Wikipedia : Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive610

) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to notify the user of this discussion as required, but I went ahead and did it for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks.

talk

) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not a bot, but a single purpose spam account, who will add an obituary link regardless of its use to the article. They follow the usual MO of spam accounts in that they never respond to concerns, so I suggest a block.--Atlan (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Telegraph obituaries are generally pretty good and useful to readers and editors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but it looks like at least at some point (from the user's talk) that they were adding obits for people to articles on companies that didn't appear to have any connection to the deceased. In general, I think we'd prefer to incorporate information from the obituary into the article if possible rather than single-mindedly running around and adding external links. Syrthiss (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Different people have different skill and interests in editing. I am not a fan of the "do it this way or not at all" approach. Obit links make information available to readers and editors, to do with as they will. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith editor who's been template bombed, then we wonder why he has an attitude problem and won't bow down to our Level Four Templates^TM. It appears only one person has actually had a conversation with him (User:Wine Guy, in February), and as far as I can tell, Obituarist hasn't added an obit to a non-biographical article since then. I don't think this is spamming, so there's no need to try to browbeat the guy. Just to see what would happen, perhaps drop by his talk page and politely engage him in a conversation of whether there's a better way. I have no opinion on whether as a general rule obits should be in the external links section, but they are certainly appropriate at least sometimes. This place is supposed to work collaboratively and incrementally, right? What's wrong with one person adding an obit in the EL's, and whenever another editor comes along who wants to incorporate the info into the article, they can, and then remove the link? --Floquensock (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I second that. We throw AGF and BITE around all the time on this board, and yet we're all too ready to whack the block button when it comes to it. The edits, from what I can see don't appear to be disruptive and engaging somebody in conversation rather than templating them can do wonders and has been known to turn determined vandals into productive editors. Now of course, if the edits become disruptive, we can start thinking about blocks, but let's put our money where our mouths are and enact AGF and BITE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  - And I third it. There's no reason to assume this editor is a "single purpose spam account". Note also that they have responded to concerns, although not necessarily agreeing with them. See this. All the articles listed were very rich in information, and do not indicate bad faith. Nor were they in such a quantity to be disruptive. Many times I'm come across good faith and potentially valuable editors who honestly thought the links would be helpful, and they are treated like criminals. One of the worst cases was the archivist of the New York Philharmonic who was threatened with blocking for adding links to their archives, which hold a wealth of information. Whatever happens, I hope trigger-happy spam fighters don't blacklist the links to the newspapers themselves. See also my arguments re the Prince of Austrurias Foundation here Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No reason to assume it's a single purpose spam account? They're called "obituarist" and all they do is add links to obituaries. Assuming they're a single purpose account is hardly a stretch. Yes, I was too quick to suggest a block as I see they actually have addressed concerns, but I hardly agree with you comparing that to treating them like a criminal.--Atlan (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be single-purpose, but it's not a "spam" account by any stretch of the imagination. And by "treated like criminals", I was referring to the way the New York Philharmonic archivist was treated and cautioning against doing it here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not just the New York Phil we've treated badly, you can add Gresham College, the American Institute of Physics and the Encyclopedia of Alabama to the list. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsure why someone would be warned for linking to an obituary. The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a reliable source, and certainly not spam. That the editor added it to multiple bios isn't a problem at all. We can just

gently suggest they use a bot, if the edits are fast and numerous enough. Aiken ♫

17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The number of links is excessive (close to 500 of them it looks like) but templating the user is obnoxious. Can we delete all those damn templates? There should be a new policy, "write in English" when trying to resolve a problem peacefully. Don't template someone unless you're about to block them. But there should certainly be a dialog with the user about COI and the EL guideline. In general the standard for adding an extlink to an article is much higher than that the linked content might contain useful info. It's ok to add the link to the talk page for a reason like that, as I did last night at talk:pair-instability supernova. If I work up the energy for it I might leave a note for the user, and I'm also inclined to move the links from the articles to the talk pages. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Aiken, using a bot to add extlinks to 100's of articles is the last thing we want. Using a bot to remove the extlinks is more appropriate. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't go mass moving the links to the talk pages. They are far more beneficial to readers and editors on the subject pages. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support for this, I have already found a couple of the links that he added beneficial to the article, one of them confirmed a disputed date of birth.It is a bit excessive but it is also beneficial, he will likely slow down or stop as there are only so many obituaries. IMO his edits are beneficial.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Whether a link belongs in an article is an editorial matter that should be evaluated on a case by case basis per

WT:WPSPAM, and might remove some links based on spot checks if I review them under WP:EL and find they don't meet the standard (but I don't have the energy to do that for 100's of links). Let me know how this sounds. I agree that a unilateral mass move would be disruptive and I won't do that without prior agreement. Note: merely "beneficial to the article" is not the standard for adding a link. We add beneficial material to articles by writing the material ourselves, not by linking to it outside of conditions discussed in the guideline. 66.127.53.162 (talk

) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

And this editor is not turning Wikipedia into a directory of links. I am well aware that the WPSPAM police do not like any links to e.g. reputable newspapers, encyclopaedias, expert institutions or anything else that might make Wikipedia better for the reader, or easier for the editor. There is no need to do anything about the links. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, let's shut down the blacklists and let the every article have a link to UniverseDaily and 700 YouTube copyvios. Why didn't I think of that? ;-) Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! The old slippery slope argument! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The vast majority of people whose actions on Wikipedia are restricted to adding external links to a single site, are unambiguously spammers. In fact, this is the first case I can recall where there is even a small amount of doubt, and even here the fact is that adding many links to a single newspaper can quite legitimately be interpreted as spamming. A Wikipedian adds content, this person has just been adding links and all to a single newspaper (and there is no such thing as a politically and socially neutral newspaper, so that may be a problem). The "spam police" perform a necessary function, and the examples I gave are examples of widespread and ongoing abuse. If the "spam police" were shut down, Wikipedia would become a link farm. Parts of it already are. The idea is that we are selective about external links, they are mainly there as sources or to provide additional information beyond the scope of the project. I don't like it when people erect barriers just to place others on the outside of them, which is what this talk of "spam police" does. The spam project is no different from vandalism patrollers or any other controller of abuse. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting "shutting down blacklists". We are suggesting that those responsible for them exercise thought and care and make a proper evaluation of the benefit of the links to Wikipedia's editors and to our readers. To equate articles in one of the UK's leading newspapers, the archives of the New York Philharmonic, an encyclopedia of the Alabama state history, edited by a team of professors, etc. etc. with YouTube copyvios and UniverseDaily is absurd. We are also suggesting that every editor who adds links to multiple articles not be thoughtlessly template-bombed, branded as a "spammer", and threatened with blocking. Assume a little good faith, and you might even attract a few more expert editors. Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently a good faith contributor using a single purpose account to link to an external site for obituaries. The intentions may be good, but I inherently have concerns anytime anyone edits here primarily to add external links to a single external site. It may be a reliable source, but Wikipedia is not a repository for obituary links. jæs (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The obits are potentially reliable sources but they're not cited by anything in the article, so as presently used, they're not sources at all, much less reliable sources. "Making a proper evaluation of the links" is precisely the issue here, since it doesn't look like anybody has made such an evaluation of most of these links (that means review the obit per the WP:EL guideline). If the purported benefit of the link is that the linked obit contains info relevant to the article for readers, the answer is {{Sofixit}} by adding the relevant info to the article, citing the obit as appropriate. And if the purported benefit is to editors for use in further article development, that's what the talk page is for, hence the proposal to move the links to the talk pages. And if someone involved in writing an article extlinks a marginally relevant obit, I'd probably leave it alone as a matter of respecting the person's editorial judgement; if they do it in five or ten articles they're not involved in, I'd probably revert and leave them a talk message; adding links to 500 articles with no involvement = spam campaign or at least fait accompli mass edit which is inappropriate. We are not a marketing engine for UK's leading newspapers or anyone else. We're writing an encyclopedia and all relevant encyclopedic info should be in the articles, not in extlinks. There is another site devoted to finding extlinks connected to a topic, and people who want that site know where to find it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC) (Oops: 66.127.53.162 is also me.)

Quick
WP:CSD#G4
assessment request

Resolved

– G4ed --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Could another administrator please take a look at this article, compare with the old version as well as the issues raised in the AfD and decide whether deletion as a repost is appropriate. The creator keeps removing the CSD tag and, as I contributed to the AfD, I'm not uninvolved. Thanks, – Toon 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Front Page/Featured Article

moved here per request. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg Tseng and disruptive editing

Greg Tseng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of spammers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UnnotableWorldFigure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Luitgard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greg Tseng is a marginally notable businessman whose main source of independent coverage is that two separate companies run by him have gotten in trouble with the FTC for using deceptive bulk-emailing practices (that is, "spam"). This assertion is well sourced in both of the articles linked above, so it's not a matter of poorly sourced negative material. Luitgard and UnnotableWorldFigure are two editors with a very substantial interest in Mr. Tseng.

Luitgard has tended to edit with a view toward increasing Mr. Tseng's prominence on Wikipedia, which necessarily makes the coverage of his spamming more visible (e.g. [27]; note the preceding edit summary by UnnotableWorldFigure as well). While he may (or may not) be angling to injure Mr. Tseng's reputation, to the best of my knowledge he hasn't violated Wikipedia's editorial policies in doing so; at the very least, he has not done so blatantly - before today. Today he has unfortunately made a very large number of reverts (larger than, say, three) on Greg Tseng as a part of an edit war.

UnnotableWorldFigure, on the other hand, has tended to edit to decrease Greg Tseng's profile on Wikipedia, and to remove assertions that he has been involved in spamming. He has repeatedly reverted to remove a link to List of spammers from Greg Tseng, and he has also been the other party in today's edit war there. My major concern - the only reason I am involved in this at all - is that he has also been removing well-referenced content from List of spammers, replacing Greg Tseng's name with the name of one of his companies, on the grounds that the references only mention that company spamming. In these same edits, he removes two references specifically referring to the other company (e.g., [28]). Needless to say, if you remove all mention of something, it will no longer be mentioned. He has repeatedly reverted on that page as well.

In my opinion, Luitgard deserves one hell of a slap on the wrist for getting involved in today's edit war. UnnotableWorldFigure, on the other hand, needs to be forcibly separated from his current editing pattern in some appropriate manner. If he has concerns about the way we cover Mr. Tseng, then he needs to address this in a collegial and collaborative manner. For that matter, we could stand to have more eyes on the

TL;DR; I made it as short as I could. — Gavia immer (talk

) 03:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepest apologies to all concerned for the editing war. I didn't know about the 3r rule. I though I was just undoing precipitous editing for which no consensus had been reached. I was also afraid UnnotableWorldFigure (UWF) would bury the article in capricious edits that would be hard to recover from. I now see that the content versions can be safely rolled back if need be, so my fear was unfounded. I will read about proper procedures over the weekend. I think the record will show that I really did try very hard to reason with UWF in a "collegial and collaborative" fashion. I conceded in the editing war to stop it as soon as I could get UWFs attention. I also immediately and urgently asked other more experienced editors for help, and will continue to do so in a more measure fashion in the future as their patience allows :( I was at something of a loss as I'd never seen such relentless and uncompromising behavior on Wikipedia before and wasn't really sure how to deal with it. Again, apologies to all and best regards. Luitgard (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Luitgard) Pending a review by an administrator, the edit warring issue seems to have been resolved at AN3; see this thread. On the content issue, there's more to be said and I'd be happy to elaborate should the need arise. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Adrian, I'd be interested in any info on the content question. If this is not the place for it, please post it on my page or elsewhere. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not being aware of the separate discussion at AN3, but it looks like that is only discussing Greg Tseng. As I've mentioned, I'm personally most concerned about the disruption at List of spammers, which doesn't look like it's been addressed there. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavia is actually understating the matter. There were 3 references that mentioned two of Tseng's companies, two of which also mentioned Tseng by name. UnnotableWorldFigure would delete the refs that mentioned Tseng by name and then say that the remaining one didn't mention Tseng, only his company, and then remove Tseng from the list of spammers because he was not mentioned in the remaining reference. Requests to discuss the matter were apparently ignored. Gavia would have a better count of how often this cycle or a similar one was repeated as I came across the process when it was on going.Luitgard (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with Gavia's summary and wish that Gavia's discussion of the "List of Spammers" page had been as coherent as the above writings. What is missing from this discussion is the fact that the latest round of edits initiated when somebody else marked the Greg Tseng article as an orphan and Luitgard reverted that and subsequently began scrambling to justify it, primarily by adding his name to a bunch of random lists to justify the claim that the Greg Tseng article is not an orphan. The fact of the matter is that if you take away this spurious lists ("Entrepreneurs", "Spammers", "Thomas Jefferson 'famous' alumni") there is only one article linking in, and that is the Tagged article. Given that Tseng's accomplishments outside of Tagged are impressive but comparable to thousands of other people not famous enough to have their own articles, it would be wholly appropriate to do what we would do if this were, say, a contestant on Survivor season 18, and just have his name redirect to Tagged. Can anyone make a coherent argument that this should not be done? I strongly contend that Luitgard's only motivation for not doing this is a desire to damage Mr. Tseng's reputation, and if anyone needs evidence to back up this claim, just do a 5 minute google search for combinations of Greg Tseng and Luitgard, and then spend 10 minutes reading the content of all the contribs from User:Luitgard with emphasis on her contribs to other people's talk pages. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavia – no worries, you weren't to know of the other thread. Although it concerns a different article, it concerns the same two contributors. Both are relatively inexperienced and I believe both were simply unaware of Wikipedia's rules about edit warring. Ttonyb has brought this to their attention on their user talk pages and made some very sensible suggestions at

WP:DRR). ~~So I'd suggest marking this thread and the AN3 thread resolved, though I feel too involved to do so myself.~~ (Struck per below). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs}

) 08:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I am not unaware of Wikipedia's rules about edit warring, as this was the 3rd time I've reported someone for 3RR. Luitgard repeatedly tried to get up her version of the article and say "can we stop and discuss this on the talk page", where the implication of "stop now" was "leave the most damaging version up for Google to see". That was simply not acceptable to me, and ultimately we stopped with the less damaging version visible to Google. I have no regrets about my actions.UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As some of you know, the suggested 24 hour cooling off period was not observed by all parties. The article was unilaterally reverted to a prior edit by UnnotableWorldFigure without consultation or consensus. I have proposed restoration of the word spammer to the intro of the article on the Greg Tseng talk page and will solicit UnnotableWorldFigure's comments on that proposal before proceeding further. As always, any guidance is appreciated. Regards, Luitgard (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

UnnotableWorldFigure, your self-incriminating post to AN3, your comments here, and your continued edit-warring at

WP:EW

and reconsider your comments here.

Folks, administrators have no special authority in content disputes and this isn't the place to discuss them. Let's keep content matters to the appropriate talk pages and use

WP:DRR if necessary. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs}

) 15:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Adrian I understand Wikipedia's expectations just fine, and if meeting those expectations means leaving unreasonable content up on the top Google listing for an individual then I will not meet those expectations. You can view that as incriminating if you like, but I don't live my life under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia. And besides, if I remember correctly you were the person who defended my stance that WP:BLP supercedes WP:3RR -- forgive me if I have misremembered. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) (ETA: Sorry, I guess I mixed up the chronology. I saw your message above for the first time just now, but it appears to be 2.5 hours older than the message I am referencing in my rebuttal. You can ignore this) UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

UnnotableWorldFigure is now back to revert-warring on List of spammers ([30] [31] [32]). Is nobody willing to enforce our rules against edit warring? — Gavia immer (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. I made a good faith edit (do you know the difference between an edit and a revert?) to fix the accuracy of a new sentence that was added yesterday, and you reverted it with the commentary "Stop that". Are you planning to punish yourself for edit warring, or is it ok as long as you're the one who started it? Right now the number of reverts today is tied 2-2 between you and me. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit [33] (the first one you included in parentheses above) is a perfectly reasonable edit and was not a revert to any version previously in existence. It also more closely matches the facts as they are laid out in the source document. It is against Wikipedia policy for you to revert this without visiting the talk page first. UnnotableWorldFigure (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Uighur house

I placed a speedy deletion tag on Uighur house a redirect that has been directly linked to Al-Qaeda safe house. The speedy deletion was rejected by one administrator. I ask than on the articles talk page for references that could justify to link "Uighur houses" to Al-Qaeda but no joy so far. This is an exceptional claim that needs executional sources we usually would find references all over the place what is not the case here.

The Uighurs are an ethnic group living in Eastern and Central Asia and "Uighur house" is a basic search term in connection with this ethnic group. Our redirection is now number one in Google search results for this term. That means anybody who is looking for basic information of this ethnic group or their houses gets redirected to al-Qaeda.

I request again the speedy deletion of this page as this misinformation is an unjustified discrimination against the Uighur people and i do think this needs additional administrator attention now. IQinn (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the above request is reasonable, as Uighur is unrelated to al-Qaeda and redirects to Uyghur, the more common spelling - thus seeking information on dwellings relating to this culture and people sends people to a completely different topic. Unless there are good references for the term "Uighur house" relating to al-Qaeda then this seems an obvious delete/re-redirection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the very first time I have seen the spelling Uyghur - Uighur is more common. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree and was about to send it to WP:RFD, unless someone wants to just kill it first. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI. I changed the redirect to instead point to

WP:NPOV, this is a more neutral choice. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk

21:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in addition to "BLP", we now need BLE ("... living ethnicities"). This is nuts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This was apparently created as a good-faith redirect in the course of

Al Qaida guest houses, Kabul. But I agree this particular redirect doesn't seem to make much sense. Fut.Perf. ☼

23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, I was the admin who declined it, on the grounds that it needed discussion--not on the grounds that I thought it was a good redirect, for I did not think that, and I informed Geo accordingly. I'm glad it has been changed for the better. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Marysville, Ohio banner

I really hope that I'm in the right place here; I've never used this forum before. I don't think it fits it any of those categories up there (BLP, 3RR, vandalism, etc.), so hopefully this is the place.

WP:OWN, regarding Marysville, Ohio

. The primary manifestation of this has been his insistence on the placement of this banner at the very top of the article:

White House Preserve America Community

A number of other editors have taken note of this banner and have removed it, noting in their edit summaries that this was not standard Wikipedia practice, and that it may violate (albeit unintentionally)

WP:UNDUE. [34][35][36][37][38][39]. Some have attempted to engage in discussion on the talk page[40][41][42]

, but Wiki Historian N OH generally ignores their points; s/he has arguments that seem to boil down to the following:

This is a rare honor bestowed on American cities, warranting the special recognition through the banner.[43]
The visual has an impact in drawing attention and curiosity to the whole page. It also makes it more fun, like pictures.[44]

S/he actually tries to make some other points, but many of them are very confusing, such as the following (which here are taken out of context, but make no more sense within context):

The political existence of this city is attached to the political designation it received.[45]
As the guidelines state, no one owns an article, therefore lacking any definitive authority to remove something rivals vandalism and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia.[46]
The only weight the banner places in the article is the weight of the entire article itself, not just one aspect of it lacking an attachment to everything else.[47]
Ultimately, if the Wiki folks don't like it, hardly can one object, but they've yet to.[48]

Actually, the single best point that WHNO has brought up, albeit indirectly, via rhetorical question, is to compare his banner creation to the infobox heading for places on the National Register of Historic Places.[49] I made the mistake (in the interest of prompting some civil back-and-forth discussion), of acknowledging that this was an interesting and relevant comparison, but that an infobox was not really the same thing.[50] Well, WHNO took my opening and ran with it, declaring, 98.82.23.93 has conceded their position has failed on the merits.[51]

And while I have repeatedly attempted to find an opening for a polite discussion, s/he has ignored others' arguments and even accused those who have clearly been making honest attempts to work things out of committing vandalism (that dif was his response to a first-time editor of this article). But the key point is, throughout this whole matter, not one editor has indicated one iota of concurrence with User:Wiki Historian N OH, yet s/he continues to revert everyone's removals of the banner, usually without the courtesy of an edit summary[52][53][54] or explanation on the talk page (unlike those who have explained their removals).

I do recognize that the future of the project is not endangered by this issue. But I don't see that WHNO has given me any real choice (other than to ignore the matter, which is I suspect how s/he has been operating so far--waiting until others get bored and just go away). And if I am told by objective persons here that I am wrong, I will drop the matter. But please read the patient arguments that I and others have advanced, the courtesy that I and others have extended, and the genuine

good faith efforts that were attempted at great length before this venue was approached. Thanks. 98.82.23.93 (talk

) 04:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

98.82.23.93 left me an ANI notification. How am I involved here? Marysville isn't on my watchlist, and the last time I edited the article was in July. I've never edited the talk page at all. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't something that belongs on a page, whether it be at the top or the bottom, but the top is never the place for anything but the facts. A category would be better for this.

talk

) 05:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. At minimum, this month-long edit war needs to stop. Both parties need to carry on a civil discussion at the article talk page regarding this issue. The back and forth edit war needs to stop first. Now, everyone can get on to discussing the issues in a civil manner. --Jayron32 05:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- With all due respect to fellow administrator Jayron, I doubt this is the best response. This seems to me to be taking the principle of admin-non-involvement to the absurd extreme of total content agnosticism. This is not a situation where more discussion is needed to establish consensus. Consensus and policy already exist, everything seems to have been said that needs to be said, and there is a single obviously disruptive element editing against this consensus. Sometimes, there is a "right" and "wrong", even on Wikipedia. Let's not burden our constructive editors with an obligation to keep "discussing" this with somebody who evidently doesn't wish to listen; let's keep this article open for normal editing, and just block the disruptive element if they persist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  - If I'm understaning FPAS correctly, I believe I agree. The banner serves no useful encyclopedic purpose, only a promotional one regarding the town, which is not our concern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea protecting the page. I think User:Wiki Historian N OH should be warned that banners like these should never be placed on any page in mainspace. User:Wiki Historian N OH should also be warned about WP:OWN as there is a clear case of it from what I have seen. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have also taken a look at the Marysville, Ohio article and several pictures need to be removed. The ones of Al Gore, Laura Bush, George and Barbara Bush, William Henry Harrison, among a couple others need to be removed as completely unnecessary to the page and the ones of Gore and the Bushs appear not to be taken in that town. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  - If you see a need for such changes – and you may well have a point there – then that's just one more reason not to lock the page down for a full month. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    - After looking into this more, this section seems to be written with a political slant and in violation of NPOV. I would recommend an editor or two from
      WP:CITIES give the page a once-over to see if there are anymore NPOV statements. I am also seeing alot of weasel words like "Marysville is blessed" and "Marysville would be changed forever". Just two I seen in two sections. - NeutralHomer • Talk
      • 08:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      - Sorry for the continued posts, but I need to raise further concerns, like with User:Wiki Historian N OH changing of LGBT to alternative lifestyle in this post. Like the use of clearly not reliable sources in the following links: 1, 2, 3, 4. Plus, continued use of pictures not meant for use in town pages (this one was about a model). These are just going back a couple days. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

NeutralHomer raises some good style points, and I too think this full protection was an inappropriate measure. Unless a strong case can be made for keeping it protected, I'll unprotect in a little while so actual work can be done whilst there are eyes on the article. If WikiHistorian continues to reinsert the banner against the fairly clear consensus against its placement, he will be blocked like any other combative editor. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't care less about the place, but... on my watchlist now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

~~??? > As a matter-of-principle question: Is this article now reserved for administrators-only edits for the next month? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)~~ Nevermind Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Per my above post, I've unprotected the article. I agree, Choy, that wasn't a good edit to make...only highly uncontroversial edits should be made by admins while full protection exists. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the protection wasn't appropriate given just one editor is causing trouble in the article. Sometimes it's possible to use sweet reason and convince such editors to switch to articles in subjects they're less invested in. Good luck ;) 69.228.170.24 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I just did some cleanup myself there. I just counted thirty six images on the page and I was wondering if anyone else thought most of them should go since they really aren't adding much besides promotion.

talk

) 14:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the pictures. While having them is a good thing, sometimes having too many can clutter the page and this page looks VERY cluttered with pictures. Some are there just to show where a business is (like the Scotts plant in the town)....not needed. I think the page should go up for

peer review where people who work on nothing but Geography pages, can take a look and evaluate the page and see what needs to be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think these discussions about article content can now be safely taken back to the article talk page. Let this be sorted out through normal editing (and thanks to all who volunteered to look into the cleanup issues); "Wiki Historian" has been warned not to disrupt further consensus editing and can be blocked if he obstructs the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Question Could somebody interpret "Will accept assignments from those looking for article creation or editing" (along with an email address) (from User:Wiki Historian N OH) for me? That sounds to me like we're dealing with a spammer for hire. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, that looks like "Wikipedian for Hire". I think that isn't allowed. For reference, the post the anon is commenting on is here and was made back in October of 2009.- NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:MidnightBlueMan reverting articles without putting forward reasons, and reverting even after discussion

Resolved

– Taken elsewhere

This editor has been warned in the past about this exact behaviour, and has been blocked. Admin User:Ryan Postlethwaite appears to not be around, so I think I should post here. He has been blocked very recently here initially, and then warned and blocked for an extended period again here. From the comments he left at the original blocking editor Talk page here, my concern is that this editor intends to continue in this vein and doesn't see any problem. Not sure if it's a coincidence, but Ryan is away and this editor is back to the same disruptive behaviour with reverts to articles without giving reasons or discussions. For example, since his last block we've had:

Settlement of Iceland where one of the reasons he gives on the Talk page is by editors whose primary objective is to remove the phrase "British Isles".
Language school with no reason given as to why the original edit was incorrect
List of most common surnames in Europe - no reason given for the revert
Weisse Frauen - no reason given for the revert
The Manor House Bishop Bridge - no reason given for the revert

These articles were discussed at this page and even where an opportunity to put forward a case why the edits were incorrect, none were put forward. Yesterday when I tried restoring the articles, after the discussion indicated that the edits were not incorrect, MidnightBlueMan has engaged in tendentious reverting, again with reasons. This editor is deliberately gaming the system, and despite being warned and blocked several times in the past, which his Talk page is a testament to, he still just thumbs his nose at the community and refuses to comply with behaviour guidelines and policies. --

HighKing (talk

) 20:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there is background here with which I'm unfamiliar, I'm going to notify an admin who seems to be more aware of the situation on British Isles articles. (I see he has left a note about reversion restrictions on MidnightBlueMan's page before.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot password, email address changed

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

I haven't used my account in a very long time (several years), and in that time, I have forgotten my password. Worse, my school changed its email system around, so my old email address is no longer valid. The email username is the same, but the domain is different (@eng.usf.edu becomes @mail.usf.edu). I was wondering if I can just change the domain on the WP account to the new one. If any administrators can help, I would appreciate it; I will check this space for what I would have to do. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.68.100 (talk • contribs)

Just a note, the above post is from a Road Runner (TimeWarner Cable) account per this and not registered to the University of South Florida. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I moved off-campus 3 or 4 years ago. A call to the school's IT department should confirm the switchover I described. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.68.100 (talk • contribs)

I know I read this exact same request recently on some board somewhere but I can't place where, pretty sure it was explained that there's nothing we can do--Jac16888 ^Talk 04:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. If you don't have your password and the e-mail you provided is non-functioning, the account is not usable. You'll have to register for a new account, unless your old account qualifies for usurpation (which I'm sorry to say seems unlikely). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there's nothing we can do, and this is the wrong venue for such a query anyway, I'm

closing this thread. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate

─╢ 12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Resolved

– Not backlogged anymore. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Backlogged, just so you know.--219.89.70.109 (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat

I wasn't sure what to make of this and thought to bring it here, just to be on the safe side. Although "...I am in the process of contacting the FBI in a cyber-stalking case..." seems a little too clear. Outback the koala (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think with something like this, it's a question of the spirit of

WP:NLT. I don't see this individual using legal threats to quash the Wikipedia process. (For those who haven't followed: He's responding to a procedural AfD listing that was purportedly opened on his request, explaining that the person who made the request is an impostor and that he did not request the AfD.) I think this one is probably okay. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

12:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Moonriddengirl. No legal threat, really. TN X Man 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violation

Resolved

– 31 hour block. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fariz Metal (talk · contribs) was given warnings yesterday about copyright violations, as many (most?) of their pages were copy/pasted from various sources. They acknowledged the warnings this morning and then directly proceeded to recreate a page that was G12'd yesterday, and fleshing it out with the same copyrighted material. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

31 hour block, with a reminder to read the policies. If it persists, we'll have to take further action. Meanwhile, I suppose a check of other contribs is in order just to make sure this is restricted to the one article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You're too nice. :-) I think most of his image uploads are copyvio of album covers, I deleted one that I could easily find elsewhere on the web.

talk

) 14:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Range block sought for IP anon with rotating address

Per this discussion, I am seeking an IP range block for a user who appears to do nothing more than remove citation requests from articles, then move on to a new IP address and do it again. It is pointless to block each IP address individually, because he can just get a new one. BOZ (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 14:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks - 60.166.73.198 popped up on my watchlist today, and it looks like they've been at it for a while with multiple different IPs. BOZ (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Talk page blanking

Talk:List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes after User:AdventureTime suggested there that Ruin Cireela's edits were inappropriate (diff). I restored the talk page's content and warned the user not to blank talk pages. The user again blanked the talk page and then made a series of edits similar to those earlier objected to by AdventureTime (first diff of six). I have advised Ruin Cireela to stop blanking the Talk page and to seek consensus with other editors before again editing the List. I suggested that failure to do so may result in temporary page protection. I also rolled back the controversial edits to the List, though I have not paid close attention to their content as I have no particular interest in the content of the page. Cnilep (talk

) 15:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to protect the page, you have given the editor a final warning and a link to this discussion where they might rationalise their actions; if they blank a talkpage again, and especially without responding to the various comments, then report them to AIV for disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jacksisco

User:Jacksisco has violated the image use policy and continues to violate user page guidelines. I would recommend a block for a lengthy period and, upon lifting of the block, he obtain an indefinite block if he continues his Myspace-like editing (see his edit count). He has contributed photos likely to be non-free as his own. His editing is disruptive because he occasionally adds categories and article templates to his user page which contaminate the encyclopedia categories. Repeated attempts to contact the user have been ignored, as have repeated offers of help. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blanked the userpage per

WP:NOT#WEBHOST and warned them against repeating the actions. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 16:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass canvassing

) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not canvassing. It was nonpartisan and unbiased. I'm trying to get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Nothing biased, just trying to get more opinions. That edit war was a long time ago. I'm trying to get the conversation started again to get this issue resolved.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we ever have a discussion without having someone come on here and complain? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the

talk • contribs

) 00:01, 25 April 2005

- I'd like to know if the users canvassed would be likely to support one pov over another or whether they are a fair cross section of those contributing to this area. I'd particularly like to hear Jerzeykydd's explaination of why he chose those editors to canvass.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  08:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  - I chose those specific editors because they are active in wikipedia and specifically in American political articles.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    - I'm curious what criteria, exactly, you used. I would seem to be a poor candidate for either of those. --Rory096 18:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    - I do not know every user that
      talk
      ) 19:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Talk:John J. Pershing

Resolved

– no admin action required HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:Mk5384 is edit warring on the talk page of the John J. Pershing article. This appears to be about some comments that User:Aunt Entropy made about MK's views on this article as well as another the user is involved in. MK then began removing the comments of Aunt E, saying they were off-topic. However, I do not think that this is appropriate since it did seem to be a legit question and was not vandalism. In any event, MK has now removed the comments three times [55] [56] [57]. -OberRanks (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And a fourth time now as well; the last edit also cutting out some comments I made. [58] -OberRanks (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 asked me about this:

On the John Pershing page, user Aunt Entropy posted a comment that I had made on the talk page of Genesis Creation myth. (Please take a look.) It was completely unrelated to the Pershing issues, and as such, deliberately misleading. I removed it, stated that I had removed it, gave my reasons, and notified the user who posted it. OberRanks (who else?) raised a fuss about this, and I wanted to make sure that I was within my rights to do this.
talk
) 14:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, nothing in
xeno^talk
15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm heading out; so I don't have the time to look into this further. –

xeno^talk

16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the comment, stated that I had done so, stated why, notified the user, and notified an admin. OberRanks said that he would leave it to the original editor, then put it back himself 3 different times. I have gone out of my way to be polite on the Pershing article.

