the hyperbole. I'd close this thread myself, but I'd rather not have a follow-up thread on that potential perceived abuse of policy and/or talkpage guidelines. Hell in a Bucket, perhaps you wouldn't mind closing the thread to cool all of this down? — Scientizzle 16:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from CobaltBlueTony H in a B may hold differing views, but his delivery method can cross the WP:CIVIL line, which results in his being blocked. If he has a point, he needs to mend fences and kiss boo-boos before anyone will accept the validity of his arguments. For instance, the example he started with above is a snapshot into a long and arduous process of people continually bringing up the same issues to Jimbo Wales over and over again, never satisfied with his response. H in a B and the Brews crew are also never satisfied with legitimate responses to their legitimate arguments, and so they persist in griefing the community in a bizarre hope that we'll get sick of them and let them have their way, even though it violates what the community wants. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Actually that worked. I think I may still have the forwarded email from Jimbo saying he was concerned over the handling of that case. He specifically asked for a review, anything we did was hugely successful talk ) 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Nevertheless, blanking of comments of the sort I described is common practice, to prevent needless disruption. (How Mr. Wales receives it is on him.) The point is that, if you intend to fix ArbCom, such as it is, you've really got to clean up your act. This nonsense here doesn't really help. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Actually other then this Arb action I enjoy friendly relations with Administrators. My main issue on Wiki other then occasionally blowing my stack is that I didn't ignore the wrongs in the arbitration format. It has indeed taken away from me, but I do believe in right action not only on my part but the admin and arbcom too. talk ) 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC) When it's your word against theirs, choose yours carefully. If you keep your cool, they have nothing actionable against you. That's what I've been saying all along. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The funny thing is that I did keep my words cool, hence using a template with the diffs. This resulted in a threat of a block. If it means using templates so I don't berate them it's much better then geting blocked for personal attacks. talk ) 16:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Your use of these templates, bordering on inappropriate (and often falling into the wrong side of it) is both disruptive (because -- and you knew this already -- it's considered rude) and serves only to irritate (intentionally?) a person with whom you disagree (another example of griefing). It's like telling a cop he's double-parked. It ain't gonna end well. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to review the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union.

It appears to me that

of the article.

I have a number of issues with the article :

1. I question the notability of the ACTDU (it has been questioned before see Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#Article issues). Every time I have tried to tag it it gets reverted here or here.

2. It contains many 'refs' that are not in any way relevant to the article, that he insists on having in, for example in the lead :

• from hotfrog.com.au a directory entry for the ACTDU
• From the SA government - only thing that is relevant is a Link to the ACTU website.
• radford.com.au which is dead and no indication in the article as to what it was meant to help with,
• surch on an IP for "ACT debating team" that times out

At the end of the article, without any indication of why they are there or what they help with :

• Accessmylibrary.com - a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• Accessmylibrary.com- a extract from the Canberra Times that does not mention the ACTDU
• ABC Stateline Home - transcript from a ABC radio show that also does not mention the ACTDU.
• Factiva.com a dead Factiva lookup with no indication of what it was or supports.

3. I believe that

where he says he can get the copy write permission sent in.

4. I think the article may be Over detailed and contain "excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience".

I have posted a RfC on the talk page about the first point but as of yet have had no response (Talk:Australian_Capital_Territory_Debating_Union#RFC : Notability tag)

I have also posted on the 3RR board as User:JJJ999 and the IP's made 4 reverts on Sunday (here) to which User:JJJ999 responded here but this was archived without attention - I dispute what he has written but have decided not to engage with him at this time. I have made attempts to point out my issues on the Talk page here and here.

So I am wondering the best way to move this article forward as I am sure that as soon as I start trying to fix the above issues User:JJJ999 will start reverting again. Codf1977 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I find RfC a fairly uncertain step in dispute resolution, since you never who (if anyone) will show up. You may wish to withdraw the RfC and try one of the other methods of dispute resolution, such as

WP:3O can be a good forum to get assistance. I have generally found the volunteers who work there willing to discuss issues thoroughly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

11:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I cant be certain, but am 99% sure the three are one. This edit confirms two are one in the same and the other one looks like a

WP:DUCK. Codf1977 (talk

) 12:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Then

"forum shopping" but just looking for input. Having already interacted with the article as an admin, I don't think I should myself weigh in on content issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

12:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I do not want any appearance of

WP:3O and make sure I cross link to here and the RfC. Codf1977 (talk

) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• I had a reply earlier, and it seems to have been removed. Basically, this is forum shopping, because you haven't been able to build consensus. Go to the talk page, and complain there. Anyway, this is not copyvio, this was covered. Next time wait for consensus and don't accuse others of bad faith and editing warring that you were only recently warned about yourself.JJJ999 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT

"forum shopping"

which is defined as "repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like" as there was no response to either the RfC or the 3RR posts it can't be and secondly I made sure I disclosed and linked to those.

Also please refrain from making totally false claims about me being warned recently for editing warring as a way of deflecting attention away from your five bans for your edit warring (see here). - I have only been warned once in October last year here when my account was less than 2 weeks old and I had only 1 revert in 24 hours in any case - if you disagree produce the dif. Codf1977 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, this doesn't look like forum shopping to me. It might be worth leaving a note at the Australian noticeboard

WP:AWNB to get more eyes on the article. The article looks clearly problematic and I agree the notability is far from clear. It should probably either go through AFD or by merged into a parent article. I don't know what the factiva link is meant to link to but searching factiva for "Australian Capital Territory Debating Union" for all dates/all regions/etc brings up zero results. Sarah

12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, the more eyes that look at the atrial the better IMO. But to avoid even the smell of forum shopping and so as not to give JJJ999 yet another place to have a go at my motives I am not going to post there, but please don't let that stop anyone else. Codf1977 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'm tiring of having to respond in so many different places/forums to your concerns. I've noted on the talkpage a number of sources, including some which were just temporarily removed during a BLP claim, and which can easily be brought back (even minus the subjects names being brought back, it's obviously easy to bring back the sources themselves). You haven't responded or built consensus on my talk page merge replies, so I suggest you go do that, and stop complaining in every place/forum you can find.JJJ999 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be careful to jump to any conclusions that this User is involved in sockpuppetry. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite the efforts of three other editors, anon IP User:199.175.219.1, who is apparently the subject of the article Rick Schmidlin, continues to make disruptive edits that violate multiple Wikipedia policies, despite multiple warnings on this section of the IP talk page. He will not enter discussion at Talk:Rick Schmidlin, and appears to be obstinately attempting to use Wikipedia to post a resume article, even after multiple warnings that disruptive behavior could lead to a ban. Thank you for any help. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I considered it vandalism as the user removed tags after 4th warning. I reported the user, and the IP has been blocked. Regards, PDCook (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I do believe the IP is really trying to make the article better but is just completely lost about how to do it Wikipedia style. A few other editors have taken notice and I've set up a sandbox to work through it. We have all tried to communicate with the IP via the edit summaries, the article talk page, and the IP talk page but obviously to no avail. Still, I do not think his (assuming it is Rick Schmidlin as claimed in one of his edits) efforts are in bad faith. That said, we do need a break from his constant reverting as this will give us some time to rewrite the article. Even though it'll probably be pretty stubtastic it will be well-sourced for the information it does have (see sandbox). In other words I don't think the IP needs a year-long block as I'd like to think that once the new version is finished he'll be able to contribute in a useful manner. SQGibbon (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it not just be best to userfy this "article" until it's fixed, because at the moment it's just an unsourced BLP. Black Kite 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Userfy where? Not to an IP's area. Woogee (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What about moving it to the

incubator? -- Atama頭

20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a new version up now. It's a stub but a well-sourced one. SQGibbon (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Since the beginning of this month, five separate accounts have been editing the page on Roderic Noble, a relatively obscure British actor that I'm watching only because I tagged it for reference issues when it was first created. All five of the accounts have no edits aside from those performed on this page. Three of them have very similar names. They don't interleave edits; eventually one account stops, and another picks up later, so it's not an effort to make undoing their edits more difficult. I initially suspected they are all socks, though possibly unintentional socks (the edits are mostly benign, if unsourced), and warned them on their talk pages. On looking at the page history closer though, the edits appear to be of unusually uniform timing. Today's edits by one of the accounts were done every half hour from 8 AM to 10 AM, on the half hour plus 9 to 11 seconds (clock discrepancy?). Previous edits aren't quite so regular, but they're usually 9 to 12 seconds after a minute evenly divisible by five, as if they were updating the page on a schedule. While some of the edits seem like the sort of thing a basic natural language processor could do (switching around synonyms, reordering sentences, etc.) they also add paragraphs of information, so they must be pulling data from somewhere. I have no idea what is going on, and while mostly harmless, it seems *very* suspicious. Can someone with more experience at this please investigate? I removed the unsourced content on the page (which basically meant restubbifying it), but this is too weird to just drop. Not sure if notification on their talk pages is needed since I'm not mentioning them directly, and this is a quasi-sockpuppet scenario. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty suspicious sounding. I'll start a SPI just so we can be sure.

talk

) 17:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No edit summaries is a good giveaway. Before we potentially scare him away, can we get him to cite his "work?" I'm also hesitant to start as he could have forgotten all the passwords. If anything, the creator of the article would be the sockmaster as there are similarities to between it and the newer users.

talk

) 17:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He posted a note on my talk page: "I have recently interviewed Roderic. I'm just putting up some of the details on Wikipedia for the benefit of the readers of your online Encyclopedia. Could you let me finish? I would be very grateful." So best case scenario this is just

WP:SOCK rules. The edit patterns are *really* suspicious though. I didn't include the article originator as a suspect if only because that account has edited quite a few pages (though I suppose it could be the sockmaster, creating single-purpose socks for use on specific pages). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk

) 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked him if he was related to the accounts. I also saw what he said, and that backs up the style of how he wrote it. I'm sure he will freak when he sees that mass revision though, so I'll revert his edits and assume that he will cite it. If not, we just remove it. The second thing is a bit creepy though.

talk

) 18:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Second thing? Clarify? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole editing on a second that ends with a 0 or 5. For some reason, autism or superstition crosses my mind when I think of why an editor would edit then.

talk

) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Even with a nasty case of OCD, I'm having a hard time seeing how someone would manage to edit so exactly that the discrepancy (a matter of three seconds for all but the very first edits by the very first sock on March 1st) would be expected from the vicissitudes of internet and Wikipedia DB latency. There's OCD, and then there is *perfect* timing, down to the second, when clicking submit. Although I do note that even his responses on my talk page are on minutes divisible by five, though only one of them was in the "9-12 after the minute" range. Clearly the OCD relaxes on my talk page, but not enough to stop the "divisible by five" requirement? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline violated by the timing of edits so severe that it justifies speculation about various psychoses or neuroses the editor might have? Nothing really suggests a "productive editing bot." The only real issue seems to be possible socks doing harmless or beneficial edits. I suppose this could have the questionable effect of making an article look more popular among editors than it really is, but that is not even a basis for keeping an article in a hypothetical AFD. If a productive editor creates and improves articles, he/she should be discouraged from socking and encouraged to edit under one identity, but encouraged in the contributions to the encyclopedia. I will not speculate here at this time about who I think the root editing account is, but if I'm correct the overall pattern of contributions across various articles and encyclopedias looks ok. Edison (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe there is a policy against running unregistered bots on Wikipedia. That said, I'm not asking for the editor to be blocked; I mostly wanted to check if anything like this has come up before, if it is perhaps indicative of some form of abuse. That's why I said investigate, not block. The editor(s) in question should adhere to the policy on alternate accounts, but like I said, I suspect this is a violation born of ignorance with no malicious intent. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, here are two hypotheses:

1. Somebody is trying out a new tool that allows Wikipedia editing on one's own copy of an article, and regular synchronisation with the server. The person started with update intervals of 5 minutes, but changed this to 30 minutes later for some reason. The times in between without edits are because in the 5 minutes (or 30 minutes) preceding them the person's personal copy didn't change. The software has been programmed so intelligently that if the edit only changes a single section, it puts the section in the edit summary. But that's the only kind of edit summary it can produce so far.
2. We are being trolled. Somebody thinks it's extremely funny to pretend they are a computer and then just watch how we react. See also:
   Turing Test
   .

In both cases it would be best not to overreact in any way. Hans Adler 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any feelings about the sanity or motivations of the editors with the clockwork timing of edits,

WP:BLP says "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research." A claimed interview cannot justify keeping the biographical details added to the article, and I question IMDB as a "reliable source"for biographical information about persons who have had no published biographical information elsewhere. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40#IMDB, again. In a breaching experiment, from malice, from general hoaxing or simple carelessness with facts, false information can be posted there and then used as a "reference" to post the same false information in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is innocuous, puffery, or defamatory. This could be yet another "breaching experiment" and the article must be kept stubbed until reliable sources are provided for the information. Repeated adding of the information without references should lead to blocking. Edison (talk

) 19:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments above, and per

WP:NOR, I have again stubbed the article,back to the stub earlier today by ShadowRangerRIT since the expansion was based on a "personal interview" of the subject by one of the suspected sockpuppets with the odd editing pattern. Edison (talk

) 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible self-outing, trolling, Idk

[44] Can't tell if its trolling or what, but I felt it should be brought here.

) 20:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Altough I feel that it is vital that the human rights act is followed 100% at all times, wikipeida is not myspace. Revert edit. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it was possible to out yourself... Clearly they've posted their information willingly... Whether or not they know this isn't the right place to post it is questionable.

Talk // Contribs

21:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It must be. However, it is simply a edit that needs to be reverted. Dg-reg-fd-1971 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm right in thinking that changing your username is not the same thing as retiring, since you are still here and the edits are now attributed to a new username, and it's deceptive to pretend otherwise. Also, they are somehow still logging under the old username.

) 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree with everything you did. If they wanted a clean break then they should retire the old name and start a new account. If they just wanted a name change then they should move the user/talk pages (which is what they did). They can't have it both ways. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got it correct, Beeblebrox. Accounts don't retire, editors do. If the person behind the account is still editing then they aren't retired, and tags indicating such are misleading. With a rename, the old account should redirect to the new one. Anything else is terribly confusing. Let's say that someone sees an old comment made by Secisek on an article talk page and wants to ask a question about it, if they click their user talk page link and see "retired" then they've hit an unnecessary dead end. If they are instead redirected to the new account, then they know who to ask. Another problem is the

alternate accounts. -- Atama頭

21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART specifically allows for cutting ties, but that's just not what they did and it's a little too late for it now (at least without retiring both old accounts and making yet another one). VernoWhitney (talk

) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

talk

) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that my old user name has lead to off-site harassment and Wikipedia editor(s) were sending text messages to my business cell phone about edit disputes. I am not trying to "run" from my past account, just the user name. I even moved my talk archives to my new page. If it is not possible to retain my history, while removing my association from my old account, I'll just walk away from both the old account and the new one and set up a sock puppet. When I first brought this up over a year ago, my talk page was deleted without question. Why I cannot have the link broken between the two accounts now is unclear, esp. since I had the history moved by request. Let me know if this can be done, because if it can't I am either going to set up a sock puppet, or just edit from an IP going forward. It should not be this hard to avoid off-site stalking. Once more, if this cannot be done, I am just going to have to set up a new account, start from scratch, and exercise my

) 21:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This type of issue should be taken into account in username-change and new-start situations. Unless there has been significant violation of the alternate-accounts policy, or there is some attempt to mislead the community, I don't think linking editors to prior accounts or usernames is necessary where this type of problem has been alleged. Of course if there has been significantly abusive sockpuppetry or the like then the best means of addressing the situation may be very different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Before today Secisek had not actually made any of this clear. Also, since their edits will be attributed to the new username, anyone previously familiar would probably figure out that it was the same user anyway.

talk

) 05:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Over the past few days, there has been a concerted effort to insert BLP vandalism into Lil' Mo. On 24 March there were a large number of IP addresses inserting nonsense; the users were reverted and I sprotected the article for a day, but unfortunately it seems that as soon as the sprotect expired the vandalism started up again. This time, I have blocked the main account (User:Realiytking (talk · contribs)) who was doing a fair chunk of the vandalism. Based on the fact that there a variety of different ISPs evident in the IP addresses used, I'd say that there are multiple vandals at work here, (probably kids from an internet forum or IRC room with nothing better to do, I'd say, based on the content of the edits) For this reason, I'm not all that confident that an autoblock will do much, but at the same time that the article seems relatively stable for now, so I'm hesitant to actually block.

If people could add the article their watchlists or otherwise keep an eye on it that'd be great. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

If I didn't know better, I would say that was a coordinated attack by

Talk // Contribs

04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• They definitely went to town on this BLP. You missed some: [45]. I've Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –xeno^talk 05:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, bummer. Not knowing the topic, it was difficult to tell in places where the article stopped and the vandalism begun. Thanks for the eagle eyes! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC).

Nothing more to see here. –xenotalk 03:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Threats against the personal safety of an editor? Ash (talk · contribs) has placed the following on their userpage (emphasis mine): After a particularly nasty personal attack against me I have put a halt to any other significant work on Wikipedia as my security must take a priority. The objective of those minority of Wikipedia Review members involved is to censor Wikipedia, in this case by ensuring that editors will fear sustained personal attacks if they contribute to LGBT sexuality topics. Their approach works. Interested parties that wish to discuss or can advise as to next steps, please contact me by email. Related background can be found on this draft RFC/U. It would be an unlikely co-incidence that the serious personal attack against me started shortly after this document was created. I am the editor named in the linked draft RFC/U and I believe that most readers would therefore assume that I am connected both to the unspecified "particularly nasty personal attack" and the unspecified threat to Ash's "security". The fact that this section is enclosed in hidden comments reading "<!--Delicious carbuncle-->" and "<!--/Delicious carbuncle-->" should remove any doubt that I am being deliberately and specifically targeted by these remarks. This comes after a series of increasingly inflammatory personal attacks from Ash on their user page and elsewhere. My direct requests to admins to deal with these comments have either resulted in strangely inappropriate comments or no response at all. I have encouraged Ash and associated parties to file the oft-threatened RFC/U so that their concerns can be addressed and their accusations can be put to rest. I am tired of trying to deal with these baseless accusations and I do not believe that it should be acceptable for any Wikipedia editor to allege that another editor has put their physical safety in jeopardy. Can someone please deal with this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Personal safety is, and always will be, a priority that Wikipedia takes for all editors. I cannot really see where Ash has gotten the impression that his personal safety is at risk. He stated, 'The objective of those minority of Wikipedia Review members involved is to censor Wikipedia, in this case by ensuring that editors will fear sustained personal attacks if they contribute to LGBT sexuality topics. Their approach works.' Which is contradicting where he stated that his personal safety is at risk. I feel that, as he is making allegations, unsolicited allegations at that against an editor, he should be blocked. He's requesting information via email (Interested parties that wish to discuss or can advise as to next steps, please contact me by email.) which could possibly mean that he's going to pursue legal action. It seems that he's either under a cloud of delusion or he's legitimately concerned and we should put those concerns to rest. DustiSPEAK!! 16:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC) (ec) My comments do not relate to legal action, this is a notice to explain why I have halted my contributions. There are outstanding requests for Oversight so I am unable to comment on these matters in this forum. I note I am being mis-quoted. There is a difference between my security and my personal safety. Ash (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but it seems to revolve around some dispute in Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films over the identification of the real names of porno actors. --John Nagle (talk ) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC) People who really think they're in danger call the police. People seeking to gain the upper hand in disputes with claims they're in danger write all about it on wikipedia. It's a time-honored technique that would be funny if it didn't actually work from time to time (note the appeal for "concerned admins" to contact and coordinate with him off line so he can get back to the important business of porn marketing). talk ) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) You don't know that Ash hasn't involved the authorities, correct? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Ah, i think i've figured out the source of Ash's hysteria (his latest paranoid update about needing to communicate by email because "i have reason to believe this page is being monitored by members of the wikipedia review" tipped me off). It appears someone at Wikipedia Review figured out Ash's identity (or thinks he figured out Ash's identity). Ash imagines someone at Wikipedia can do something about this. Sadly for Ash, no one here can. Sadly for Wikipedia, that means the never-ending stream of "grabby award" sourced porn blps will soon resume. Sigh. talk ) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) If there's an RFC/U already halfway constructed, I suggest it be finished up and filed and this conversation can be taken up there. talk ) 17:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC) For months now I have been encouraging Ash (and Benjiboi before that) to file an RFC/U rather than make unsubstantiated accusations against me. Ash has started one but has delayed filing it for spurious reasons - first, because of an open ANI thread about Ash's misuse of citations and WQA thread raised by a trolling IP (both of which are now closed), and now because Ash's "basic safety comes first. The RFC/U will be delayed until these issues of safety are sorted out". In the meantime, Ash seems to believe that they are at liberty to make whatever unsubstantiated accusations they care to. Can someone please deal with these very serious personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC) If you think I'm trolling you, follow the proper DR process, instead of continuing to harass my fair edits. You have not participated in the truce that was offered to you, nor to the WQA that remains open. You've been asked by several third-parties to refrain from calling me a troll, yet you continue. You've indicated you're not interested in participating in any RFC/U's about your behavior, and any ANI's you've participated in have been closed against your favor...yet you continue to harass Ash to set a timelimit on filing an RFC/U which has been in preparation in barely under 2 weeks. Sounds quite a bit like Ash is not "paranoid", as Bali ultimate states, nor that the accusations are unsubstantiated. If you want these issues to pass, I'll remind you for the fifth time in 10 days that there is a Dispute Resolution process here on Wikipedia, and you should probably participate in that process. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Has this alleged serious personal attack been oversighted, or is there a link to it? Off2riorob (talk ) 18:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC) If you're referring to the attacks on me, see above. I do not know what personal attack Ash refers to in their note. I presume that the requests for oversight Ash referred to earlier in this thread involve their own contributions in which they identify themselves and/or link to their previous accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Suggest that either the parties fish or cut bait, or that the thread be closed. We can't do anything with allegations like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC) It just goes to show the dangers inherent in coming betwixt a queen and his wanking material! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC) ^not appropriate. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Let's try to get the basic facts down here, as the dramafest spins out of control: Ash used his real name, on-project, some time ago, and later associated his real name with his user ID (probably without realizing what he had done). A Wikipedia Review editor recently described some COI editing Ash had done, unrelated to the current dramafest, and identified WP editor "Ash" by his real name. Several Wikipedia Review editors, commenting on the ongoing combat between Ash and DC or on the COI edits, made further comments relating to Ash's real-world activities, included the (purported) identification of his real-world spouse. One WPR editor noticed that Ash had even uploaded a photo of himself to Wikipedia (since deleted). Ash has been ridiculed repeatedly in WPR comments. Ash's greatly overblown reaction to this situation, and his pattern of innuendo associating his contraries in editing disputed with unsavory behavior, make it hard to take his complaints in good faith. He was treated roughly at WPR, but that in no way justifies his general uncivil treatment of Wikipedia editors who also post at WPR, without regard to their involvement (mostly noninvolvement) in WPR discussions of his editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Those are some serious allegations and hardly a NPOV summary. Diffs for all of those "facts", please? A place where those facts have been presented for DR, please? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I am certainly not going to post diffs showing how Ash "outed" himself on Wikipedia; presumably those are among the items for which he has requested oversight, nor am I going to post WPR links evidencing or alleging his real-world identity. The rest, as I'm sure you're aware, is covered in this recently archived thread [46], to which you posted several times. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As I have been reverted twice now, I am formally requesting that an admin or another editor endorse my request and ArbComm as this is not the appropriate place. DustiSPEAK!! 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Isn't ANI the place to report violations of WP:NPA? How is this not a personal attack? Delicious carbuncle (talk ) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, by two different editors who disagree with you. Let the conversation run its course, such as it is. That strikes me as particularly worthwhile since the RFC that is allegedly imminent appears to rely rather heavily on old AN/I reports. The reason why this matter was brought here is because carbuncle alleges it is a rather insidious and serious sort of personal attack. Ash denies this but, nevertheless, it's the sort of complex situation that WQA and other of those venues are useless for. In as much as carbuncle might get a positive response to his good faith concern, this is the best venue. talk ) 21:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) With all due respect to your opinion, Delicious carbuncle would indeed and absolutely get the most positive response if s/he would participate willingly in the dispute resolution processes already presented, rather than continuing questionable editing behavior while ignoring most basic WikiPrinciples, including ALL of the 5P's. Dc's lack of willingness to participate thus far does not exactly endear any other editors to believe s/he might participate in the future. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC) IMO Ash needs to (rhetorically) either shit or get off the pot; you can't just leave vague accusation against other editors littered across the project. Finish the RfC/U or delete it. Make your case at an ArbCom, or drop the matter. Innuendo gets tiring after awhile. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC) The statement on User:Ash permanent link is totally unacceptable and should be highly refactored or deleted. The first sentence claims a "particularly disturbing personal attack" and the second refers to the "past conduct" of DC. Whether intended or not, the two sentences imply that DC has participated in an extreme attack. It is not acceptable for such a claim to be made on any page other than one where a formal complaint is actually lodged, with evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I have already put the draft RFC/U up for speedy deletion, it has only been left as blank at the request of Delicious carbuncle. The original notice that Delicious carbuncle raised this ANI about was re-written several times since this ANI was raised in order to address any complaint and now makes absolutely no mention of him/her or Wikipedia Review. I have also deleted all content and history from my User page so that none of it could be interpreted as a personal attack. If I could withdraw my 23,000 contributions from the last three and a half years from Wikipedia then I would have done so today. I believe that the outing information in this thread breaches the policy on these matters and it constitutes a personal attack of a homophobic nature whether that is the intent of those posting this information or not. I strongly object to it being left in this discussion. The fact that the reposting of outing information from Wikipedia Review on this ANI is apparently acceptable to administrators here has convinced me that it is foolish to pursue any complaint about any member of Wikipedia Review or the behaviour of Delicious carbuncle as attempted further speculative personal information could cause harm to me and those linked to me on Wikipedia Review whether the information is correct or not. If the intention here was to gag me from mentioning these matters then the abuse is more than enough to convince me it is not worth pursuing. As stated since Thursday on my user page and user talk page I have halted any contributions to any LGBT related articles for these reasons. Ash (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Ash, if you're really done editing here, you can always invoke the right to vannish. AniMate 02:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Ash, thank you for removing the references to me from your user and talk page header. That was my objective here, not causing you to leave or prevent you from editing Wikipedia. I have no objection to this thread being closed and archived if it will get your personal details out of public view faster. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the categories

23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see this, but there was no way in hell I was letting those stay--Jac16888^Talk 00:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This user's block was upheld by consensus here last year. They are asking now to be unblocked. They have admitted to disruptively editing before the block, and to block evasion afterword, it doesn't look like they've caused any issues since early October of last year. Since they were essentially banned by a discussion here I am bringing their request here. I'll also be notifying previously involved admins. Below is the the full text of their unblock request.