) 16:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I put an in use template here, as I have been trying to finish my statement. However, it is continually being ignored, so I will return to this.

) 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to finish this. Again, the post had nothing to do with the Pershing article; Auntie E was trying to bolster support for "Genesis Creation myth", by using my position that the word "nigger" should not be removed. I discussed this on her talk page. OberRanks is the only one edit warring, as he returned something 3 times, that a) had nothing to do with the article, and b) that he promised not to return. I have been extremely cordial in reference to the Pershing debate. I have worked dilligently on the talk page to reach consensus, and have refrained from editing the article itself in the meanwhile. OberRanks made false accusations of sockpuppetry against me on an administrator's talk page. When I got justifibly angry about this, he returned to his childishness, as a "premtive strike".

) 17:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You did NOT tell me you removed my post, nor was I told about this report. I would like it put back please. Can I do that? Auntie E. (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Mk5384, I did not post to that talkpage to "bolster support for "'Genesis creation myth'" in the title. If you had paid attention, you'd have seen I support the change to "narrative." Auntie E. (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Those comments look perfectly valid to me and I see no reason to remove them and certainly not to edit war over their presence. If there is a problem with the, then it should be discussed calmly rather than summarily removing them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks did the edit warring; not I. However, the original user has posted it again. I have left it there, and rebutted it.

talk

) 18:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna fan proving problematic and ignoring constant warnings

I believe

WP:BADCHARTS requires some sort of administrator intervention. Lil-unique1 (talk

) 16:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to update, less than an hour after removing his most recent addition of unsourced information he/she has re-added the information with an unverified twitter source April 25 (2) and is clearly now experessing
WP:OR.Lil-unique1 (talk
) 17:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry! i didnt know that twitter was a bad source. i do apologise. i do try and add a reliable source to my information i add but i will be more careful and think before i act. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. (By the way i am a very big Rihanna fan!)

) 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Iluvrihanna24, for the future it would be good to respond to warnings and get some sort of dialog going with people who are trying to give you advice. It'll avoid them having to make reports like this. Communication is important here. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I think a block in this case would be harsh and heavy handed. Perhaps Iluvrihanna24 could agree to use the talk page function more often and remember to consult

WP:edit summary and follow the protocols above. we can agree that this was a case of lack of communication?Lil-unique1 (talk

) 19:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisting at AfD

I think somebody should go through and check the relistings that

User:Mono made at AFD. Just spot checking them, I think most of them could have been closed. There are a few that are on their 3rd or 4th relisting---if consensus can't be reached after 2 or 3 previous relistings, then close it. There are others where the consensus seems pretty clear, but they were relisted. Two different people have contacted Mono about his relistings User_talk:Mono#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FBritish_Balloon_Modelling_Convention_2007 and User_talk:Mono#AfD relists. Normally I would simply wait for his return to respond, but at the top of his page he has a note indicating that he is on a long wikibreak. Since he is on a long wikibreak, I wanted to bring it here to have somebody else take an objective look at his relistings. Since I nominated 2 of the articles he relisted, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to act on this subject. Here are Mono's contributions [[59]].---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!}

18:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He also NAC'd some AfDs that weren't re-listed. I've closed three of the re-lists and also re-closed one of the others, as it clearly wasn't in line with consensus in the AfD. Others have closed ones that were re-listed excessively as no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought, but since I was involved in at least two of them, I wanted to let somebody else act.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user abusing talk page editing

Resolved

99.63.245.4 (talk · contribs) is abusing the privilege of editing his/her own user talk page, so I am requesting that the block settings be changed so that the user cannot edit the talk page. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he was locked in a time capsule or something. That or his TARDIS malfunctioned :) –MuZemike 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Anti-Satellite Weapon system

For the past few days,

WP:Crystal Ball

but I'm not so sure it does as numerous sources have stated that the country is actively developing the components for this system. I didn't post a date as it would be premature but I do think that the country warrants inclusion on the list as it is developing the components for such a system and has actively announced this. I did note that the country did not have a formal project as of yet but the system is under development. I also noted on the disccusion page that I would be perfectly open to including any other countries but I was unable to find any information about other planned ASAT weapons.

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article can be found here.

Yattum (talk · contribs) has been blocked for blatantly violating 3RR after being warned, but Vedant is not innocent here, I request that another administrator review his behavior and issue sanctions accordingly if they are warranted. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:AboutFaace

Something should be done. This user is edit-warring on

t

05:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Blocked for edit warring. That was a pretty clear-cut case. In the future, you can report such problems to

WP:ANEW rather than here for processing. --Jayron32

05:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin User:Shii: restoration/wheelwarring and incivility

Shii is a longtime Wikipedia volunteer and administrator yet he has been acting in a way that I feel is inappropriate to his position. He has misused his restoration tool on several pages.

Kalki Bhagavan was deleted unanimously due to this AfD, yet was recently restored by Shii with the summary "undo a really dumb deletion". Shii is also wheel-warring on Talk:Oneness University, twice restoring the history of the page when it had been deleted before (by AfD and by CSD as a recreation of deleted material - see page log). Shii has not attempted to engage in discussion with any of the deleting administrators, nor has he bothered to go to deletion review. When confronted on his talkpage, Shii responded flippantly. To me this incident appears as an abuse of Shii's restoration tool, and his communication habits in response to an attempted discussion are not anywhere close to the level of civility expected of administrators. Shii's questionable talk page behaviour was discussed on this board back in February

, so this issue is nothing new.

I'm not really sure if this is the proper place to post, since an RFC/U was discussed in the last posting, but I'm seeking some sort of a quick consensus that Shii's talk page behaviour is out of line for an administrator justifying his actions and I'd like to get an admonishment for him not to use his tools in an inappropriate manner. Them From Space 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow dude, you haven't brought up a single issue with the article itself. Instead you've been whinging at me over technicalities with no apparent meaning, and when I told you to bug off you took it here, still with no meaning. Okay, if you want a response to these wikilawyer issues, I'll give you one: it is now 2010, not 2008. Both the AfD and the prior ANI incident you link to took place in 2008. It's not my job to bring you up to the present day, you have to do that yourself. Let me know if you want to work on an encyclopedia, I'll talk to you more politely when you show the scarcest amount of evidence for that. Cheers, Shii (tock) 02:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see that the last ANI was in 2008, although there are still problematic comments on your talk page right now. My apologies for linking to that. But your dismissive response toward the rest of the criticism is precisely the issue. Courtesy and civility go a long way and as an administrator you need to be more approachable and respectful of other editors. I still would like to see what other editors think of this and your out-of-procedure page restorations. Them From Space 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I'm being a

dick. I need to conquer my trolling instinct, so I'm sorry about that. I still would like to see some criticism you have made of the article itself, which I restored so that I could add useful citations. Shii (tock)

02:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Shii, don't be a dick ;-). How about moving the article to your userspace so you can work on it. When you've added enough citations you can put it back in mainspace. (Actually I haven't looked at the article or the afd, so don't know if there's any other issues with it). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the behavior of Shii or the current state of

WP:IDONTLIKEIT and only one !voter mentioned the word "sources". I can see how that might be viewed as "really dumb" but still, that's not a phrase that should be seen in the article's logs. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Err? confused

09:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

– was page-protection, not block Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This account or IP address is currently blocked since 2009. Latest edit today? How does that happen? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He can edit his own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought that had been revoked as well for abuse. Oh wait -- that was page-protection, not block. I'll take it to RPP. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you succeeded, as the IP is now prevented from editing his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Block and forget?

Shouldn't

ping

08:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. The user accidentally copied the {{tlx| part of the unblock request, which essentially kept it from showing up on anybody's radar screen, and I fear it must have escaped

Automatic Data Processing article could use some work, and so long as it's kept neutral, I hope they'll still be interested in contributing. jæs (talk)

HalfShadow blocked for BLP violations on Don Murphy

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

General discussion regarding "unflattering photos" does not belong at ANI and was moved to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#"Unflattering" photos?. HalfShadow is presently blocked indefinitely and has received some advice as to how to proceed. –xeno^talk 17:41, 26 April 2010

arb · rfc · lta · socks

– HalfShadow indef blocked, to be revisited in one week —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike R (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 April 2010

I have blocked the above user for seven days for trolling a living person. If wikipedia is really going to insist that it will write about living people against their will, then it must ensure its editors do so in a courteous and respectful way, even if the subject doesn't respond in kind. Remember we trod on their toe, and insist that we can because we are simply recording facts.

I went to have words with HalfShaddow about this unacceptable edit "We should put the image back, just to piss him off. Murphy's funny when he's all worked up" only to find he'd acted on his threat and uploaded another unflattering image of the subject File:DonMurphy.jpg and edit warred to keep it in the article.

Is wikipedia to be trusted with writing about people who don't want written about? If it claims it is, then vendettas, trolling, responding in kind, must be deemed absolutely unacceptable.--Scott Mac 19:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I noted above, if the article is perfectly courteous and just describes what the person has done, we have no reason to abide by a request to remove it. It does the person no harm for it to be there and, I would think, actually brings them some amount of more fame. However, you are right, we should not (and do not) allow vendettas, trolling, or anything of that nature. I am hoping that this will be dealt with swiftly. Silver seren^C 19:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I was discussing blocks for BLP vios earlier with another editor. Vandalism on BLPs should be treated with an instant block, and for other issues (such as mocking the subject) the perpetrator should be subjected to a warning, and then a block if the behavior continues. I am disturbed by the comments left by HalfShadow on the AN/I discussion, who seems to be treating it as a game rather than a serious project. A block is spot-on, especially as there were issues such as edit warring over the image. Aiken ♫ 19:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, perfectly good block, HalfShadow deliberately inflamed an already unpleasant situation because they thought it would be funny. Now they have a week to laugh about it.

talk

) 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

He is asking for an unblock on his talk page if people wish to comment.--Scott Mac 19:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for context the fallout from poking Murphy with a stick is absolutely not restricted to those doing the poking. Any person on Wikipedia with any past dealings with this article or any of the users of Murphy's forum is likely to be considered "fair game" for retaliation. Deliberate provocation is not just stupid, it is likely to lead to active harassment of others. We should never troll article subjects, ever, but Murphy is just about the worst choice of target. I endorse this block. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That photo is unsuitable for a formal biography, especially a contested one. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock request, but I would imagine he'll keep trying.
talk
) 19:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support the block, for what was a deliberate attempt to further annoy an upset BLP subject by uploading what was likely a copyrighted image.

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in why you are defending him so much, when he has made legal threats and harassed numerous people in real life, threateningly so. Silver seren^C 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats one of the things that I am interested in, the protection of living people related to our articles.

Off2riorob (talk

Irrelevant. We don't allow wikipedia to be used as a revenge platform. The only possible defense of keeping an unwanted BLP is that we aare fair and dispassionate about the subject.--Scott Mac 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said otherwise and I do believe that the image should not be in the article whatsoever. I'm just concerned about Off2riorob's comments both here and on the above ANI discussion, as he is defending Don Murphy a lot. It seems kind of...strange... Silver seren^C 19:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Good block. The fact that the article subject has behaved atrociously does not give us license to respond in kind. HalfShadow's actions, at best, demonstrate very poor judgement. At worst, his behaviour will encourage further harrassment of an innocent third party. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick correction: There was no edit warring going on, HalfShaddow uploaded a new image and put it in the article, once, and that's it. Just for the record. --Conti|✉ 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For what that may be, his comment in the previous ANI discussion makes it clear that he put it back for a vindictive reason. Silver seren^C 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. The image seemed to be taken from a quick Google search as well, without any regard for licensing or copyright issues. --Conti|✉ 20:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined and block endorsed for copyvio alone; "the whole copyright status thing defies me" is not an appropriate reaction to an inquiry about the copyright status of content one contributes. Sandstein 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

AGF about the copyright stuff (newbie mistakes with image uploads and copyright are extremely common), but the person's approach to biographies is no good. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, he knows enough about image copyvio to tag it when he sees it (admins only, sorry). I support the block, but would think it might be appropriate to shorten it if there's some plausible sign that he gets why this was all a bad idea...unless there's a history of this kind of thing of which I'm unaware. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl, there sure is a history of him trying to piss people off. Trust me. I support a block per the above reasons.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

On the pure face of it (i.e. not knowing or taking into account the background White Shadows refers to), shortening or lifting the block seems reasonable if HalfShadow agrees to stay away from BLP's for a while (until getting better attuned to the current editing culture around them) and be more careful about copyrighted images. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to oppose that. Just a look at the guy's block log shows that he has not learned anything from trolling like acts. If you want more evidense from me just ask.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The user is currently venting which will result in nothing positive at all, so for now i think it is best if the block stays in place. This is the fourth block, with a previous block on the same grounds 5 months ago. That one was cut short so therefor i think that this one should run its week-long course, after which the talk page should be unprotected to see if Shadow wishes to come back. If he can file a reasonable request then i support unblocking. I could accept the rationale that he wished a better image, but seeing his comment and the strange comment on copyvio's i find it hard to believe. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And now, "Like I even care anymore. Die in a fire, the lot of you.". Aiken ♫ 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Let that go, it's just venting. Not a reason to lengthen anything. (but certainly not evidence of a need to shorten yet, either)... ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Too late, Sandstein did the deed. (Not that I'm bothered by the comment, as you say, he's just venting, but still, evidence he's not at all ready for a shortened block). Aiken ♫ 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In view also of his previous blocks for disruptive incivility, I have indefinitely blocked the editor for this. It's simply inexcusable. Sandstein 21:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot endorse that extension at this time. He's venting. Let him/her vent. The week off should let calm return. I am not going to undo unilaterally but I would ask that you reconsider. (I do endorse the original week and see nothing meriting reduction of it at this time) ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick compromise? Keep it indef and review in week to see if there is any indication that the editor has reconsidered their stance? If not, then indef stays until they do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good solution. Will Beback talk 21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest revoking the user's talk page access for a week, then warning the user that his next disruptive act would definitely result in an indef-block. But I'm willing to endorse the above idea. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur, FWIW. Tiderolls 21:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As do I. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Previous block was cut short, so let this one run its course and see what happens (Anyone else taking a note to unblock the page after a week?). Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No comment on a shorter block, but I think an indefinite block is excessive. Everyking (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar: it is generally understood that we do not lengthen blocks (and certainly not jump them up to indefinite) for individuals sounding off on their talk page after being blocked. Let's also not forget that there was some

poking going on after the block was placed. ~~I'm not sure what value there is in 'letting the indef stand and seeing how he responds'; I think the week should be re-instated (perhaps with talk page privileges revoked)~~ –xeno^talk

11:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So... ??? Lift the indef and set back to the rest of the remaining original week? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear he is taking any ownership of the block as I suggested to him [62]. His subsequent comments are hopefully simply more sounding off and he will come back and issue a suitable unblock request at the end of the week. –xeno^talk 12:51, 26 April 2010

Indefinite, as in until he shows he understand the problem. Sounds fair. I emailed him some more information about the background, which may or may not help. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that (as also expressed by LessHeardvanU above) was my intention in placing the indefinite block. Indefinite does not mean infinite, but it means as least as long until the user convinces us that they understand why their conduct (BLP, copyvio, wishing other human beings to die in a fire) is problematic and also convince us that this will not happen again. And with this block log it will need a lot of convincing. Sandstein 17:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And now I will need even more convincing: "And I would ask that certain people breathe a sigh of relief that there is a country's distance between us.". I do not think that this user needs to be unblocked any time soon. Sandstein 17:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidently, he's still angry over this situation. Perhaps it might be prudent to shut down his user talk page for at least the next few days. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Indefinite does not mean infinite", but do we really need to have the editor to admit he was wrong under such a pressure as facing an "indefinite" block? What such an admission would be worth? IMO it will be better to work with the editor gently, and to help them to really realize that what they did was wrong, if not in their own eyes then in the eyes of others. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar and Everyking. I think this extension is excessive and really ought to be cut back. "Indefinite is not infinite" is a phrase we really ought to do without: it makes the idea of an indefinite block a seem like a mild little thing which is absolutely not from a psychological perspective. We ignore that far too easily. Frankly, I think we're way too block-happy on matters like this. Ranting on one's talk page is dickish, but it's not screwing with any articles. Making blocks that are obviously going to be controversial (and I can't fathom how anyone could not know it would be controversial) over a talk page rant strikes me as needless drama-stirring, whether intentionally or not. (Referring to the extension, not the original block.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unflattering" photos?

Wrong venue. Please move to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#"Unflattering" photos? (moved text). ANI is not the venue to discuss this. Perhaps someone might initiate an RFC subpage? –xeno^talk 17:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since when has a picture being "flattering" or not had anything to do with anything? If you want to argue licensing, that's one thing. But a photo being "unflattering" shouldn't even be on the table unless there's a better one available that's not being used. Consider this one File:Tara Leigh Patrick cropped.jpg of Carmen Electra, which around 3 years ago was the main photo on her page until something better came along, and even then this one was retained in the article for awhile, despite the fact she looks like a witch, or at least "something the cat dragged in" as Mom would say. Why? Because it was free, and that trumps "unflattering". Or so I was told at the time. What has changed since then? Are we now concerned with getting not only free but also "flattering" user snapshots? If so, we had best wipe out about half the living-person photos on this website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue here is deliberate baiting. It looks like he knew it would bug (er, bother :)) the guy and set out to do so as quickly as possible, without even caring about the copyright problem he created. We don't have to use only subject-approved images, but such behavior (if that's what it was) certainly doesn't cast Wikipedia in a good light. It's kind of not in the spirit of

WP:BLP to deliberately enrage subjects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know how this photo File:Don Murphy (cropped).jpg is so much worse than the Carmen Electra photo, noted above, which was considered perfectly acceptable somehow. I can understand, somewhat, the argument for a block, although it seems there's a bit of double standard here, considering how long it can take to banish editors that are 50 or 100 times more disruptive. But the argument about "flattering" is invalid, and even the claim that the photo is "unflattering" is a matter of opinion. Copyright is really the only issue that should be on the table here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Like was stated in the beginning of this section, this edit shows that he knew exactly what he was doing when he put the image back in. This block has nothing to do with the image itself, per se, but the intent behind it when it had already been made clear that it shouldn't be added to the article. Silver seren^C 22:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to us what the picture looks like (though the subject took offense). The only thing being considered now is its copyright, no one is saying that unflattering is the reason why it should be removed. Silver seren^C 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then if any admin labeled the photo "unflattering", he should strike that comment, as it is absolutely misleading and irrelevant to the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: What has changed since then? We are more sensitive to BLP issues now, and the off-wiki effects of our content. We can't rely on eventualism in this sort of article any more. Are we now concerned with getting not only free but also "flattering" user snapshots? Our photos should adhere to the neutral point of view policy just like everything else in the encyclopedia. That means if we are writing a formal biography of someone, we should use photos representative of the kind you'd expect to see in a mainstream formal biography, especially if the article or photo is contested. If so, we had best wipe out about half the living-person photos on this website. Yes maybe. Perhaps a lot of the articles too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of the photograph being flattering or unflattering is a side issue. The subject clearly knew he was being photographed, so it's not as if he was caught in a private moment picking his nose or something like that. He's simply smiling for a camera. Will Beback talk 23:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. And the IP is dead wrong about any need to use "flattering" photos. If it's free, and it's not horrible or obscene or gross, it's fair game. Until wikipedia expands its "fair use" policy to square with the 21st century, we are stuck with these amateurish photos, and "unflattering" is an irrelevant argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No we're not stuck with amateurish or any other kind of photos. Just like any other sourcing, if a photo is not up to our standards, we discard it. We're not stuck with it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We're all amateurs here. There is no practical way that we can depend solely on professional, free-licensed photos. The only policy I'm aware of that's applicable is

WP:BLP#Images, which says: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. There is a significant difference between "disparaging" and "unflattering", and I wouldn't even say the photo in question is unflattering. Not everyone looks like Brad Pitt. Will Beback talk

00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not all of us move in exalted circles such that we can hob-nob with notable people, and therefore it tends to the result that "amateur" photos tend not to be particularly well-composed, well-lit, or even have the consent of the subject; however, in a public venue, copyright, and as far as I'm concerned, all other rights, rest with the photographer and not the subject. That is one limitation we have here, and if notable subjects of articles are unhappy with their images, they are quite at liberty to make available to us a copyright-free image. Rodhull andemu 00:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Rodhullandemu seem to think it's a catastrophe if we have an article that doesn't contain a photo, and that we should use inappropriate photos if we can't find appropriate ones. I don't see it that way. We are fine having articles without photos. I don't think that the policy Will Beback quoted is the right one to apply to this situation, and it may flat-out need revision so that the photos (especially the ones presented as main biographical portraits in the article, maybe less so in a thumbnail gallery at the bottom of the article) in our biographies are up to neutral mainstream standards. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" according to whom? Here is a professional, "mainstream" photo of the subject, taken at a movie opening, where he presumably would know photographers would be present.[63] It doesn't appear any more flattering than the photo in question. Both show the subject's appearance without putting him in a "false or disparaging light". Again, I don't think the quality of the photo is a significant issue in this dispute. Will Beback talk 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My name is Gaston Dominguez, I own Meltdown Comics a big shop in Los Angeles. Don Murphy is one of my best friends. The photo you are referring to was taken at my shop, not at a movie premiere. It was a party for the comic book Y THE LAST MAN which features a monkey in it. The photo was paid for by Meltdown. The photographer had no right to post it anywhere, much less to allow it to be edited. I discussed this with Don's lawyers on Friday and have tried to track down the lady who took the photos of the event for us to have the photo removed. I emailed the author who posted the photo, Erik Kraft and asked him to removed it. His reply was "Murphy has to learn." Thank you for listening to me.

talk

) 04:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

BassandAle, this is Erik Kraft. Let me reiterate: I am not the wikipedia user "Erik" and I want nothing to do with this insanity. Also, I have received no emails from you. If I had, I would have told you I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to email me, I'm at [email protected]. If you want to call me, Don has my number--he called me 2 times yesterday. This is completely insane. Leave me out of it, I'm not this "Erik" you're after.

We have several separate issues going on here. The photo was hosted by

Wikicommons

. I'm not an admin there, but it looks it's been deleted. If not, someone should finds a connection there to deal with the copyright issue. Aside from the issue of a hired photographer posting free version, the issue of taking pictures which are "defamatory" might be part of his or her responsibility.

There is also the issue of the legal and telephone harassment of "Erik Kraft". It really needs to stop. If a photographer hired for the event by the hosts of the party posted those pictures with a free license, then no one who reuses those photos according to that license is at fault.

Finally there's the issue of

WP:BLP and how it should handle people like this subject. That's a discussion better held on the relevant policy talk page. Will Beback talk

08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my writing since I am not an native English speaker. I don't believe anyone including Don called the photo defamatory. It was a private photo at a private event taken on private property paid for by my store. It was edited by a Wikipedia author so that it became a photo of Don alone. His wife and everyone else was edited out of it. Don had told me, with three movies getting ready to shoot, that he hadn't daily monitired the article like he used to and then was stunned that a previous rival had posted a photo like that. If you go over to WikiReview they have strong evidence that the two guys are the same guy. I don't think knowing Don that he would legally harass anyone- I am certain he is suing the right people. As far as telephone harassment, I think calling and asking someone who is likely the right person why they were doing this is harassment. Unless the Chicago cops arrested Don last night. Finally, look at the main smoking gun.

After being id on Don's site, Erik goes and completely rewrites every article that links to the site, calling it an attack site which it isn't. Stop feeling the pain of this Erik guy- he did it to see if he teach Don a lesson.

) 16:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If the photos is not defamatory, and if it was released under a free license by the photographer (who may or may not have had the right to do so), then it's hard to see what legal action could be taken against someone who used it in a biographical article. If BassandAle is a party to this legal case against a Wikipedia editor or the Wikimedia Foundation then it'd be best if he stops editing here until the case is resolved, per

WP:NLT

. If BassandAle is the person who hired the photographer then that would presumably be true.

Regardless of that matter, harassing someone for posting a legitimate, non-defamatory photograph seems unnecessary. I suggest that all parties to this conflict should ponder the Golden Rule, and treat each other as they'd like to be treated. Will Beback talk 21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you and the Golden Rule. I grew up in Chile and do onto others is the way to go. Talking with Don, however, this thing goes deep and dates back to the first Transformers movie being announced after which as am I told ( I didn't follow it, actually) children would show up here and author his article so that it read that he raped them and their childhood. As I was told, this caused huge embarassment at at least one studio meeting because the executive took what he read as truthful. Ever since then he has asked to no longer be on your site but you refuse. Last time it was people attacking his wife's article with maleviolence. From speaking to him yesterday he truly thought it was under control, it had lied basically dormant for months and he hadn't been focused on the site at all. It is clear that the Erik guy was hoping to start things up again and then he went and did so. I am not suing anyone and I believe the legal action is for hurt to reputation. I'm not a lawyer. But I have a radical idea. Remove the article. Watch- not a single person in the universe will care. Final!

) 21:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How can someone hurt Murphy's reputation by posting a non-defamatory photograph commissioned by you? I'm not condoning Erik's actions or his motives. But threatening lawsuits and instigating harassment is out of proportion. Will Beback talk 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said sir I don't think it is the photo. He liked the photo in private. He doesn't want to be on your site. He's willing to actually pay to be OFF the site. It is because he doesn't trust what has happened in the past. I know Don well enough that he didn't harrass the guy. He's too slick for that. But it has driven him crazy. For several years authors would put the Tarantino fight in there, which happened in the late 90s and lasted 2 minutes, like it was a big deal. You must have this problem with a lot of people, no?

) 21:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so it isn't about the photo after all? The one that he complained about? This is getting complicated. As for the Tarantino/Murphy fight, it was reported in legitimate news sources. Is Murphy suing them? Yes, we occasionally have the subjects and supporters of biography subjects seek to hide embarrassing but true incidents from their lives. What value would a biography be if it only reported the things that the subject likes to hear? Readers can go to the subject's website to get his opinion of himself. The job of Wikipedia is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.

Anyway, if even the [claimed] owner of the photograph says this dispute isn't about the photo then I think we can close this part of the thread. Will Beback talk 22:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiil, about the previous pic, you commented, He's simply smiling for a camera. but that photo is not just him smiling for the camera, it is cropped and it is actually a kind of comedy picture, so cropping it is a bit deceptive, here is the picture pre crop, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Don_Murphy.jpg

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So? He's smiling for the camera, which is what I wrote. The photo isn't disparaging and I don't think the quality of the photo represents any kind of policy violation. Let's avoid this distraction from the actual issues. WillBeback talk 00:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's not the actual issue. I was just saying that smile for the camera is saying to me, hey, I am shaking hands with a monkey type comedy smile. I don't think it really actually violates any policy although I have seen BLP used to remove pics that are poor representations of the subject In this case we have additional issues with the subject but usually a discussion and consensus on the talkpage would have sorted it out. We had a huge multiple discussion about the climate change denier Mr Monkton and a poor representation of him that some editors wanted to add and others did not and in the end the subject sent a better one. I am of the position that nowadays we should not add poor representations of living people just because of a desire to add a pic, any pic.

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you recall, I'm the editor who started that Monckton photo discussion because I thought the photo portrayed the subject in a false light. Briefly, it made him look bug-eyed while other photos taken at the same time and place, by the same photographer, did not. However I don't think this Murphy photo has the same problems. It isn't distorted and he looks more or less the same in other photos. I think we should use the best available photos that don't portray subjects in a false or disparaging light. The problem here isn't with the policy. Will Beback talk 01:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, this is not anywhere near as poor a representation as Mr Monktons was. Looking at a few pictures of the subject they are all pretty much of a similar appearance, without the subjects involvment there may well have been a consensus to include the picture.

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent something I haven't said. My preference is that this encyclopedia should be informative, and images are useful in relieving blocks of text and for recognitional purposes. If there is no free image available to illustrate an article, so be it, and we lose out on those purposes. It might be unfortunate, but not catastrophic. That's all. Rodhull andemu 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "false or disparaging light" or "knew photographers would be present" are relevant standards for something like this. The Life Magazine photo Will Beback linked to is also inappropriate for a neutral biography portrait (it might be ok as part of a mood piece in Life Magazine, but that's not what a Wikipedia biography is supposed to be). I know that we're sloppier about this in some articles than others (I just edited Robert Harper (computer scientist), which has a terrible photo), but in a disputed article where we're being super-strict about sourcing, that includes being strict about neutrality of the photo. The article covers a lot of events related to the subject's notability, so the photo should not create undue weight in the article for what could be called an informal point of view that emphasizes a particular instant. That's why formal portraits (as found in, say, our articles about politicians) look the way they do. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Using only flattering photos would not be neutral. You don't seem happy with either amateur or professional photos, so apparently the only standard you'll accept are formal, retouched portraits. Your views of the community standards would have more weight if you'd edit using your existing account, or get one. While IPs are welcome to comment, folks who've only been editing for 24 hours can't be assumed to know what they're talking about. Will Beback talk 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think I write like someone who's only been around here for 24 hours? I'm on a dynamic address and it reset several times in the past few days because of network issues (I noted an earlier address in the Obituarist thread). Anyway, I agree that flattering photos are also not neutral. We should not use a photo (even a professional quality one) of Murphy in a tuxedo triumphantly receiving a filmmaking award as the main biography photo, for example, if it doesn't representatively summarize the entirety of notable events documented in the article. It would be ok to use the photo further down in the article in connection with well-sourced and properly weighted text about the event. So yes, for main portraits of formal biographies (which is what this is), formal portraits are what we want. WT:BLP or WT:NPOV are probably better places to discuss this though, now that we've drifted from the ANI report topic. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, your opinions on what "we allow" would have more weight if other editors knew your history with Wikipedia. I don't think that a policy requiring that photos be neither flattering nor unflattering will work as that is such a subjective standard. A requirement that only authorized, formal portraits may be used in infoboxes is also likely to be unworkable. (Aren't formal portraits usually as flattering as possible?). The problem isn't with the existing policy or with the photo used. It's with the way a couple of editors and a difficult subject have interacted. Will Beback talk 01:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We're using the terms flattering/unflattering with multiple meanings causing confusion. The neutral point of view (NPOV) means one that represents the aggregate of all sources related to a subject, and the photo should be neither flattering nor unflattering compared with the NPOV. In some cases, the aggregate of sources may itself be unflattering in the other ("external") meaning of the term--for example, our article about Osama bin Laden is quite negative, which reflects the NPOV because the aggregate of sources about him are the same way. Formal portraits generally try to make the subject look good, but despite that, they are what one normally expects to find in a neutral biography, so in that way they reflect the NPOV. They are not as flattering as possible--imagine what opponents of Barack Obama would say if someone tried to replace the formal portrait currently in his article, with one of him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. No we shouldn't eliminate every non-formal portrait from every infobox, any more than we should delete every unsourced but uncontroversial fact from every article. But, in disputed BLP's, we sometimes have to resort to a style where we really do attempt to source every single fact (you might remember the one about Daniel Brandt that someone mentioned). In those kinds of articles (which, again, is what this is), choices of photos also come under heightened scrutiny. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I search for free images quite often to improve celebrity articles. When I first started, I did upload some "unflattering" photos, mainly because authors didn't know that much about Wikipedia and didn't want their quality images to be included here. However, as I got more and more permissions, the quality of images continued to improve. I don't think that we need to remove an image that doesn't have great quality just because we don't like it. Some of the images I received permission for the subject of the article didn't like. Instead of doing what Murphy did, they issued an image under a free license (for example, File:RobertGouletMay07.jpg was recently replaced with File:Robert Goulet photo.jpg from the late actor's wife; File:LeilaniDowdingSept02.jpg was replaced after Dowding's request to instead use File:Leilani Dowding publicity shot.jpg; and several images uploaded for Wiig's article resulted in Wiig having her agent add File:Kristen Wiig - Pink shirt, portrait.JPG). Just recently we had a poor image of Stanley Tucci, but after pursuing a better one, a new image has replaced it of much higher quality. If an image is free and does not have the person in a compromising or inappropriate position, then we are better off including it in the off chance that someone can replace it with a better one, even if it is the subject. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unreasonable (in fact it comes across as extortion) to demand something like that from a subject who wants the article about himself deleted completely. He has no duty to improve the article. I'm more sympathetic to your argument if the person wants the article kept but wants the picture removed. As another angle about neutrality and why I don't like that party photo of Murphy: it has nothing to do with anything documented in the article as making Murphy notable. Compare that with the famous picture of Albert Einstein writing equations on a blackboard, capturing his notability by depicting him as a theoretical scientist. So I could live with a photo of Murphy in a director's chair or something like that, depicting him as a movie producer, conveying his notable aspects even if it wasn't a formal portrait. I guess the theater opening picture from Life Magazine is a little bit better than the party picture in that regard. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Added: the black-and-white photo of Stanley Tucci is interesting. I wonder if we could improve some other articles by converting color photos to black-and-white like that. I could make the case that this improves neutrality by decreasing the visual weight assigned to the picture in the context of the article. And as Paul Simon said in Kodachrome, "everything looks better in black and white". Maybe I'll try that with the picture of Harper. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly unresolved issues with how to handle subjects who don't want to have their biographies on Wikipedia. But I don't think that changing the wording on photographs will really address them. Will Beback talk 02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not about changing the wording on a photograph, it's about removing the photo (or possibly de-emphasizing it by moving it elsewhere) unless we can rigorously justify its prominence on fundamental editing principles of BLP and neutrality. I don't think your analysis stands up under the hawkish interpretation of BLP and NPOV that I favor. I agree with you that my interpretation would result in our getting rid of a lot of photos. I'm simply not bothered by that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean changing the wording of the policy governing photographs in BLPs. This dispute isn't due to the photograph, it's due to antagonism over the existence of the biography, and they way that is expressed. Will Beback talk 04:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Our moral defense for the rude act of publishing a biography of someone who doesn't want to be a subject, is that we go to great lengths to ensure that the article meets the highest standards of sourcing and neutrality and that we present the topic in a respectful and ~~formal~~ professional style. If the photo is a crappy snapshot, that defense is weakened considerably, at least to me. So yes, IMO the policy wording should reflect that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The photo is not so bad, and it's cropped probably because there are non-notable people in the photo, which is a frequent approach to these kinds of photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept that there are certainly worse ones. I remember the bruhaha about the mug shots of Lisa Nowak that were in her biography for a while. I changed the word formal to professional above. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not about photographs. This is about Don Murphy not wanting anything about him on Wikipedia, prose or image.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, we really shouldn't be antagonizing him further by using the most unflattering photograph we can find, and, frankly, this isn't really a new issue. Someone's just spoken up about it, and I think that's within the spirit of

WP:BLP. If there's some reasonable argument that the photograph is unflattering, and there is, then it really ought to go. Our goal is a reliably sourced encyclopedic biography. The photograph is not core to that in almost all cases, so until (or unless) we can get a free one that is more neutral in appearance, we really ought to stick to the prose. jæs (talk)

08:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He can always provide an image if he cares that much. A free image is a free image. Of course one of him doing something terrible o looking super drunk might be suspect but him hanging out with a smile shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings. I was expecting much worse from reading the comments. It seems fine and if it isn't he can go through the OTRS process. The only argument I see against inclusion is the poorer quality (not him just the background and lighting) or personality rights (I don;t know enough about that sort of thing to know if it is a problem). Cptnono (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

People outside the project shouldn't be required to go through OTRS to force us to get it right. There are a lot of editors here who are saying this photograph is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It may not be unanimous, but, frankly, it need not be per

WP:BLP: if editors reasonably believe there to be a problem with the content of the article (in this case, a photograph) — and here there are a number of editors of that opinion — then the photograph should be replaced with a more neutral one. If one is not currently available, we can remove the problematic one and wait for a neutral replacement. There is no deadline. jæs (talk)

09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Define what a "neutral" photo is - and tell me what's wrong with the one in question. Because it looks like any other amateurish snapshot on wikipedia, of which there are thousands. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that we're now told the pictures was taken by a professional photographer. The professional/amateur distinction isn't really helpful in this discussion. Will Beback talk 21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't much think the "professional" versus "amateur" distinction is all that relevant, quite frankly. Everybody can take a good photograph, anybody can take a bad photograph. This happens to be a bad photograph, for various reasons (the technicals of which have been discussed on the talk page of the article). Do we have a history of having generally poor photographs on this project? Yes, so much so that The Gray Lady did a story about it. Does that mean we should stick our heads in the sand and say "Whatever, that's the best we've got"? Not at all, and especially not on biographies of living people. jæs (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing esthetically wrong with that photo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A number of other editors disagree with you on that point, as discussed above and elsewhere. jæs (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's strictly a subjective judgment, so numbers don't matter. There's no reason not to include that picture in the article until a better one comes along, or until we change our policy to get away from this obsession against "fair use". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Virtually every editorial judgment we make here is subjective to one extent or another. You may think one fact in a biography is not contentious while other editors may think it is problematic. That, in fact, is exactly the issue here. The policy on biographies of living people obviously is geared towards absolutely ensuring that we present neutral content, and that is not limited to the prose itself. Simply put,

WP:BLP essentially allows for a "content veto" of sorts, unless or until consensus says the content should be restored. There is no consensus here (or at the article's talk page) for the reinsertion of the photograph. The bottom line is that a number of editors feel the photograph is inappropriate, and that is sufficient, frankly, for the photograph to be removed. jæs (talk)

01:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" how? Just because someone claiming to be an associate of the subject doesn't like it? You all have done a 180 since 3 years ago, and many ugly photos remain in place based on the older way of thinking. This guy just got singled out because he and/or his buddies raised cain about it, and wikipedia jumped. That is not a promising sign for the future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be a question better posed on the article's talk page. But, as I said, I don't think the burden is on them to prove to you that it's inappropriate or to try to illustrate to you why it's inappropriate. I think most other editors have apparently agreed the photograph is not an appropriate choice (whatever their reasons), and that's why the photograph is no longer in the article. But, again, I think it's time this discussion went back to the article's talk page, with the understanding that a clear consensus would be required to restore the photograph. jæs (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugs—can you name any more BLP articles where 1) the article contains a similarly crappy snapshot of the subject, 2) the subject has persistently demanded that the article (not just the photo) be removed from Wikipedia, and 3) we retained both the article and the photo? Jaes—I think this general topic (use of low-quality photos in disputed BLP's) should probably go to an RFC or policy talkpage, rather than to a the talkpage of a particular article. I begin to think an RFC would be useful, and if someone opens one then I'll try to participate. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We haven't retained the picture in the article. See Don Murphy. Whether the photo is "crappy" or not is in the eye of the beholder. As for the presence of the article, newspapers don't delete articles based on the requests of newsmakers. If there is anything incorrect in it then let's fix it. But the photo is not defamatory, and even the [claimed] copyright owner and friend of Murphy says this isn't really about the photo. The mutual antagonism between the subject and editor(s) is the real problem. Will Beback talk 02:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, the picture is gone from the Murphy article. Do you want us to similarly remove comparable pictures from other comparable articles? If yes, I think we're in agreement. If not, my request stands for Bugs (or you) to name an article where we kept the picture under such circumstances. Will, a crappy photo is what it sounds like. Imagine we have a disputed BLP that is basically accurate, but crappily written in terms of organization, spelling and grammar. We wouldn't say that its "crappiness is in the eye of the beholder" and we wouldn't say it was the subject's responsibility to fix it. And we wouldn't accept keeping it in such a state. We'd fix it ourselves or (if for some reason we couldn't fix it) we'd delete it. Crappy photos are often unfixable. That doesn't give them an automatic pass. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite simple. If Don Murphy doesn't want an article about him here, he simply travels back in time and becomes a non-notable person. Unfortunately, the laws of physics being what they are, that just isn't going to happen. There are many people who perhaps would prefer not to have articles here, but, er, they went public to push their careers. Tough bun. If Murphy doesn't like his picture here, he can provide a copyright-free picture with which he is happy, or shut the fuck up, and all this flummery is otherwise nonsense. We do not bow to egos here, especially marginal egos. Up to you, Mr Murphy, because what you want ain't gonna be what you get. Rodhull andemu 02:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, that is absolutely inappropriate. An article subject who wants the article deleted has no more duty to give us a good picture for it, than he does to clean up lousy spelling and grammar in the article. That cleanup is our job if we are claiming any kind of legitimacy for our practice of retaining articles that the subject wants removed. We are not paparazzi. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Rod's comment is appropriate, and 100 percent correct. There is nothing inherently wrong with that photo, but if the subject doesn't like the photo, he could give us a free one to use in its place. He doesn't have to, but he could. His opinion should not matter one iota as to whether the photo currently under discussion should be used. I'm saddened by wikipedia editors cowtowing to that guy, or to anybody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with that photo. It's a crappy photo. Ask any sane person who evaluates photographs whether it's anything other than a crappy photo. That Murphy likes the photo in less serious contexts than a globally-visible biographical article is irrelevant. There are lots of photos of me of comparable crappiness that I like just fine in casual contexts, but would consider inappropriate even for my passport, much less something like Wikipedia. My passport photo is not a fancy studio shot (it was taken at home by my mom), but before it was taken, I spent a minute combing my hair and putting on a decent shirt, etc., and got a much better picture that way. That's just basically what you have to do to get a reasonable documentary photo (I'll stop using the term "formal").

What this is really about is our goal as a project. As I see it, we are here to write a professional quality reference work and we often succeed at that with our writing, even though we're not professional writers. We should aim for similar quality with our photographs, even if we're not professional photographers. We do have plenty of badly written articles and crappy photos that we keep around on eventualistic principles. But if there's one direction that WP BLP culture has been moving in the past few years, it's towards no longer accepting eventualism in disputed BLP's. We require professionalism in the BLP article's text and as I see it, that should also apply to the photos we use in such articles. If we don't have the ability to get a good photo, that's a

WP:COMPETENCE problem on our part, and fixing it is our problem, not the article subject's. 69.228.170.24 (talk

) 03:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And I don't agree with that assessment of the photo. Certainly it's not the best, but it's in focus and he's not giving us the finger or something. And getting a good photo is not a function of "competence", it's a function of Wikipedia's highly restrictive attitude toward fair-use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're saying that we'd get better photos from a more aggressive approach to fair use (which is probably true), then I think you've stopped contesting that the photo is unrepresentative of the photos we'd find in comparable contexts in mainstream sources. In my interpretation of WP:NPOV, we are supposed to follow the mainstream not just in the facts that we document, but also in our writing and presentation style and our quality expectations. So the unrepresentative photo IMO fails on neutrality grounds, as I've said before. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it "unrepresentative"? Does it not look like him? Does he never actually smile in public? I have to ask because until this debate I had never heard of this guy, let alone seen him. We're taking it on faith that the photo really is him, even. Which brings up another issue I have with snapshots of celebs here, that it is frankly "original research". We're supposed to get sources for information. But the opposite is true of photos - we're supposed to get our own somehow, because of the fair-use taboo, and then we're supposed to take it on faith that the person shown actually is the celebrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On removal of articles, that has been utterly established beyond doubt. To cite a crass example, if Adolf Hitler were still alive, there is no way on earth that we would delete his article simply on his preference. There are many, much weaker examples to hand. In the current case, Mr Murphy has clearly lost the debate as to whether he is worthy of having an article here. If I were he, I might realise that rather than resist this, I would prefer to show myself in the best light possible, and release a copyright-free image that depicts me as I would prefer to be depicted, as opposed to an opportunistic image. Unfortunately, my experience of Mr Murphy is otherwise, as he has already been advised on his own website that he does not get it his own way. The natural alternative, of course, is to have no image of him whatsoever on his article, and that suits me fine; he doubtless has his own conduits for publicity, and doesn't need us to do that for him, even in an objective and encyclopedic sense. Rodhull andemu 02:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

However I, for one, am not convinced Murphy is notable enough that we would not honor opt-out. Producers are much more prevalent than directors, most movies have many. I think we'd be better off without his bio. That he isn't a very nice person has no bearing on that, except that we should be nicer, not meaner. The notability of Murphy perhaps is not best discussed here though. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree that he is not notable, as the producer of

Straw Dogs, and forwards to the earlier parts of A Clockwork Orange. In filmic terms, however, he is neither Peckinpah nor Kubrick. But it remains that he is notable. Rodhull andemu

03:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our picture of Hitler is quite a bit better than that one of Murphy that we're talking about. Hitler was a major public figure and I wouldn't support deleting the article about him if he was alive and requested it, but if its photo were as bad as the photo of Murphy, I'd support getting rid of the photo and keeping the Hitler article without a photo until we could get a better one. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A sure sign that this thread has gone on for too long... Will Beback talk 03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I wondered about that, but decided that it didn't count as long as it's not another discussion participant who was being compared to Hitler (it's just photos being compared). ;) 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That is missing the point, with respect. The issue is whether our article on Don Murphy actually needs an image. Although his notability for our purposes is established, I can't see any reason why it needs to be there. It's not as if he would be mobbed by fans who would have seen his picture here when he walks down Hollywood Boulevard, or any other street, given that he he clearly does not want to be offered gratuitous sex by young girls who have maybe seen his image here or elsewhere, and perhaps imagine that he might be able to deliver some sort of satisfaction. On balance, therefore, I think it prudent as far as we are concerned that we protect this person from unwanted attention by not publishing any image whatsoever of him. Apart from that, we of course also deal with the naked vanity thereby involved. Rodhull andemu 03:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, none of our articles really need photos, but if we had a good photo, the argument for keeping the photo in the article would be a lot stronger. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How is the lack of visual information helpful to an article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See

WP:IINFO. Let me put this another way: we have a fairly well-defined quality standard that we're (in eventualistic terms) theoretically trying to pursue for every article on Wikipedia. That standard is the featured article criteria, which a few thousand articles have achieved so far. Let's ignore for a moment the drama aspects of this Murphy article (i.e. forget for now that he's trying to get it deleted) and imagine that we got it up to FA level in all regards except it still has that photo in the infobox, and now we want to run it as the daily FA on Wikipedia's main page, one of the most viewed pages on the internet. As I see it, presenting that photo on the main page would or should embarass the crap out of the project. Now our response to BLP drama has generally (in my subjective description, not as an explicitly documented practice) been to make sure that a contested article's sourcing, neutrality, and writing quality is up to FA standards, though not necessarily other aspects like comprehensiveness or the presence of images. Following that same idea, we can ask: is this image of a quality that we can run on the front page without embarassment? If not, it's inappropriate for a BLP that the person is arguing with us about. 69.228.170.24 (talk

) 06:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We've established that the apparent copyright owner doesn't care about the copyright issue, so issue has been dealt with. He also says that the photo is not defamatory and that the subject likes it, so the issue of whether the photo violates BLP does not seem to be an issue. The photograph is basically adequate, in that it's well-lit and in focus, so it isn't amateurish. In addition, we now know it was taken by a professional photographer. Other photographs, including those taken on the "red carpet" at a movie opening, show that even when he know he'll be photographed for the media he does not appear in designer suits and fancy hairdos. So all of the issues that concern WP policies and guidelines concerning the use of photos have been addressed. What remains is the antagonistic manner in which the Wikipedia editors and the subject have related to each other. I don't think anyone here can condone the actions of any of those involved parties. There is no further administrative action that needs to be taken at this time. Discussions about policy and guideline revisions should be held on more relevant pages. Now can we please close this unproductive thread? Will Beback talk 06:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that, HalfShadow's comment about posting the picture potentially irritating the subject is based on a false assumption and thus is rendered moot. So why is he still blocked? Indef, yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the thread is no longer appropriate for ANI but I think it could usefully be continued someplace else (it is mostly a policy discussion by now, but a legitimate one). I don't think "subject likes it" as a party snapshot has anything to do with whether it is an appropriate photo for a widely disseminated biographical profile. They are not the same thing and you are trying to draw a false equivalence.

WT:BLP and ask people there to give their views. If I do that, I will post a pointer here. Thanks for the discussion--it has been interesting, even though we haven't agreed on much. 69.228.170.24 (talk

) 07:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Then there needs to be a project to review all celeb photographs for "appropriateness" or "encyclopedic" value. Picking on one guy's photograph, when you've seen far worse, while leaving other "unflattering" photos intact, is itself inappropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

~~I appreciate that Moonriddengirl has now subpaged this, but~~<sup(I un-subpaged it because) ANI is not the venue to discuss this. The above is quite disorganized. Perhaps someone might initiate an RFC subpage? –xeno^talk 12:44, 26 April 2010

Brolling?

If we're handing out blocks for trolling/baiting, then this isn't nice from admin DragonflySixtyseven, posting "We should keep him blocked, just to piss him off. HalfShadow's funny when he's all worked up" on HalfShadow's talk page, whether his edit summary of "obviously I'm not serious" is true or not. MickMacNee (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clear, due to the quotes, that he was joking. But, still, it's a rather inappropriate comment. :/ Silver seren^C 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then 67 should either strike it or he should be blocked for it. It was perfectly clear to me that HalfShadow was being funny himself. He probably should have been asked to strike that comment, or at least put a smiley on it, and if he refused, then maybe blocked for a week or whatever. But indefing him, for that comment, is absurdly over the top. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If he was just being funny, then he would have taken no action. It is clear that he was not just being funny because he did put the photo back in, which means that he was trying to make Murphy even more angry, as his comment stated. No, I don't believe there is any confusion at all about whether HalfShadow did this on purpose, it is clear that he did. As for 67, I believe he should remove the comment and be chastised for it, but not blocked. Making a comment is not a blockable offense. Making a comment and then having actions that reinforce the comment and make things worse are. Silver seren^C 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think someone else has wisely removed 67's comment. HalfShadow was initially blocked for a week and then when he responded angrily he was indefed, which is really a double standard. I can think of other editors that ranted and raved, with all kinds of vile comments and accusations far worse than anything HalfShadow said, and were told, "OK, we'll unblock you this time. Again." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Without defending DragonFly's comments, which are indeed unnecessary. There's a huge difference between inappropriate banter among wikipedians refering to wikipedians and comments/provocation of living people, who have not chosen to participate in this project. Incivility, baiting and trolling other wikipedians breaches inhouse rules and may disrupt the project, but using wikipedia as a platform to attack, insult, provoke or annoy private individuals may be considered harassment, and certainly serves to bring the project into public disrepute. Our only possible defence for keeping articles on people that don't want them is that we strive to keep them neutral, factual and fair (even if we often fail) - and we strive to do this regardless of our personal or political attitudes to the subject. That defence becomes laughable if we don't slap very hard any wikipedian who steps out of line. How we treat living subjects is not comparable to how we treat pseudonymous volunteers.--Scott Mac 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Scott says, but I don't think we can call someone who has created dozens and dozens of accounts people "who have not chosen to participate in this project". The subject has chosen to participate quite often, and has even edited Wikipedia to promote the projects of himself and his family.[64][65] Will Beback talk 02:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that the subject of this thread? Tiderolls 23:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this "thread" is HalfShadow, so...yes? Silver seren^C 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I just think an indef for this is unjustified. But indef is not infinite, so he could come back in a week or so and post a low-key unblock request. However, if any admin called that image "unflattering", they should strike that, as it's got nothing to do with any wikipedia policy that I'm aware of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A photo is either flattering, unflattering, or neutral. A reasonable interpretation of the NPOV spirit is that we can only use the neutral ones. The photo in question was unsuitable from that perspective. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because one, two, or even twenty people believe something to be unflattering does not magically make it so. Truth does not obey mere

fact of some sort. Your belief in absolutes is quaint, but I find it slightly offensive that you don't even question whether you truly speak for everyone when you preach from your soapbox. Badger Drink (talk

) 09:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What you call emotional right brained artistic bla bla is what the rest of us call editorial judgment, and we exercise it here all the time. If we can't tell good pictures from bad ones we should get rid of

wp:featured images. 69.228.170.24 (talk

) 12:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Silver seren. I should've posted "sub-heading". I will retire from this discussion as I've become over-invested. Regards Tiderolls 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow continues to be harassed by characters like this sarcastic IP:[66] How about someone semi-protect his page and keep some of the riff-raff away from it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Because some admins like seeing people baiting HalfShadow - they know it'll wind him up and he'll say something they can use as justification to keep him blocked. Love to know which logged-out editor was doing the baiting, and what user-rights they've got. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we know its knot Bugs. Since he is currently logged in and here defending his clone. 68.28.104.229 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The page has since been semi'd, so the riffraff are finding other methods to harass the blocked user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that an anonymous user tried to post an unblock request at HalfShadow's user talk page on behalf of HalfShadow; evidently, it was an unauthorized unblock request, since HalfShadow promptly removed it on sight. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the block in a week sounds good. If there's consensus to do that, someone should mention it on HalfShadow's usertalk so that s/he knows. I can't get as worked up as Scott did about someone making a wisecrack about a person on a noindexed project page if it's an isolated incident; others have mentioned though that there is further history to take into account. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

April 2010 Baghdad bombings

Resolved

CIA carried out the April 2010 Baghdad bombings

to that article. Notices on his talk page to not add unreferenced claims have been met with notices on my talk page to not add unreferenced claims (which I have not) and requesting citations that al-Qaeda carried out the bombing (which are already in the article).

I don't want to look like I'm edit warring, quite honestly don't want to be involved in this at all, and also have to go somewhere IRL quite soon. Could someone please look in on this issue? Thanks, //Programming gecko (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Vimbo Gales blocked for edit-warring, although this is exactly the kind of thing that must be verified, and Vimbo Gales does not seem to get it.--Chaser (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit late - but I suppose it has been noted that the account name is a play on "Jimbo Wales" (transpose initials, then G for J and V - which makes up half of... for W)? The editor was obviously not here to improve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user InkHeart using anons

InkHeart, a user who has been blocked for some time now and repeatedly causes disruptive editing as anons, has returned as Special:Contributions/212.100.250.207. Can an admin please block this address? Thanks. Ω phois 04:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs and explain how someone who has never seen Inkheart before can tell that this IP address is him? --Jayron32 04:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, was heading to bed so didn't have time to write a detailed complaint. InkHeart used to edit Korean articles and was very possessive of them, and basically started creating multiple accounts so it looked like a lot of people agreed with her edits. Anyways, she got blocked, but continues to come back as anons to add unsourced stuff like here and here. Ω phois 15:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Large amount of copyvio images uploaded by User:Zupfk

Most (or all) of User:Zupfk's image uploads are copyvios (File:Luchin in 2010.jpg from [67], for example). I'd appreciate if an administrator could save me some time and delete them. The leftorium 15:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuked. Rettetast (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The leftorium 16:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Threat to shut us down

Resolved

– The anon has been blocked for two weeks, and, err, notified of this discussion. jæs (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Made here, article Katyn massacre. I have not notified this user. --CliffC (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Crum375 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And reduced to two weeks since its an IP. The threat is laughable anyway, two weeks is probably overkill--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the notification part is optional - even as I type it says above the box "You must notify any user that you discuss". Are you sure about the blocked part? The user hasn't received a block notice as far as I can see, so if they have been blocked they won't know why. I am sure they can guess, given the nature of their edits, but still that shouldn't be an excuse for procedural laziness. And here is a link to the policy about block lengths where it says "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked" in bold letters. Weakopedia (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that people who do things so blatantly obvious as this need to be notified; there is no defense and it will just be a block anyways.

WP:BURO does contain a nugget of common sense. Tarc (talk

) 15:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, you didnt make a "procedural error" you intentionally decided unilaterally that there was no reason to contact that user, that is not your decision to make. This is BAD. Please dont do it again, such an attitude is not what Wikipedia needs.Camelbinky (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Er—surely it was CliffC and not Tarc who decided not to notify? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of notifying a blocked user of an ANI other than process-wonkery? --Smashville^talk 16:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 16:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand policy and how it is normally implemented even a blocked editor has the right to post on his/her talk page and for someone to paste it over to AN/I so they can defend themselves. And in this case at least according to Weakopedia it seems this user was NOT blocked at the time or at least it wasnt posted on their talk page. So yea informing the person should be done EVERY time.Camelbinky (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Camelbinky, the accused must be given a right to defend themselves. Whether it is by an editorial sanction restricting them to their user and talk pages and ANI only, or by allowing them access only to their talk page and having an editor c&p their comments, or by allowing e-mail access only and an editor offering to post the contents of an e-mail on their behalf. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I understanding this correctly? You guys are arguing that someone who has threatened to hack and "shut down" the site has a right to have their further blatherings copied and pasted here? This is not a court of law, they're not entitled to be heard. I sincerely doubt the "threat" was anything other than trolling, but the point remains that we are not a bureaucracy, and going over the deep end because an anonymous vandal didn't get their day in court is bizarre, to say the least. jæs (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, come on. What possible "defense" can the IP possibly offer for this inane comment: "rights to post this documents? please present the rights and you can return, if not then 2 days later, your site will be shut down and hacked. thank you" It's a troll. Treat it like one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, the user has been notified about the ANI thread but not about the block. It would make more sense the other way. The block is fine,

WP:RBI. 69.228.170.24 (talk

) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And there you have it. Marking as resolved. jæs (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If he asks, tell him the notification got lost in the mail, or cyberspace, or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Koavf

personal opinion about this issue, without providing any reliable verifiable sources to prove that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is a demo. I am not the one who placed the 'type of album' to studio, I merely reverted Koavf's change. Koavf came right back to revert my revert thus actively about to engage me in an edit war, which I refuse. This type of editing, ignoring reliable sources and his current changing of the type of album, is disruptive. Koavf has a long history of blocks, community ban and topic ban, and it appears as if in this case he is back to his former ways of aggressive and disruptive editing. Thus I have brought the issue to this board. Could an administrator please thoroughly look into this issue? Thank you. Amsaim (talk

) 02:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive? I have made my case for

User:SunCreator removing Category:Demo albums from the article, but he thinks my sole revert (with a credible source) is disruptive enough to warrant posting at AN/I. Simply put, this is a spurious allegation on his part. He claims that this article is "notable", but that is exactly the nature of the AfD, and so far, only one third-party source provides any critical commentary, so it's entirely legitimate of me to propose AfD and it is not disruptive, nor is this single sourced revert to the article itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M

☯ 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I would like to also add that Category:Demo albums was on the article before I ever saw it and before the AfD began, so if anything, it should remain until the AfD is closed. This is clearly a non-starter of an "incident." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

One more I would also like to point out that one of the sources listed by Amsaim above explicitly reads (emphasis added) "Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band." And this is a source that he has provided to prove that this isn't a demo album. I am honestly at a loss here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Koavf is (purposely?) misquoting the album's review by allmusic.com. Allmusic.com in the full and correct quotation, writes: "And the 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band.". Notice how he left out the compilation part which clearly puts 'The Roxx Regime Demos' in the album section? Allmusic.com calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation - and not a demo. Big difference there. Amsaim (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Two things This is increasingly ridiculous. First off, the instructions at the top of this page read "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." which you did not do. Secondly, I added Category:Compilation albums to the article. Finally, whether or not it is an album or a compilation album has never been in dispute; no one is arguing that, so I have no idea why you continue claiming it here. Simply put, you didn't follow the instructions for this process, you ignored the dispute resolution process, and your post here is far more out of line than anything I've done to that article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well this is all jolly fun... but this is the Administrators' noticeboard and we haven't heard from them yet...