) 23:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Roughly a year ago a number of disputes began on articles relating to the 2009 Major League Soccer season. Before, during, and after those arguments I behaved in a way that I deeply, completely, and utterly regret. Looking back at my attitude going into those discussions, I clearly took an ownership attitude over most of the MLS and American soccer articles. In the cold light of day, I can see that now. While I regret that attitude, it honestly stemmed from my deeep passion for the sport in the United States, which had been an asset to the encyclopedia in years previous, when I had been a productive member of this community. That being said, I do recognize that it was inappropriate, and I really am sorry. If given the opportunity, I promise to be more humble and to work in a more constructive way with others. During those discussions, I took on an unnecessarily aggressive, demeaning, and most importantly unwelcoming attitude toward both newers members to the community and established members who had recently taken an interest in MLS and American soccer. Again, I deeply regret those actions. I wish more than anything that I could go back and unsay some of the things that I said, or at the very least the way that I said those things. If given the opportunity, the first thing I wish to do is apologize to each of the members who I offended and made feel unwelcome in this project. Finally, after being banned from editing the encyclopedia, I engaged in utterly indefensible behavior to attempt to evade my ban. This behavior was disruptive to the encyclopedia, and I can only apologize and ask forgiveness with the promise that it would never happen again if this community sees it fit to reinvite me into the fold. While I can honestly say that the initial suspicion of sock puppetry was really my brother and I both engaging in the discussion from our home in Dayton, we were at the very least guilty of meatpuppetry, since we did not make it clear who we were from the beginning. Again, I can only apologize for this behavior, ask for forgiveness, and attempt to prove that I can be a valuable member of this community once more. I am so very sorry and ashamed of the things that I did over the last year, and I ask to be given another chance to rejoin the encyclopedia.

I would support his unblock request as he seems sincere that he has learned his lesson.

) 01:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if we unblock him and he continues his old ways? Kingjeff (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We reblock him.

talk

) 02:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Would that reblock be an indefinite block as it is now? The only way I could say unblock him is if we put in stipulations stating that his current indefinite block would come into effect after lets say 2 or 3 blockable incidents or maybe reinstate that indefinite block immediately after the first blockable incident happens. Kingjeff (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look at the user's contribs and unblock request, and I'd cautiously support an unblock, provided that the user abides by a double-strength good behaviour commitment; on the first sign of trouble, they're indef blocked again, permanently this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC).
• While his last sock incident (that I know of) was actually only 6 months ago, I would support giving Grant another chance. If there is concern that not enough time has passed or that he may revert back to his bad behavior, I'd suggest unblocking him with a 0RR probationary period or something along those lines. I'm willing to forgive the disruption and frustration he caused myself and other editors and I encourage the administrators to do the same. I agree that if his contributions become unproductive or problematic as they were before, he should be swiftly banned again. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with SkotyWA. Unblock and limit him to 0RR or 1RR, and if disruption/edit warring/sock puppetry become an issue again, re-ban. ← George ^talk 06:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

copied from his talk page

00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I say given him another chance, with the provision that nobody is going to completely forget the past, and I'd expect tolerance to be thin in the future if he starts the improper behavior again. -- Atama頭 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would also agree on another chance based on his replies at User talk:Grant.Alpaugh#Unblock. something lame from CBW 02:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Another chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've unblocked him and made sure he was aware that any return to the previous behavior will lead to the block being re-instated without further warning.

) 17:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Never give in (talk · contribs) is making a large number of edits today, after not having edited since January, which result in the articles he's editing looking just like they did prior to his beginning his edits. I've asked for an explanation. Woogee (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed commas being removed on some of the edits, which to my eyes, made the text slightly less grammatical. (It removed a pause where a pause makes the text more readable). Example I suggest backing out all of this user's edits and blocking further editing, until an explanation is provided. Wildbear (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well its been a few hours since they last edited so I think a better idea than blocking would be to see if they restart the same behaviour or respond to the comments left on their talk page. something lame from CBW 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They have restarted doing the exact same thing despite being told by several editors to be more careful, and they have not responded on the talk page. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't suppose the user ID might provide a clue, do you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that "and" should never be preceded by a comma. All of his edits that I checked were instances of his removing such a comma. In a few cases the removed commas did seem to me to be redundant, but there are several examples, like the one cited by Wildbear, where the removed commas preceded instances of the conjuction "and" that were connecting two independent sentences. According to my copy (admittedly dated to the nearly antediluvian epoch of 1968) of Fowler's

Modern English Usage, the comma is required in such cases. In at least at least one other case

he also erroneously deleted the second of a pair of commas enclosing a parenthetical comment, where both commas (or a pair of some other stops, such as dashes or parenthesis) are likewise required. I don't believe a block is at all warranted, since it is very likely that this editor sincerely believes his edits are genuine improvements. He does, however, need to be imformed that some of his ideas on the use of the comma don't agree with recommendations given in reputable style manuals.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems I have fallen a little behind developments in this saga. I should have checked the editor's talk page before posting.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the most recent development is that I've blocked this account along with two more for abusing multiple accounts (the other two were doing exactly the same unhelpful editing.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, My name is Jill Monroe. I have taken my research and also going to copy and paste the material I have done and post it here. Also if you simply go to Brett Salisbury in google search. then go to archives. There are over 9800 articles on this Gentleman. He also had a book ranked 6th in the country right now. that in and of itself should remove him. He started at quarterback in the Pac 10 at the university of oregon. Just being a starting quarterback at a division 1 school like Oregon where he started against UCLA should also qualify him. When you list people like Kevin Craft for instance who is a quarterback at UCLA on here, how can Salisbury have ever been deleted in the first place? Please explain that. Here is the page. Thank you. I am new to this so I hope Im doing this right. Jill Monroe 04:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Jill Monroe

[ content truncated ]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Salisbury - August 2008: 'This person is non-notable. The sporting achievements are minor, the modeling claims are questionable, and the opening claim of being a nutritionist is unsubstantiated other than by an, as yet, unpublished book (also subject to an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transform_diet). Poltair (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.45.36.159 (talk)

• The book ranked 6th in the country right now is not quite correct. It's 6th in January of the self-published books via iUniverse - a somewhat less grand claim. [47] --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This person's userpage, should be deleted as well, as a recreation of deleted material. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked 115.132.107.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours for racist vandalism to the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix article. Yesterday I issued a uw-van4im to 115.134.109.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for the same thing. I suspect that these edits (changing "Lewis Hamilton" to "Black Baboon") are being done by the same person. This needs an eye keeping on. I don't know enough about rangeblocks to form an opinion on whether or not such a block would work. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The range is too large, it stretches over more than 250000 ips. decltype (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Might this be a candidate for an abuse filter ("edits from the given IP range including the words "black baboon")? (unfortunately I don't know enough about abuse filters to say whether I'm asking an inane question). Tonywalton ^Talk 12:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me, though I don't know if it's plausible either. :) Alternatively, what about semi-protection to the article? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd for 2 weeks. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I doubt it's just this range. I know from personal experience that there are often multiple ranges you can end up with when using

Streamyx from the same location (well basically disconnecting and reconnecting). It's not something I've paid much attention to in the past year or so, they may have changed their routing behaviour but I doubt it Nil Einne (talk

) 14:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested at

WP:EF/R that an edit filter be created. Mjroots (talk

) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Behavior of

Yugiohmike2001

Lately, Yugiohmike2001's constant reverting has became a major issue. He was even blocked on the 21st for his editing. However, even after constant attempts by myself and other editors to get him in provide an edit summary or revert less, he continues to just ignore everyone. I'm not going to provide diffs, since there are so many, so I will ask that you look at his contributions. I think that if does not comply, he should either be blocked for a long time period (six months) or permanently topic banned from anything pertaining to wrestling. His edits have become a major problem that I know no one else feels like cleaning up. –Turian (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Notified. –Turian (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Will an administrator actually look at this so I don't have to dig it out of the archives? –Turian (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I looked at it and while his contributions do indeed include a lot of reverting, most of the reverts don't seem blatantly incorrect - he seems to work in an area that has a lot of unhelpful IP additions. If you can point me to a few specific reverts in the last few days that actually are unhelpful or dubious, it would be more obvious. I agree that edit summaries would be helpful, but in itself it's not blockable. ~ mazca ^talk 13:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

) 14:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not since the outcome was obvious. Telling them that they shouldn't have probably done that is in order.

talk

) 15:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) For the sake of strict propriety, I have reopened and made an uninvolved close. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I just got an edit conflict on

talk

) 14:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

81.155.22.183

This IP adress who is also the blocked user KirkleyHigh and IP 86.162.18.140 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KirkleyHigh/Archive) continues to make the same edits as previously : removal of content including references,[48] improper capitalization,[49] etc... As always, it's impossible to discuss with him : warnings and messages on his talk page are ignored.[50][51][52] See also this previous discussion [53]. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has been inserting poorly source material into

- 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the reporting user is trying to retaliate for having been reported for edit waring and reverting referenced material 8 times on the same article here. To my knowledge, none of what I have done is against any Wikipedia policy. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not why I filed this report, in fact if an admin properly reviews your 3RR complaint you should be blocked for repeated violations of

WP:BLP. I was glad you filed that report. nableezy

- 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm happy you're glad I filed the report. We shall see who is in violation according to the admins. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 02:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to start a thread about Lanternix myself. I find it very disturbing that he is encouraging a blocked editor to evade his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking him/her to evade the block. My understanding, and I was told this before, is that if a user is blocked indefinitely - as is the case here - then he/she can come back with a new username as long as they no longer repeat the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place. It's not like an indefinite block is a block for life! What if the person took the time to rethink their actions? I would appreciate an admin's comment on this. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that what you did? nableezy - 03:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I did. All I told him was Please come back with another username. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been extremely helpful! Why is that such a big deal? Is there a Wikipedia rule against this? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asking if you came back from an indefinitely blocked account as this username. nableezy - 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ask that, and why is that of any concern to you? Not that it's any of your business, but the answer is no. And the question is completely out of line. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "Is there a Wikipedia rule against this?"; a person is is blocked indefinitely for socking, and you encouraged him to, um...make another sock. In what alternate reality is there not a rule against this? Tarc (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wikipedia rules state that a user who is blocked indefinitely can never come back to edit on Wikipedia as a different user until the day of their death? I'm sorry, but is that what you're calling common sense??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While I sympathize with Copts always being in the minority against Arabs, said user was blocked just a few days ago. The "fresh-start"-thingie you're referring to won't fly after such a short time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I did not look at the date of when that user was blocked. Second of all, it's never too early for someone to rethink his/her actions and start all over again with a different attitude. And thanks for sympathizing with the Copts. We need it. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 03:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain this in simple language, Lanternix. When a user is blocked, the person is blocked, not just the Username. Using a new Username to evade a block is called sockpuppetry. See

03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik, thank you for trying to explain this to me. But please bear with me and answer my 2 following questions:

1. Is a Wikipedia user who has been blocked indefinitely never allowed to come back to edit on Wikipedia in the future using a different username?
2. In case the answer to question number 1 is negative, is there any rule on Wikipedia that prohibits other users from encouraging a permanently blocked user from coming back to edit? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1. A blocked user may
   ask to be unblocked
   . A user should not come back using a new Username unless she/he has been unblocked.
2. There's no rule against encouraging a blocked user to appeal her/his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, so in light of what you said:

1. What if the user's
   appeal to be unblocked
   has been denied? Is the user who has been blocked indefinitely never allowed to come back to edit on Wikipedia in the future using a different username?
2. Technically I did not do anything wrong by encouraging the user to come back. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. If a user's unblock request is turned down, she/he can wait a while and make a new request (or find a new hobby and give up Wikipedia). You may not have realized it, but you encouraged Toothie3 to violate Wikipedia policy and create a

sockpuppet to evade his block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not encourage anybody to create a sockpuppet. I only encouraged the user to come back and not give up editing on Wikipedia because their contributions have been invaluable. There's no rule against encouraging a user to come back and not to give up! At least I'm not aware of any. I will hereby repeat what I said earlier: "My understanding, and I was told this before, is that if a user is blocked indefinitely - as is the case here - then he/she can come back with a new username as long as they no longer repeat the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place. It's not like an indefinite block is a block for life! What if the person took the time to rethink their actions?" --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What we have here is

a failure to communicate. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 05:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix, whoever told you that "...if a user is blocked indefinitely - as is the case here - then he/she can come back with a new username as long as they no longer repeat the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place." was incorrect. You may encourage an indefinitely blocked user to return but not under a new name. They should be encouraged to follow the appeals outline at

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. As far as I can see this has been explained to you clearly more than once. If you still do not understand then please ask me on my talk page rather than repeating it again here. Encouraging an indefinitely blocked user to return again under a new user name will more than likely lead to your being blocked. something lame

from CBW 07:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If what you're saying is true, then I apologize for having made this suggestion to the blocked user. I was not aware that this is the Wikipedia policy. Blocking me for having made a suggestion like this in good faith seems a little extreme to me. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the last sentence was badly written. I should have said "If you were to post another message that encourages an indefinitely blocked user to return under a new name, it is more than likely you would be blocked." I was not intending to suggest that you be blocked for doing it the first time. something lame from CBW 08:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out something.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

I don't see anything inherently wrong with coming back under a new name and not repeating the behavior that got you blocked. To suggest that it is wrong is illogical. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly if one is doing that to

avoid scrutiny (and not disclosing said previous account(s)), that would indeed be an example of using multiple accounts in a misleading way. –MuZemike

14:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't we have sort of a tacit understanding that if a blocked user returns under a new account and behaves well, there's really no way to figure out that they're a blocked editor? While maybe there's a

beans argument to be made against what Laternix said, is it really beneficial to try to hide from others what everyone who's been here a while knows? Buddy431 (talk

) 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, openness is a good thing I suppose, but there's a difference between someone quietly coming along and behaving impeccably and people turning a blind eye to whether it might be a user who was banned a while ago returning, and someone - User:Lanternix on this occasion - soliciting an editor who's very recently been banned for socking to come back with a new username within days in order to back them up in their efforts to insert contentious material onto pages here, surely? Also note that, following his own short block, Lanternix is now talking about strengthening "our lobby" and bantering with another editor on their talkpage who is describing another editor - User:Nableezy - as "Muhammad or whatever". None of this seems to have much to do with writing an encyclopedia. N-HH talk/edits 19:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is this:

Making a clean start by quietly evading a block and not getting in trouble again is the only practical way to prove the administrators wrong in a case where an appeal against the block was made in full compliance of the rules, and was denied. However, it can also be a defiant gesture against a restraint against bad behavior. The circumstances matter.

Until a genuinely contrite user exhausts all legal methods for returning, sneaking in the back door implies willful disregard of process, and someone with enough of an attitude to blow off process in such a manner is also far less likely to be respectful in a new incarnation. A person's attitude is generally a fairly constant attribute about them, and how they treat a block against them will likely reflect projectively on how they will treat the encyclopedia as a whole if/when they return.

Barring such an attempt at going by the book first, however, someone defying a block is going outside the realm of annoyance and venturing into the realm of trespassing. Ultimately, the wikimedia foundation owns the servers wikipedia is hosted on, and someone, ultimately, an invited guest, who is shown the door and told not to come back has lost their invitation, and becomes a trespasser if they return. Continuing the analogy, if someone barges into your house uninvited, you can call the police and have them escorted off the property, or arrested if they don't leave. Or, in the case of an internet site, file a complaint with their ISP asserting unauthorized access, and having their internet access revoked if they won't stop causing trouble.

Someone who repeatedly defies blocks by sockpuppeting is a trespasser and should be dealt with accordingly. In fact, there's an established process for this: wp:abuse. Also, as detialed in wp:ban, evading a ban is prima facie against the rules anyway, even if the edits themselves are good ones.

There's an old saying about "soap, ballot, jury, ammo" boxes that I believe is applicable to users trying to rehabilitate themselves. Jumping straight to block evasion is not the right answer.

My two cents. Shentino (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Openly encouraging someone to violate the rules is a major no-no. It's pretty obvious that an indef'd user could have the capability to come back as a different user, and might remain undetected as long as he changes his area of interest and his way of working. There may be some like that. But the ones that give themselves away are those that can't help but come back to the places that got them into trouble in the first place. And if they haven't "changed their ways", their approach will eventually catch up and they'll be indef'd again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree w/Malik's comments, above. I also note that in the 3RR violation mentioned at the outset of this string, both were blocked, though Nableezy's block is for 48 hours and he is made subject to a one revert per page per day restriction with respect to all pages or content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the next three months, and Lanternix is blocked for 72 hours.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the news on the main page...

Google redirects its .cn domain to Hong Kong servers and stops censoring its search results within the People's Republic of China.

This is wrong. The lengthy, but correct version might be...

Google redirects its .cn domain to servers in Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region in the People's Republic of China, and stops censoring its search results within the People's Republic of China for those users who have access to google.hk.

Error 1: Hong Kong is China but a special region, like Puerto Rico in the U.S. or Aland in Finland.

Error 2: Google.cn did not stop censoring, it is just redirected.

Of course, if we think WP should be mostly accurate but just a little inaccurate, then no change is needed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible corrected version: Google redirects its .cn domain to Hong Kong servers to avoid efforts to have its search results censored by the People's Republic of China government.

• WP:ERRORS is the place for this. Jon 22:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.83.41 (talk
  )

This new editor (User:Stoopach) seems to be an obvious sock of Sorrywrongnumber (most recently known as User:B-Wuuu). They're editing the same articles, and editwarring to add unreferenced information concerning the subjects' personal lives to their BLP articles.

They also created a new article, Jeremy Cox (actor), which is the name that Sorrywrongnumber claimed was his on his User page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Also look at User:Aaaaafslkfjlkdaaaa who just attempted to delete this entry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Second deletion by User:Bbbbbfcbfasasas - clearly Sorrywrongnumber is out of control at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Already blpped. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

user:AAAAaaasaaaa, who removed speedy delete and other tags from the Jeremy Cox article, should also be blocked.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're fast! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's nice when socks telegraph who they are. Saves a lot of time and effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

user:DDDdddddddfaafsafs is next. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think James Kerwin and Chase Masterson should be fully protected for a while, and Jeremy Cox (actor) deleted and salted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

user:EEeeeeelyyyy. (We must have missed a "C" user somewhere). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly User:Ccccccccasjccc, though I would warn against jumpinbg to conclusions (the user hasnt edited yet, as far as I know; I just found them by browsing the new user log). —Soap— 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe all of these have been blocked except for User:DDDdddddddfaafsafs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

C and D now blocked as well. —

talk

) 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A possible second "D" is User:Deeeeeddddeeeeee, created at about the same time (somewhat later), but hasn't edited yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I nominated

) 07:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And now they've nominated

Lady GaGa for afd. Woogee (talk

) 07:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not currently holding a bit or I would block them for you but AIV seems the quickest place to end this...
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  07:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But they haven't received a full complement of warnings. Till now. I just gave them a blp4 warning for not only nominating Barack Obama for afd, but adding BLP violations to the article. Woogee (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

According to their User page, they're a primary school student. Woogee (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And now they're blocked. Woogee (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just ran across three AfD nominations, [66], [67], and [68], which are all clearly notable articles that have a high number of references, but have been nominated by

08:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Persistent implicit reverting

Last year I noticed administrators about arrogant bearing of Zen-in that was reverting systematically all my edits in various pages and finally he caused an edit war. Now, he begins doing the same in the Counter page trying to conceal his revertings by misleading and meaningless summaries in the subject line ("Corrected error in description", "Corrected grammar", "Repaired illogical sentence", "Syntax correction"...) Actually, he has reverted the current page to the state before my edits. Here is the history of these hidden reverting shown by the differences with the previous versions (the misleading comments are shown in round brackets):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=351577900&oldid=351519656 (Corrected error in description)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359224&oldid=352199087 (Corrected grammar, repaired illogical sentence)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359658&oldid=352359224 (?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=352359658 (syntax correction)

And this is the "difference" between the initial (before my edits) and the current state of the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=350904704

As you can see, the only "difference" is... the word "two"; the only Zen-in contribution to this page is one word?!?!?!? What does it mean? What is it?

I consider Zen-in actions as a kind of "internal vandalism" done by a Wikipedian. Such unreliable people do not deserve to be Wikipedians. Please, take the according precautions to prevent the coming edit war.

I have supplied all my edits with comprehensive comments written in the bottom subject line. But, if it is needed, I can first comment every my edit on the talk page and then to move it to the main page.

Circuit dreamer (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Without a sign of consensus and with significant disputes, Kwamikagami (talk · contribs), an administrator who has been consistently an "involved party" for the past six months, suddenly moved the disputed "Cantonese (Yue)" page to "Yue Chinese". This is a unilateral move that took place suddenly and without any hint of consensus. There has been many prior calls for Kwami to refrain from moving the page himself because he is so heavily involved in the subject area. He has clearly not heeded these calls. I ask that a non-involved administrator move the page back to its former name, ASAP. Colipon+(Talk) 19:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion, closed now for several weeks, was "Yue Chinese" rather than the temporary straw-poll name, which was never intended to be permanent. By that I don't mean that Yue Chinese won the poll, which is not what decisions are based on (though it did, if narrowly), but that the points of the debate were on that side: Consensus that "Cantonese" should refer to Cantonese; common and technical convention when this distinction is made (either (a) Cantonese vs Canton dialect or Standard Cantonese, or (b) Yue vs Cantonese; again, WP consensus was for the latter when Standard Cantonese was moved to Cantonese); WP's Chinese naming conventions; and WP's dab conventions ("Cantonese (Yue)" being logically incorrect; "Yue (Cantonese)" would have been a correct use of that convention, but there was little desire for that name). kwami (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Kwami, there was no consensus for anything - the archives speak for themselves. Even if you are fully justified, which you are not, you should let an uninvolved party deal with it. It should not take an administrator to know these basic rules of the encyclopedia. And this has happened one too many times. Colipon+(Talk) 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the move, purely on the technical basis that there was not an apparent consensus and that the editor who actioned the previous move is an involved party. Please ensure an uninvolved admin reviews the discussion and determines consensus for any future move. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion closed weeks ago, and nothing's been done. Where do we go from here? kwami (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard was very clear on that: you ask a non-involved admin to review the discussion and determine if a consensus has been reached. You are a veteran administrator, kwami. I feel as though you should know these things before you did the page move. Each time one of these unilateral moves occur, I feel that respect for you from the community decreases. Adminship is a responsibility, not a privilege. Please respect the other parties that have been involved in the discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 06:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Cantonese (Yue), and several other Cantonese articles) I think it is highly inappropriate for him to move any of the Cantonese articles, since he is an involved editor who knows that there are disputes in the naming of the article, yet ignores the years worth of discussions that he has been invloved with in the naming of the articles. 76.66.192.73 (talk

) 06:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The years of discussion have arrived at "Cantonese" and "Yue Chinese", as you presumably know. kwami (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the consensus should be enacted by an uninvolved party. It ensures that instances such as these do not occur. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• AFAICT, Kwamikagami's admin actions (unilateral page moves) at Cantonese go as far back as December 2008. They are of great concern, as he is clearly an involved editor pushing some sort of agenda, and
  should not be involved in actions of this type. Ohconfucius ^¡digame!
  16:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Continued canvassing of AfD nominations

I was going to make a report at

21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't even think there is circumstantial evidence of canvassing or meatpuppetry. I'm not seeing a problem here. The articles on which the three of them have !voted together are a small proportion of the number of AfDs that they have participated in individually. Its not alarming that AfD regulars will cross paths in a number of AfD debates. The patterns are also different: each user has a different style of edit summary for instance and they !vote keep on quite a few occasions. New accounts going straight to AfD is unusual, but not necessarily evidence of untoward behaviour. I would want substantially more evidence before supporting a SPI here: there is nothing disruptive happening and the circumstantial evidence is very thin. Finally, a lot of AfD regulars start out as rabid deletionists and mellow over time. Lets be careful not to bite potentially constructive contributors. --
  Mkativerata (talk
  ) 22:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing does look a little fishy, though. SuperHappyPerson created his account in September 2009--then only sporadic edits until just a few days ago, and all on AfDs.

96

22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's fishy. Many editors (myself included) have sporadic edits for months or years before ploughing into AfDs. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but SuperHappyPerson had only three edits in September '09, then nothing until recently.

96

22:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How does that matter? He made a few edits with a new account, went on his merry way, and then decided to edit again and wanted to contribute to AfDs... That is a

Mkativerata (talk

) 22:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks a lot like Dalejenkins, but we ran a checkuser on him a few weeks ago and these weren't caught, so it probably isn't him. The only user that could be him is the joker one, as he was created after the latest check. I'm willing to start up one to see if the joker is it if anyone thinks that it will be useful.

talk

) 22:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI's aren't for fishing. A new user should not be subjected to a SPI merely because he or she participates in a few AfDs. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 22:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I whacked a sock of Dale after he nominated an article that I created for deletion. I only found out after another editor notified me. He came on, used Wikilawyering, and I was suspicious. I added him to the active investigation, and the sock was blocked. Interestingly, the creator of that SPI was a sock of another user.

talk

) 22:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but basically anyone who edits from the UKs biggest ISP is being whacked as a sock of Dale ... Black Kite 01:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We only knocked off about 7 socks, and these all participate in deletion discussions. He seems to have slowed down popping up again, so I'm hopeful that these ones aren't connected. Why they were linked to Dale at the SPI, I won't know.

talk

) 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have opened an investigation

) 23:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Joker64's first edits were to create an article,

talk

) 06:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't get what the clerk was trying to do there. Personally, I don't want to put a link between them and Supertart, I just want them all checked so this can be closed.

talk

) 14:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Joker265 is probably someone else, but the other two are two of the twenty or so socks of User:Mynameisstanley that I just blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 recently threatened me in the midst of a mediation case. [117] He's since deleted the post without being prompted to do so and I am therefore not asking for administrative action. However, I felt that I should note the issue here in the event that he continues to threaten me. I take the matter rather seriously as I've not attempted to conceal my real-world identity. Eugene (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with your actions. I would suggest you save the URL for the diff where you added the above comment to ANI somewhere, so if a further ANI case needs to be made you have your initial action there to evidence. SGGH ^ping! 10:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also save the diff of your

WP:AGF comment on his talk page for further evidence. We won't take any more action now as that would just turn embers into flames. SGGH ^ping!

10:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the original posting here, User:Jbolden1517 has simply re-posted a similar threat on Eugeneacurry's own talk page [118]. IRL threats are completely unacceptable here, and I have therefore blocked jbolden1517 until they can work in a more collegial manner. Black Kite 11:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the history of vandalism from this IP range has been tracked over the last 2 months, see Wikipedia:Abuse response/75.2xx.xxx.xxx, perhaps it's time for some considered action? As I have been forced to stop using my Wikipedia account for working on articles, I may not be following up on this particular problem in the future. Ash (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never done a range block, but according to [119], just looking at the 23 "newer" listings in that abuse response report, a range block of that magnitude could inadvertently affect a lot of people. (So many, I wonder if something is wrong. It says, and I quote, "(up to 4194304 users would be blocked)") The activity seems to be limited to one page. In accordance with

WP:PP, since the article itself is open, I have semi-protected Talk:Church of Satan for two weeks, which can be extended if necessary. If somebody familiar with range blocks drops by and realizes that this isn't quite the magnitude my blockcalc results suggest, perhaps they can make short work of this and open the talk page for editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

12:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that all of the IPs in that list are either in the range 75.200.0.0 - 75.203.255.255 or 75.248.0.0 - 75.251.255.255. So I would hypothesize that Satan doesnt have access to the entire range 75.192.0.0 - 75.255.255.255, but only to two much smaller ranges that fall within it (and appear to be owned by the same ISP). I'm not an administrator, and wouldn't feel comfortable with even a small rangeblock if I were, but if someone does feel that a range block is appropriate I am pointing out that it wouldnt necessarily have to be a huge one. —Soap— 14:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. Blocking over 4 million people to protect that talk page seems a bit extreme. :) Perhaps an experienced rangeblock admin (or exorcist) will wander by who can determine if that rangeblock is more reasonable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User UCLAcdemic was banned in the last days, as well as some of his sockpuppets. Well, 67.188.204.114 is a new sockpuppet, which earlier today even vandalised my user page [120]. His other sockpuppet ip's include 74.50.125.97, 75.127.67.114 (both blocked). -TheG (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, the article in question is Islam in Denmark. His ranting can be found on its talk page, where it is obvious that the ip's are sockpuppets. He also proclaimed at the banning of his account that he were now to evade the ban by use of sockpuppets. -TheG (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

67.188.204.114 blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 15:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

- Hello this is magicianbink, I have tried on numerous occasions to work with both Eik Corell and Falcon9x5 to find a way that i can update the article and provide information that is relevant to the the Tony Hawks Pro skater series, while i understand the a basic list of songs Isn't conducive to a good article i have explained my intentions of improving that format, which has only been met with further negativity. As a person who has followed the series and have used these articles for reference i can safely say that the consensus has in the past leaned toward content edited in a somewhat similar fashion to my own, and those editors have also been met by pressure and bullying by users that by my own experience have no inclination to compromise. I understand there are rules but there are also exceptions to these rules otherwise why would there be any debate at all or the need for any means of consensus if these rules were so set in stone Magicianbink (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like to point out that Magicianbink hasn't tried to "find a way" to update the article, and has essentially ignored the four separate times I've tried to give advice on how to include the music[123][124][125][126], three separate times on the alternate ways he can work on the list without leaving it half finished on the article itself[127][128][129], and has instead repeatedly reinserted the list (which I and Eik above feel is

™

20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate doing this but I have to report this user. He has used rollback correctly, but also uses it incorrectly. He misuses it too much. I post my warning to him here which explains where i found his misuse, but if you look at his history there is more.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback is a privilege NOT a right. You have been misusing it by using it to revert edits that are clearly not vandalism. I stumbled upon you revert on My Gym Partner's a Monkey to IP user 68.19.165.98 & 72.198.204.240 which were not vandalism. They just added a fact that the show was showing again, which it is. I was just going to warn you about this, but then I looked at your history and I was deeply disappointed in what I saw. You made two inappropriate reverts on Cartoon Network, one to List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes, The Powerpuff Girls and others. I'm going to have to report you to have your rollback revoked. This is too much. Your report will be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to illustrate your report so that we all aren't required to search through their contributions. Thanks. —

talk

) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the ones that I found.

[130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138]

As you can see, I only went back up to March 19.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the ones you point out there, each of those diffs I perceive as being vandalism by being either disruptive or wholly inaccurate and usually prolonged over several edits where I need to rollback most of their recent edits for being wilful addition of opinion or factually inaccurate content across several articles. I'll admit that I do on occasion misuse rollback if only in order to shorten the amount of clicks I make but that sort of thing is minimal so I'd like to see better examples of my blatant and wanton misuse. baa! _radda 13:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out

WP:VANDAL. Adding content, even if wrong headed or plain wrong, is not vandalism. Many forms of disruptive editing (POV pushing, hypernationalism, inserting unsourced BLP information) is NOT vandalism, and rollback should not be used.Elen of the Roads (talk

) 19:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you thought it was vandalism why didn't you warn the user (I'm glad you didn't since it wasn't). If you think it's vandalism you warn the user. If you aren't willing to warn a user about an edit that's a good sign that its not vandalism.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your rollback, Baa. I don't think you mean harm but the fact is you admit you sometimes misuse rollback intentionally and you don't seem to understand that rollback is only provided as an anti-vandalism tool, not to reduce the number of clicks you need to make when reverting for editorial or content reasons. Misusing rollback can damage the project and scare off good faith newbie editors who don't understand why you're reverting them. If you're reverting good faith but poor quality edits, they should get an explanation for the revert so they know what they're doing wrong and can improve. You can use undo etc for now and once you've demonstrated you understand the appropriate way to use automated tools and will only use them appropriately regardless of whether it requires an extra click or not, you can request the tool be returned to you. Sarah 05:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A new user (the type one could fear would be vulnerable to Al-Qaeda recruitment efforts) is misusing Wikipedia as a place to place hateful messages, links to YouTube, etc:

• 79.69.124.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I placed a welcome template and warnings on their talk page. They have replaced them.

Contributions

• 11:51, March 28, 2010 (hist | diff) User talk:79.69.124.107 ‎ (←Replaced content with ' the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit') (top) [rollback]

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit

• 11:50, March 28, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America: new section)

Added the following:

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America

the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America... Syrian Arabic republic only how is Assyrian pieces of rubbishand shit

• 11:47, March 28, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America)

Blanked whole page and placed this message:

Assyrian Nation Rubbish nation ..there are Arab no any more Assyrian...there is only Syrian Arabic republic ...the all admen of this topic from America and they are spy of America

• 23:15, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Al Qamishli is historically Syriac and Armenian, not kurdish)

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:15, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→remove "WikiProject Kurdistan")

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:13, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Qamishli belongs to Assyria)

Vandalism and placement of YouTube link.

• 23:10, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Help talk:Edit summary ‎ (→arab and assyrian killing kurdish people: new section)

arab and assyrian killing kurdish people

this clip will show how arab and assyrian ar killing kurdish civilian .these is the true of arab and assyrian people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

• 23:05, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Name)

killing krdish peoplethese it is the true of arab and assyrian and how they killing kurdish people people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

• 23:02, March 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Talk:Al-Qamishli ‎ (→Al Qamishli is an Aramean city)

these is the true of arab and assyrian people I ask every on to watch this clip to see the true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0brR1dKM0bM

This user is up to no good. --

) 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now notified the user of this thread. --

talk

) 16:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Err,

WP:AIV? Unomi (talk

) 17:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just vandalism. There are admins here who can take care of the problem, including the vandalism. It's to block the user. --

talk

) 04:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about html coloring

I keep running into table coloring that look like rainbow, and tv shows that seem bent on differentiating different characters (good guys in powder blue and bad guys in black, etc). What is our stance on this? I think its distracting and un-encyclopedic. Thoughts? - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue to discuss this, probably better at

WP:VPP. Equazcion ^(talk)

21:44, 28 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Err, as I understand it, Village Pump is for discussing NEW ideas or basic griping. I am doing neither. I am seeking a policy/guideline on how we address excessive html coloration. Let's try this again

WP:COLOR i s what you are after. Gnangarra

02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Gnangarra. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm raising this here as it's a bit outside my area of knowledge, and to try and centralise discussion. Three editors have contacted me over the last couple of days concerning an issue with articles about places in Romania which have a different name in Hungarian.

The first contact I had was from Umumu (talk · contribs), who wrote:- Hello

I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)

Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 2. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian: Romanian_Name; Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

Variant 3. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)

There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them

Thanks in advance for your answer. Umumu (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My reply on Umumu's talk page was:-

I'd say that if the location is in Romania, the Romanian name should occur first, with the Hungarian name second (option 1). Similar to how the name of the Dutch city of Leeuwarden is treated in that article. The city is in the Netherlands, so its Dutch name is given and is the article title. It is the capital of the province of Friesland, so its name in Stadtsfries (a dialect) and West Frisian (a recognised provincial language) are also given. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian later contacted me with this message:-

Hello, i am contacting you to try to resolve a certain problem with Hungarian names in Romania. In Romania official language is Romanian therefore names of the certain towns etc should be in Romanian and then in brackets in other language names. I think that is the standard wiki policy, please, correct me if i am wrong. Now some users are trying to change this, ex [here]. Can you please help me to solve this problem? Thank you in advance. iadrian (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't reply as for much of last evening I couldn't access any Wikipedia website due to getting an "unable to contact server" message until about 21:30 UTC. This morning, Rokarudi (talk · contribs) posted another message on my talk page.:-

I can only repeat myself. Please look at the compromise reached many years ago on this subject(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc)

It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.

Please also study the recent opinion on this issue of neutral and undoubtedly impartial editors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu

Please stop wikihounding and vandalizing hundreds of articles.

Kind regards:User:Rokarudi Rokarudi 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thus it would seem that there is a dispute about the inclusion or otherwise of the Hungarian name for a place in an article about a place in Romania. This has the potential to develop into an edit war, with the inevitable results of blocks, topic bans etc. In an effort to avert this, it seems that a centralised location for a discussion would be in order. If anyone feels that there is a better location, please feel free to copy this post over to the new venue. My personal view is that if the infobox has a space for an alternative name, then that name should be added, with the necessary annotation as to the language. Both should also be mentioned in the lede, per the example of Leeuwarden that I used in my original reply to Umumu. I will notify Umumu, Iadrian and Rokarudi of this post. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We never denied the necessity of including the Hungarian names too. It would be ridiculous to ask something like that for localities with absolute Hungarian majority

We just want to respect the standard naming policy

WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk

) 09:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

All three now notified. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this matter. I never said that Hungarian names should not be present, just not in the form Rokarudi is presenting it, as we can see the changes i made on some of the articles, i am just for respecting the standard naming polocy, since in Transilvania Hungarian language has no legal status and no form of autonomy we should use the standard form EX: Satu Mare (Hungarian: ------; etc)... like explained on

) 09:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, form 1 Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) , as standard wiki policy implies. Yes, this example is OK. iadrian (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.". My opinion is that Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name) (Umumu (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

If there is more than one foreign language (non-Romanian) name, the order should be by size of minority, so if there's a large German minority than Hungarian, then the German name should come first, and vice versa. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what we think. But it looks messy to make such lead sections:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frumoasa,_Harghita (Umumu (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Yes, in this case, the Hungarian minority, the first other language names should be in Hungarian and then in German , etc.. iadrian (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, with this example here, The villages should not have Hungarian names in this form. On the page about that particular village other language names can be present (Hungarian) but not in every instance this location is mentioned, since we should use the official names only when talking about that location/village. EX:

• Bârzava/Csíkborzsova
• Făgeţel/Bükklok
• Frumoasa/Szépvíz
• Nicoleşti/Csíkszentmiklós

iadrian (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What we speak about is not a simple discussuion on proper editing, but are facing:

1) Sockpuppetry by User:Iadrian yu, User:Dicocodino and User:Umumu as sockpupets of recently blocked editor Iaaasi, 2.) Act of large-scale vandalism, deleting long established and accepted content, 3.) Challenging accepted practices confirmed by a compromise in the very delicate subject of placenaming in Transylvania.

I must remind everyone, who is not very familiar, with the topic, that in 2007 there was a long discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc

The status quo ante discussion was this:

Romanian titles, Romanian and Hungarian names in the infobox (if ≥20), Romanian names in bold and Hungarian ones (for anywhere in Transylvania, even if <20%) in italics, and also German names if applicable.

In the compromise Hungarians resigned of trying to move article titles of places with Hungarian majority to the Hungarian name, while Romanian accepted that Hungarian placenames will be bolded whenever the Hungarian population >20%.

The established format was:

Odorheiu Secuiesc or Székelyudvarhely (Romanian: Odorheiu Secuiesc, Hungarian: Székelyudvarhely, German: Oderhellen) is…

--Rokarudi 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIV. Don`t avoid the discusson by your accusations. The discusson you are talking about is no standard naming policy and the format you personally try to implement over the official wiki policy is against the rules. iadrian (talk

) 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we talk about wikipedia rules, not about individual opinions expressed by specific editors 3 years ago. We ask only to apply wiki policies, namely

WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule (Umumu (talk

) 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Rokarudi, if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, then

WP:SPI is the place to head to. I'll remind all parties, this is the Admin's Noticeboard. You can be sure that a number of admins are keeping a weather eye on this situation and those involved. I facilitated this discussion in order that consensus could be gained on the issue, and to keep the discussion in a centralised place. Those who hold the view which does not gain consensus would do well to acknowledge the fact and let the issue lie. Edit warring over this will lead to administrative action being taken. I'm sure all involved would rather that didn't happen if at all avoidable. Mjroots (talk

) 13:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is really not proving sockpuppetry. What I know is this: there was an order how to represent these particular placenames for more than 3 years, and the above mentioned editors neglected it by systematically editing more than 100 articles according to their ideas against consensus. Under changing names, they go around wiki and try to get a favourable opinion from good faith editors . When they fail to do so, they go to the next one: First, User:Dicocodino failed to get what he wanted one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, Then User:Umumu was not given the expected answer here: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexiusHoratius#Question Now, User:Iadrian yu has put up the same question here (to delete bolded alternative names). --Rokarudi 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent this question to many admins and there was no expected answer. I asked them to choose which is the most appropriate format and I got 2 answers: one is the one you listed, and the second (from User:Mjroots) was that Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) is the best format)(Umumu (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Rokarudi, I don`t understand what that has to do with official wiki rules? If we take a look at that "order" you are talking about, there is also clear that the "order" is not like you are implementing it, also we can see that it is a clear violation of the

WP:PLACE policy. I have explained everything in my previous posts here. Stop inventing a custom policy for Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk

) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI isn't the right place for a centralized discussion of something like this. It's for user conduct issues. If there's not clear enough consensus on the naming issue, use a content RFC. This is basically a miniature Balkan-like nationalistic dispute. And the Romanian constitution certainly isn't the final arbiter of such questions, given that some parts of Romania are basically 100% Hungarian and would be happy to break away and join Hungary, and wouldn't consider the .ro government to speak for them. Under NPOV the question might only be resolvable with a careful study and weighing of all available sources.

Gdánzig anyone? ;) 66.127.52.47 (talk

) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

UDMR(Hungarian party) is participating every Romanian government since the fall of communism. Their official attitude toward this is only some form of cultural autonomy, and after all they represent the Hungarians in Romania (6.6% of the population of Romania or 19.6% in Transylvania verify). Don`t start with that kind of unsubstantiated statements. You are saying that Romanian constitution has no power in parts of Romania? Parts of

WP:PLACE and only in Romania, where there is no autonomy or legal status of the Hungarian language bee any different? The Romanian constitution is the highest law of the R.of Romania and it is respected in every part of Romania, Hungarian populated or not. Under NPOV the question is to compare similar cases around the world where there is some kind of autonomy comparing to Romania where there is a clear law and no form of autonomy. Yes, it is a miniature Balkan-like dispute , started by Hungarians, by forcing Hungarian names in Romania. All available sources states that Hungarian names have no legal use or Hungarian language no legal status, and comparing to other parts of the world, i think this problem is more than crystal clear. Gdańsk is not a good example to this problem. "Gdańsk, formerly known by its German name Danzig " ? First names in Romania or Transylvania were the Romanian names, even in that format, in this case , that example has no connection with Hungarian names in Romania.iadrian (talk

) 14:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

66.127.52.47 The Romanian constitution is the supreme law in legal matters and is one of the most import deciding factors regarding this dispute. I am inclined to say that the constitution has priority over the biased opinion of an anonymous editor which shows contempt for the laws of an European state like yourself. The 2002 census clearly shows the ethnic balance in Transylvania and there is not a single settlement holding a 100% Hungarian majority. The Romanian citizens which you mentioned, those who would be happy to "break away" are violating Romanian law, the same law that guarantees them equal rights with the rest of the population and surprisingly enough they seem to be absent from the Romanian political scene. Besides, from the declarations of the leaders of the Hungarian and Szekler communities in Romania, there is only talk about some form of cultural autonomy, no independence and certainly no "union" with Hungary. Your views shamelessly promote Hungarian irredentism, and are in clear violation with international and Romanian law. I suggest you stop your attacks and improve your behavior or you will be reported. Accept the political realities of the 21st century and stop speaking in the name of the Hungarian community, which, as shown above has other priorities than those stated by yourself. And lastly, the movement for autonomy will slowly fade away as it doesn't possess the necessary ingredients for its success, mainly a lack of rights for the Hungarian community in Romania, a community which in actuality enjoys quite a few political and cultural liberties and has -also mentioned by Iadrian yu- formed a part of the ruling governmental coalition in most of the last 20 years. Amon Koth (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, if anyone knows of a better venue feel free to move the discussion. Edit warring is a user conduct issue. In this case, I feel that prevention is better than cure - i.e. if we can prevent an edit war breaking out then it is better for all than admins wielding banhammers. Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is better to discuss everything, even a matter clear like this. The discussion is in the right place, centralized and public.iadrian (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, I want to say that this is an artificial conflict and we can solve the problem by ourselves (me, Iadrian and you), without the involvment of anyone else

I don't see why you feel offended when Iadrian tries to insert the standard format, because the Hungarian name has the same visibility if it is in Italics or bolded

I think it is confusing and not fair to give the same proeminence to the Romanian and the Hungarian name, because the only official name is Romanian

For example in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; ; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi

Kind regards and i hope you will be cooperative (Umumu (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

This discussion is entirely unnecessary for several reasons, chief among them being the status of the Hungarian language in Romania. It is not an official language and Transylvania is not an autonomous region, therefore until the UDMR political party reach their declared goal of changing the Romanian constitution and making Hungarian a compulsory language for the Romanians living in Hungarian majority areas, the names of Romanian localities where minorities are substantial should follow the first variant: Romanian name (Minority name 1, Minority name 2 etc). This variant also respects the naming policy of Wikipedia. Amon Koth (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please find here picture gallery with bilingual placename signboards from Central-Europe:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IM3NlCcgHCA/ShDoCoMi4dI/AAAAAAAABl0/f25FN2dcECo/s400/bogr%C3%A1csmaj%C3%A1los+041.jpg (from Romania)
http://blog.poznanici.com/test/files/2009/10/c09tabla.jpg (from Serbia)
http://archiv.nyugatijelen.com/2002/2002%20november/nov.%207%20csutortok/f0511-06.jpg (edit war in real life, alternative name deleted)
http://archiv.magyarszo.com/arhiva/2005/11/19/images/52_szenttamas2.jpg /(Serbia)
http://blog.poznanici.com/test/files/2009/10/c09tabla.jpg (edit war in real life, alternative name deleted)
http://www.ketegyhaza.hu/site/images/stories/cikkek/tabla.jpg (from Hungary)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Oberwart_-_Fels%C5%91%C5%91r.JPG/250px-Oberwart_-_Fels%C5%91%C5%91r.JPG (from Austria)

From the above examples, the question arises: If the use of bilingual signboards for a specific city or village is authorized by the respective country, why should we impose restrictions on Wikipedia? By the way, I do not dispuite the right of User:Amon Koth speak out his political opinion but since he has not yet edited any single article, I would kindly advise him to practice on less controversial topics.User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, please

assume good faith here. Amon Koth has as much right to contribute to this discussion as you do. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC
) Sorry, for the sarcasm. I do not mean to offense anyone. I think, with your help, we are on the good track to cool down differences with Iadrian and Umumu. Do not be afraid, it is not so serious between us. We simply like to dispute over and over again on the same topics, this is part of the game. By the way, Iaaasi (from the paralel sockpuppet case) and I were on good terms, we had a lot of good chats and joint work. He was unlucky and was blocked for 48 hours when he helped me editing Hungarian placenames. Since he is out, I have no one to discuss Daco-Romanian continuity. If Umumu likes this topic, he is welcome. Rokarudi

20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wring with bilingual tablet names but we should mention that other language name on the tablets have only an informative meaning, nothing else, witch is expressed on Wikipedia in a form DefaultName (First name, Second name, etc..). iadrian (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, In Romania the use of bilingual/multilingual signboards for a settlement is compulsory where a minority is over 20%; the name of the settlement as it appears in the minority language is a purely informative one, it is not in any way an official one. Furthermore, there is nothing controversial about this issue other than your disruptive editing which ignores the Wiki rules and (probably the least of your concerns) the Romanian law regarding this matter. Amon Koth (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, It is not correct that bolding alternative names is against wikipedia rules. WP:Naming Concvention (geographic names) provides that "Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system; this page is intended to help editors agree on which name of a place is to appear as the title. Nevertheless, other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese - are not bolded because they are distinguishable from running text anyway; transliterations are normally italicised. This is the general rule that was applied to Transylvania by a great number of Hungarian and Romanian editor sin the 2007 Odorhei Secuiesc discusssion, in which 14 editors voted and many more gave an opinion.

I do not think it would be a good idea to deviate from the aforementioned status quo.User:Rokarudi --Rokarudi 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First, i saw that discusson and that was 3 years ago, i don`t know the parties involved, looks like some of the members just gave up from the discusson and left the others to make a consensus , i don`t know, and i don`t want to speculate, as this matter is clear, i gave one example this city in my previous post and made some good points that any other place use standard naming policy Standard name(Other name,Other name. etc..) and only in Romania we should make an exception since the Hungarian minority makes 19.6% of the population in the geographical region of Transylvania? We have many other examples in Europe to follow concerning this matter (Catalonia, Basque Country,Vojvodina,Slovakia, etc..) and there is no reason to use a special rule just for Romania. You mention the [this section] that states "in the case of controversial names" - " Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out, although non-Latin scripts - Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese" , but here we have only one alternative name, Hungarian names and there is nothing controversial in Romania about names in the region of Transilvania. And it continue "If there are more names than this, or the first line is cluttered, a separate paragraph on the names of the place is often a good idea. It will serve neutrality to list the names in alphabetical order by language (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). Local official names are often listed first, out of alphabetical order." - This section you proveded [section] does not deal with the problem we have here. I think that the General guidelines should be folowed , Foreigh Language rule and First sentence rule that clearly address to the problem we are discussing. iadrian (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In Slovenia, see Lendava, in Austria, see Oberwart. in Hungaria, see Kétegyháza or even Gdansk. And also in Romania, there have been hundreds of places intactly this way for 2-3 years until you started deleting Hungarian names. In Europe at leat, as a genaral rule, in the infobox, you always have the alternate name. As to boldfacing, there is no universal practice and guidelines are not clear-cut. Moreover, in South-Tirol you do not have this problem, as the article title itself is in German, wherever local majority is German. The Basque name is a historic or cultural name, taking into account that the majority of Basque speak Spanish as their fisrt language, so placenaming is not so relevant User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 00:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Lendava as i can see follows the standard wiki naming policy, and that is OK. Oberwart example has that form since is the cultural capital of the small ethnic Hungarian minority in Burgenland, living in the Upper Őrség or Wart microregion. The cultural center of the Hungarian minority in Romania can have that format also, since it is very significant, but that is only one location, not hundreds, but i don`t know if even that is right since in Austria Hungarian is one of the official languages. The third example you provided Kétegyháza, i don`t know if we can take it into consideration since you made changes specifically for the sake of this argument. South Tirol and Basque land are high level autonomies. And i agree with the info boxes, there should be present alternative names. iadrian (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, Not also in Romania, since it is changed ignoring all rules. You can`t use as an a example the matter we are discussing about. Just for the record, i did`t erased Hungarian names, i just erased the Romanian_name OR Hungarian_name(romanian,hungarian) form -the "OR Hungarian_name" from the article and the Hungarian names of every location mentioned on that page that it is not the location the article represents. As i said before in explanations of my edits, Official names please/other language names can be present on that town\village article, not when ever that location is mentioned. For example, on the article about [Miercurea Ciuc] we mention location Ciba , that is written like this "Ciba (Hungarian: Csiba)" witch is wrong, since the article is about Miercurea Ciuc and can have other language names present in the standard form, but when mentioning other locations, we use ONLY the official names. On the page about location Ciba we can represent the Hungarian name also in the standard format, but not on other articles when ever we mention that particular location, when we are pointing to other locations we should use ONLY offical names. This is one example of that violation. Also this , another violation, Hungarian names should not be present in that form, we can verify that in every other conty seat in Europe for that. Only here, the Hungarian names are "forced" witout any valid reason or rule. I also want to mention that we should take a look in Slovakia since it is the most similar situation we have here. We can see that in Slovakia, in the same places,example1 example2, Hungarian names are not "forced" and it is respected the standard naming policy, and when pointing to other locations, counties, the official names are used, without other language names. In Romania we should respect the same rules, like it is respected all over Europe on wikipedia.iadrian (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

List of similar cases:
- In the French province Pyrénées-Orientales (Northern Catalonia), where Catalan is an official language, the format is Saint-Hippolyte (Catalan: Sant Hipòlit de la Salanca)
- in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region of Spain and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; ; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi
- in

: Попенки, Popenki)
- in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where the majority is composed of indigenous Turkish Cypriots, the format is Kyrenia (Greek: Κερύνεια, Turkish: Girne) (Turkish name in Ialics, between parantheses) (Umumu (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

With the risk of repeating myself, this discussion is unnecessary. On one side there are users which have attempted to remove the alternative names altogether and keep only the official one. This is definitely not a viable option. On the opposite side are users like User:Rokarudi which have overridden Romanian law and Wiki rules and made the alternative name official along with the Romanian ones. I believe the validity of this variant of naming is clearly obvious. Now, on the middle ground there is the variant Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) recommended by the mediator Mjroots of this issue which not only respects the Wiki rules but also complies with Romanian law. Now I would like to ask what is so bewildering in this whole naming issue? I find it a little strange that Umumu, iadrian and User:Rokarudi have bothered to use as arguments examples of localities in other countries, especially when said localities were in an autonomous region. These examples are irrelevant, as the law of the country in which that specific locality lies has no saying matter in Romania, where Romanian law applies and there is no autonomous region and no other official language other than Romanian. The wiki rules in correlation with Romanian law have the final say in this matter. I would also like to draw the attention toward the user User:Rokarudi which insofar has not presented a single valid argument to sustain his point of view but nonetheless his disruptive edits have continued. He has also committed several grave errors including but not limited to:

1) Has personally edited articles and then presented them as evidence to sustain his POV as in the example of Kétegyháza; now I am pretty sure that by this action alone he/she has overstepped some boundaries.