--

clipman

03:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There is quite a history here. However, I think this is a case of a misplaced over-zealousness on the part of
clipman
02:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This does not appear to be an administrator issue at this point. If the AFD is frivilous, enough people will vote keep to close it down. Koavf appears to be being
WP:RFC or mediation or some such. --Jayron32
03:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jayron32 has summed up the situation quite nicely. Let's close this thread & move on; nothing to see here. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason why this is here. There is nothing here that requires admin attention. It's an editing dispute, pure and simple. Is Koavf disrupting the AfD? No. Is he disrupting anything? No. Do you disagree with his interpretation? Yes. End of file. Woogee (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Draftlock

Draftlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken it upon himself to archive another user's talk page on the grounds that it's too large. I have reverted him now, twice, and advised him to come here and discuss it, as I don't think it's any of his business to be messing with other users' pages that way. It's nannyism, and I know I certainly wouldn't like it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That user's talk page is 78 kilobytes long. It's helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page & User_talk:Oanabay04/archive1. --Draftlock (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's up to each user to decide when/if to do it. I agree with BaseballBugs. 7 02:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not all that big, and for a personal talk page, it's the user's choice. Unless you are that user, or have express permission from them, you should not be doing that. Shadowjams (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know such a guideline or unwritten law. Thanks. --Draftlock (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors user and user talk pages, which doesn't seem to have a shortcut. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Account impersonation

Nick Fitzpatrick (talk · contribs) has claimed that his previous account was that of 127 (talk · contribs), and that he abandoned the account after losing his password. Skeptical of this claim based on their vastly different editing histories and on the fact that User:127 made edits subsequent to User:Fitzpatrick making this claim, I asked Nick Fitzpatrick if he was sure he previously used the User:127 account on his talk page, he insisted he had. However, I also asked User:127 about it here and he has denied being Nick Fitzpatrick. I believe that Nick Fitzpatrick is a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100 because of his editing history being intimately tied to User:Los Admiralos, a confirmed sockpuppet of NoCal100. Could someone please look into this issue further? Account impersonation on the part of someone is definitely at play here (and I believe the evidence points more to one than the other). Efforts to get to the bottom of this would be appreciated. Tiamut^talk 10:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We're sure getting a lot of "lost password sob stories" in the past few days. There was also one at Reference Desk (maybe I'll look for it). I don't remember seeing them with any such frequency in the past. There was also the phishing email sent to admins a few weeks ago, and the uptick of the fairly regular phenomenon of users getting emails because random anons tried resetting their passwords. I saw this all as coincidence but begin to wonder if there might be a connection. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this account for apparent account impersonation and possible sockpuppeting. Crum375 (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned over the password impersonation issues too. This is probably (as someone told me earlier) an issue for the wiki-tech list/irc channel, but I haven't done that myself. If someone might bring it up in the appropriate place it would be appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, if a user has forgotten her/his password but has enabled email, they can query the Wiki engine for a new password. If a user claims to have forgotten their password, that's their first step in solving the problem. (And if she/he claims to have scrambled their email setting, well tough beans: that account is for all intents & purposes gone for good.) Be suspicious of anyone who claims to have forgotten their password but does not volunteer the steps they took to recover it. -- llywrch (talk)

Good point; I was referring specifically to an elevated level of complaints about others using the password retrieval mechanism over the last few days. I don't see anything broken in the implementation from wikipedia's side. Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Schildt

Can someone please take a look at the IP editors of the AfD page? They all seem to be from the same user, and they all seem to be socks belonging to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spinoza1111. User:Spinoza1111 is currently blocked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User informed at the last IP used: [68]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

All the IP's there are Edward Nilges AKA Spinoza1111. I usually revert on sight, as he is an incredible nuisance. Someone should block the lot a short while, at least for the duration of the AFD. None of them are his home IP which is currently also blocked.--Atlan (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy

Information

Primary account
- arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki
  )

Sockpuppets
- arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki
  )
- 72.95.200.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 96.236.232.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Sockpuppet investigations case pages
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Radiopathy/Archive
  - CU confirmation of sockpuppets
    - MPFC1969

This user has been to the noticeboards many times, more often than not, as the person being reported. Recently, they were caught red handed socking to evade their indef 1rr restriction, and their abuse of twinkle, which got them added to the twinkle blacklist.

Currently, the sock is blocked indef, and the main account blocked a week. I personally don't think that's enough, so I'm asking for other's opinions here.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User notified.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 04:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing If he wants to retire, he can retire. If he wants to abide by the rules, he can abide by the rules. But if he's going to keep on editing in contravention of the rules, he has to be blocked or banned. I've had numerous bad interactions with this user and I believe that he edits in bad faith when interacting with other users. He has made it clear that he will lie to manipulate the community on Wikipedia and has resorted to not-so-subtle threats against me to try to get me blocked or banned for spurious reasons. I am not an admin, but I would like to voice my support for an extended block or outright ban as this user is unwilling or unable to abide by any community standard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I would like to point out that Radiopathy can be a very useful editor, frequently improving articles and even—ironically—reporting sockpuppets. It would be unfortunate for him to be banned outright, but I still think that a serious block might send the message that he cannot simply evade community sanctions with impunity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I see in his block log that he has been blocked before for violating 1RR restrictions: on 10 December 2009 (1 week) and on 21 February 2010 (1 week). While this is his first effort at socking, it is his third effort to avoid 1RR restrictions, and he has effectively been blocked for it for the same length of time. But he hasn't been using his primary account since 2 April; it seems that this sock was some kind of
WP:CLEANSTART effort, which he can't do while under sanctions. Lengthening the block of the primary account isn't likely to make a difference, given its inactivity. Are you thinking about a ban? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
12:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block is justified unless there is any evidence he's had a change of heart. He understands what is expected here, he just doesn't want to abide by the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, the primary account is pretty much inactive; therefore, an indef-block alone may not be practical. For this particular case, a long-term community ban may be what's needed to send the message that the user's continued disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, I've added the sock's links.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy was once a good contributor, although he's certainly had problems dealing with other editors for quite a while. At this point, he hasn't made a decent contribution to the project in months. Everytime someone takes issue with his lack of respect for other editors, he retires. The only reason he's come back since his last retirement was to hound an editor he had previously had problems with [69] [70]. As he told us all once upon a time to "get a fuckin' life already" [71], and he's since socked to avoid restrictions and his block history, I have no problem with an indef for now. Let's get him back to one account that we can keep an eye on, try and get him to understand civility and edit warring, and work from there. Dayewalker (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The sock is now requesting an unblock.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Which has been declined.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Includeonly I made a request on his talk saying that I would create a <includeonly> section and transclude it here if he had anything to say for himself. If his past actions are any indication, he will simply revert my post, but I figured it was worth a go and it would be an opportunity for him to respond to the conversation here (as he is currently blocked and can only edit his talk.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't care. Well then, if RP is unwilling to follow our rules, or explain himself, and per the above, should a ban discussion not start, then?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 21:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay It was worth a shot. He's unwilling to even contribute and apparently as intransigent as before, so I guess my earlier statement still stands. His former account is primarily used to harass me and his current account is primarily used to circumvent the restrictions on his other account. It seems clear to me that the only options at this point are a serious or long block or ban. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

His responses as his sock are exactly the kind of behavior that we've come to expect from Radiopathy, he doesn't care for rules, civility, or sanctions. He wants to declare the new account his primary acount and "edit in peace," and ignore all of the problems he's caused for himself previously. Dayewalker (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

His declaration to edit in peace is actually a fallacy. One need only look through his contributions to see that he was doing the same things his primary account got blocked for the first time.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The sock is continuing to deny he is a sock, and that he has done anything wrong by socking to evade his indef 1rr sanction and his twinkle community sanction(he was blacklisted). I would like to wait for some opinions from involved and univolved admins before starting the

community ban discussion.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs

22:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Redux I guess Radiopathy is back and willing to listen to the community. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for direct confirmation that he has directly violated

WP:SOCK by abusing multiple accounts with the MP sock account. Let's see how he answers.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs

22:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They have blanked the above, which to me is just continued denial of the sock. If he blanks my post without a response once more, I'll start the ban discussion.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a longer block could have been given for abusive sock-puppetry, but a week's block is not unreasonable either. Lets not waste any more of our time on this issue - if at the end of the week Radiopathy returns and contributes constructively and in line with their edit-restrictions, that's well and good; if not, they can be reblocked, or a ban considered. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy's response

I agree to adhere to the 1RR sanction, not that it's necessary anymore, but it's just some baggage I'll need to carry around for a while. I also feel that I should state explicitly, since the issue arose, that I agree to not use multiple accounts. My account, however, shall maintain it's "Retired" status until such time that I feel comfortable rejoining the community. Radiopathy •talk• 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - I agree likewise to not abuse multiple accounts. Radiopathy •talk• 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And my request about direct admittance that MP is his sock goes unanswered.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is enough for now, and that it is likely best for you not to return to his talk page. The week long block can stay in place. AniMate 23:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

I have substituted the transclusion as this discussion is now over.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy, what do you mean by "clarifying" will not use to will not abuse? Are you using multiple accounts? I think in your present situation there is no way you can use multiple accounts legitimately. If any of your alternate accounts are editing disruptively then you're improperly concealing the connection between them to escape scrutiny. If none of them are editing disruptively then you're operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts. So I think you should be restricted to one account (

WP:CLEANSTART is perhaps ok, but it means you have to stop using your old accounts). At minimum, disclose all aliases to [email protected] and state here (truthfully) that you've done that. 69.228.170.24 (talk

) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As said above, I substituted the transclusion, so that the talk page is not transcluded once this sections is archived. If you want to talk to RP, you'll have to do so at his talk page, as this discussion is over. If you want to restart any kind of discussion, I'll show you how to transclude anything if you don't know already, but you'll have to start a new thread with views on the matter. As said, I personally think this one is done and over with.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Request Deletion of Userspace Subpage That Won't Expand DB-Userreq to Auto-Flag It For You Guys

Resolved

– --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be so kind as to help me out by deleting User:WCityMike/Monobook.css, User:WCityMike (Usurped)/Monobook.css, User:WCityMike (Usurped)/monobook.css, User:WCityMike (Usurped)/monobook.js, User:WCityMike (Usurped)/myskin.js, User:MikeHarris/Monobook.css, User:MikeHarris/monobook.css, User:MikeHarris/monobook.js, and User:MikeHarris/myskin.js?

These are all me (the extra two accounts are the result of a recent cleanup involving universal logins gone awry -- documentation for this can be found on WP:CHU).

It appears that requesting same via the standardized way of doing it -- the db-userreq template -- doesn't work, as the code seems to remain intact as code (due to it being a CSS or JS page) instead of turning into the appropriate deletion template.

If I've somehow asked in the wrong arena, if someone would be so kind as to direct me to the correct location, I'd appreciate it.  Mike 22:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Angusmclellan got most of them, I got a couple of stragglers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!  Mike 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record you can add db tags to .js pages (and presumably .css, I haven't tried). It doesn't expand the template but it still adds the page to the category--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:RicoCorinth reported by Camelbinky

As this is a relatively long dispute the relevant information regardin

User:UpstateNYer

which is he main thrust of this AN/I.

Cambelblinky, did you happen to notice that it states at the top of this page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page"? Why didn't you do that? -- Rico 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Secondarily- Rico then after reading my question to User:Silver seren asking if Rico should be brought to AN/I after threatening to remove any comments at Talk:Schenectady City School District if me and Silver continued to talk about Rico and another user not seeming to be having good motives towards improving the article and were indeed causing undue stress towards UpstateNYer as retribution for an AfD dispute. Rico then came to my page and left a LONG post (since deleted by me)about me being "uncivil again to the point of being disruptive" because I was accusing HIM of being uncivil, he went on and smeared me about an block I received which I fully dont believe would have passed muster had it been brought here to AN/I instead of just an admin throwing it on me like what happened; and then Rico went and brought attention about his post on my talk page to another user whom I've had serious disputes and problems with in the problem and whom I've brought to AN/I before because in MY OPINION he was harassing and unfairly watching my talk page and going to disputes I was in with no other motive than to argue against me (User:Equazcion handled the matter if I remember correctly), though we've been ok towards each other recently and dont wish to bring him into this other than Rico had no right or reason to bring this to other's attention or bring up past "problems" other than smear me so others could read it on my talk page.Camelbinky (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In six years of editing Wikipedia, I have never -- ever -- threatened to remove any other editors comments. I have asked you to stop accusing me of this,[72] and you read it.[73] It looks like you've confused me with Delicious carbunkle, who wrote, "I'm going to start removing off-topic comments like the ones above per

WP:TALK."[74]

I never wrote anything like that.

I don't know if UpstateNYer felt "undue stress," nor how you would know, but I have never intended to inflict stress on any anybody at Wikipedia -- and certainly not "as retribution" for anything.

You've been told about your incivility many times. I'm just the last person to. The administrator that blocked you just wrote, "WRT Camelblinky, I've seen him continuing his hostility elsewhere since I blocked him."

I didn't write that you were being disruptive because you were calling me uncivil. I didn't even realize you were. I wrote you that bringing this to ANI would be an abuse of process, and that is considered disruptive.

You were supposed to come to my talk page and discuss any issues you might have had with me, real or imagined.

Once I realized that the two of you had decided to come here and abuse ANI, I went to your talk page. Where else was I supposed to go?

I explained myself, but you just deleted my discussion without even replying.

You're not allowed to bring grievances to ANI without first trying to discuss your concerns with your
targets
on their talk pages.

Also, to the extent that you filed this grievance to try to drive me off -- as you did Delicious carbunkle[75] -- to help your ally win a dispute over

WP:EL

, and establish sovereignty over that page, you are also being disruptive.

My intention was not to "smear" you; my intention was to dissuade you -- in part by letting you know that you were wrong, and that you had confused me with someone else.

And partly because of something an attorney once said: "I'm gonna bloody your witness. Are you sure you want that?"

The witness was so pathetic, and a habitual liar, so she wasn't going to survive the witness stand. -- Rico 00:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky brought this it to ANI, despite never having

discussed any of his issues on my talk page. Tasty monster/ Tony Sidaway told you that Wikipedia is not a battleground.[76] -- Rico

00:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2011/January#Your name's been mentioned... as evidence of the smears I have to put up with "Best to avoid discussions with Camelbinky - rational debate is not one of his strong points." Camelbinky (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, that's not a smear, just a comment on my experience of your communication style, and constructive advice to Rico. Going to ANI and falsely accusing someone of hounding you would be a smear. Please don't make this about me and you. --hippo43 (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you inform me that you were discussing me on Jimbo's talk page? -- Rico 23:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I dont have to?Camelbinky (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico brought the dispute at Camelbinky's talk page to my attention because he had mentioned me in his complaint about Camelbinky. I don't think he needed to refer to Camelbinky's history with me, but having done so, he was right to let me know. I have no dog in this fight, but IMO it would be best if Camelbinky chose to walk away from these kinds of arguments at times, or simply agreed to disagree, instead of looking for admin intervention to prove he was right all along. --hippo43 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Hippo43, that was very good advice and I understand I am very hotheaded. I am glad that we got to agree on something recently at one of the policy pages, as your exclaimation point seemed to imply at that page you were just as surprised as me that we were agreeing and I do hope when we do cross paths that past problems are forgotten and perhaps new agreements and commonalities can be found. I appreciate you're post here. Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Having some trouble following all the new posts that are being put in the middle... so lets start just putting them down at the end if at all possible... Rico- I put my concerns to you at the Talk:Schenectady City School District page and you gave me a "warning" on my talk page about it. What more needed to be discussed with you at your talk page? You have from day one given no AGF towards UpstateNYer and when I defended him you suddenly accused me of doing so because I'm an "ally" of his... yet you say that I am the one using words that suggest Wikipedia is a "battleground". He and I work well together to improve articles, but we actually NEVER go to the same policy pages and support each other in discussions on changing policy or anything like that. We actually rarely work on the same article at the same time other than right now on a sandbox rewrite of Albany, New York. If we are allies because we respect each other's work and you think that is wrong of us and accuse us of having some sort of conspiracy... wow, you have a bad view on editors interacting then.Camelbinky (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why were you colluding with Silver seren in a corner, falling all over yourself trying to come up with some excuse to file a grievance against us here.[77] Just to win a content dispute at the district article?

It might have been nice if you had invited me to participate in the discussion. When I found out about it, I though I straightened it out. -- Rico 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the above, but I did have a bizarre tussle with Rico on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons over a post of his.
I asked him a question about an edit he made, and he replied in a different section, whether because he didn't see mine or I didn't see his, I don't recall. So I moved his response into the section I'd opened with the question, and I responded to his response. [78] He moved his post back without explanation, which left my response responding to nothing. [79] So I left his post where he seemed to want it, and copied it into the section about his edit, with a friendly edit summary complete with smiley. [80] He removed it again. [81] So I moved the entire sequence (my question, his response, and my response) higher as a subsection of the section he seemed to want them to be in, with the edit summary "I don't mind where it goes, so long as questions and answers are together," and another smiley in an increasingly futile attempt to signal my goodwill. [82] He removed his post entirely this time on the grounds that he hadn't originally posted it in that place. [83] I gave up at that point, so the page was archived with a section in which I'm talking to myself. :)
Rico then proceeded to post about me in various places, how action should be taken against me as a serial talk-page-post mover, so I do sympathize with Camelblinky's perspective on this, though I think I'd also advise him to try not to respond to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of

WP:BATTLE, but you're hardly an uninvolved administrator.[84] My reply at WP:BLP wasn't to a post of yours. You took it away from the post I was replying to and moved it under a post of yours to try to force it to be a reply to a post of yours. That was disruptive. -- Rico

00:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, please stop splitting my posts in half with your comments as you've now done to my first post. I do believe YOU are the one that DELETED UpstatNYer's posts for that very same reason. That is why I got Delicious and you mixed up. My bad, from your styles and continued aggressive editing and posting at the Schenectady CSD page against Upstater I hope you can understand why I made that honest mistake.

Colluding?! HA! Wow, talk pages are that secret? I asked him a question as he had mentioned at the Schenectady CSD page that Delicious had other run-ins at AN/I regarding similar problems; and then after YOU deleted Upstater's posts around the same time Delicious commented that he would remove posts (and I thought you had posted that, I was wrong, I apologize for that) I thought it best to get Silver's opinion as he seemed to know more about the history of the two of you. You accused me in several places of being an "ally" of Upstater's and trying to gang up on you when you had your own "ally" as well. Ally is your word remember, you've used it several times. And at every place you have a serious lack of "assuming good faith" towards ANYONE who does anythign wrong or disagrees with you. And now you accuse Slim of "battling" and everything... for the record Slim and I have had our "battles" that have gotten quite heated, so I'd say she(?) IS an uninvolved admin; just another instance of Rico seeing conspiracies and people with agendas and no AGF. Rico- no conspiracy, just a bunch of people who just dont like your attitude. And now I'll take Slim and Hippo's advice and not make any more responses unles something is actually going to happen and I'm needed to answer a question.Camelbinky (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was given some good advice a long time ago by an experienced Wikipedian. If you're having a problem with a person who is apparently being irrational or very difficult, and you can't get through, withdraw. One of two things will probably happen: (1) you were wrong, in which case no one else will see this issue with that editor, and it's good that you withdrew; or (2) you were right, in which cases others will see it, and you can quietly sit back and watch that editor seal his own fate. It was with that principle in mind that I stopped arguing with Rico over where to place his talk-page post. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

More

importation of a conflict by an uninvolved editor, that is apparently holding a grudge against me?[85] You never "stopped arguing with [me] over where to place [my] talk-page post" You put my post where I hadn't put it three times in half an hour.[86][87][88] All you did was edit war. We never discussed it, ever. You have gotten other editors blocked for edit warring at ANI. It must be nice to be above any need to follow the rules. -- Rico

01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty disingenuous. I posted between your two posts up above. UpstateNYer audaciously chopped up a single post of mine, and inserted posts inside my post. When I restored my post to its whole, something UpstateNYer agreed I had a right to do, that caused UpstateNYer's posts to be deleted. But, then again, you knew that. Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and majors essays don't provide the right to insert posts inside the posts of others, as I explained here. You were originally wanting to take that here as your grievance [89]. Did you just want to bring any old grievance here, no matter what? Anything to harass an editor that disagees with your ally? -- Rico 04:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if an uninvolved adminstrator would be so kind as to opine about SlimVirgin's

having every reason to be biased? -- Rico

01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, suggest you move on. All this won't achieve anything.

FWIW, I find it really difficult to follow what you're saying in discussions when you make endless minor changes to what you wrote earlier. It would be a lot easier to follow if you just wrote what you want to say, at the bottom of the discussion if possible, then if you have something to add, write a new comment. --hippo43 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am only incidentally involved in this matter, so much as I was involved in the Eric Ely discussion and then noticed the discussion over at the Schenectady article. From just looking over the

WP:TALK is not a valid response. Silver seren^C

01:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what happened was UpstateNYer was unable to build

consensus for external links in the article, and revert warring[90][91][92] didn't work, so he summoned partisan allies that had never edited or discussed the article, to influence the outcome of this discussion [93]

-- calling on friends/ allies to go there and agree with UpstateNYer for the purpose of supporting UpstateNYer's side of the discussion, as proxies to sway consensus.

That's when Silver seren and Camelbinky showed up -- but rather than discuss the article, they set about attacking the two editors that disagreed with UpstateNYer

Not one of Camelbinky's edits on the talk page addresses the article issue.[94][95][96][97] He opted instead to

discussed any of his issues on either of our talk pages

.

He already scared off one editor.[100]

It's been said that UpstateNYer supports Camelbinky,[101], and I've seen it[102] -- even to the point of UpstateNYer wanting to defend Camelbinky without even knowing what he's been accused of[103] -- but this has always been about repaying favors, or just being loyal. -- Rico 02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

battle
for ally

I was wondering if anybody besides me sees this this way. -- Rico 02:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you hadn't said much, most people would probably have thought Camelbinky was maybe over-reacting and just looking for a fight in starting this thread. If you stop now, there's still a chance. --hippo43 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a great idea. Why don't both of you go have a cup of tea and do something other than talk about each other for the next 2-3 days, and see how you feel then?

This is rising to the level of mutually disruptive engagement; I think that you both going on about your lives is generally preferable to having to block both of you. Hopefully you agree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree to the closure of this thread. -- Rico 04:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noting for future reference that Rico has issued me an admin misconduct warning because I posted here. :) [104] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Psychedelia

The article

83 Gangster Crips. Along the way he has called me a "bully" [107], "Gestapo" [108] and accused me of having multiple accounts: [109] He stated "I will never stop reposting the article as its main rivals gang page is up and never been deleted" [110] and admitted being an affiliation, which is a possible COI issue: [111]. Niteshift36 (talk

) 03:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor was notified here: [112]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- All I can say is "Wow". What deranged mental perturbations. It's like you'd want the dictionary to be blank.

Psychedelia (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2010 (PST)

You participated in the AfD. If you disagreed with the outcome, you should have taken it to DRV. You didn't. Now, 8 months later, you want to just pretend like it didn't happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Psychadelia - you appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to advertise for gangs. We are most certainly

not here for that purpose. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirects restored per AFD, redirects protected for 6 months. Psychedelia, you may want to try

WP:DRV, but threatening that you will continue to undo redirects until some other article is deleted is unacceptable. Alternatively, if you want to build a sandbox version of the article at User:Psychedelia/83 Gangster Crips that actually overcomes the AFD objections, feel free to give it a shot.—Kww(talk

) 03:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

how do you get a template like news release taken off of an article after it goes up ?

) 10:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

– Taken to more appropriate venue 94.195.172.30 (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One of my articles Red Back Mining was given that template but since then the user who gave it that label and I have added and removed material from it so it doesn't sound as much like a news release. at whose discretion is it ?Grmike (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)grmike

I think you may find it is not

your article. Stephen B Streater (talk

it is

wrong with the page then it reflects on my reputation as a user and editor.Grmike (talk

) 10:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)grmike

This is not a matter for administrative intervention, so I am copying this discussion to

) 10:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User Varsovian

08:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

–

ping

Because of these edits, [113], [114], [115], [116], which are a repeated and persistent breach of

WP:DIGWUREN warning here [117], after a edit summary complaint (which wasn't my complaint) about WP:TROLLING and after considerable third-party debate about the subject here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. -Chumchum7 (talk

) 11:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This editor's tendentious editing is by no means restricted to the edits listed above: both in the article referred to above and elsewhere the editor is clearly trying to a plug particular point of view. Also the editor has been edit-warring in order to keep those tendentious edits in place.

) 11:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for solving the content problem at this article is found here [118] I will repeat (and update) it here "The current main article has 1,218 words about Polish participation at the parade and 665 words about everything else connected to the parade. Clearly there should be less about the Polish participation, although it seems that WP:WEIGHT is a policy Chumchum7 is unaware of. Perhaps the entire section regarding Polish representation could be replaced by "Representatives from Poland were invited but did not attend." would be suitable? All editors agree that such representatives were invited and all agree that they did not attend.

I would like to point out that I was until now unaware of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-25/London Victory Parade of 1946 as Chumchum7 didn't actually bother to tell me about it.

As to the comments of JamesBWatson, could he perhaps provide a diff or two so that I can see what he is referring to? Varsovian (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

One further comment: at the top of this page it clearly states "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Chumchum7 has made absolutely no attempt to discuss the issue with me on my talk page. I am trying very hard to not conclude that this report is a continuation of a strategy shown by the groundless Wikiquette alert [119] filed by Chumchum7, i.e. to win a content dispute by having the other party prevented from adding the other PoV to the article. Varsovian (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to Editor IV

JamesBWatson above. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk

) 12:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You were told here [120] that ANI is not the right place for your complaint and you were told here [121] that you need to discuss the issue with me on my talkpage before filing a dispute at ANI. But still you file the ANI. I am much reminded of the time when you sought assistance from admins. By some freak chance the two admins you decided would be most suitable to resolve our differences were the only admin who has ever blocked me and the only admin who has ever warned me about anything. Are you familiar with the phrase block-shopping? Varsovian (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When readers click your two diffs above, they'll see you are talking about an entirely separate complaint. You are now referring to when I took issue with you adding that Polish people had been in the Waffen-SS, to the

London Victory Parade of 1946. But this ANI is on the subject of your 4 edits about the historian Norman Davies, and you taking issue with him, as my 4 diffs show. These are two different subjects - the Waffen-SS and Norman Davies - and this dialogue is an exemplar of the communication problem over the past weeks and months.-Chumchum7 (talk

) 13:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So this ANI is about Davies? Perhaps you could show where you have attempted to discuss Davies on my talkpage? But to end the wiki-drama I myself will now edit out the part of the article which you object to. I will then propose new wording on the talk page and wait one week for discussion to take place there and consensus to be built. I hope that is acceptable to you. Varsovian (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The 4 diffs presented seem to be a clear case of Varsovian edit warring to insert a personal negative and un-sourced opinion about a respected historian. His claim above that the article has weight problems doesn't address the issue and seems to be an attempt to divert attention. Dr. Loosmark 12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced? Please check the links: you will find that the sources of the quotes which Davies contradicts are very reliable: one is the official record of the British Parliament and the other is The Times newspaper. Varsovian (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes unsourced. As in you presented no source which says Davies is wrong in what he wrote. Your personal interpretation that the The Times newspaper article contradicts Davies is basically just that, your personal opinion. Also could you please address the issue of your edit warring? Dr. Loosmark 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not unsourced. Davies wrote "on the very eve of the parade" (i.e. 7 June) invitations were sent to Poles other than the internationally recognised government of Poland: both Hansard (twice, do check Hansard, it's online) and The Times stated prior to that date that invitations had been extended to Polish airmen who had served under British command. My personal opinion is that 4 June comes before 7 June, is your opinion that 4 June is actually the same date as 7 June? Varsovian (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be

reliable source that says this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he is wrong: I am saying that his statement contradicts historical records (i.e. Hansard) and media from the time (i.e. The Times). As the article says "Davies' statement regarding "the very eve of the parade" contradicts historical records and media from the time." Varsovian (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source already, before you, stated "Davies' statement regarding "the very eve of the parade" contradicts historical records and media from the time." or something similar? If you concluded that his statement contradicted historical records from your own interpretation of the dates and source material, but no one before you reached that conclusion, that is

reliable sources. --Jayron32

13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you consider the official journal of the British parliament to be a published reliable source? Do you consider The Times newspaper to be a published reliable source? Davies comment flatly contradicts the statements made in both. We are not talking about interpretation of dates, we are talking about certain verifiable statements verifiably made on certain verifiable dates. My understanding of

WP:V is that anything likely to be challenged needs to have a WP:RS to support it. It is somewhat unlikely that anybody would want to challenge that 4 June came before 7 June, wouldn't you say? Varsovian (talk

) 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Only that Davies does not flat contradics statements made in both, and in fact he does not even mention them. Having read all of those sources it is my opinion there is no contradiction. But anyway even if there would be such a thing as contradiction in those sources (and personally I'd say Davies is more reliable than a newspaper) then Wikipedia NPOV style requires you write: source X say this and this while source Y states this and this. Btw Varsovian I am asking you again about your edit warring as you seem to avoid that question. In case you think your edit warring is ok then you don't have to answer. Dr. Loosmark 14:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it possible that “the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade" (as Davies claims) when multiple sources from the time (Hansard, The Times, the memories of General Anders, etc) all state that invitations were issued to Western Command Poles before “the very eve of the parade”? You may say that Davies is more reliable than a newspaper (although I’d point out that Davies has been known to be wrong even about the year that the parade took place) but is he more reliable than the man who was responsible for deciding who to invite or a man who actually received an invitation? Thank you very much for the invitation to discuss edit warring, given your block and warning log I’m sure that there is much I can learn from you about how to edit war properly. Varsovian (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try restating my earlier remark: you are the one drawing the conclusion that he is contradicting other reports. You may be right, but you are the one who is stating this. You need to find a reliable source that says the same thing. Doing otherwise violates

WP:SYNTH. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

14:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the article currently states "He states that "the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade", when “in consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London; and other invitations were sent to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. The belated invitations were courteously declined.”[24] Four days before the parade Ernest Bevin, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote “His Majesty's Government still hope that it will also be possible for a party of Polish airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain to be included in the parade.” " Would it be permissible to insert the words "(i.e. three days before the very eve of the parade)"? The text would thus read "He states that "the faux pas was not corrected until the very eve of the parade", when “in consequence, a last-minute invitation was sent by Foreign Minister Bevin directly to the Chief of Staff of the Polish Army, General Kopanski, who was still in post in London; and other invitations were sent to the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. The belated invitations were courteously declined.”[24] Four days before the parade (i.e. three days before the very eve of the parade) Ernest Bevin, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote “His Majesty's Government still hope that it will also be possible for a party of Polish airmen who flew with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain to be included in the parade.” " This would very much draw attention the fact that what Davies says flatly contradicts by historical sources but it doesn't actually say that Davies' statement contradicts historical sources. Varsovian (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, this discussion needs to move to the talk page of the article in question. ANI is not the proper location to discuss content changes to articles. Please move this to

Talk:London_Victory_Parade_of_1946 where anyone who wishes may comment on the proposed changes. Admins do not need to use their admin tools to make this happen. I would copy and past the above propsed changes to the talk page, let the discussion run for a few days to hammer out a consensus, and proceed from there. Admins don't need to protect, block, or delete anything right now, so I don't see where this discussion needs to happen here any further. --Jayron32

15:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, unfortunately Varsovian has a long history of drawing original conclusions. See for example this edit from the talk page in March [122]. Mr.Moszynski is the person who wrote to the British government and about the lack of Polish participation in the battle. For some reason Varsovian disliked his statement and wrote on the talk page that he is a liar. Again not a single source was presented which would state that Mr.Moszynski's statement was untruthful . Ok it's the talk page but still, accusing a living person of being a liar is beyond appalling and it just shows that Varsovian just doesn't "get it". Above he seemed to have, once again, skillfully dodged the question of his edit warring and not following wikipedia policies by turning the debate into content discussions knowing that then admins will say go to the article talk page and discuss it. Dr. Loosmark 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a single source? The letter which Moszynski claims is "an apology from Tony Blair regarding the British Government's failure to invite the Polish armed forces to the 1946 Victory Parade" is linked to at the article: it isn't from Tony Blair, it doesn't apologise for anything and makes no mention of any failure to invite anybody. Instead it expresses "regret that Polish contingents did not take part in the victory parade." Perhaps you would like to read what Moszynski claims (it is here [123]) and then contrast it with what the letter actually says (you can find that here [124]). Varsovian (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

do you have a source which says that Mr.Moszynski's statement is untruthful yes or no? the answer is no. judging by your link the letter in question was signed by Matthew Rycroft and according to wikipedia article: In 2002, Rycroft was appointed Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair, to advise him on matters related to foreign affairs, the European Union, Northern Ireland and defence. Are you sure that T.Blair did not know about this letter or even asked his adviser to reply to Mr.Moszynski? We simply don't know that. And even if the whole thing was handled at a "level lower" it's possible and probable that Mr.Moszynski simply just made a good faith assumption. You most certainly have no business trumpeting on wikipedia that Mr.Moszynski is a liar. Dr. Loosmark 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that letter from Tony Blair? No. Does it apologise for anything? No. Does it say that Polish armed forces were not invited to the parade? No. Did Moszynski write a press release claiming "he managed to secure an apology from Tony Blair regarding the British Government's failure to invite the Polish armed forces to the 1946 Victory Parade"? Yes. Varsovian (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

These are your conclusions (somebody else might see it differently) and in no way prove that Mr.Moszynski is a liar. Dr. Loosmark 17:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jauerback, this is precisely the kind of dialogue I have found difficult with Varsovian, long term. It seems like some kind of

WP:DE problem. I took no pleasure nor satisfaction from launching this ANI. This was a last resort after a lot of grief. I don't like drama. I sincerely look forward to not having to go through this experience again. I look forward to your continued fairness, neutrality and commitment. -Chumchum7 (talk

) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation

As an administrator with a bit of experience in handling disputes in this topic area, I consider this request actionable for these reasons:

With the cited edits, [126], [127], [128], [129],
edit-warring
.
Contrary to the edit summary here, this assertion is not sourced; instead, as is apparent from the discussion above, it represents Varsovian's own opinion about (unnamed) primary sources and Davies' work, in violation of the policy
WP:NOR
.
This unsourced opinion casts a negative light on the professional competence of the historian
WP:BLP
.

For these reasons, I was about to impose a sanction under the authority of

WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions on Varsovian. However, since Varsovian has now self-reverted the problematic text, I believe that a warning is sufficient: If you, Varsovian, continue to fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above), in the Eastern Europe topic area, you may be made subject to blocks, bans or other sanctions according to the cited arbitral remedy without further warning. I believe that this thread can now be closed unless the edit war flares up again. Sandstein

16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me. Might I suggest that both Chumchum7 and myself (and perhaps Loosmark if he wishes to continue editing this article) agree to post all proposed changes/additions to the article (as it is now) on the talk page and then wait 48 hours to allow for dialogue about the proposed change/addition? Varsovian (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, thank you. Will you, or any other administrator or team of administrators, now be watching

London Victory Parade of 1946 closely to ensure that editors there do not 'fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (including the policies cited above)'? Or if, in the future, an editor were to perceive such problems among their peers, should they flag that concern here at ANI, on your Talk page, at any other page, or by emailing you? Or should they continue to restrict themselves to standard dispute resolution procedure? Please advise. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk

) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, please could you just explain for me about how WP warnings work. This seems to be the second warning after one already appears to have been applied here [130] after a block here [131]. Was there any counselling of the type described here [132] ? If there is a next time, and I sincerely hope there isn't, it would be good for me to receive some guidance on how to deal with it. How many warnings do editors usually run up before sanctions are imposed? Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you should not assume that administrators will be watching any page. Continued misconduct should be reported to the

standard format). However, given that he has now reverted himself, sanctions are still not required at this time. Sandstein

19:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I hadn't heard of the

WP:AE noticeboard before, and it is good to know about it. I will use it if necessary. -Chumchum7 (talk

) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DigiPokemon2010

WP:SPA who is blatantly using Wikipedia as his own webhost. He created two pages: Mehna Region's Complete Poke'dex (w/ the new pokemons of Mehna), a fictional Pokédex listing for what appears to be a made-up Pokémon game, and Drano: The Supreme Dragon, also evidently about the user's own creation. He has been warned about the Drano page before and yet re-created it anyway. Clearly, the warnings aren't getting through to this user, and he's not here to edit in good faith. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer}

) 17:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles gone, and I'll leave a final final warning for the user; please advise if they do it again. (Who the heck names a dragon Drano?) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted on the deletions, these are so blatantly made up that they're unambiguously deletable. Will block him if he does it again. ~ mazca ^talk 18:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A plumber who's had lots of problems with soldering torches in the past? rdfox 76 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest referring the user to http://pokemon.wikia.com, a dedicated pokemon wiki. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the pokemon Wikia host articles on made-up Pokemon? It can hurt more than help to send a user to yet another site that will reject him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Will the real Orly Taitz please stand up?

Orly taitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uncertain of where to proceed here. This user account claims to be the real

WP:REALNAME, but as the account is continuing to post more personal details, it does not seem that this was heeded. Should the account just be blocked until an identity can be verified? Tarc (talk

) 17:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends if the content violates

WP:RS. SGGH ^ping!

17:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it violates BLP to be giving out phone numbers and personal info on an article talk page in an attempt to prove identity, yes. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We could ask her to post a copy of her birth certificate on her talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So the question here is whether this is Orly or ORLY? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I left her the contact info for article problems and photo submission. AniMate 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering we're all just marxist thugs, I would demand more than just her birth certificate. I want to see her COLB, her license to practice dentistry, license to practice law and of course, no copies allowed.

Ravensfire (talk

) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm not a Marxist thug. I am, however, a Lennonist slug. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)'m more of a Trotskyist myself, but I doubt shades of grey matter much in birtherville. Anyways, the account is now blocked, and if it really was Dr. Taitz, then she knows what to to to verify her account. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, considering that at the top of the page you linked to has the disclaimer "The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers, do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, ESQ, and Dr. Taitz, ESQ has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles", we might not be all Marxist thugs. That sentence alone is proof that website is not a

reliable source, & can't be used to confirm anything, possibly even details about Orly Taitz's own life & her campaign. Making it even less reliable than, say, Stormfront which can be used as a source about Stormfront. -- llywrch (talk

) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As the post was by Orly, I think it's safe to call it her opinion.

Ravensfire (talk

) 12:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(

) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that there's no need to worry about the posting of phone numbers, as that's the same phone number she uses in her filings to the US District Court. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Tim's action. All joking aside, Taitz is a controversial figure (to put it mildly), who is a prime target for impersonating by some troublemaker. Although her posts to Wikipedia appear to be what the real Orly Taitz might post to Wikipedia, until reasonable proof is provided to confirm her identity it is best to block this account. (And if this is the real Orly Taitz, when she talks to OTRS they can also explain the details about uploading an image with the proper permissions so it can be used, thus solving that problem.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the account was unblocked by Chaser yesterday. I see he is tagged as an OTRS volunteer, so I assume that the real Taitz did make contact and confirm her identity. A note somewhere to that effect from the unblocking admin would have been nice, though. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Khaled Abu Toameh

Resolved

– Editors appear to be working things out on the talk page. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has been edited by a number of different users and IPs, all of whom make similar edits, deleting reliably sourced information about

WP:3RR. If someone could investigate what is going on there, it would be much appreciated. Tiamut^talk

21:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Abujamil has responded to you on the talk page. I don't think any admin intervention is needed here. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he has responded. But I don't think the issue is resolved. The disputed text remains unincluded, despite its being well sourced and relevant, and there is still the issue of sockpuppets under multiple accounts and IPs, but I guess that is better discussed at

WP:SPI? Tiamut^talk

10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV needs closure by an experienced admin

) 08:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

– closed ~ mazca ^talk 14:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV#International_response_to_the_2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash has now been open for 8 days. It will need an experienced and independent admin to review all the comments and make a decision as to whether or not to overturn the original AfD closure. Mjroots (talk

Doing..., was thinking about this closure earlier, I'll figure it out and close it shortly ~ mazca ^talk 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, overturned to no consensus. Having difficulty seeing exactly how this disagreement is likely to end; it seems it wasn't a good situation to enforce a merge via AfD so I guess it's almost back at the start. ~ mazca ^talk 08:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A tricky decision, but one which I agree with, considering that there was originally consensus to split this from the article about the accident in the first place. I've suggested a couple of ways to improve the article on the talk page. Hopefully it can be improved over the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of process when citing a page for deletion

I am not sure if this is the correct place to raise this matter, but I would like some other pairs of eyes to look at this. The user User:TreasuryTag has a problem with an image which they keep citing for deletion. It is a TV screenshot, and so uses the {{Non-free television screenshot}} license. After I had fixed some some minor problems with the license, the user:

Cited the image for deletion using {{
ifd}}[133]

Deleted the image from the article [134]
Immediately cited the image for deletion using {{
di-orphaned fair use}}[135]

These actions were all completed within three minutes. The user seems to have declared themselves prosecuting councel, judge, and jury. This has got to be wrong.

I tried to discuss the user's previous attempt to delete this same image on their Talk page, here]. Since the user is now leaving silly messages on my Talk page[136][137], I can't face discussing their latest actions with them.

To me, this user seems out of control. As I said above, I would like some other pairs of eyes to look at this. HairyWombat (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The image is a clear copyright violation, having no possible justification under our fair-use policies, and has been nominated for deletion where the community can discuss it freely. I am not aware of any "silly" behaviour on my part, and my messages on Wombat's talkpage were friendly yet firm, since s/he seems to misunderstand our

civility policy. However, as always, I welcome scrutiny. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation

─╢ 16:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the fair use claim. But you cannot remove an image from an article and then claim it's an orphan. Neither is it ok to take an image to IfD and trying to get it speedied via the orphan tag. If you think this needs consensus, IfD is the right way. If you think the image violates copyright, hash it out on the talk page of the article before deleting it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(

WP:3RR seems to champion the immediate removal from articles of "clear copyright violations" even if discussion is underway in a separate venue. (At least that's what I think it means?) ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack

─╢ 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. If you hit such a situation, list the image at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, get consensus, and delete it (or not). That's what it's for. Don't fire off a broadside on all venues you can think of - that pisses people off, and rightly so. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 17:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those messages on the wombat's talk page don't seem silly to me. If you can't face discussing their latest actions with them, then stop editing. We operate on discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm genuinely unsure if that's what he meant to describe as "silly", because they really aren't... And sorry, if who can't face discussion...? ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 16:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(i think toddst1's comment was aimed at hairywombat, not you TT Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

If you think an image is a copyvio, I think you ought to remove it from the articles until there's been a peer review. However, it is obviously out of line to try to get it deleted as an orphan after you have removed it from linked articles. That is patent gaming of the system. Wait for peer review. --causa sui (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, the orphan-deletion process takes exactly the same length of time as does the FfD... ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but, if the IfD closes as "keep" and nobody restores the image to the article, then the orphan tag will expire and the image will be removed anyways. Are you going to restore the image yourself? Are you expecting that the IfD closer tracks the history of the pages to restore the images in the correct place with the correct caption? Are you going to say that it's the responsability of other people to make sure that their actions don't delete images that didn't need to be deleted after all? What about people who comment in the IfD, they can't see the image in its proper context to see if it's being used correctly. Please don't remove the images until the IfD closes. Note: if the IfD closes as "Delete", then the image becomes a red link and it will eventually will be removed anyways from the articles.

As an apart: you even said in the IfD "It's not even used at the moment!" (emphasis in the original). That's plain disingenuous, since you had removed it yourself right after nominating for IfD. It was being used when you nominated it and you should have left it alone so other people could see how it was being used. You also forgot this common-sense instruction from the IfD page: "If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted." --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen
biography

Resolved

–

WP:OUCH. Fut.Perf. ☼

17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been using Wikipedia as a first source of information for some time. I have been watching Gulen's page due to my academic studies and interest as well. I felt obligated to report now that Arnoutf is terrorizing the biography. Although other editors are complained about him and his edits here before, the case was closed immediately after it was opened. Moreover, all user block requests by Arnoutf immediately approved by admins without any checkuser process which seems to be a standard in Wikipedia. I am kind of suspicious if Arnoutf is a nickname for Jimbo Wales?

I combined and compiled previous complaints in various places here into one list and hoping that it helps to someone to deal with the case.

Arnoutf owns the article: He does not collaborate, declare edit wars, instead. He gives impression to naive editors that all other editors should convince him to be able to edit the article.
Arnoutf distorts the facts and falsifies information: Arnoutf distort the facts based on his seemingly racist/nastionalistic prejudges. Although the islamineurope reference does not mention "segregation of Turks" in this example, he add this incorrect, falsified information deliberately into the article and linking to the reference as if it is mentioned in the reference. A true encyclopedia editor would consider this as the most embarrassing behavior.
Arnoutf alienates editors: Many naive editors are alienated by his disgusting POV pushing. Among recent a few: Hatice w, Gaddarca, Madaya2000, meco, Icaz. Please see the discussion page and archives for the full list. His main tactic seems to be blaming editors of being a sockpuppet and filing a sockpuppet case immediately once someone disapprove his POV version.
Arnoutf does not know the topic has no intention to improve the article: Arnoutf does not improve the article nor working on it. He just blocks others from doing so. He only reverts the uncomfortable facts in his perspective from the article. Here is a self statement of the fact that he only policing the article.
Arnoutf is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information: Arnoutf is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information and references. The history page is full of such similar logs.
Arnoutf does not comply with the Wikipedia policies: Arnoutf disregards Wikipedia policies and set up new rules as he wishes and declare reliable references as invalid.
Arnoutf is archiving to hide his edits: Once Arnoutf have an naive editor banned, he archives his discussions to hide the facts. He keep bringing the same issues inconsistently with his earlier statements. In the example of the use of the term 'philosopher', he first accepts the use of the term, then starts arguing the same issue with another naive editor.
Arnoutf tragicomically disapproves his own version: The version Arnoutf is fighting against now is actually the version he edited using the information in an existing version before.
Arnoutf ignores warnings: Not surprisingly Arnoutf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was already blocked before due to his edit wars on this page but he does continue exactly the same way.

67.201.93.20 (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philscirel/Archive is a useful resource in looking at this dispute. I originally assumed that 67.201.93.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just another sock of Philscirel, but all previous IP addresses geolocate to Columbus, Ohio and this IP is from Tennessee. Meatpuppeting still comes to mind.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That sockpuppet link is already provided in my message, actually as an evidence. It would be better to respond after reading the message. Thanks for it anyways. I know it is much easier to ban an editor without following Wikipedia regulations (as you and a few others did before) but will you try to read what I have listed above too? I am sure that you will keep meatpuppeting in mind while doing so.. 67.201.93.20 (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, all this has been discussed, repeatedly in the talk page of the article. The editors who have put up another version of this article have all (without a single exception) been unmasked as sockpuppets of Philscirel; the block I received was my own fault indeed (and my only ever block in over 3 years editins), as during summer there was a 3 week delay in the sockpuppet backlog; and all parties were temporarily blocked for 3RR just to calm down the dispute at that time; I do realise I should have waited out the sockpuppetry case (which was a clear cut one, and resulted in the block of the sockpuppet). Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Arnoutf does not tell the truth. Almost none of these points are discussed anywhere, and none of these points got any satisfactory answer at all. I urge Arnoutf to provide links for his answers or maybe better summarize his answers to these points right here as listed, instead of nonsense and general remarks like "those are all answered". It should be easy for him, if he is correct! 67.201.93.20 (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is either a case for
WP:OUCH. I'm leaning towards the latter. Stifle (talk
) 08:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ouch, I'd say. [138]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

EHC returns

Just a heads-up... I've had to reinstate the block on IP 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a sock of the abusive user EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Previously blocked as a static access point for that individual, all edits since the block expired clearly demonstrate he is trying to get back in again. Articles to watch include those related to Martin, Tyler Perry's House of Payne, and Judge Judy, among others. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I denied an related unblock yesterday, methinks ... (

BWilkins ←track

) 18:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:BYSO

) 14:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

– No further admin action required at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

New user

WP:Donating copyrighted material, but there's no indication that they've followed the steps there, or even bothered reading it. I reverted the copyvio material three times, so if someone else could try to get them to listen, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk

Looks like they've been blocked as username violation, so at the very least they'll be confined to their talk page for the time being... Might prompt them to read the material you've provided. –xeno^talk 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope so. I have the greatest respect for the group -- saw them perform Mahler's Second with Maureen Forrester herself a few years back.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they've returned as Chiamars (talk · contribs), but without reading up on our copyright policies first. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a short block. –xeno^talk 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:Words to watch

Could an admin read over this page?

There is a merge proposal and an RfC which has been closed and implemented by two of the participants, despite the presence of substantive and procedural disputes. The RfC has only been open for a few days, and was only advertized seriously one or two days ago, and some people are already declaring a fait accompli.

I have objected, but am leaving (I appear to have stepped on the fringes of an ArbCom decision); would a genuinely neutral admin please intervene? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Delta

I was going to take this to

WP:OWN

issues as well, so decided to take it here instead.

On

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

.

I can understand listing any individual chapters that meet

WP:BIO

requirements (no refs and no articles). When restoring content most recently, the user inserted the edit summary "If you are not in this Fraternity please do not delete with out reaching out to me first." - showing the ownership issue.

A discussion was started on the article talk page, but the user has thus far only posted to my user talk page.

Would appreciate some additional eyes on the article and any comments on the article talk page discussion and/or here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified of this ANI discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with removing the directory. I did a basic cleanup of section headers and notable members, per the

Law of Unintended Consequences. tedder (talk

) 17:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Trueman31

Just under an hour ago, 6 accounts were blocked for being sockpuppets of Trueman31. Trueman31 first appeared on 7 July 2007 [139] and was blocked indefinitely on 3 September 2007 [140]. Since then, Trueman31 has created many sock accounts ([141]) to vandalise various articles on Wikipedia. I believe most of the articles vandalised are usually EastEnders characters. One of Trueman31's traits while using the new accounts is to copy and paste the talk page of User:AnemoneProjectors to their talk page. He has also copied another user's talk page who reverted some of their edits and today he copied mine, which I found to be quite creepy [142].

I came here to ask if anything can be done to stop Trueman31 from creating anymore accounts and to put an end to this. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ernie Kimble

Ernie Kimble (talk · contribs) is going around posting a phone number on several different articles, claiming to be the person whose number they're posting, but with a different name from the User ID name they're using. I don't think they're here for good purposes. Woogee (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User Mansoorelahi

talk

) 21:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted and

talk

) 21:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOOTSHOT

Resolved

User:Dave1185

is harassing User:Wispanow for hours on many user-talk pages [143] [144] [145] and did not not stop. He was warned: [146]. He was additionally warned several times by me (Wispanow).

I request to block him 77.186.81.65 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wispanow

was blocked without any reason. Just for repeating the rude comments of others:[147]. The block was made by Edgar181: [148].

I request to immediately unblock him. 77.186.81.65 (talk)

User:Edgar181

blocked User:Wispanow : [149] without any reason. Just because Wispanow was requesting User:Dave1185 to stop harassment.

I request to block him .77.186.81.65 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked 24h for fairly obvious block evasion of Wispanow. —

talk

) 22:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Abductive long term disruption

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

This part of the discussion seems to be finished and we've moved on from it

Abductive just showed up on something on my edit list and edit warred his way to a block. While it is his first block, I took a look and for an account that isn't even a year old he's had a major amount of disruption. An SPI was opened on him last year. It was closed without action. However, he did admit to using multiple accounts to mass nominate AfDs/prod articles. This created at least a couple AN/I threads and a substantial bit of disruption as most of these nominations were apparently bad. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Abductive/Archive. In regards to the socking, Abductive also has on his user page the claim that he's been here for over 3 years. One account was made last July, one last May. Which means there is quite likely at least one more account out there he didn't admit to using. Since he's using the current account disruptively, it is likely a disruptive sock. I don't know that I could file an SPI though since I don't have the foggiest who the other account might be.

Issue two is the edit warring. He was just blocked for edit warring on

WP:UNDUE then claiming it was vanity, and then claiming I must have a COI because I wasn't buying his bizarre arguments, a bad faith assumption and insult, frankly. He was blocked for 31 hours, but after a quick check I found out that this isn't his first edit war. He was warned back in July of last year about edit warring. [150] and seemed to show a better understanding for how 3RR worked than someone who'd only been here a couple months and had never been warned about it before. Only a month ago he was involved in a big edit war on an article [151] which was stopped with page protection. He also engaged in an edit war back in October [152]

and when he wasn't getting his way he again resorted to making personal attacks. This resulted in another page protection.

So in less than a year, he's engaged in 3 or 4 edit wars, helped to get 2 pages locked, and disruptively mass nominated/prodded a ton of articles. With this behaviour and the claim about how long he's been on wikipedia I feel like this might be a returned blocked/banned user. At the least I feel he should be restricted to 1RR on any article given his propensity for edit warring, but I also think a greater look needs to be taken at the SP issues, unfortunately I don't think SPI would be remotely useful as I don't think it keeps year old IP data.--

) 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment as yet on the substance of the complaint, however, I find it odd that the block for edit warring came almost 7 hours after the last revert, though there is no question that the 3RR was violated. I think it might be an idea to have this conversation when Abductive is able to speak directly in his defence, but in fairness, you have notified him of the thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

He was reported to the 3RR noticeboard as is the normal process. The only reason his editing stopped was that I disengaged and have for now, let him have his way. I've also informed him that if he wants to make a statement it will be copied over. There is a history of edit warring and insults that goes well beyond the current situation.--

Crossmr (talk

) 02:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you evidence the history of edit warring and insults with multiple diffs please. Please can you explain why you do not appear to have addressed your concerns about socking with Abductive?
Spartaz ^Humbug!
12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That is already there. Click through. If you'd like the exact diff where he insulted someone last time, [153]. That edit war was stopped by a page protection before it went completely out of hand you can see the full ANI discussion above. As for the SP issues, those were already raised with him and that was all he disclosed, but that doesn't seem to be honest given his claim on his userpage.--
Crossmr (talk
) 13:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The first diff does not show a violation of the 3RR, the second appears to have been two reverts and the third also appears not to have been a 3RR violation. This out of a total of 12,000 edits in 18 months. I suggest you need something a little stronger then this and please can you show a diff where YOU addressed the sock allegation directly with Abductive before raising it here? I do agree that Abductive could do with improving their civility from time to time.
Spartaz ^Humbug!
13:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz, though at least this editor's insult made me chuckle, which I always say "if your going to be uncivil at least make it funny" so I'd like to see him be a bit more creative if there's a next time. Is there any risk if Abductive is unblocked long enough so he can actually contribute to his defence here at AN/I? Yea, transcribing his responses over here isnt much of an ability to defend himself or contact others who may be able to help him in his defence, or directly confront his accusers in a meaningful way (and hopefully insult-free). Personally I say let him be and unblock him.Camelbinky (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement that he be unblocked and AN/I has a long history of transcribing statements from blocked users if the need is there. Encouraging uncivil behaviour isn't exactly a compelling position.--
Crossmr (talk
) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2009-Now is not 18 months. That is 11 months. In that time, he's socked and been disruptive. he admitted that. I'm now pointing out that the extent of what he admitted to isn't the complete picture. I'm under no obligation to discuss it with him further when bringing it here as the part of a bigger package. The first diff shows he was warned about 3RR and seemed to show an understanding of it (without being linked to it) beyond what a user 2 months into editing wikipedia should show. Its evidence that this is probably not his first account. One doesn't need to violate 3RR to be edit warring. I never said he violated 3RR that many times just that he'd been involved in 3 or 4 edit wars, 2 of which resulted in page protection, and 2 of which resulted in him insulting other users when he couldn't get his way.