2) He/she keeps referring to some compromise reached some time ago regarding this issue but does not dispute its validity considering it credible only because it was applied for a few years. The longevity of this compromise is irrelevant, it is in contradiction with Wiki rules and Romanian law, as I have already stated several times.

3) He/she keeps confusing the English Wiki with the Hungarian Wiki. I don't believe anybody will stop him/her from using the Hungarian names of the settlements in Romania on the Hungarian Wiki, however this is the English Wiki and the rules pointed outed several times by iadrian apply here.

I would like to ask again what is so unclear about this issue? Amon Koth (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian yu started an edit war on John Hunyadi article which is permanently taken care of by some editors who seem to be opposed to the idea of emphasizing a proven Romanian ethnicity. Iadrian yu was soon blocked for 55 hours. When he came back he said good-by to John Hunyadi aricle on its discussion page and looked for a new conflict zone. 20th March, he asked an opinion on multiple name use regarding Novi Sad on his talk page. He did not receive the answer that official name is above all. On the 23rd, he left me a message, what I think about the use of Hungarian names in Romanian pages and reccommended to have a look at his work at Sfantu Gheorghe. I answered I will check it out and come back with an answer. I chesked his work and I saw that violating consensus and overthrowing a 3 years delicate practice, within 24 hours he deleted mass of information from dozens of articles regarding settlements in Romania with a majority or significant minority of Hungarian population. This is per definitionem vandalism, so had to be reverted. Paralelly, Umumu and Dicocodino were putting up the same questions as to Hungarian names to other admins and editors. Then came you, exposing false information mischarectarizing my activity, like the above (the same was said by Umumu in his sockpuppet investigation): The fact is: 1.) The Kétegyháza (Hungary) article has had for 3 years bolded names for both Hungarian and Romanian placenames. I only gave equal treatment for the Romanian name and arranged the clumsy appearance, but the bolding was not changed. I simply restored the version which lived between 3 january 2007-31st August, 2009 instead of the funny looking last version. 2.) I constantly refer to a compromise as it has been the basis of a period of constructing editing. Which has been challenged by Iadrian yu and friends with zero or close to zero edits. I really do not support violation of consensus. 3.) No comment Sorry, but I do not want to be involved in wikilawyering nor mutual accusations, neither in violation of consensus. In delicate issues, the once reached consensus, even if partial, is very important otherwise, it is impossible to edit User:Rokarudi

I don`t see what does

WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage and the Romanian constitution that addresses this matter. I think this discussion is over and since i sense that we can`t make a consensus i would kindly ask for the administrator to make a rulling on this matter. Thank you.iadrian (talk

) 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, an alleged 3-years old agreement made between a few particular editors on a talk page can not override wikipedia rules which specify very clearly that Romanian_Name' (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name) is the appropriate format. We must respect the guidelines. If we would insert everywhere custom formats, it will be chaos on wikipedia. We need to use the standard format (Umumu (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

The chaos already started since there are more than half of these articles(In Romania,Transilvania) in violation with all we mentioned so far. iadrian (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi , since the discussion is "drained out" and you are mainly the only person who opposed, i think we talked about every aspect of this problem. I am interested in your opinion, after this discussion and the facts that were presented. Do you agree with the standard naming policy? And with the use of the official names when it is pointed to another location, (not in bilingual form). Thank you.iadrian (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is drained out as no one is interested in discussing over and over again what was once settled. I hope you do not mean that User: Umumu and User:Amon Koth with their less than 10 edits (together) can validly overthrow the compromise reached in 2007 by established editors with tens of thousand of edits. Wikipedia is built on consensus and compromise. No one is entitled to start large-scale editing in a delicate matter without reaching consensus. And consensus means what was once reached regardless of the fact whether the editors who participated are currently active or not. My answer to your specific question re:

With respect to Transylvania, standard naming policy should be applied with the specific rules according to the 2007 Odorhei Secuiesc compromise, that is:

1.) With respect to Transylvanian settlements, or settlements in Romania if you prefer, the article title should always be the Romanian placename, if Hungarian population > 20%, the Hungarian placename should be boldfaced in the lead and put into the info box as well (always after / below the Romanian name), everywhere else in Transylvania, even if Hungarian population is < 20%, Hungarian (and German names, if applicable) should be in parenthesis. 2.) As to the way of mentioning Hungarian names in the body of the text, we do not have a specific compromise ( unlike: the Elonka-compromise with respect to Slovakia), so I personally always distinguish between different cases:

a.) Geographic names: as a general rule Romanian name should be used, but if the placename does not have an article, the Hungarian name may be mentioned at first occurrence, or otherwise if helps the reader in obtaining the relevant information. My problem with your deletion is that "communes" in Romanian consist of several villages. These villages usually do not have a separate article, so they are only mentioned in the article of the commune. As this is their single occurrence, the Hungarian name may be mentioned as encyclopedic information. It is useless to create a page for the sub-villages, when the 'commune' to which they belong is only a stub.

b.) In historical context and/or in case of biographies of clearly Hungarian / Romanian persons, we have to be careful which name to use. E.g. In case of biographies of clearly Romanian people from Transylvania, I would use Romanian placenames, regardless when they lived. reference may be made to the Hungarian historical name if the content recommends it (and vice versa). User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is drained because the matter is too clear to discuss it this much. The "compromis" from the 2007 was against wiki rules and it was ended by an abbandament of the topic more than a consesnus. That is invalid, and it is important to say that not me, you, or anybody else make this kind of rules, it is clearly regulated by

WP:PLACE

and i intend to respect it, as you should also.

1.) The article title should always be the Romanian nameplace with other language name in brackets. 2.) a) I agree, if that particular village does not have an article, the Hungarian name can be present in that form. Sorry, but i can`t stand and take a look on the "other" side while you violate 3 wiki rules and the Romanian constitution in Romania related articles. I am stunned by your continuous attitude toward this matter after this discusson. Al places in Europe use the standard naming policy, but by you, only in Romania we should do otherwise. As a sensed , there is no compromise, and you still did`t presented a single valid argument to prove your POV.. I would kindly ask the administrator to make a rulling in this matter since we can`t agree. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI opened

For information, Rokarudi has opened a SPI on Umumu. Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Note User:Rokarudi opened this investigation because we were not sharing his POV. As it can be seen below, it was proved that the accuser is the one who was not respecting wiki policies (Umumu (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Time to close this

I see a lot of arguments about what Romanian law states. This is not Romania, this is Wikipedia. There are also arguments about an agreement reached by consensus three years ago. Consensus can change over time. It is pretty clear to me that per

: București). There seems to be consensus by all except Rokarudi that the above is how the issue should be dealt with. If any uninvolved editors disagree with my reading of consensus please say so, and explain why this is not the case. Other than that, I propose that the discussion be closed with the consensus outlined above being declared. Further disruptive editing can then be dealt with by admins if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For absolute clarity consensus is this, article title to be at the Romanian name, lede to state "xxxx (Hungarian: yyyy) is a (type of place) in Romania" (or similar wording) unless the English language name is better known. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(copied in part from previous thread regarding unwanted comments on my user page -OberRanks (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

As the original poster of the dispute, there have been no further postings on my talk page, so that matter is resolved. The issue at the John Pershing article is under debate and a vote is in progress to determine the need for a nickname containing a racial slur in the infobox. Its an interesting debate and we are making good progress. Mk5384 has not been too disruptive there, as far as I can tell, and is welcome to continue to post opinions in the debate. I will advise all concerned, though, that there is a pattern to Mk5384 which might need an administrator to take a close look at. Basically, if someone disagrees with Mk5384, the user will post a notice to the talk page stating why he is right and they are wrong. If the user continues to disagree, the user will escalate the posts into more aggressive language. If the posts are removed or the user is asked to stop, then actual personal attacks will begin to be posted. Here is an example of a string of recent edits where Mk5384 left notes on users who either warned him he was violating policy or asked him to desist from bad practices: [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144]. The "mother of all attack edits" was where Mk5384 made a statement on my talk page that I was lying about serving in the United States military [145] - not only a very serious charge but also a personal attack to call another user a liar without cause. On top of this, we have a string of statements that I have been removing sourced material from the John Pershing article when in fact I restored disputed material in order to have a consensus vote and, in fact, removed nothing [146]. A few things should happen here, I feel: an administrator should alert Mk5384 that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. You cannot hound and h arras other users on thier talk page if they disagree with you or point out you perhaps broke a policy like NPOV, CIV, or NPA. Second, it should be made clear that this is not a witch hunt and that Mk5384 is welcome to continue editing and participating in article discussions. Third, all concerned should state there are no bad feelings and that if this behavior stops, there will be no grudges or anything like that. -OberRanks (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is an ongoing issue, it is best taken up at WP:RFCU where community opinion and advice for Mk5384 can be solicited in a structured venue. –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tendency to go after anyone who crosses him in some way, as pointed out by OberRanks, certainly bears watching. He also states on his user page that he's a newbie, so maybe he hasn't got things all figured out yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a neutral admin stating to Mk5384 that the behavior is in fact unacceptable will go a long way. If it continues after that, then, yes, a RFC/User Conduct should be initiated. -OberRanks (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 has helpfully provided me with a first-hand example of the behaviour you highlight [147]. –xeno^talk 14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest a posting at

) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A block? Mon Dieu!! Whatever will I do if I can't edit Wikipedia? I'll have nothing to fill my time, except white supremecist meetings, and my thrice daily ritual of masturbating to my over-size blow-up of General Pershing in black face and assless chaps. I've already told you, now that it has been proven that Wikipedia is, in fact, censored, I have no interest in participating. You can rewrite history and enjoy your whitewashed, vanilla versions to your hearts content. Block or no block, I won't be here.

talk

) 08:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the extremely crass nature of the above post, especially the subtle suggestion that users involved with the Pershing article are masturbating as well as the blatant racial remark about "black face", I do formally request that an administrator block Mk5384 for uncivil edits and disruptive editing. Mk5384 has posted angry, uncivil talk page remarks against no less than five users, including a very neutral an unbiased admin who simply protected the John Pershing article to prevent an edit war which MK5384 started. We now have have angry remarks here with racial and sexual overtones. A block is more than warranted I feel at this point as this user has more than demonstrated that they are unwilling to work with others and, despite the claim of leaving Wikipedia, may return to do future inappropriate and harassing edits. -OberRanks (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... that was sarcasm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though it may have been sarcasm, those were racial and sexual comments directed at other Wikipedia users and should not in any way be condoned, even in jest or in a mere simple fit of anger. The user, in my view, is very lucky to not have been blocked or even banned. Had the user directed those on a talk page towards another specific person, we would be looking at a much more serious affair; as it stands, it simply appears to be a mere rant on the ANI against "the system" so it can probably be overlooked for now. -OberRanks (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Frequently in sarcasm one over-exaggerates the perceived arguments of the other side, in an attempt to deflate those arguments by showing their ridiculousness. It's sort of like a reductio ad absurdum. In this case by drastically overinflating the viewpoints that he or she feels are being erroneously attributed to them, Mk5384 is saying "If I was the person you're painting me to be, this is what I would be like, but I'm not that awful person at all."

Of course, such a tactic is lost if your audience is unable to recognize sarcasm, and takes the cartoonish statements literally. In such a case, it makes one wonder what else is perhaps being misunderstood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much point for a block at this point. They have claimed they're leaving and won't be back. The user has been somewhat disruptive but not to an extreme extent that suggests a block is necessary just in case they come back. If they come back and continue their poor behaviour then sure block away. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been suggested the user might be a sock. Hard telling for sure, especially as to who he would be a sock of. More info would be needed before an SPI could be filed. But if some other editor turns up, taking the same approach, that could open the SPI door. If not, then everything is peachy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really seeing any red flags for sockdom here. Seems to be a normal instance of touching the third rail on a hot button topic. Considering the subject matter we're a bit lucky that no user blocks have been needed. It's better when an editor realizes they've been starting to see red and pulls back without admin intervention. Let's give this person breathing space and dignity. Durova⁴¹² 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My main concern was knowledge of advanced Wikipedia procedures with "apparently" only 8-12 weeks of editing since January. But, I agree, there are no huge red flags. The main issue to watch is the re-emergence of a second account expressing the same views and tendencies after this one "retired"; that would be a clear sockpuppet issue. -OberRanks (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

After seeing what was written there, I feel compelled to take one last stab at this. As Beyond My Ken points out, that was sarcasm in its most extreme form, brought about by frustration in its most extreme form. Since OberRanks took that edit literally, I'll assume good faith, and entertain the possibility that he honestly thought that I was continuously adding the word "nigger" to the John Pershing article because I'm some horrible racist. I was, of course, adding it because that was his nickname for the majority of his military career. I haven't any idea what would give anyone the idea that my account is a sock, and as far as my having "advanced knoweledge of Wikipedia", I have constantly sought (and needed) the help of others. Perhaps I did cross the line with some of my posts, but again, it was brought on by frustration. Perhaps I should have AGF'd and realized that the editors who were against me thought that I was trying to put that word into the article to be an asshole. ( Which, of course, is not true.) So I will apoligise if I have truly offended anyone, and will reiterate that my insistence on having that word in the article was solely in the interest of historical accuracy. With that having been said, if, after the smoke clears, the censored version is the one that is allowed to stand, I will, in fact, no longer be a participant in this encyclopedia. But, in any case, I am no racist, and I wish to make that clear.

talk

) 09:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that he has un-"retired", he has promised to continue edit-warring as soon as the page's protection expires. I'm guessing that is not sarcasm. (See below) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about edit warring. You have mistaken protection of the page for endorsement of you version. The admin. stated clearly that it was protected only to stop an edit war,and he had no opinion on it. I have promised only to return sourced, extensively explained information to the article. And if you disagree, then you can remove it. And then we can go to mediation and finally settle this.

talk

) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

)

After having been talked out of "retirement" which followed failing to get his way on the

→ 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read both posts that I put on the talk page. I apologised for crossing the line with my heated edits. I stated my case clearly, and politely. I offered an olive branch to all concerned (see my post in another section above). The olive branch was ignored. I did indeed, say that I will be returning both names immediately upon unprotection. I stated why I will be doing this. I said nothing about disruption. The administrator who protected the page has stated that he or she has no opinion on the matter, and does not endorse the current version over the other. The protection was simply to stop an edit war. The information was properly cited, and I gave extensive reasons why I intend to return it. I also suggested mediation. Baseball Bugs' case does not hold water.

talk

) 14:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement that Mk5384 will "return both names immediately upon unprotection" does indeed sound like a promise to ignore the consensus building on the talk page and resume edit warring. Apparently the "spark" that set this off was my edit here, with a statement that I had "ignored the olive branch" [149]. At the time, I did not even realize Mk5384 had "returned" and I was responding to statements made by other users. This user has shown time and time again a refusal to work with others, angry statements agaist those who disagree, and the unresolved issue of the comments made under this thread. -OberRanks (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he has asserted again here that he fully intends as soon as the protection is lifted that he is going to reinsert the disputed content that started the edit war, whether or not there is a consensus to do so.

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The dif points to:"Perhaps this should just proceed to mediation, because I'm not going anywhere, and I'm not backing down."

Mk, I must tell you that this has already generated more input than most RfC's I have seen. If you are unwilling to participate in forming and unwilling to accept ("I'm not backing down") consensus in Wikipedia, why are you here? WP runs on wp:consensus as WP uses the word. If one wants one's content in an article, one must convince the interested editors to support it. After reading the arguments and a comment at talk:Nigger Jack, I am unsure about the issue, but the none of the editors with strongly held opinion on inclusion have responded with information to back up the argument.

The offtopic sections on the article talk page focusing on Mk5384 IMO are distracting and don't belong there at all... they will simply make it harder to reach consensus and should be redacted. The focus needs to be on the article.- Sinneed 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 is now also removing comments of other users from the John Pershing talkpage. That is a very serious affair, in my opinion. -OberRanks (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Has done it twice now. -OberRanks (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had reverted his deletion, and he deleted it again. So he is now edit-warring on the talk page. He's practically begging for a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And even with diffs to back up the removals, Mk5384 approaching the warning admin and said this [150] and this. -OberRanks (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed Durova's comment by accident. I got an "edit conflict" message whilst I was attempting to post something, and didn't understand it. It has now been explained to me, and I know what to do if that situation should arise again. Given the fact that I have not one incident of vandalism in my history, I find it appaling the way I was attacked here. As I have said, this is turning into a witch hunt.

talk

) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

At least on this I think he could be correct, I have seen this occasionally happen before, that one editor attempts to post when multiple editors are also attempting to post and it can occur that this happens, a glitch in the system.

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and Mk5384 is saying it was an edit conflict. Based on his past editing history, I'd be willing to believe him and have pointed him towards the Edit Conflict Help page. --NeilN talk to me 15:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Then he needs to try his post again (or any post at all) and if "edit conflict" pops up, he needs to read all the instructions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, check my history. I have never, ever vandalised Wikipedia. My last post before that was apologising to OberRanks for not AGF'ing; why in the world would I follow that up by removing a comment from Durova? This needs to be resolved. I stand by what I said about intending to return the info to the article. But I absolutely did not remove anything.

talk

) 15:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While you are here perhaps you would like to retract you intention to reinsert the disputed content the moment the article is unlocked and make a commitment to accept the outcome of discussion and consensus that arises on the talkpage.

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you "stand by what I said about intending to return the info to the article" then you are repeating (yet again) an intent to resume edit warring, returning disputed material, and ignoring the consensus building on the talk page. And, if you do in fact engage in that kind of behavior in April, your edits will probably be reverted by no less than 3 to 4 users who have already posted here, you will be quickly marked as breaking

WP:3RR and you will most likely be blocked from editing. At worse, the article would be protected again. I urge you to cease insisting that you will return this material against the consensus of others. -OberRanks (talk

) 15:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus of others. The vote was 7 for and 8 against. Not even close to consensus. But, as I said, we can go to formal mediation.

talk

) 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not retract it. I will reiterate it. As I will reiterate the fact that I did not remove anything.

talk

) 15:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, you're not helping yourself. As we discussed on your talk page, you removed the comments by accident because you weren't sure how to handle an edit conflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's for sure. Declarations of war won't help. That statement alone is good enough grounds for a block. --

talk

) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 left a note at user talk saying that it was an accidental edit conflict. If the time stamps check out (I haven't looked) then let's chalk this up to good faith. Informal mediation doesn't appear to be helping the underlying dispute, though. Bowing out with a recommendation this go to Medcom or Meccab. Durova⁴¹² 15:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked Mk5384 for 48h for disruption since the argumentation has continued past your comment above. He needs to realise that the rhetoric is not helping. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The user in question posted an unblock request then removed the original reason for blocking [151], placing in effect the unblock notice underneath the already resolved issue of the removing other comments from the article talk page which was deemed a computer error. I believe this may be deliberate so as to confuse the original issue of why this editor was blocked. I really do hate to keep slamming this editor, and I am trying to keep my own behavior here in check to avoid an appearance of impropriety. I simply feel this is unacceptable behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

And now we have this. Further action may be needed. -OberRanks (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock and endeavored to make the facts apparent to any other admin reviewing the situation in the future. Hopefully he will just take the week off at this point.

talk

) 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this [152] I have reblocked him for one week with talk page and email access disabled, and warned him that further socking will result in an indef block.

talk

) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a loose understanding that we don't lengthen blocks for individuals sounding off on their talk page. Restricting talk page access may be warranted, but I think setting the length to 72h (+24h to account for block evasion) would be in order. –xeno^talk 23:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks

On Baseball Bugs' talk page, OberRanks has said that I have promised to put material into an article again and again no matter what else anyone thinks about it. This is a lie. I simply stated that I would return the material that was sourced and explained to the article immediately upon unprotection. OberRanks has apparently mistaken the protection of the current version as administrative endorsement of that version. Whilst I have said, " I'm not going away, and I'm not backing down", I never once said anything about repeatedly reverting other editors, violating 3RR, or disobeying any other Wikipedia policy. OberRanks suggested to Baseball Bugs that numerous editors get together, revert me, and then report me for 3RR. He is canvassing, and requesting the assistance of other editors in conspiring against me.

) 18:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This posting is in my opinion a "revenge post" for the numerous comments I, Bugs, and others have made towards a repeated pattern of disruptive editing. I do not feel my actions broke any policies, especially since this was a single posting on a single user page and not contacting multiple editors as Mk suggests. I don't think any further comments are needed. -OberRanks (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has now gone off the deep end, in my opinion as evident by this posting [153]. Administrator action is needed here and quickly. -OberRanks (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I hold to my view that he needs to be away from this place for a couple of days. He's already logged out, changed IP address and posted to my talk page, which is not a good sign, and he seems to expect instant responses to everything (which may be part of the problem). I don't think anything further need be done right now, I am a big boy and can take a fair bit of name-calling. I suggest those commenting above see if they can distil anything worthwhile from his comments so far - I don't really have an opinion as to whether his complaint is valid or not - and I will leave him some more advice on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What is enormously ironic about all of this, is that the original dispute which set off Mk to this destructive pattern, that of displaying somewhat offensive nicknames in the

John Pershing article, may very well come to the conclusion that Mk desires. It does look more and more like we will have those nicknames displayed in a bio info box, but with appropriate reference notes explaining the context. I was at last won over to this way of thinking because yes it is cited and yes, Wikipedia is not censored. So, in the end, Mk may really acted this way for nothing since in the end the user gets what is wanted after all. -OberRanks (talk

) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked the article does include the term. That's one of the more bizarre aspects of the whole thing. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed a legal threat. Since I'm involved in an on-going dispute (vandalism of my user space; threats on my talk page) with the anon-editor concerned, whom I have also referred to

16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I warned the IP about the legal threat. Feel free, anyone, to elevate to a block if he persists. –MuZemike 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking about a short rangeblock on that range for edit warring, but it looks like Black Kite semi-protected the article. –MuZemike 16:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, although whoever published the list may have breached the UK Data Protection Act (and then only 'may' - organisation member lists are a bit of a grey area, as the DPA data holder rules were never applied to lists of members or subscribers, to avoid deluging thousands of voluntary Secretaries for every kind of club and society with paperwork), no offence is committed by individuals repeating the leaked secrets. Also, I can find no evidence that Glover sued anyone (successfully or otherwise) over the allegation.

• And what made you think this was a good idea, Andy? Is being a member of the BNP really one of the most significant facts about this person? That article seems to be on a see-saw between hagiography and hatchet-job. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article Andrew Mabbett was created earlier today by User:Anticom1 (which self-identifies as 80.47.85.227) [154] and was speedy deleted as a G10 attack page by myself. Given that, the legal threat, and sundry other vandalism I have blocked the IP for a month (it's dynamic) and the account indefinitely. Black Kite 19:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A pound says this ends up at OTRS, though. And another pound says Angelicum7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same person. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm marking this unresolved, there is a user conduct issue. Andy Mabbett considers that [155] is an acceptable version of the article and reverted to this or similar more than once, then requested a revert to this version on Talk. His preferred version says:

Andrew Glover (born 1962) is a composer and an alleged British National Party member, born in Birmingham, England. He studied in Nottingham and gained his Doctorate in 1994 from Keele University after studying with Dr George Nicholson. He has been a Composition Tutor at Birmingham Conservatoire[1]. [header] In November 2008 Glover was named as a member of the far right British National Party, with an interview with him confirming his membership appearing in the national press [2]. He then denied any connection with the BNP in a later interview [3].

This sets the issue of BNP membership (which is perfectly legal if rather unpopular) as the dominant theme of the article. I am not convinced that Andy Mabbett understands why this is a problem. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the BNP issue likely falls under

WP:UNDUE, but otherwise think that this is both a content dispute and a matter of AM being reminded of editorial guidelines. Has AM's reverting to their preferred versions been disruptive and drawn any warning that they have ignored? If not, then this is likely not a matter for admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 10:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to try to get Andy to understand this is welcome to try. My own past experience is that he will discount anything said by most people because it fails the Mabbett Reliability Test, i.e. it doesn't agree with Andy therefore it's wrong. You can count me as somewhat jaded on this, but I'm not alone in that as will be obvious to anyone who checks his not entirely glorious history. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I too am unconvinced if he understands the problem, but I'm not sure anything can be done right at the moment without more evidence of recent issues; seems like it's the 'wait and see' phase still. Hang in there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in the past with AM, but I think that process needs to be followed - explain, warn, and then seek admin intervention. Wasn't AM permitted to return to editing after some agreement was made; perhaps there is something there that can be used to persuade him to reread the guidelines (and follow them)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly. I know that every time I've seen him on the noticeboards he has given the impression of being utterly unable to accept anyone else's view of anything,but that could be sampling bias since only the contentious ones come here. I know he's been arbitrated in the past and I know he has an off-wiki reputation as a troll. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been an article about

) 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

/sigh, I saw this coming as I made a discussion for it at

Joseph Rowbottom I found it was an orphan article and none of the sources asserted notability, and its sources were mainly university newspaper articles citing not really the term but a reference to the alumni. User:Philly jawn has called me out of bad faith and taken exception to these actions, but I do stand by them and was willing to discuss them. As far as being summoned here, nothing has been done to really warrant it, but I'm willing to participate in any admin moderated discussion. Mkdw^talk

02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... I suppose now it does as the editor continues to remove the A7 and maintenance tags after being instructed on the proper method of contesting tags and A7's. It appears the editor, obviously has some connection to Philadelphia, has a conflict of interest as they are now trying to barter with the article negotiating to leave Flash mob alone if I remove my A7's. Mkdw^talk 03:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mkdw is driving and edit war and is very close to 3RR. Philly jawn (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• In an act of retribution, Mkdw just put a warning on my talk page ... after putting the speedy tag back on the article. Would someone please intervene? Philly jawn (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider it a warranted warning considering you have removed the maintenance tags three times with out attempting to resolve their concerns and titling the edit summaries as bad faith tags... Mkdw^talk 03:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of going through an AfD, Mkdw has pushed this dispute because of the addition of the material to the flash mob article. It was in fact somewhat relevant. Mkdw wasn't really interested in discussing it. The rowbottom article was not in fact an orphan and it did have references when I took those tags off, Mkdw added them back on. I just reported Mkdw for edit warring. Philly jawn (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

At the time those tags were added, the only page that linked to it were its own redirects. This editor has since been adding its link to other articles and has then come back here claiming it wasn't an orphan article. Mkdw^talk 03:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• It always had the references. Yes, when I took the orphan tag off, I had added links, but that's what I said. Philly jawn (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I have a proposal. Both of you, for the next week you are not to comment on each other or make any edits in respect of Rowbottom. You should both leave the AfD to run its course and allow the community to form a judgement. Once the AfD is settled you can then discuss on the article talk pages whether the content merits inclusion there. The alternative is probably less to your liking since I think this is a very silly fight and needs to stop, if necessarily forcibly. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why we're here at the AN/I when I went to

WP:3RR and if Philly hadn't been a more established editor would be seen as persistent vandalism. Personally, I can't see any enforceable action that could be taken. At least none that wouldn't be uncontroversial as really this was a premature reporting. At this point, the request for the A7 was declined by an admin, which is all part of the process and has now gone to AfD. I welcome any discussion as to the merits or demerits of whether the topic will stick on Wikipedia. The results of such will determine its inclusion on its corresponding pages. Mkdw^talk

08:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I don't really care that much. You've AfD'd the article, sit back and let process run. Then we can talk about it. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mkdw was completely driving an edit war, and was being vindictive. An enlightened editor would have opened the discussion first, before slapping the speedy on the article. This kind of behavior needs to be noted, especially since the {{
  speedy}} was in bad faith and an editor not trying to be a bully would have found a better way. It's outrageous to slap a speedy tag on an established article and not talk abou it first. There are a lot of other manners to deal with an article one doesn't like. You'll see that the article in question has been transformed by an enlightened editor. Philly jawn (talk
  ) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Closing statement.
  WP:AN3, the findings at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mkdw_reported_by_User:Philly_jawn_.28Result:_no_action.29 concluded that I was falsely and unwarrantably reported. The admin even suggests that User:Philly jawn may have been in the wrong. For myself I find this wrapped up and a situation to walk away from. Mkdw^talk
  23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Kudos to Father Goose. Mkdw ... "falsely and unwarrantably reported"? Hardly, but if it helps you to believe that ... what was actually said, "The listed diffs do not exceed WP:3RR, the edit war is presumably over now that the article is at AfD" Your actions have shown a lack of civility, and had you shown even a modicum of class and been more cooperative this would not have gone as far as it has. Next time, don't try to be a bully. Signing off. Philly jawn (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I made the attempt to discuss it at
      WP:AN3. Call me a bully, but at least I tried to talk it out with you than running here to see if I could get you banned. Mkdw^talk
      07:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

TV3 Winchester

) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but let's take a look at why I orignally called (what the hell was I thinking?) JzG into look at the page. I had (and still have) a slight problem with some vandalism coming from an IP and now a signed in account. User:64.252.119.50 removed the same reference 1, 2 times over the past 3 days. Today, User:Cameraman8867 removed the same reference again. It is obviously they are the same person and I asked JzG to kindly block both of them. Instead, he destroys the TV3 Winchester page to make, what he perceives, a BLP problem (even though it is sourced) go away. The lists of reporters and anchors appear on all television stations. So, enacting changes on one MUST effect all others and I don't think this is what this is about. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I was not notified of this thread by JzG, I found it on my watchlist. Kind of a violation of the ANI policy in yellow on each ANI page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is, however numerous people miss it and we must assume good faith in that it slipped the nominators mind, so it shouldn't be used as a point of argument. SGGH ^ping! 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NH you can't add that child pornography thing there like that blind without any explanation to what happened and is he notable to have his own article and if so the content should be there and if not then the content should not be linked to in this list.

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

*buries head in hands* Seriously, on which planet was that a good idea? It doesn't matter if it's sourced, the person themselves is non-notable; the only time we'd ever need to use such information on Wikipedia is if the person is notable enough to have their own article. I've removed the reference to O'Connor; the rest of the list is trivia but I don't suppose it's doing any harm. Black Kite 23:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The story was in the local television news (a station for which he worked) and the local newspaper media. So it isn't like this is just being thrown at him out of nowhere. It can be referenced repeatedly, but then it would get a little cluttered. I think the two referenced show clearly the story and back to the statement up. BLP shouldn't be about sweeping the bad stuff under the rug, especially when it is referenced. He did the crime, likely will do the time, was reported about in the papers and on TV, it isn't something that can be swept under the rug now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this what this is all about, this creation of a TV employee list of not notable people, a back door attempt to include this controversial content about a not notable person?

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So, we are going to allow someone to vandalize Wikipedia....and get their way? To reuse a sentence...."Seriously, on which planet was that a good idea?"...cause it isn't. This is clearly a case of doing all that the adminship can to make something go away. To hell with BLP. Are we to whitewash every article about any living person to make it all warm and fuzzy? If it can be referenced and backed up, too bad to that person, they are getting their big day in the sun on Wikipedia with the dirty laundry already out in the air. It isn't Wikipedia's job to clean that laundry.

To answer Off2riorob...no, it isn't. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about a living person. It's an article about a company they used to work at. To give an example, imagine if I took the article about my home city and added a list of every person from there that had been convicted of child porn charges ... do you see the problem? If O'Connor was notable - then fine. Put him back in the list if you wish, but lose the additional info.OK, I see that's been done. Good. Marking resolved. Black Kite 23:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But the reason he isn't at the station (which is why he is on the list to begin with) is because of those charges. I readded him to the list without the information, but it seems lopsided. We are essentially whitewashing things here on Wikipedia, when anyone can go to Google and type in "Ryan O'Connor" and "TV3 Winchester" and come up with the story about his arrest and hearings. We just aren't publishing it cause of some BLP or WP:N policy...but what it seems like is whitewashing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to go to Google and do that, then that's fine. But we aren't a tabloid newspaper. If the fact that O'Connor was fired because of this case was an important fact that needed to be mentioned in the main article then we could discuss whether it was necessary per

WP:NOT#NEWS is policy, and that's all this is, really. Black Kite

23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) If you want it in the main article, then I am perfectly fine with that. I just don't think we should remove it entirely and call it a day. That isn't policy, that is whitewashing and cleaning dirty laundry. If you want me to move it to the main article, give me the green light and it is done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No - I said that if the fact that O'Connor was fired because of this case was an important fact that needed to be mentioned in the main article... - but it clearly isn't. It isn't majorly relevant to the station themselves and doesn't belong in the article. I am going to sleep now, but I'd strongly suggest that you don't re-insert this information. Black Kite 23:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Being that it represented the station in a bad light and some of the actions might have happened at the station (investigation still ongoing there), I think it does. But you know what, I am getting a migraine. We can hash this out tomorrow after I get home from work. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that what it said about him does not match what the source said. Specifically the reason for his termination. something lame from CBW 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, when I brought this here I thought it was a simple matter of possibly needing to handle a BLP subject. I am now beginning to suspect that Neutralhomer wants to include this list of non-notable individuals just so that this factoid can be included. Lists of individuals who are not notable enough to have articles are not really worth having, IMO - it's just a laundry list of generic presenters. We can safely leave that to the station's own website. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

.

Given personal problems right now, I really don't need this. Bringing to AN/I for community consideration. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well he's certainly radical, but that's nothing dispute resolution can't resolve.

talk

) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple interaction, like explaining how to cite an edit, elicits more of the same. If you're offering I'm gratefully accepting. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

[159] Even the simplest interaction is dimissed with the comment "troll". Justin the Evil Scotman talk 20:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

pot, kettle and black justin.--

) 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor point, supporter does not equal member. Though the rhetoric about the UAF is very much the usual far right BNP/EDL stuff you will see on their blogs - Not that this precludes one from working on wikipedia. The problem period is the one following the union of the crowns but before the formal acts of Union, where Bobby insists upon the De Jure distinction which is not acctually helpful (and not always accurate), as often forces would come from across the Kingdoms and in this period politicians and senior members crossed easily between the two (Just look at the Falkland for whom the islands are named, scottish gentleman who found success in the unified court in England). I am unsure what admin action is needed though, when he goes off reverting him isn't a problem. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking for admin intervention because I am tired of the abuse heaped in my direction from this user. Hopefully it may cease as I've simply cited his edit properly, something he has consistently refused to do. Nonetheless I shouldn't have to put up with personal abuse for simply trying to put an editor on the correct path. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, all the abuse Justin you mean like you calling me an obcessed editor or a troll or questioning my political motive's (which i find very personal). Or perhaps others should look at you contribution history where your mostly arguing or reverting other people edits leaving nothing but an insulting comment in the edit summary. They may also see your dreadful abuse leveled at three Spanish users in particular before blaming them for it and making feeble excuses. You should maybe look at your own behavior before questioning others and trying to play the victim. You've never made any real effort to come and discuss the issues with me and as Narson shows above " when he goes off reverting him isn't a problem " which shows how civil they can be (this has failed elsewhere though). Also your trying to accuse me of stiring up ethnic conflict with the Turks where exactly not that thats really any of your buisness.

Justin, Narson and some others quickly accuse me of being a single purpose account (which is funny coming from users who spend their time arguing on Gibraltar and Falkand issues) and being a fanatical English nationalist yet i could argue the same about them in their almost obcessive determination to show everyone that it was alway's "Britain" despite the fact there was no UK before 1707 and the crown union was clearly not a close alliance as i've shown before. It was a minor change that i've done all over wikipedia with no problem until i started on the Gib and Falkand articles when i was unfortunate to meet user's whom not only thoght they owned the article's but seemed very hostile to what i was doing. When i first found some sources user Gibnews dismissed them and now i've found (not been told ofcourse) that the encyclopedia Brittanica is not reliable, this is despite the above using it as a source to disprove me.

All i'm doing is changing one word to improve the wording. Changing British to English makes no difference to the politics of the articles nor is it a controversial change that may offend different nationalities and yet Justin and a few other users around him seem to have taken offence at what i'm doing. Me and Justin hardly got of to the best start and it seems to have gone on from there whereas Narson has not ever talked to me other than call me a troll (three times now)--

) 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Russell Smith (prisoner activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Russeldansmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.197.128.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've twice reverted an IP that is adding unsourced content to

should apply no matter who adds the information.

I'm apparently not know for my tact - is there anyone who would like to handle this with all due delicacy? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Always take care when dealing with BLP subjects. This is at a low level right now, I'd be happy to sprotect the article if he comes by again, but you should also point him to OTRS via {{blocked subject}} (I pasted this on his talk page, I will link it from the IP talk as well). Guy (Help!) 11:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

She's willing to change her username but it seems as if the underlying IP is blocked. Can an admin review her talk page and make a decision? Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• That will need some mentoring, her edits to date are activist and seem problematic to me. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think she saw the decline unblock notice. I've pointed her towards it, offered more advice, and asked her if she's willing to accept mentorship. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

An urgent ArbCom announcement regarding the above-mentioned issue is available

10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Until a few days ago, Amnesty International (Hong Kong) was a redirect to Amnesty International. In the last few days, several editors with suspiciously similar User names, as well as a large number of IP editors, have begun a campaign to write an article on the subject. This article is an absoloute mess. Upper case headings, sourcing almost exclusively to amnesty international itself, extremely pro-AI POV, bad English, etc. I tried a redirect back but that got reverted, I tried discussing it with the editor who was the most active at the time and got nowhere, I tried adding rewrite and sourcing tags to the top of the page, but I'm getting nowhere. What would the next step be? I don't disagree with there being an article on the subject if the local branch is, somehow, notable enough in its own right, but right now, this article is not the way we should be going. Woogee (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RESCUE members may be able to assist here. Mjroots (talk

) 05:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no clue as to how to proceed. Woogee (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the third day in a row that images have been placed on the main page and unprotected. It will only be a matter of time before a vandal figures out that admins are getting lazy with regard to main page images and that they can exploit them to get goatse.cx images on the main page. Admins need to start taking more care.

00:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the

WP:BEANS. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe

01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Its only beans if we let it become that. Vandals know about this and have used it in the past as an exploit. There are steps in place that identify and alert when such images are on the main page to avoid bad PR, but I would prefer not to have to rely on those.

β^_command

01:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Beta took care not to mention this in public, until it was fixed. We now need to make sure it doesn't happen again. No beans involved.  Chzz  ►  01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

People who are scheduling the main page and need images protected at Commons are welcome to contact me with protection requests. Durova⁴¹² 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D has arbitrarily posted an AFD notice re article Controversial command decisions, World War II without first entering into or participating in any exchange of views on relevant discussion page. Nick-D has also attempted back-door lobbying of support for his campaign against me by making false claims about my editing, on at least one related user talk page, and without notification to me. Communicat (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the user did notify you of the AfD, and he is not required to enter in discussion before hand because an AfD is the discussion. As for "back door lobbying", I'll have a look at his contributions but if you provided diffs it would go quicker. SGGH ^ping! 08:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I presume that Communicat is referring to User talk:Nick-D#"Controversies" articles in which I was asked my opinion of these articles by another editor and responded by saying that they were POV disasters and should be deleted and my use of the standard AfD notification template to notify Communicat ([160]) and the involved editors W. B. Wilson ([161]) and Buckshot06 ([162]) when I started the AfD a few days later (it's at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II). Opinions there are currently split between whether the article should be deleted or whether it should be reverted back to a completely different version before Communicat re-wrote it from stratch; no-one is arguing in favour of the current article other than Communicat and the discussion has several more days to run. Communicat's uncivil comments here appear to be the basis for this complaint. I also posted a notification on the RfC thread where the article was being discussed [163] (as the editor who started the RfC didn't post a notification on the article's talk page I didn't realise there was a RfC until after I started the AfD nomination, but I thought it best that the nomination go ahead given that the editor who started the RfC had subsequently retired from Wikipedia and the article was still a mess). Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also note that Communicat's notification of this report was rather uncivil: [164] Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"I would suggest all the sudden fuss has far less to do with accurate history than with anti-communist hysteria reminiscent of McCarthyism and the Cold War" - well. I agree that you have honest and understandable concerns to bring the article to AfD, and in fact agree that it (in its current form at least) does not bring anything to the encyclopaedia but POV as evidenced by the above quote. However if another admin wants to weigh in (as I openly admit I think the article should be deleted) then that is fine. I believe the AfD should run its course as a more reliable measure of consensus than Communicat's own comments (no offence intended). SGGH ^ping! 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(be that AfD result delete or revert to pre-Communicat edits.) SGGH ^ping! 10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I also note that the AFD was posted 3 days ago, and Communicat has been making many comments on it in the intervening days. However it was only today that they decided to make a complaint here. The AfD is obviously going towards a delete, but it would be bad faith of me to think that is the reason this has been posted now rather than 3 days ago. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

) or anywhere else that it would be appropriately visible for independent input. The RFC is now over 48 hours old without certification.

I would like to request an uninvolved administrator review the situation and figure out what to do with it. The options would seem to be either remove it as uncertified or list it properly and give it 48 more hours to go; I leave it to the responding admin to figure out which is appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Improperly filed RFC, and also not certified appropriately, after over 48 hours. -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

88.111.55.202 is the latest in a long line of dynamic addresses used by a certain person to attack me over some apparent grievance of which I have no knowledge.

Yesterday he was using 88.111.63.26 to wage an edit war in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Blackmore.

88.111.48.107 disrupted WP:AN and WP:ANI on 11 March: see these edits

Other IPs he has used include:

• 88.111.39.197
• 88.111.60.218
• 85.210.127.158
• 85.210.83.167
• 88.109.8.46
• 88.110.56.81
• 85.210.135.210

What can be done to combat a serial attacker of this nature? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This user - Blackjack is now taking it upon himself to decide who people are - ie; all one user and to decide who is blocked. He reverts edits by people on the basis that he knows who they are. His language is endlessly intemperate and for the good of the project he should be blocked. It really is absolutely unacceptable to be browbeaten in this way. I for example was in Poland from 10-21st March and had I used a dynamic IP it would have registered a Polish origin.10:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosebank2 (talk • contribs)

• For a report like this, you need to provide all the details, Blackjack. Who is a "certain person"? Is there any other history here that leads you to call them a "serial attacker"? What is it about the edits of these IPs in particular that makes you think they are the same individual? It's very hard for an admin with no prior knowledge to assess the merit of this complaint at the moment. CIreland (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suggest you close this for now and I'll put together a more detailed version. I don't have enough time right now. Thanks very much. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last year I noticed administrators about arrogant bearing of Zen-in that was reverting systematically all my edits in various pages and finally he caused an edit war. Now, he begins doing the same in the Counter page trying to conceal his revertings by misleading and meaningless summaries in the subject line ("Corrected error in description", "Corrected grammar", "Repaired illogical sentence", "Syntax correction"...) Actually, he has reverted the current page to the state before my edits. Here is the history of these hidden reverting shown by the differences with the previous versions (the misleading comments are shown in round brackets): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=351577900&oldid=351519656 (Corrected error in description) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359224&oldid=352199087 (Corrected grammar, repaired illogical sentence) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352359658&oldid=352359224 (?) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=352359658 (syntax correction)

And this is the "difference" between the initial (before my edits) and the current state of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counter&diff=352360268&oldid=350904704

As you can see, the only "difference" is... the word "two"; the only Zen-in contribution to this page is one word?!?!?!? What does it mean? What is it?

I consider Zen-in actions as a kind of "internal vandalism" done by a Wikipedian. Such unreliable people do not deserve to be Wikipedians. Please, take the according precautions to prevent the coming edit war.

I have supplied all my edits with comprehensive comments written in the bottom subject line. But, if it is needed, I can first comment every my edit on the talk page and then to move it to the main page.

--Circuit dreamer (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• You posted this yesterday, it was archived, and you've posted it again. I'd suggest you look at Zen-in's edits again. There's nothing wrong with this - he's pointing out that there are two flip-flops (which there are). There's nothing wrong with this - the sentence he's altering is tortuous, and he's made it read better. There isn't an issue here, and there also isn't an edit-war, which means no administrative action is necessary. If you have a dispute over content, the venue is
  that way. Black Kite
  17:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you. Circuit dreamer has asked others to help him with his edits for these same reasons. I don't like it when my edits get changed, but that's what happens. A copy of his complaint was posted in Talk:Counter, including the uncivil tone. Circuit dreamer has in the past posted inappropriate content on Wikipedia discussion pages, forcing others to delete his edits. I don't think it is right for Circuit dreamer to post his uncivility on the discussion page and ask that it be removed. Zen-in (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked 3 months, outing and other issues.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I've blocked the IP and the "outing" edits have been deleted. If someone can oversight them as well (the four edits are the edits to User talk:Rhomb at the top of the list here), that would be great. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No action taken on TechnoFaye and mediation on Race and intelligence prolonged for at least another two weeks, following the suggestion of Ludwigs2