The first was in reference to this [154] where he was basically fighting with another editor to try and get some tag (any tag) onto the article. Which is similar to what happened now. He was trying to remove content for some reason, any reason and when it was apparent he didn't have consensus he just edit warred and insulted until blocked.
The second edit has 4. Edit warring isn't just reverting, it is undoing another person's edits. He has his first edit where he removed several entries that another user removed, that is 1, then he has 2 reverts, that is 3. Then he changes a bunch of stuff later on that wisdom power changed. That is 4 separate series of edits undoing other peoples work. If you really need a 3RR violation, there you go. [155], [156], [157], [158] 4 times undoing anothers work in less than 24 hours.
In the last one, he gets to 3 and the page is protected before it can go further. There was only 19 minutes between his last revert and the page locking. The other editor he was fighting with wasn't watching the page like a hawk and reverting immediately. He was obviously edit warring if the admin felt the need to protect the page.--
Crossmr (talk
) 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I deny these allegations. "Almost" violated 3RR? That means I didn't. With these other claimss, find me anybody with as many edits as I have who hasn't rubbed somebody the wrong way. As for the dispute that did get me blocked, it was pure 3RR, not a violation of
WP:OWNERSHIP problem with the Asian fetish article, whereas I'm just trying to whip it into better shape. A thankless task--the article has been through 6 AfDs and has attracted some serious sockpuppeteers. Abductive (reasoning
) 21:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I just demonstrated where you violated 3RR last month. Do you deny undoing peoples edits those 4 times? Your contribs are a matter of public record. The first article didn't see you violate 3RR but you were edit warring to put "something" on the page, you just didn't know what but were editing it back and forth anyway instead properly considering what should go on the page or discussing it on the talk page. In the last one you only avoided a 3RR violation because the page was locked. Accusing someone of a COI without evidence is an assumption of bad faith and uncivil. The only ownership problem with the article is demonstratively you and hippo43 who have both been blocked for edit warring over it. You are too quick to push your version making sniping comments rather than engage in meaningful discussion. You seem to have zero concept of
Crossmr (talk
) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of his history so won't comment, but I fully support Abductive on the recent issue at Asian fetish, and I'm concerned by Crossmr's focus on the individual, not the issue. Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content, aggressively and high-handedly reverted to his preferred version of a long-contentious article. Similarly he has referred to edit warring in my past (in this discussion and elsewhere) presumably trying to undermine me as a contributor, rather than deal directly with the content dispute, and has criticised me above without notifying me. If this all leads to wider scrutiny of this article, so much the better. --hippo43 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I categorically disagree with Hippo43's characterization of Crossmr's actions. Crossmr has been dispassionate and professional concerning his interaction with Abductive, who obviously has a history of disrupting other pages in unacceptable ways. And Crossmr has repeatedly (the requests would be approaching about 50 times or so by now) requested that both Hippo43 and Abductive give specific information to back up their claims and demands. They have not done that. And this is entertaining: "Crossmr has refused to discuss specific issues relating to content." Wow. That is simply not true. Please refer to the discussion page for the proof. In fact, both Crossmr and myself have repeatedly and extensively made efforts to discuss the issues in a democratic fashion on the discussion page. Crossmr's "focus on the individual" is of course related to the fact that Abductive has insisted pressing positions that frankly make little sense; Crossmr, to his credit, has kept his composure. In the end, both Hippo43 and Abductive have incessantly insisted that they have the right to completely change the makeup of a very controversial section that has represented the status quo for years. However, the burden to provide proof for the need for that change is imminent, and the burden belongs to them — not anyone else. The problem is that they cannot provide that proof. So because they will not simply acknowledge this and provide a lettered response concerning proof that has been requested, they just keep making the same statements that do not represent arguments, or content that makes their case, but only the vague pretense of such. And it wastes everyone's time in the process. Computer1200 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification. You support someone edit warring to push their position? This thread is about abductive's behaviour that goes well beyond this particular article. If you want to discuss the particulars of the article feel free to go to the talk page. you'll see ample
Crossmr (talk
) 14:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked abductive if he has anything further to add [159] but since he's continued editing (and warring on the article in addition to contributing to the consensus discussion) and hasn't responded I guess he doesn't. He clearly violated 3RR this time, he violated it last month. In october he got a page locked by his actions and last summer he was warned over fighting on a page. In addition to that he admitted socking last summer to mass nominate/prod articles (the vast majority of which didn't stand). For me, that's far too much disruption. In addition I've asked him directly about the account issues and he's carried on editing without commenting on that. If there is some legitimate reason for his changing accounts and not wanting to reveal the old one, that is fine, but the fact that one sock was already brought out of the drawer is a problem.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that with regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive, that was a clear username change there. Secondly, that was a bad-faith SPI report made my serial sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, who was at the time harassing him and User:DreamGuy. –MuZemike 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. He still used more than one account to mass prod/nominate a ton of articles which didn't stick. Neither account goes beyond May 2009, so the account(s) that he's used between November 10, 2006 and May 2009 are unknown. We don't know if he's still using them or not since we don't know which ones they are(were). If there is a legitimate reason for him changing accoutns he's free to email an admin or arbcom and report the change and they could comment here and say it is fine. However, due to the initial disruptive behaviour and the continued disruptive behaviour it doesn't really seem like it.--

Crossmr (talk

) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to (and apologies if I felt like I was), but I wanted to make that clear that Abductive and DreamGuy were clearly being baited and harassed by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer during that time. As far as the other account is concerned, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195#Wholesale deprodding by new account and [160] (the latter is repeated in that SPI case). –MuZemike 02:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

After debunking one of his bizarre claims in the current dispute [161] where he continually claimed there wasn't a single other article on wikipedia that included researcher's names, he's gone through to make a ton of

Crossmr (talk

) 04:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Somebody tell this user he doesn't own articles, and that he shouldn't wikihound. He really isn't getting it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This your defense for making pointy battleground edits across multiple articles? You might want to look in the mirror. You have no consensus for your edits. You have been asked repeatedly to provide a policy or citation for your position and can't do it. You can't cite a single passage on wikipedia that says researchers shouldn't be named in articles and rather than discuss it you continue to edit war over it. As we can clearly see here [167], and [168]. What you're not getting is that your opinion isn't the only one and if you want to change the status quo, you need to gain consensus. You've been told to read
Crossmr (talk
) 05:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is how you characterize it. As I make edits to remove just the inline mentions of non-notable researchers who are already credited in the refs, you follow me around reverting me and say that I'm making a battleground? I don't have to engage in discussion with you on articles that aren't on your watchlist. As you yourself have demonstrated, if only ~2000 articles out of 3 million use the "in a study conducted by" language, then using such language is not the norm. I have already discovered that most such usage "in a study conducted by" is followed by "UNESCO", "an NGO" and so forth, not the names of non-notable scientists who most likely edited the pages themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are. You knew before you made those edits that your position was contested. You knew after I reverted 2 of them, that the position was contested. But you continued to make the edits and you continued to revert instead of enter discussion. You knew I was watching those 2 articles, because I reverted you. You ignored the community standard
Crossmr (talk
) 05:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If mentioning the people who discovered a fact was used inline for every fact throughout Wikipedia, it would take me 3,262,608 x about 15 minutes per article, or 93 years of solid editing to remove them all. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet again your failed logic. Absence of a piece of text in an article isn't proof of consensus from the community. Still waiting for that citation, or do you want to continue to try and distract rather than actually proving this mystical consensus you claim? Your claim was about naming researchers, not everyone who ever discovered a fact. You see, each time the story changes because you have nothing to support your position except your unending willingness to continue to edit war instead of discuss it.--
Crossmr (talk
) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think so. Studies are by researchers, yet inline language in Wikipedia articles naming the researchers who conducted the studies is vanishingly rare, especially if the researchers don't have a Wikipedia article. By contrast, naming researchers in references is policy. This suggests consensus, perhaps unwritten or even unthinking, that one shouldn't give non-notable people so much "play" in articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What policy? Please cite the policy that indicates researchers are only to be named in the footnotes. Still waiting. Another story change, we're going to need a play book here soon to keep up all the various lines you've tried to use to claim this shouldn't happen without actually providing a citation. Let's not forget that 3 of the 4 researchers you claimed were non-notable that started your latest disruptive edit warring over actually meet our notability requirements. You'd know if you'd have actually checked. I wonder how many others you've removed meet the guidelines or did you bother to check before removing their names?--
Crossmr (talk
) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have told you many times, it's
WP:UNDUE#Characterizing opinions of people's work. And you are characterizing my contructive edits to articles you only found by checking my contribs as disruptive and edit warring. You are completely mistaken about the notability of the researchers. Finally, I did not remove them from the article(s), just formatted them into refs (if they weren't already in the refs). Haven't you noticed that no admin has taken your side? Abductive (reasoning
) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And as I've told you that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Have you actually read what you just linked to? Your claim was that policy stated they should be listed in the footnotes. Where is that in the text you've just linked to? It isn't there. Your second link has absolutely no bearing on this situation at all. it is talking about aesthetic opinion. You're not removing names that have anything to do with aesthetic opinion. But it shows how little you seem to understand the policy you're clinging to like a life-raft. You are removing the names of researchers who conducted research. Some of whom are notable. Like 3 from the article you got blocked for edit warring over. And [169] why don't you check out Flávio Henrique Caetano you'll find plenty of google news, books and scholar hits for him. Its unfortunately not english, and I don't know how common that name is but it comes up enough to be at least worth checking out. Especially before claiming he isn't notable.--
Crossmr (talk
) 06:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

and here he is finally admitting he has no consensus for his actions [170]. If he had the consensus he claimed he did, he'd know where it is and wouldn't need to look for it. He's basically been making up argument after argument on things that have no real relationship to the issues and edit warring on multiple articles over it.--
Crossmr (talk
) 07:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr is the one making things up. I have been repeating the same argument, using different words, a variety of statistics, examples and links, in a vain attempt to get this user to see my point of view. As can be seen, of the four people arguing on the talk page, 2 hold one position and 2 hold another. Everything else is just Wikihounding and tenditious editing on Crossmr's part. Abductive (reasoning
) 07:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That isn't what you just claimed was it? Everyone can see your edit. Or do you want to continue to try and lie? To tell the truth, I have not looked for a proper "citation" for the consensus I claim, what part of that is made up? Still waiting on the name of the other accounts by the way. Your argument has been all over the place. You've refused to gain consensus and even after being blocked you continued to try and push your way on the article without consensus. Please enlighten us to what the passage on aesthetic opinions on creative works of art has to do with researchers names being in the article in conjunction with the studies they've produced. The tendentious editing comes from your unwillingness to see a discussion to the end before trying to force your opinion onto multiple articles by edit warring and even when you participate in a discussion to provide evidence to support your position. You just admitted you didn't look for the proper source which basically means you don't want to or can't provide it.--
Crossmr (talk
) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As I previously stated, the consensus is in the form of millions of articles that do not give prominence to individual researchers, but instead use the established reference formats. I stated that this consensus is unwritten, but that does not mean it isn't the consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No you clearly stated you didn't look for the consensus. studies aren't used in millions of articles on wikipedia so it would be unreasonable to expect them to give prominence to things they don't use. Unless you've actually got evidence of mass removal of these kinds of sentences unchallenged or with discussions showing consensus agreed with their removal, you have no consensus.--
Crossmr (talk
) 08:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look because you Wikilawyer everything, and because I use abductive reasoning. What I try to do is educate. As for my actions or statements being unchallenged, how much admin inaction here does it take for you to get the message? Abductive (reasoning) 08:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. you didn't look because it doesn't exist. Your juggling on the Asian Fetish talk page is plenty evidence of that. You're concocting the most elaborate and asinine arguments I've ever seen. Citing completely unrelated polices and guidelines coupled with what almost appears to be intentional misunderstanding of them to try and support your arguments rather than cite the consensus you claim you have.--

Crossmr (talk

) 08:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

♫ Nobody's listening to us ♫♪. Abductive (reasoning) 08:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When you two are done, any concise diffs or condensed explanations might be more useful than the above. Are there perhaps a few places we could focus on? Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth

User:Joey the Mango. He put some strange comments on my talk page but I can't say that I found them objectionable enough to complain about. Xxanthippe (talk

) 09:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Concise diffs

Last summer it was noted that Abductive used multiple accounts to mass-prod a bunch of articles Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive196#Wikihounding, by bunch over 150. They were all contested. AN/I shot the messenger because he was a sock, but it doesn't change what abductive did. Disruptive socking. At that time it was also noted that he refused to disclose old accounts and if you follow this discussion he ducks the question every time, but his user page indicates he's been here 2.5 years longer than his account.
Around the same time, he got in a dispute with an editor here [171]. Not a 3RR violation, but he was going back and forth without discussion.
In october 2009 he was involved in another edit war that was stopped with page protection before he could technically violate 3RR Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Abductive_Uncalled_for_Behavior [172] It was also noted he was uncivil making a personal attack.
Last month in March he violated 3RR [173], [174], [175], [176] the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed.
just recently he was blocked on Asian fetish for violating 3RR. After being unblocked he made a contribution to the consensus building discussion we were having [177], but followed that up with trying to push his version back into the article [178] [179] twice. Before being blocked he insinuated with evidence that I had some kind of COI when he wasn't getting his way [180]. this was an assumption of bad faith and I consider it a personal attack.
During the discussion he brought up the point that there were no articles which had researchers names in them with the study. I provided a couple google links showing plenty, his response was to start making disputed,
WP:BATTLEGROUND edits to multiple articles. [181], [182], [183]
. See contribs, he's done this to 7 or 8 articles. He knew his position was disputed but reverted any opposition and carried on with other articles.

After I reverted a couple of this indicating there was no consensus to remove these names, he accused me of wikihounding and reverted again. Ignorinig
WP:BRD. [184], [185]
.

He's repeatedly claimed consensus yet each time he's asked for it he refuses to provide the link because he doesn't want to look for it [186] or claims I'll just wikilawyer it.
Knowing that there is no consensus for his assertion and that it is disputed and still failing to provided evidence of his consensus he just tried to push it on a featured article [187]. Basically anything that gets mentioned as support he will try to edit out.
While a discussion is on-going on one page that shows that users don't support his POV [188], he uses mis-leading edit summaries on other articles to push it [189].

Maybe a few more shortly.--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that his edit war last month, this month and his pointy and battleground edits all seem to center around academics he thinks are not notable. Couple with his statement here about "juniour professors" [190]. It would seem like its a hot button issue for him.--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick point to Abductive about "consensus" regarding the names of authors; look at Court of Chancery. That's an FA; one of our highest-quality articles. That's an article which has been peer reviewed, and the idea that it is high-quality and does not violate policy has reached consensus. You'll notice authors' names are mentioned when they've opined. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made an example edit (reverted by Ironholds using automation and the single word No) with a concise explanation of my reasoning on the talk page to the Court of Chancery article, which is easier to wade through than the mess in Asian fetish. Ironholds may not agree, but I think my reasons are sound. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that your behaviour is at ANI and the (admittedly small) consensus at the talkpage says you're wrong may make you want to think twice about your quote unquote "sound" reasons. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think twice often. For example, the phrase "according to academics" occurs in only 4 Wikipedia articles. "According to Professor" occurs in only 347 of Wikipedia's 3 million articles. In my discussion with you in Court of Chancery, I suspect that your opinion is colored by the way this stylistic concern was brought to your attention, and you might have reacted differently if I had just made the edit de novo. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, judging some form of WP natural law from statistics doesn't work. And no, I'm pretty much the same all the time. Again, have you considered that since nobody is agreeing with you, you might be wrong? Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before User:Crossmr went on his fishing expedition, the talk page was tied 2:2, with Hippo43 taking the same position as I did. Also, if you look through the article history of Asian fetish, Hippo43 has been struggling with many POV editors and socks, alongside Crossmr. Questions were raised about the appropriateness of including a study of racial preferences in dating in an article on sexual fetishization of Asian women, concerns which Crossmr shouts down. The treatment of this study has been given steadily more prominence in the article, to the point that it is the majority of the text, and that's when I started to try to trim it back a bit, per
WP:OWN is a policy, many people own articles and cannot see that there may be legitmate concerns. Abductive (reasoning
) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The fishing expedition which is showing you don't have the consensus you claimed you did and refuse to cite? The issue revolves around what appears to be your personal bias. Your two latest edit wars, your combative edits this time around, your casual comment about juniour professors on the talk page all show some kind of contempt for academics you don't deem worthy. Even knowing there was opposition to your position you just went and tried to change a featured article to push your point of view. you've been trying to dance around this for awhile now and providing all kinds of ludicrous and borderline disruptive answers as part of your reasoning. Claiming that you can't find a certain sentence pattern in some required imaginary number of articles as consensus that it shouldn't exist in any article is akin to saying your position is right because you're wearing blue pants. Your latest argument centered around the fact that somehow a notability guideline for article creation meant that we couldn't name a studies author in the article text. Naming the authors and/or universities involved in a study has absolutely nothing to do with
Crossmr (talk
) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As further evidence of your doing whatever you want regardless of what other users say: [191] after two users explained to you that it is perfectly normal and correct to identify who it is that is making statements, claims, etc and that it is not a problem with
Crossmr (talk
) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So are the two studies on the GA
Crossmr (talk
) 12:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any
WP:UNDUE weighting in the Theodore Kaczynski article. Abductive (reasoning
) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts about the diffs above. I don't have a stake in this issue nor do I want to engage in a blow-by-blow regarding the below. I'll make a few specific points though. The two ANI's up there don't bother me. In fact, aside from an isolated uncivil comment (it really wasn't that uncivil either), they're entirely appropriate. It's not 3RR to keep removing vandalism or spam. Similarly the

List of University of Toronto people

edits are essentially an IP (that changes) attempting to add inappropriate redlinks to a list page, something that had previously been discussed a lot by Abductive and others on the Talk page. In that case he RVed 2 times, then sent the IP to the page. I don't see why that's a problem. Similarly, the "mass prodding" was to a whole set of address pages that a sock puppet account then had issue with. I don't think anyone else called it disruptive.

The James R. Davila stuff is a little pushy, and should have been discussed somewhere other than in edit summaries. The proper move would have been for Abductive to have undone Avraham's RV with a note to go to the talk page. If Avraham continued to remove it after that, then take appropriate action. Neither of those are model behavior, but nor are either of those fatal. That incident was almost a year ago too.

What is inappropriate are the edits that got him blocked, and the similar ones removing researcher names. I agree with Ironholds on some of those details, but that's not the point of discussion here. There is a tendency to be a little pointy about some of these recent edits. My conclusion is that there are some legitimate complaints regarding this recent trend (especially in the 3R situation, which after the first change was explained there was ongoing discussion), but Crossmr's claims regarding the past edits are either without merit, or minor problems.

I think Abductive should cool down on these "Professor X says..." edits for a while. If they're going to be made across a bunch of articles, there should be a central debate about it somewhere. As for the SPI stuff, you should put that over at SPI and leave this other stuff out of it (or else I pity the clerk who has to wade through all of that). Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple notes, the admin who protected the page last October specifically said "but also got carried away in his response to reinsertions of the kind that got the article deleted in the first place". The reinsertions might not have been appropriate but the admin felt that Abductive got carried away anyway. This is more about his response to challenges to his editing. At the toronto article only the first 2 edits were explicitly over redlinks with the IP, the next two were reverts of Wisdompower. To me it shows that he doesn't handle opposition to his POV well, which is what is happening again now. While I don't find those two events to be huge problems, I just find them to be indicative of a on-going trend that with this account.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And the
talk
) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful and since the addition of the concise diffs section we've been getting some helpful feedback.--
Crossmr (talk
) 05:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox is right but so are you. The frustration here though is that the disagreements appear to be largely personal. It's not long til someone says "this isn't an administrator issue", which is mostly true at this point. We'd all appreciate any remaining issues be boiled down to some core contingency and those be funneled to the right place.

Look, you're both good editors, but even the best of us make mistakes from time to time. The question is if Abductive, takes this to heart, and similarly if Crossmr does too. This isn't blame... and someone else may still do something about it too. But notwithstanding that, I'd hope you both try to discuss things a little bit more. You two know enough to be incredibly productive, or incredibly disruptive. Not that I think either of you are doing the latter, but you know the game, so please understand that if the rules are applied somewhat more rigorously to this issue, it's because of that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here. I've rarely ever edited the same article as abductive [193]. 1 of those few articles we've both edited was like 4 years apart. I brought this here because I saw an editor who repeatedly edited against consensus, and refused to properly discuss issues before hitting the revert button. Since I brought this here you've seen him continue the disputed edits knowing they're disputed and even doing so on a FA. You've suggested he should cut that out unless he's going to start a central discussion to get consensus on it. Continually pushing POV without properly seeking consensus when you know your edits are disputed is an administrator issue. It is why I brought it here. If he's going to cut that out and engage in proper consensus building discussions and adhere to

Crossmr (talk

) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for administrative actions

Which as I expected brings us right back here. Yet again Abductive is doing whatever he wants regardless of who speaks out against him [194]. As I pointed out yesterday Abductive ignored the opinions of experienced editors and used misleading edit summaries to change another article. After an IP (which he assumed was me and was wrong, reverted him for legitimate reasons) instead of

Crossmr (talk

) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams suggested above that these edits were not a good idea and that he should stop until a central discussion was held on the issue. After trying to push the change on an FA, he was told there was no problem with the researchers name being inline by two different editors.[195], [196]. It is clear Abductive has no consensus to make these changes. So he went off to several other articles and made those changes.

[197] Here he claims to be removing entries per WEASEL, but WEASEL addresses using words like "according to some" he only removed 2 of those and removed 4 instances where those statements were attributed to individuals. This was just explained to him that it was okay and that he shouldn't make these edits
[198] he does it again
[199] and a third one here
An IP (which he assumes bad faith and assumes its me, feel free to run a CU) comes along and reverts him with explanation. [200], [201], [202], [203]
Ignoring
assumes bad faith and insinuates the IP is me, threatens the IP on his talk page for reverting him, and then reverts all of the articles. [204], [205], [206] [207]

I said I'd let it drop if was willing to edit inline with policies and guidelines but its apparent he isn't. So far, he's violated:

WP:POINT
WP:CONSENSUS
WP:BATTLEGROUND
WP:AGF
WP:BRD
WP:3RR
in the last week.

This has to stop.--

) 05:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How did I insinuate that an IP was you? This claim is bogus. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

By slapping him with the same bad faith warning and using the same verbiage to dismiss his edits?--
Crossmr (talk
) 04:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hardly evidence that I was saying it was you. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

But plenty of evidence to support you are acting in bad faith and ignoring
Crossmr (talk
) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Hutz: "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are right there where you accuse him of wikihounding you and threaten him on the talk page. Are you telling us you didn't make those edits? Was someone else using your account? Another lost password? How about the fact that you went out and made those first edits in the face of growing opposition to your point of view which you still can't cite a consensus on? You're right people should read your edits, because it is clear as day that you have no regard for other people's point of view and feel entitled to revert any page to your preferred version regardless of discussion and in violation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. While there was only small connected evidence before this began, you've shown since its started that you zero regard for any kind of opposition to your POV.--
Crossmr (talk
) 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If I decided to remove instances of "not uncommon" from every article it which the phrase appeared, would that be a blockable offence? No, because the phrase fits
WP:WEASEL. Similarly, removing a few instances of "according to" is both a minor change and consistent with the MoS. Abductive (reasoning
) 03:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You were just told by multiple editors not to remove that and that it was not consistent with MoS. Removing according tos, when they're attached to words like "some people" or "some academics" is appropriate. Removing according tos when they're attached to "John Smith" or "Professor X" are not appropriate. It is clear attribution of an opinion. This was explained to you. You ignored repeatedly. Which is why we are here and people are supporting your block.--
Crossmr (talk
) 04:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, those edits predate Shadowjams suggestion at 23:29, 20 April 2010 that I "cool it" with those sorts of edits. If people take a look at the edits, and the edits summaries, I think some will not see any problems at all. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reversions of the IP who disagreed with you do not predate that suggestion. They also don't predate being told on the talk page of the FA that the names are appropriate [208]. Nor does it excuse you using misleading edit summaries to cover up the changes you make.--
Crossmr (talk
) 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So I continued to edit articles I already edited? My edit summaries were not misleading. I strongly recommend that all editors reading this look at the edits. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing an article once doesn't give you license to revert any opposition to your edits. That is specifically spelled out on
Crossmr (talk
) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In each of the follow-on edits I made, I carefully considered what the IP said, and made new edits that were either different from the first, or explained why I felt I was correct. At present, are any of the articles worse than when I started? Abductive (reasoning) 05:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

2 of the 4 were blind reverts were you accused him of wikihounding then threatened him on his talk page. None of the removals were appropriate at that point because multiple editors had said it was inappropriate. The status of the articles is immaterial because you clearly knew these kinds of edits were disputed but you persisted in pushing your point of view without having the discussion that was recommended to you.--
Crossmr (talk
) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with everything you just said, except to note that now we're down to 2 out of 4 articles. Abductive (reasoning) 05:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said the other 2 were okay. At that point it was still suggested you stop making those edits. Its only in 2 of them you made direct bad faith accusations and blindly reverted the articles. The other two you still removed the names without consensus. When you reverted those articles Shadowjams had recommended you stop and 2 editors on the FA had told you that the names were appropriate. You had no support for your edits yet pushed away.--
Crossmr (talk
) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The edits were consistent with the Manual of Style, and 2 or 4 edits hardly constitutes any kind of mass action. Again, I note that the articles are better now than they were before. This is how editing gets done on Wikipedia; there may be some opposition, but given that the IP hasn't complained or reverted, perhaps s/he doesn't perceive a problem. Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they weren't. You were told that already. you were told to stop making them. The IP could just be busy and hasn't come back to the article. Their absence isn't evidence that they support you. I know you like to use that a lot as argument, but it doesn't fly. The problem is you ignore other users, and revert pages rather than discuss. It is what got you blocked before, and the exact behaviour you've continuing since then. You've intentionally gone to articles and made edits you know were disputed. I haven't reverted all of them yet because I'm waiting for a clear consensus which is starting to form. If you want to continue these edits you need to make a proposal at the village pump that they should be removed and see how the community feels. Everything else disruptive.--
Crossmr (talk
) 05:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I think that you need to get the last word in. You and I repeat the same arguments over and over, with you making sweeping statements about consensus forming, when in fact the general consensus is that this is not important. It is an editing dispute, with some people even agreeing with me. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Support block This is a long list of violated policies.
<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk
) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Support block Abductive's WP:POINT violations concern me the most. If he wants to have inline attributions of studies to their researchers removed, he should have gone to the village pump, rather than just removing them all himself, without prior discussion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I agree that this is a real problem. Disruption, socking, fait accompli mass edits, wikilawyering about 3RR (there is no 3 revert entitlement). Talks like an academic and edit wars at asian fetish? Give me a break. Overall attitude could be viewed as an ownership issue towards the whole encyclopedia. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no socking. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't you tell us who the previous accounts? You were asked by an adminstrator last year to name your accounts and refused.--
Crossmr (talk
) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I refused correctly. There is a difference between sockpuppeting and legit alternate accounts, and there is no problem at all if the accounts don't overlap in time and articles. I tell you what, though; if you can guess any of my alternate accounts, I'll admit them. You can have 1000 guesses, just ask at my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 04:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How would anyone know since you won't disclose it? I'm certainly not going to take your word on it at this point. The very least you can do is e-mail the list to arbcom.--
Crossmr (talk
) 04:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell the truth. After all, if in the future any admin or member of arbcom ever did take an interest in this non-issue, my lying would be perceived quite negatively. So, if there is any account that has ever aroused your suspicion, just ask on my talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to come clean with your past accounts you can do so here or you can e-mail the list to arbcom. No reason to tuck it away on your talk page. Last year you claimed that they would only show more of the same (Which tells us a lot) but that there wasn't anything untoward, so why not just list them unless you got blocks or bans to hide?--
Crossmr (talk
) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposed. Who said academics can't have fetishes? Seriously, this seems a pretty
ping
00:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Except he's been told by multiple users he shouldn't do it without getting consensus first. There are multiple problems here. 1) that he's making
Crossmr (talk
) 04:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ironholds has warmed a bit to my point of view. The way you have characterized my edits is not consistent with the, well, truth. Abductive (reasoning) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'll take a look" doesn't mean, I agree with your point and you're free to remove researchers names from countless articles.--
Crossmr (talk
) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Listen carefully; I am not advocating removing researchers from articles; what I want is their names down in the footnoted references--not inline--unless there is a good reason. Abductive (reasoning) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Listen carefully; there is opposition to your moving names down to the references from in-line. You were told to stop it, both here and on article talk pages. You continued. More people opposed you. You reverted and made bad faith accusations. You are being disruptive, see no problem with your edits, and have no regard for consensus.--
Crossmr (talk
) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree. The consensus you claim is actually people wishing that this ANI discussion would die out, or people who came quite late to this discussion and clearly are mislead by you. Earlier, Ironholds, one other user and I had a discussion on a talk page, with results amenable to all. An IP and you are the only ones intrested in following my contribs and finding fault, and I made an effort to take everybody's concerns into account, and the IP has not edited the articles further. Are you saying that I cannot edit? Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the consensus I claim is Shadowjam who told you to get consensus, ironholds and the other person on the FA talk page, the IP, and even Radman above specifically states that you should have gone to the village pump to get consensus first, as well as a second IP. If you made an effort to take everyone's concerns into account, you wouldn't have run out to change every article that was provided as evidence to dispute your false claims. You're free to edit, but you shouldn't be moving researchers names out of the inline text until you have consensus to do so. Several users have told you that. You've ignored it repeatedly and made bad faith accusations and ignored
Crossmr (talk
) 05:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, you make sweeping claims that I changed "every article", was going to remove "all" of something, and that I am reverting when the edits are not reversions, and that I am not following suggestions when in fact I am. I'm also engaging in normal editing practices to the best of my ability. Go ahead, put in the last word. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I don't see a good reason to invoke the source of some science in text by default. You haven't provided any. Just because you and some other editors disagree with Abductive on this issue, it doesn't make you (or them) any holier than him. I do use similar constructs occasionally, but when I have a good reason to do so. For instance, I used something like that in the
ping
09:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Holier no, but knowingly going out and repeatedly making edits you know are disputed is disruptive. Especially when counselled to start a consensus discussion. It is completely contrary to
Crossmr (talk
) 12:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Support block. I am disappointed that after the improvements
Joey the Mango to Abductive he has edited disruptively and against consensus in other articles. It seems that he edits subjects of which he has limited knowledge in a domineering and recalcitrant manner and is unwilling to accommodate the views of others. Xxanthippe (talk
) 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

The more I see the more its clear there is some personal bias against academics he thinks are non-notable and is out to remove every mention of them from wikipedia regardless of how others feel.--
Crossmr (talk
) 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, this characterization is untrue.
undue prominence, or a legitimate process called AfD. Seizing upon an AfD nomination I made when I was rusty upon returning to editing, he makes sweeping, untrue claims. Abductive (reasoning
) 15:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ping
01:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a year go. Hence why I titled this long term disruption. Older incidents are quite relevant because it shows that this is an on-going problem which shows no real indication of changing. He gave the impression he learned something, but obviously he didn't. All his edit summaries belie his intent. Instead of indication that he's trying to improve the articles he's telling us he's removing their names from the inline text because they're "non-notable" he was nominating academics without properly checking them. He was referring to Fisman and Iyengar as non-notable academics at Asian Fetish when a quick Gnews/Books/Scholar check shows they meet
Crossmr (talk
) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

He was asking Xxanthippe. Twice violated 3RR? What was the second time? And referring to an AfD that occurred a year ago is plainly ridiculous. I have nominated dozens of articles for deletion since then, partipated in over 1000 AfDs, and have prevailed in quite a few. Crossmr continues to
cherry-pick, characterizing my normal editing behavior, and a few mistakes, as evidence of some sort of plot to ruin Wikipedia. In fact, none of my actions are particularly unusual, and all are attempts on my part to improve the encylopedia. Abductive (reasoning
) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What is it that is being asked?--Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Pcap wanted to know if you think Abductive has some agenda against academics.--
Crossmr (talk
) 04:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no views on that matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

A month ago, look up, its already been linked to twice. Last month in March he violated 3RR [24], [25], [26], [27] the page was locked shortly there after. His violation was missed. You undid another editors work 4 times in 24 hours. It got lost in the shuffle of all of the edit warring that was going on there. I don't need to cherry pick anything. I just simply need to point out the times you were opposed and how you reacted to it. A year ago is perfectly relevant since the point being made is long-term disruption. That would require old incidents too. Which really aren't that old since you apparently started editing 2.5 years before that but refuse to name your previous accounts.--
Crossmr (talk
) 04:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Truly, the way you characterize things is
WP:BATTLEGROUND. Abductive (reasoning
) 05:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Undoing another user's edits 4 times in 24 hours is a 3RR violation, it doesn't matter if its a named account or an IP. unless those edits are one of the few excepted edits (blatant vandalism, copyvios, etc) then it counts. Opposing Abductive's point of view isn't one of the excepted edits. Can you demonstrate that any of the things you removed and undid was an excepted edit under
Crossmr (talk
) 09:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that what turned out to be one other user was editing against the talk page consensus on an article with BLP issues, I don't think that 3RR applies. Nobody but you cares about the non-issue of my prior accounts, and my offer still stands for you to guess at them. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why this user is still, after this much disruption, a rollbacker. I do not feel that any user who has engaged in disruptive editing should possess this tool, and would support revoking rollback rights and then possibly blocking. Immunize (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question and might be the subject of a secondary proposal.--

Crossmr (talk

) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry champ, that isn't one of the excepted edits you get to go over 3RR for. 3RR isn't for content disputes, and if you think it is then it tells us you really haven't learned anything from this or prior situations.--

) 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the prior accounts are an issue since concerns are being raised about them, and I think Abductive is showing a long term pattern of non-collegial editing, and ongoing wikilawyering (I haven't checked if that's also a long term pattern). Abductive, have you disclosed your past accounts to arbcom-l and/or are you willing to do so? While the sock policy doesn't formally require that, it is strongly recommended there, and if you won't do it, I think that diminishes the amount of AGF that should be extended to you in this discussion. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposed There are issues and then there is wrongdoing within this thread. Trumped up charges should always be avoided as they are a means by which one side tries to unfairly tilt the playing field to possibly get a biased judgment. Wikipedia always looks forward and rarely goes back and corrects past mistakes in judgment. Secondly, what exactly is an "administrative action"? Are you seeking a topic ban? That sounds like a major action. Has either party attempted to resolve differences either informally or formally? While there are issues here to be sorted out the approach throws up caution flags.--scuro (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can show where I said anythig false feel free to do so. Otherwise, you can retract your statement. I've provided links for all of his editing and what he has done. This isn't a content dispute. This is an editor who ignores consensus, fails to abide by the varous policies and guidelines he's required to and undoes any opoposition to his point of view. This goes across many articles and topics. While it is mainly confined to one topic, he's edit warred over other things as well. There is nothing he and I can do privately since it isn't a personal issue between us. Administrator action is whatever is required to get him to stop, gain consensus and edit in a manner conducive to running a community when his edits are opposed. He apparently needs that since one of his arguments on Asian fetish was "Since an administrator hasn't blocked me or done anything else, I must be right"--
Crossmr (talk
) 00:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Abductive has claimed exaggeration of your complaint, that user should speak to this issue. I do not buy the notion that there is "nothing he and I can do". Attempts on your part to earnestly resolve differences on his talk page should be the very first approach taken even if this exercise looks to be totally futile. This is a condition required pre-arbitration. Formal reconciliation mechanisms should have also been attempted. Are there several editors who who are in complete agreement with your observations? If so they could be used to initiate other procedures. Are you seeking a total ban from Wikipedia? While that in the end might be the end result ...explain to me why all the traditional remedies and procedures are not required in this case. While a contributor may be behaving poorly, the normal sanction process gives contributors the opportunity and time to permanently self-correct behaivour before serious sanctions are required.--scuro (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Per
User:Pohta ce-am pohtit, who notes that inline attribution suggests "that there may be a different interpretation when none is provided" ; having sources' names in the citation, not inline, is the norm. This looks pretty lame. I think both Crossmr and Abductive should just try to avoid each other.John Z (talk
) 00:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The proposal of

User:Crossmr off these topics and leaves Abductive free to edit with impunity. Xxanthippe (talk

) 06:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC).