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have previously created a thread here but was referred to forum shopping but I have felt it necessary that this issue be handled at ANI, because there are many more experienced editors here. My main complaint is that TechnoFaye keeps on saying "Blacks are stupid". I find these comments offensive, and have tried to ignore them and put them in context. But because she keeps repeating them, I felt it necessary to get outside input. Some of the quotes include So how is R/I different? Eye color = self-reported race, and 11 toes = stupid (or whatever the polite word is). Why is this a false analogy?. [166] My best guess is that, like Gould, some well-meaning editors feel that a genetic basis for blacks being stupid should be denied 'even if it is true.'[167] "It's not about the data-centric structure; that's just the disingenuous cover story. It's about pushing a political POV, and is just like naming the article "Why Blacks are so stupid".[168] What do you think of the theory that the IQ difference is due to everyone else believing that blacks are stupid[169] No, it means it's extremely unlikely that one exists, because it would have to be something powerful enough to make a whole race of people stupid, yet hidden and secret enough that no one ever thought of it[170] These comments have been occurring over a period of at least one month. According to the user's Block log, the user has prior blocks for incivility. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I would echo the comments made at WQA; these edits are not incivility. Also, it seems to me that you're putting words in her mouth when you say she "keeps on saying 'Blacks are stupid'.". An uninhibited exchange of ideas is usually a good idea during a mediation. I encourage you to disagree politely with her comments, but not characterize them as uncivil. I'd recommend no action here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Floquenbeam, TechnoFaye is not having words put into her mouth. To quote from her MySpace blog on the topic of the Race and intelligence mediation: "Why is "they're stupid" an okay explanation for everybody else's low IQ score, but blacks' score of "retarded" is due to some mysterious, unknown reason other than that they're retarded?" and "negroes are so abysmally stupid."[171]Her blog is v NSFW Repeated racism does fall under WP:CIVIL as far as I'm concerned. If she can't reign herself in to refrain from making bigoted and inflammatory language, she should be indef blocked (regardless of her autism). Fences&Windows 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Rubbish. It seems to me that either a deliberate misunderstanding of what she is saying is being used against her and/or the quotes are being used massively out of context. I can't see any racism or bigotry, at least not from TechnoFaye. What I do see are kneejerk reactions to non-politically correct statements of unpopular realisations. Personally I see her autism as a perfect way to be unencumbered with the pervasive and ever-present PC bollocks screwing up this project. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC) All I can say is that her tale of a crazy-bum-woman-living-in-the-forest to suburban-sex-slave-who-wants-to be-raped transformation story on her blog was one of the more disturbing things I have seen in a while. I couldn't get past that to actually look into the on-wiki dispute. In fact now I think I'll sign off for a while and go take a long walk. talk ) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Whereas all I see on that page is someone wanting to do exactly what they want to do with their own life... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC) If one says "blacks are stupid" once, it may be said in context, it may be literature or a creative way to discuss something. I would be willing to overlook a one-off statement. But to repeat the same statement 6 or 7 times is no longer creative or an uninhibited exchange of ideas, its more like taking advantage of the fact that nobody is complaining. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC) @Fred: Not to wander too far off topic here, but I never suggested she was not free to make those choices, just that I personally found it very disturbing, and frankly indicative of deep-seated mental health issues that cannot be explained by autism alone. But of course none of this is actually relevant to her on-wiki actions with regard to possible racist comments. talk ) 19:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC) As I said, I don't believe her comments are racist. They can appear so when listed like they are above, but that is of course Muntuwandi's intention to strengthen his/her case. As usual it's politically incorrect to refer to possible deficiencies in ethnic minorities and as ever there is always someone wanting to appear to be a crusading liberal. If anyone is causing disruption it's Muntuwandi with his/her forum shopping. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC) To set the record straight, the complaint here is specifically about incivility. Unless there has been a major paradigm shift that I missed, but according to my understanding it is generally uncivil to refer to any individual or ethnic group as stupid. WP:CIVILITY specifically states: The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: 1. Direct rudeness (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions; (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; Without Wikipedia's civility policy, we would not be able to discuss difficult, controversial or politically incorrect subjects. The complaint is not about the subject matter, that remains an independent matter altogether. If we were editing an article about how to bake cookies and an editor persistently stated that an individual or ethnic group were stupid, I would still bring it up as an incivility issue, because it distracts from editing the article and creates an "uncivil environment". I have noticed a few editors want to blame the messenger for bringing this up, but I have done so not to score political points. I would like to know if it is now acceptable in wikipedia discussions to refer to any ethnic group as being "stupid". Wapondaponda (talk ) 00:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Wapondaponda: just as an aside - the nature of this article means that we have to treat civility issues with circumspection. a few editors on the page (Faye included) stray over the line into personal attacks on other editors, and that needs to be dealt with, but Faye's racial comments aren't so much incivility as a deeply held belief that there is a biological/genetic/racial basis of some sort to intelligence. I'm pretty sure she's guilty of syntehsis from published materials on this point, but I don't think she's trying to be uncivil or racist as much as she's trying to be (what she views as) accurate. she has an extreme view, and a fairly ham-handed way of presenting her opinions which comes off a lot worse-sounding than it actually is. I'm less worried about the implicit racism than about the implicit synthesis, but I haven't yet got her to see that. --Ludwigs2 09:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I didn't realise that Faye had not been alerted to this thread. I have notified her (Wapondaponda, here's a trout slap for you) and I have given her notice that she will be blocked if she continues to make derogatory comments about groups of people. This is not about "political correctness", this is about Faye being deliberately offensive. Arguing that the average IQ of black populations is lower than that of other populations and discussing why that might be is OK. Saying that "black people are stupid" is not OK. Fred, do you see the difference? One is acceptable scholarly discourse, the other is derogatory and inflammatory. Fences&Windows 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Of course I understand the difference, I'm also able to read at a sufficiently advanced level to understand that she didn't actually say that "black people are stupid". She asked a question about a theory, someone else's theory, she did not say that she held with that theory or even accuse anyone, let alone Blacks, of being stupid. All people seem to be doing is seeing those 3 little words "blacks are stupid" and instantly go into paroxysms of spluttering and the equivalent of "you can't say that these days". The point is that some people DO think blacks are stupid, some of them even scientists who aren't being racist. Therefore it's, in my humble opinion, fine to ask the question she asked, It isn't fine to say that she thinks they are, it isn't fine to accuse any particular person of stupidity, but in this world there are a lot of stupid people, some of them do happen to be black. Similarly an awful lot are caucsian/asian/chinese/manchunian/blonde/freckled/female/lactose intolerant. In her defence her autism is going to be a distinct disadvantage due to the social filters not functioning properly, after all it is a communication disorder and I believe she should be given more latitude than normal. It's not her fault she doesn't have that little voice over her shoulder warning her "don't say it quite like that". It would also be helpful if there wasn't so many knees moving through 90 degrees from the faux liberals. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) My error, I apologize for that, I did inform her of the thread at WQA where the user did respond and I posted a link from WQA to this thread. But I should have specifically informed the user about this thread. I agree with Fences and windows that there is a difference between scholarly discussion of group differences and referring to certain groups in a derogatory manner. I think latitude has been given, these comments have taken place over a period of 5 weeks so this not a knee-jerk reaction. Regardless of the user's condition she is aware that she makes offensive statements. Obviously one needs a thick skin when editing controversial articles, but even with thick skinned editing, the above comments are quite unhelpful. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC) A little off topic... but has anyone else noticed that WP:NOTCENSORED but as far as I'm aware user page content is supposed to be at least marginally related to Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk ) 06:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC) yeah, I scratched my head over that too. I figured it's relatively tasteful, and wasn't overtly violating any policies, so it got filed in the 'too trivial to worry about' category. --Ludwigs2 09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC) <- TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) claims to have taken this picture [172] herself File:Bpesta.jpg. This is clearly not the case and is a copyvio. Why did she lie? Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Faye has (as should be evident, and as she herself admits) some form of mild autism (or perhaps some other minor developmental disorder - I'm not sure if her claims of autism stem from self-diagnosis). I have been trying to be tolerant of that, and guide her towards some more socially acceptable modes of interaction, with limited success. however, because of this thread (and Mathsci's complaints below) I am putting the mediation discussion on a strict civility program; I am going to start insisting on 3-day breaks from the discussion for any editor who cannot refrain from making disparaging comments about other editors. I'm going to try a firm hand for a little while on the page, and see if we can capitalize on the progress we'e made and break through the points of stubbornness that are currently plaguing the page. If you ask me, we can close/table this discussion for a week and see what progress a new approach can make. --Ludwigs2 09:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I think she's likely a fantasist, that's not really relevant except in that it informs judgment of her on-wiki behaviour. Which is ... eccentric. I think there is a need for a mentor of some kind. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Criticism of mediation on Race and intelligence Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence Race and intelligence I looked at the main page to which TechnoFaye contributes and there seems to be a much deeper problem. Mediation started in November on this topic, initially under the supervision of WP:SPAs and a coterie of highly problematic users, with some exceptions (eg Slrubenstein (talk · contribs)). TechnoFaye's contributions and directing of the mediation page do not seem to be particularly helpful, nor her choice of language. The page is in no way a mediation page any more. Please could administrators or mediators explain what is going on and attempt to restore some order? There is no record on the page as to who is moderating at present (surely not Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)?). Mathsci (talk ) 05:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I am not quite sure how this kind of poorly written synthesis[173] by an anonymous IP from Brussels Race_and_intelligence#Ten_argument_supporting_the_existence_of_race_differences_in_IQ_scores_between_whites_and_blacks.5B71.5D from a single questionable source ( WP:UNDUE material in the article, still claiming there is some kind of neutral mediator in their recent edit summaries. That does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk ) 06:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Mathsci - nice of you to ask me, but yes, I am still mediating there. I've been letting the page run a bit, for a number of reasons: (1) to save myself from burnout (it's a difficult crew) (2) to keep myself looking draconian (I have the urge to impose order severely at times, but I resist - don't see that as my position), and (3) to let some of the steam of the participants burn off. if you have a problem with my mediation style, you are free to use my talk page to discuss the matter with me, but I'd prefer that you don't go posting notices about me on ANI without notification. since you've brought it up, however, would you like to discuss the matter now? --Ludwigs2 07:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC) My comments make it quite clear that I had no idea who the mediator was. It is not announced on the page. Presumably, since I was inscribed early in the mediation, you should have sought my approval. Unfortunately I think there have been many long term problems with your own edits on wikipedia, which indicate that you are not a neutral party and completely unsuitable as a mediator. Your edits are wikilawyering par excellence - you've been doing so above. From the archived talk page, you appear to have hijacked the initial stages of mediation conducted under the two experienced mediators mentioned above. I suggest the mediation be terminated and the article returned to some previous state, so that it looks slightly less like illiterate right wing propaganda. No experienced mediator would have allowed this nonsense to stay in the article for two weeks. This is just disruption, Ludwigs2, and possibly worthy of a block of some kind. This should be discussed here by administrators and experienced mediators, not hidden away on your talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC) <- Just a reminder of what you as mediator allowed in the article for two weeks: Ten argument supporting the existence of race differences in IQ scores between whites and blacks 1. The two races have evolved independently of one another and in different environments over a period of one hundred thousand years. When two populations evolve in isolation from one another during such period there are differences that appear in all areas where there are possibilities of genetic variation. The extreme environmentalist position, assuming there are no intellectual differences between races defy the general principle of biological evolution and can be seen as impossible. 2. The Africans obtain an I.Q quite similar in many different locations: this must be regarded as evidence of a strong genetic factor. 3. The high heritability found among twins in America, Europe, Japan and India shows that intelligence is largely determined by genetic factors. 4.The cranial volume differences between Caucasian and black show the existence of genetic factors, because the heritability of cranial volume is 0.9 and the correlation between intelligence and cranial volume is 0.4. 5. Many egalitarians have suggested that white racism could reduce the IQ of blacks, but there is no explanation that can explain how racism might reduce IQ, and then why the IQ of black Africans in Africa would he 67? If racism diminishes intelligence, it is curious that the Jews of America and England have an IQ of 108, then they have been exposed to racism for centuries. The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930. 6. Black children adopted by white parents get the same scores as predicting racial. There is still difference of 17 IQ points between whites and blacks raised in the same conditions. Being raised by white adoptive parents had no positive effect on the intelligence of blacks. 7. The IQ of hybrids is intermediate between the two parental breeds, as well as the cranial volume, which is also the intermediary between the two parental breeds. 8. It has been shown a significant difference between races in terms of reaction time. The reaction time is correlated with IQ, because both of them are eficiente signs of central nervous system. The average Caucasian react more quickly to a stimulus. 9. The more white admixture, the greater the average brain weight of an African high (genetic testing beyond the color of the skin). 10. Racial differences in cranial capacity are correlated with 76 musculoskeletal traits identified in standard works of evolutionary anatomy as systematically related to an increase in cranial capacity in hominids. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I offered to take over the mediation a good long while ago, when the last mediator quit in frustration: there was a sizable discussion about it, and the editors who participated in the discussion all agreed. I'm sorry you missed that discussion, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it now unless you want to reopen the issue on the mediation page. I have been expecting the participants in the mediation to reach some consensus which would mean a major revision of the entire article, and I was aware that the participants were monitoring the article itself for changes. sorry this bit slipped in, but it would have been gone by now had the consensus been reached In deference to you, I've gone ahead and announced a stronger approach on the mediation page, and will begin pursuing it tomorrow. beyond that, I am not concerned with your (thoroughly misguided) impressions of me. As I said, if you have a problem with me personally, take it up on my talk page (or through one of the numerous dispute resolution processes wikipedia has to offer). However, if you just want to talk shit about me, no one is interested. --Ludwigs2 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC) The article is in a hopeless state. I have no idea why you sought to mediate such a controversial article, given your own record on wikipedia. (It is not dissimilar to GoRight offering to act as Abd's mentor.) That you missed the above glaringly awful insertion, until I pointed it out now, is a clear sign that you don't have the qualities required to mediate. At least User:Reubzz left personal messages on talk pages and clearly edited the mediation pages to explain what was going on. You don't even seem to have bothered monitoring the article recently. Please stop treating wikipedia as some kind of game. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC) again, this is a topic you should bring up on the mediation page. if you don't want me as mediator, I'm certainly not imposing myself on the situation, and a nice discussion of the matter there would resolve the issue. or is there some reason you keep wanting to harp on it here, where it won't do a darned bit of good? with respect to your problematic passage - if you have good reason to remove it, remove it. you don't need a mediator for that, unless it becomes a matter of contention between you and another editor. as I said, it is not my place as mediator to make content decisions for you. --Ludwigs2 09:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, Mathsci, we have you yourself not removed this section, since you seem to object to it? I am mediating this article, which limits my capacity to make editorial decisions (I'm not here to take sides in editorial disputes, but rather to try to develop some kind of consensus). as an interested editor, you should be the one monitoring the article for inappropriate material. --Ludwigs2 08:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) In its present state I wouldn't touch the article - this was only one of the things wrong with it. I wrote above that it should be returned to a much earlier state. I see very little hope for it at the moment, given the current circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC) if you are not going to touch the article, then shall I remove your name from the list of mediation participants? The possibility of reverting the article to an earlier state was discussed in mediation, but there was no consensus on the matter, and I didn't want to impose a solution. the issue will be resolved as soon as we reach a consensus in mediation, since the entire page will be revised, or you can reopen that thread for further discussion if you like. so, now, what is your reason for wanting this section removed? is it unsourced? no. is it a misrepresentation? I don't know, do you? is it clear synthesis? not that I can see, but I'm willing to be convinced (because I don't like the passage any more than you do). give me an argument for removing it and I will remove it; don't expect me as mediator to remove material that (superficially, at least) seems to conform to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ludwigs2 09:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I only add citations and sources to that article, and very seldom. I am aware, however, of the academic literature. I'll leave you to figure out on your own what is wrong with the above passage and why it blatantly violates several of wikipedia's core policies. As a clue, here is an article edit I made yesterday.[174] Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC) well, thanks for the hint, but I have no idea what it means. are you making some comment about referencing or complaining that the statistics in the section is bad? can race be modeled using hermite polynomials? and what does this have to do with core policies? --Ludwigs2 09:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC) If you're asking questions like that, you seem clueless about editing wikipedia. The statements are improperly sourced from a single source. Statements like "The high IQ of American Jews is well known since 1930" need some kind of inline citation and exact quotation. Controversial statements, that are improperly sourced, are not normally permitted on wikipedia. Likewise the statement about the average African IQ. Honestly, Ludwigs2, your statements about editing articles are singularly clueless. With less than 1,500 article edits to your name, that doesn't seem very surprising. Your replies at the moment are verging on "trolling". Mathsci (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with some of Mathsci's observations, some oversight by experienced editors may be necessary. I get the feeling that this mediation is taking place tucked away in a hidden corner of wikipedia and without the support of the broader community. It would be also useful if some experienced editors could evaluate whether the mediation in its current state has the potential of being fruitful. If it has no potential, then maybe as Mathsci suggested, it would be best to have it terminated. If there is still hope, then some supervision would be necessary to ensure that the mediation process and its results are consistent with the views of the broader community. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) @ Mathsci:If that's your belief, then again, I don't know why you haven't removed the passage. someone else went ahead and did it, and so the problem is obviated, but still... @ Wapondaponda: again, I'm not doing this for love or money. if you don't want me to mediate, bring it up on the mediation talk page as a matter for discussion. I'm not interested in being supervised (though I'm happy to take any advice anyone has to offer). if you want another mediator to take over, find one and suggest them Now, let's close this discussion (which is not an ANI matter in any sense of the word) and reopen it on the mediation talk page if you so desire To be precise the material was removed [175], then reverted [176], then removed again [177]. Hardly straightforward. If I hadn't pointed it out, this nonsense would still be in the article. How I edit has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. When mediation started I made a careful statement about what should happen to the article, which had consensus. Your own actions as self-appointed "mediator" have not helped in the slightest. I only see complete disarray. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Ludwigs, I have not made any comments concerning you being a mediator. My concern is with the process in general. With the persistent incivility, I have just gotten the feeling that the mediation is on autopilot, and nobody cares. Currently Slrubenstein is probably the only experienced editor participating in the mediation. I would be happier if there were more experienced editors who are not effectively WP:SPAs looking at the article. Wapondaponda (talk ) 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC) <- I have to agree with Muntuwandi here. Slrubenstein is one of the few experienced editors remaining in the discussions. My own feeling is that an administrator experienced in mediation, such as Shell Kinney or WJBscribe, should be consulted about the current anomolous situation. Since Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is relatively inexperienced both as an editor and a mediator, he should certainly not be trying to suppress discussion, which involves his role amongst other things. Mathsci (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) There also seems to be an inaccessible part of the talk archives result from this edit.[178] That is now in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 0. It contained the opening statements amongst other things. I have no idea how that can be corrected. Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC) okie dokie. feel free to continue this discussion and let me know if I'm needed. for my part, I will ignore this thread (and and any results it produces) and wait for you to open a discussion of the topic on the mediation page, where it belongs. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC) For the record: Ludwigs did not "appoint himself" mediator. We held a discussion about Ludwigs taking over the role of mediator, and all of the then-active editors (myself, Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, Aprock, Alun, Mikemikev, Captain Occam, TechnoFaye) agreed to it. I think Ludwigs is doing just fine given the circumstances, and I don't think the hyper-criticism taking place here is helping anything. --Aryaman (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Ludwig is not doing an unreasonable job, although he certainly has a hands off approach, and seems to be aligned with a specific faction of editors. This hasn't been a huge problem, but it does creep out from time to time. A.Prock (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC) So, you're saying that the mediator is not impartial, but aligned with one of the factions involved in the mediation, and he allows stuff to go into the article without check (just curious - is it stuff that's favored by the faction he's aligned with?), but all that is just peachy with you and he's doing a bang-up job, all considered? Is that the gist of what you've just said? Who's in charge of that zoo? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC) There are two things you ought to keep in mind about this. The first is that assuming Aprock’s opinion here is the same one he’s expressed on the mediation talk page, his opinion is that Ludwig is biased against his side, not in favor of it. So if Ludwig’s possible bias against Aprock’s position isn’t enough to bother Aprock, that should mean it probably isn’t enough to matter significantly. And the other thing to keep in mind is that both of the “factions” involved in this article have claimed that Ludwig is biased against them. If you look at some of TechnoFaye’s posts on the mediation talk page, you’ll see that she’s accused Ludwig of being biased against her position at least as often as Aprock has accused him of the same thing in his own case, even though within the context of this debate, TechnoFaye’s and Aprock’s positions are pretty much exact opposites of one another. Ludwig gets accused of being biased against both positions about as frequently as one another, and which it is depends on the position of the person making the accusation—everyone always claims he’s biased against them, not in favor of them. I don’t think it’s possible for Ludwig to be simultaneously biased against both of the two groups that are debating over this article. What looks more likely to me is that both of these groups are unhappy with having to compromise, so Ludwig’s unwillingness to concede to all of the demands from either side is being mistaken for bias. And that’s a problem with some of the users involved in the article, not with Ludwig. Personally, I’ve found Ludwig’s hands-off style of mediation to be bothersome on occasion (such as when he didn’t intervene in situations where we’d asked him to, or where he’d told us he was going to), but bias is one problem that I don’t think he has. I’m also expecting the inaction problem that I mentioned to improve now that he’s promised to become more actively involved in the mediation. I think that Ludwig’s ability to continue mediating the article at all says a lot about his ability in this respect, considering that two mediators with considerably more experience (Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith), working together, gave up on this after spending less time on it than Ludwig has. Based on what happened with Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith, I suspect that almost any two mediators placed in Ludwig’s position probably would have given up long before this. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) <- Ludwigs2 has longstanding problems on wikipedia. In the past on Race and intelligence, there have been a series of problematic editors. Fourdee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by Jimbo; MoritzB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked; Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a long-time problematic editor who with Zero g (talk · contribs), was taken under Elonka's wing. Ludwigs2 was one of the few users who claimed that Jagz should return to editing (he used to make good edits to scouting articles, as Rlevse pointed out). Ludwigs2 is currently having a feud with BullRangifer/Fyslee and has a history of pushing fringe science ideas on altmed articles. His cavalier attitude to the nonsense that was inserted into R&I underlines why he is totally unsuitable as a mediator in a controversial article where the mainstream academic viewpoint has to be made crystal clear. His reaction to this material seemed to be an attempt to game the system rather than assume the reponsibilities of a mediator: he immediately personalised the discussion in a kind of wikilawyering way, asking why I didn't like the material and why I had not removed it; at no stage did he recognize it for the blatant violation of multiple wikipedia policies that it evidently is. It might be that he has been sympathetic to users pushing a certain point of view, like Captain Occam and Varoon Arya. Irrespective of this, however, his past and present activities on-wiki disqualify him from acting as a mediator. There seems to be no good reason for continuing mediation in these circumstances. It started off fine, once events had moved past the brief guest appearance of would-be mediator Reubzz (talk · contribs), but is now in a total mess. Those pushing minoritarian points of view might possibly benefit from this mess, but the article certainly won't. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) As I see it, mediattion is not about control of a page, it is about resolving disputes among editors. So far, mediation has focused on resolving disputes among a list of editors who have been regular or active contributors to the page; the mediator has focused on disputes among these individuals, and has not focused on the article itself. I have no problem with this - I think the plan is IF we can all agree on the overal structure and contents of the article, at that point the entire article will be redrafted. Again, I have no problem with this. Ludwigs2 is mediating because no one else would. I think that the mediationis taking a long time and could use a more forceful mediator, but given the questions about Ludwigs2's sympathies, i can understand why he has not been very forceful. Mathsci, are you volunteering to take over mediation? Is there someone else who is qualified, acceptable to parties, and willing? I will tell you my major complaint about the mediation and the mediator. Several people who signed on as parties to the mediation - Wobble, Ramdrake, and Futurebird, among others - have not participated for some time. This in my mind realy delegitimizes the mediation, because it is no longer a mediation between editors who are in conflict, it is becoming a discussion board for editors who all agree with one another (Varoon Arya, Captain Occan, Mikemikev, Technofaye, to a lesser degree DJ). I am not saying that these people should in any way be silenced or their views deprecated. I am saying that when the people who have most been in conflict with the parties I just named ar not actively participating in the mediation, then it is no longer a mediation, it is no longer a form of dispute resolution - it is turning into a wikiproject run by Varoon Arya and Captain Occam and friends. I do not want Varoon Arya and Captain Occam to leave - they are important parties to the mediation. But if this is to be an honest form of conflict resolution, then the parties n conflict with Varoon Arya and Captain Occam have to participate too. I do not know why Futurebird, Ranmdrake, and Wobble are not active. There may be other editors who have contributed to the article and who have been in conflict with Varoon Arya or Captain Occam, who have not been actively participating in the mediation. (Maybe including MathSci??) I think one of the tasks of the mediator is to ensure that an environment that makes parties feel that their participatin in the mediation is worth it, be maintained. Rather than question the mediators motives or agenda, I ask him simply to contact those partices to the mediation who seem to have disappeared; find out why they are no longer active; if any of their reasons have to do with the dynamics on the mediation page, then I think themediator has a responsibility to change the dynamics so that all parties feel that the mediation is making progress and that their participation is worth it. Ludwigs2, you could start by communicationg with Futurebird, Ramdrake, Wobble, I suggest off-wiki - to learn their perceptions and views and discuss what kinds of changes could bring them 9and others) back, and then consider whether such changes really would help the mediation. But when half the parties to mediation have disappeared, I take it as a sign that there is a major problem with the diation. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) And while the mediator is concentrating on the parties and ignoring the article, we're presenting very egegious misinformation to the public. The mediation process must take a reasonable amount of time, it can't go on for so long that the project's quality control suffers. WP:FRINGE needs to be applied to this topic. Beyond My Ken (talk ) 12:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC) @Slrubenstein. Thanks for commenting here. You bring up several important points. I think it is absolutely essential that mediation concentrates on the article not on the behaviour of contributors. It is also very worrying that the editors you mention have left the article during mediation (I would add T34CH): this does not help in reaching consensus, particularly if most of the participants that are left favour a minoritarian point of view. My own feeling is that an extremely experienced senior mediator is required for this kind of controversial article: someone who has contributed significantly to mainstream articles and several other mediation cases. However, since two such mediators have abandoned mediation, finding such a mediator does not seem very realistic. Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC) move to close by Ludwigs2 Allow me to point out that User:Mathsci and user:Beyond My Ken have hijacked this thread entirely to make bizarre and uncivl attacks on me and my character. let's point out some basic facts: The thread was originally about user:TechnoFaye, but that discussion seems to have disappeared The consideration of whether I should stay or step down from mediation belongs on the mediation page. I'm happy to do so if that's the consensus, and will not do so if the consensus there is that I should remain The issue of whether the mediation has failed and should be closed belongs on the mediation page The issue of the state of the article itself is irrelevant: I'm not an admin, I'm not the page watchdog, and I am trying to maintain a neutral position in any disputes. The issue of whether I have a particular bias, while relevant, belongs on the mediation page with respect to point 1. I don't personally believe I've displayed anything like a bias on the page (and have made an effort to keep my viewpoints, where and when I have them, strictly private). I have had disputes with both of these editors before, and apparently they are holding a pretty strong grudge against me, but that is not an excuse for them to go off spitting and screaming whenever they see my name mentioned in any context. If they have some actionable claim to make against me, let them make it in a proper place and context. If they don't, to hell with them both. ANI is not the correct place for a pair of editors to indulge in overt idiocy of this sort. I'd like an admin to formally close this discussion as a witchhunt, please, otherwise I will be obliged to open a new section on this page asking for sanctions against these editors under wp:NPA, and this situation will get progressively more unpleasant. --Ludwigs2 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, no response. with that in mind, I will once again archive the above section as non-ANI material. Fair warning: any editor who wants to unarchive it should first provide a detailed explanation of why this is an issue needing ANI attention, in this section, or I will ask to have you blocked for personal attacks and disruptive editing. --Ludwigs2 (adding belated sig) It's unlikely that such a demand would have any effect other than to get you blocked for WP:DE. 24 hours is the usual minimum time allowed for people to make comments, not five. People here come from every time zone on the planet. Guy (Help! ) 09:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. indeed. I can only say that Ludwigs2 is quite mistaken and again, by his intemperate and exaggerated response, illustrates his unsuitability for any role in supervising other users' edits on wikipedia. Since Ludwigs2 is now using intemperate words like "idiocy", here is a reminder of the opening statement in mediation, incorrectly archived in WP:UNDUE weight, if other distinguished academics have expressed disagreement (as is the case). At present there has not been a systematic attempt to ensure that the broad spectrum of mainstream academic opinion has been properly represented. One problem is that the very narrow topic of a possible correlation between race, whatever that means, and intelligence, whatever that means, has not been widely studied in academia. This makes it hard to write an article on it for an encyclopedia, since many aspects will remain inconclusive because they either have not been sufficiently studied or have not been deemed worthy to be studied. Scrupulous attention should be paid to not ignoring or dismissing important sources, particularly those by eminent academics. Perhaps the most important point is that all key sources should first be carefully identified. These should be carefully summarised in the article, without prejudice. If only a handful of academics favour a particular viewpoint, i.e. it is a minoritarian viewpoint, that should be made clear. There does not seem to be any evidence that "Race and Intelligence" is a major topic of research, discussion or debate in the majority of academic departments specializing in psychometrics or related disciplines. We should be extremely cautious not to approach the writing of this article with that viewpoint. Mathsci (talk ) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Ludwigs2 is not assisting in any way in helping the article to become stable as I described in November. Quite the contrary - there has been a proliferation of minoritarian viewpoints. The threats, bullying language and unsupported insults that Ludwigs2 has now resorted to are inadmissible. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Other users - please do not edit my comments. That is a blockable offense. Mathsci (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Proposal The evidence presented by Mathsci above indicates that Ludwigs2 lacks the necessary experience to mediate such a contentious case, and some questions have been raised about his impartiality. I think we should thank Ludwigs for trying to help, but ask that he step aside and allow someone with more experience, especially in judging and weighing academic sources, to take over. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I disagree with this proposal. Two mediators with considerably more experience than Ludwig, Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith, have already attempted to mediate this article and given up after approximately a month. Whatever you think about Ludwig’s lack of experience, he’s been able to accomplish more in terms of reaching consensus than these two experienced mediators were able to accomplish working together. We now have a list of resolved points that all of the editors actively involved in the mediation have reached consensus about, and we’re also very close to reaching consensus about the article’s overall structure. And this isn’t just because certain perspectives about this topic aren’t being represented in the mediation case: even :though Alun and Ramdrake have stopped participating in the mediation, their perspective about this does not differ significantly from the perspective of Slrubenstein, Aprock and Muntuwandi, who have been included in the consensus we’ve reached about the items I mentioned. Experience evidently isn’t the only thing that matters here, since a pair of experienced mediators were able to accomplish virtually nothing with this article, while Ludwig has enabled us to reach consensus on a fair amount. If Ludwig is replaced with another mediator based on this criterion, it will most likely be a repeat of what we experienced while Xavexgoem and The Wordsmith were mediating it. Mathsci was part of the mediation for this article early on, but for some reason he dropped out of it shortly after it began. Since he hasn’t been able to influence the direction it’s taken beyond that point, some of what the rest of us have decided since then evidently differs from what he would have preferred. If he had continued to participate in the mediation over the past four months, this might not have happened. But it has, and that’s really what this discussion is about, apart from the personal conflicts Mathsci is bringing up that he’s had with Ludwig in the past. If Mathsci is dissatisfied with the direction this article’s mediation has taken, the proper place to bring it up would be in the mediation itself. He’s been signed into it for months; he’s just been choosing to not participate in it, and now he’s bringing up his resulting disagreements with it at AN/I instead. I agree that this discussion doesn’t belong at AN/I. Where it belongs is on the mediation talk page, and if Mathsci were to bring up his issues there in the same way as everyone who has expectations for this article, then Ludwig would probably listen to them in the same way that he’s listened to the same thing from everyone else there. You’ll notice that everyone commenting in this thread who’s actively involved in the mediation, regardless of the position they take, approves of the job Ludwig has been doing with this. All of us who are actually subjected to his authority think he’s using it in an acceptable manner, and the only person who thinks otherwise is someone who’s been voluntarily choosing not to participate in the mediation since before Ludwig was in charge of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC) This series of comments beginning with Mathsci's interjection represents exactly the kind of "accusations and side-discussions within a discussion" which are supposed to be avoided on this page. I request that an administrator put a halt to this "discussion" and instruct Mathsci to discuss this issue with Ludwigs, either on his talkpage or on the mediation discussion page. --Aryaman (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with this proposal. Mediation has gone on now too long (five months) without much to show for it, except a much worse article, and seems in disarray. It could be that Ludwigs2's participation benefits the above two editors, who appear to favour a minoritarian point of view : Race and intelligence is one of the principal articles they concentrate on in mainspace. The unchecked comments of TechnoFaye about the intelligence of population groups on the mediation page are just another symptom of the fact that the mediation process is in disarray. This is an appropriate public place to discuss this point, not in some hidden-away corner of wikipedia. Again, the problem is with the mediator and his editing history. Mathsci (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Mathsci has not tried to discuss these concerns of his in the mediation, where this kind of criticism can be properly addressed. Instead he is using AN/I as a platform to give air to his sudden lack of good faith in the goals of the mediation, to defame editors he apparently does not like and to seek support for torpedoing a mediation he chose to stop participating in some time ago. He was not pushed out of the mediation, and his views/suggestions/comments were not marginalized or disregarded. These charges of incompetency on the part of Ludwigs are unsubstantiated, and Mathsci summarily ignores all the progress which has been made during the mediation under Ludwigs' supervision. Again, I request that an administrator put an end to this "proposal" and direct interested parties to either the mediation discussion page or to Ludwigs' talkpage. --Aryaman (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Regrettably, the mediation process has run aground. That seems to be what Slrubenstein is also saying. The process is delegitimized when a large group of editors abandon the mediation process, leaving mostly those representing a minoritarian point of view. The mediation pages are not the appropriate place to discuss this - they are a hidden little corner of wikipedia, currently for the most part frequented by like minded editors. FYI, my absence is explained by a wikibreak, a reduction in editing due to the teaching of a graduate course in Cambridge - that happens each year. Although Ludwigs2 offered to be mediator in good faith, from my point of view he does not have sufficient editing/mediation experience or impartiality to act as a mediator on such a complex article. Mathsci (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC) The mediation process can only "run aground", as Mathsci puts it, when disgruntled editors leave the mediation (and possibly start reproachful threads on AN/I) instead of discussing their concerns in the mediation. There is no reason to assume Mathsci's concerns would not be properly addressed in the context of the mediation. In fact, Ludwigs has invited Mathsci to return to the mediation and make mention of his concerns. If Mathsci wants the mediation to make what he sees as "improvements", it is incumbent upon him to help improve it through his active participation. At any rate, I (still) see no need for external administrator involvement at this time. --Aryaman (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I think you would find that a more skilled and experienced mediator would have avoided the drift away and would also (importantly) have helped to deliver markedly better content by now. This article certainly does not show the benefit of what should have been a process of intense focus and rigorous re-examination. Far from it. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC) None of the participants in the mediation have edited the article since the inception of the mediation process other than to revert contentious edits made by external parties. We decided as a group to refrain from editing the article until we were able to agree upon an outline for our first major revision (the current topic of discussion), which is likely to begin sometime this coming week. It has taken a great deal of discussion to develop an outline with which everyone agrees, but we all acknowledge that this is a key factor in the hoped-for stability of the future article. As far as I know, Ramdrake suffers from serious health issues which prevent his being able to contribute for extended periods of time - something for which Ludwigs can in no way be held responsible. Other editors indicated early on that they would not be participating, either out of a lack of interest or a lack of time. Again, this has nothing to do with Ludwigs' qualifications as mediator. The reasoning behind this proposal is specious and the proposal itself is entirely uncalled for. --Aryaman (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC) Mathsci apparently had believed that the article mediation was going to result in a consensus that suited him. He has not been participating in the mediation and is instead now trying to derail the mediation by complaining to administrators. While his mathematical abilities are impressive, he has a history of problematic interactions with other editors on Wikipedia. I can understand why Wikipedia administrators are loathe to risk alienating Mathsci given his contributions to certain articles such as the ones on mathematics (that only other mathematicians can fully appreciate). Ludwigs2 seems to have been doing a reasonably good job and those involved in mediation should be glad he hasn't abandoned the mediation like three other mediators have already done. Perhaps the complaints against Ludwigs2 (which Captain Occam anticipated happening in February) are an attempt by Mathsci to redirect the mediation in a direction that he had originally anticipated it would go. Why would Mathsci choose to first raise his objections on this page instead of on the mediation page? As far as any changes to the article itself since the mediation began, a note at the top of the article states, "This article is currently being discussed in mediation. Please check with the mediator or other mediation participants before making any significant revisions, as the outcome of that discussion may involve major restructuring of the article." --74.178.247.39 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC) The comments above, the first edits by this anonymous IP, make hardly any sense. My editing history shows that I have only edited mainstream articles on wikipedia - my edits on this particular article having been restricted to sources and citations. I have created articles in several parts of the arts and sciences - in WP:SPA. I think I have enough experience, possibly more than the commentators above, to say when attempts at mediation have collapsed. Occasionally my professional academic life prevents me from regularly contributing to wikipedia at certain times of the year. That seems quite normal. Mathsci (talk ) 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Proposal 2 Based on the the following observations. Undercurrent of hostility The initial mediators, Wordsmith and Xavexgoem, who I gather have some experience with mediation procedures, felt mediation was not worth pursuing. Xavexgoem specifically stated prior to leaving: "I'm having one helluva time figuring out where to go from here. The straw-poll established nothing, and I'm surprised to see the level of anger among some of you. I still have the suspicion that there's an undercurrent here that I'm not aware of. It's fairly obvious to think of what that would be. Anyone care to fill me in?"[179] I agree that the current atmosphere is not suitable for a productive mediation point. The incivility by User:TechnoFaye is also additional evidence of an environment not conducive to Mediation. This incivility has either been viewed as acceptable or may even have been tacitly supported. A few editors may have devoted most, if not all of their wiki-time to this dispute, and this may go 4 months back to before the mediation commenced. Though there is no policy against such, it is obviously not the most productive form of editing. Due to these observations, I propose the following. Suspend the mediation process Revert Race and intelligence to a stable pre-Mediation version. This is because when we signed on to the article, we agreed not to edit the article, and many of us have complied over the 4 months. Protect the article Race and intelligence for a month. There maybe editors who are itching to eidit war. Protection would allow a cooling down period, and would give editors and opportunity to reflect and asses what better ways exist to resolve this dispute. revisit the mediation in 1 month. These comments by Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) seem sensible. Mathsci (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I disagree with this proposal. I may have more to say about this later, but for now I’d like to point out that the article hasn’t existed in a stable state since late 2006 and early 2007. Lack of significant changes shouldn’t be mistaken for stability, because in this case the only reason for the lack of changes is because all of the editors who attempted to change anything became mired in endless discussions on the talk page about topics like the meaning of “race”, which made it impossible to obtain consensus for changing anything. Actual stability would involve the article being supported by consensus, rather than being uneditable because there’s never any consensus for either the article’s current state or any proposed changes. Resolving these questions is one of the purposes of mediation for this article. Most of them have been resolved by this point, which will hopefully result in the article soon becoming stable again for the first time in three years. If for some reason that ends up being impossible, I suppose reverting the article to the state it had before this became a problem would still be an improvement over the current version. However, reverting to any version more recent than that would not be any more stable than the article’s current state. Incidentally, is anyone going to respond to Varoon Arya’s point about accusations and side-discussions within a discussion being explicitly disallowed here? This thread was about possible incivility from TechnoFaye, and according to the policies for AN/I, everything we’ve been discussing that isn’t about that doesn’t belong here. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I wonder if this discussion doesn't show a certain amount of escalation that we should try to show is not necessary. If Mathsci has concerns with a mediation, then it seems these should be heard on the mediation page. Presumably then others can weigh in, and maybe solve the problem right there. If any editors wish to end a mediation, or even reject a particular mediator, isn't that their option to begin with? Requiring editors to come here, or requiring mediators to justify themselves here, don't either seem good for mediation generally. Mackan79 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC) As has been said already, Mackan79, the mediation process has been delegitimized by the fact that many editors who had initially signed up for mediation (Ramdrake, futurebird, T34CH, Wobble) had stopped participating, leaving mostly those representing a minoritarian point of view and similarly minded newcomers. Aside from any other problems, the acting mediator had apparently not taken that into account. There were other anomalies (all the opening statements were buried away in a hidden talk archive). In circumstances like that I can't see that at any reasonable discussion of the process could take place on the mediation page; which is why I brought it here for wider input from the community, The edits of TechnoFaye acted as a kind of warning flare. I thank Xavexgoem for closing the case. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Closing the case sounds fine to me, certainly. Mediation is supposed to be entirely voluntary, and if someone who has been involved has such strong concerns it is hard to imagine it going forward. However, I also find this discussion a bit troubling. Consider perhaps your initial suggestion, that maybe Ludwig was doing such a bad job that he should even be blocked. Does a mediator deserve that? Presumably we shouldn't have to block a mediator just to end a mediation. It should be simple, I hope you agree. My thought is that it should be in everyone's interests to make sure concerns are addressed without things going so far into mutual recriminations. Mackan79 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Closing the case I haven't read most of the thread, but I see a lot of politics. No mediation process is compatible with that, certainly not the mediation cabal. Currently, the case is so advanced that relisting it as new would be extremely taxing on the participants and the mediator (informal) that would pick it up. It's worth noting that this case went through four mediators: first Reubzz, who was run off[180]; then Wordsmith -- I can't speak for him -- then me, out of frustration. Then Ludwigs, who did get acceptance for taking over the mediation (that's why I left it open). I'm closing the case now. How editors choose to work with each other after that is entirely up to them. I'm not optimistic; show me something new. Xavexgoem (talk ) 05:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Reubzz showed a lot of promise. That was extremely unfortunate. I am very concerned you would close this without reading it. We're really on the point of a solution, and this is a last ditch attempt by a dubious coterie of POV pushers, including Mathsci, to derail a neutral implementation. I believe, Xavegoem, that as someone who 'gave up' (in your own words), you are unsuitable to make this decision. mikemikev (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Ahem, Xavexgoem is chairman of the Mediation Committee. I agree with him about Reubzz; it's a pity he couldn't have started on a less contentious mediation case. I have no idea why Mikemikev, an editor with very little experience in editing wikipedia outside this area, calls me a POV-pusher: that is a wildly inaccurate misrepresentation of both my editing record and the opening statement in mediation reproduced above. Mikemikev could get blocked if he continues making unsupportable personal attacks like that. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Note that Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored the closure of mediation by Xavexgoem. He has left messages at several users' pages. [181], [182],[183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189]. He is acting as if mediation has not formally been closed. He describes Xavexgoem, the chairman of the mediation committee, as a "third party" [190] He is engaging in disruptive wikilawyering. Not for the first time. Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC) As Xavexgoem states, they "haven't read most of the thread", "the case is so advanced that relisting it as new would be extremely taxing on the participants and the mediator", and that several mediators have already quit. If mediator Rebuzz was run off, it was primarily because of complaints by Mathsci. Yet, Xavexgoem seems to be bowing to the complaints of a couple of squeaky wheels and attempting to close mediation without discussion on the mediation page, despite the fact that mediation was on the verge of leading to a rewrite of the article. Why scuttle mediation at a time when it was finally getting ready to bear fruit? --74.178.247.70 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I have reopened the case, yes. it's voluntary process, and there has been no discussion on the talk page about closure, and precious little deliberation about it here. what we have is one single mediation participant (Mathsci) who has not contributed anything to the mediation page in months, deciding to to play wiki-politics here instead of discussing the issues there. That is his prerogative, I suppose, but I don't see that it really matters. Xavexgoem, if you would like to discuss closing the case peremptorily, I've opened a thread on the Mediation Cabal talk page for that purpose. But as far as I a can see, if the mediation participants themselves do not want a closure and that matter has not been discussed on the mediation page at all, then there is no grounds for any action by non-participants. --Ludwigs2 11:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC) MedCom has nothing to do with this; this is MedCab. I won't argue against consensus, so you can keep the case. Just don't needlessly drag it on. (I'd also like to say that Ludwigs has been doing a fine job, despite MathSci's and Guy's appraisals calling into question). Xavexgoem (talk ) 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And I'm sorry. sigh. I reverted Ludwigs' reversion and left him a note. I think Xavexgoem is on the money, it's extremely unlikely that Ludwigs will be able to steer this to any kind of resolution at this point not least because at least some participants appear to be unwilling to accept him as mediator any more. It's not the first time a mediation attempt has failed, it's not a black mark or anything, but this one is probably in need of some new approach. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Aaaaand, predictably, he reverted again while I was typing this note. So, we have someone who is determined to try to keep a stalled mediation going forever in the face of opposition from some of the parties. Will that produce better content? Um, probably not. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Allow me to repeat the same points, once again: There is no consensus here at ANI to close the mediation There is no consensus at the mediation page to close the mediation There is no discussion at the mediation page to close the mediation Every other participant in the mediation who has shown up here is arguing against closure There is only you and Mathsci suddenly appearing out of nowhere like avenging angels (though I have no idea what it is you are avenging) Now, if you want to open a discussion in the mediation about closing the mediation, please do so - if that is the consensus, then that will be fine. but please do not try to impose your will by edit-warring the case closed.--Ludwigs2 17:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC) The mediation is stalled due to this disruptive ANI thread. --98.82.13.18 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I'd suggest that anyone who wants to close the mediation should register that opinion on the mediation page, where it could be discussed. Assuming it is a good faith request from someone interested in the article, I don't see how the mediation could go forward. It is a little peculiar if Mathsci wants to close it, but does not want to participate in editing the article, which isn't to say that is reasonable or unreasoanble. In that case perhaps someone who Mathsci has expressed faith in, such as Slrubenstein, could offer a meaningful thought on whether the mediation should be scrapped. I don't think it would take consensus to scrap the mediation, probably at most a single person who is interested in editing the article and rejects the mediation. Unfortunately it's hard to tell whether there is any meaningful communication taking place. Mackan79 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think a numerical count of votes on the mediation pages is helpful. 4 out of the original 10 who subscribed to mediation in November 2009 are no longer involved; none of them have been pushing the minoritarian point of view. I agree that Slrubenstein is one of the few editors whose views on mediation would be valuable (this is not the first time that mediation has occurred on the article). I have edited the article only to add sources and citations, but help more on the talk page with this (eg I pointed out the contributions of Richard Nesbitt and requested that the section on racial stereotypes be removed). Like cold fusion, Race and intelligence is not a properly encyclopedic article and probably never can be; however, scrupulous attention to the quality of sources can at least keep it under control. In other words the same core criteria for editing wikipedia articles should be used as on any mainstream article. Let's put it this way. The group of editors now left in mediation, with the exception of a small number including Slrubenstein and Aprock, all favour the minoritarian point of view. No meaningful consensus can be achieved in those circumstances. Since Ludwigs2 was a would-be participant in mediation and would-be editor of the article, he is more than aware that is what has happened. In those circumstances there is no legitimacy in continuing mediation. Ludwigs2 is a problematic editor, apparently now determined to keep his role as mediator, even after most of the editors who initially subscribed to mediation have abandoned it. One of my worries with most of the editors favouring the minoritarian point of view is that most of them have hardly any experience in editing normal mainstream articles. Some could be described as User:Fyslee. It would appear that Ludwigs2 has some kind of agenda on wikipedia and lacks the neutrality of Wordsmith or Xavexgeom. Certainly Ludwigs2's pushing for banned user User:Jagz to continue editing Race and intelligence on wikipedia a while back was hardly a good sign. There is no sign that he has changed. Nor was it a good idea for someone with an interest in editing the article, and therefore probably having an idea what content he wanted removed or added to the article and ideas on overall balance, to then suddenly switch to mediator. His dealings with Fyslee show that he is a problematic editor. On a contentious article, that and his poor mainspace edit count disqualify him as a mediator. If mediation is driving editors away from an article, that is the time to stop it. There was already an error in trying to have Reubzz (talk · contribs) as mediator, when he had no experience on wikipedia at all (barely 2 weeks). Now we have a fourth round of the mediation process which seems to be driving mainstream established editors away from the article. That is a serious problem. If Slrubenstein and Aprock are uneasy about being among the sole editors to represent the mainstream academic viewpoint in the article - which by the way is the core purpose of wikipedia - something has gone very badly wrong here. Ludwigs2 and others seem to want this unfortunate state of affairs to continue. Mathsci (talk ) 04:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Reubbz was and would have been fine. I will protect his name without exception. We all start somewhere, and if after 2 weeks he decides he wants to be a mediator -- a kind of peacemaker -- that is (was) a good thing. We learn quick. Picking up a big case is ambitious, and we would have all had his back. My first case was an Israeli/Palestinian case. My second case was a 9/11 conspiracy theory case. They didn't work out, but not because of my abilities. They didn't work out because the situations were plainly not suited to mediation. This may be one of the articles - and now that I'm hearing suspicions that supremacy is indeed one of the biases (another reason I left the case -- the ambiguity was too great, and my beliefs too strong), I really do think it would be hard to close this as successful. But Ludwigs2 has done a good job by the standards, far and above the standards folks are lowering him to. We're giving him and the case 2 more weeks. The success or failure of this case is not contingent upon him, since it's the parties to the disputes' job to actually put into place NPA, CIVIL, NPOV, etc. Not his or any other mediator. All he can do is suggest, after all. Xavexgoem (talk ) 05:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC) You had far more editing experience before starting as a mediator. As far as I can tell from your editing history, your first mediation case was on Mucoid plaque in January 2008, not a controversial article in the same way as Race and intelligence. Seeing that two experienced mediators were unable to deal with R&I (I'd stopped participating), in retrospect this was clearly not an article for a mediator to cut their teeth on. There had also been a previous unsuccessful attempt at mediation on it. I would personally wait to see what Slrubenstein thinks. I have never seen an editor of an article become a mediator before and certainly not one with an editing history like that of Ludwigs2. Unfortunately I don't quite follow why a mediation process that has been abandoned by a set of long term editors and now mostly involves those promoting a minoritarian point of view can have any validity, but we will see. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC) This helps me understand the issue, at least, although I'm still not totally clear on what makes Ludwig problematic. I don't know if he has a PhD in dispute resolution, or if Wikipedia's mediation system generally operates on a purely professional level. It seems to me that it operates (like one might expect from volunteers) on a join-in-if-you-think-you-can-help basis. If the mediation is pushing away other editors that's a concern. My thought would nevertheless be, if one believes in mediation generally, that the mediation team should get a first crack at the problem. A side benefit is that this would clarify what outsiders on a board like this might need to look at if things nevertheless don't work out. Incidentally, the "ten arguments" material you presented here obviously does look awful. I just looked, though, and it seems to have been an anon IP that briefly got it into the article.[191] The account that re-added it has been blocked. I don't know if this was mentioned above, but at least that doesn't seem to have resulted from any part of the mediation, one hopes. Mackan79 (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC) If two experienced mediators have abandoned the process, along with a fair number of users initially signed up for mediation, and the remaining mediator is a former would-be editor to the article, there is a problem. I don't have very high hopes for what will happen to the article in the near future. That is probably why I stick to editing mainstream articles, even if they can be very hard work requiring a lot of thought and preparation before applying fingertips to keyboard (as at the moment). Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, the "ten arguments" section has been added several times since March 11. [192] [193], [194], [195]. The last editor (perhaps also from Belgium) was blocked on March 25 because of copyvio on the global bell curve. Mathsci (talk ) 09:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Just a comment I would just like to note that I've been browsing the edit filter logs, as I often do, and noticed that someone tried to remove the "list of 10" from the article but was stopped from doing so by a bug in the edit filter. This particular filter would not have stopped most registered editors from deleting the text, but it did stop an IP. —Soap— 14:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Two week extension of mediation Xavexgoem's suggestion that the present mediation continue for a further two weeks seems like a fair compromise. After that I understand mediation will be ended and unmediated editing will recommence. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC) actually, that was my suggestion, and you have misrepresented it a bit. the agreement is that I would suggest closure in two weeks if there was no significant improvement in the article (or the debate, by extension). there are, as I see it, three options: two weeks pass and the situation has not improved - that would be grounds for closure two weeks pass and the situation has mostly resolved itself - that would also suggest closure two weeks pass, decent progress has been made, but the mediation participants think that some further discussion would be helpful. in that case, they have the right to leave the mediation open if there is a consensus there to do so. just so that we are clear on the issue. --Ludwigs2 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Dispute resolution may be in order for Mathsci and Ludwigs2. Mathsci has criticized Ludwigs2 for something Mathsci has done.[196] --Cryptofish (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Ah a diff from October 25 2008. After this edit, where and when do you think you might make your second edit to this encyclopedia? Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) I looked at the mediation talk pages to see what has gone on so far in mediation. On the basis of that I think it highly unlikely that any significant or reasonable modifications can be made to the article within the next two weeks, i.e. before April 14 2010. I could be wrong. After that I assume mediation will be closed by Xavexgoem. If even one editor (eg Slrubenstein, Aprock or Muntuwandi) disagrees with a proposed extension, I don't see how mediation could continue after that. One other thing I noticed, which surprised me, was the discussion during mediation of the article becoming "data-driven" (whatever that means). Usually when writing wikipedia articles, the principal sources are located, possibly making a selection of the best ones if there are too many, and then the article is written based on what is stated in those sources. I've never heard of wikipedians gathering or evaluating data when writing articles. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Mathsci, as a start, you may want to revert yourself.[197] --Cryptofish (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) I spoke too soon. You might like to look at this. You look a bit like a sockpuppet account don't you? Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC) This entire discussion seems to be primarily a collection of personal attacks from Mathsci against other users: me, Reubzz, Varoon Arya, (especially) Ludwigs2, and now this person who Mathsci is accusing of being a sockpuppet. This is happening in a thread that was posted about possible incivility from TechnoFaye, in which everything Mathsci has brought up over the past four days is clearly off-topic, and a violation of one of this board’s rules: “Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion”. If this were happening on any other talk page where I was participating, I would be posting at AN/I about Mathsci hijacking a discussion with repeated personal attacks, but in this case AN/I is where it’s happening already. For at least the third time, could an administrator please look at this and do something about it? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Captain Occam, please calm down. Then perhaps you can explain who this new user Cryptofish is, who appeared just over an hour ago and has made just two edits here, Special:Contributions/Cryptofish but seems nevertheless to have complete familiarity with diffs, page histories and this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC) How should I know? I’ve never seen him before either. And I also don’t see why it should matter who he is, since either way it isn’t acceptable to publicly accuse another user of socking during a discussion about something unrelated. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry but you're wrong there. Almost everything you've written in this section is an exaggerated misrepresentation. While I have been keeping discussions here, you have been trying to activate a wikifriend of mine User:Dbachmann against me on his talk page. User_talk:Dbachmann#Possible_abuse_of_AN.2FI Exactly as the newly arrived editor Cryptofish did above, you complained to Dieter that I had removed a message from my talk page. But surely you know that I can do that to any message on my talk page (except possibly a block message). I did some content editing today [198]. I don't think you've added any content in the last week. Thanks, Mathsci (talk ) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC) How is any of this relevant? The point of mentioning the message you removed from your talk page is just to show that you were aware of the mediation case for Race and intelligence, and had no interest in participating in it or discussing it with anyone other than in this thread at AN/I. I really don’t care whether you bash me for my lack of activity here, or accuse me of exaggerating and misrepresenting things. The important thing is that when you make personal attacks against five different users in a single thread at AN/I, none of which have any relevance to the actual topic ng of the thread (which is about TechnoFaye), you’re the person who ends up looking bad as a result. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC) You're putting words into my mouth which I have never written. It's true that the current fourth stage of mediation does not seem successful at present. Even though I was on wikibreak while teaching in Cambridge, I did make this comment a day or two before a fourth mediator was chosen.[199] From your editing record, you appear to be a single purpose account. You are attacking me for no apparent reason, except that I have criticized the editing procedures of your favourite article in a public place. I also note that you have been blocked by MastCell for edit warring on the article during mediation. Good night, Mathsci (talk ) 23:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a crosspost from Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Poor hook for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

There is a hook on the main page for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories that reads:

... that although U.S. President Barack Obama is Christian, high-ranked al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri has falsely claimed that Obama secretly "pray[s] the prayers of the Jews"?

I don't believe that such a hook should have been approved. This hook violates the neutrality criteria required by DYK which states focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. I would also like to point out that the article Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories does not state that al-Qaida member Ayman al-Zawahiri claims are false. Am I the only one who is dissatisfied with such a hook?Smallman12q (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So we've got members of the extreme right claiming Obama is a secret Muslim, and we've got Muslims claiming he's a secret Jew. Priceless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty freakin funny. I think I'll start a rumor that he's really a Hindu and plans to free all the cows...

talk

) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's all quite ridiculous, because the evidence is clear that he's been a secret druid for years. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to complete the circle and have Jews claiming he's a secret Christian. --Carnildo (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Or worse yet, a secret Republican. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I know a few of those actually. They smoke weed and drink beer every night and all weekend long then go back to work and loudly complain to their co-workers about lazy liberals ruining the country.

talk

) 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving per

) 17:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Now resolved, Arbcom does not need further copies of the emails. Thanks all. Risker (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just received this email: “ Dear Islander, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters ” It's strange, a) because they actually think I'd give them my account, and b) 'cause I'm not actually dormant - much less active than I used to be, but not dormant. Anyway, this isn't so much a plea for help or anything, just an FYI - apologies if I should have posted elsewhere. TalkIslander 14:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Quite a concern if any admin ever took that seriously. Did the email come from an account? If so,, which one? SGGH ping! 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC) There is a similar report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#admin phishing attempt. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC) The email came from Off2riorob (talk ) 14:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC) It should be investigated if WFFighter's account was created by Scibaby. Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Also blocked WikiFreedomFyta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 4 others (check my log - I'm not exactly active) for the same reason. The user names aren't exactly subtle.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I have a feeling it might either be a bot, or someone with too much time on their hands. I also got this exact message this morning. nat.utoronto 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Well, now this guy made User:Moresubtle. I guess that's more subtle... (X! · talk)  · @742  ·  16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I also received the message from WikiFFighters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ~MDD4696 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got the same e-mail as well, from WikiFFyta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). VegaDark (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Blocked 6 more. Then I get a message, probably from WFF: [200] (X! · talk)  · @734  ·  16:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Add me to the list of people who received this. I immediately thought it looks like a phishing scam. I don't recall ever being contacted by these people before, and although I scaled down my involvement in Wikipedia by about 99% about 18 months ago (for various reasons), I still log in on occasion and so calling my account inactive is incorrect. I did a Google search and saw some bot got this same message, too. Another bit of fishiness is if this an actual movement, why would they wait "nearly a year" before following up? 23skidoo (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Me too. I blocked him immediately. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And this is why I only use my email account for site identification purposes. HalfShadow 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just received one of these emails too, from User:Moresubtle namely. --Angelo (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Goldfishhunting (talk · contribs) This is another one. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just got one from T • C • L ) 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I feel special. Searchingfortuna (talk · contribs) sent me one. I'm tempted to mention a random word, see if they create a username based on it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got one from Goldfishhunting22222 (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Got one from (and subsequently zapped) UsernameinspiredbyBloodRedSandman (talk · contribs). Heh. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I whacked Goodthingsplanned (talk · contribs). DMacks (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) OK, so now he's just enjoying the attention, or he's truly jobless... ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just got one from Nevergonnastopever. What confuses me is, don't you have to be a verified user to send emails? These accounts were made minutes before the emails were sent. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) nope, any account can--Jac16888Talk 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Doesn't have to be autoconfirmed as long as you have your email address verified. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got one from WikiFreedomFighteraccount (talk · contribs). This concerns me a great deal. – Quadell (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) We might need a CU or a range block. SGGH ping! 17:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got one from Nothingtodowithwff (talk · contribs). Could we have a checkuser identify and block the underlying IP range, please? Horologium (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Yes please, I've also had one from Goodthingsplanned. Maybe everyone is getting one. That would make sense. talk ) 17:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I just got one from the same account. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC) So everyone knows, the Arbitration Committee is aware of this - we've been forwarded three emails so far - and I've looked into this with checkuser. Unfortunately, these accounts are coming from a range too large to block, and in many cases too busy for checkuser to be effective in finding any unblocked accounts - although the timeline of events shown in this thread leads me to believe that there aren't any sleepers to look for, anyway (cf the BloodRedSandMan account). Sorry, all. Please don't give out your passwords - I would assume those of you blocking these accounts won't, but at the rate these emails are going out, they're bound to find someone willing to do so. Please don't add to that number. a/c ) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I've had one now, I don't wish to continue giving ammunition however the account (which I have indef'd) was called "100moretogo" which suggests they have some and are counting (though I doubt it). Sad. SGGH ping! 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) This isn't the first time that someone has tried this stunt. talk ) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Very strange phishing email Just received the following email: “ Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" on the English Wikipedia to user "Masem". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. ” Searching gives nothing for "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" or "The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters". Very very curious. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Same e-mail here, reporting the email address to google as a phishing email. --Michael Greiner 18:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I just received the same message from "Nevergonnastopever." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Email requesting my Wikipedia password I just received an email that said what you see below. It requests my password that I use for logging in to my Wikipedia user account. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Genuinelyawikiquizzling" on the English Wikipedia to user "Michael Hardy". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. I got this too, from User:Saynotoarbcomclique. I indeffed the account; a CU is probably in order to catch other socks. Ucucha 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Got the same thing myself just now, except this one came from User:Adnimsarestupid. Hopefully no-one is stupid enough to actually do this... Tabercil (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#admin_phishing_attempt Equazcion (talk) 18:37, 28 Mar 2010 (UTC) I got one from User:Nevergonnastopever. Yes, a CU might help. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC) This thread was archived prematurely, as I just got an email from cool stuff ) 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I got one too! I'm special! Tony Fox (arf!) 18:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC) ArbCom is aware of this (having been alerted by over half a dozen admins so far), and are looking into any possible action that checkusers could take. NW (Talk) 18:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Given phishing like this is generally illegal, might it help to have these emails forwarded to the offending user's ISP? Resolute 18:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Please forward these emails to ArbCom for tracking purposes. a/c ) 18:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I'm monitoring the User creation log for any suspicious looking usernames, and I'll forward any that I see to somebody on IRC. Talk // Contribs 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Not much point; emailed every single admin with emailuser enabled now :D 86.181.40.68 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Hersfold, which address should we use? I don't think you want us all to send them to the mailing list; it'll get clogged up very quickly... Horologium (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Is it any wonder that between AN and AN/I we have five threads on this topic since they getting collapsed with a pointer toward WP:DENY? Perhaps rather than prematurely archiving all of the threads, we could have one, well named thread open where admins who have been contacted can look for and receive information for what they need to do. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Just send the emails to [email protected] and let them deal with it. A lot of admins got it, and it seems it went by A-Z order (I was one of the last to get an email). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Also received one, I will forward. Useight (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks to those who have forwarded their emails - at this point we've gotten the info we need, so we probably don't need any more. Thanks much! a/c ) 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, just sent mine then came here. User (UsernameinspiredbyBloodRedSandman) already indefed I was happy to see. Why do they bother? This is so hamfisted and useless—as if any admin or experienced user would actually give their login details.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Email I just received this email. Not sure what if anything to do with other than ignore it.RJFJR (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Dear active administrator, As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters -- This e-mail was sent by user "Bringerofmuchlulzeth" on the English Wikipedia to user "RJFJR". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. See the "Email requesting my Wikipedia password" or "Very strange phishing email" or "Wikipedia Freedom Fighters" threads above. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I just saw it. I was removing my post when I got an edit conflict with your reply. (Sorry, should have checked first rather than post first.) RJFJR (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC) A quick google search shows that a run like this happened last may. Wikipedia Review thread --Michael Greiner 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Request for my inactive account. Just saw this in my mailbox. Dear KnowledgeOfSelf, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters Just thought I'd give ya a heads up KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Aye, we've all had one ... look up ^^^^ Black Kite 23:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC) See WP:ANI#Admin email phishing. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 01:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do if you receive one of these emails

• Please don't forward the e-mails to the arbitration committee mailing list. We already have enough samples and any more will not be helpful. If someone could track down all the discussions about this and redirect towards a single location, telling people what to do and retracting the previous messages to forward the e-mails to arb-l, that would be appreciated. I hear that there was also a message on IRC asking for the e-mails to be forwarded to the arbitration committee - if that could be retracted as well (or however that is done over there) that would be good as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• So what should we do? Just ignore it? I'm half-tempted to send this luser a fake password for my Wikipedia account, then disable my email link & take a month-long WikiBreak. (That would give him something to do with all of that spare time.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just ignor it, and indeff the sender if not already done. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't forget to disable email =) –xeno^talk 13:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Giggle and ignore. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  Giggle, ensure that the sender is blocked, then ignore. Future commenters: please consider not commenting to this thread, as the goal is likely drama—

  don't feed the trolls. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits

  |⚡}} 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe commenting here is drama, maybe it's simply the fact some of us don't visit the Noticeboards on a regular basis, & feel compelled to say something along the lines of "WTF???" (And for any Admin who is compelled to say something else, like "Screw the ArbCom, I wanna discuss this!" go to

  this thread.) -- llywrch (talk

  ) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• If whoever is doing this really wants recognition, [201] has some law enforcement links. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's me again, questioning my own actions. I reverted 96.42.14.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a number of times on Kent Hovind, and finally blocked him. However, as not all the edits were vandalism, and I've previously been active in the article, I thought I'd put my own actions up for review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good block to me - the editor was appropriately warned and pretty much all their edits were vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Taken together, I would consider all the edits vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Silly vandalism on a

WP:BLP. Sound block. Guy (Help!

) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can some administrators look on above mentioned articles, as the editors of these articles are very biased and using WP for advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.16.225 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

1. All
   wp:SPS
   references have been used.
2. They using WP to preach their dogmas.
3. Above mentioned articles urgently needs a clean up.

As I have mentioned earlier that Omi & Nasir are biased & using WP for advertisement, nasir is constantly violating wp. This is the evidence, another evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.16.225 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See next entry: probable sock of banned sockmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs) Esowteric+Talk 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong as I am not sock of banned sockmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs).

• Younus AlGohar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was riddled with statements that he has performed miracles <ref>youtube video</ref> and the like, I have trimmed out some of the more obvious puffery but this clearly needs more attention and potentially redirecting to another article if the subject is as minor as he appears to me. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help, Guy. It's true that these articles suffer from a lot of puffery and substandard sourcing. — Scientizzle 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock of Iamsaa at it again?

Looks like an ipsock of sockmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs)

• 116.71.15.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and in the above AN/I entry:

• 116.71.16.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

bopping all over the place

• 116.71.2.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Reverting previously deleted malicious talk page content; etc. edit diff Esowteric+Talk 11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sock or not, the edits are disruptive, uncivil and attack identifiable living individuals. Blocked 2 weeks. The talk page can be sprotected if necessary. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy and Scientizzle. The sad thing is that he does have a point, but has not been going about it the right way. "I'm watching you ..." here on my talk page doesn't help one jot. Esowteric+Talk 13:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he has a point but that's not the way to pursue it. I have done some pruning but I really need people with much deeper subject knowledge on new religious movements and ideally understanding of the languages so that sources can be evaluated; this looks like a walled garden to me:

• Kalki Avatar Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mehdi Foundation International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Interfaith Institute of Divine Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Younus AlGohar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ra Gohar Shahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

I don't see a lot of mainstream sources in these articles, it looks like one of those tiny cults that spring up around individual gurus, and much of the text in the articles is in-universe descriptions of wonderful works, miracles and such, cited back to YouTube or a small group of websites dedicated to promoting the movement. I get an itchy delete finger looking at this stuff so more eyes would be greatly appreciated. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Have left a note at the New Religious Movements workgroup talk page here. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've been accused of being related to AlGohar (maybe because of my surname) and promoting the interests of the MFI or Shahi, however, I deny it all. I've only been interested in these few subjects, hence decided to help out regarding the articles. What I've come across, whilst researching Shahi, the MFI and AlGohar is that the mentioned are not at all a petty cult, and have sprung about the world, quite a bit more than just often. E.g. Newspapers around two years ago mentioned the then President of the U.S. being in talks with the then Chief Minister of Pakistan, regarding Shahi and the MFI, however, the MFI always seems to lack coverage from the Media, hence (Help! seems to think that this is just another cult. I've witnessed some of the activities that this organization has come about with a bit closely, and my personal observation wouldn't say that they are a cult, rather promote the interests of Shahi and purport him to be the syncretic fulfillment of the mainstream religions of this era.

Try looking into their websites for a possible broader view. ----  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you all for comments on above. Could anybody direct me how do I pursue this matter. You can get information on MFI by clicking here. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.21.214 (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article certainly educates the reader about the POV of "the opposition", but as Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs) noticed, the references look impressive at first glance ... until you actually click on them. Esowteric+Talk 09:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I already knew that Omi would refuse this article and lame reasons were presented from Omi as per my calculations, but this is up to the Wikipedia:Verifiability and you can't ignor it, as it contains true information, a lot of research work and even the author took interview of younus on telephone.--116.71.7.194 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You should take the article to the Reliable sources noticeboard and ask uninvolved parties there. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Esowteric+Talk 09:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I created the Books section on the Ruby Gloom article but it seems 142.177.43.159 she just don't like the books section because she keeps removing them. And its really starting to annoy the living crap out of me. When she had the account User:Queen kitten She removed the same freaking section and it was the BOOK section AGAIN.

If I was to remove something from the Care Bears or Rescue Heroes articles She would go off her head. And act like she did nothing wrong like SHE IS THE VICTIM....

I am really really getting tired of finding out that she keeps removing the books. Black Rose (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Try talking to them about this. If all else fails, goe to

talk

) 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

joined the project on 11 February 2010. Since that time, non-free images have been removed from his userpage seven times, by two editors and a bot.

• 21 February 2010 [202] by DASHBot.
• 27 February 2010 [203] by DASHBot.
• 1 March 2010 [204] by DASHBot.
• 2 March 2010 [205] by Rockfang.
• 3 March 2010 [206] by DASHBot.
• 3 March 2010 [207] by Hammersoft.
• 4 March 2010 [208] by Hammersoft.

.

I am asking an administrator to please block

) 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I redirected his user page to his user talk and protected the redirect, as a less brutal solution than blocking. I also left instructions for him on how to get the protection reversed. CIreland (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tisqupnaia2010 have called me a fascist, racist and a terrorist a several of time now. At first I ignored it, but it's starting to get annoying someone calling me these things in everything he writes to me. He have already been warned that he should not use these word, but keeps doing that. Shmayo (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

this edit is hugely inappropriate and the user should be spoken to, but other than that I can't find any diffs, please provide some for us? SGGH ^ping! 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also given a warning regarding their attack in that AfD. Regardless of content dispute, Wikipedia is not a venue to chuck around accusations of fascism. SGGH ^ping! 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edit summaries seem pretty harsh, but I did find these posts: [210], [211] and [212]. I wonder if there is something going on here to trigger such hostility though. Didn't look deep enough to check on that, just some quick digging for the terms the OP mentioned.

Ravensfire (talk

) 21:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Did a quick read through one of the threads the diffs cover [213], and I'm not seeing too much from Shmayo beyond fairly polite disagreement. No idea about other discussions, but just not seeing anything there that Shmayo did wrong.

Ravensfire (talk

) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sort of been playing referee at

talk

) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been stumbling around at

Talk:Tel Skuf and Talk:Chaldean Christians, but the main issue is at Assyrian people and how that spills over. Fundamentally, User:Tisqupnaia2010 and another user (whose username is a Syriac squiggle) are offended by the very article that subsumes their claimed ethnicity (Chaldean) under the umbrella name of "Assyrian". It's nothing specific that User:Shmayo has said other than, basically, "you're just Assyrians, everyone agrees on that". While calling someone an "Assyrian" doesn't mean anything to most of us, the Chaldeans apparently take great offense at that. That doesn't excuse Tisqupnaia's calling Shmayo a "fascist", but it explains where the vitriol is originating and why you can't find an easily identifiable trigger for the hostility. (Taivo (talk

) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Shamyo's basic problem is that he has mistaken the title of Wikipedia's article on the Assyrian, Syriac, and Chaldean groups ("Assyrian people") for actual fact and is applying it beyond just the title of the Wikipedia article. He is using the weak consensus that was built for changing the title of that article, which did not apply to any content or any other articles, to try to force through "Assyrian" as the universal name for the Chaldeans. He will have further problems with other Chaldeans (and he will have little support from non-Chaldean editors) if he persists. (Taivo (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Okay, that seems to sum up the genesis of the hostility toward Shamyo. It doesn't, however, provide reason for the personal attacks. It seems that what needs addressing is Shamyo's improper labelling of editors ethnicity by means of a carefully worded note to their talkpage (which can then be raised to the level of a warning if continued, because deliberately doing so can only be to irritate the other party), and a straight forward level3 warning to Tisqupnaia2010 to desist from personal attacks. I am a little time constrained so cannot do it now, but will do so later if no-one else has. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I got an apology to me (?!) on my talk, and advised Tq2010 to apologise to Shamyo. I then noted that he has apologies to other users which suggests he has behaved like this to more than one person. SGGH ^ping! 13:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of days ago there was a very heated exchange between Tq and Shmayo at

Talk:Tel Skuf or Talk:Chaldean Christians that I deleted. My edit summary told them to both shut up with the ethnic slurs. Tq's apology to me was because of that exchange (even though I was not part of the exchange). While Tq's "facsist" comments directed at Shmayo are inappropriate and the warning is justified, I haven't seen him go beyond his comments to Shmayo at this time. I can't vouch for his past. However, the Assyrian Fascism article that he created also needs to be deleted. (Taivo (talk

) 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

ducky

socks

Resolved

Are these obvious enough for anyone or do we need an SPI?

• 70.83.96.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Babkockdood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Matgam1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For quite some time there has been a user or a couple users who have been trying to turn

) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the recent edits are enough to warrant page protection, regardless of the status of those accounts. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Its actually been quite awhile since anyone has tried to push that info back onto the page, about a year and a half. Not sure what's prompted the latest go at it. But if you think it warrants protection go ahead, probably if the socks are blocked it would have the same effect.--

Crossmr (talk

) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

) 02:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• note, I brought this back. The clerk has declined it and gives some blocking instructions. if an admin could do that, that would be great.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 11:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Two gone, IP gone for one month with acc blocked. SGGH ^ping! 11:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--

Crossmr (talk

) 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

POV and accuracy tags installed by me and detailed on the talk page [214] [215] were removed by an admin, UBER ^(talk) without resollving the dispute. He is edit warring with me as well. He has recently exhibited an ownership mentality of the page and his removal of these tags is further evidence of the problem. NancyHeise ^talk 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an administrator, and I cannot understand such a blatantly false assertion. The above user wants to include a POV tag in the article while the article is actively undergoing improvements and while there is an outstanding RFC on its content and structure. I reverted her twice but now I'm done. As I explained in the talk page, I don't want to get bogged down in an edit war.UBER ^(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy: A review of the dispute indicates that you are attempting to bend the article into a sympathetic PR piece for the Catholic Church. This does not mean that the current version of the article is perfect either, but the direction in which you are attempting to move the content, and the manner in which you are doing it, is easily construed as disruptive. Use your most recent posts on the article's talk page to flesh out the ideas that you feel are represented poorly, using

reliable sources, and then begin enhancing the article. Hiberniantears (talk

) 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have listed the items on the talk page as an alert to the article's editors of the problems that exist in the article. I resent the statement "attempting to bend the article into a sympathetic PR piece" as a violation of WP:assume good faith. I have repeatedly asked the article's editors to go see other encyclopedias articles on the Church to be able to understand my complaints about the current article's problems. The items I am asking for are already part of other encyclopedias such as World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana as well as univeristy textbooks on the Church and scholarly sources. The present article's omissions make it a POV problem as well as the items it chooses to emphasize. NancyHeise ^talk 16:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and you have posted the same items at the RfC. So either let the issue play out in the various forums in which it is currently under debate, or return to the article and focus on building the content one issue at a time. For example, spend a week focused on just the contribution to global education by the Church. I'm a Catholic, and I can tell you that my POV is that the Church is currently lucky this article isn't solely about pedophilia at this point. I commend you for trying to expand content on the "good" still done by the Church, but bear in mind that the "evil" done by the hierarchy outweighs the good in the mind of many, Catholic or otherwise. A truly balanced and complete article on the Catholic church is going to have detailed examinations of the Church's charities, educational institutions, care for the poor and sick, hospitals, etc... but it will also have things like the Inquisition, Pogroms, warrior Popes, hereditary Popes, fascism/autocratic partnerships (see Italy, Spain, or just about any Latin American country), pedophilia, and a current Pope who in addition to fighting in the Nazi army, also appears to have been a career-long cover up artist for child abuse. The fact is, you're dealing with a complex 2000 year old institution that has been more focused on power than faith for the majority of its history. That, to me, sounds like the makings of a highly complex and interesting article, which necessarily requires a diversity of views, your's included, to be meaningful. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe this appalling list of misapprehensions and urban legends about the Church! Sounds a bit like Dan Brown's "history". The pope "fighting in the Nazi army!" A "lifelong cover-up artist for child abuse"! Catholic pogroms! "hereditary popes" ? Where do you get this stuff! This is why we need a balanced position on the article with people here who do not drink in every negative claim - however wild - made against the Church and want to publish it as true. Rigour in an article needs all sides present, and presenting information on the basis of reliable sources and consensus. Xandar 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye. He was only in the Hitler Youth, and he only spent a few years burying evidence of paedophile abuse by priests, hard to see why anyone would criticise him for that. Oh, wait. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Xander clearly knows what he's talking about:

this. Never mind this little ditty. Hiberniantears (talk

) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we have illustrations of all the issues you bring up in our long version of the article here

WP:NPOV by including both viewpoints on controversial issues, I have never been accused of trying to cover up "evil" done by the Church. In fact, one of the most important issues of the 20th century that the current article omits is John Paul II's numerous apologies for past Church sins and the Church's efforts at improved relations with people of other faiths and Christian denominations. These exist in the long version (see Industrial Age section under WWII paragraph[216].) The medium version of the article listed at the RFC is the long version minus all the quotes from scholars supporting article text and some pictures.[217] I improved the sexual abuse section of that article as well. As for your assertion that the institution has been more focused on power than faith, I have tried to include mention of the summary provided by Francis Oakley that the Church's contribution to society, in spite of its corruptions of the past, were to expose the people of Western Civilization to the Gospel and that this alone was the key ingredient that transformed Western society. Francis Oakley's book is a university press and the quote is on googlebooks here [218]. I think the same situation exists today, the present scandal exists not because people were following the Gospel but because they weren't. NancyHeise ^talk

17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)May I note that you, NancyHeise, frequently removed the exact same tags from other versions of the article? I have no problem with the article being tagged, however, I think it is disingenious to do so when there is an ongoing RfC on which version of the article to use as a base of improvements. Those tags could serve to tilt opinions toward your proposed solution and away from this version. I request that one of two things happen: a) the tags remain on the article but others may tag your proposed versions as well or b) no tags on the article or its suggested replacements until after the RfC closes. Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that I was removing tags until the dispute had been resolved in favor of the consensus which is different from the present sitation where no attempt was made to address the issues before removing the tags. NancyHeise ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please address the concerns that this may be skewing the RfC? Would either of my proposal be acceptable? Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of tags - is to alert the 5000 Readers that come to the article every day to find out information on the Church. Since the article has so many POV and factual accuracy issues, we have an obligation to alert those Readers about them until the article is fixed - an effort that everyone admits is in progress but not finished. These admissions are even part of the RFC so I don't see how they can skew it. NancyHeise ^talk 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per Template:POV The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. . If notifying readers is your sole purpose in adding the tag, then I respectfully request that you remove it as being a violation of the intended usage. Having the tag on only one of the three proposed versions in the RfC definitely has the effect of making one seem even more sub-standard than the others. As there are already admissions at the RfC that all three versions are flawed, may we then add tags to the other two proposed versions? Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The other two versions do not exist on the main article page. They are sandbox versions at present. If the RFC results in those versions being chosen, you are more than welcome to add tags and present a list of their problems on the article page. NancyHeise ^talk 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NancyHeise, your battle ground and ownership on the article needs to stop, and if you can't stop, it should be stopped for you. After years of complaints that the former, overly long and poorly sourced version was POV, a shorter version was put in place, and at your insistence, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church was launched-- this time, insisting that you not canvass. This effort to install POV tags-- which you wouldn't accept on your versions-- looks like yet another attempt to derail dispute resolution. I agree with Karanacs that if you want to install POV tags on the current version of the article, they also need to be installed on the older versions contemplated in the RFC, which were resoundingly rejected at mutliple FACs as POV and poorly sourced. By doing this now, in the midst of good-faith RFC, you have prejudiced yet another RFC: this behavior needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, the present RFC explicitly states that there are deep flaws with all three versions. The tags do nothing but alert Readers and editors to the POV and factual accuracy issues listed on the talk page. How do we get help if we don't tag? In addition, A POV DISPUTE EXISTS - fact - thus the article needs a tag. The tagged article is the one that exsists on the main article page. I think that not having the tag makes that version appear to be more legitimate than the other two - one of which was inappropriately eliminated from the page via a straw poll that was deemed inconclusive. I started to the RFC to amend that problem. NancyHeise ^talk 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You have yet again -- exactly as you did with canvassing in the straw poll-- prejudiced and undermined a good faith attempt at dispute resolution in an RFC that you called for and launched. Most clearly, tagging one version in the RFC as POV-- when the other two are resoundingly and long-condemned as POV, while the newer, shorter version is less so-- and then forum shopping to ANI during an RFC, prejudices the outcome. That you don't apparently see this is the highest hubris I have seen yet on this article, and that says a lot. The RFC that you launched is not going in your favor, so you tagged the article POV in the midst of an RFC you called for, for comparing several versions, when the other were long condemned at FAC as POV? This is utterly astounding ... it appears that you are unwilling and unable to let consensus and dispute resolution work on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line, for unvinvolved administrators: There are three versions of the Catholic Church article up for review at an RfC filed by NancyHeise. One of the versions is the current version of the article, the other two are proposals created by NancyHeise. All three versions face assertions that they do not meet NPOV and may not accurately represent their sources. Nancy just added tags to the current version of the article, and does not want them on her two sandbox versions. This appears, to me, to be an attempt to skew the RfC, yet none of us are willing to participate in an edit-war. What is the appropriate procedure? Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The sandbox versions are not the current versions. They not be a NPOV, but they are in her userspace and technically she can have what she likes there. The current version is the one that every person sees, so perhaps it makes sense for that one to be tagged, rather than other versions. If any of the other versions were the current article, they should be tagged as appropriate too. Aiken ♫ 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment While I don't agree with tagging only one version of the article, I just want to point out that the RFC points at a specific version of the article as the "short version", and that version doesn't have tags on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there really administrative action called for here? I've seen this dispute going on for weeks and it seems to be like mud wrestling without the dignity. Can't it be kept to the handful of admins who have intervened and choose to get their hands dirty, without clogging up AN/I with what will be an endless stream of text?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As SandyGeorgia noted, this looks like forum-shopping by NancyHeise. There is nothing that needs to be done here, not yet at least while the RFC is ongoing. Better let admins like Karanacs & SandyGeorgia who already intervened get on with it. Aiken ♫ 18:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. If UBER and Karanacs are supporting removing valid POV tags via edit-warring, that needs to be stopped. Articles have been to RFC with POV tags on them. The POV tags actually help notifying readers and editors that there is a dispute going on concerning the drastic non-consensus changes wrongly made to the page. I'm not sure how notifying editors to the dispute can possibly be "skewing the RFC", when the whole purpose of an RFC is to attract new editors to comment. I do feel that some seem to be trying to conceal the RFC by giving it minimal publicity and trying to stop others publicising it. As far as the dispute goes, it was set off by UBER's open breach of WP procedure through drastic non-consensus changes made to the article, which weren't stopped at the time. Since then I have proposed numerous compromise suggestions, which have not been taken up by UBERs party - who have remained totally intransigent. Xandar 20:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Uber's party" being roughly equivalent to "every other editor who's looked at the article recently", yes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. UBER's party being the group that has driven off most of the other editors on the article with their constant personal attacks on other editors, failure to Assume Good Faith and refusing to edit collegially otr attempt to come to compromise. (Diffs can be provided if necessary.) Xandar 20:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The only page that matters, for anyone who's interested, is this one—you know, the one about that RFC you all wanted. 17 people have endorsed Vulcan's and Hesperian's comments about working from the current version. How many people have endorsed your comments? A grand total of two. You and Nancy.UBER ^(talk) 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Largely because neutral editors and others opposed to you have not yet been properly notified of the RFC's existence, while your team were there on the page at once. And your counting is faulty again anyway. Xandar 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about NPOV concerns should continue on the article talk page. Further discussion here seems irrelevant to me. Sunray (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated

Wehwalt mentioned the handful of admins getting their hands dirty, but in fact it's currently only me. Sarek was working on it, but he took part in the RfC and so can't admin the dispute now, which leaves Sunray and me to work out how to proceed. Sunray's not an admin so if the tools have to be used, it's going to be down to me, and I'm not particularly comfortable with that, given the arms and legs the thing has. Therefore if any other experienced editor, and particularly any other admin, would be willing to help oversee the dispute, that would be most helpful. Sunray and I had been discussing it by e-mail, but

19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciated your comment on my talk page. However, for various reasons, I think it better that I not get involved as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're getting to the stage where we've run out of people willing to deal with this, maybe the

19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's inevitable that it will end up there, but my hope was that we could at least get through the RfC without further problems. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly hope that it is not inevitable that this will go to ArbCom. If it is a content-related dispute, mediation would be more appropriate, IMO. Sunray (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem was the non-checking of UBEr when he started ignoring all rules. I don't want a lengthy arbcom, which would have to cover everyything that happened since March 9th, but the refusal to compromise by UBER and clan is what has led to these disputes. There are still compromise offers on the table. Xandar 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Article should be removed from good article status, the review was recently and it has basically failed, article is disputed and in edit wars and unstable.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's the responsibility of the reviewer (SilkTork), but any person can probably update the page. Aiken ♫ 21:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped SilkTork a note - I think our GA re-review has basically been overtaken by other events, but he's the lead reviewer so I think he should be the one to make any decision. EyeSerene^talk 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Struck some of the above - my apologies, I'd got the dates we'd look at the article mixed up. EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene, my pointing this out was to try to get editors to realise that instead of this minor point of view issue where someone thinks that some small point in the article is not in his opinion correct, this Good article status is what they all should be working on and now there is to be a lengthy arbcom case taking up even more of quality editors time while the article loses its good status?

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)