Um, there's no "norm"--heck, in

Harvard referencing, the cited author's name is necessarily inline, and it is a perfectly acceptable style on wikipedia. Edit warring over a choice like that completely inappropriate. 69.228.170.24 (talk

) 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about a content dispute. Its about an editor who constantly edit wars with multiple editors across multiple articles and topics and when provided evidence that his point of view isn't supported on other articles he rushes over to change them, including featured articles. The rightness or wrongness of researchers names appearing inline is completely immaterial to this editor's behaviour. The problem was him claiming false consensus and undoing anyone's opposition to his point of view.--

) 03:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose a blanket block - I assume the only block proposals are for perma-blocks, which I would not support. If there's some more nuanced alternative, I would reevaluate (which doesn't mean I'd necessarily support). Also relevant: have any controversial edits continued despite discussion? Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked for adminstrative intervention, whatever they deemed necessary to slow him down and get him to actually discuss the opposition to his edits rather than just undo people's opposition over and over with bad faith assumptions. And yes, as I pointed out above, after 2 editors disagreed with him on the FA, he went out and changed 4 more articles. When he was reverted on that, he reverted again instead of following

Crossmr (talk

) 11:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At minimum, formally restrict to one account unless user agrees to inform arbcom of all aliases and does so (in which case we should ask an arb to spot check the other accounts). User is either operating multiple disruptive accounts and avoiding scrutiny by concealing the connection between them, or is operating a combination of disruptive and non-disruptive accounts, a good-hand/bad-hand situation that is also a misuse of alternates. The only way to legitimately use multiple accounts is to keep all of them completely free of any hint of misconduct. That hasn't happened here. I'm sympathetic to the block proposal but don't want to pile onto it without burning more time examining Crossmr's diffs than I feel like doing. Abductive's aggressive style if done for long enough (even at a low level) constitutes battleground editing calling for use of attitude adjustment tools if it doesn't change. Probation or a suitable editing restriction might be good. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you have evidence of that, then file a
  ping
  14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  - He was asked by adminstrators to do so and danced around the issue. Given his behaviour here and the fact that he continually refuses to name his other accounts, even in a private e-mail to arbcom, it's an issue. If he is restricting himself to one account right now, SPI wouldn't do anything, and SPI data isn't kept a year old to find out if he's hiding previous bad accounts. I find it interesting that you'd take issue with someone expressing an opinion via an IP, but not with someone ignoring wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--
    Crossmr (talk
    ) 14:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

How about the following:

1. A formal restriction to one account, and
2. Either
  1. A 1RR restriction, or
  2. A 0RR on "stylistic" changes (e.g., moving a name from the text to the reference, or vice-versa). (If he doesn't think it's important, than he shouldn't be adding it against opposition.)
Explaination:

As he has previously used multiple accounts disruptively, then we (at least ArbCom) needs to keep track of his multiple accounts if he is acting disruptively on any of them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

What about the following:

restricted to one account

he emails his list of accounts to arbcom so they can keep track of them

1RR on regular topics

0RR on anything to do with "academics", their notability, and them being mentioned in articles, broadly construed.

he's encouraged to commit

Crossmr (talk

) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you'd be willing to enforce these restrictions Arthur?--

) 00:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

From a privacy perspective I don't think we can demand (rather than merely urge) that someone disclose past alternate accounts to arbcom, unless we're prepared to ban the person outright if they refuse. It less imposing to restrict their use in the future, which I think is reasonable here. Your other proposals sound ok. Pcap, nobody is entitled to edit with multiple accounts, especially completely undisclosed ones. It's a practice that we accept in certain situations, but we should withdraw our acceptance if other factors begin to weigh against it, as they have here. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why we're asking them to be emailed to arbcom privately. We consider arbcom trustworthy. Users are often asked to email arbcom these kinds of things privately if they don't want to disclose them publicly. --

Crossmr (talk

) 05:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reporting User:LessHeard vanU for Admin tools abuse.

After having discussed the reasons of the blocking of my account by User:LessHeard vanU with him, on his talk page, as indicated for this situations, I still fail to understand any possible violation that may had led to the blocking of my account. By this, and nothing personal, I would like to report this incident in which I feel extremely perjudicated. Here are some diffs and links that could be helpfull:

[211] The reason of my complain.
[212] My ANI report.
[213] The subsequent block of my account by User:LessHeard vanU.
[214] the discussion on LessHeard vanU talk page where the reasons of the block are (or not) clarified.

I will also like to report and ask

User:Beeblebrox find backing for this offensive arguments of yours. I had already tryied on two occasions, the report itself and on his talk page [217]

but I was completely ignored. Thank you.

As a good and devoted wikipedian, I feel that it was my dutty to report the previos incident, so as this (on my opinion) admin abuse. Thanking everyone in advance, I send best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, LessHeard vanU has explained himself just fine. You were being disruptive by taking a particularly mild comment on your talk page too seriously and demanding unwarranted action. When you refused to listen to people telling you to drop it, you were blocked for threatening to continue the disruption. Everyone seems to have been more than patient with you, and if you still don't understand the reason for the block I'm worried that it's due to your own lack of comprehension. As someone previously uninvolved in this, I can't see anything remotely resembling admin abuse. ~ mazca ^talk 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, the initial edit summary in the first diff was by no means "paritcularly mild". DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's by no means exemplary behaviour, but as a response to repeated objectionable conduct - removing others' posts - it certainly seems fairly mild to me relative to the amount of fuss it caused. ~ mazca ^talk 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The post was restored in place much before the attack occured... FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::It was definitely not mild but looking at the ANI discussion, all the editors involved seemed to agree that both parties were at fault and that they should both just back away from each other. The party who left the initial comment agreed and FkpCascais kept pressing the issue. I can see why they might feel strongly about it but if the community has said drop it and you promise to continue disrupting proceedings, a short-term block seems warranted. This doesn't seem to be a case of admin-abuse. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I didn't use my admin tools I don't think a case could be made that I abused them. And yes, I did ignore your posts on my talk page because clearly you are not getting the message that you are making too big of a deal out of this. Don't expect any further comment from me on this matter since this has gone on far too long already.
talk
) 22:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I am asking you to explain your unjustified acusation on the ANI report that had direct consequencies on the blocking of my account. It was not you that was insulted neither blocked while asking action against it, so I can´t really see how is that you are the one making opinions of if this had already gone too far, or nor, in this case. I will remind you that Admins are not free of responsabilities behind the positions they take on the ANI reports. FkpCascais (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine I will explain it to you. You removed a comment here [218]. That you later went back and undid this ill-considered action does not mean it never happened. Alasdair pointed this out, but used some nasty language when doing so. So, you did something wrong, he did something wrong. My advice was, is, and will continue to be that you should let this drop. Please do not leave any further messages about this on my talk page.

talk

) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would comment that at no time had FkpCascais indicated to me that they considered my actions as abuse, but rather as a matter of seeking an explanation. I would likely not have responded any differently were I aware of that consideration, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to add that -in my opinion- admin LessHeardvanU seems to have been "pushed" (I'd dare to say "intimidated") by a group of yugoslavian/marxist-titofanatics around

user:DIREKTOR. He seems to be allowed to do any wrongdoings he wants on en.wiki (edit wars, vandalisms, verbal offenses, 3RR, political propaganda, etc..). He has collected six bans, but keeps behaving defiantly thanks even to his meatpuppets (like user:AlasdairGreen27). Please, read [219] in order to get an idea. Even with user:FkpCascais he gets whatever he likes (see [220]), but is not punished because some admins seems to be often on his side. Many others wikipedians have experienced his "attacks": recently an admin on it.wiki (user:Crisarco) remained astonished by his behaviour (and for the group "supporting" him) on en.wiki. Please see" [221]. He does -in a continue way- political propaganda (with his meatpuppet user:AlasdairGreen27 and others) supporting communist Tito and Yugoslavian topics.....and no admin on en.wiki seriously takes care of his many wrongdoings (may be they are afraid of him and his group?). The last admin who "dared" to ban him for a few days was literally "assaulted" by his group and was forced to offer a kind of withdrawal of the ban: unbelievable! A lot of people are tired of him and his continuous fights and edit wars: he should be banned forever or for a long period of months. Many wikipedians would appreciate your help to get this: Wikipedia needs to grow in a "peaceful" relationship between users; and this Direktor is always fighting with someone (just look at his talkpage and contributions). Sincerely --BisR41 (talk).-------Apologies, this is yet another "report" from a gang of banned sockpuppeteers I reported (most likely User:Ragusino).DIREKTOR.-------Well, well....I wrote the complainst in order to show Jimbo how quickly some admins "help" this fanatic Direktor (6 times banned! not a little saint...). His meatpuppet group literally attacks even admins (like User:JodyB) who "dare" to punish him! Allow me to repeat: Wikipedia needs to grow in a "peaceful" relationship between users; and this Direktor is always fighting with someone (just look at his talkpage and contributions). He should be banned at least for some months! Sincerely). Allow me to write that it is astonishing to me see that FkpCascais is verbally offended by DIREKTOR's meatpuppet user:AlasdairGreen27 and... who is punished? FkpCascais! UNBELIEVABLE! Let's free Wikipedia from Meatpuppets and their groups. An outraged wikipedian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.74.14 (talk • contribs

03:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that helped your case a lot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It´s not my fault that other people also have complains... I will just ask everybody to concentrate on the report. FkpCascais (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, but you're certainly responsible for your own continued whining. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are talking to the wrong person. FkpCascais (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen User:LessHeard vanU misuse his tools on Wikipedia...ever. He is a great Wikipedian and admin, quick on blocking vandals, but also quick on helping newbies and experienced users. The dude is here all the time (I swear he is a robot). His contribs show a level of expertise that we should try to match, not remove. User:LessHeard vanU is always willing to listen to the other side of the conversation, so I think any problems can be worked out on his talk and this ANI thread closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lucas Duke

I've blocked Lucas Duke (talk · contribs) for using his userpage as a platform for anti-Muslim bigotry after many warnings. The specific cause was this [222] edit. A number of editors have expresed concern on his user talk in the last few months over soapboxing on his userpage and his repeated addition of Category:Anti-muslim activists, among others, to his userpage. In this case, an indefinite block is really intended to be indefinite, and review is welcomed. Acroterion _(talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Support indef. He does other less hostile things, but keeps coming back to soapboxing using Wikipedia as a platform for overtly racist views. We're not here for that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As a person who registered concern before, I also support indef. No room for that at a legitimate encyclopedia.

IronDuke

23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Maybe the best block I have seen all week. We don't need such hatred and bigotry around here. --Jayron32 00:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking Uninvolved Admin To Close Move Discussion

Resolved

– moved by Ucucha (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

[223] After one week of discussion we have clear consensus of 28 for the move an 8 against considering this the 6th Page move discussion since the beginning of 2010 and the only one to come to clear consensus i request the page be moved. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian vandal alert.

Remember the Indonesian long term misinformation vandal who has used a multitude of IP ranges? He's back. Same MO of connecting Digimon with various US movie studio without any source. This time, he used the following IP address in the 110.138.32.0/20 range:

110.138.32.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
110.138.41.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He hasn't showed up in an address beyond the above range, but 110.138.32.0/20 is the best shot we have so far until he uses a third address.

Also, can also be any more stringent measures, especially on actually tracking down the guy or semi-protecting every single article he cannibalized? Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already blocked this range for now based on report on my talk page. But as I mentioned there, I would like more general advice/discussion as to what the best way to deal with this type of vandal is. Jumping IPs and articles quickly, making both semi-protection and rangeblocking difficult without lots of collateral. Should we just keep rangeblocking, but for fairly short periods?

Peter

09:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, he comes back at longish intervals, so short range-blocks are not effective. I don't see anything better than a combination of article protection and whack-a-mole. It looks as if there is more than one person at it - edits from today's two IPs overlap, and the last two are actually in the same minute. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter? Special cluebot rule? 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. NJA tried doing an edit filter and I've put forward an edit filter request before that, but NJA's prototype didn't go out of the fly and my request ultimately rejected. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Intimidation and verbal abuse by another user

User Kuttappan has been involved in bullying other users at the Talk:Nair page for the last few days. till now, he has been using more or less civilized dialogue. But I have noticed today that he is resorting to rogue tactics and bullying as he did here. Also, he showered abuse at me on my talk page. He wrote: "Kuttappan Nairu ninte Thanthayo matto aanodaa, Polayaadi Mone?" (Translation: Is Kuttappan your father, you son of a wh**e). Please control this guy and tell him to stop abusing others. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left a stern warning at that user's talk page. If they continue after this warning, they may be blocked for violations of the

WP:NPA policy. The ball is in his court, lets see what he does from now. --Jayron32

User:Rockyman512

Rockyman512 (talk · contribs) impersonated a bot on my talk page. I'm not sure if this is a lack of clue copy-paste move, or malicious. Other edits in contributions are weird as well, and his talk page shows it. (If this isn't the place for it, please move it- I'm not sure that this is outright vandalism).

edit: I didn't see this earlier, but the account's only a couple of hours old- a bit early for clueful vandal fighting, so that might help explain it. What happens with users like this?

(Kay)

09:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

as per the talk page for

user_talk:Singlish_speaker

i was using a plugin for firefox, not very wise, as we have determined :P Rockyman512 09:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, placement of this false/questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page by
WP:DENY. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™}
10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also received a warning for "blanking" from Rocky but I assume it is because he is too new to realize what my edits were. I was reverting massive plot summary bloat from a repeat problem user. In recent changes, I'm sure the edit came up as a large red negative number (he has not, as of yet, reverted my change, however). I did not actually blank any sections however, so that is a bit confusing. For now I'm assuming good faith as far as intentions but I don't think Rocky fully understands the process, barring some kind of tech problem with the tool he's using. Millahnna (mouse)talk 09:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This user has a history of very unhelpful editing. See this edit and this one, where other users are confused by Rockyman512 posting totally spurious warning messages to their talk pages. Then there is this edit, where Rockyman512 posted a block-message to a user who has never been blocked. Then we have this edit and this one in which the user posts notices about proposing a user talk page for speedy deletion for quite nonsensical reasons. And we have this edit, in which Rockyman512 posts a completely spurious warning message and signs the message as coming from Pegasusbot. At a glance all this looks like vandalism and that may be true, but reading more carefully I am not so sure. I think it may be a case of a new user being too enthusiastic at getting going, trying to run before he/she can walk, and getting into a mess. I think this user should be counselled to hold back and learn to edit Wikipedia more slowly. Certainly it is not appropriate for such an inexperienced and confused editor to try to contribute as a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit Task Force: time for that if and when the user has gained a considerable amount of experience of how Wikipedia works.

talk

) 10:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson, note that from my past experience with several alleged newbies, they don't usually get themselves entangled in CVU-related activities right from the start of their editing career here on Wikipedia unless they are up to no good, and usually they are. The other thing is, the genuine ones will usually apologise unreservedly if they had made a mistake, but not for the case of alleged newbies. Read point number 6 & 7 of →
WP:OWB ← for more details. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™}
10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that this user's behaviour does not, on the face of it, look like that of a genuine new editor. I was assuming good faith, but deliberately holding back from committing myself (I wrote "this looks like vandalism and that may be true"). I am not sure which this is, but am still willing to assume good faith until evidence points one way or the other. I have also posted a message at

) 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow really? I did apologize for the issue i cause i have read over the rules, and how things are done, and have been paying more attention... Rockyman512 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@Rockyman512: TBH, I don't think you have. To which, I shall now bid you adieu, per

WP:DENY. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™}

11:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@dave: How are you affected by this, now please mind your business, you were not involved in anyway Rockyman512 11:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, it's completely understandable to be skeptical in this case but for the sake of propriety, how about remembering

WP:BITE? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

13:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This filter log also shows him vandalizing

WP:FALSEPOS. In the same edit, he was removing someone else's vandalism, so I'm not sure what to think. I've never known the edit filter to mis-attribute edits, but I've never seen someone go to the false positives page and then report their own vandalism either. The "hi kevin" vandalism had been earlier added by an IP address, which I reverted. So it's possible that it was just an edit conflict which he was not aware of, and thus he ended up adding vandalism by mistake. —Soap—

14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He has also added a comment onto my talk page which some could sat appears as a bot --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21: 54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at this case the more it looks like what I suggested above: a well-intentioned editor who is trying to run before he can walk, and is continually getting into a mess due to lack of experience. The message really is "spend some time doing fairly low key editing before tying to use anti-vandalism tools which need understanding".

talk

) 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I know that when I first used Twinkle I clicked everything to see what it did- not quite realising how immediate the effect was. I'm really grateful for your perceptive and open-minded assessment of this. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 08:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecco Pro

For quite some time I regularly visit Ecco Pro, only finding over and over again massive amounts of inappropriate linking in the article, with texts like:

'... with active community participation at the 'New' ECCO_Pro Yahoo! group, and the EccoMagic Forums.'
'... at the eccotools forums and in downloadable format form the files library of the 'new' Yahoo! Ecco_Pro group.' (sometimes the groups are working links to the forum)
'NetManage premitted continued distribution of the final version as a free download at the official Ecco_Pro user group forum's file section.' (note: I don't think I ever saw a reference hanging on this sentence)
'Perez has returned to practice as a criminal defense attorney in Bellevue, Washington<ref>http://www.robertperezlaw.com</ref>.' (I fail to see why this is notable, nor is this an independent reference)
'(
SRP
$59; sold direct by NetManage $9.99)' (I fail to see why pricing is so important here, similar articles don't list it, nor is it referenced.
'Video guides for Ecco are available [224]'
reformatting 'InfoQube (fka SQLNotes)]' into 'InfoQube (fka SQLNotes)'

And massive removals of proper references (de-reffing of e.g. 'ECCO competed in the PIM space against several formidable competitors<ref>PC Magazine, August 1997, pp. 222-223, 237</ref>.') and removal of citation needed tags.

Most of these links don't comply with our manual of style, the language is promotional, and notability of many facts is not established. Furthermore, many of the editors keep reinstating information, not being able or willing to answer to questions of notability of the information, or having proper references for it.

I know that there are two sides of editors, who strongly contradict each other. On one side the forum people (YSWT who is moderator on the forums), on the other side another editor who is involved in selling the software. I am uninvolved, though my involvement in one of the sides was claimed (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Mar_1#compusol.org

These editors, on both sides, have been asked over and over to contribute more references, or independent references, but all they can come up with are their own COI references. I know that there are now some references which are certainly not the best, but that seems to be the best there is to offer. Nonetheless, the not-so-good references keep getting removed and replaced with the (worse) forum links.

Today I noticed these two diffs:

and a post on the talkpage:

Section-title: Please only make contested changes after establishing consensus
Text: As one of the 'everyone' who contributes to articles the hostility here dismays me. I am an attorney and I take the wikipedia's promise and representation that everyone can contribute to be very serious. I have carefully read the rules and guidelines and I suggest those with any special agenda do the same. 70.251.114.178 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have re-reverted to a less spammy version, which I think conforms more with our policies and guidelines, and which has been generated with the help of other regular wikipedians.

Some more independent help would be appreciated, as it seems to be time for lengthy blocks or protections, but I leave it to review here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the abuse is only coming from IPs. There is one registered account called User:EccoProMember but he's making an effort to follow policy. Though the total volume of bad edits is not large, it can be tedious for article-watchers of a lightly-trafficked article to keep going back month after month to remove similar stuff. I suggest six months of semiprotection, and will impose that unless this noticeboard thinks it's unwise. Linking to Warez has been discussed on the talk page, and the dispute on the talk page may eventually develop into something that requires further admin attention. (One of the IP participants happened to mention that he's an attorney, though not in a threatening way). Watchlisting by admins would help. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the history of the Ecco_Pro article. You will notice that Beetstra only has made edits at the same times ad "EccoProMember" (the owner of the website compusol) also same person "Charlie1945" and various IPs. The edits are all the same, replacing legit references with references to the compusol website which is a pay-to-enter membership site distributing for a fee, the ecco pro software a licensed copy of which is FREE at the official distribution site, the ecco pro user group forum. The changes have all been made without consensus.

Initially I tried to work to protect the article from the injection of the mass compusol spam links, but since I am one of the moderators at the official, free distribution site of the official software, I have asked on the talk page for someone else to make the reversion pre compusol link replacements.

Sure would hope that someone who cares, will revert Beetstra's changes (take a look at the history, he only has made changes in connection with the insertion of the compusol links, spamming a period of at least 8 months.) Again, please note that the ecco official distribution and the ecco extension are 100% Free. The compusol site distributes a bootleg for a fee. The links & reference material to the official distribution (for free) of the the ecco pro and the new "ecco extension" (free) were removed and mass insertion of compusol links inserted. The 'articles' on compusol are mostly just cut & paste copies of user group forum posts or of other sites on the web.

Sorry, if this was too lengthly. The ecco pro article is something I have tried to help with (as an ecco pro expert) and it is very sad to see what has happened to it, how it has been hijacked by compusol with the assistance of Beetstra. Again, Beetstra is an active wiki editor who just happens to live in the same home town as the compusol owner. Beetstra just happens to edit when compusol edits, and just happens to remove reference or insert requests for citations that are then filled in with compusol links. Careful review of the history will show exactly what I am referencing here. YSWT (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Browsing Talk:Ecco Pro shows that user YSWT is passionate about the Ecco Pro product, but does not properly understand Wikipedia procedures regarding articles. The problem is that Ecco Pro was (apparently) a sensationally good PIM, but the company went in another direction and the product ceased development, although it was released "free" without source (I have not seen any licensing information). A loyal group of users (particularly YSWT) have kept the product alive for over ten years by working out various clever tricks to patch and extend it. A competitive group is a U.S. company (Compusol) which offers downloads/support for $10/year. The article problem is that the loyal users want the article to promote the product, and they want a lot of inappropriate detail, and they strongly dislike the competition (the article talk page includes nonsensical claims that Compusol is hosting warez). YSWT (and other editors) have completely misunderstood the advice offered on the article talk page, and the suggestion above that Dirk Beetstra has acted inappropriately is of course massively incorrect. I recommend that the article be pruned down to something like IBM Lotus Organizer, and that one link to each of the competitive distributions be included, with no editorial comment about which is technically or ethically superior, with article protection if necessary. The interesting details that fans would like on Wikipedia should be on some other website. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, how strange that you should just happen to comment here. I received a notice on my talk page and was directed here and posted my comment. I find your personal attack to be entirely improper. "but does not properly understand Wikipedia procedures" On what do you base that. The article is to be a collaborative effort. You attempted changes in past but you got no consensus. If you look at my edits in the history, you will see your 'accusations' are in error.

Note for those interested, the article was about how EccoPro was abandoned and then renewed with development of the machine code. References to the (free) extensions etc., was replaced with the compusol links. As edited by Beetstra, et.al., article tells story of EccoPro which was abandoned, but you can get for a fee at compusol. Factual story is very different. EccoPro was abandoned, but then released for free (at official user site) and updated with modern extensions (also free, also at official user site, and also with official specs, etc.). I find the story interesting. The historic pricing info, is part of that story, etc., and the decision to include/remove such material should be one by consensus. The pricing info was included for yeare in the article. Does not seem in wiki spirit that Beetstra, et.al., should remove the material by fiat. 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looked at the article. Many spammy links to "compusol". This piece of software was once notable, and there are multiple press references. So I replaced some, but not all, of the spammy links to a news story in The Guardian. --John Nagle (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to notethe pre-spammed version of the article (with legit references, full facts, etc.). Not only did Beetstra re-insert the compusol links, but also removed info about pricing, official distribution site (free, btw), extension official sites, spec, etc. Diff YSWT (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I indeed re-inserted the references to compusol, but also questioned their status already (and invited editors to find better references; moreover, I did replace some compusol references by a reference to the original, independent, source, see e.g. diff). The forum links are worse than the compusol references, and for some better don't seem to exist. YWST, all the info I removed is not encyclopedic, and/or not independently referenced, and/or in violation of us not being an internet directory to find where to download versions. Note, the 'official' you refer to is unreferenced, you can't give any independent source that states that thóse are official sites (besides that we do not have to link to them, but then we could at least report on their existence). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing practices of User:Mk5384

arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed

At this point, I'm not too concerned with whether that name is in the article or not. The entire point here is that MK has engaged in misrepresentation of other editors and has engaged in personal attacks. And, for the record, I am not sure who Kind Journalist is; all I know is it appears to be a single purpose account, controlled by whom is an unknown factor, but its appearance on the article, and then counted as a "vote", is very questionable. I will also say there is a recurring theme here - nothing is ever MKs fault, he is never the one who is edit warring, it is always other people and other people are always to blame. That is my concern here and I turn this over to the administrators for any action that they see fit. -OberRanks (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 has had quite a history on the John J. Pershing article and talk page over the issue of including the word "nigger" in the infobox. After getting nearly an indef block from Wikipedia over edit warring and disruption (see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Pattern of Behavior of User:Mk5384), it looked as if Mk had turned over a new leaf and was ready to work with others. Several users worked together on that article and a compromise position was reached which everyone could live with.

Mk was okay with this for a few days but then returned to start a new "proposal" stating that several users had agreed to another change (See: Talk:John J. Pershing#Proposal). Mk then began repeating the same arguments which had already been voiced and which had already been discussed during the compromise. In the end, MK "announced" that there was a "new consensus" and here is where the disruptive editing really begins (see: Talk:John J. Pershing#As of now). First, MK misrepresented the positions of two editors, stating that two users supported this new compromise when in fact the last recorded edit was that they supported the compromise version [225], [226]. One of the users even arrived to strike his name off of MK's "list" [227]. At this point, caught in a lie, MK quietly removed one user's name from the list [228] but left the others. Mk then declared that he had a "2-1 majority" and stated this new consensus would overturn the previous discussion. As a final act to top all of this off, MK committed a blatant personal attack by stating I could go and "Kiss Usama bin Laden's ass" [229] As a Gulf veteran, I find that extremely insulting which is what prompted me to post here.

MK has effectively turned the John Pershing article talk page into a battlefield, adopted a strategy that if he repeats the same argument over and over, eventually those who oppose him will get tired and his views will come out on top. There is also the unresolved issue of a possible sockpuppet, being the sudden appearance of Kind Journalist which seems to be a single purpose account to support MKs views. MK went absolutely ballistic when I had a private conversation with User:Xeno about the possibility that this was an SP account but I never made formal charges since I didn't have the evidence. I also, ironically, didn't even use MKs name. Nevertheless, MK has filled Xeno's talk page with a very harsh thread, using terms like "this is horseshit", demanding an investigation (see:User talk:Xeno#New user on the JP Talk Page) and also has approached another admin as well [230] even though this never made it off Xeno's own page and no formal charges were ever filed. Nevertheless, MK states he has been "falsely accused" and wants a full investigation.

In short, something needs to be done about MKs editing behavior as this has gone on long enough. The user is clearly not working with others, misrepresenting the views of other editors, and now committing personal attacks (i.e. "Kiss Usama bin Laden's" ass). A clear case of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and I ask something be done about this. -OberRanks (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I note the mediation was rejected due to one party saying on 3 April that they were not "convinced [participants have] exhausted [their] options in terms of just talking to each other...it is the wrong outlet at this time." [231]. Perhaps mediation should be revisited? –xeno^talk 13:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense, and I have no plans to adress it futrher. This all began when OberRanks made false accusations of sockpuppetry against me on Xeno's talkpage. When he learned of my intentions to take action against him, he resumed his childish nonsense, as can be seen by his two trips here in as many days.As for mediation, whilst I won't rule it out, I can no longer assume good faith with OberRanks, after what he wrote on your talk page, and his latest triva here.

talk

) 13:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrators may also wish to review this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_on_Talk:John_J._Pershing and this posting [232]. -OberRanks (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; I'll bite. I'll AGF here, and assume OberRanks' cluelessness is genuine, and he's not just pretending to be stupid. I never told him to "go kiss Usama bin Laden's ass". What I said, was, that if Usama bin Laden came to the Pershing talk page, and supported the exclusion of "Nigger Jack", OberRanks would run to kiss his ass. Big difference, but again, I'll assume OberRanks is genuinely confused. That was, of course, in reference to OberRanks immediately throwing his support behind anyone whom he thinks supports his version of how the article should be. OberRanks didn't even realize that the user in question supports the nickname that

talk

) 14:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate my dismay that mediation didn't take hold; has there been an {{
RFCtag}} on the issue, to gather additional outside input? –xeno^talk
14:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The RFC is an excellent idea. I wish to reiterate that everything had been fine. All of us were working together in a manner most civil to resolve our differences, until OR made his false accusations. Instead of simply apologising, he decided to take the low road, insisting that he had done no wrong, whilst resuming his daily trips here to report me for some imaginary infraction.

talk

) 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384 has been obsessed with this one item for some time now, including personal attacks and also a false claim of "censorship" - all of which was probably noted in the previous ANI thread. He keeps trying to conduct new polls within the talk page in hopes of building "consensus" for forcing the N-word into the infobox, when this detail is already covered in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all. I have almost 2000 edits, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with John Pershing. Bugs himself has made personal attacks on the talk page, and the claim of censorship is not at all false. Some users, such as Bugs, are hiding behind the fact that the name is used in the article to bolster support for censoring the info box, whilst claiming that censorship is not at play.

talk

) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you have nothing whatsoever to lose from

dropping the stick and walking away, which I hope you will now do. I think everybody else is sick to the back teeth of this, and as far as I can see most people (read: everyone but you) seems to consider the current coverage in the article to be no problem at all. It's time to move on, you are not making yourself look good. Guy (Help!

) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I once read something about a "subject ban" for users who were extremely disruptive on articles but didn't fully cross into the territory of vandalism or blatant blockable offenses. That might be what is needed here, especially if MK drops this for now but returns later to again begin another attempt to force yet again his opinions on the page. -OberRanks (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here he is saying another user "lied" simply because he decided to post again.[233] Can something be done? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop with the misleading attacks against me. It was not "simply because he decided to post again". It was because he said that his previous post would be the last one on the matter.

talk

) 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing his mind doesn't make him a liar. You need to redact that "lie" comment ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I said some of this on the article of the talk page, but MK has adopted a policy of repeating the same arguments as many times as possible, over and over again, mixed in with half truths and personal attacks, until this user gets his way. MK is not backing down and will continue filling the Pershing talk page with pages of argument until at last all users are exhausted, and MK can rack up his "victory". I also like to point out there have been numerous personal attacks and clear violations of

WP:CIV littered in amongst his posts, as well as the unresolved issue of putting several users in a "consensus vote" who did not ever express the views as portrayed by MK. This would perhaps be understandable if MK didn't have a history of behaving this way, if users hadn't worked weeks to build a compromise, and if MK was now trying to tear that compromise down because MK didn't get his way the first, second, and third time. As Bugs said, we need to do something about this. -OberRanks (talk

) 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that 2 users have now decided to gang up on me here. Enough is enough. Continue to write whatever you like about me. I will no longer defend myself here against a pincer attack filled with baseless charges. This is my final post here, and that is not a lie.

) 22:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Our lenghty thread really appeared to accomplish little, as few to no administrators commented. I am little bit disappointed that the "Usama bin Laden" comment was allowed to pass - I truly find that insulting since I did serve a tour in the Middle East, including missions off the coast of Iran. Not much else to discuss though and this seems to be a dead issue as there is now new progress on the Pershing article. Best to everyone then. -OberRanks (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That comment wasn't appropriate, but probably did not rise to the level of demanding a block.

WP:WQA is the correct venue for civility concerns of this nature. –xeno^talk

15:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kind Journalist

Kind Journalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since MK is also obsessed with "clearing his name" with regards to a sockpuppet accusation [234] (which actually never happened since the conversation didn't use MKs handle and was kept solely on the talk page of User:Xeno without any formal SP charges filed) here is the record of my opinion of user:Kind Journalist. The user is quite clearly not MK. The two do not write in the same manner, use the same grammar syntax, and KJ does not have a flair for temper as MK does. Kind Journalist's arrival on the Pershing article was, however,extremely well timed and very convenient. I will preface this by saying I have absolutely no evidence this user is up to no good but here is what I observed:

Kind Journalist arrived at the Pershing talk page some two hours after MK had proposed the idea to overturn the last consensus and begin a new poll and vote.
Kind Journalist at once began supporting MKs views
Kind Journalist showed extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy pages and the ability to in-link. The KJ account had not made a single edit prior to visiting the Pershing talk page and has not made an edit on any other article since then.
When questioned about this, Kind Journalist stated he had edited Wikipedia for years but had only now decided to make an account.

Again, I have no evidence of who this is or what this user is about, and I may be very badly mistaken here. I just find it strange that out of nowhere this supporter of MK appears, with no previous contributions on this account, showing extensive knowledge of Wikipedia pages and also even referenced the

WP:DGAF page which had mentioned way back in one of the original threads on the Pershing article. I find all of this a little bit too convenient and the timing of this is quite suspicious as well. So, that's what I think and I have no evidence. If I am wrong, I offer my deepest and sincerest apologies to Kind Journalist. -OberRanks (talk

) 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For some mild amusement, check out the irony dripping from this comment of MK's:[235] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're socks either, although it's obvious KJ is very knowledgeable about wikipedia, including lecturing his audience (even an admin) about policy matters, as MK does, especially the false claim of "censorship". It's also the case that so far, with one exception (21:18 on the 21st), KJ has appeared only during time gaps when MK is not editing. The one time they did cross over is when MK showed up during an hour in which KJ did not edit. When MK is calm, he can sound more like KJ. KJ has stated he would welcome an SPI. At this point I'm not convinced that the "duck test" applies, so an SPI would likely be rejected. KJ did betray a teenage-ism akin to MK's approach when he referred to the idea of removing both nicknames as a "pussy move".[236] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessively Brief

And another newbie heard from:

Excessively Brief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. Excessively Brief (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're too modest. Try "extraordinary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A second editor with no prior edits showing up on this highly controversial subject seemingly to support MKs view, also with knowledge of how to locate an embedded topic deep on the admin noticeboard. To quote General Buck Turgidson in

meatpuppet. -OberRanks (talk

) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Or to quote Robert Wuhl in Bull Durham, "It's a miracle!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Q.E.D.? Excessively Brief (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Which ID did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not:

User:Wahkeenah. Excessively Brief (talk

) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloody well better not be! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all kidding aside, this really looks the insertion of a meatpuppet into the Pershing article. I can maybe buy KJ's story about just happenineg to deciede that it was time to edit this article on the particular day MK was purposing a major change, but for this to happen two times in a row so close together is obvious single purpose accounts meant to bolster support. I have suggested that we end this on the talk page of the article and, as for these accounts, administrators might wish to seriously investigate what is going on here. -OberRanks (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish for administrators to seriously investigate what is going on here. OberRanks has openly accused me of meatpuppetry. I can't state this any more clearly. I do not know either one of these editors. I have never met either one of these editors. I have had absolutely no contact outside of Wikipedia with either of these editors. And most importantly, neither one of these editors is I. Please, please, please investigate this. How can someone continue to openly accuse me of something false here? And it awes me that whilst I am the one most vociferously calling for an investigation, it is not taking place. Meanwhile OR and BB continue to make these accusations without fear of repercussions. This is just unacceptable. What is it going to take for an investigation?

talk

) 05:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not accuse you of anything. In fact, I suspect that one or both of these guys is a long-standing sock-maker whose usual M.O. is to take one side or the other in hopes of fanning flames. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

talk

) 11:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Its becoming clear that MK probably had little to nothing to do with Kind Journalist or Excessively Brief, but those two accounts are clearly single purpose puppet accounts controlled by someone for an unknown reason. KJ perhaps I can see past it, but EB isn't really even trying to hide it. The best thing to do is ignore both since there is now a new flood of legit users on the Pershing article giving their opinions. -OberRanks (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This is typical OberRanks behaviour. "Ignore those who agree with MK5384, as more who are in agreement with me are now coming forward." Notice, whilst he finally admits that he was wrong, he still is not moved to apologise.

talk

) 22:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the obvious alternate account per
WP:SOCK - and that's without caring whose alt account it is (it could be Jimbo for all I care), we seriously do not need people socking or engaging in meatpuppetry on that article right now. Guy (Help!
) 07:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

SPA accounts and consensus building

While there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the appearance of several

RFCtag}} on the article talk page to ensure that a representative sample of editors is being drawn to determine consensus as to the infobox. –xeno^talk

13:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.

) 15:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now done properly ;> [237]. –xeno^talk 15:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; my fault.

talk

) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sholom Rubashkin

Resolved

– page protected. Ged UK 08:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please watch the Sholom Rubashkin article for vandalism this week. There have been some big deletions by anons. Rubashkin's sentencing for his role in the Agriprocessors debacle is this week, and his supporters have been lobbying to get his sentence reduced. Some of that has spilled onto Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a normal editor, but i'll keep watch over the article with you and get rid of any vandalism that crops up. :3 Silver seren^C 20:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If it does flare up badly,

talk

) 21:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's an organized campaign behind this. It's received press coverage on ABC News."Kosher Meat Plant Owner Wages Behind-the-Scenes Campaign to Limit Jail Time". Edits are coming in from new single-purpose accounts. Oneactcantipthescale (talk · contribs) tried pasting a big chunk of content from advocacy web site Justice for Sholom into the article[238]. Zahmzahm (talk · contribs) [239] and Davidyh1 (talk · contribs) [240] are also new, have edited no other articles, and are adding "Justice for Sholom" content. 48 hours of semi-protection would probably quiet this down. --John Nagle (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Ged UK 08:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack on userpage

Can an admin deal with the personal attack on me at User:CauseIsayso (whose userpage is now a mirror of mine, with a personal attack against me, apparently in disgruntlement over this edit)? Many thanks. THF (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Page deleted and editor indef blocked as a disruptive SPA (review welcome), although we didn't exactly cover ourselves in glory with how we dealt with their
⇨
09:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia advocacy on Lolicon

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

Given the current ArbCom ruling about pedophilia advocacy on Wikipedia, I would like to bring this edit to the attention of the administrators. The edit by Despondent2 (talk · contribs) advocates for the legalization of cartoon pornography depicting minors. —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that a warning will be sufficient; I've added this user's talk page to my watchlist, too, in hopes that I'll notice if there's an ongoing problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope so, but admitting to being a paedophile here (or almost anywhere) seems to be an invitation to "string me up from the nearest lamppost"; arguing for the legality of certain images (which in general are not illegal) is not necessarily "pedophilia advocacy", since the status and effect of these images is moot. However, I will also watch this editor (who hasn't been advised of this thread). Neither should we rule out a journalist testing us, or just plain trolling. Rodhull andemu 23:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Good lord. "I am an actual pedophile but I have never harmed a child." It's probably a troll, so block them. But if it's not a troll, it's a self-admitted pedophile let lose in a playground filled with children. Perhaps wikipedia will help him get started? Where's the block? (If he needs graphic cartoon pornography involving children, he can get it elsewhere.) This is block on site stuff.

talk

) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "block pedophiles on sight" policy. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is one, as Draconian as it sounds. With arbcom, anything is possible. I'd rather have him blocked for trolling or severe POV pushing (which are both applicable here) than his sexual orientation in itself. Them From Space 23:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Right -- let him hang around, befriend a few kids, get their emails, suggest a meatup over coffee somewhere after school where they can discuss the kids interesting ideas. Is that what you have in mind themfromspace?

talk

) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much

moral outrage in that argument for me, and not enough substance. There is such a policy? Where? I'm not seeing any advocacy here or POV pushing. That would be one thing, but all I see here is a sexual deviant (maybe) who happened to speak a little too much of their mind for comfort, and I'm not too fond of the idea of blocking people on that basis. If we are to block admitted pedophiles on sight even when they haven't advocated it or pushed article content in that direction, I think that should be written down in some policy. If there already is such a policy please point us to it. Equazcion ^(talk)

23:32, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

It's probably just a troll, but he's indef'd now anyway, courtesy of FloNight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the account and referred the user to contact ArbCom. For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked. Any questions about the block can be taken up with ArbCom on the mailing list. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Makes my intended comments somewhat redundant. Rodhull andemu 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and I'm also not too fond of the cloak-and-dagger ArbCom practices with regard to any mention of pedophilia. The whole "it's too sensitive to discuss in public" thing is all wrong, IMO. Taking things out of the public eye does not ensure that they get handled correctly. When a group can do things without accountability to open criticism, it's never good. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:49, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Right -- screw protecting innocent children! It's a fundamental human right to edit wikipedia! Jesus.

talk

) 23:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion. In this case we are really dealing with a troll. But if convicted criminals can contribute to Wikipedia (from jail or after release), then why not people with politically incorrect sexual orientations? If we have information that someone is a dangerous person who is about to commit a crime, then we are obliged to inform the police about this. Banning from Wikipedia can never be an effective reaction to a perceived threat to society. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already said my piece about self-identified pedophiles before. However, so long as some admins interpret the ArbCom case in such a way, then we are going to have to live with it. —Farix (t | c) 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's try not to get bogged down in too much philosophy. The fact is we're dealing with someone who fantasizes about doing something that's a crime. If anyone else described themselves thusly with regard to some other action they wouldn't get banned. FloNight has done this before, and rest assured it's not to protect the children. It's to protect the reputation of Wikipedia in the press, specifically in publications that would take pedophilia-related discussion and twist it into some statement that Wikipedia condones pedophilia. As strange as it may sound, a discussion regarding someone who fantasizes about murder would not have resulted similarly. Pedophilia is simply too taboo a subject to even hint that we are comfortable talking about it, lest people judge Wikipedia for it. That's the only concern here, and it frankly disgusts me. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:00, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't give one runny shit for wikipedia's reputation. I don't know Flonight. But the right thing was done here. As for disgust. Well, you disgust me frankly. Why? Well, start here:

talk

) 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is taking outside Wikipedia what is our province, and ours alone. ArbCom has decided that pedophile advocacy should be forbidden from here, and that is to my mind correct for here. That is quite a different proposition from deciding that a "pedophile advocate" is necessarily a criminal worthy of investigation, and actually I'm more or less aware that such edits here are already supervised by law enforcement authorities, and although we will help them, the chances would be that those people are already under surveillance due to other activities. Let's face it, if you are a criminal pedophile, advertising it here just isn't smart, because we do have Checkusers, and the WMF Office, who deal with this sort of thing. And if there were any child grooming on Wikipedia, it would be spotted he more quickly than on, say, Windows Messenger. That's why this is an unlikely forum for such. Some reality would assist here. Rodhull andemu 00:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Realizing you weren't responding to me, I just want to clarify that the only thing I see actually being advocated in this person's comment was the legalization of lolicon images. Pedophilia wasn't being advocated, even if he states his own desires regarding that. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:18, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Also his argument implicitely assumes that pedophilia (in the sense of sex with children) is a bad thing. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I understand that; I saw no advocacy beyond perhaps a criticism of the law wherever he is. However, it seems to be enough here to state "I am a pedophile" to ensure an indefinite block. It is not up to me to evaluate that here, beyond offering an opinion that it's a foolish thing to state in a very public forum. However, the strength of public, and journalistic, opinion is that pedophiles do not deserve the oxygen of publicity, or even the oxygen of oxygen, and I note that Pete Townshend has not produced much in the way of memorable music of late. Rodhull andemu 00:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But that would suggest that Alan Turing would not have been allowed to contribute to Wikipedia had it existed in the 1950s. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We could throw up our hands thusly and say that's just how society works and we must obey, but traditionally Wikipedia has played by its own rules in that department. No matter how many complaints we keep getting and how different it makes us from other websites, we're still uncensored to an unprecedented degree. I would've liked to think that those ideals were in effect no matter how taboo the subject matter. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:47, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Turing was never "out", because in those days homosexual activities were criminal, although simply being a homosexual wasn't. Similar argument here. Being a pedophile doesn't imply that one commits criminal offences, although you'd be hard put to discern the difference these days. And that's the problem we have, in discriminating between the desire and the practice. Most people don't recognise that, as far as I have seen in my research in criminology. Turing would have been perfectly capable of contributing here on computability and cryptanalytical issues, but would not have exposed his sexuality, because he was perfectly aware that it was a social taboo. Certainly he would not have used such a publicly-viewable website to try to make sexual liaisons, because he would have know beyond doubt that his activities would have been visible. And how ironic it is that he chose to take his life with a cyanide-laced apple, the very symbol of man's original fall, according to the Bible. Rodhull andemu 00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The original report appears to have been resolved (for good or ill) by Despondent2's blocking. Could this thread be taken elsewehere, as it seems now to be a general discussion outwith the AN/I remit? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Editing Wikipedia isn't a right. Espousing pedophiliac views are frowned upon by the community here at large and by those in charge at WMF. Why do we have this discussion every time a pedo shows his head around here? Does anyone really think the concensus on this matter is ever gonna change? He popped up his head, got whacked and referred to ARBCOM. End of story, someone close this dram fueled thread and let it die. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The weird thing to me is that the article in question has a picture, but when someone say "I like this picture," it's a block? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Per ArbCom User:Flo Night: "For a variety of reasons this account needs to be blocked"; we don't have the full information here, but we do, perhaps, need to trust the people we elected there. Rodhull andemu 01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that logic. I don't inherently get behind the decisions of people just because they were elected (even if I was involved in getting them elected, which in this case I wasn't). I judge each action individually, and criticize it if necessary, which I think is my right. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:15, 26 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't actually disagree with that, but we all know that Checkuser actions and WMF Office actions are not open to general scrutiny- they just happen. The lack of an effective public review of such actions may be open to criticism, but the reality is that that is the way it works, and we cannot collectively enforce openness without a major change in the structure of governance/control/review of higher-level decisions, and until we do so (although that would take a major sea-change in philosophy here) we are stuck with what we have. ArbCom/Checkuser/Oversight appointments are not made lightly and are less of a beauty contest than

admin appointments have become. Some surrender of individual responsibility and understanding appears to me to be a necessary result of having these functions, although I doubt that we are so closed that individual decisions cannot be met by a appropriate explanation. I vote for functionaries I trust, and that is on the basis of their prevailing record, as far as I can see it. But if they go beyond their remit, believe me, I will question that, but perhaps not here. I've have many discussions in private that have allayed my fears. Rodhull andemu

01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because this is driving me crazy: the repeated reference in this discussion to pedophilia as a "sexual orientation" is a very poor and inaccurate choice of words. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that, if acted upon, is a criminal act. It is not a sexual orientation. jæs (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. You should distinguish between the

DSM-IV definition and the popular definition; they are not necessarily congruent. Rodhull andemu

01:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat common misconception ≠ a definition. In any event, I suspect this account was merely a troll looking for attention, and we certainly obliged. jæs (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And on that basis, this discussion deserves to be closed. Serious discussions about the powers/responsibilities of ArbCom belong elsewhere, as do discussions of what actually amounts to "pedophile advocacy". But this case seems to have run its course. Rodhull andemu 01:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What arbcom ruling are people referencing above? Does someone have a link? Buddy431 (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not advertised (not that I can recall), but the general rule is that all instances of paedophile advocacy should be referred to ArbCom by email - in much the same way as requests for oversight, and for similar reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And one of these days, we're going to do a Pornish Pixies, and whoever labelled the account holder a paedophile is going to get the ass sued off them.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there has been no formal, public ruling. In practice, what happens is that every time a discussion similar to the one above takes place, an ArbCom member will come along, close the discussion, and inform the participants that if they want to say anything, they should submit it to the ArbCom mailing list. --Carnildo (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an official ANI comment by Fred Bauder back while he was on Arbcom, to the effect that admins should handle cases of apparent pedophile participation by blocking on sight on their judgement and referring the case to the Arbitration Committee for review and if necessary overturning.

This policy has been repeated in statements made by other Arbcom members at regular intervals since then.

It's not written down as official policy anywhere, but that's what they've asked us to do.

Part of the reason here is that any pedophilia activity is especially damaging to the encyclopedia reputation and separately to the community here, which has quite a number of minors. Jimmy originally established the policy, I believe that Arbcom and the Foundation have requested that it be treated that way.

Another part is that even false accusations or honest mistaken identifications will require relatively frank and open discussion regarding an appeal, which is not likely to be successful on-wiki because of onslaughts of both vehement anti-pedophile activists and vehement free speech advocates who disagree with the protective principle established by Arbcom, the Foundation, and Jimmy on this subject. The particulars of a given case get lost either way.

This is part of why we have Arbcom - we know that some issues, including personal identification, checkuser related stuff, and other topics, require special and careful handling. They can handle the issues in confidence.

I dug up Fred's original post when this question came up mid-last year-ish and linked to it, but I lost the reference since then. Someone else can probably find it searching on ANI and Pedophilia in the history.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the appropriate place to discuss this type of thing (i.e. blocking suspected pedophiles and referring them to Arbcom even if they haven't violated any of our written policies)? Because I'm not sure I agree with it, and I certainly don't like all this cloak and dagger/unwritten rules/arbitrary block mode of operation. If it is policy, I'd like it written down somewhere Buddy431 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The obvious originating locale for us is perhaps

WP:RFC. In the absence of a documented ArbCom decision or policy, there seems to be no scope for a request for clarification. Unhelpful, perhaps, but perhaps some sort of statement of principles would be better than what we have now. * Addendum: perhaps this is better addressed as a WMF issue across all umbrella projects than just here; it's an issue that clearly also impacts on Commons. Rodhull andemu

02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Foundation (Board) have quietly supported this when asked.

Though it's controversial, meta-discussions about this have revealed that a majority of editors agree with blocking preventively given reasonable suspicion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits of such a policy at all, I will say that if this is the standard practice (and it appears to be), there's no need to be so damn coy about it.

Wikipedia:Pedophilia --MZMcBride (talk

) 04:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the first rule of pedophile blocking club is "you don't talk about pedophile blocking club". :-O 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the document has been started now so we'll have to wait and see if it is accepted by WMF, ArbCom and the rest of WP --

clipman

09:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this be cross posted somewhere for increased visibility and input? Like village pump? Buddy432 (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of this thread should be elsewhere, to be frank: "where", is open to question... --

clipman

15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Taken to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Pedophilia|Village Pump. Buddy431 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So, how exactly does hebephilia and ephebophilia fit under this unspoken rule? Are those automatic blockable offenses as well, if someone self-describes themselves as one? Or, heaven forbid (sarcasm), creates a template userbox for it? Silver seren^C 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The current discussion is actually at

Wikipedia talk:Pedophilia. Buddy431 (talk

) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - all of the new discussion should be added to the above archive and any further discussion should either take place at

clipman

21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fox News gets a word in edgewise on pedophilia

see here 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FOX News article

{{

WP:DENY HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)}}

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/wikipedia-child-porn-larry-sanger-fbi/?test=latestnews

I would have brought this to Commons, however I feel a mass deletion of this material would impact Wikipedia articles and it should be discussed here. I hope I made the right choice. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:47, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-04-12/Sanger_allegations. AniMate 23:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, wasn't aware. The "updated" date on the article says April 27, so I thought it was new. Is/was this being discussed somewhere? Equazcion ^(talk) 23:56, 27 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have anything to worry about here, The FBI can see for themselves what is child porn and what is not, I doubt Mr. Sanger's ridiculous accusations will get much more than a few mentions in the press, which is probably exactly what he wanted to begin with since Citizendium is so much smaller and less well known than WP.

talk

) 23:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would notify Erik Möller, if he has not already been made aware, that he is quoted (and pictured) in that FoxNews article. I would also consider blocking any and all accounts by Mr. Sanger since he is going to the FBI over this (could that be considered a violation of WP:NLT). I would also recommend that Commons admins actually do a check of the categories listed in the article to make sure we don't have anything in them we shouldn't. That is a duty we should uphold. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would pay it no further mind. Fox News is to News what the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is to Democracy. They are in the business of selling outrage for the purpose of boosting ad revenue. Larry Sanger personal issues with Wikimedia have long been documented. This particular story adds nothing of value to the general impression of either subject, and as such, it should be treated as a non-issue. By giving a story like this airtime, we give it credence. If we ignore it, we give it the treatment it deserves. --Jayron32 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just have to say: "Lilicon"? Really? Yup. "The second, 'Lilicon,' provides cartoons similar in detail and depiction. " That's some prime fact-checking there. Go Foxnews. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Or should that be LIL? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we do not waste time on this non-issue. Most of us perhaps have better things to be doing. Rodhull andemu 00:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(after ECs so basically redundant to Rodhullandemu!) This is just attention seeking and I think
WP:DENY applies, besides FOX News like a good scandal- regardless of whether it's actually true! That said, I agree with NeutralHomer- Commons admins should double check those cats and blocking the accounts seems reasonable- I think it violates the spirit, if not the letter of NLT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

- I agree, now that I know this is old news, that we shouldn't give it any more attention. I only brought it here because I thought it was something new that we would need to deal with. Feel free to archive this section, anyone. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:10, 28 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Official WMF response. NW (Talk) 11:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

user:Whitmore 8621 and MGS: Peace Walker Part II

Whitmore 8621 (talk · contribs) For the past few days, this user has been blatantly editing a talk page thread that I've already locked down by inserting the {{discussionbottom}} archive tag under a response he made after the thread was closed. He's conducting an edit war because of his defiance of the

WP:STICK. I do not even read the discussion on Fogeltje's talk page nor whitmore's post-closing response because it is not worth responding. His actions are just re-opening old wounds he inflicted on himself. I recommend a topic ban on him if it can help, as well as warning him against tampering closed threads. Any additional editors who can intervene in this matter please do so. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk

) 06:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the lamest edit war I have ever seen. If he wants to get a final word into a discussion sometime on, let him, what does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Additionally, you are also undoing him fixing his own typos, again something which doesn't really matter. Just let them respond to the comment in the closed thread which they didn't previously reply to, then move on. Whilst I understand the longer term context here, I don't understand why you want a topic ban on them because they want to respond to comments on a topic they are involved in. They stopped their edit warring on the article, and there are no signs of further abuses of IP editing, so I personally don't see a problem.

If we are going to go all rules-must-be-followed on this, then unclose the discussion, let him reply, then reclose it as it will be concluded. If he was allowed to take one final comment, for all we know the scenario might be over, so why make it so complicated like this?

Finally, as I observed this entire thing before noticing the ANI thread, I would like to point out that you hardly come across as civil. The fact you say you haven't even read what he typed because it is "not worth responding" to is also worrying. Just let him make the final comment to "conclude" the discussion on the talk page, then move any fresh things to a new section. --Taelus (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User notified at this timestamp. In future, Eaglestorm, you should notify all editors involved in an ANI thread of its existance and link them to it. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, as another observation, the game was released in Japan today, thus the root of this entire debate between you and Whitmore should resolve itself, as reliable sources discussing the plot will be popping up over the next few days hopefully. May I recommend actively seeking out such sources and starting a new discussion on the talk page about them, thus moving on from the entire "crystal ball" and "original research" issues of the past? --Taelus (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I never had a intention of causing trouble for Wikipedia with Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker Im sorry for the edit war a few months ago. I was not trying to abuse any users I just wanted to get the last word to end the discussion myself. So could I finish the discussion? --Whitmore 8621 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Whitmore 8621

User:Mapuo1998

I'm not sure where else to raise this, but I'm slightly concerned by someone whose first edit is to declare on their userpage that they want to destroy Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask him if he has a viable plan.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's the reincarnation of

BWilkins ←track

) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing rampage by User:Wtsao

Two day old

WP:3RR violations if you consider their earlier reversions the day before, removing

an entire, well sourced section on research, etc.). Most of their edits are disruptive and their summaries and interactions abrasive - indeed I didn't see a single edit that wasn't controversial.

Rather than risk violating

WP:COI without supporting policy violations, for edits that predates my employment by years, no less than TEN TIMES in the space of the last hour ([253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262]). I've also been accused of vandalism for reverting their rampage and of "bad behaviour in a new section on an article talk page. I don't appreciate such accusations, particularly from a new user who is out to satisfy a clearly stated agenda. -- samj _in ^out

11:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see edit warring under the guise of "reverting vandalism" when you were restoring the template to its previous form. Not knowing the contributor, it's possible that he believes that your actions were vandalism, as there seems to be either unfamiliarity with or a profound misunderstanding of

bold, revert, discuss

cycle.

I see that the Cloud computing article has already been reverted; I'll leave the template for interested contributors in the interest of staying

WP:PREFER, though I'm not protecting). I personally think a strong caution and explanation might suffice at this point, though a block will be appropriate if the edit warring continues. I don't object if another admin feels stronger action is called for. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've left him a note, I have to say that it's possible that any confusion he has over the term of "vandalism" may arise from your note to him here. At least on casual review, he doesn't seem to have used it before you did. I see another user has already reminded you about

WP:VAND#NOT specifically excludes non-neutral text. The template you left him is not my major concern, although it can certainly be seen as dismissive and disrespectful to good faith efforts, but the header is rather more pointed. More from that policy: "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism." Besides being inaccurate and a policy violation in itself, calling somebody's good faith efforts vandalism is only likely to inflame the situation and make reaching consensus more difficult. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

16:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this look like somebody may be logging out to avoid 3RR to anyone else? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict - my thoughts exactly> Section blanking here, here and here is arguably

WP:CHECKUSER is in order. -- samj _in ^out

22:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You can bring that up for at

WP:PREFER reverted to the last version prior to the onset of the edit war (specifically this one) and fully protected for three days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

22:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But just to clarify, as

WP:VAND explains, blanking is vandalism when "[r]emoving all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason" (emphasis added); it isn't vandalism "where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Even if you think they aren't good reasons (and they may not be), the removal isn't vandalism if it's done in an effort to improve the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

23:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I've opened an

WP:CHECKUSER at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wtsao. -- samj _in ^out

00:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

...which was declined so the ball's back in our court now. -- samj _in ^out 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(

talk

) 18:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance regarding Muhammad Ali Jinnah

I've merged these two sections, are they are quite obviously about the same thing. That aside, it appears as if Paki copied Gimme's own thread, then changed a few minor things. No comment otherwise.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 04:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Paki90

talk · contribs · logs) is regularly removing sourced content from the Muhammad Ali Jinnah article. [263] [264] The user avoids 3RR but this has gone on for months, if not years, and user has not expressed any willingness to compromise. Would an uninvolved admin please intervene, blocking Paki90 if appropriate? Gimmetrow

02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gimmetrow